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.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5680 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we can not force people to abort their babies (thank GOD) we can not regulate their ability to reproduce either.....you should know that...that was a silly statement.
By supporting traditional marriage, our government would be saying that both mothers and fathers are too important to legislate away...
I was not advocating that a single mother must abort their fetus. But why couldn't the government be able to say that a single mother must wed the child's father? Afterall, YOU said that the government should be used to ensure that children have both their mother AND their father. And once married, the government should then have as its mission to outlaw the child's parents from divorcing.

If you are not willing to have the government get into lives of straight couples to ensure your ideal vision of family, why insist that the government be used to maintain your ideal against same-sex families.
Randy Rodriquez

AOL

#5681 Jun 5, 2012
Duh? Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly AGAINST Gay Marriage in California. As a result, Gay Marriage was defeated in the Bluest of the Blue States.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5682 Jun 5, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not advocating that a single mother must abort their fetus. But why couldn't the government be able to say that a single mother must wed the child's father? Afterall, YOU said that the government should be used to ensure that children have both their mother AND their father. And once married, the government should then have as its mission to outlaw the child's parents from divorcing.
If you are not willing to have the government get into lives of straight couples to ensure your ideal vision of family, why insist that the government be used to maintain your ideal against same-sex families.
Because we don't 'force' people to marry in our country. That would be 'unconstitutional'......

What if the father fathered more than one child with more than one woman...are we ready to force 'polygamy' onto people too??? Not a reasonable question or conclusion...sorry.....

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5683 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't care less what the MA court said.
I forgot, you are not interested in the actual law or logic or reason. Blind faith to an ideology trumps all in your vision of all things.
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>Children need both a mother and a father in the home. ss couples can not provide that.
Again, where are you laws to use government action to ensure this standard?

If you don't actually apply this standard as a requirement FOR marriage, you cannot then turn around and use it as a standard AGAINST gay marriage equality. Either apply this standard to ALL mariages or to none.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5684 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
Because we don't 'force' people to marry in our country. That would be 'unconstitutional'......
What if the father fathered more than one child with more than one woman...are we ready to force 'polygamy' onto people too??? Not a reasonable question or conclusion...sorry.....
Hey, I'm not the one trying to impose this mother/father standard on marriage. YOU ARE! You are the one that has advocated using the government to ensure this standard. I guess you really don't believe in this standard not to want to actually have it applied. Then why try to impose this 'foolish' standard on gays and lesbians?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5685 Jun 5, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I forgot, you are not interested in the actual law or logic or reason. Blind faith to an ideology trumps all in your vision of all things.
<quoted text>
Again, where are you laws to use government action to ensure this standard?
If you don't actually apply this standard as a requirement FOR marriage, you cannot then turn around and use it as a standard AGAINST gay marriage equality. Either apply this standard to ALL mariages or to none.
The laws don't have to 'ensure' it, only 'encourage' it, as it does with tax breaks and other family incentives.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5686 Jun 5, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they will be building snow men in hell before that happens.
That will be really hard. Hell doesn't exist.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5687 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws don't have to 'ensure' it, only 'encourage' it, as it does with tax breaks and other family incentives.
So you want an absolute rule in the form of constitutional amendments against gays and lesbians because we cannot meet your mother/father standard but don't want to apply the same standards on heterosexuals who breed without regard to marriage or even needing to live together after a child is born.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5688 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws don't have to 'ensure' it, only 'encourage' it, as it does with tax breaks and other family incentives.
I believe as a society we must encourage people to love one another and be respectful of our differences. Extending marriage protections to same-sex families will be a step in the right direction.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5689 Jun 5, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe as a society we must encourage people to love one another and be respectful of our differences. Extending marriage protections to same-sex families will be a step in the right direction.
Uh-0h, the 'ol 'respectful of our differences' slope....how far does this extend to??? Just ssm and homosexuals????

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5690 Jun 5, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
That will be really hard. Hell doesn't exist.
Yes, it does. It's unfortunate you will not come to that realization until it is too late....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5691 Jun 5, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I'm not the one trying to impose this mother/father standard on marriage. YOU ARE! You are the one that has advocated using the government to ensure this standard. I guess you really don't believe in this standard not to want to actually have it applied. Then why try to impose this 'foolish' standard on gays and lesbians?
As I said, not to 'ensure' it, but to 'encourage' it. You can not regulate reproduction, unfortunately....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5692 Jun 5, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want an absolute rule in the form of constitutional amendments against gays and lesbians because we cannot meet your mother/father standard but don't want to apply the same standards on heterosexuals who breed without regard to marriage or even needing to live together after a child is born.
You can not regulate reproduction, only 'encourage responsible' procreation. That's what our government should be doing.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5693 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-0h, the 'ol 'respectful of our differences' slope....how far does this extend to??? Just ssm and homosexuals????
It extends to same-sex couples and families. It is a shame you can't find a place in your heart for these loving people.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5694 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You can not regulate reproduction, only 'encourage responsible' procreation. That's what our government should be doing.
Like beating dead horses don't you?

Procreation is not required for marriage. Marriage is not required for procreation. Irrelevant to the argument.
allah akbar

Omaha, NE

#5695 Jun 5, 2012
You will all be submitting to Islam- learn about muhammed ( pohboh ) and save you necks

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5696 Jun 5, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it does. It's unfortunate you will not come to that realization until it is too late....
I am not really interest in your childish game of make believe.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5697 Jun 5, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It extends to same-sex couples and families. It is a shame you can't find a place in your heart for these loving people.
It's a shame you can't find a place to 'accept' other people you don't deem worthy of the same 'acceptance and respect' you think only homosexuals deserve...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5698 Jun 5, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Like beating dead horses don't you?
Procreation is not required for marriage. Marriage is not required for procreation. Irrelevant to the argument.
Take the stick out of your own hand when you accuse someone of the same thing you are doing...

I never said that.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#5699 Jun 5, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not really interest in your childish game of make believe.
Suit yourself....

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min flack 1,396,358
News Biden says Sanders will endorse Clinton 11 min Go Blue Forever 2
News BLM leader warns of convention protests 13 min Go Blue Forever 1
News Black Lives Matter* (Oct '15) 17 min Go Blue Forever 1,965
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 30 min Don Barros Serrano 199,527
News In ME, Trump strikes back at US Chamber on trade 33 min Responsibility 26
News Cleveland Clinic doc who sought Libertarian Par... 37 min Poker Paul 1
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr spud 3,640
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Jay 228,966
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Agents of Corruption 388,435
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 4 hr Patriot 1,270
More from around the web