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.

Read more
billy

Salisbury, MD

#10130 Sep 10, 2013
civil unions are fine, call it what you like. Its not marriage. Sodomy is not legal in Md, so consummating is illegal act. Gays are pissed because society does not approve, using this to push and promote gay life style. I could care less about your sexual acts. You are NOT married unless you are opposite sex. Can not change this in history. Get over it.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10131 Sep 10, 2013
billy wrote:
civil unions are fine, call it what you like. Its not marriage. Sodomy is not legal in Md, so consummating is illegal act. Gays are pissed because society does not approve, using this to push and promote gay life style. I could care less about your sexual acts. You are NOT married unless you are opposite sex. Can not change this in history. Get over it.
You really need to get out of your parents' basement more often.

On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court struck down ALL state laws banning sodomy in all it's forms. Lawrence v. Texas. The sky did not fall.

Civil marriage for same-sex couples became legal in Maryland starting Jan 1, 2013, a little more than 8 month's ago. The sky did not fall.

On Jun 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that those same-sex couples legally married in the states that allow the practice are MARRIED as far as the government is concerned. Again, the sky did not fall.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10132 Sep 10, 2013
billy wrote:
civil unions are fine, call it what you like. Its not marriage. Sodomy is not legal in Md, so consummating is illegal act. Gays are pissed because society does not approve, using this to push and promote gay life style. I could care less about your sexual acts. You are NOT married unless you are opposite sex. Can not change this in history. Get over it.
Wrong.

Sodomy between consenting adults is legal in all 50 states, and has been for a decade now.(Lawrence v Texas)

Marriage between same sex couples is now recognized by 14 states and in all states by the federal government, as well as in 14 other countries and other jurisdictions. Gay couples have also been getting married throughout history at various times and places dating back to the caves. Get over it.
THE NEGRO

Chicago, IL

#10133 Sep 10, 2013
May God Almighty have mercy on your souls. My Lord, Jesus Christ, I pray.
Mr Mango

Mclean, VA

#10134 Sep 10, 2013
HALLANEJA

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10135 Sep 11, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
You really need to get out of your parents' basement more often. On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court struck down ALL state laws banning sodomy in all it's forms. Lawrence v. Texas. The sky did not fall. Civil marriage for same-sex couples became legal in Maryland starting Jan 1, 2013, a little more than 8 month's ago. The sky did not fall. On Jun 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that those same-sex couples legally married in the states that allow the practice are MARRIED as far as the government is concerned. Again, the sky did not fall.
Then, Russian gays were targeted with anti-speech laws and Christian wedding vendors in Washington, Oregon and New Mexico were targeted for litigation. Same sex marriage creates more problem than it solves.

Same sex marriage advocates aren't moderates; those who want to keep law as is are moderates. Those that advocate radically redefining a fundamental social institution or advocating criminalizing same sex behavior are radicals. The extremists are all on the left.

That's why the average person believes in marriage as male/female like it was for mom and dad but the press and liberal politicians believe in this radical change in marriage.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10136 Sep 11, 2013
billy wrote:
civil unions are fine, call it what you like. Its not marriage. Sodomy is not legal in Md, so consummating is illegal act. G....
There are no laws against gay folks having sex in MD, Silly One. But by definition, Sodomy is any person of any orientation or gender having oral or anal sex.

Look it up.

If you were right, that would mean that pretty much everyone in the state is committing illegal acts.

Geesh.

Google is your friend - USE IT.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10137 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Then, Russian gays were targeted with anti-speech laws and Christian wedding vendors in Washington, Oregon and New Mexico were targeted for litigation. Same sex marriage creates more problem than it solves.
...
Only for law-breakers.

Don't break the law while running your business, and you aren't as likely to be sued. It's pretty simple.

You don't believe in the rule of law?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10138 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.....
That's why the average person believes in marriage as male/female like it was for mom and dad but the press and liberal politicians believe in this radical change in marriage.
You don't get out much, do you?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10139 Sep 12, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters sue Christian vendors who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies, then justify it by calling them lawbreakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10140 Sep 12, 2013
Public accommodations are widely recognized as a civil right by law.

Equal treatment in public accommodations laws resulted from segregation and apartheid.

We know discrimination causes harm, while treating others as you would yourself does not. While you are free to discriminate against anyone for any reason in your home, church, and private club, there is no excuse for discrimination in the public square.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10141 Sep 13, 2013
Men and women aren't the same; gender equality doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The ERA failed, the states didn't ratify because the majority don't want same sex marriage or a government with the power to ignore gender and treat citizens as if unisex.

It's perfectly constitutional to register 18 year old men for Selective Service but not 18 year old women. It's perfectly Constitutional for states to apply the standard of one man and one woman to marriage.

Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. See the examples of Christians forced to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies because of PC hate laws.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10142 Sep 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters sue Christian vendors who refuse to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies, then justify it by calling them lawbreakers. If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage one man and one woman.
What do you call people who break the law, Brian? Besides "Christian", that is?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10143 Sep 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Men and women aren't the same; gender equality doesn't exist in the US Constitution. The ERA failed, the states didn't ratify because the majority don't want same sex marriage or a government with the power to ignore gender and treat citizens as if unisex.
And yet sex has been ruled a quasi-suspect class by SCOTUS under equal protection constitutional law and laws classifying based on sex are subject to intermediate judicial scrutiny.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly constitutional to register 18 year old men for Selective Service but not 18 year old women.
That's because that particular law passes intermediate scrutiny and is therefore constitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly Constitutional for states to apply the standard of one man and one woman to marriage.
No it's not. Besides, the issue is sexual orientation discrimination, not sex discrimination per se.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. See the examples of Christians forced to participate in same sex wedding ceremonies because of PC hate laws.
The laws you erroneously label "hate laws" are actually anti-discirmination laws that also protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, veterans status, handicapped status and sometimes sexual orientation. So you're saying it's perfectly OK for Christians to discriminate against blacks, Chinese, women, Jews, military veterans and the handicapped in addition to gays. In Brian's view, Christians are above the law and apparently, as a group, the biggest bigots on planet earth.

“What do the stars say......”

Since: May 11

...explore outside the milkway

#10144 Sep 14, 2013
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.

Go get united by someone who is not Christian, like the justice of peace.

If Christians are being forced to participate in same sex ceremonies then Christians would not be allowed to freely practice their own religion. Most Christians don't believe that two people of the same gender should be together whether it be sexually or marriage, they believe that it should one man for one woman. So why should they be forced to break their beliefs.

“What do the stars say......”

Since: May 11

...explore outside the milkway

#10145 Sep 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws you erroneously label "hate laws" are actually anti-discirmination laws that also protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, veterans status, handicapped status and sometimes sexual orientation. So you're saying it's perfectly OK for Christians to discriminate against blacks, Chinese, women, Jews, military veterans and the handicapped in addition to gays. In Brian's view, Christians are above the law and apparently, as a group, the biggest bigots on planet earth.
This statement is ridiculous.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10146 Sep 14, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement is ridiculous.
Labeling it "ridiculous" just demonstrates your general ignorance of the law.

If you think Christians should be able to refuse to provide business services to gays in violation of anti-discrimination laws, then it's not much of a stretch to argue they can refuse services to black, Jews or any other group and claim protected "religious beliefs" as justification. After all, many Christians did just that to justify both slavery and segregation.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#10147 Sep 15, 2013
The issue isn't slavery and the segragationists all support same sex marriage. Same sex marriage brings a new standard that destroys marriage's perfect affirmative action 1:1 diversity and gender integration in favor of gender segregation. We oppose segregation even when voluntary.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10148 Sep 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
... We oppose segregation even when voluntary.
And your opinions are simply leaves blowing in the wind, since gay folks legally marry in MD.

You must be a blast at parties, when you re-arrange your guests because you don't like them sitting and chatting with people of their own choice. Do you also support open marriages, since you don't feel that people should "segregate" themselves into couples?

Should family bonds be split as well, since you don't want people segregating themselves into solitary family units? How does one go about preventing people form voluntarily segregating themselves into couples, groups, religions, communities, or families?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10149 Sep 15, 2013
Carmiana wrote:
Any gay who would sue a Christian for not participating in same sex marriage ceremonies is going against the amendment that states that it is your freedom to openly practice your own religion.
....
So, it is okay to break the law and refuse service to the public - any part of the public - as long as you believe your religion allows it?

If you were part of some minority group that was disliked, how many stores and businesses would you be willing to be refused service at, before you complained and fought back? How much humiliation would you accept?

"Nope, we don't serve YOUR kind, here. Move along."

Perhaps you would like each store or business to post the types of people they are willing to serve, right on their doors, to prevent such "misunderstandings".

You know, like the old "whites only" signs, or "Men only", or perhaps "No Chinese". Those worked well in the past, didn't they?

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 Indiana officials look to stem religious object... 2 min 10 commandments 29
News Indiana officials look to stem religious object... 7 min Robin Hood 4
News Trial begins in Philippines of US Marine charge... 17 min Don the American 42
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 20 min Wondering 1,586
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 25 min Mr_SKY 58,776
News Judge fines Washington florist over same-sex we... 27 min Wondering 10
News Christian group asks Victorian government for r... 38 min Robin Hood 3
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Belle Sexton 30,846
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Joy Division 17,703
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,215
More from around the web