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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8631 Dec 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, the above describes a union of male/female required for procreation.
This is why I protect husband/wife marriage; homosexuals don't understand human nature.
You really are dense........just because sperm is a required element in creating life, it doesn't mean that a union between a man and woman is required to mix........and somehow you keep insisting that a physical act MUST take place and it doesn't.

In fact with Stem Cell research, 2 Lesbians won't require ANY PHYSICAL SPERM FROM A MAN in order to create life.......see, marriage doesn't have to remain just between a man and a woman unless the couple happen to be heterosexual!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8632 Dec 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Many secular extremists have beliefs about science that are as faith based and superstitious as any religious extremists. See NorCal's post above for proof.
And why should it matter to you or any faith based religious extremists how a child is conceived? It's none of your damn business!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8633 Dec 7, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Right, the above describes a union of male/female required for procreation.
This is why I protect husband/wife marriage; homosexuals don't understand human nature.
To simplify:

male/female = procreation = marriage

But here's the problems (once again): there is a whole lot of procreating going on with no marriage even considered. There are a whole lot of marriages going on (the male/female type per your standard) with absolutely no procreating either by choice or because of some inability. And since procreation's result is a child, and same-couples do in fact have children (every way these couples have children is utilized by these male/female couples you seek to elevate in the law) then marriage should be open to same-sex couples.

So if:

procreation = children

then

children = marriage

and if

male/male = children and female/female = children

then it must follow

male/male = marriage and female/female = marriage

QED
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8634 Dec 7, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write 'SOLELY', that's F.F.'s word, not mine. Even where same sex marriage is legal, male/female marriage is still recognized.
No written same sex marriage law existed before the 21st Century. Same sex marriage is fin de siecle folly.
Brian, please stop trying to look educated. You suck at it.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8635 Dec 7, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
homosexuals don't understand human nature.
Seriously, Brian?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8636 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, the appellate courts have upheld marriage equality.
no they haven't, they have upheld state's rights and that you cannot give right and then take them away..
you can resolve both prop 8 and DOMA without even using the word gay!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8637 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Old decisions like the now moot Hernandez, and 40 year old Baker, but more recent court decisions including two at the appellate court level have affirmed there is no legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment, in violation of the 5th amendment to the constitution.
show me where....

they have not....
you WISH they did...

"Under such a rational basis standard, the Gill plaintiffs cannot prevail. "

"The federal defendants conceded that rational basis review leaves DOMA intact but now urge this court to employ the so-called intermediate scrutiny test used by Supreme Court for gender discrimination."

the court declined to do so and ruled that federalism tipped the scales...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8638 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And 40 years later, this reasoning has been refuted by subsequent decisions, including Turner, Zablonki, Romer, Lawrence, Perry, and others..
"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. "

Nope. And this is an important point, in loving, that is was a race based statute made it per se unconstitutional. Yet this quote shows this is NOT TRUE of gays...why do YOU think that is..
I know you will say "prejudice" but why do you REALLY think that is?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8639 Dec 7, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, please stop trying to look educated. You suck at it.
and here's another great "contribution" by Mona.

Can you believe this dude claims to not be a bullying troll?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8640 Dec 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they do, unless the state has a compelling reason to not allow such a union which has failed every time.
What a dope!
1) There is no fundamental right to marry your own sex
2) "Failed every time"? Really?
3) Here is a compelling reason in CA:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8641 Dec 7, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
Now please explain what relevance any Bible passage has to our Constitutional Law.
1) Did I say it did in my post?
2) Do a little research on the Bible and its history in our law. It's influence is undeniable.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8642 Dec 7, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? Marriage has NOT always been just between 1 man and 1 woman, it's only been that way for roughly the last 500 hundred years.......before that, it was pretty much arranged and the woman DIDN'T even have a say in it!!!
As for your bible scripture.......please understand that I don't give a damn about your mythical book.......it has no bearing on anything and I seriously doubt you follow the scriptures word for word!!!
I said it was always between opposite sexes. You bring in "1 man and 1 woman" and they arranged marriages? This is why I claimed earlier you are irrational and a bit hysterical. I don't need to comment on your imagination.

Thanks for sharing your views on my "mythical book" but I will post what I post.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8643 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
To simplify:
male/female = procreation = marriage
But here's the problems (once again): there is a whole lot of procreating going on with no marriage even considered. There are a whole lot of marriages going on (the male/female type per your standard) with absolutely no procreating either by choice or because of some inability. And since procreation's result is a child, and same-couples do in fact have children (every way these couples have children is utilized by these male/female couples you seek to elevate in the law) then marriage should be open to same-sex couples.
So if:
procreation = children
then
children = marriage
and if
male/male = children and female/female = children
then it must follow
male/male = marriage and female/female = marriage
QED
Let's try this:

if male/male = marriage = perversion "normalized" in society = teaching pro-gay propaganda in public schools then...

we must fight against it!!!

Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8644 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Did I say it did in my post?
2) Do a little research on the Bible and its history in our law. It's influence is undeniable.
Yeah, right. Especially the part about separation of church & State. And "god" or "the Buybull" are mentioned how many times?.... ZERO.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8645 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this:
if male/male = marriage = perversion "normalized" in society = teaching pro-gay propaganda in public schools then...
we must fight against it!!!
We must fight against uneducated idiots bereft of ANY logic.

But please.... keep whining. It serves as proof of religious animus.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8646 Dec 7, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, right. Especially the part about separation of church & State. And "god" or "the Buybull" are mentioned how many times?.... ZERO.
on our money, in the pledge, in every state of the union address since the beginning of time??

the influences are UNDENIABLE to any rational person...
I guess that explains it...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8647 Dec 7, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>We must fight against uneducated idiots bereft of ANY logic.
But please.... keep whining. It serves as proof of religious animus.
Another "great" substantive post by Mona..
does he get that his posts then prove animus by gays against the religious?
consistency?

Is anyone else tired of seeing him bully?

I mean you guys pay a lot of lop service towards dealing with bullies, but not when they are in your ranks I guess...
consistency is not your virtue...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8648 Dec 7, 2012
* lip

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8649 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There is no fundamental right to marry your own sex
2) "Failed every time"? Really?
3) Here is a compelling reason in CA:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.
However, 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples are still legally married TODAY in spite of those words in Section 7.5 of the California Constitution and those marriages are as valid and as recognized as they were 4 years ago, before the passage of Prop 8:-)

Read Strauss vs Horton(May 2009)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8650 Dec 7, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it was always between opposite sexes. You bring in "1 man and 1 woman" and they arranged marriages? This is why I claimed earlier you are irrational and a bit hysterical. I don't need to comment on your imagination.
Thanks for sharing your views on my "mythical book" but I will post what I post.
And I will continue to point out how wrong you are about the compelling State interest you claim California has to not allow Same-Sex Couples the right to marry!!!

See, my wife and I legally got married 4 1/2 years ago in our home state of California......and guess what, our marriage is as VALID, LEGAL AND RECOGNIZED today as it was before the passage of Prop 8......so, all you have done is post what you believe is the way things are, but Prop 8 was only applied proactively....not retroactive and therefore in spite of the wording in Section 7.5........those 18,000 legally married Same-Sex Couples, remain intact!!!

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 Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 10 min pcloadletter 1,875
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... (Sep '15) 25 min Lucifer 1,066
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 30 min Nah 11,704
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 38 min Demon Finder 39
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 41 min Demon Finder 4,188
News CDC: Southerners' 'Racism' And 'Homophobia' Cau... 45 min Three Rounds 31
News North Carolina speaker: On LGBT, Charlotte must... 49 min Ex Senator Santpo... 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr GayleWood 36,000
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 2 hr An NFL Fan 829
More from around the web