Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,653

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.

Full Story

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8590 Dec 5, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The 14th Amendment gives everyone equal protection under the law but it explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.
Recognizing gender differences doesn't make one gender subjugated under the other.
The gender difference in voting recognized in the 14th amendment was nullified by the 19th amendment which said the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of sex.

Gender differences are no longer recognized by the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8591 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you can say its not true, but you cannot support that denial...
there is no evidence that suggests a child doesn't do best with his/her biological parents. you do have (poor, but some)evidence that says that gays in most instances can do about as good a job...
is a well educated and loving gay couple better than an abusive straight couple?
I would say yes.
So it is not a fair assessment to claim they are "inferior".
BUT if the two couples were equal in every other way, the straight couple has something the gays don't, both a mom and dad...
Can you really claim with a straight face that a child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom?
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)
And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother, or even go to another home with straight parents. I have seen this on more than one occasion. These kids were much more healthy in gay parent homes than they were with their biological parents.
Your version of utopia is not even close to the real world. Denial of reality only changes it in your own mind.
You have absolutely no proof of that assertion and I have our entire human existence to support me...
I mean, you guys have to realize that you can have studies, but we ALL grew up in families and have a little experience that cannot be negated by a slick study...
Beyond that, for example, we want our kids to be healthy, so we encourage them to eat healthy food, and it is not a reasonable ground to deny this based on the fact that we have a lot of fat kids...
we want them to eat apples, does that mean bananas are inferior?
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)

And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother, or even go to another home with straight parents. I have seen this on more than one occasion. These kids were much more healthy in gay parent homes than they were with their biological parents.

Your version of utopia is not even close to the real world. Denial of reality only changes it in your own mind.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8592 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
a claimed fundamental right...
yes, it is logical to discuss other rights when assessing if marriage is one...
abortion is a right that is not equal to all people, but rests only with a woman and denied to men based on their reproductive abilities...
this kinda cuts against what you claim is possible doesn't it?
Deflection and diversion.

You are conflating rights with abilities. As soon as men can become pregnant, they too will have the right to abortion under the same laws that apply to women today. Men are not prohibited from having an abortion, they simply as yet, never need one.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8593 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't give student loans to those who don't go to school...
By your logic you would say we want to harm the non students...but that's not even remotely true is it?
And how many of those kids are the kids of both spouses?
NONE?
SO there is no parents to encourage to stay together, the "parents" are already not together...
a rational distinguisher...
in the end, you are a non student whining that you don't get a federal student loan...
"students use theirs to buy a car, I need a car, so I should get the money too!"
Student loans are not a fundamental right.

Marriage is a fundamental right.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8594 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)
as do gays. But again, ALL other things being equal a mom and dad is best. Nothing you write speaks to that.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother,
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?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8595 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection and diversion.
You are conflating rights with abilities. As soon as men can become pregnant, they too will have the right
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...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, 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...

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Montpelier, 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

Montpelier, 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

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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:-)

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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!!!

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
U.S. Churches: Banning Same-Sex Marriage Has No... 3 min Rick in Kansas 1
Rabidly Anti-Gay Scott Lively Defends Bill Cosb... 3 min DNF 93
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 3 min Good Reverend 3,251
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 5 min WeTheSheeple 964
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Jonah1 14,994
Anti-gay hotel owners refuse to host another sa... 8 min Rainbow Kid 15
Lockheed Martin ends Boy Scouts gifts over gay ban (Dec '13) 15 min mjjcpa 157
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr DNF 29,663
Officer in gay pride parade incident speaks out 9 hr DNF 27
More from around the web