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.

Huh

Faribault, MN

#10216 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>When the left defines the argument, defamation and limits are the rule. Same sex marriage is about losing your business because a gay lobby doesn't like your opinion of same sex marriage.
Keeping marriage male/female means fewer frivolous law suits.
Follow rules and don't discriminate and don't be a hate filled bigot and your gonna be great and make money and no problem....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10217 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
When the left defines the argument, defamation and limits are the rule. Same sex marriage is about losing your business because a gay lobby doesn't like your opinion of same sex marriage.
Keeping marriage male/female means fewer frivolous law suits.
You only lose your business if you break the law by projecting your morality onto others, moron.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10218 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
All women are people and all people are equal before the law but men and women aren't equal, they differ.
Brian, are you an idiot?

A black man and a white man are different, yet they are entitled to equal protection of the law.
A man and a woman are different, yet they are entitled to equal protection of the law.
A Jew and a Christian are different, yet they are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry, or are you still a moron?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10219 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor.
Guess what, moron. When people break the law, they get sued, and lose.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10220 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
When the left defines the argument, defamation and limits are the rule.
It's not defamation when it's true. The limits are placed by the law, not "the left".
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is about losing your business because a gay lobby doesn't like your opinion of same sex marriage.
So now you think all businesses in addition to all Christians are above the law, Brian? Then who exactly does the law apply to in your world?
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage male/female means fewer frivolous law suits.
Lawsuits aren't frivolous if the plaintiff prevails, Brian; it means there was a valid legal issue at stake.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10221 Sep 23, 2013
Mental Midget wrote:
When the left defines the argument, defamation and limits are the rule.
Brian, the truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Mental Midget wrote:
Same sex marriage is about losing your business because a gay lobby doesn't like your opinion of same sex marriage.
Sorry, Brian, you have been utterly incapable of articulating how providing a service for a same sex wedding in any way violates the business owner's rights. This is due, in part because providing services to people you disagree with, doesn't violate the proprietor's rights, and a business is not an instrument to project one's political or religious views onto others. Were you not a dullard, you would understand this simple fact.
Mental Midget wrote:
Keeping marriage male/female means fewer frivolous law suits.
You've yet to show that the lawsuits are frivolous. Each of them that you have indicated have been filed in jurisdictions with anti-discrimination laws where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is banned. As such, the businesses in question have broken the law, and in the instances where the matter has proceeded to court, they have lost.

You are an idiot.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10222 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor.
Really? I haven't sued any of my neighbors. Nor have any of my neighbors sued me.(I can't say if they want to sue each other, but I haven't seen anything in the paper.) Nor have any of the same-sex couples I know sued or been sued.

Does it hurt to be so stupid, Brian?

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10223 Sep 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Really? I haven't sued any of my neighbors. Nor have any of my neighbors sued me.(I can't say if they want to sue each other, but I haven't seen anything in the paper.) Nor have any of the same-sex couples I know sued or been sued. Does it hurt to be so stupid, Brian?
After DOMA had been on the books for years, President Obama and Attorney General Holder decided in 2011 that DOMA was unconstitutional. And, while the Obama Administration enforced the measure, it failed to defend it. That's right - the Obama Administration made a determination on which federal laws it will defend - and which it will not.
http://aclj.org/traditional-marriage/jay-seku...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10224 Sep 23, 2013
Once DOMA had been declared unconstitutional by the courts, the Obama administration decided to accept the decision of the courts, and no longer defend an unconstitutional law. The president is not required to defend unconstitutional laws.

DOMA was always unconstitutional. It just took a lot of court time and documentation to demonstrate why.

Supreme Court: "The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10225 Sep 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>After DOMA had been on the books for years, President Obama and Attorney General Holder decided in 2011 that DOMA was unconstitutional. And, while the Obama Administration enforced the measure, it failed to defend it. That's right - the Obama Administration made a determination on which federal laws it will defend - and which it will not.
http://aclj.org/traditional-marriage/jay-seku...
Prosecutors use discretion every day. Just like anyone else who makes or enforces policies.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10226 Sep 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Prosecutors use discretion every day. Just like anyone else who makes or enforces policies.
He also continues to ignore it had been tried in the courts and found to be unconstitutional on more than one occasion by the time the Executive decided to no longer defend it. The Executive accepted the ruling of the courts.

The Supreme Court has now agreed, DOMA was unconstitutional when they wrote it.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10227 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Prosecutors use discretion every day. Just like anyone else who makes or enforces policies.
Thanks for admitting, the President changed the law at discretion by not defending DOMA, enforcing court orders contrary to the law from Congress and prior presidential enactment. Exempting Congress and their staff from Obamacare when previous law made them subject to the law just like the people. Just like choosing to prosecute Christians who decline to participate in same sex weddings.

Down with anti-freedom militancy; same sex marriage is as extreme as the Westboro Baptist Church or any fanatic.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10228 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for admitting, the President changed the law at discretion by not defending DOMA
One doesn't "change" a law by not enforcing it. There are lots of a laws on the books at every level of government that are no longer enforced.
Brian_G wrote:
enforcing court orders contrary to the law from Congress
SCOTUS declared the law unconstitutional, Brian. That makes the law void.
Brian_G wrote:
and prior presidential enactment.
Current Presidents aren't bound by the executive orders of prior Presidents.
Brian_G wrote:
Exempting Congress and their staff from Obamacare when previous law made them subject to the law just like the people.
I don't disagree with that but it's no different than the exemptions from compliance that Congress routinely builds into the laws they pass and expect everyone else to follow.
Brian_G wrote:
Just like choosing to prosecute Christians who decline to participate in same sex weddings.
There's also a difference between not enforcing a law and ignoring a complaint filed by one citizen against another.
Brian_G wrote:
Down with anti-freedom militancy; same sex marriage is as extreme as the Westboro Baptist Church or any fanatic.
Down with stupid, uneducated people like you whose existence is a waste of the planet's oxygen.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10229 Sep 24, 2013
Of course, one changes law with selective enforcement; Obama's pension enforcement makes every state recognize same sex marriage. That's why it changes the law, that's contrary to all written law.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10230 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for admitting, the President changed the law at discretion by not defending DOMA, enforcing court orders contrary to the law from Congress and prior presidential enactment. Exempting Congress and their staff from Obamacare when previous law made them subject to the law just like the people. Just like choosing to prosecute Christians who decline to participate in same sex weddings.
Down with anti-freedom militancy; same sex marriage is as extreme as the Westboro Baptist Church or any fanatic.
Brian, everything you just wrote is wrong. The President did not change the law: The courts did. The President continued to enforce DOMA until it was definitively struck by SCOTUS.[Obamacare has nothing to do with the law at hand, but Congressional staffs are not exempt. They have to buy their coverage on the exchanges, rather than the system that other federal employees use.] The federal justice department has not prosecuted anyone for refusing to provide services to same-sex couples.

Down with militant lying bigots, like Brian.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10231 Sep 24, 2013
One of the funniest aspects of rants like Brian's is that Holder's refusal to defend DOMA left us all in limbo. As long as Holder didn't appeal, each case was decided individually.

We all owe a great big thank you to Boehner and BLAG for pushing the case to SCOTUS. Thanks to BLAG's intervention, DOMA has been definitively stuck in all 50 states, DC, and various territories and protectorates.

Obama was trying to do you homophobes a favor by not appealing the lower courts' DOMA decisions.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10232 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Of course, one changes law with selective enforcement; Obama's pension enforcement makes every state recognize same sex marriage. That's why it changes the law, that's contrary to all written law.
Wrong again, Brian. The federal acknowledgement of same sex marriage and extension of federal benefits has no impact upon individual states.

Grow up.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10233 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for admitting, the President changed the law at discretion by not defending DOMA, enforcing court orders contrary to the law from Congress and prior presidential enactment. Exempting Congress and their staff from Obamacare when previous law made them subject to the law just like the people. Just like choosing to prosecute Christians who decline to participate in same sex weddings.
Down with anti-freedom militancy; same sex marriage is as extreme as the Westboro Baptist Church or any fanatic.
The President did his job by upholding the Constitution rather than defending that which was blatantly unconstitutional.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10234 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Of course, one changes law with selective enforcement; Obama's pension enforcement makes every state recognize same sex marriage. That's why it changes the law, that's contrary to all written law.
Every state needs to recognize same sex marriage. That's what equal protection and due process requires.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10235 Sep 24, 2013
31 States have laws that defend marriage as one man and one woman; Obama's actions enforcing same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

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 Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 48 min Rose_NoHo 59
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 15,942
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 1 hr Fa-Foxy 469
News Trump donates $100k to anti-LGBT Pastor 2 hr The Boss 8
News Women and the LGBT Community Are Natural Allies 2 hr Fa-Foxy 2
A question for NE Jade 2 hr Gryph 3
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 2 hr Skippy 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Nigel 38,779
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 3 hr Rainbow Kid 199
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,966
More from around the web