Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9652 comments on the The Skanner story from Mar 1, 2012, titled Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches. In it, The Skanner reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Skanner.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8366 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes about as much sense as saying that the Four Color Theorem negates the Pythagorean because its proof doesn't rely on right triangles. What do that teach at the Matchbook School of Law, anyway?
actually that quip was as lame as your analysis...

Its set rules of construction, an appellate judge can overrule the analysis of a lower decision and/or the holding...
that occurred in the Prop 8 case in many ways including the removal of a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage.
In the DOMA case, the appeal court specifically found no basis in animus which negates that as a point of law in the "law of the case".
So its the difference between how legal precedents work and the bullfloppy you erroneously think relates...

you usually don't "get it" so i would think you would ask instead of insult and try to bash me over the head with your not knowing!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8367 Nov 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
You nailed it, NorCal, thanks!
No gender equality in the US Constitution. Holland, Mexico, Portugal, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark all have gender equality rights in their Constitutions; they all have same sex marriage too.
No, all I did was prove you were wrong!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8368 Nov 29, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Not relying on is not the same as overruling. They would need to reject the argument as invalid to overrule it,
which they specifically and expressly do...

"In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA's hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12, 16. Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), and that is singularly so in this case given the range of bipartisan support for the statute."

The specifically hold no basis in animus.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8369 Nov 29, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would animus no longer be part of DOMA. DOMA was built on animus, and those that support it do so through animus only.
It's continues existence is based only on animus.
Try again.
its just your opinion versus that of the federal courts who reviewed the DOMA cases...

Guess who I will go with?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8370 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
actually that quip was as lame as your analysis...
Its set rules of construction, an appellate judge can overrule the analysis of a lower decision and/or the holding...
that occurred in the Prop 8 case in many ways including the removal of a finding of a fundamental right to gay marriage.
In the DOMA case, the appeal court specifically found no basis in animus which negates that as a point of law in the "law of the case".
So its the difference between how legal precedents work and the bullfloppy you erroneously think relates...
you usually don't "get it" so i would think you would ask instead of insult and try to bash me over the head with your not knowing!
You are absurd. The Ninth Circuit Court left out some of Walkers arguments because they wished to narrow the ruling, making it less likely to require intervention by SCOTUS. Including the arguments you mentioned greatly broadened Walker's original ruling. The fact that the Circuit wished to focus on the specific matter of Prop 8 does not mean they disagreed with the rest of Walker's arguments. They simply felt that it was unnecessary or unwise to invoke them at this point.

Yes, it was probably a political decision.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8371 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absurd. The Ninth Circuit Court left out some of Walkers arguments because they wished to narrow the ruling, making it less likely to require intervention by SCOTUS. Including the arguments you mentioned greatly broadened Walker's original ruling. The fact that the Circuit wished to focus on the specific matter of Prop 8 does not mean they disagreed with the rest of Walker's arguments. They simply felt that it was unnecessary or unwise to invoke them at this point.
Yes, it was probably a political decision.
all you are saying is what I said, that the ELIMINATED those points from the decision...
is calling me absurd your way of agreeing with me?

So, as to the DOMA case, the court ELIMINATED any part of the decision that relies on animus, so using the old case when the courts found that rationale to be lacking is kinda not right...

right?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8372 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all you are saying is what I said, that the ELIMINATED those points from the decision...
is calling me absurd your way of agreeing with me?
So, as to the DOMA case, the court ELIMINATED any part of the decision that relies on animus, so using the old case when the courts found that rationale to be lacking is kinda not right...
right?
It means that Walker's findings did not become binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. That does not prevent his opinion influencing future jurors.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8373 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that Walker's findings did not become binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit. That does not prevent his opinion influencing future jurors.
right, so, AS I SAID, the language Not Yet Equal was using has been eliminated from the decision, so you agree now right?

And there aren't jurors in appeals...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8374 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, so, AS I SAID, the language Not Yet Equal was using has been eliminated from the decision, so you agree now right?
And there aren't jurors in appeals...
My mistake. I meant "jurist," not "juror."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8375 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
My mistake. I meant "jurist," not "juror."
yes, Walkers decision could influence a jurist, but I would think not so much since it was already overruled by the most liberal appeals circuit...

again,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gay-marri...

is a very good article which also agrees with us that Baker does not bear on DOMA, but as I suggest likely could as to Prop 8.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8376 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, Walkers decision could influence a jurist, but I would think not so much since it was already overruled by the most liberal appeals circuit...
again,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/gay-marri...
is a very good article which also agrees with us that Baker does not bear on DOMA, but as I suggest likely could as to Prop 8.
The second page of the article doesn't mention Baker with regards to Prop 8 and as you have already been told, Baker vs Nelson doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because they are NOT similarly situated!!!

California issued marriage license to Same-Sex Couples prior to the passage of Prop 8 and those legal marriages remain legal, valid and recognized today in spite of the passage of Prop 8........unlike in the Baker case where a marriage license was NEVER granted!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8377 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The second page of the article doesn't mention Baker with regards to Prop 8 and as you have already been told, Baker vs Nelson doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because they are NOT similarly situated!!!
California issued marriage license to Same-Sex Couples prior to the passage of Prop 8 and those legal marriages remain legal, valid and recognized today in spite of the passage of Prop 8........unlike in the Baker case where a marriage license was NEVER granted!!!
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.

Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8378 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.
Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.
Seeing as I don't have a "GAY" Marriage......my answer would be no, but I do have the fundamental right to marry!!!

Baker doesn't apply to Prop 8 in ANY way, shape or form because MARRIAGE LICENSES WERE ISSUED IN CALIFORNIA prior to the passage of Prop 8.....no marriage license was issued in the Baker case.....NOT SIMILAR SITUATED!!!

The question with regards to Prop 8 is this......can a right to marry be removed once it has been granted?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8379 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
once a fundamental right to marry is raised, so is Baker.
it MAY be raised in prop 8, and it WILL NOT be in DOMA.
Do we have a fundamental right to gay marriage?
Answer NO, citation Baker.
The Prop 8 case in far more nuanced than you suggest. The plaintiffs are not asking SCOTUS to create a right to marry under the US Constitution. They are asking for protection of their rights under the US Constitution. The right to marry came from California's constitution. That right was taken away by the majority of California voters enacting legislation through the initiative process. The question is whether, under the federal constitution, states may take away rights from targeted minorities without compelling reason.

If Baker were the slam-dunk you want it to be, Perry would already be dead.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8380 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as I don't have a "GAY" Marriage......my answer would be no, but I do have the fundamental right to marry!!!
Baker doesn't apply to Prop 8 in ANY way, shape or form because MARRIAGE LICENSES WERE ISSUED IN CALIFORNIA prior to the passage of Prop 8.....no marriage license was issued in the Baker case.....NOT SIMILAR SITUATED!!!
The question with regards to Prop 8 is this......can a right to marry be removed once it has been granted?
and that question begs the question is gay marriage a right or a mere legislative benefit offered and negated. Like if we were limit the age after which one could drive...
as I say, Baker MAY be injected into the Prop 8 case, but definitely not the DOMA ones...
BTW, even if you have a straight marriage, that doesn't give you a right to a gay marriage, so in that way, we are all equally barred from a gay marriage...
see how easy semantic arguments are?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8381 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and that question begs the question is gay marriage a right or a mere legislative benefit offered and negated.
Have you ever studied any marriage cases besides Baker? SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that marriage is a fundamental right. Hence, taking it away is not as easy as taking away benefits.

But benefits cannot be arbitrarily taken from targeted groups, either. We could not, for instance, decide that Mormons are ineligible for Social Security.
Like if we were limit the age after which one could drive...
as I say, Baker MAY be injected into the Prop 8 case, but definitely not the DOMA ones...
The opponents of same-sex marriage keep trying to insert Baker, but their attempts are consistently ignored.
BTW, even if you have a straight marriage, that doesn't give you a right to a gay marriage, so in that way, we are all equally barred from a gay marriage...
see how easy semantic arguments are?
I am aware of no jurisdiction that has "straight marraige" and "gay marriage." There is only marriage. See how stupid your semantics are?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8382 Nov 29, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The Prop 8 case in far more nuanced than you suggest. The plaintiffs are not asking SCOTUS to create a right to marry under the US Constitution. They are asking for protection of their rights under the US Constitution. The right to marry came from California's constitution. That right was taken away by the majority of California voters enacting legislation through the initiative process. The question is whether, under the federal constitution, states may take away rights from targeted minorities without compelling reason.
If Baker were the slam-dunk you want it to be, Perry would already be dead.
So in the same post you say how Baker is distinguishable, and then claim if it was strong it would have ended the case?

talk about a moving target.

Its simple. Unless or until the gays claim a right to gay marriage, Baker will lie in wait...
it may come up in the prop 8 case because gays will have to go to that argument when they learn that mere legislative benefits are given and taken away all the time....
like the bush tax cuts...
or a decision to have driving tests at age 65.

no compelling reason required, only RATIONAL...the only way you get a higher standard is to argue you have a fundamental right, and duck as Baker comes at you...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8383 Nov 29, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
So in the same post you say how Baker is distinguishable, and then claim if it was strong it would have ended the case?
talk about a moving target.
Its simple. Unless or until the gays claim a right to gay marriage, Baker will lie in wait...
it may come up in the prop 8 case because gays will have to go to that argument when they learn that mere legislative benefits are given and taken away all the time....
like the bush tax cuts...
or a decision to have driving tests at age 65.
no compelling reason required, only RATIONAL...the only way you get a higher standard is to argue you have a fundamental right, and duck as Baker comes at you...
It is just possible that "rational" will be redefined, legally, as rational--in the sense of logically and scientfically defensible. Up to now, anything reason you give is construed to be rational. Judge Walker deconstructed the Prop 8 proponents given reasons and confirmed that the assertions did not, in fact, provide a rational basis for discrimination. The Ninth Circuit agreed.

"Because the sky is blue" is just not going to fly.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8384 Nov 29, 2012
Quest wrote:
I have never seen the part of the equal protection clause that specifically excludes gender. Can you post it?
Norcal did: http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TKTVMFAMT2F09...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8385 Nov 29, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
No, all I did was prove you were wrong!!!
Not at all, NorCal posted this:

"2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The US Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal. There are no gender equality rights, anywhere in the Constitution. Several other countries have constitutions with gender equality rights; those countries also have same sex marriage.

Think about it.

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
News Malaysia Clears Release of 'Beauty and the Beas... 17 min Frogface Kate 17
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 32 min Strel 25,219
News Gorsuch explains his stance on gay rights 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 12
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 46,228
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 13,263
News Who Does This Tennessee Lesbian Couple Think Bu... (Feb '11) 3 hr Huge Johnny 27
News First openly gay Texas A&M student president ho... 3 hr Huge Johnny 9
News Man Beat 2 Transgender Women Who Tried to Enter... 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 26
More from around the web