Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9647 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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8535 Dec 4, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
It does which is why ERA failed. ERA is unnecessary. All citizens have equal protection and due process. Only a nut would say otherwise.
That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different and it's perfectly within the bounds of due process and equal protection to register 18 year old men for the draft, but not 18 year old women. There is no gender equality right; this has been tested by the US Supreme Court and they've found no problem with protecting women by combat exclusions and other laws.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8536 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And where does the constitution explicitly say male and female are not equal under the law?
The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly says males have rights that females don't.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Again, you continue to ignore the gender disparity recognized in the 14th amendment was corrected by the 19th amendment, again affirming that the constitution requires "all persons" must be treated equally under the law.
All persons are equal before the law isn't the same as gender equality.

Take some time to look at the gender equality rights in the Constitutions of other country's that allow same sex marriage; they explicitly mention gender equality. Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8537 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different ........
How does your wife feel about your lack of support for her right as a citizen to equal protection under the law, simply because she is female?

Where in the constitution does it create a special class for women, with restricted civil and legal rights based on their gender, alone?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8538 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
...... Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.
List the ways that the Constitution mandates that inequality be based on gender.

Do you REALLY think that your argument would hold up either in court today, or society in general?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8539 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it." Oscar Wilde
So true. Thanks for posting this.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8540 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different and it's perfectly within the bounds of due process and equal protection to register 18 year old men for the draft, but not 18 year old women. There is no gender equality right; this has been tested by the US Supreme Court and they've found no problem with protecting women by combat exclusions and other laws.
There is nothing in your statement that supports prohibition of same-sex marriage.
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#8541 Dec 4, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
<quoted text>
we homophobes will always be inferior, our bigoted opinions will remain inferior, unenlightened ignorance inferior. we envy everything tolerant and copy homophobic rhetoric by even calling ourselves "religious".
There, fixed that for you, bigot boy. You're welcome.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8542 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you've been repeating and repeating and repeating your assertions while never reading anything that was posted for your benefit? You mean you never bothered to read any literature on the subject before you bored us with your unsupportable assertions? Hmmm. Not surprised I guess.
Now surprise me. Actually read these articles that you could have easily enough found on your own.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/44/1/127/
http://muse.jhu.edu/login...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15...
which one of these "studies compares married gays to married heteros's?"
NONE?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8543 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to deny a fundamental right, you must be able to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to justify harming those denied. Encouraging one group does not justify harming another. Your lack of interest in legal equality is not a sufficient governmental interest.
explain why all the cases are ruling under rational basis?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8544 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You, of course, know the difference between scientifically conclusive results and the preponderance of the evidence.
no, i think you got people to buy your loaded studies as conclusive, but we are learning:

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-temporarily-block...

"The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.""

if you read some of the most recent studies, they all sling arrows at the ones you rely on...
self reporting...
hand picked samples...
SMALL samples....
pure junk.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8545 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument relies on the false assumption children are always better served by having a mom and a dad.
nope. ALWAYS is not what I wrote, but its the hyperbole you address...

WHEN ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL...that's not always, that's HARDLY always...

and I doubt you can say that having both sex roles in the home is not a plus one factor....

I also have to be honest here, I have a few lesbian friends with kids...
Based on what I have seen they have hurdles to overcome and you know it...
you want to argue that they can overcome them (and you are right many can), but I don't need to argue that, that the extra hurdles exist to overcome is enough...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8546 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly says males have rights that females don't.
.
<quoted text>All persons are equal before the law isn't the same as gender equality.
Take some time to look at the gender equality rights in the Constitutions of other country's that allow same sex marriage; they explicitly mention gender equality. Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.
You failed to quote the section of the constitution you use to claim "the constitution explicitly say male and female are not equal under the law".

Again, here it is from amendment 14, section 2:

"But when the right to VOTE at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

The only right acknowledged here men have that women don't is the right to VOTE. No other rights are mentioned. That disparity was corrected with the 19th amendment:

Amendment 19:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

There is no longer any disparity in rights in the constitution. It does however say "all persons" shall be treated equally. It doesn't matter what other countries write into their laws. Ours requires "all persons", yet it uses the language of not being deprived of equal rights and protections: "nor shall any state deprive any person..." So registering for the draft is not a protection, but rather an obligation. We also see women moving into combat positions, but again this is not currently recognized as a right of which they are being deprived. Mililtary service is not a fundamental right. Marriage is.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8547 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. ALWAYS is not what I wrote, but its the hyperbole you address...
WHEN ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL...that's not always, that's HARDLY always...
and I doubt you can say that having both sex roles in the home is not a plus one factor....
I also have to be honest here, I have a few lesbian friends with kids...
Based on what I have seen they have hurdles to overcome and you know it...
you want to argue that they can overcome them (and you are right many can), but I don't need to argue that, that the extra hurdles exist to overcome is enough...
We don't live in your version of Utopia. In the real world, many same sex couples provide a safe, nurturing home for wanted children, while many straight parents have unwanted children that are abused for years, with many being eventually discarded. Having both sex roles in the home is no guarantee of safety or reasonable care and nurturing.

Yet harming gay families does nothing to encourage responsible procreation or parenting in straight families. It only adds extra, unnecessary burdens to gay families.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8548 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no, i think you got people to buy your loaded studies as conclusive, but we are learning:
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-temporarily-block...
"The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.""
if you read some of the most recent studies, they all sling arrows at the ones you rely on...
self reporting...
hand picked samples...
SMALL samples....
pure junk.
Right. Every time someone tries to prove there is something wrong with gay parenting, they fail. So you just ignore all the studies.

I don't particularly like the California legislature's action regarding reparative therapy. I believe, however, that the legislature's conclusions will be confirmed at trial. Basically, the judge stayed enforcement of the law until the courts have an opportunity to hear evidence supporting the law.

It's too bad rational basis arguments aren't subject to such careful review in general.

If the judge wants to strike down the law, he should do it based on parental prerogatives. If he does it on the basis that reparative therapy causes no harm, his decision will probably not survive the Ninth Circuit review.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8549 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
explain why all the cases are ruling under rational basis?
You don't use an elephant gun when all you need is a fly swatter.

Golinski v.: "The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

Re: Gill v OPM: "While the plaintiffs had asked Tauro to find that sexual orientation was a suspect class and therefore properly treated with strict scrutiny, Tauro found that Section 3 was unconstitutional on rational basis grounds. He did not address the question of whether heightened scrutiny was warranted." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8550 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
Right. Every time someone tries to prove there is something wrong with gay parenting, they fail. So you just ignore all the studies.
I don't particularly like the California legislature's action regarding reparative therapy. I believe, however, that the legislature's conclusions will be confirmed at trial. Basically, the judge stayed enforcement of the law until the courts have an opportunity to hear evidence supporting the law.
It's too bad rational basis arguments aren't subject to such careful review in general.
If the judge wants to strike down the law, he should do it based on parental prerogatives. If he does it on the basis that reparative therapy causes no harm, his decision will probably not survive the Ninth Circuit review.
While opposed to so-called reparative therapy, I too am opposed to legislatures defining 'medical' procedures. The ironic position is that those opposed to legislative intervention in this area would be the same groups that seek to have the same legislature making decisions as to what constitutes appropriate 'medical' care concerning reproductive rights.
1 post removed

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8552 Dec 4, 2012
News organizations frequently misrepresent this law as prohibiting this "therapy". It does not ban the "therapy".

Currently, parents can force or coerce their children into attending. This law prevents parents from making children attend against their will. It seems irrational to force children to subject themselves to the "free speech" of those trying to change them. As the trial will hopefully show, these approaches often include sleep depravation as well as large doses of shame, guilt, and emotional abuse. Some may still use electric shock and emetics. While adults may still choose to subject themselves to the guilt and shame these approaches use, it should never again be forced on anyone, as it was in the past, especially not minors.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8553 Dec 4, 2012
This law prevents minors from being forced or coerced into therapy. While adults currently have a choice whether to attend or not, that was not true in the not so distant past:

At Atascadero State Hospital, California law was used to commit those who practiced sodomy into the hospital. "Once admitted, normal men and women were rendered mentally disabled through the torture of castration, lobotomies, forced chemical treatments and experimental treatments. The horrors experienced by hundreds are almost too hard to comprehend in America.

The most notorious was a Dr. Walter J. Freeman who perfected the ice pick lobotomy. He jammed an ice pick through a homosexual's eyes into the brain and performed a primitive lobotomy. According to records, he treated over 4,000 patients this way around America and it is estimated that nearly 30% to 40% were homosexuals. He believed deeply this was the only way to cure homosexuality."
http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/10/01/cal...
Moan a Lott

Barre, VT

#8554 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't live in your version of Utopia. In the real world, many same sex couples provide a safe, nurturing home for wanted children, while many straight parents have unwanted children that are abused for years, with many being eventually discarded. Having both sex roles in the home is no guarantee of safety or reasonable care and nurturing.
Yet harming gay families does nothing to encourage responsible procreation or parenting in straight families. It only adds extra, unnecessary burdens to gay families.
yup. but none of what you said speaks to the fact that optimally, a mom and dad is best...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8555 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't use an elephant gun when all you need is a fly swatter.

Re: Gill v OPM: "While the plaintiffs had asked Tauro to find that sexual orientation was a suspect class and therefore properly treated with strict scrutiny, Tauro found that Section 3 was unconstitutional on rational basis grounds. He did not address the question of whether heightened scrutiny was warranted." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...
but the federal court did didn't they?

"Under such a rational basis standard, the Gill plaintiffs cannot prevail. Consider only one of the several justifications for DOMA offered by Congress itself, namely, that broadening the definition of marriage will reduce tax revenues and increase social security payments. This is the converse of the very advantages that the Gill plaintiffs are seeking, and Congress could rationally have believed that DOMA would reduce costs, even if newer studies of the actual economic effects of DOMA suggest that it may in fact raise costs for the federal government."

in case you attack the court:

"The federal defendants conceded that rational basis review leaves DOMA intact but now urge this court to employ the so-called intermediate scrutiny test used by Supreme Court for gender discrimination. Some similarity exists between the two situations along with some differences, compare Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 682-88 (1973)(plurality opinion)(describing criteria for categorization). But extending intermediate scrutiny to sexual preference classifications is not a step open to us."

So the court adds a little federalism "rational basis with teeth"
(Please note that the federalism issue is not present in the state cases namely Prop 8!)

"Although our decision discusses equal protection and federalism concerns separately, it concludes that governing precedents under both heads combine--not to create some new category of "heightened scrutiny" for DOMA under a prescribed algorithm, but rather to require a closer than usual review based in part on discrepant impact among married couples and in part on the importance of state interests in regulating marriage. Our decision then tests the rationales offered for DOMA, taking account of Supreme Court precedent limiting which rationales can be counted and of the force of certain rationales."

Love that nod to Baker in the last sentence?
I do.

the language you cited was literally overruled by the above...
and this specifically:

"Second, to create such a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships would have far-reaching implications--in particular, by implying an overruling of Baker, which we are neither empowered to do nor willing to predict. Nothing indicates that the Supreme Court is about to adopt this new suspect classification when it conspicuously failed to do so in Romer--a case that could readily have been disposed by such a demarche. That such a classification could overturn marriage laws in a huge majority of individual states underscores the implications."

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Aura Mytha 222,998
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Notliz 1,642,113
News Sen. Al Franken Accused Of Sexual Assault By LA... 4 min Team America 64
News Peter King calls Michael Jackson 'child molester' (Jul '09) 5 min roymoores tightie... 7,362
News Roy Moore's sexual assault allegations cloud Al... 6 min youll shoot your ... 206
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 9 min Lawrence Wolf 8
News Star Tribune: Franken Wona t Resign, Staffer Says 11 min Lawrence Wolf 18
News Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should've resigned ove... 11 min youll shoot your ... 103
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 19 min Rider on the Storm 42,031
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 1 hr About time 246
More from around the web