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.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8657 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.
What a dufus you are. The Ten Commandments are the core of the Biblical ethical system, yet only two, murder and theft are codified. I would hardly call that an influence would you?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8658 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and they decided baker afterwards...
in which they specifically affirm the rationale that gays are not included.
and again, see how the non marriage cases do not effect the marriage analysis as they did in loving with the overturn of all race based statutes, again, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Again, Baker was decided at a time when the law not only allowed, but required punishment for being gay. Those laws have since that time been declared unconstitutional. We'll have to see if an how they address Baker this time around, now that subsequent decisions have said your prejudice is no longer a valid excuse to harm gay people for no legitimate reason.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8659 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Baker was decided at a time when the law not only allowed, but required punishment for being gay. Those laws have since that time been declared unconstitutional. We'll have to see if an how they address Baker this time around,
I know how one court looked at it:

"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. "

and as I asked and you continue to ignore, why do you think that is?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8660 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how one court looked at it:
"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. "
and as I asked and you continue to ignore, why do you think that is?
I told you. They haven't yet held hearings on marriage equality.

Courts can only rule on the issue before them, and it hasn't been heard by the Supreme court yet.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8661 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
<quoted text>
yup, what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?
<quoted text>
who said it did?
the constitution protects us from govt, not the govt from us, so you confuse how that works at the very basic level...
Since I was responding to your notion that god was part of the U.S.'since the beginning of time' in the pledge, on money etc, I merely pointed out the actual facts.

But to answer the question you now raise: "what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?" I would say that those with a particular religious belief are using the government to enact laws contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the country. Belief in a singular god, while widely held as true, is not universally held as true. I do not believe the government has the right ("Congress shall make NO law...") to tell me that there IS a god, and that there is only ONE god and to enact laws based upon religious dogma.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8662 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I was responding to your notion that god was part of the U.S.'since the beginning of time' in the pledge, on money etc, I merely pointed out the actual facts.
But to answer the question you now raise: "what does that say about th einfluence of religion on the govt?" I would say that those with a particular religious belief are using the government to enact laws contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the country. Belief in a singular god, while widely held as true, is not universally held as true. I do not believe the government has the right ("Congress shall make NO law...") to tell me that there IS a god, and that there is only ONE god and to enact laws based upon religious dogma.
Agreed.

It also confirms the fears of the founders about religion controlling the government were based on the facts of history. They knew religious factions would try to impose their religious beliefs on and into the government. They tried to prevent that, but were not entirely successful, as the pledge, money, laws based entirely on religious beliefs of some groups at the expense of others, etc, demonstrate.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8663 Dec 7, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the addition of god to the pledge happened in 1954.
In god we trust was added to our coins in 1864 but was not made the official motto until 1956.
Oh just in time for McCarthyism. What a wonderful pedigree!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8664 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Mona just takes cheap shots. He always has. No worries. The only harm is the boredom from it.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8665 Dec 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that amendment was added after the Ca. Supreme Court said the Ca. Constitution required marriage equality. A popular vote was used to deny equal treatment, and that addition has been found to violate the federal constitution, was affirmed by the appellate court, and waiting review by the Supreme Court.
Hmmm...all true. Yet another way to tell events is more like this:

-Prop 22 passed by a majority vote.

-The CA Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional "legalizing" gay marriage in the state.

-The court was asked to stay that ruling until after an election just months away. Prop 8 was on the ballot. They declined thereby setting up a precarious situation of the Prop 8 passed. No one thought it would.

-Prop 8 passed by a majority vote placing the precise language of Prop 22 into the Constitution and out of the reach of judicial "interpretation".

-Gay activists brought the Perry case to a gay federal judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional at the federal level. It was no accident the case was taken up in that district.

-The uber liberal 9th circuit upheld the gay judges ruling (no surprise).

-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.

With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.

In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.

Am I wrong?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8666 Dec 7, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That law violates one's fundamental rights without any compelling reason to do so.
NEXT
No one has the fundamental right to marry their own sex. That is just nonsense.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8667 Dec 7, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dufus you are. The Ten Commandments are the core of the Biblical ethical system, yet only two, murder and theft are codified. I would hardly call that an influence would you?
Well first of all I am very disappointed in you Lulu! Resorting to name calling is beneath you. Where is the love and tolerance? Shame on you.

And second, you clearly have no desire to learn about legal history. Take 5 minutes on Google. Or try taking a trip to Washington DC. Scripture is inscribed in the walls of the buildings and monuments.

I am sure you know about Moses holding the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court building.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8668 Dec 7, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh just in time for McCarthyism. What a wonderful pedigree!
Communist!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8669 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.
With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.
In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.
Am I wrong?
Nope, you're not wrong about the voting to repeal Prop 8 IF and that's a big IF SCOTUS should rule it Constitutional, BUT I believe that SCOTUS is specifically looking at the Prop 8 case with regards to the Article 3 Standing issue and if they rule that the proponents of Prop 8 did not have standing, then they will more than likely overturn the 9th's ruling and uphold Judge Walker's ruling, but I'm pretty certain that there will be PLENTY of speculation on how SCOTUS will rule between now and June of 2013.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8670 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...all true. Yet another way to tell events is more like this:
-Prop 22 passed by a majority vote.
-The CA Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional "legalizing" gay marriage in the state.
-The court was asked to stay that ruling until after an election just months away. Prop 8 was on the ballot. They declined thereby setting up a precarious situation of the Prop 8 passed. No one thought it would.
-Prop 8 passed by a majority vote placing the precise language of Prop 22 into the Constitution and out of the reach of judicial "interpretation".
-Gay activists brought the Perry case to a gay federal judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional at the federal level. It was no accident the case was taken up in that district.
-The uber liberal 9th circuit upheld the gay judges ruling (no surprise).
-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.
With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.
In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.
Am I wrong?
You are right. Prop 8 has a short half-life. It might be 1 year. It might be three years. But it is going away by the end of President Obama's second term.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8671 Dec 8, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you're not wrong about the voting to repeal Prop 8 IF and that's a big IF SCOTUS should rule it Constitutional, BUT I believe that SCOTUS is specifically looking at the Prop 8 case with regards to the Article 3 Standing issue and if they rule that the proponents of Prop 8 did not have standing, then they will more than likely overturn the 9th's ruling and uphold Judge Walker's ruling, but I'm pretty certain that there will be PLENTY of speculation on how SCOTUS will rule between now and June of 2013.
Yes, there is plenty of speculation, and I may not be qualified to speculate. Then again, we have the brightest legal minds in the country at AFER certain that our side will win both cases, and we have NOM and their side absolutely certain that their side will win both cases. So it seems like my unqualified opinion might be just as good as anyone's.

What I worry is that these two cases were taken as a means to expand state's rights. From that view, SCOTUS might very well rule that CA citizens have the right to define their constitution withot interference from the federal government. They might simultaneously rule that the right of states to define marriage binds the federal government--or not.

Personally, I don't think the majority of SCOTUS will be impressed by the Romer precedent. Romer was overturned because it was too broad, taking away the right of a minority to even request rights and protections from the state. Whereas Prop 8 took away specifically the right to marriage but left GLBT's free to (successfully) pursue substantially all the rights and benefits thereof, the parallel is weak.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8672 Dec 8, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm...all true. Yet another way to tell events is more like this:
-Prop 22 passed by a majority vote.
-The CA Supreme court ruled it unconstitutional "legalizing" gay marriage in the state.
-The court was asked to stay that ruling until after an election just months away. Prop 8 was on the ballot. They declined thereby setting up a precarious situation of the Prop 8 passed. No one thought it would.
-Prop 8 passed by a majority vote placing the precise language of Prop 22 into the Constitution and out of the reach of judicial "interpretation".
-Gay activists brought the Perry case to a gay federal judge who ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional at the federal level. It was no accident the case was taken up in that district.
-The uber liberal 9th circuit upheld the gay judges ruling (no surprise).
-Now the SCOTUS will hear the appeal.
With all that said, do you really think the SCOTUS will allow the Constitutional process in a state to be over-ruled by the legal wranglings of gay activists? I don't think they will. A lot is said about shifting public opinion but at the end of the day would the court not see this as a state's rights vs feds issue? Marriage laws are defined at the state level. Always have been.
In any case, I must admit it really doesn't matter. If Prop 8 is upheld it will simply be voted on again every two years until its repealed.
Am I wrong?
The reason it was before the 9th was that it occurred in California, the jurisdiction of the 9th. They had no where else to go.

But the rest is essentially factual. Yet do you really want equal fundamental rights to be dependant on popular opinion? When you are the majority, it may be easy to say yes. If you were the minority, you might be better able to understand equal rights of a minority should never depend on popular opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8673 Dec 8, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there is plenty of speculation, and I may not be qualified to speculate. Then again, we have the brightest legal minds in the country at AFER certain that our side will win both cases, and we have NOM and their side absolutely certain that their side will win both cases. So it seems like my unqualified opinion might be just as good as anyone's.
What I worry is that these two cases were taken as a means to expand state's rights. From that view, SCOTUS might very well rule that CA citizens have the right to define their constitution withot interference from the federal government. They might simultaneously rule that the right of states to define marriage binds the federal government--or not.
Personally, I don't think the majority of SCOTUS will be impressed by the Romer precedent. Romer was overturned because it was too broad, taking away the right of a minority to even request rights and protections from the state. Whereas Prop 8 took away specifically the right to marriage but left GLBT's free to (successfully) pursue substantially all the rights and benefits thereof, the parallel is weak.
As I stated to We The Sheeple and have been saying for the last 4 years.......Prop 8 will NOT be upheld by SCOTUS because of the simple fact that there are 18,000 still legally married Same-Sex Couples, whose marriages remained legal, valid and recognized in spite of the passage of Prop 8......and to simply tell other Same-Sex Couples that they were to late because they didn't marry before the passage of Prop 8......would be a clear violation of their Due Process and Equal Protection.

I also believe that had the CSSC not been wishy-washy between the re Marriage ruling in May of 2008 and the Strauss vs Horton ruling in May of 2009.......this matter would have already been resolved.

I do believe that SCOTUS has ruled in the past on the rights of individual Americans and I don't really see this changing........and if it does, well then everything I believe and have fought for would mean that this Country doesn't care about our Constitution any more and that would be incredibly sad!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8674 Dec 8, 2012
There is no fundamental right to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8675 Dec 8, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There is no fundamental right to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.
Then it's a good thing that Marriage isn't be redefined......all it is doing is being INCLUSIVE instead of EXCLUSIVE!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8676 Dec 8, 2012
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. Until the 21st Century, all written laws defined marriage as gender diverse.

You're mom and dad were inclusive when you were conceived, those unique relationships always exclude same sex couples. Don't blame others for natural law.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; just the opposite. The Constitution gives us all personal freedom but nobody; not even a state has the right to define marriage as two men or two women.

Things will get interesting when the US Supreme Court hears same sex marriage cases.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 61,733
News Two Texas Men Who Used Grindr To Assault, Rob G... 2 hr judy 5
News Giant gay-friendly church welcomed into United ... (Nov '06) 2 hr judy 1,284
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 3 hr Bouncy House 28,127
News State investigation reveals discrimination at O... 4 hr Joseph DeDominicis 7
News Virginia hardware store fires employee accused ... 6 hr whiney beech 19
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 6 hr Munchkin 48