Good gay-marriage ballot language in Maryland

Of the four states where the freedom to marry will be on the ballot, Maryland is seen as the most promising .

[WeTheSheeple]

What?

I'd say the most promising of the 4 would be either Maine or Washington.

The large black population in Maryland will make any referendum vote there an uphill climb.

[WeTheSheeple]

I haven't seen any recent polling from Maryland, but the last polls in Maine show 55% & 57% support for marriage equality.

Granted, polls on this issue are notoriously inaccurate, and I won't feel comfortable predicting a victory based on the polling data until they consistently show 60%+ support, but all the same I'd like to see some polling data from Maryland just for comparison.

[snyper]

The downside is that it creates "law respecting an establishment of religion", even if it is just clarifying a pre-existing, Constitutionally-protected exemption.

Such Legislative statements violate the 1st Amendment.

[KittenKoder]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

What?
I'd say the most promising of the 4 would be either Maine or Washington.
The large black population in Maryland will make any referendum vote there an uphill climb.

Actually, many of the black Americans are siding for equality on this issue, don't let some of the louder obnoxious bigots fool you. The entire parallel between black and gay civil rights was drawn by black people.

[WeTheSheeple]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, many of the black Americans are siding for equality on this issue, don't let some of the louder obnoxious bigots fool you. The entire parallel between black and gay civil rights was drawn by black people.

Oh they're coming around slowly, as evidenced by the NAACP leadership support, but by & large the majority of blacks are still opposed to marriage for same-sex couples, mostly because they're much more likely to be ultra-conservative in their religious views.

It's gonna be an uphill climb, but with any luck we'll get there.

[206voter]

Most people ive talked to dont care what happens in the vote. I start asking basic questions and find out most are against it. They just dont feel like dealing with all the drama queen bs.

[WeTheSheeple]

206voter wrote:

Most people ive talked to dont care what happens in the vote. I start asking basic questions and find out most are against it. They just dont feel like dealing with all the drama queen bs.

It doesn't matter how may people you talk to in California; the people of Maryland will decide in Nov.

[206voter]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how may people you talk to in California; the people of Maryland will decide in Nov.

Dont assume im in california because im not. i live in washington. My point is that most people are against gay marriage. Not against gay rights. Marriage is something different than what two men or two wemen can create. You would have to redefine the term. Also you would have to assume polygamy is ok as well. Marriage is sacred. A man and woman. Dont try to mess it up. You can have something similar with similar rights and call it something else. Then people wont have a problem with it.

[WeTheSheeple]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
Dont assume im in california because im not. i live in washington. My point is that most people are against gay marriage. Not against gay rights. Marriage is something different than what two men or two wemen can create. You would have to redefine the term. Also you would have to assume polygamy is ok as well. Marriage is sacred. A man and woman. Dont try to mess it up. You can have something similar with similar rights and call it something else. Then people wont have a problem with it.

For something you heteros consider "sacred", you sure treat it like crap!

That said, I think I'll keep my marriage all the same. I don't really care who has a problem with it. Those opposed are dying off at a rate of 6,000+ per day, so I won't have to hear your complaining much longer.

[Quest]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
Dont assume im in california because im not. i live in washington. My point is that most people are against gay marriage. Not against gay rights........

You know that doesn't make a bit of sense, right? Gay people have a RIGHT to equal protection under the law.

If you deny gay people equal protection under the laws of this country, including marriage and family law, you would need to have a rational state reason for that denial.

Do you?

Most anti-family folks like yourself only have "gay people are icky" as their "valid" reason.

[Quest]

206voter wrote:

Most people ive talked to dont care what happens in the vote. I start asking basic questions and find out most are against it. They just dont feel like dealing with all the drama queen bs.

Protecting one's spouse and children is "drama queen bs"?

REALLY?

[206voter]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Protecting one's spouse and children is "drama queen bs"?
REALLY?

i am not speaking against gay rights. I am simply ponting out a difference between a marriage (man and woman), and a commitment between homosexuals. Simply put, THEY ARE DIFFERENT! They should be called as such. Gay people are creative. I have been friends with several gay people. I have no problem with them. I simply believe they should come up with their own name for their union.

[206voter]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
You know that doesn't make a bit of sense, right? Gay people have a RIGHT to equal protection under the law.
If you deny gay people equal protection under the laws of this country, including marriage and family law, you would need to have a rational state reason for that denial.
Do you?
Most anti-family folks like yourself only have "gay people are icky" as their "valid" reason.

i am far from anti family. There are only three way gay people can say they have a family. 1. If they have a child from a previous hetero relationship. 2. Adopting a child. 3. By getting a surragate mother or artifitial incemination.
None of these are natural except by hetero sex. Im sorry to have to tell you this but homosexuality is a choice. An easier choice for some but still a choice. Anyone can choose to get married. It will only have to be to the oposite sex. Otherwise it will be a civil union or whatever the gay community decides to call it. And to your comment "

[WeTheSheeple]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
i am not speaking against gay rights. I am simply ponting out a difference between a marriage (man and woman), and a commitment between homosexuals. Simply put, THEY ARE DIFFERENT! They should be called as such. Gay people are creative. I have been friends with several gay people. I have no problem with them. I simply believe they should come up with their own name for their union.

And you are entitled to your opinion, just as we believe the term "marriage" describes our committed relationships just as well as it does for heteros.

That's why we won't accept anyting less the equal treatment for our marriages.

[WeTheSheeple]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
i am far from anti family. There are only three way gay people can say they have a family. 1. If they have a child from a previous hetero relationship. 2. Adopting a child. 3. By getting a surragate mother or artifitial incemination.
None of these are natural except by hetero sex. Im sorry to have to tell you this but homosexuality is a choice. An easier choice for some but still a choice. Anyone can choose to get married. It will only have to be to the oposite sex. Otherwise it will be a civil union or whatever the gay community decides to call it. And to your comment "

Millions of heterosexuals create their families the same way same-sex couples do, yet you never question the legitimacy of their family.

You claim you're not anti-gay, yet you keep spouting the same rhetoric as every other anti-gay; care to guess why that is?

YOU may be able to choose to be a homosexual, but the overwhelming majority of people I know (hetero or homosexual) don't believe they have a choice which gender they're attracted to.

You really need to catch up with recent history; same-sex couples have been marrying in the US since 2004.

[WeTheSheeple]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
i am far from anti family. There are only three way gay people can say they have a family. 1. If they have a child from a previous hetero relationship. 2. Adopting a child. 3. By getting a surragate mother or artifitial incemination.
None of these are natural except by hetero sex. Im sorry to have to tell you this but homosexuality is a choice. An easier choice for some but still a choice. Anyone can choose to get married. It will only have to be to the oposite sex. Otherwise it will be a civil union or whatever the gay community decides to call it. And to your comment "

Btw, you ARE anti-family when you support discriminating against my familiy and the millions of other same-sex families.

[KittenKoder]

206voter wrote:

<quoted text>
i am not speaking against gay rights. I am simply ponting out a difference between a marriage (man and woman), and a commitment between homosexuals. Simply put, THEY ARE DIFFERENT! They should be called as such. Gay people are creative. I have been friends with several gay people. I have no problem with them. I simply believe they should come up with their own name for their union.

They are different because the gay people are denied access to the rights included in marriage. That is the only difference. If you are going to argue semantics then marriage itself should be a union between a lot of women and a lot of men, because that's how it was done a long time ago.

[straight shooter]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
For something you heteros consider "sacred", you sure treat it like crap!
That said, I think I'll keep my marriage all the same. I don't really care who has a problem with it. Those opposed are dying off at a rate of 6,000+ per day, so I won't have to hear your complaining much longer.

wow, first of all marriage is sacred for a man and woman, we can create children, something gays could never accomplish. Without straight marriage life would eventually come to an end. Gay unions are only for tax breaks and sexual deviance.

[KittenKoder]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
wow, first of all marriage is sacred for a man and woman, we can create children, something gays could never accomplish. Without straight marriage life would eventually come to an end. Gay unions are only for tax breaks and sexual deviance.

Why is it "sacred?" What does "sacred" mean?

[WeTheSheeple]

straight shooter wrote:

<quoted text>
wow, first of all marriage is sacred for a man and woman, we can create children, something gays could never accomplish. Without straight marriage life would eventually come to an end. Gay unions are only for tax breaks and sexual deviance.

Now you're claiming humans can't reproduce without being married to someone of the opposite sex?

Just when I thought you anti-gays couldn't get any dumber......