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
7,621 - 7,640 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8158
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
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.
On 4 Feb 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an advisory opinion that 'Civil Unions' were inferior and discriminatory and would not satisfy its earlier Goodridge decision (2003).

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in the advisory opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8159
Nov 15, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Prejudice and legal discrimination are still prejudice and discrimination.
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said,'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."
"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."
"We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community." Coretta Scott King:
Well said. Important points.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8160
Nov 15, 2012
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
On 4 Feb 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an advisory opinion that 'Civil Unions' were inferior and discriminatory and would not satisfy its earlier Goodridge decision (2003).
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in the advisory opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
Indeed.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8162
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you would get over that by ALL OF US having a civil partnership...
Couples DO have a secular, civil partnership available.

It's called "Marriage". No religion required and it's already governed by civil law.

Why create additional institutions when there is already the proper civil and secular framework?

Wouldn't changing the name from marriage to civil partnership" simply be changing the name?

That would seem to be a waste of paper.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8163
Nov 15, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its called a "colloquialism", funny aint it?
no

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8164
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.

Facts are facts.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8165
Nov 15, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
But why bother? What would be the advantage of that? Most people go into marriage thinking about more than a money-related partnership; they're thinking about building a life together based upon love, commitment and common goals.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8166
Nov 15, 2012
 
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
go ahead...
Why should today be any different...
Then carry on.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8167
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

The hinge broke.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8168
Nov 15, 2012
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.
Facts are facts.
Never learned the difference between fact and opinion, eh Brian?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8169
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
But why bother? What would be the advantage of that? Most people go into marriage thinking about more than a money-related partnership; they're thinking about building a life together based upon love, commitment and common goals.
The advantage would be that Jane could feel like he finally won an argument about an hypothetical he dreamed up in the first place.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8170
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Never learned the difference between fact and opinion, eh Brian?
Brian is stuck on stupid.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8171
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
The hinge broke.
So you are coming unhinged. We can see that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8172
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
On 4 Feb 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an advisory opinion that 'Civil Unions' were inferior and discriminatory and would not satisfy its earlier Goodridge decision (2003).
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in the advisory opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
Thanks for the quote. Clearly, as the courts are recognizing, there is no rational excuse nor legitimate governmental justification for discrimination. "no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain". Excellent!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8173
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.
Facts are facts.
Irrational opinion, not fact.

Gay people forming families is clearly "pro-family".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8174
Nov 15, 2012
 
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The advantage would be that Jane could feel like he finally won an argument about an hypothetical he dreamed up in the first place.
I doubt it was an original idea for Jane, since it has been around for a long time, and many cities, counties, and some states have already tried civil partnerships under various names other than "marriage". Yet they have all found them to be inadequate, demonstrating what many of us learned a long time ago: Separate can never be equal. Different cannot be the same.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8175
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrational opinion, not fact.
Gay people forming families is clearly "pro-family".
Of course. If anyone provides a loving family it is pro-family.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8176
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are coming unhinged. We can see that.
lol
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8177
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it was an original idea for Jane, since it has been around for a long time, and many cities, counties, and some states have already tried civil partnerships under various names other than "marriage". Yet they have all found them to be inadequate, demonstrating what many of us learned a long time ago: Separate can never be equal. Different cannot be the same.
One would think, being from Vermont, that Jane would know that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8178
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>One would think, being from Vermont, that Jane would know that.
Since I don't know how old Jane is, I can't say for sure it wasn't an original idea, but we know it has been around a long time, and the myth of separate but equal was dispelled in the 1957 Brown V. board of Education case, after being shown to be inadequate and harmful in prior cases leading up to that point.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••