Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9647 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

#8596 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Student loans are not a fundamental right.
Marriage is a fundamental right.
and the circle is complete...
so why are courts using rational basis?
gay marriage is not a fundamental right.

see how a student loan, a benefit, is not a right, but educational freedom itself, IS a right?
now you have hit on the distinction between a legislative benefit and a constitutional right...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8597 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in both cases, abortion and marriage, we are saying the right is dependent on the ability...
its not deflection, your side claims a right can not be based a physical ability, yet here is one, a fundamental right, no less, that is offered to some and denied to others based on reproductive abilities...
You do know that Gays and Lesbians are quite capable of procreating, right? We may not have to do it with the opposite-sex, but we can still have biological children!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8598 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
as do gays. But again, ALL other things being equal a mom and dad is best. Nothing you write speaks to that.
<quoted text>
no, those are choices between 2 existing parents...
I am saying, a straight couple show up at the orphanage as do a gay couple, they are exactly the same in every other regard, age, money, love, time, etc....
the young girl of about six is given the choice...
do you really expect anyone to believe she would opt out of having a mother?
You offer an impossible scenario. No two people are the same and their relationships are never the same. Your belief is untestable, and irrelevant, as we don't deny rights to all but good families. We only deny rights when a compelling governmental interest can be demonstrated. Even people who have beaten, abused, or killed their biological children can still get married. It is a fundamental right of ALL PERSONS.

But to indulge your 6 year old choice, if the child had not learned anti-gay prejudice, the 6 yr old girl might choose 2 moms, while a 6 yr old boy might choose 2 dads. It is your enculturated prejudice that leads you to believe all in such a scenerio would choose both a mom and a dad.

Yet we don't make our laws based on what we think a 6 year old might do. We make laws based on a constitution that requires equal treatment under the law for all persons.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8599 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in both cases, abortion and marriage, we are saying the right is dependent on the ability...
its not deflection, your side claims a right can not be based a physical ability, yet here is one, a fundamental right, no less, that is offered to some and denied to others based on reproductive abilities...
If abortion rights only apply to women, it is because currently, only they can become pregnant. Only one individual has the ability. It is a right of the individual.

Gay individuals of both sexes have the ability to procreate, unless like many straight people, they are sterile due to age, accident, or choice. Again, gay people can and do reproduce, while others adopt. Harming gay families provides no benefit to straight families.

But again, reproductive ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and several court cases affirm procreation is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual. It is a fundamental right of all persons.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8600 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and the circle is complete...
so why are courts using rational basis?
gay marriage is not a fundamental right.
see how a student loan, a benefit, is not a right, but educational freedom itself, IS a right?
now you have hit on the distinction between a legislative benefit and a constitutional right...
The courts have established that marriage is an individual, fundamental right of all persons. It has affirmed that procreation ability is not necessary for the individual to retain this fundamental right.

Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

As you know, both courts have found gay people are persons, and deserve equal treatment as required by the constitution. We will have to wait and see if a tradition of irrational prejudice, or upholding the promise of equal treatment under the law for all persons, prevails this time around.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8601 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts have established that marriage is an individual, fundamental right of all persons. It has affirmed that procreation ability is not necessary for the individual to retain this fundamental right.
Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
As you know, both courts have found gay people are persons, and deserve equal treatment as required by the constitution. We will have to wait and see if a tradition of irrational prejudice, or upholding the promise of equal treatment under the law for all persons, prevails this time around.
The question is, can a group of people be denied their fundamental rights on the basis of sexual orientation, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8602 Dec 5, 2012
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to. Your posts alone is all I need to know.
<quoted text>
Or maybe it's because everyone deserves equal rights. Insane concept, right?
No one has the "equal right" to marry their own sex. It just isn't what marriage is or ever has been.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8603 Dec 5, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the "equal right" to marry their own sex. It just isn't what marriage is or ever has been.
Why? Because that's what you believe......sorry, but if marriage is a fundamental right, then it is a fundamental right regardless of one's sexual orientation or who one wants to marry, besides......Gay and Lesbian Couples have been getting legally married since 2004 and starting tomorrow, they will be standing in line to get their marriage licenses in Washington State!!!

So, please tell me exactly what marriage was originally for or about......I'm waiting for your explanation with baited breath...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8604 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
You do know that Gays and Lesbians are quite capable of procreating, right? We may not have to do it with the opposite-sex, but we can still have biological children!!!
Only with heterosexual union. Ever gay was born of male/female union, that's why marriage is male/female.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8605 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that Gays and Lesbians are quite capable of procreating, right? We may not have to do it with the opposite-sex, but we can still have biological children!!!
just not within your marriage...and that s kinda what we are talking about...
I could say my marriage is wealthy if i can include a very rich third party!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8606 Dec 6, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts have established that marriage is an individual, fundamental right of all persons. It has affirmed that procreation ability is not necessary for the individual to retain this fundamental right.
Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
As you know, both courts have found gay people are persons, and deserve equal treatment as required by the constitution. We will have to wait and see if a tradition of irrational prejudice, or upholding the promise of equal treatment under the law for all persons, prevails this time around.
This ignores that the court specifically affirmed a decision that say, gays not included...
they are "people" that do not qualify for the benefit offered...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8607 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
This ignores that the court specifically affirmed a decision that say, gays not included...
they are "people" that do not qualify for the benefit offered...
And again, the question that distinguishes California from Minnesota is whether taking away rights is fundamentally different than not granting those rights in the first place. I think the Ninth will discard most of Judge Jones's ramblings in Sevcik, but will find itself constrained by Baker. And SCOTUS will decline the case for the time being.

Perry rests on the concept that taking rights away from a minority requires a more rigorous reasoned process than never granting them in the first place

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8608 Dec 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only with heterosexual union. Ever gay was born of male/female union, that's why marriage is male/female.
Actually Brian, we don't have to have physical sex with someone of the opposite-sex to procreate.......we just need either sperm, if we happen to be Lesbian or an egg and womb, if we happen to be Gay.......no physical contact needs to take place......and with Stem Cell Research advancements, 2 Lesbians really don't need actual sperm from a male donor any longer:-)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8609 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
just not within your marriage...and that s kinda what we are talking about...
I could say my marriage is wealthy if i can include a very rich third party!
Again, irrelevant......see, women past childbearing years can and do get married, the same is true for women who happen to be infertile......so, this leaves your point moot and totally irrelevant......see, both my wife and I are past the age of wanting children, we have had our own and now raise our grandchild.......we are quite okay with not having to worry about being pregnant or raising another child!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8610 Dec 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, the question that distinguishes California from Minnesota is whether taking away rights is fundamentally different than not granting those rights in the first place. I think the Ninth will discard most of Judge Jones's ramblings in Sevcik, but will find itself constrained by Baker. And SCOTUS will decline the case for the time being.
Perry rests on the concept that taking rights away from a minority requires a more rigorous reasoned process than never granting them in the first place
all very true!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8611 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, irrelevant......see, women past childbearing years can and do get married, the same is true for women who happen to be infertile......so, this leaves your point moot and totally irrelevant......
except that it doesn't.

"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."

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8612 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except that it doesn't.
"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."
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....or don't you get that? Again, you fail understand that I can get pregnant in the same way an infertile woman could be impregnated........it's called Medical intervention......and again, it's not the Courts business or yours on if, how or why I choose to or not to have children!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8613 Dec 6, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, can a group of people be denied their fundamental rights on the basis of sexual orientation, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so?
Scalia seems to believe a tradition of discrimination and abuse is enough to continue that tradition of discrimination and abuse, because that was what was happening in the 1700s. Fortunately Kennedy does not agree with that idea.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8614 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....or don't you get that? Again, you fail understand that I can get pregnant in the same way an infertile woman could be impregnated........it's called Medical intervention......and again, it's not the Courts business or yours on if, how or why I choose to or not to have children!!!
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.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8615 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....
also, given that the case cited was one specifically addressing a gay marriage ban, I would say you are off base.

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 Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 17 min AFry 14,735
News GLAAD studio study no hooray for Hollywood 40 min Wondering 8
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 4 hr neighbor 1,661
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 25,631
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Jasonville 6,091
News Russia is Investigating Chechnya's Anti-Gay Purge 6 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News New gay-themed features, docs debut at Hartford... 6 hr Pope Closet Emeritus 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Respect71 49,327
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,531
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 20 hr Eagle 12 462
More from around the web