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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6729 Sep 20, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What can be any more fundamental than the right to marry the person you love?
I dunno, maybe loving who you want, living with who you want, boinking who you want...

all way ahead of A PIECE OF PAPER from city hall...

mere GOVT RECOGNITION which equates to MONEY...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6730 Sep 20, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Skinner is from the early 40s when the State of Oklahoma was denying the plaintiff his fundamental rights because he was a retarded individual. The individual was being denied the right to procreated due to mandatory sterilization. It was considered that he may want to marry and procreate. Keep laughing the joke is on you. The plaintiff was being denied the fundamental right and liberty to choose just the same as gays and lesbians are being denied the right in choosing the person they wish to marry.
here's the question duder...
why on earth was the court even talking about marriage then?
in a case regarding STERILIZATION?

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...

so a marital right is recognized due to PROCREATION...inneresting huh?
so...who went back in time to put this in just so we exclude gays today ?

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#6731 Sep 20, 2012
Eriq Barrington wrote:
Look I was fine when gays were saying they are living the life style that they choose and I understand every person has a right to live how they please (Within reason of course) as long as it doesn't negatively impact those around them.
But as the old adage goes, give them an inch... they take a mile. And here we are. Yesterday it was just leave us be and we'll leave you be. Now we all have to pledge to support this lie that it's not by choice that you are gay but we also must destroy the sanctity of a bond between a man and a woman.
Marriage between a man and a woman was SUPPOSED to be the standard by which we all aspired to.
Marriage stood as a reminder that WE man and woman need each other. Now the rules have changed. Those in academia, and those from wealthy back grounds have bonded together to once again flaunt and flex their social power in the faces of the world.
This time it's to teach people that you can be born with a genetic disposition which prevents you from liking someone of the opposite sex. And this is the bases of why we MUST let gays marry each other.
It's woven into their genetics... This lie, is no different than the one that says blacks are genetically stronger, or whites are genetically smarter.
It's about arrogance. It's proving a certain sect of the human race can force the world to adopt their belief whether imagined or real.
Stating the obvious about mammals, "nature designed male and female to need each other in order to reproduce and populate the earth."
Now what? Is this supposed to be the next step in evolution?
um... so the earth has been 'populated' in fact it's 500% populated... now what?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6732 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
here's the question duder...
why on earth was the court even talking about marriage then?
in a case regarding STERILIZATION?
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials...
so a marital right is recognized due to PROCREATION...inneresting huh?
so...who went back in time to put this in just so we exclude gays today ?
It states that Marriage and Procreation are FUNDAMENTAL rights......it doesn't state that they are MEANT to go hand in hand together......just that both are consider FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6733 Sep 20, 2012
jenny623 wrote:
You do know that gays have been marrying women for centuries. That charade has always gone on.
Of course I know it. But I don't think we should ENCOURAGE that charade. It's about time that gay men and women should feel free enough to pick the partner which SUITS them, rather than feeling pressured into a charade.
jenny623 wrote:
Then there's the men who suddenly realize they were a woman all along, get a sex change, while still married to a women. Now the kids have two mommies.
Which only illustrates the problem with existing same-sex marriage bans. There ARE loopholes around them, extreme as they may be. As I've said all along, banning gay MARRIAGES will not stop gay FAMILIES.
jenny623 wrote:
I don't find sexual orientation or preference the same as civil rights. Gays do not suffer like blacks who were barred from restaurants, stores, and could only have menial jobs.
Our struggles are not identical, but there are often similarities and analogies. Both situations represent discriminating against people for poor, shallow reasons. There are plenty of people who WOULD bar gays from restaurants etc, if it were immediately evident that a person was gay.

Gay people have it a little luckier, in that they can hide their differences, but that's a double-edged sword. It becomes easier to hide who you are, habitual, which is not a good thing.
jenny623 wrote:
Most people don't even know someone is gay unless they make a lot noise which is happening a lot lately.
And that IS a good thing. The more people realize they DO know a gay person, the more they will realize that we are not demonic monsters out to destroy society. Only through exposure and familiarity can we hope to educate and gain acceptance.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6734 Sep 20, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
It states that Marriage and Procreation are FUNDAMENTAL rights......it doesn't state that they are MEANT to go hand in hand together......just that both are consider FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!!!
founded in a right to privacy???

privacy is the right to be let alone by govt, one that does not apply to GOVT RECOGNITION, but it does to making babies...
see how that works?

that's why there isn't a birth LICENSE...

so find me a SCOTUS marriage case that doesn't discuss procreation...

Here's a SCOTUS case:
"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

U.S. Supreme Court

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Decided January 18, 1978

what does this mean to you?

if we are going to protect procreation, we need to protect the main vehicle for it...aka "marriage".

"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

why do I expect i wont be getting a case citation back, but instead how you FEEL about what the scotus said?
in advance...I don't care!

I care what the JUSTICES said...
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6735 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
In other words, we either have a right to marry any consenting adult we wish or WE DO NOT...
but you cannot cherrypick...
Says who?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6736 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
My marriage is accepted in all 50 states and hers is not. THAT IS A FACT.
What is the problem with CU's again?
Oh yeah,not equal since they are not recognized in all states...
so if Cu's are unequal for this same reason, the marriage is NOT EQUAL?
see how that works?
I can live married in NJ, RNL cannot...get it?
You wouldn't live here for very long.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6737 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
founded in a right to privacy???
privacy is the right to be let alone by govt, one that does not apply to GOVT RECOGNITION, but it does to making babies...
see how that works?
that's why there isn't a birth LICENSE...
so find me a SCOTUS marriage case that doesn't discuss procreation...
Here's a SCOTUS case:
"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
U.S. Supreme Court
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL
434 U.S. 374 (1978)
Decided January 18, 1978
what does this mean to you?
if we are going to protect procreation, we need to protect the main vehicle for it...aka "marriage".
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
why do I expect i wont be getting a case citation back, but instead how you FEEL about what the scotus said?
in advance...I don't care!
I care what the JUSTICES said...
Again.....JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE SAME SENTENCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE MEANT TO GO HAND IN HAND.......and that was what they meant in the Skinner case........regardless of the IQ level of an individual......they still have the fundamental right to marry as they see fit and procreate as they see fit.....and that a person has the right not to be sterilized against their will!!!

Something as a lawyer you should be able to grasp......INSTEAD you keep missing the point!!!

IT'S ON THE SAME LEVEL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY GO HAND IN HAND!!!

People have the RIGHT to decide for themselves who they want to marry and have children with.......and both are very important decisions, unless you count the ACCIDENTAL pregnancies......but people also have the right to NOT have babies as well by using birth control.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6738 Sep 20, 2012
Eriq Barrington wrote:
Sex was made morally right by marriage. That's not an opinion.
You're right about THAT. It's pure bullshit.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6739 Sep 20, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>You wouldn't live here for very long.
I wouldn't live in Jersey EVER.

So, did you buy one of those condos or just lie about it?

I know...

you were just bragging about smelling other people's money.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6740 Sep 20, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again.....JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE SAME SENTENCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE MEANT TO GO HAND IN HAND.......and that was what they meant in the Skinner case........regardless of the IQ level of an individual......they still have the fundamental right to marry as they see fit and procreate as they see fit.....and that a person has the right not to be sterilized against their will!!!
Something as a lawyer you should be able to grasp......INSTEAD you keep missing the point!!!
IT'S ON THE SAME LEVEL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY GO HAND IN HAND!!!
People have the RIGHT to decide for themselves who they want to marry and have children with.......and both are very important decisions, unless you count the ACCIDENTAL pregnancies......but people also have the right to NOT have babies as well by using birth control.
how you feel about it...
what a shocker!

there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.

let me put that again so you respond to the right part:
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6741 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how you feel about it...
what a shocker!
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.
let me put that again so you respond to the right part:
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.
Actually, my feelings are irrelevant to the Skinner case, but it doesn't surprise me that you went there instead of possibly acknowledging that someone may be right other than yourself!!!

No matter how you want to continue to copy and paste the ruling........it won't change the fact that marriage and procreation don't need to go hand in hand.

I truly love how you get stuck on a case ruling and then beat it to death.....no matter what you say, there is more than your way to logically make sense of the ruling.

Hell, even Ted Olson would tell you that just because the words were put into the same sentence does not mean they were meant to go hand in hand!!!

Oh and I'm sure you think you're a better lawyer than Ted Olson, right?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6742 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how you feel about it...
what a shocker!
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.
In Wisconsin at the time of Skinner.......which was what year? 1940's........does the State of Wisconsin still hold that same philosophy today? My guess is probably not, otherwise many couples would be arrested for violating the law!!!
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6743 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't live in Jersey EVER.
Then why did you write this: "I can live married in NJ, RNL cannot...get it?" Were you attempting to show off your logic skills?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6745 Sep 20, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>

Hell, even Ted Olson would tell you that just because the words were put into the same sentence does not mean they were meant to go hand in hand!!!
?
are you REALLY suggesting no correlation in this sentence?

"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

we protect marriage ONLY because we protect procreation.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6746 Sep 20, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
In Wisconsin at the time of Skinner.......which was what year? 1940's........does the State of Wisconsin still hold that same philosophy today? My guess is probably not, otherwise many couples would be arrested for violating the law!!!
you know what it says...
its the scotus...saying we protect procreation which we must protect marriage to fully cover...
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6747 Sep 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how you feel about it...
what a shocker!
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.
let me put that again so you respond to the right part:
there is no other intelligent way to read this:
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
than we protect marriage because we protect procreation.
Protect procreation?????

hahahahaahah
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahhaahha
ahahahhahaahha

Is THAT why you have that condom on your head?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6748 Sep 20, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text> Then why did you write this: "I can live married in NJ, RNL cannot...get it?" Were you attempting to show off your logic skills?
Just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD...
not surprised you don't understand that...

SO, DID YOU BUY A CONDO?
WHAT JOB DID YOU RETIRE FROM?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6749 Sep 20, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Protect procreation?????
hahahahaahah
ahahahahahahah
ahahahahhaahha
ahahahhahaahha
Is THAT why you have that condom on your head?
you are unremittingly dumb.

So, can you prove it by saying you bought the 1.5 mil condos, or will you just have to admit you are a liar for inferring you did when you own a shack in the Oranges?

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 If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 3 min Golden 10,519
News Clinton Wins Democratic Nomination; Gets Boost ... 3 min Feel the Bern! 105
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min RealDave 1,406,222
News The Clinton campaign sees multiple paths to vic... 10 min Le Jimbo 5
News July 30: Hillary Clinton, breast pumps and bike... 12 min Le Jimbo 1
News Commentary: Hillary's speech was not good 12 min kuda 27
News The Republican Party is dead 12 min Le Jimbo 2,317
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min Frankendrumpf 233,680
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr katrina 88 391,753
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 8 hr Black Russian 5,757
News Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on s... 9 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 329
More from around the web