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

#10107 Jan 17, 2013
Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Church. "The Unitarian Universalist Association has a long-standing and deeply held religious commitment to support full equality for gay people. We dedicate ourselves to work for justice, grounded in faith, which calls us to support everyone's full humanity, everyone's ability to love, and everyone's value in the world.

Jullian Bond. "I see this as a civil rights issue. That means I support gay civil marriage."

“It is time to say forthrightly that the government’s exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families.”— Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)

Atlanta’s Rev. Joseph Lowery; activist and former Democratic presidential candidate Rev. Al Sharpton; Bayard Rustin, Barbara Jordan, and South African Bishop Demon Tutu, who won the Noble Peace Prize for his work against apartheid there, have all publicly supported marriage equality.

Andrew Young said about gay marriage: "I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace and that you judge not that you not be judged."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10108 Jan 17, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The doors you speak of were 'forced' open, and the children were not 'welcomed', but scorned for going through them. You are ridiculously ignorant on this subject, which is another reason you need to refrain from tying the two together. You don't know what you are talking about.
Exactly! Many people begrudged the equality of blacks, just as you begrudge equal treatment of gays and lesbians. Some will never learn from history.
Prove your orientation is 'biological'....you can't. The fact is 'environment' plays no part of your race, unlike your sexuality.
Actually, whether it is biological, environmental, or choice doesn't matter. We treat members of different religions equally under the law, despite that religion is 100% choice. We even give you equal rights, even though you choose to be a bigot.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10109 Jan 17, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
The doors you speak of were 'forced' open, and the children were not 'welcomed', but scorned for going through them. You are ridiculously ignorant on this subject, which is another reason you need to refrain from tying the two together. You don't know what you are talking about.
Prove your orientation is 'biological'....you can't. The fact is 'environment' plays no part of your race, unlike your sexuality.
Firstly, my response was a sarcastic response to your dismissal changes after Brown. I should have remembered that you social conservatives have a problem recognizing sarcasm,.

But the discussion was about forcing social and moral change upon the country. It occurred with the Brown and Loving rulings where those opposed to racial equality on moral grounds were forced to face a change against their desires. This was the stated reason by WaterBoarder opposes same-sex civil marriage equality. "The only reason for an objection to gay marriage is that it changes social and moral norms for society." (Post 10070)

So again I ask. Why was it okay for the nation to be forced to adjust to the changes associated with Brown and Loving that they should not be forced to face when dealing with same-sex marriage?

And to try to keep you on track, the question deals with being forced to face moral changes. Why were the courts justified to disregard the citizens' moral objections for Brown and Loving but that they must not do regarding moral objections to same-sex marriage?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#10110 Jan 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly! Many people begrudged the equality of blacks, just as you begrudge equal treatment of gays and lesbians. Some will never learn from history.
<quoted text>
Actually, whether it is biological, environmental, or choice doesn't matter. We treat members of different religions equally under the law, despite that religion is 100% choice. We even give you equal rights, even though you choose to be a bigot.
The sources of the maltreatment of African Americans came from the treatment and beliefs relied upon by slavery...gays have no such claim....

Actually, people of faith are in fact discriminated against every day. Just look at how the owner of Chick-fil-a was treated for speaking openly and honestly about his beliefs....

I'm not a bigot...I just don't agree with you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#10111 Jan 17, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, my response was a sarcastic response to your dismissal changes after Brown. I should have remembered that you social conservatives have a problem recognizing sarcasm,.
But the discussion was about forcing social and moral change upon the country. It occurred with the Brown and Loving rulings where those opposed to racial equality on moral grounds were forced to face a change against their desires. This was the stated reason by WaterBoarder opposes same-sex civil marriage equality. "The only reason for an objection to gay marriage is that it changes social and moral norms for society." (Post 10070)
How 'convenient' of you to put forth these certain cases as your argument for 'moral' change. One could argue that it was after President Lincoln signed the 'Emancipation Proclamation' that actually started this 'social change' you think you are apt at bringing up....you must still be joking though, right?????
So again I ask. Why was it okay for the nation to be forced to adjust to the changes associated with Brown and Loving that they should not be forced to face when dealing with same-sex marriage?
And to try to keep you on track, the question deals with being forced to face moral changes. Why were the courts justified to disregard the citizens' moral objections for Brown and Loving but that they must not do regarding moral objections to same-sex marriage?
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10112 Jan 17, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The sources of the maltreatment of African Americans came from the treatment and beliefs relied upon by slavery...gays have no such claim....
No, it is not the fact that blacks were once slaves that makes them victims in America today, a century-and-a-half after the last slave was freed. Instead, it was bigotry that allowed those in power to self-justify cruel treatment of fellow humans, just as Nazis discriminated against Jews, Gypsies, and gays.

Or do you think there has been no bigotry against Jews in our history? Perhaps you're one of those self-centered Christians who think that you are the one who is discriminated against, just because someone else won't follow your beliefs and prescriptions.
Actually, people of faith are in fact discriminated against every day. Just look at how the owner of Chick-fil-a was treated for speaking openly and honestly about his beliefs....
The law protects Chick-Fil-A and its owners' beliefs the same as every other business in America. Some politicians who should have known better made a threat to shut them down, which they had no authority to do. This engendered a huge backlash, which I am sure is still helping the profits of Chick-Fil-A. I'm not aware of any stores being closed, or any speech censored.
I'm not a bigot...I just don't agree with you.
But you think it's fine for the LAW to discriminate against a minority. And the reasons you give are clearly bigoted, not based on science or logic. Own it. At least skin heads are proud of their beliefs.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#10113 Jan 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is not the fact that blacks were once slaves that makes them victims in America today, a century-and-a-half after the last slave was freed. Instead, it was bigotry that allowed those in power to self-justify cruel treatment of fellow humans, just as Nazis discriminated against Jews, Gypsies, and gays.
Or do you think there has been no bigotry against Jews in our history?
But you digress....Nazis were never a part of the American government. Think you can stick to one country at a time? If you insist, I'll further inform you, you are no more linked with the suffering of Jews than with African Americans, so you can take gays out of your equation.
Perhaps you're one of those self-centered Christians who think that you are the one who is discriminated against, just because someone else won't follow your beliefs and prescriptions.
Are you trying to say that a person can be 'disagreed with' without 'discriminating' against the person they disagree with??? Hmmmm....interesting...

[QUOTE[ The law protects Chick-Fil-A and its owners' beliefs the same as every other business in America. Some politicians who should have known better made a threat to shut them down, which they had no authority to do. This engendered a huge backlash, which I am sure is still helping the profits of Chick-Fil-A. I'm not aware of any stores being closed, or any speech censored.[/QUOTE]

"No speech censored"?? Are you serious?? Do you think other companies that feel the same way are expressing those views after what happened to Chick-fil-a??? The intimidation tactics thrusted toward Chick-fil-a were a definitely to censor any opposition to the gay lobby.

Also, don't forget a man working at the FRC was shot. Do you deny that isn't a form of timidation to censor the opposition?
But you think it's fine for the LAW to discriminate against a minority. And the reasons you give are clearly bigoted, not based on science or logic. Own it. At least skin heads are proud of their beliefs.
Science says a man and a woman are the ying and yang. Not two men or two woman. You all are the ones that ignore science, especially when it comes to biology.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10114 Jan 17, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But you digress....Nazis were never a part of the American government. Think you can stick to one country at a time? If you insist, I'll further inform you, you are no more linked with the suffering of Jews than with African Americans, so you can take gays out of your equation.
So, would you like to claim that Jews have never been discriminated against in the USA? Interesting. Do you claim that discrimination in America has nothing in common with discrimination in the rest of the world? My you're a piece of work.

All discrimination is related.
Are you trying to say that a person can be 'disagreed with' without 'discriminating' against the person they disagree with??? Hmmmm....interesting...
Indeed. For instance, I do not particularly support the decision of some single women I know who chose to have babies. But I would never treat them or their children differently than anyone else.
"No speech censored"?? Are you serious?? Do you think other companies that feel the same way are expressing those views after what happened to Chick-fil-a??? The intimidation tactics thrusted toward Chick-fil-a were a definitely to censor any opposition to the gay lobby.
Oh please spare us the victim dance. If you'd paid any attention at all, you'd know that boycotts have been a tool commonly used by the anti-gay for decades. Apparently, it's only bad when people who disagree with you use economic tools at their disposal to make a point. As far as scaring anybody into silence, it didn't work very well for your side, and I don't think it's working very well for ours. In fact, if you take the Chick-a-Filet incident, you might conclude that being boycotted by the gay lobby is the best thing that could happen to your business. Kind of like having your book banned in Boston.
Also, don't forget a man working at the FRC was shot. Do you deny that isn't a form of timidation to censor the opposition?
I don't excuse any violence. But have you kept track of the violence against GLBT-friendly organizations? I guess we just don't have the victim dance down as well as you poor poor poor Christians, who constitute the majority of power in America.
Science says a man and a woman are the ying and yang. Not two men or two woman. You all are the ones that ignore science, especially when it comes to biology.
Honestly, I don't think science has ever made any comment about yin or yang. But perhaps "ying" is a new scientific concept that has arrived since I graduated from college. Do quarks now have yang and yang, too?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#10115 Jan 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
At worst, SCOTUS will help delay marriage equality in Califotnia for a few years more. Look at the history: In 2008, Prop 8 won by a margin similar to that in Maine in 2009. In 2012, Mainers had moved further along the equality path and approved marriage for same-sex couples. If Californians are forced to vote again, they will have had at least twice as long to reconsider their reasons bor denying rights to some that most take for granted. We have also had vastly more experience with same-sex coupledom.
I am quite hopeful that SCOTUS will enable all loving couples to marry in California sooner rather than later. But even if we lose the vote in SCOTUS, we will be back to win at the ballot.
Too bad for you.
This is true.

“True Love Sees No Color”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#10116 Jan 17, 2013
Gay marriage is an insult to children and life.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#10117 Jan 17, 2013
Brandi8 wrote:
Gay marriage is an insult to children and life.
Seeing as "GAY" marriage DOESN'T exist......it can neither insult children or life........and no one really cares about what you think anyways.......you're just a nasty azz bigot!!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10118 Jan 18, 2013
From the U.S. Holocaust Museum:
"Following Germany’s defeat, most Nazi-era laws were revoked, but the revisions to Paragraph 175 remained in effect. Under Allied occupation, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment regardless of time served in concentration camps. Homosexuals were specifically denied compensation as victims of National Socialism." http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/kits/detail...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10119 Jan 18, 2013
"Mmany municipalities launched police campaigns to suppress gay life. The authorities worked together to create or reinforce the belief that gay people were an inferior class to be shunned by other Americans. Sodomy laws that exclusively targeted same-sex couples, such as the statute enacted in 1973 in Texas (1973 TEX. GEN. LAWS ch. 399,§§ 1, 3), were a development of the last third of the twentieth century and reflect this historically unprecedented concern to classify and penalize homosexuals as a subordinate class of citizens." http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html


"The government campaign against lesbians and gay men was waged at the local level as well.“The labeling of homosexuals as moral perverts and national security risks, along with the repressive policies of the federal government, encouraged local police forces across the country to harass them with impunity.” D’EMILIO & FREEDMAN, INTIMATE MATTERS, 293. In the decade following World War II, the police departments of numerous cities stepped up their raids on bars and private parties attended by gay and lesbian persons, and made thousands of arrests for “disorderly conduct.”“Arrests were substantial in many cities. In the District of Columbia they topped 1,000 per year during the early 1950s; in Philadelphia, misdemeanor charges against lesbians and homosexuals averaged 100 per month.*** New York, New Orleans, Dallas, San Francisco and Baltimore were among the cities that witnessed sudden upsurges in police action against homosexuals and lesbians in the 1950s.” http://hnn.us/articles/1539.html

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10120 Jan 18, 2013
http://thetruthpursuit.com/society/society-bl...

Gay people were also singled out for arrest, imprisonment and torture with electric shock, castrateion, emetics, and lobotomies.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10121 Jan 18, 2013
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: "And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10123 May 20, 2013
Let's discuss how Obama's IRS quashed conservative political efforts by harassment and leaking confidential taxpayer information.

Read about it from the IG's own report here:
http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013r...
Twilight

Mobile, AL

#10124 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Let's discuss how Obama's IRS quashed conservative political efforts by harassment and leaking confidential taxpayer information.
Read about it from the IG's own report here:
http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013r...
That has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#10125 May 20, 2013
Twilight wrote:
<quoted text>
That has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
Nope. Moreover, the IRS does not belong to Obama and isn't an extension of the presidency. Maybe bonehead Brian should start a new thread.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10126 May 20, 2013
Twilight wrote:
That has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
Obama ran on marriage as one man and one woman in 2008. Then, he appointed people who the IG determined harassed political opponents and Romney supporters. The issue is what 'gay marriage' supporters do when they are in positions of power and how it affects the rest of us.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10127 May 20, 2013
Savant wrote:
Nope. Moreover, the IRS does not belong to Obama and isn't an extension of the presidency. Maybe bonehead Brian should start a new thread.
IRS employee Sarah Hall Ingram received $103,390 in bonus pay, The Washington Examiner reported yesterday. Ingram presided over the IRS tax exempt division that harassed conservative and Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status. ABC News is reporting today that Ingram has been promoted to the IRS office that will enforce the individual mandate “tax” part of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as ObamaCare.
...
“Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations.”...
http://www.examiner.com/article/ingram-bonus-...

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 min NoahLovesU 29,792
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 15 min GayleWood 3,935
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 20 min NorCal Native 57,834
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 24 min Frankie Rizzo 15,417
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 27 min EdmondWA 226
California GOP recognizes gay faction of party 29 min The New Righteous 1 4
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 33 min nhjeff 66
Transgender Bruce Jenner will be lesbian after ... 1 hr cpeter1313 113
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 2 hr Not Yet Equal 1,092
More from around the web