Maryland Gay Marriage Opponents Announce They Have Enough Signatures To Force Referendum

May 30, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Huffington Post

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maryland announced on Tuesday they have submitted more than twice the number of signatures needed to put the state's new law allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry before voters in a referendum.

Comments
1 - 20 of 30 Comments Last updated Jun 8, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Ron

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

It's high time that Maryland joins the large and growing majority of states with constitutional amendments preventing disenfranchisement of citizens on this issue. To date, ALL have passed and some with pluralities over 80%. Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live!

No significant percent of the homosexual population has 'married' in ANY country that allows it, and studies have shown that few such 'marriages' are even exclusive relationships.

The homosexual 'marriage' movement is a hate based political charade attacking what others hold sacred.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No economically or physically unequal genders are involve. No child is ever born as a direct result, and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Having both is one of the most accurate statistical predictions of a child's future success in life.

Homosexual themselves overwhelmingly reject 'marriage' as an actual practice in EVERY country that allows the concocted oxymoron.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Explain again how heterosexuals are "disenfranchised" in any way by the legal recognition of same-sex couples? How has ANY heterosexual couple lost benefits of marriage due to same-sex unions being legal?

You trot out that phrase a lot but have not justified its use.
Ron

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Gay And Proud wrote:
Explain again how heterosexuals are "disenfranchised" in any way by the legal recognition of same-sex couples? How has ANY heterosexual couple lost benefits of marriage due to same-sex unions being legal?
You trot out that phrase a lot but have not justified its use.
Americans have rejected homosexual 'marriage' every time it has appeared on a ballot, just as homosexuals themselves have overhwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows it.

Forcing homosexual 'marriage' into law contrary to the wishes of most voters effectively disenfranchises them. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote

Americans have a right to govern themselves and to decide what is and is not a marriage. Discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find immoral and damaging run contrary to that right.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Ron wrote:
<quoted text>Americans have rejected homosexual 'marriage' every time it has appeared on a ballot, just as homosexuals themselves have overhwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows it.
Forcing homosexual 'marriage' into law contrary to the wishes of most voters effectively disenfranchises them. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote
Americans have a right to govern themselves and to decide what is and is not a marriage. Discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find immoral and damaging run contrary to that right.
The voters exceed their powers when they attempt to vote off-brand religious superstitions into civil law
.
++++++++++
"We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." (Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948)
++++++++++

“saved From jesus”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Gay And Proud wrote:
Explain again how heterosexuals are "disenfranchised" in any way by the legal recognition of same-sex couples? How has ANY heterosexual couple lost benefits of marriage due to same-sex unions being legal?
You trot out that phrase a lot but have not justified its use.
You can't fix stupid.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ron wrote:
<quoted text>Americans have rejected homosexual 'marriage' every time it has appeared on a ballot, just as homosexuals themselves have overhwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows it.
Forcing homosexual 'marriage' into law contrary to the wishes of most voters effectively disenfranchises them. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote
Americans have a right to govern themselves and to decide what is and is not a marriage. Discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find immoral and damaging run contrary to that right.
I guess then that every time minority rights have been made law without a general referendum on the issue the voters have been disenfranchised. In fact, every time a law is passed without a general referendum on that specific matter the voters have been disenfranchised.

I guess you should move out of the United States and go live on a desert island by yourself that you can declare your own country, where every citizen votes on every single topic that is brought up. There isn't a country in the world where every citizen votes on every topic -- and therefore I guess by your standard ever voter in the world is disenfranchised.

By the way, how would you propose handling the problem of the tyranny of the majority?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ron wrote:
Americans have rejected homosexual 'marriage' every time it has appeared on a ballot, just as homosexuals themselves have overhwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows it.
This issue doesn't BELONG on ballots. What will you be voting on next, our right to breath your air? Our right to use the word "love"?
Ron wrote:
Forcing homosexual 'marriage' into law contrary to the wishes of most voters effectively disenfranchises them. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?
You clearly don't. You misapply it onto false entitlement.
Ron wrote:
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote
Yeah, how could we disrespect slave owners like we did, and not give them the right to mistreat humans!

The majority does not NEED the "right" to mistreat the minority.
Ron wrote:
Americans have a right to govern themselves and to decide what is and is not a marriage.
Key word = "THEMSELVES".

Americans do not have the right to lock OTHER Americans out of social conventions, just because they don't like them. This is the "electric fence" mentality, fed by xenophobia and ignorance.
Ron wrote:
Discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find immoral and damaging run contrary to that right.
If they find it immoral and damaging, then they don't have to live that way. No other American will force them to. They OUGHT to repay the favor.

These false morals leave millions of gay couples with ZERO legal recourse for protecting their relationships and families. Gay people are not evil or damaging, regardless of what certain ancient stories may say, and this continued exclusion only perpetuates the mistreatments that we endure at the hands of bigots.
AdaminAZ

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Ron wrote:
<quoted text>Americans have rejected homosexual 'marriage' every time it has appeared on a ballot, just as homosexuals themselves have overhwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows it.
Forcing homosexual 'marriage' into law contrary to the wishes of most voters effectively disenfranchises them. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?
: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote
Americans have a right to govern themselves and to decide what is and is not a marriage. Discriminatory benefits and subsidies for a lifestyle choice most find immoral and damaging run contrary to that right.
Also, can you clarify what a "significant percentage" means? And tell us what percentages you're looking at and how they were calculated and by who? Thanks.
Xstain Fatwass Central

Souderton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Gay And Proud wrote:
Explain again how heterosexuals are "disenfranchised" in any way by the legal recognition of same-sex couples?
To that freeek, "disfranchised from marriage" means the wife caught you in bed with another man and deeevorced, took the kids and got a restraining order.
Liberal

Abell, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 30, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
++++++++++
"We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion." (Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948)
++++++++++
Ain't judicial activism grand?

(sometimes)

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 30, 2012
 
Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't judicial activism grand?
(sometimes)
It's amusing that when the courts do what they are set up to do, which is to judge whether laws are consistent with the Constitution and founding principles, they are smeared with the label "activist judges."

People who don't like having checks and balances like the Supreme Court system are free to move to countries that don't bother with those little details. I'm sure any number of dictatorships would be happy to have them immigrate.
Xstain Fatwass Central

Souderton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 30, 2012
 
Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Ain't judicial activism....
This thread is not about Bush v. Gore. Sorry.
Liberal

Abell, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 31, 2012
 
Xstain Fatwass Central wrote:
<quoted text>
This thread is not about Bush v. Gore. Sorry.
It's not about Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education either......
Liberal

Portsmouth, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 31, 2012
 
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amusing that when the courts do what they are set up to do, which is to judge whether laws are consistent with the Constitution and founding principles,....
Almost as amusing as the selective outrage when they do exactly that.........
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This clearly says the people have the right to define marriage, even being able to override the improper assumptions of power by any State. The also have the right to recriminalize homosexual behavior and reestablish their control over law concerning what is criminal and what is not. We wish the people of Maryland well in reasserting morality and rule of law.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Bringmedinner wrote:
Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This clearly says the people have the right to define marriage, even being able to override the improper assumptions of power by any State. The also have the right to recriminalize homosexual behavior and reestablish their control over law concerning what is criminal and what is not. We wish the people of Maryland well in reasserting morality and rule of law.
You should get right on taking away the rights of those darn uppity women and non-whites too. And while you're at it, declare which religion is the One True and Only legal religion and round up all the rest of them and lock them away.

To make it easy to identify people who agree with you on these things you should all probably wear a uniform to make it easy to spot each other. Make it easy -- you can get white sheets pretty cheap at WalMart. They should make nice robes and pointy hat hoods.
voteearlyvoteoft en

Virginia Beach, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
You should get right on taking away the rights of those darn uppity women and non-whites too. And while you're at it, declare which religion is the One True and Only legal religion and round up all the rest of them and lock them away.
.
The 10th Amendment prohibits states from doing any of the above.

Better examples, please.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bringmedinner wrote:
Amendment 10 of the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This clearly says the people have the right to define marriage, even being able to override the improper assumptions of power by any State. The also have the right to recriminalize homosexual behavior and reestablish their control over law concerning what is criminal and what is not. We wish the people of Maryland well in reasserting morality and rule of law.
This doesn't "clearly" state anything like that. It only leaves the law-making process open ended, for future considerations that might not be foreseen.

This also has nothing to do with "morality", a buzzword which is used FAR too often by opponents of equality. There is nothing "immoral" about consenting adults who choose to be together, regardless of whether or not it is something YOU would do. Morality measures harm, and you are not harmed if two people of the same gender want to be a couple.

Immorality only comes into play when you seek to impose your values onto other people. What you are trying to do is justify bigotry. For whatever reason, you've decided that an entire demographic of people are unworthy of receiving the same rights as you, and that they should not have any legal recourse for protecting the relationships that they form.

All your justifications and legal dissembling only protect one thing: the tradition of excluding gay people as social outsiders. But that tradition is ending. You live in a changing world where gay people are no longer going to be acceptable targets. The laws that are being set up to institutionalize discrimination are also being knocked down one by one, as our judicial system takes a closer look at them, and sees the motivation behind them.

It isn't immoral to be gay. It's immoral to say that people can't have that freedom if that's what suits them, or to say that they should be penalized for being different, or to seek to mistreat them or exclude them. If you want to measure morality, then wait until someone actually wrongs you. You don't come off looking like a very good person when you're so eager to vilify people who don't deserve it.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 31, 2012
 
voteearlyvoteoften wrote:
<quoted text>
The 10th Amendment prohibits states from doing any of the above.
Better examples, please.
Prove your statement. I didn't see anything in what you posted that protected any minority from mob rule.
voteearlyvoteoft en

Portsmouth, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 31, 2012
 
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove your statement. I didn't see anything in what you posted that protected any minority from mob rule.
<rolls eyes>

Your example:

You should get right on taking away the rights of those darn uppity women (not allowed by 19th Amendment) and non-whites (not allowed by 15th Amendment) too. And while you're at it, declare which religion is the One True and Only legal religion and round up all the rest of them and lock them away.(not allowed by 1st Amendment)

That's why mob rule won't ever apply in the above cases.

Get it now?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••