Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9653 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

Montpelier, VT

#8610 Dec 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, the question that distinguishes California from Minnesota is whether taking away rights is fundamentally different than not granting those rights in the first place. I think the Ninth will discard most of Judge Jones's ramblings in Sevcik, but will find itself constrained by Baker. And SCOTUS will decline the case for the time being.
Perry rests on the concept that taking rights away from a minority requires a more rigorous reasoned process than never granting them in the first place
all very true!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8611 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, irrelevant......see, women past childbearing years can and do get married, the same is true for women who happen to be infertile......so, this leaves your point moot and totally irrelevant......
except that it doesn't.

"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#8612 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except that it doesn't.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....or don't you get that? Again, you fail understand that I can get pregnant in the same way an infertile woman could be impregnated........it's called Medical intervention......and again, it's not the Courts business or yours on if, how or why I choose to or not to have children!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8613 Dec 6, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is, can a group of people be denied their fundamental rights on the basis of sexual orientation, in the absence of a compelling state interest to do so?
Scalia seems to believe a tradition of discrimination and abuse is enough to continue that tradition of discrimination and abuse, because that was what was happening in the 1700s. Fortunately Kennedy does not agree with that idea.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8614 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....or don't you get that? Again, you fail understand that I can get pregnant in the same way an infertile woman could be impregnated........it's called Medical intervention......and again, it's not the Courts business or yours on if, how or why I choose to or not to have children!!!
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8615 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....
also, given that the case cited was one specifically addressing a gay marriage ban, I would say you are off base.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8616 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
This ignores that the court specifically affirmed a decision that say, gays not included...
they are "people" that do not qualify for the benefit offered...
So far, the appellate courts have upheld marriage equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8617 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposi
te-sex relationships will
help children more.
Hernandez is moot.

It also relies on prejudice alone. It fails to show how denying equality to gay parents does anything to promote stability or affect pregnancy in opposite sex relationships. It only harms gay parent families without providing any benefit to opposite sex parents. No legitimate governmental interest is served by denial of equality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8618 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
just not within your marriage...and that s kinda what we are talking about...
I could say my marriage is wealthy if i can include a very rich third party!
Despite how they were created or adopted, same sex couples are getting married and raising children. Denial of equal treatment under the law fails to provide any benefit to straight parent families while harming gay parent families. It fulfills no legitimate governmental interest.

Yet ability to procreate or raise children has never been a requirement to fulfill the individual, fundamental right of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8619 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
This ignores that the court specifically affirmed a decision that say, gays not included...
they are "people" that do not qualify for the benefit offered...
Old decisions like the now moot Hernandez, and 40 year old Baker, but more recent court decisions including two at the appellate court level have affirmed there is no legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equal treatment, in violation of the 5th amendment to the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8620 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The same would apply to Same-Sex Couples as well.....or don't you get that? Again, you fail understand that I can get pregnant in the same way an infertile woman could be impregnated........it's called Medical intervention......and again, it's not the Courts business or yours on if, how or why I choose to or not to have children!!!
Procreation is so easy for fertile women, no medical assistance is needed.(as I'm sure you know)

"The Turkey Baster Method is the most common way of artificial insemination to get pregnant and have an artificial insemination at home.The advantage to this method is that you don't need any fitted equipment!

The success rate is the same as with intercourse, perhaps a bit less because there are usually fewer opportunities for insemination and timing may not cover the bases as well." http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemi...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8621 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except that it doesn't.
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
And 40 years later, this reasoning has been refuted by subsequent decisions, including Turner, Zablonki, Romer, Lawrence, Perry, and others. It fails to show any legitimate governmental interest served by denial of equality, relying instead on the prejudice that gay people and their relationships are different and therefore not worthy of equal protection under the 14th amendment. It also fails to address the equal treatment requirements of the 5th amendment. Remember this decision was written at a time when being gay was still illegal in several states. Punishing gay people was legal and required by law. It should be no surprise they were denied equal rights.

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#8622 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more.
Is this from Hernandez vs Robles? You are aware that the New York Legislators passed a Marriage Equality bill in June of 2011, right? Which would in essence make Hernandez no longer in play!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8623 Dec 6, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Only with heterosexual union. Ever gay was born of male/female union, that's why marriage is male/female.
Should I care about this drivel?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8624 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because that's what you believe......sorry, but if marriage is a fundamental right, then it is a fundamental right regardless of one's sexual orientation or who one wants to marry, besides......Gay and Lesbian Couples have been getting legally married since 2004 and starting tomorrow, they will be standing in line to get their marriage licenses in Washington State!!!
So, please tell me exactly what marriage was originally for or about......I'm waiting for your explanation with baited breath...
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. With the exception of the social experimentation of the last few years, marriage has ALWAYS been between opposite sexes.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8625 Dec 6, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. With the exception of the social experimentation of the last few years, marriage has ALWAYS been between opposite sexes.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Of course they do, unless the state has a compelling reason to not allow such a union which has failed every time.

What a dope!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8626 Dec 6, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia seems to believe a tradition of discrimination and abuse is enough to continue that tradition of discrimination and abuse, because that was what was happening in the 1700s. Fortunately Kennedy does not agree with that idea.
Eventually Scalia will join all the rest of the old bigots in bigot heaven and things will be different.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8627 Dec 6, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. With the exception of the social experimentation of the last few years, marriage has ALWAYS been between opposite sexes.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Now please explain what relevance any Bible passage has to our Constitutional Law.

“SCOTUS RULING”

Since: Aug 08

COMING IN JUNE

#8628 Dec 6, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. With the exception of the social experimentation of the last few years, marriage has ALWAYS been between opposite sexes.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Why not? Marriage has NOT always been just between 1 man and 1 woman, it's only been that way for roughly the last 500 hundred years.......before that, it was pretty much arranged and the woman DIDN'T even have a say in it!!!

As for your bible scripture.......please understand that I don't give a damn about your mythical book.......it has no bearing on anything and I seriously doubt you follow the scriptures word for word!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8629 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
Actually Brian, we don't have to have physical sex with someone of the opposite-sex to procreate.......we just need either sperm, if we happen to be Lesbian or an egg and womb, if we happen to be Gay.......no physical contact needs to take place......and with Stem Cell Research advancements, 2 Lesbians really don't need actual sperm from a male donor any longer:-)
Right, the above describes a union of male/female required for procreation.

This is why I protect husband/wife marriage; homosexuals don't understand human nature.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Archives show Hillary Clinton OK'd tax breaks f... 1 min Eleanor 7
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min GOPidiots 1,231,728
News Is God judging America? (Dec '10) 11 min God is real 337
News Rick Santorum's claim that he's responsible for... 17 min mitt s santorum s... 31
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Environmentalist PhD 53,448
News Obama: Iran nuclear deal a will have my name on... 25 min Jeff Brightone 1
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 27 min Jacques Ottawa 189,579
More from around the web