Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

With Maryland poised to legalize gay marriage, some conservative opponents and religious leaders are counting on members of their congregations, especially in black churches, to upend the legislation at the polls this fall.

Comments (Page 380)

Showing posts 7,581 - 7,600 of9,656
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8118
Nov 14, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, we ALL would have ONE institution...ONLY CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS would exist....no such thing as legal marriage....
only religious marriage...
SO...you would get ALL the rights...ALL the equality, and the religious get the bone of getting sole use of the name marriage...
think of it as a further separation of religion and state...
SO...the majority is giving up something, that we would all have the SAME institution...
SO how about it?
(I am actually blown away by the resistance to this idea)
Again, marriage is the relationship recognized around the world. Do you really believe you could get a majority in the US to give up that name, let alone the rest of the world? I see no evidence to support that idea. And why should they when treating everyone equally under the law would not require them to give up anything other than discrimination.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8119
Nov 14, 2012
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Then write it up and put it on your ballot.....see if the folks are interested in it!!!
Stop trying to get Gays and Lesbians to buy into it, but not straight folks.......either it works for all, or it doesn't work at all!!!
It doesnt appear to be very popular with gays...
so...

what about the inverse, what if you get marriage and we get civil partnerships?
would that fly?
I know it wont...so nothing short of you owning the word marriage and defining it for all will do?
inneresting isn't it?
you are not so different from your opposition as you would think...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8120
Nov 14, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, marriage is the relationship recognized around the world. Do you really believe you could get a majority in the US to give up that name, let alone the rest of the world? I see no evidence to support that idea. And why should they when treating everyone equally under the law would not require them to give up anything other than discrimination.
evidence???
its a hypothetical to see if the rights are actually what you are after or the name...
how do you think its going?

the world uses metric....
who cares...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8121
Nov 14, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
RIGHT. NO compromise...and on and on it goes...
why should THEY win?
right?
this was just an honest attempt at seeing what some of the REAL issues are...
are you really so hung up on a name that you would bet all the rights you claim is a travesty you now don't get just iover the name and so THEY don't get it?
(psst, THEY think the same way, but THEY already have the rights....so its a good trade)
By changing the LANGUAGE, and throwing a bone to the religious regarding marriage, maybe the true separation of church and state would be more apparent and zingo, the SUBSTANCE of what you claim you want, but not the name...
so, forget what you think THEY would say to this, what do YOU say?
again, if EVERYONE in the US had civil partnerships, other countries would pick up quick, I mean we still do STANDARDS weights and measures, lets not pretend this is a big deal...
Again, I see no evidence to support the idea the majority would give up the word understood and accepted around the world. Perhaps you should try NorCal's proposal and put that up for a vote. I doubt you will get many takers.

And again, why would or should non-believers give up anything?

And what would religious folks gain since gay people would still get married in many churches? The "bone" they have been given is a reaffirmation of the first amendment that no religious group is required to perform any ceremony they do not approve. They can choose to discriminate on any basis they want, just as a southern church recently refused to marry a black couple.

Meanwhile, we know that separate can never be equal, and it only harms those separated.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8122
Nov 14, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt appear to be very popular with gays...
so...
what about the inverse, what if you get marriage and we get civil partnerships?
would that fly?
I know it wont...so nothing short of you owning the word marriage and defining it for all will do?
inneresting isn't it?
you are not so different from your opposition as you would think...
That hasn't stopped you before.....besides, wait til the straights here your proposal........most probably won't like it either......besides, my wife and I were married by an Ordained Minister......so, we'd still be considered "MARRIED" under you proposal, right?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8123
Nov 14, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt appear to be very popular with gays...
so...
what about the inverse, what if you get marriage and we get civil partnerships?
would that fly?
I know it wont...so nothing short of you owning the word marriage and defining it for all will do?
inneresting isn't it?
you are not so different from your opposition as you would think...
It doesn't appear very popular with straight folks either. But you are the majority. If you can get the votes, you can make it happen.

But what do you gain, since gay people already get married in many churches? All you would do is take it away from atheists.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8124
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt appear to be very popular with gays...
so...
what about the inverse, what if you get marriage and we get civil partnerships?
would that fly?
I know it wont...so nothing short of you owning the word marriage and defining it for all will do?
inneresting isn't it?
you are not so different from your opposition as you would think...
Gays and Lesbians AREN'T telling Straights that they should get Civil Unioned and be happy with it.......that's what you and folks like you want......so, again, go make your proposal about who gets the "MARRIAGE" title and see how well it works with straights having their relationship called something different.......my guess is you won't like their response either......sorry, but it looks like the word "MARRIAGE" means a lot to folks regardless of gender make-up:-)
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8125
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
so, we'd still be considered "MARRIED" under you proposal, right?
not in a legal sense...but yup.

think your fellow churchies would go for it?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8126
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should try NorCal's proposal and put that up for a vote. I doubt you will get many takers.
I am, and not many on the gay side either...
its all or nothing for both sides I guess...
I think its funny you think your resolve is greater then THE CHURCH...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

And again, why would or should non-believers give up anything?
because you are banned from rights in 32 states and its just a silly word?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Meanwhile, we know that separate can never be equal, and it only harms those separated.
right, so why wouldn't you opt for the SAME institution and forego the NAME...its simply doesn't make sense to me...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8127
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays and Lesbians AREN'T telling Straights that they should get Civil Unioned and be happy with it.......that's what you and folks like you want......so, again, go make your proposal about who gets the "MARRIAGE" title and see how well it works with straights having their relationship called something different.......my guess is you won't like their response either......sorry, but it looks like the word "MARRIAGE" means a lot to folks regardless of gender make-up:-)
you are good at identifying the issue, but what about the SOLUTION knowing both sides tend to love the word...
its easy for your solution to be, my side wins....but both sides are working that angle right now...

I say, give the religious the word and you take the rights...
its classic "cut the baby in half" tactics...

I bet you would find that people's legal sense of the word matters less than their religious sense...

not me, I would personally lament the loss of husband and wife in marriage from legal language, but this has got to get somewhere so we can focus on more important things....

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8128
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am, and not many on the gay side either...
its all or nothing for both sides I guess...
I think its funny you think your resolve is greater then THE CHURCH...
<quoted text>
because you are banned from rights in 32 states and its just a silly word?
<quoted text>
right, so why wouldn't you opt for the SAME institution and forego the NAME...its simply doesn't make sense to me...
"THE CHURCH" ? You seem to be ignoring the fact that many churches already accept marriage equality, and perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples today.

As previously documented, calling it something different makes it different. Separate can never be equal.

But, yes, if you change the name for everyone, that would be acceptable in theory. But I can't see that happening, nor do I see the need. Usually, a hypothetical discussion has some basis in reality. Changing the name for everyone doesn't.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8129
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Usually, a hypothetical discussion has some basis in reality. Changing the name for everyone doesn't.
really?

but would you think that makes a good compromise regardless of how the OTHER SIDE may take it?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8130
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am asking if you would sacrifice the name for the rights...would you GIVE the name to the religious so that you could have the same legal institution as straights with the same name...just not marriage...
well?
"Give the name to the religious?" Some gays and lesbians ARE religious! Marriage need not be a religious ceremony anyway.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8131
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am asking if you would sacrifice the name for the rights...would you GIVE the name to the religious so that you could have the same legal institution as straights with the same name...just not marriage...
well?
In a word...No. There need be no distinction in the definition of straight and gay marriage.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8132
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, I get that, but how about you address MY point?
a "compromise " is giving up something and getting something.
I am only asking if a COMPROMISE was presented where you gave up the name marriage and got the rights, WOULD YOU TAKE IT?
get it YET?
I think you are saying no...and I find that very inneresting...
or is it that the "fundies" can't be allowed to get anything?
Would that also mean that nonreligious straight couples who get married are not allowed to be called "married?"

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8133
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
the question is, why do you HATe arbitration so much?
Why this ALL OR NOTHING?
If BOTH SIDES compromise a bit, maybe we could get on to MORE IMPORTANT THINGS...
But I do find this anger over a pitched compromise to be funny and displays that a lot of you guys here are really just angry,
and the "rights" to marriage are really just the pawn...
apparently no one would take the rights if the religious got to have the name...
very inneresting indeed...
and thanks again for enabling me, you just cant resist can you?you have proven yourself to be very weak!
This from someone who spells interesting as "inneresting."

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8134
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, we ALL would have ONE institution...ONLY CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS would exist....no such thing as legal marriage....
only religious marriage...
SO...you would get ALL the rights...ALL the equality, and the religious get the bone of getting sole use of the name marriage...
think of it as a further separation of religion and state...
SO...the majority is giving up something, that we would all have the SAME institution...
SO how about it?
(I am actually blown away by the resistance to this idea)
People would still call it "marriage" regardless of whether it was a civil union, justice of the peace wedding or a church wedding.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8135
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
really?
but would you think that makes a good compromise regardless of how the OTHER SIDE may take it?
I see no need for anyone to give up any equal rights or recognition.

Again, gay people are already getting married in churches, and allowing everyone to participate under the same name, rules, and rights, does not require anyone to give up any of those rights. Churches that don't support equality are still free to discriminate for any reason they choose.

Since gay people already marry in many churches, only non-believers would give up "marriage".
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8136
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that also mean that nonreligious straight couples who get married are not allowed to be called "married?"
not in a legal sense...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8137
Nov 14, 2012
 
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
People would still call it "marriage" regardless of whether it was a civil union,
so much for the main critique of CU's...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,581 - 7,600 of9,656
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••