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.

“Just Call It Marriage Now”

Since: Sep 08

All rights For All!

#9445 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's tragic but it doesn't change the fact; every life has infinite value.
I hope every reader sees, W.W. is arguing against the value of life. This is where we differ.
You can post that every life has value and believe it but yet somehow, your equality based mind can not wrap itself around the idea that if every human on this planet were to celebrate diversity and worry more about what is happening in their own lives today instead of worrying about what the after life, if any, holds for us. I mean really, is God worried about that letter that needes to be mailed today or the dirty dishes that are sitting in the sink? I think not.

A quote or two...

Take care of today and tommorrow will take care of itself.
What you put out today will come back to you 3 fold tommorrow.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Let him without sin cast the first stone.

Mrs Whitewater

“Just Call It Marriage Now”

Since: Sep 08

All rights For All!

#9446 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...it will for many people. That is why they want gay marriage. Where it is legal very few gays wed. What they are after is social acceptance.
Gays and Lesbians want just what every other human wants; to be aloowed to live their lives without the interfearence of someone who claims that they are God's right hand man and here to not only tell us that we are going to hell but they seem to know the way!

Proud wife of NorCal and there is not a thing you can do about it!
Mrs Whitewater

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9447 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes...it will for many people. That is why they want gay marriage. Where it is legal very few gays wed. What they are after is social acceptance.
Really......so how do you define "FEW"? If one Gay or Lesbian couple exercises their right to marry......that is all that matters........seeing as NO ONE is required to get married and throughout our own history, marriage between heterosexuals have seen declines........you keep making it seem that just because one has the RIGHT to marry that they WILL get married and they are not the same thing!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9448 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The fight continues at the Supreme Court and if necessary, with a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. The fight isn't over.
Sorry, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that a Constitutional Amendment would EVER get enough votes to even get out of Committee......let alone get passed by a 2/3's majority in the House or Senate to be able to even get ratified by the necessary States!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9449 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
If you value consent; keep marriage male/female.
WTF does consent have to do specifically with just marriage for male and female individuals? Consent needs to be given regardless of who is marrying who!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9450 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well first of all, I was just posting the Pope's quote because you like to post other people's thoughts too.
But from the Christian perspective gay sex is clearly a sin. It's not "prejudice"...it is clearly stated in the Bible. Its not a "viewpoint", its a fact.
Shall I post the verses?
Our laws do not depend on either your interpretation of bible verses or that of the Pope. They depend on the US constitution, which requires equal treatment for all persons

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9451 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well gee...I guess if you through enough of it against the wall something has to stick! All that crap just to say because you "love" the guy your having anal sex with its not "sodomy"?
Its a simple word with a well known meaning:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sod...
"anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
"Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality."
You guys are good at redefining things! How's that "equal marriage" coming along!
Yes, that is the common definition of Sodomy today. That is not the definition used in biblical times:

"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Sin of Sodom http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html

Before then, a Sodomite was one who harmed others needlessly, refusing to follow the Golden Rule.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9452 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Changing the rules of marriage won't change people's attitude about homosexuals.
Gay rights are human rights, not a special right to change a fundamental social institution to accommodate sexual predilection. Instead of changing the way government views marriage, to make either a husband or wife disposable in marriage and creating a unisex society; let's work together to eliminate anti-gay violence and prejudice.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to change the definition of marriage.
Who cares? We just want equal protection of the law and to exercise our fundamental rights as citizens.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9453 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW...what exactly is "marriage equality"? Are you referring to gay marriage?
Marriage equality for gay people means allowing gay people to participate equally under the laws currently in effect.

Equal treatment does not require changing any of the current laws that determine what marriage is legally. The only change is in who can participate.

Marriage equality means otherwise qualified persons can marry another person of the same sex. None of the over 1,138 rules that determine "what" marriage is, nor social dynamics for straight people, are changed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9454 Dec 30, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to break it to you Brian but the nice guy approach won't work. While some people are trying to play the "can't we all get along" approach the gay lobby is pushing its way into our schools and every day lives.
I am all about live and let live. The problem is that is not what they want at all.
They don't respect your rights or your views.
Your rights do not include any right to refuse to treat others as you are treated under the law.

You are free to have your views. You should not be allowed to deny equal treatment under the law, based on your views.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9455 Dec 30, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the bible specifically is "gay" sex clearly a sin? If you are referring to Leviticus......you'd be wrong because a Gay man doesn't lie with a woman period......so, it must be in reference to heterosexual men who raped other men, more specifically with regards to the war and the Canaanite Warriors to humiliate them and break their fighting spirits, or it is in reference to bisexual men, who actually do lie with both sexes.......or maybe it only applies to the Israelite people......but it DOESN'T apply to those who don't believe as you do.......and the Constitution of THIS Country doesn't base our laws on some mythical book!!!
Many believe Leviticus and some other verses were addressing pagan ritual sex, which was common at that time and place.

"The Leviticus passages were clearly written in the context of pagan religious ritual. Since we are not bringing a question about the appropriateness of cultic sex practices for modern Christians, we can safely set aside these clobber passages." http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblica...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9456 Dec 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Many believe Leviticus and some other verses were addressing pagan ritual sex, which was common at that time and place.
"The Leviticus passages were clearly written in the context of pagan religious ritual. Since we are not bringing a question about the appropriateness of cultic sex practices for modern Christians, we can safely set aside these clobber passages." http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblica...
Thanks for the link......I do get your meaning though!!!!

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9457 Dec 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Marriage equality does not require changing any of the current laws that determine what marriage is legally.
The only change is that gay people who are otherwise qualified, can marry another person of the same sex. None of the rules or social dynamics of what marriage is for straight people are changed.
The belief allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect will somehow require changing those laws is unfounded, unsupportable, and absurd.
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. Keeping marriage male/female would also prevent heterosexuals from same sex marriage.

Until the 21st Century, all written laws defined marriage to require both a husband and wife. Changing the definition of marriage would make either a husband or wife disposable; that's as bad as making either a mother or father disposable.

If you care about children; keep marriage male/female because every child raised by a same sex couple is raised without either a mother or father.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9458 Dec 30, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
Who cares? We just want equal protection of the law and to exercise our fundamental rights as citizens.
You have equal rights, just not the right to change the definition of marriage for everyone.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9459 Dec 30, 2012
Mrs-Whitewater wrote:
You can post that every life has value and believe it but yet somehow, your equality based mind can not wrap itself around the idea that if every human on this planet were to celebrate diversity and worry more about what is happening in their own lives today instead of worrying about what the after life, if any, holds for us. I mean really, is God worried about that letter that needes to be mailed today or the dirty dishes that are sitting in the sink? I think not.
A quote or two...
Take care of today and tommorrow will take care of itself.
What you put out today will come back to you 3 fold tommorrow.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Let him without sin cast the first stone.
Mrs Whitewater
The issue isn't about religion or sin, the issue is the cultural affect of changing the definition of marriage to make government gender blind and treat husbands and wives as if they are disposable in marriage.

I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's not a reason to change the must fundamental social institution of marriage.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9460 Dec 30, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
WTF does consent have to do specifically with just marriage for male and female individuals? Consent needs to be given regardless of who is marrying who!!!
And when; many same sex marriage supporters believe divorce, the embodiment of consent after marriage, is wrong.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9461 Dec 30, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Our laws do not depend on either your interpretation of bible verses or that of the Pope. They depend on the US constitution, which requires equal treatment for all persons
Our Constitution explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal, just as it sees adult and child or citizen and non-citizen as unequal.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution; the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified by the states.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9462 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't about religion or sin, the issue is the cultural affect of changing the definition of marriage to make government gender blind and treat husbands and wives as if they are disposable in marriage.
I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's not a reason to change the must fundamental social institution of marriage.
Again and again and again......what you believe with regards to marriage is already changing to include Same-Sex Couples.......not much you can do about it!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9463 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And when; many same sex marriage supporters believe divorce, the embodiment of consent after marriage, is wrong.
Where the hell did ya get that idea from?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#9464 Dec 30, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You have equal rights, just not the right to change the definition of marriage for everyone.
It is up to the court to decide right now. DOMA will be dumped, then the definition will change, too bad for you.

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 239,884
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min VetnorsGate 1,420,161
News Republicans outraged over reported delay of Cli... 2 min Ivyawe 42
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Dogen 205,276
News Trump Vows to Begin Deportations Immediately If... 5 min Mullahing It Over 24
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 5 min Looking for safety 7,983
News What does Trump mean when he says he will depor... 8 min Wildchild 1
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 24 min Battle Tested 130
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr Right Wing Wacko 393,391
More from around the web