Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,656

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.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8138 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
that some churches perform gay marriages doesn't man most of them do...

and in 32 states, gays do not participate under the same name, rules, and rights.

I would think this was a sweet deal for gays, I am very surprised to see it rejected ...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8139 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
This from someone who spells interesting as "inneresting."
its called a "colloquialism", funny aint it?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8140 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
In a word...No. There need be no distinction in the definition of straight and gay marriage.
are you being dense? in the hypothetical, we would all have the same legal partnerships under the law...
the distinction is
civil/legal = partnership,
religious = marriage...

what you GET is all of us in the same legal status...
what you GIVE is a mere word, a name...
I am blown away that there is any doubt this is a good deal for gays...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8141 Nov 14, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
"Give the name to the religious?" Some gays and lesbians ARE religious! Marriage need not be a religious ceremony anyway.
there you have ti then, in those religions, gays can be married...
I am suggesting to MAKE marriage religious and legally make everyone have a partnership...I mean that's all it would be anyway, a money related partnership...
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8142 Nov 14, 2012
Funny how some people get all worked up over some non-existant hypothetical they made up in the first place. ain't it?

Let's all make shit up and then bitch about it, shall we?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8143 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Let's all make shit up and then bitch about it, shall we?
go ahead...
Why should today be any different...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8144 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so much for the main critique of CU's...
Again, the problems with CU's include the fact they are not legally equal in most places, they are not recognized here or around the world (like marriage is), and even if they were legally equal, they still stigmatize and thereby harm those being denied equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8145 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that some churches perform gay marriages doesn't man most of them do...
and in 32 states, gays do not participate under the same name, rules, and rights.
I would think this was a sweet deal for gays, I am very surprised to see it rejected ...
Second class citizenship is not a "sweet deal" for those denied equality.

And you have no reason to believe the straight majority would accept it either. And again, there is no need for them to give up anything. Accepting marriage equality will not deny them any legal rights or change their marriages in any way. They have nothing to lose. Why would they give up anything?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8146 Nov 14, 2012
Prop 8 defendants' witness David Blankenhorn made several admissions that bolster the key points of our case:

He admitted Marriage is vitally important in American society. Prop. 8 causes grievous harm to gays and lesbians and their children, Prop. 8 perpetrates this harm for no good reason.
He admitted marriage is a "public good" and that marriage would benefit gays and lesbians, their children and society at large.

He also testified (remember this is a witness FOR prop 8):

∑ "Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children."

∑ "Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships."

∑ "Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples."

∑ "Same-sex marriage might lead to less sexual promiscuity among lesbians and (perhaps especially) gay men."

∑ "Same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships."

∑ "Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as 'other' and increase the number who are accepted as part of 'us.' In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea."

∑ "Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes."

∑ "Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality."

∑ "Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce."

∑ "By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families."
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8147 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the problems with CU's include the fact they are not legally equal in most places, they are not recognized here or around the world (like marriage is), and even if they were legally equal, they still stigmatize and thereby harm those being denied equality.
so you would get over that by ALL OF US having a civil partnership...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8148 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Second class citizenship is not a "sweet deal" for those denied equality.
And you have no reason to believe the straight majority would accept it either. And again, there is no need for them to give up anything. Accepting marriage equality will not deny them any legal rights or change their marriages in any way. They have nothing to lose. Why would they give up anything?
you are stuck on being persecuted huh?

the hypothetical was for there to be only one legal institution for all...called a civil marriage...but you are so hard pressed to push this separate is unequal crud...

don't worry what THEY will say, what do YOU say?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8149 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you would get over that by ALL OF US having a civil partnership...
Do you seriously believe you can get the world to go along with your proposal, when there is no motivation for them to give up anything they already have?

In 2009, Julian Bond wrote: "No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8150 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are stuck on being persecuted huh?
the hypothetical was for there to be only one legal institution for all...called a civil marriage...but you are so hard pressed to push this separate is unequal crud...
don't worry what THEY will say, what do YOU say?
If you could magically get the world to change the word marriage to civil whatever, I could go along with that. But that is magical thinking and has no basis in reality. The reality remains, marriage is the institution recognized around the world and that won't be changing in our lifetimes.

Again, we know separate can never be equal, and denial of equality harms those being denied. There is no need for it, and no excuse that does not rely on irrational prejudice.

John Lewis, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Defense of Marriage Act, remarked, "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8151 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you should care because you lost your state...
would you accept full right in NJ in exchange for removing the name marriage from all people and letting the religious have it?
funny how you take this as me claiming a trademark?
I was only pitching a potential COMPROMISE...
Its great how you read every one of my posts and respond, but never to me...I think maybe you FEAR me...
New Jersey has had civil unions for several years now. The government did a study and found that civil unions are not treated equally within the state. They cause a lot of confusion. And they are obviously not recognized out-of-state much less out-of-country.

Why do you keep seeking an inferior, complicated solution when the simple solution is so obvious?
D Truth

Virginia Beach, VA

#8152 Nov 14, 2012
I'm all for gay marriage. The guys in Washington have been screwing me for 30 years. Might as well make it legal.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8153 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
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?
Straights that marry without religious officiation are MARRIED! That's what we want.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8154 Nov 14, 2012
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?
I did already. I am legally married to another woman. I am not giving up my marriage and my rights to suite an on-line troll's silly notions.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8155 Nov 14, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
New Jersey has had civil unions for several years now. The government did a study and found that civil unions are not treated equally within the state. They cause a lot of confusion. And they are obviously not recognized out-of-state much less out-of-country.
Why do you keep seeking an inferior, complicated solution when the simple solution is so obvious?
The same findings have held true in other places as well, including cities and counties as well as states and countries. Some laws were purposely designed to limit equal rights, while even those that attempted equality, found they weren't recognized as equal by insurance companies, hospitals, etc. Many people are unclear what it means, yet they recognize it is not the same as marriage, and therefore treat it as inferior.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8156 Nov 14, 2012
"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8157 Nov 14, 2012
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/0...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 10 min cpeter1313 2,789
Billboard in Virginia Brazenly Proclaims 'Nobod... 11 min blasterboy1984 53
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 13 min Frankie Rizzo 16
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min Frankie Rizzo 5,258
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 18 min Phyllis Schlafly ... 1
'Just Let People Have Their Beliefs': Blaze Rea... 21 min Phyllis Schlafly ... 23
How 2014 Was the Beginning of the End for the G... 25 min Phyllis Schlafly ... 12
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 53 min chris toal 26,585
Why (R1) Righteous One is a POS (Dec '12) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 73
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 4,936
More from around the web