Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9646 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

#8433 Nov 30, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Let's hold a "this time we mean it" vote on Jane doesn't even make a good pretend lawyer.
you are so sad.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8434 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And the fact remains, the minority is not seeking to deny any equal legal rights to the majority they seek for themselves.
you each seek the right to define marriage as you wish.

you each have valid reasons to do so.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8435 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship "

And yet no federal or state law has ever required the ability or intention to procreate,
Because there is precedent on that precise issue:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8436 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Pejorative terminology intended to mischaracterize and demean my assertions fails to address the issues that have been found by subsequent courts to be without merit.
that IS what you said. That the court was guided by animosity towards gays that no longer exists...

I challenge that and claim you use that as a cover against arguments you cannot dispute.

One thing I will say is that is is VERY VERY unlikely the scotus will ever find all opposition to you is prejudice...
because its simply not true.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8437 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but do you catch that they always discuss them together?
Mentioning them together still DOESN'T mean they go hand in hand.......just that both are considered FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that can not be infringed upon.......and it doesn't specify that these cases are only for straight people or couples!!!!

I'm sure you'll disagree......but that's nothing new!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8438 Nov 30, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Mentioning them together still DOESN'T mean they go hand in hand.......just that both are considered FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS that can not be infringed upon.......and it doesn't specify that these cases are only for straight people or couples!!!!
I'm sure you'll disagree......but that's nothing new!!!
maybe once, but in every case?
one case even saying the right to procreate IMPLIES the right o marry!!!!
that's a lot more than mere mention together!

A fundamental right is one we hold that was never ceded to govt.

How can we have one as to a GOVERNMENT LICENSE?

We can't.

BUT, to the extent marriage relates to that right, the govt has to back off...
that is how procreation IMPLIES a right to marriage...

The main point is that bringing up procreation is not bigotry, its acknowledging the legal reality...

and again, banning marriage between close relatives?
Why?
Is there any reason to do so with gay couples?
no.

See, different, not better or worse, but different and so its rational to treat each relationship differently...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8439 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you each seek the right to define marriage as you wish.
you each have valid reasons to do so.
Only one denies equal legal rights to the other.

There is no valid reason to deny equal treatment, while the reasons to treat everyone equally are numerous and well established in science and law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8440 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that IS what you said. That the court was guided by animosity towards gays that no longer exists...
I challenge that and claim you use that as a cover against arguments you cannot dispute.
One thing I will say is that is is VERY VERY unlikely the scotus will ever find all opposition to you is prejudice...
because its simply not true.
Again, prejudice does not require animus or bigotry: "Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Yet all of the reasons offered to deny equality rely on some level of prejudice.(as defined above)

Again, the court need not determine prejudice is the motivation for denial of equality. All they need to do is acknowledge there is no legitimate connection between the stated purposes of the law and the actual effects of the law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8441 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Because there is precedent on that precise issue:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
An argument rejected by subsequent courts. It require denial of the reality that gay people are raising children, and harming those families does nothing to strengthen straight families.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8442 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one denies equal legal rights to the other.
Only one side believes they are ENTITLED...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8443 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Again, the court need not determine prejudice is the motivation for denial of equality.
they wont because its not. But that doesn't stop you guys from saying it does it?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8444 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
An argument rejected by subsequent courts. It require denial of the reality that gay people are raising children, and harming those families does nothing to strengthen straight families.
no it has not been,and no it doesnt.
I get how you have to take it that way...

but look at it this way:

"Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other."

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

clearly they are aware you have kids, but gays can CHOOSE how and when to have kids...that's a BIG difference that is rational to acknowledge...

as is:
"The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

they are aware of you, but its rational to want a kid to have BOTH a MOM and DAD.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8445 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe once, but in every case?
one case even saying the right to procreate IMPLIES the right o marry!!!!
that's a lot more than mere mention together!
A fundamental right is one we hold that was never ceded to govt.
How can we have one as to a GOVERNMENT LICENSE?
We can't.
BUT, to the extent marriage relates to that right, the govt has to back off...
that is how procreation IMPLIES a right to marriage...
The main point is that bringing up procreation is not bigotry, its acknowledging the legal reality...
and again, banning marriage between close relatives?
Why?
Is there any reason to do so with gay couples?
no.
See, different, not better or worse, but different and so its rational to treat each relationship differently...
None of the 14 Supreme Court cases that establish and affirm marriage as a fundamental right state that right depends on the ability to procreate, and some even note procreation is none of the governments business. Turner even affirms marriage is a fundamental right even when people cannot possibly procreate.

And again, this ignores the fact gay people can and do procreate and are raising children. Harming those families does nothing to encourage procreation among straight people nor does it provide any other benefits to straight couples. It only harms gay families for no legitimate governmental reason.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8446 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Yet all of the reasons offered to deny equality rely on some level of prejudice.(as defined above)
Its not prejudice that you could NEEVR provide both a mom and dad..
its the truth!

Its not prejudice that you are not baby makers together...its REALITY!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8447 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Only one side believes they are ENTITLED...
One side believes they are entitled to equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

Those opposed to equal rights believe they are entitled to harm others through denial of the rights they grant to themselves.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8448 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not prejudice that you could NEEVR provide both a mom and dad..
its the truth!
Its not prejudice that you are not baby makers together...its REALITY!
That does not change the fact that gay people can and do procreate and are raising children together whether biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to families or children that have a mom and a dad, while harming those who don't, without any legitimate excuse.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient to harm those families.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8449 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
None of the 14 Supreme Court cases that establish and affirm marriage as a fundamental right state that right depends on the ability to procreate,
except the ones that do including Zablocki that reason the right to procreate IMPLIES the right to marry...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
and some even note procreation is none of the governments business.
ALL of them say this as marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right...

you just figured out what a "fundamental right" is!

now, is a LICENSE issued BY the govt "none of the gov't business"?

see how the right to procreate is none of the govt business but States REGULATE marriage?

Well they cant regulate marriage if it interfers with our right to procreate and given many of us use marriage as a vehicle for procreation they have to keep hands off as to that, while not as to the tax breaks etc...

" As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. " Zablocki.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8450 Nov 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
One side believes they are entitled to equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
and the other side doesn't.

Why should YOUR view win?
Especially since you are in the minority?

You are not the same as a straight married couple so you do not get the same treatment.

Its like how a woman has the right to choose based on the very real fact they carry the baby...
is that unequal treatment?
NO!
Its just law based on reality!

By your logic, I too MUST have the "woman's right to choose" yet I don't...curious, right?
And indeed many fathers are severely injured by the lack of this right...

Your momma should have told you life isn't fair or exactly equal...after all, we have REALITY to contend with.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8451 Nov 30, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Sexist much?
How is discussing the Constitution, sexist? If I observe, there's no such thing as a gender equality right in the US Constitution, is that sexist? The world is divided into two sexes and male/female marriage is the bond that heals the rift.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8452 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and the other side doesn't.
Why should YOUR view win?
Especially since you are in the minority?
You are not the same as a straight married couple so you do not get the same treatment.
Its like how a woman has the right to choose based on the very real fact they carry the baby...
is that unequal treatment?
NO!
Its just law based on reality!
By your logic, I too MUST have the "woman's right to choose" yet I don't...curious, right?
And indeed many fathers are severely injured by the lack of this right...
Your momma should have told you life isn't fair or exactly equal...after all, we have REALITY to contend with.
Speaking of reality... You're losing the argument. Even if we do lose in SCOTUS, we will eventually win in the court of public opinion.

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 22 states ban housing discrimination against ga... 9 min RalphB 8
News Virginia hardware store fires employee accused ... 22 min Xstain Mullah Fri... 24
News As a gay teen, Evan Low thought about changing ... 32 min Rueben 1
News Kim Davis challenger: Man whose marriage licens... 2 hr Wisdom 32
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 61,742
News Bus driver tells students "faggots will burn in... (Sep '17) 3 hr sandy 11
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 5 hr Mulberry Muffin 28,129
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... Sat Munchkin 48