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.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8162 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so you would get over that by ALL OF US having a civil partnership...
Couples DO have a secular, civil partnership available.

It's called "Marriage". No religion required and it's already governed by civil law.

Why create additional institutions when there is already the proper civil and secular framework?

Wouldn't changing the name from marriage to civil partnership" simply be changing the name?

That would seem to be a waste of paper.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8163 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its called a "colloquialism", funny aint it?
no

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8164 Nov 15, 2012
Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.

Facts are facts.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8165 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
there you have ti then, in those religions, gays can be married...
I am suggesting to MAKE marriage religious and legally make everyone have a partnership...I mean that's all it would be anyway, a money related partnership...
But why bother? What would be the advantage of that? Most people go into marriage thinking about more than a money-related partnership; they're thinking about building a life together based upon love, commitment and common goals.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8166 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
go ahead...
Why should today be any different...
Then carry on.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8167 Nov 15, 2012
The hinge broke.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8168 Nov 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.
Facts are facts.
Never learned the difference between fact and opinion, eh Brian?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8169 Nov 15, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
But why bother? What would be the advantage of that? Most people go into marriage thinking about more than a money-related partnership; they're thinking about building a life together based upon love, commitment and common goals.
The advantage would be that Jane could feel like he finally won an argument about an hypothetical he dreamed up in the first place.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8170 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Never learned the difference between fact and opinion, eh Brian?
Brian is stuck on stupid.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8171 Nov 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The hinge broke.
So you are coming unhinged. We can see that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8172 Nov 15, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
On 4 Feb 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an advisory opinion that 'Civil Unions' were inferior and discriminatory and would not satisfy its earlier Goodridge decision (2003).
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in the advisory opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."
Thanks for the quote. Clearly, as the courts are recognizing, there is no rational excuse nor legitimate governmental justification for discrimination. "no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain". Excellent!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8173 Nov 15, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is anti-family. Pro husband/wife marriage is pro-family.
Facts are facts.
Irrational opinion, not fact.

Gay people forming families is clearly "pro-family".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8174 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The advantage would be that Jane could feel like he finally won an argument about an hypothetical he dreamed up in the first place.
I doubt it was an original idea for Jane, since it has been around for a long time, and many cities, counties, and some states have already tried civil partnerships under various names other than "marriage". Yet they have all found them to be inadequate, demonstrating what many of us learned a long time ago: Separate can never be equal. Different cannot be the same.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8175 Nov 15, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrational opinion, not fact.
Gay people forming families is clearly "pro-family".
Of course. If anyone provides a loving family it is pro-family.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8176 Nov 15, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are coming unhinged. We can see that.
lol
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8177 Nov 15, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it was an original idea for Jane, since it has been around for a long time, and many cities, counties, and some states have already tried civil partnerships under various names other than "marriage". Yet they have all found them to be inadequate, demonstrating what many of us learned a long time ago: Separate can never be equal. Different cannot be the same.
One would think, being from Vermont, that Jane would know that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8178 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>One would think, being from Vermont, that Jane would know that.
Since I don't know how old Jane is, I can't say for sure it wasn't an original idea, but we know it has been around a long time, and the myth of separate but equal was dispelled in the 1957 Brown V. board of Education case, after being shown to be inadequate and harmful in prior cases leading up to that point.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8179 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>One would think, being from Vermont, that Jane would know that.
Jane is one of a half-dozen Vermont and Massachusetts residents who haunt this board, reassuring themselves that same-sex marriage is about to end.

Speaking of denialists,did you catch that Scott Lively intends to run for governor of Masachusetts in 2014?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8180 Nov 15, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane is one of a half-dozen Vermont and Massachusetts residents who haunt this board, reassuring themselves that same-sex marriage is about to end.
Speaking of denialists,did you catch that Scott Lively intends to run for governor of Masachusetts in 2014?
Wow! I missed that.
I have mixed feelings. While it would be nice if he would grow up or just go away, his raw hate is so transparent, it may help those on the fence see how irrational his prejudice really is. Hopefully, it will keep him busy and out of areas of the world where ignorance allows his lies to be accepted.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8181 Nov 15, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously believe you can get the world to go along with your proposal, when there is no motivation for them to give up anything they already have?
In 2009, Julian Bond wrote: "No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal."
their motivation would be to keep the word "marriage" for themselves".

BUT again, why worry about them, would you accept all the rights and GIVE UP the name marriage?

again, one institution..so why do you keep stammering about the separate stuff...

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News North Carolina's rush to bigotry 15 min Time again 2,065
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 23 min Quirky 10,687
News Republicans downplay Trump rally unrest in Cali... 24 min NotSoDivineMsM 248
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 35 min Cheshire smile 50,932
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 39 min EAGLE EYE1 381,183
News Clinton chats with young girl at Indiana diner 53 min serfs up 1
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 195,346
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 1 hr WelbyMD 214
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Jay 222,734
More from around the web