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.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8453 Nov 30, 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.
Hold on a second partner. You are seriously saying for gays in California the "right to marry came from California's Constitution" and a majority of voters took that away? Let's set the record straight:

1) Prop 22 passed making gay marriage explicitly illegal in CA.

2) The CA courts deemed Prop 22 unconstitutional making gay marriage legal for a few months. The court was asked to wait until after the election to see what happens with Prop 8 but declined. Big mistake there.

3) Prop 8 was passed as a constitutional amendment shortly thereafter effectively taking the matter out of the high court's hands. Prop 8 had precisely the same language as Prop 22. It was clearly the intent of the electorate to over-rule the court.

4) Prop 8 was upheld by the CA high court (or the "process" of it being enacted was).

5) Gay advocates took the Perry case to a gay judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because it "took away" marriage rights and was an "irrational" decision.

6) The ninth circuit upheld the gay judges decision (no surprise).

Never mind the legal wrangling. Given the history here I would be surprised if the SCOTUS chooses not to take up the case. But hey...you never know now do you?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8454 Nov 30, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
what part of THAT is reality?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8455 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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."

Yet this fails to show how treating those gay couples and their children would have any effect on those relationships. It excuses harming a minority while providing no benefit to the majority.

"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."


And again, denial of equal treatment does nothing to create more stability for straight couples, or encourage permanence, while harming gay families without providing any benefit to straight families.

It also relies on the prejudice that gay relationships are "all too often casual or temporary", ignoring that many are not, and that they have been denied the benefit of marriage, while it believes "an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships". Again, no demonstration of how harming gay families will help straight families.

"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."

Yet again, this fails to demonstrate how denial of equality would reduce what it sees as "unstable homes" or promote more stability in opposite sex homes. It relies on the prejudice that same sex homes involve "unstable relationships", while offering no remedy, and ignoring its own belief that marriage promotes stability that helps children.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8456 Nov 30, 2012
(continued)

"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... "

And again, that difference fails to provide any legitimate excuse for harming gay families while providing no benefit to irresponsible straight couples.

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."

Such a belief would require ignoring 30 years of research that shows it is the relationship between the parent and child, not the gender of the parent that determines success. Yet even if it held that prejudice, it fails to show how harming gay families does anything to support straight families.

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

And again, denial of equal treatment does nothing to guarantee whether a child will have both a mom and dad, nor does it do anything to change the fact many mom and dad families abuse, torture, and even kill their children. All of the excuses offered require harming gay families while providing no benefit to straight families.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8457 Nov 30, 2012
And yes, other courts have found those excuses to be without merit"

"This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
(Gill v OPM)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8458 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except the ones that do including Zablocki that reason the right to procreate IMPLIES the right to marry...
<quoted text>
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.
You don't need a license to procreate.

And gay people do procreate. You provide no excuse for denial of that fundamental right to gay couples.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8459 Nov 30, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, the courts that hold against you are bigoted and ignorant.
good luck with that.
given gay relationships ARE different (not better or worse) it is rational to treat them differently.
The courts disagree with you so you disrespect them.

What a Jackass.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8460 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.
My side should win because it requires equal legal treatment as required by the constitution. The founders knew minorities would be harmed by majorities if not prevented from doing so by law. The fact we are a minority is no justification for refusing to treat us as you would yourself. You lose no legal rights. Your side requires denial of equal treatment, harming gay families while providing no benefit to straight families.

If you get pregnant, you have the same abortion rights. But abortion and marriage are two separate issues.

Again each marriage is different from all others, but you fail to show how all gay marriages are different from all straight marriages.

Yes, I know life isn't fair; and no two people have exactly equal abilities. And so did the founding fathers. That is why they stressed equal treatment under the law in our founding documents and constitution.

While life isn't fair, you can be.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8461 Nov 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You are a proponent of sexual inequality. That's what defines sexism.

GLAD I COULD HELP

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8462 Nov 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold on a second partner. You are seriously saying for gays in California the "right to marry came from California's Constitution" and a majority of voters took that away? Let's set the record straight:
1) Prop 22 passed making gay marriage explicitly illegal in CA.
2) The CA courts deemed Prop 22 unconstitutional making gay marriage legal for a few months. The court was asked to wait until after the election to see what happens with Prop 8 but declined. Big mistake there.
3) Prop 8 was passed as a constitutional amendment shortly thereafter effectively taking the matter out of the high court's hands. Prop 8 had precisely the same language as Prop 22. It was clearly the intent of the electorate to over-rule the court.
4) Prop 8 was upheld by the CA high court (or the "process" of it being enacted was).
5) Gay advocates took the Perry case to a gay judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because it "took away" marriage rights and was an "irrational" decision.
6) The ninth circuit upheld the gay judges decision (no surprise).
Never mind the legal wrangling. Given the history here I would be surprised if the SCOTUS chooses not to take up the case. But hey...you never know now do you?
Actually IT WASN'T a big mistake for the CSSC to deny the proponents of Prop 8 a stay until after the election........for the same reason it wasn't a mistake for the CSSC to not remove Prop 8 off the ballot.......they don't deal with possible win or lose........so, they opted not to stay their decision, which granted a right and 18,000 Same-Sex couples exercised and got legally married.......those marriage remain as legal, valid and recognized today as they did when they took place and in May of 2009, the CSSC merely ruled that Prop 8 was a proper Amendment, they never ruled it was Constitutional!!!

Now, Prop 8 has the exact same wording as Prop 22 and if Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.......that would mean that Prop 8 would also be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Prop 8 is merely on life support at this point and it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS will overturn the 9th's ruling on it as it took away something that was in place!!!

Oh and Prop 22 NEVER made the right to marry the Same-Sex explicitly illegal.......because it was already addressed in the California Constitution......all Prop 22 did was make sure the State did not have to recognize the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples from other states!!!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8463 Nov 30, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually IT WASN'T a big mistake for the CSSC to deny the proponents of Prop 8 a stay until after the election........for the same reason it wasn't a mistake for the CSSC to not remove Prop 8 off the ballot.......they don't deal with possible win or lose........so, they opted not to stay their decision, which granted a right and 18,000 Same-Sex couples exercised and got legally married.......those marriage remain as legal, valid and recognized today as they did when they took place and in May of 2009, the CSSC merely ruled that Prop 8 was a proper Amendment, they never ruled it was Constitutional!!!
Now, Prop 8 has the exact same wording as Prop 22 and if Prop 22 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.......that would mean that Prop 8 would also be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Prop 8 is merely on life support at this point and it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS will overturn the 9th's ruling on it as it took away something that was in place!!!
Oh and Prop 22 NEVER made the right to marry the Same-Sex explicitly illegal.......because it was already addressed in the California Constitution......all Prop 22 did was make sure the State did not have to recognize the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples from other states!!!
You are irrational and a bit hysterical. I won't waste my time with all the nonsense you posted. Have a nice day.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8464 Nov 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are irrational and a bit hysterical. I won't waste my time with all the nonsense you posted. Have a nice day.
Funny, but all I did was correct your misinformation.......and seeing that my marriage is part of the 18,000 marriages that took place and was not affect by the passage of Prop 8.......somehow, I doubt I was neither irrational or hysterical!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8465 Dec 1, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
You are a proponent of sexual inequality. That's what defines sexism. GLAD I COULD HELP
I' a proponent of reality, the fact that sexual inequality exists can't be fixed by government decree. Laws only do so much; they don't change human nature.

I'm a proponent of conservatism; freedom is our highest value, not equality. Laws that equalize gender functions take our freedom to natural diversity.

Keep marriage gender diverse because diversity is better than segregation.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8466 Dec 1, 2012

The reality is, gay people have always existed and will continue to exist and to form relationships.

The question then becomes, are we going to accept reality and encourage strong, committed relationships around the shared values of family, fidelity, and responsibility, with the help of friends, family, and the government, or is it in the best interest of society to make laws that attack and demean such relationships, causing unjustified harm to those couples and their children.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8467 Dec 1, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I' a proponent of reality, the fact that sexual inequality exists can't be fixed by government decree. Laws only do so much; they don't change human nature.
I'm a proponent of conservatism; freedom is our highest value, not equality. Laws that equalize gender functions take our freedom to natural diversity.
Keep marriage gender diverse because diversity is better than segregation.
OK, let's run with your sexist constructs. You are functioning as a male doing exactly what male sexuality requires. You are attempting to assert your dominance by making false claims of male superiority. There are no such laws yet you continue to make post lies and propaganda in a feckless attempt to dominate. It only shows what a male chauvinistic pig you really are.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8468 Dec 1, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Ever heard of fundamental rights?

GLAD I COULD HELP

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8469 Dec 1, 2012
Amendment 14 sec 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Brian. Please note it says all citizens, which includes male, female, gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.

Sorry to inform you but this mean equal rights for all. There is no such thing as gender superiority.

GLAD I COULD HELP Jackass.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8470 Dec 1, 2012
Amendment XIX
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Saudi Arabian

Northmead, Australia

#8471 Dec 1, 2012
why do you have separate churches? a black and white churches?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8473 Dec 1, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
why do you have separate churches? a black and white churches?
We don't.

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 Your guide to celebrating Pride this summer in OKC 30 min Latter Day Saint 4
News Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same... 1 hr Messenger of Love 237
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Messenger of Love 62,879
News Methodists consider rules about same sex marria... 2 hr Messenger of Love 7
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 2 hr Straight Shooter 622
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 4 hr Straight Shooter 28,158
News An Unlikely Activist Finds His Calling 5 hr Christshariahns 2
News Smiling Tennessee hardware store owner puts 'No... 7 hr JimBob 78