Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

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.

Comments
9,521 - 9,540 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10125
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10126
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10127
May 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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-...
billy

Salisbury, MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10130
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dowagiac, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10133
Sep 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

May God Almighty have mercy on your souls. My Lord, Jesus Christ, I pray.
Mr Mango

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10134
Sep 10, 2013
 
HALLANEJA

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10135
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10138
Sep 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10139
Sep 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10141
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10144
Sep 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10145
Sep 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10146
Sep 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••