Maryland is part of three other states that will be voting to allow same sex couples to be able to marry in 2012. The vote is part of a two other referendum successfully brought to ballot by Republicans in Maryland, led mainly by Delegate Neil Parrott and is in addition to 4 other questions that will appear on the ballot, including the expansion of gambling in Maryland.
The other three states that will be voting on gay marriage this year are Maine, Minnesota and Washington State. Gay marriage has never passed when on the ballot in the United States and Karl Rove successfully used the issue to draw conservative voters to the poll in many battleground states during the 2004 election. Public polls are showing though that 8 years later, same sex marriage is about to win in 3 of the 4 states, with Minnesota being the odd state out right now.
Maryland’s Attorney General (and gubernatorial hopeful), Doug Gansler, already decided that the State should recognize marriages between same sex couples from out of State despite State law saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The bill to grant the right to same sex couples was championed by Governor Martin O’Malley for the past two years and despite his initial pledge when he ran for office in 2006 that he wasn’t for gay marriage, he did turn that frown upside down and into a rainbow prior to his 2010 election and said he would sign a gay marriage. Of course he at that time said he preferred a civil unions bill, but then he became the main backer of a full gay marriage bill, a little outside of what he had originally promised.
But even Republicans have been supportive of this bill with Senator Allan Kittleman losing his leadership post as the Senate Minority Leader because of his belief in equal rights. Senator Kittleman supported the bill passionately in talking about how his father fought for civil rights and this was a continuation of this fight to a new generation. A pragmatist, Senator Allan Kittleman tried to grant civil unions to all and get government “out of the marriage business”.
On the other side though are the churches, social conservatives, and religions African Americans who had the sway to easily get the bill brought to referendum (originally an amazingly difficult thing in Maryland), but also get the bill amended so that it wouldn’t go into effect until after the election. The extremely Democratic controlled House of Delegates stopped the same sex marriage from passing in 2011, led by the flipping of African American Democrat Delegate Tiffany Alston. Delegate Alston changed her vote in 2012, after she was brought under investigation by the State Prosecutor for so many violations it would make your head spin.
The campaign for this referendum has largely been one of inside baseball; letters of prominent politicos in support of same sex marriage such as Bob Ehrlich’s chief of staff Chip DiPaula and the head of various local NAACP branches. They have also been raising large sums of money most likely for a barrage of ads right before the election targeting Maryland’s swing voters in this case: mainly African American voters that while are easily Democratic, feel uncomfortable with those on the “down low”.
Maryland is unlikely to see any large amounts of money dumped into this race from religious institutions like the Church of Ladder Day Saints was able to do in California mainly because public polling shows that it isn’t so competitive. Proposition 8 in California was a major victory for the traditional marriage side in that nobody thought it was possible, now the battle is going on in 4 vastly different states and the money will probably go to the one state where it is actually competitive.
There is the chance that Maryland polls are wrong. Maybe malaise will sidetrack the electorate since Maryland doesn’t matter that much in the grand scheme of things and social conservatives and religious blacks will show up and sink the referendum. There is also the chance that when being polled Marylanders are lying to the pollsters because the media portrays those that believe in traditional marriage to be bigots and the elected officials will deny your business equal opportunity access because of your personal beliefs (I know, that one is pretty hypocritical on all sides).
But absent the type of shock that occurred in California in 2008, Maryland, Maine, and Washington State are going to stop the string of losses that gay marriage has had at the ballot box.
How I miss my “traditional marriage”! Like God’s favorites, Joshua and Abraham, I had several wives (forgot how many),one of whom was a 12 y/o virgin bought for 2 cows and 6 sheep. Then, along came the Christians and “redefined marriage”( which they don’t want YOU to do), so I had to pick just one. Yup, I picked the wrong one, but thank goodness, those cafeteria Christians turned their backs on God’s law prohibiting divorce. So now, I can have multiple wives….only sequentially. I think they call it the “New(t) Commandment”.
You may be right about all those wives in the Bible but I don’t recall any mention of men on men. I don’t know where you got your info but wives are women not men.
When did it become acceptable to use theological books to determine the court proceedings of the government. You in favor of courts using shariah law to determine the outcome of cases? If not then get your bible out of marriage liscencing by the state!
When you say you chose the wrong one, perhaps for you the right one would have been one of the sheep.
Alex, that was a baa baa d comment. Good one, really.
Wayne,
On the other hand, perhaps you should have chosen one of the cows. Whatever moooooooves you. Thanks for the inspiration, Will.
It if gets voted down, will you all then please shut up about it? Or will an activist judge just overturn it like California?
The simple solution to this is get the government out of the “marriage” business. Have the courthouse give out “civil union” certificates to every couple, regardless of plumbing, that requests one and let those that want to be “married” find a non-governmental institution that can provide an officiant that agrees with your views (ie, no suing the local Catholic priest for refusing to perform a gay wedding).
At the end of the day, if Adam and Steve, or Sue and Ann, are living together and want to be together, why is it any of our business what paperwork they have? How does it hurt you if they’re in a civil union vs just being boyfriend and boyfriend and living together?
(I am going to vote against it, because of the word “marriage” and its a way to give O’Malley the finger)
I’m going to vote against it for a number of reasons and flipping the bird at O’Malley is but one of them. But I will get great pleasure from doing it.
I’m voting against the bigots and FOR letting adults marry whomever they love. It’s simple decency. And I will be so PROUD if Maryland becomes one of the first states to approve same sex marriage through a refendum.
I’m voting against it so our votes offset. I’ll be proud if MD votes it down. Of course, some liberal judge will just overturn the will of the people….just like in CA.
I just want to get this correct. You believe that the rights of a minority should be voted upon by the majority? Because that is what you are advocating.
If that were the case, then the Women’s Right to Vote (1920), Inter-Racial Marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, would not exist.
Those rights were either passed by the Legislature or granted by SCOTUS rulings.
Let’s see, with blacks accounting for about 12% of the population, what do YOU think their chances would have been in the 1960’s for obtaining equal rights?
The Courts and the Legislature are the ones that have to bring the electorate kicking and screaming into the next century. Oh, and religious groups fought these rights every step of the way, complaining about women’s roles changing, inferior races being equal, and the mixing (gasp!) of the races.
Yes, so let’s all vote on the 3% of the gay population to see if they are allowed the same legal rights as their straight counterparts, who have not, by the way, done a very good job with marriage given a 50% divorce rate and more couples than ever “shacking up” (as we used to call it).
I am voting for it and really think that there are more important issues.
Here, here, Bonnie!! As an adult, I love my sister and she loves me and the state says I can’t marry her. Equality for all!
Well, that’s the problem – it isn’t simple. Had we called civil marriage “unions” way back when instead of “marriage” we probably wouldn’t be having all this discussion. The religious crowd is all wound around the axle because “their” word, “marriage,” is being used. But, of course, it has been used by the State forever. If you have two atheists married by a Justice of the Peace (having nothing at all to do with religion), that couple is married in the eyes of the law.
The problem with “civil unions” is that they are not universally accepted legally. Marriage is recognized by the State, all other States, the Federal government, and all other countries. Civil Unions are recognized by the State, NOT all other States, NOT the Federal government, and NOT by all other countries. Therefore, Civil Unions are not equal to Civil Marriage, especially in the area of legal rights which for SS couples is the whole point. Today, SS couples can go to any number of churches and have a commitment ceremony but that won’t allow them to file jointly on their taxes or get on each others insurance policy.
The anti-SSM crowd justifies their dislike of SSM 99.99% of the time due to religious reasons. But, those have nothing to do with Civil Marriage. But, there are many churches that would support and perform SSM ceremonies. So, the net result is that not only are the anti-SSM crowd denying civil rights to gay couples, they are infringing on the religious freedom of those churches that would perform SSM ceremonies.
I personally hope SSM passes. My partner of 15 years and our 12 year old daughter would like this. And, we promise we won’t attend your church nor picket it to force your church to perform a SSM ceremony. In fact, the only difference is that if SSM passes, our daughter will have the protections that her friends have just because her parents are straight. Otherwise, she won’t. I don’t think we are asking for too much.
Chuck, you and I are not asking for too much, just to be treated like human beings. It will not involve anyone elses life, no matter how much they think it will….equal rights are all we are after, for our own families and for OUR HUMAN RIGHTS!
Rachel – Thanks for your support. My webcrawler came up with this forum in Harford County, MD. I don’t know Harford County from anything other than it is on the far side of Baltimore from where I am in Montgomery County.
Frankly, I am kind of surprised at the comments. They are 99% negative and anti-SSM which is the flip of what it is over here. What’s the demographic there? Rarely have I seen such negativity and frankly inane responses in some cases. I would have sworn it was Mississippi based upon the comments.
ChuckGG–Please don’t take the postings on this site as a true reflection of Harford County. We’ve got our fair share of nutcases, and the Dagger may be a favorite hangout, but there are many of us who avoid “feeding the trolls” by responding to every idiotic comment.
Not a True Reflection
Not responding usually means that you have no valid argument.
On the question of being able to marry the one you love and defining the inability to do so as a violation of your civil right, does bring into play many aspects of marriage other than just between same sex or opposite sex persons. Additionally, stating that SSM would in no way affect others as a rational for accepting SSM brings other questions to bear. How would brother marrying brother or sister marrying sister in any way affect you? I would agree that under the norms of today, sister marrying sister would be viewed rather unseemly, but in reality where would be the harm?
Mostly older white narrow minded people on one side of 95, and poorer white and mixed race people on the other side of 95. But really most people in good old Harco, just like to point fingers, be nosey and put others down to feel better about themselves….thats how it seems these days anyway. Its really sad when you think that someone elses life gets voted upon but the majority, when in all honesty, it will not affect any of these peoples daily life choices.
KHARN – I generally agree with you but there is a problem – where does this end? How many spouses? How about going outside the human race (no joke – there a lot of people out there who would have a “valid” claim of discrimination). I agree with the civil union – who cares who visits a patient in the hospital. It can all be set up legally just like wills, estates, etc. Now that it’s on the ballot, the vote should put this to rest – unless we all get duped by another activist jurist!
Multiple spouses is another issue and another battle. If left to certain churches, it would be fine. When you enter the civil marriage area lots of practical question arise that have not before been addressed. Regardless of the view, there are legal questions that would need to be resolved. Another discussion.
As far as the State and Civil Marriage goes, the parties need to be “competent” to enter into a contract. That is, they need to be able to understand the meaning of the contract (marriage license), its implications and consequences. The law has deemed that children, cars, furniture, and animals are incapable of such decisions. Unless that concept changes in law, there is little chance of some marrying their Corvette, although I know some guys who would like to.
@KHarn – Thanks for providing some common sense.
Marriage is a religious endeavor. Period. If a gay couple can find a church to marry them, then they’re married by that church regardless of what the state thinks. If they can’t find a church to marry them, then they’re not married. Again, it doesn’t matter what the state thinks.
The state should simply hand out a document that allows people to receive legal benefits and be done with it. And I should be allowed to provide those benefits to anyone of my choosing. And I don’t need to be “married” to do so.
Not quite. Civil marriage between a man and a woman has been around forever and it does not in the slightest involve religion. Two straight atheists married by a Justice of the Peace are legally married.
Church marriage is just a ceremony and has nothing to do with legal marriage unless there is a marriage license issued by the State, in play. When that happens, the preacher performing the marriage ceremony is acting as an agent for the State. The State considers the marriage contract (license) sufficiently agreed to by both parties if a preacher does a ceremony, the parties sign the license and it is mailed in to the State.
Both the State and the Church use the same word, “marriage,” to mean similar but different concepts. The law does not like two supposedly identical concepts differently named. If it is “identical to marriage,” then, in fact, it is marriage, case closed.
ChuckGG – as for the civil marriage being around forever – not quite. When was it actually highjacked by government? There is a biblical basis to the term “marriage” and it is defined. The government’s fiddling is an entirely different proposition. The current discussion pertains more to power, voters and control than it does to actual marriage. Get the government out of the picture entirely (which would be appropriate and Constitutionally supported) and civil unions could happen, and as KHARN stated a church could also choose to accept it, or not. Either way, the only interest the gov has is taxes, control and buying voters.
When I said “forever,” I was not referring to eternity but to the fact that civil marriage has been around for a very long time in the US/State government. My grandparents were married in 1926 by a Justice of the Peace in Kittery, Maine, for example.
I hear what you are saying about getting government out of the marriage business but the fact is they are in it, and have been in it, for a very long time. I suspect given the way our economy and tax structure is set up, that un-baking that cake would be impossible to do. There is no mandate or interest in doing so.
Therefore, if this is the civil system we have, at least for now, and for the foreseeable future, it should be equitable to all across the board. Right now, it is not.
And, again, if some churches don’t like this, well, too bad. I’m sure the Muslim mosques in the USA don’t like women going around with their heads uncovered but as that is a religious edict and not a civil law, unless you are a member of the Muslim faith, I really wouldn’t much worry about it.
This is civil marriage, not marriage embraced by all religions. Some, yes, others, no. Just like some churches will not perform inter-racial marriages. That’s up to them. However, that same couple could go to a Justice of the Peace and be married and that’s all that counts on your tax return.
Essentially this bill does exactly that it just uses the word marriage since MD issues marriage liscences!
Me, too.
One can start by realizing that this is NOT gay marriage, but rather marriage equality; a civil right. I see the tea party engaged in one of their wholly unjustified attacks on marriage equality under the guise to support the sanctity of traditional marriage. If they, and their “religious” cadre, really supported “traditional marriage” then they would also be opposed to divorce which they are not.
In fact, marriage is mostly threatened in the southern “Bible Belt” while the liberal northeast has the lowest divorce rate. What hypocrites!
Their argument not only sounds arrogant and insulting, it does not comport with reality. Born-again evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate in the nation. Moreover, they use religion as found in the Bible as a justification for their acts.
Some of the things the Bible tells us are: wives should submit themselves to their husbands, women should not speak, salves may be purchased and beaten, if a virgin is raped and does not scream loud enough then she must be stoned. Women should have their head covered. And in Deuteronomy, a marriage is only valid It the woman is a virgin and she should be executed if she is not… and those who commit adultery should be stoned to death.
The point is that the interpretation of the Bible’s commandments evolves over time to reflect society. The Tea Party cannot use the Bible to justify opposition to marriage equality. It seems to me that religion is NOT a good guide on how to maintain a good marriage as born-again evangelical Christians have such a poor record and have not always maintained a thriving family, neighborhood, community and country as they claim.
Some telling statistics about “religious” marriage are:
• The Associated Press computed divorce statistics from data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health. The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. “Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average” of 4.2/1000 people.
• Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
• The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the “Bible Belt.”
• According to the Boston Globe: “The AP report stated that ‘the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.’ The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.
• By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.”
This whole issue has been ginned up by the tea party to bring out the vote of good “religious” folk who are good “Christians” and only want to “save” marriage.
Thank you for “getting it.” I agree thoroughly.
Proud,
Sad news for you… you don’t get it.
First, one’s religious practice is not contingent upon where they live. The fact it is known as the “Bible Belt” or whatever other name applied is irrelevant.
Second, you lack a fundamental understanding of the Bible. God set out His Law giving people a standard by which to live by. If you examine the Law you will discover quite quickly it is impossible to follow. That is why Jews and Gentiles required someone to save them from this hopeless situation – a Messiah. The Messiah fulfilled the Law and became the punishment for not following it. Repenting and trusting in that finished work, the Crucifixion, is the path to that salvation.
Just because the Law has been fulfilled and the penalty paid for those willing to humble themselves and accept the gift of salvation from violating the law, does not remove the law itself. The Ten Commandments continue to be a standard for conduct. The myriad of other requirements continue to be a standard for God’s people despite not being strictly adhered to. For further understanding, the removal of clean food requirements, blended cloth, etc…
If secularization of every aspect of our lives and its conduct were to reach fulfillment – be careful what you are asking for. Without restraint the spicket will be wide open and you will have a host of moral questions in front of you. For example, is it okay for a 42 year-old man to take an 8 year-old wife? Why not if they love one another? If the standard is simply “love” and that it is shared, there are no limitations. Just remember, if it comes to that – you now know it would. When you put the morality of society on the sliding scale of public opinion, understand it can go anywhere.
How do you account for those churches who are willing to perform SSMs once they become legal? You are not allowed to force your interpretation of your religion on others, especially those who are not members of your faith.
As far as the 8-year old goes, that’s not possible in civil marriage as the participants in the civil marriage must be legally “competent” and an 8 year old has not reached the age of majority and thus is disallowed from entering into any contract, including a marriage contract (marriage license).
Churches do all kinds of things outside the bounds of the Bible. You won’t find the word “purgatory” or “pope” in Scripture, but that doesn’t stop churches from using or practicing it. Defining the fundamental beliefs of the Church as defined in the Scripture is not forcing anything on anyone. I did not say you had to believe it, merely pointed out what the belief was and how that ran 180 degrees from Proud’s assertions. If you want to bring the forcing of beliefs into the discussion… well, this topic is spot on.
Actually being gay is a choice, contrary to your assertion otherwise. Telling me to “get it out of my head” is forcing me to believe otherwise. Characterictics that separate people, for example gender, skin tone, age, eye color, shoe size, etc…, are physical and measureable. Sexual orientation is not as it is merely a preference. The genetic argument lost when it was revealed the ‘scientist’ doing the research cooked the books and fixed the results. Thus, equating this at any level with civil rights is not only insulting, but destructive to the ends of civil rights activism.
For a person to argue their preferred gender is hardwired into their being is nonsense. It is like arguing that someone’s religion is hardwired into their being – consequently, there is an anthropological aspect to this idea that has merit, not genetically, but tied to the conscience – that unique ‘thing’ that makes us different from animals.
Once the moral scale is based entirely upon popular opinion, the idea of an 8 year-old marrying is not that far off. There are people, whom personally I find disgusting, that advocate that relations between children and adults are actually healthy for the children. Chuck, I’m just saying that once the bottle is opened, don’t be surprised when you see what comes out. Redefining the age of maturity is not that difficult… You don’t have to go too far to discover that parents dress their babies in tiaras for beauty contests when not too long ago those types of competitions were reserved for ‘adults.’ It takes a few keystrokes to discover there are organizations that thumb their noses to the law and tell minors it’s okay to get an abortion without the parents knowing about it… How far does any of this have to stretch? Answer – not much.
Thirty some-odd years ago it was taboo to portray homosexuals on TV, today it is required. Today we watch as children are more and more expected to be portrayed as adults… the beauty contests, the talent shows (children competing with adults), and a host of other areas. So, yeah, I’m thinking organizations like NAMBLA are just waiting for their chance to step out from behind their computer screens and the bushes at the playgrounds into the bigger arena of life. Why not?
well said!
Gosh, I feel like I am talking with Archie Bunker.
Well, okay, you are wrong on sexual orientation. It has long since been established that homosexuality is not a choice any more than is heterosexuality. I cannot begin to cite the sources that would find your statement inaccurate and mine following the mainstream thought back to the APA in 1964/65. It’s so ludicrous, I won’t waste my time on it.
The “slippery slope” argument – that really is a stretch. Again, one would have to change the entire concept of competence and age of majority in law and that is highly unlikely. Moreover, it is not the issue at hand. All we are trying to do is get the restriction in the law that limits civil marriage to different genders to be removed. That’s it. Nothing more. Other arguments are for other days.
As far as the church goes, I personally think they all are nuts, but it is a free country and they can believe in whomever or whatever they want, as long as they leave the rest of us alone. Of late, that has not been happening. They are “in my business” with their spook-in-the-sky stuff and it is getting annoying.
As far as gays being portrayed on TV? True enough, years ago, this wouldn’t happen, but then again, neither were blacks or hispanics often portrayed in anything but subservient roles and/or negatively. However, these days, the free market rules the airwaves. That’s why the (in my opinion) idiotic reality shows are so popular. It is fodder for the masses and they eat it up. Gays are portrayed on TV because there is market to do so. Believe me, if it didn’t get the ratings and the numbers and turn a profit, it would be off the air in two-seconds.
My suggestion to you is to get to know some gay families. There must be some in Harford County. They are not all in Montgomery County where I live. In my case, I have been with my partner for 15 years, have a 12 year old daughter, and we are pretty ho-hum suburbanites. And, guess what? We have friends and neighbors and no one cares. We hardly are the only gay parents around.
The only difference come this November is whether our daughter gets (and we get) the same legal rights as her friends down the street. Maybe we will. Maybe we won’t. I hope we will.
The churches may do as they please as we have no intention of intruding in their business.
Chuck…
“Again, one would have to change the entire concept of competence and age of majority in law and that is highly unlikely. Moreover, it is not the issue at hand.”
How unlikely? As unlikely as changing the entire definition of marriage? It actually is quite on topic.
“Other arguments are for other days.”
Well, that by definition would be the slippery slope.
“I personally think they all are nuts”
Is this a scientific term?
“My suggestion to you is to get to know some gay families.”
As a matter of fact I do. I likewise suggest you get to know some Christians, it would do you a world of good to help you lose the name-calling, bigotry, and judgmental tone you refer to them with… and you called me Archie Bunker…
“The churches may do as they please as we have no intention of intruding in their business.”
Actually, one of the gay friends I have is waiting to be turned down by a church after this measure passes so they can sue it. May be true for you, but not all of you.
LocalGuy – While I believe your points are devastating to the gay agenda, they will sadly fall on blind eyes. I’ve had people from the gay agenda tell me the Bible forbids the consumption of shellfish and no one obeys that. While this is true, it’s a strawman argument since it doesn’t consider the passages where Jesus eventually declared all foods clean for consumption.
The one thing you forgot about homosexuality is that it is a very elaborate lie. The lie is believing it is not a choice. But science has yet to find anything even remotely close to evidence proving homosexuality is present at birth. It’s a bit ironic when you consider many of the people in the gay agenda are all for science when discussing the theory of evolution (also inconclusive), but when you bring up the “gay gene,” it’s hush, hush.
Also, regarding divorce….the Bible does permit it in cases of infidelity, but of course the church never advocates divorce in any situation. Divorce is a tough topic an in Christian couples, it usually involves waning faith of one or both parties.
Here’s the truth: Homosexuality is a sin, just like lying, stealing, etc. We, along with all homosexuals are sinners. The one difference is no one is advocating the aforementioned sins, because they’re universally agreed on as wrong.
More truth: It is also a sin to hate homosexuals. We are commanded to love everyone…but loving someone doesn’t mean enabling sin – quite the opposite! Most importantly, God loves everyone – and I mean everyone. He loved Osama Bin Laden!! If OBL had repented and put his faith in Jesus Christ as his savior, he would be in heaven right now!!
That is the good news….Jesus paid a debt that none of us could with our good works. We could never measure up to the holiness of God, so because of His great love for us, He sent His Son to die in our place. Then three days later He resurrected Him.
Those who struggle with homosexuality are welcome at my church, Mountain Christian. While the church shares my position, a big rule there is that no perfect people are allowed in the doors.
Spot on Localguy! This discussion 50 yrs ago would have been unheard of. Get rid of the basis for this “behavior” and then use your imagination. This is not an equality issue – that is just the mainstream media definition. All of the “impossibles” above become possible – minors, multiples and the unimaginable. Don’t they all have a case? Of course they do when we are left to do whatever feels good today.
As usual, you missed the boat proud. The TEA party has nothing to do with this issue. They are concerned about government size and taxation, period end of story. sending out vitriolic statements does not change the actual facts.
I agree. The original Tea Party is all about taxes and government. However, there is the Tea Party Express and it is evident it is all about religion and conservative social values.
It is unfortunate the original Tea Party got these “hanger on’s” in the Tea Party Express that wish to turn our democracy into a theocracy.
Marriage is one man, one woman period. Always will be. They represent less than 3% of the population so why do we have to change the definition of marriage for them?
First off, you apparently have ice water in your veins. The term “marriage” is used by both the government and religious institutions. We are speaking only of civil marriage. What your church does or doesn’t do is of no concern to anyone outside of your church.
According to Wiki, only 12.4% of the US population is black. Hardly worth mentioning. Why should be bother with those pesky equal rights laws? There’s plenty of room at the back of the bus. Some churches refuse to marry interracial couples. I guess we should outlaw that? Oh, but wait, other churches AND the government allows interracial marriage. I guess that one church (and you) gets to rule on who can and cannot marry.
What an honor you have for being able to pass judgement on others.
nice try Chuck, but this has nothing to do with inter-racial marriage, but same-sex marriage. You sound very hateful against anyone who is against SSM. Btw, I married inter-racial, I don’t go to a church, and I will be voting against the amendment.
He didn’t raise the issue of race… he raised the issue of you marginalizing a group of people because they represented a small portion of society.
As the other commentator stated, this isn’t about race but about any minority denied civil rights when the government, in several court cases, can find no compelling reason to allow this continuted discrimination. The Courts can find no “harm” with SSM and thus there is no justification against it.
I am surprised that you, of all people, marrying inter-racially, cannot draw the same parallel. Had it not been for the SCOTUS case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, your marriage would have been illegal.
I guess you have the attitude, “I’ve got mine. The heck with the rest of you.”
Chuck, take a chill pill man. Look, you’re not gonna change my mind I’m not gonna change yours. This is an open forum, and I stated my view. sheesh
As usual, Ron Paul has it right: “Marriage” is a first-amendment issue, and the government should be completely silent regarding that *religious* institution.
Since when was it a good idea to get the government involved in personal relationships anyway? I’m becoming convinced that American society despises anything resembling personal freedom.
Unfortunately, that shipped sailed and a marriage license is considered a legal contract. And, so much of our society is based upon that legal contract – insurances, taxes, inheritance, medical decisions, child custody, and so on. The religious ceremony of marriage is just that – a ceremony, and hold no legal value at all.
I hear what you are saying but I think we are too far along in the structure of society to un-bake that cake. Allowing gay couples to legally marry just adds them to the structure and, frankly, that’s equal access for all, and thus should be permitted.
Getting rid of the secular civil marriage aspect is another battle/discussion, but certainly a valid one.
The problem with granting civil marriage to same sex couples is that it creates a paradox that is actually against what same sex couples are claiming now, which is that other organizations are now forced to recognize and participate in their lifestyle choice.
While the Maryland law has many exceptions for purely religious institutions, what about private businesses, or quasi religious institutions that have a problem with same sex marriage and don’t want to participate in the ceromony? They will be able to be sued for not wanting to participate in a same sex couples relationship.
I’m talking about photographers, DJs, rental halls, caterers, couple therapists, or even Chick-fil-A. If they don’t provide the same services to a same-sex couple, even if they have a concious opposition to it, that they provide to a “traditional” couple then they will be sued.
It’s ironic to me, because all gay couples keep asking for is for others to stay out of their relationship. I would be fine with that if I am allowed to choose to, but the laws in this country won’t let me.
First off, being gay is not a choice. Get that idea out of your head.
Second, quite right, businesses open to ALL the public are licensed to serve ALL the public. “Sexual orientation” is part of the anti-discrimination laws of many States so same-sex marriage or not, they would not be allowed to discriminate.
Doesn’t this even vaguely remind you of the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, NC, in 1960, that served “whites only.” How is turning away the gay minority any different that turning away the black minority in 1960. Even Chick-fil-A now has an anti-discrimination clause on their website. They will not discriminate against people based on a number of reason, including sexual orientation.
Churches are exempt by law and certainly by the First Amendment. Provide ONE example, anywhere in US history, where the Courts ordered a church to perform any ceremony, much less a gay wedding ceremony. However, those churches, to this day, will refuse marry couples based upon inter-racial marriage, previous divorces, etc. It’s all up to the church.
Chuck,
While tenuous, the difference between racial discrimination and same sex couple discrimination is that it is part of someone’s religious practices to only recognize a union between a man and a woman, and I am not aware of any religious practies that allow you to not regonize a human being based on the color of their skin. It’s the same reason we have a concious clause that allows health care providers to not preform certain procedures because they are against thier own religious beliefs.
But even beyond religious beliefs, let’s respect people’s personal beliefs no matter what we think of them. Let’s not force Bob’s Klu Klux Chicken to hire or serve to black people. Let’s give the freedom of a doctor to not perform an abortion if they are pro-life. Maybe we’re not there yet as a society so that there will be enough businesses open to all people that we can let biggots be biggots, but that should be something that we are striving for as a country as funny as that may sound.
I agree that it is somewhat of a fine line. However, a check of history as late as the 1960’s would show very disturbing video of how blacks were treated. I lived through that era and as a northerner was shocked at what I saw. And, even today, there are churches who refuse to perform marriage ceremonies between people of different races. That was just in the news the other day, in fact. Appalling. Of course, they were not forced to perform the ceremony. The Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. It still is appalling.
I am not sure allowing the market forces to allow refusal of service to close down a business actually would work. I think you are alluding to the idea that if Joe’s KKK Chicken refused to serve black that it eventually would go out of business due to public condemnation. But, I doubt it would. There’d be enough bigots around to keep the place afloat.
Having lived through the 1960’s I would have to say I prefer to keep the anti-discrimination laws on the books. People are not born bigots. They learn it. Unfortunately, though, it seems we have to reteach these lessons every generation or so.
Chuck,
I wasn’t saying that the business would shut down because of public condemnation. I was saying that it would continue to serve it’s niche market that wants that product from a business with those beliefs, but the audience that it’s not serving, or who wouldn’t want to be served by that business, would have many more options for different services. Perhaps the exception would be businesses with a monopoly.
And while things were a lot worse in the 1960s, and may still not be there quite yet today, the freedom for a business owner to operate how they want should be something we strive for just as the same we should strive for the freedom for two same sex people to be in a committed relationship that is regonized by the state as any other relationship is.
ChuckGG: “First off, being gay is not a choice. Get that idea out of your head.”
ChuckGG: “People are not born bigots. They learn it.”
I have to admit, I’m a little confused on who you think is born with which desires.
And what about pedophiles? Are they born that way? If they are, does that make it right? ( If they’re not born that way, then how come gays are? )
There’s not a real answer to this. And that’s why the only right thing to do is get government 100% completely out of the marriage business, absolutely no exceptions. That’s the only way that people, even singles, will be treated equally.
I have the same concerns as Fact Check; I don’t have any major issue with LGBT couples having a relationship, but once it becomes a defined ‘marriage’ the pandora’s box is opened. No church has ever been forced to conduct a same-sex marriage, but what about the photographer who was sued in New Mexico? The customer did not mention in her email that she was marrying another woman; when the photographer found out, she cancelled because of her religious beliefs, and ended up in a 6 year lawsuit over the matter.
From SFWeekly:
“Willock then complained to the New Mexico Human Rights Commission in 2006, which concluded that not photographing the wedding would be disobeying the state’s antidiscrimination laws. The commission ordered Elane to pay Willock more than $6,600 in attorneys’ fees.
Elane Photography appealed the decision, which was denied by a New Mexico judge. The Christian photographers then took their case to the Court of Appeals, which determined that the photography studio is a “public accommodation” and can’t refuse customers based on their sexual orientation.
The New Mexico Human Rights Act expansively defines a public accommodation as any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, according to the court.”
It seems to me that this photographer’s individual and religious rights were not upheld. While I agree that LGBT rights to the same estate laws, tax laws, health care laws, etc. should be addressed, the Maryland law that was passed does not clearly safeguard another individual’s right to refuse involvement under religious freedoms.
Well as a prudent buisness person they should have asked these questions. Once they agreed to take the job they had an arangement.
The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari on 6/27/12 and will hear this case in the “near” future. Briefs have not yet been submitted.
Gay people are religious some are even Catholic yet some religious nuts claim marriage as thier own. Wow
Chuck: Since you continue to say a person is born homosexual or heterosexual, please provide scientific sources (at least one or two) that prove homosexuality is not a choice; that you are born that way.
Babies are hard to interview.
Well said, Chris.
I want to marry my horse. And bestiality is not a choice. I have been attracted since childhood to horses.
Weak argument, Rosa. Horse cannot choose to marry people….but siblings can. Equality for all!
You are saying my horse is incapable of coice and desire. You are a hateful speciesist! Stalin knew how to handle your type.
You are saying my horse is incapable of choice and desire. You are a hateful speciesist! Stalin knew how to handle your type.
This is an issue where some conservatives are being hypocritical. You can’t be for smaller less intrusive government, and then want government to ban a group of people from getting married. None of my/ our business. Let them enjoy gay marriage, and gay divorce.
We don’t need government (small or large) to ban gay marriage. It is already banned. Government is being asked to ‘permit’ gay marriage, not ban it.
Not quite. Just to be picking a nit. The assumption in US law is that we are free to do whatever we want except as prohibited by law. The marriage laws in most States say that a law is legal contract between two people and so on. It then goes on to specify who cannot cannot be married in that State. This includes close relatives, siblings, a person already married, and often, if the law does not state “between a man and a woman,” then it will state the parties of the same gender are not allowed to marry.
What would happen with the change in the law would be that the restriction would be removed. It would become more open and probably would say something like “two people” can marry.
This is not dissimilar than the law when it banned interracial couples. There was a specific mention of the ban. In Loving v. Virginia, 1967, SCOTUS overturned that law and the “ban” part was removed from the law.
Really, this also make more practical sense. It’s easier to list those who cannot be married than those who can. My point is the law, when changed, will not specifically permit SSM but it will remove the ban against it.
ChuckGG,
Exactly my point. Your last comment states that the ban already exists. You would like the government to remove the ban to ‘permit’ gay marriage.
Again, nit picking, but it isn’t that the government is actively permitting anything. The government is removing the restriction against it. I don’t know if you can grasp the difference.
We are supposed to be able to do what we want, when we want to, except as prohibited by law.
We are not beholden to the government for any right. We are guaranteed our rights in the Constitution. Removing the ban corrects an error and restores our rights. Just as bans against women voting, blacks from riding in the front of the bus, and bans against inter-racial marriage. The law does not specifically grant inter-racial couples the right to marry. It removes the restriction against it. The net result is the same but the removal of the ban is far more appealing.
ChuckGG,
If government removes the ban on same sex marriage, will gays be permitted to marry someone of the same sex? If your answer is no, please explain why gays will not be permitted to marry someone of the same sex. If your answer is yes, then I rest my case…you want the government to lift the ban so gays are permitted to marry someone of the same sex!
(To answer your question of 8:22 as the system won’t allow me to reply to reply to reply… etc.):
Yes, if the ban is lifted, gay couples will be allowed, by default, to be married in a civil ceremony.
You missed the subtlety of the difference so I won’t try to explain it again.
You are correct. If the ban is lifted gays will be “allowed” to marry, right after they get a “permit”, also known as a marriage license.
Well said! I support it.
Amen! While we’re at it, let’s lift the ban on rape. Who does the government think they are to impose their morals on me?!
You see, it is comments like yours that are just ridiculous and make me wonder how out of touch you are with reality. How can you possible relate SSM to rape?
You and other yap on endless about morality but as SSM does not affect you, then I would not worry about it.
Rape is forced sexual intercourse. SSM is two adults getting married.
Your comparison is insulting. It would be like me comparing you and your wife to a brood mare and stud for purposes of breeding. Grow up.
If you believe rape is wrong, then good for you. Don’t force your beliefs on me!
How, exactly, is anyone “forcing” their views on you? How, exactly, is SSM going to affect you and your marriage. I am more affected by the cricket scores in England than I am by a polygamous Mormon marriage.
I do not see how you are in any way impacted by SSM. Please explain how you are. We’d all like to know.
And don’t you dare judge if I want to marry my sister! We love each other!
More nutty prattle that has nothing to do with SSM and is not the issue at hand.
ChuckGG
What Ted has said may not have anything to do with same sex marriage, but is has everything to do with being able to marry the one you love, and not have the government stand in the way. Why should the government ban you from marrying the one you love just because she is your sister?
Thank you Mike Welsh for standing up for equality and love! My sister and I are consenting adults, just like gay people. I also want to marry more than one of my siblings, and perhaps a few cousins too. We’re all consenting in this.
Equality for all!
Now see here “B”. You went and said something sensible that I am forced to agree with you on. So I gave you a thumbs up. Please remember that as you continue to foster hate and discontent elsewhere in this forum.
Church of Ladder Day Saints?
The first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6:9-11)
If civil marriage had anything to do with religious marriage, your points would warrant some discussion, but as it does not, and I am not part of your church, or any church, I see no more sense in what you say than I would if I had to listen to an Islamic cleric rattle on about Sharia law.
When it comes to secular, civil marriage, religion does not have a dog in this fight. You can quote all the scripture you want, but today, two straight atheists can be married by the State and their marriage is legal. Come November, hopefully two people of the same gender, atheists or not, can be married by the State and their marriage also will be legal. The churches can wring their hands and predict the end of the world, but it still has no bearing on secular, civil marriage. Case closed.
Pam do you eat Crabs, Pork, Shrimp or many other foods prohibited by Leviticus?
I knew this would come up….happens every time with someone who doesn’t rightly divide Scripture.
Cdev, Christians are not bound to this old Jewish law. You can’t read the verses you speak of in Leviticus and not consider the words of Jesus in Mark 7:19 –
“Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)
Because Jewish people reject Jesus as Messiah, that is why you’ll see that many orthodox Jews do not eat shellfish, pork, etc.
Regarding homosexuality, if it were only mentioned in the Old Testament, that would be one thing. But there’s a few condemnations of it in the books of Romans (1:26-27) as well as first Corinthians (6:9-10).
Now, you may not believe in God or all of which He declares as sin…so you may say it’s not relevant. But let’s say you go into court and are accused of shoplifting, and the judge sentences you to a month in jail. You say, “Well, I don’t believe in you, your honor.” Is that really going to matter? The same is true with God. He is the judge of the world…not just Christians, but everyone in it for he made us all.
So you are OK with basing court procedings off of Theological texts? Does that mean that we should relegate women to second class citizens. In fact since the New Testemant requires a wife to obey her husband should we start punishing wives who fail to do so?
CDEV,
I believe that is what Bob meant about rightly dividing the Word of God.
Show me a verse where women are relegated to second class status in the Bible. Establishing men as the head of the home does not equate to such things. Don’t you find it fascinating that men are commanded to love their wives, but women are not required to love their husbands?
I think it is accepted as a given that a woman will love a man that loves her. What is that love supposed to look like? Sacrificial, wholesome, pure, dedicated, etc… So when a spouse steps out from that relationship or does not fulfill it the marriage is injured.
A man treating his wife like a second class person will not likely be loved by her. If the love is not shared it is likely the home life will be miserable. Why bring children into that relationship? Why marry? Who wants misery at home?
If you looked at all of Scripture you would clearly see that women were created from Adam, a rib to be exact. Not a foot to be underneath nor the skulls to be above. But a rib as a coequal picture of position.
I’ll challenge you this… since you seem to like to use the Bible to make points. Uncover why it is men are the head of the household. Hint, start in Genesis with the Curse.
This basic misunderstanding about how marriage was established by God is at the very heart of this issue. People can spout all they want about civil rights, etc…, but we know that is untrue. Scripture is clear about sin and the institutions founded by God. To make these things trivial to the point of relegating them simply to the whim of popular consent is insulting and plain wrong.
coequal???? so a women is not allowed to educate or teach the bible because she is equal???? The bible clearly prohibits women from these rolls. The Bible calls for a women to be subjegated to man.
Religion is not law and has no place in law. I am a Catholic and do not expect the my belief system to be legislated on others. In fact as a Catholic I do not even recognize the states authority to marry people!!!!!
We have not covered the infinate interpretations of the bible and the belief structure. Would you be OK with us enforcing Levitican Diet standards because judiasm calls for them?
I believe you are confusing ‘coequal’ with ‘identical roles’ in life. Men and women are created equal, but the burden of childbirth has been placed on the woman. Does that infringe on equality? “Coequal’ does not mean ‘given the same jobs and responsibilities.’
Actually, there is biblical examples of women teaching the Scriptures… take a quick look at the life of Timothy.
You are correct that religion is not law. However, you can easily find religion’s footprint all over it. The conscience people possess that separates us from animals give us to understanding criminal behavior. That conscience is provided by God. That conscience can be measured against the Ten Commandments. Last I checked stealing, lying, murder, etc…, were all illegal activity due to, or inspite of, being found in Scripture.
If we believe that the Bible is the Holy inspired and true Word of God, then there is only one correct interpretation. Do authors routinely place multiple interpretations into documents meant to be canon? It is my experience that documents take on the characteristic of multiple interpretations when the author intends it to do so. You are free to interpret the Bible any way you wish, but that does not make your personal interpretation true – nor mine. The truthfulness must stand up to the Bible itself. (That rightly dividing thing again)
You asked – Would you be OK with us enforcing Levitican Diet standards because judiasm calls for them?
No (however, the Levitican diet is a good recipe for good health), and I’m not okay with the FDA redefining ‘fat free’ so it can appear on foods that are not. Not sure exactly what your point is…???
If a religion not only allows, but requires, human sacrifice – should it be allowed? If that religion’s morality permits such activity how or why can it be infringed by virtue of the First Amendment? Do we not in fact have a free exercise clause?
You see, we can go in many circles with this line of reasoning.
Localguy is correct on the division of Scripture – that is what I meant. Reading anything at face value – Bible or otherwise – is a risky thing to do if you’re trying to comprehend the text.
Another misconstrued verse about wives’ submission to their husbands. The submission is to be in love…not in dominion. There’s also nothing about punishing wives who fail to do so. Husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:22-33)…do you know what He did for the church? He gave his life…and there’s no greater love than giving up one’s life for someone (John 15:13).
Cdev, you can have a view of the Bible, and I can too….but only one of us is right. I study the Bible daily…do you? If not, why not? Sure there’s lots of things in the Bible that raise questions, and it’s good to ask questions…that’s how we learn. But I can tell you this: Not everything in the Bible is crystal clear…I believe God has communicated everything we need to know through His Word, but not everything we want to know.
The multiple interpretations is exactly why the bible is not and should not be the basis for law!!!!! Different denominations can not even agree on what is and is not part of the bible and what it means. This makes the religion arguement a bad one. Some denominations recognize gay marriage as a valid act. Some don’t some believe in a trinity some don’t.
Lying is not against the law unless it is perjury. Stealing and murder are but not because of the bible but because of our contries belief that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or the persuit of hapiness without due process of law. Perjury is a hinderance to that due process.
My point is that in a country in which we enjoy freedom of religion that includes a freedom from religion. Meaning I do not have to be bound to live by someone elses religious code.
Marriage liscences are a judicial proceding and as such should be free from any religious involvment if we want to offer tax breaks to people who live together and form a family, than it should be open to all families who pay the fee. My religion should not have any right to force it’s belief on another person who does not belive. If we force this on people it ceases to be faith and becomes indoctirnation!
I have some bad news for you. In my church’s Bible, which is the true word of God, Jesus states “Marriage shall be between one man and one woman; one woman and one one woman; or one man and one man.”
BTW, I know my Bible is the true Bible, because God said so. God also said your Bible is just an early draft that was never authorized by Him for publication.
what version are you referring to or is this sarcasm I’m not picking up on?
If you have to ask . . .
Correction: should read ” One woman and one woman”.
Sorry,
God
Hmmmmmmm, interesting thread here, someone wants “free markets” with the ability for businesses to discriminate based on race. There is fear and propaganda gay marraige will lead to beastiality and pedaphilia. Also a Christian advocating death for homosexuality through scripture, yearning we guess, for those stonings to come west.
There is lack of understanding that we are a republic first, democracy second- therefore rights of minorities are protected. Let those in the county who fear that is common thinking, realize there are many liberal right thinkers among us, though outnumbered, enjoy whatever wilderness and countryside is left and be cautious and safe.
Thank you for your sane voice in what I thought was the strangest forum I had encountered in a long time. I live in Montgomery County, MD, which apparently is worlds away from Harford County, MD, on the other side of Baltimore. From reading the majority of the posts, I thought for certain this must have been a Harford County in Mississippi.
It’s nice to see you can paint all of Harford County with a brush you’ve dipped into the opinions of a dozen or so individuals (or fewer with multiple pseudonyms) that may or may not actually be from Harford County. That’s remarkably astute of you… or maybe not, since, as you know, there’s only about a hundred people in Harford County. A free bit of advice: insults don’t do much to further your agenda. I’d probably vote for SSM – just so they’d all shut up for a while. I really don’t care if Adam and Steve want to play pickle tickle so long as they understand no one is going to legislate away the “ick” factor. On the other hand, if Adeline and Eve want to get together I’m happy to watch…
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Montgomery County is not the state. I’m so sick of P.G. and MoCo thinking they speak for all Maryland. Hurray!! I’m so glad you live in an enlightened eclave away from all us neanderthals. Maybe you should try and get out of your utopia for awhile and see how the rest of us knuckle dragging Marylanders live. You seem suprised that not everyone in MD sees the world as you do.
Montgomery and PG County are just suburbs of Washington and participate in the DC group think.
Quite true. Add in NoVA. There’s even a sharper contrast there. NoVA has so little to do with Richmond, you’d think they’d split off and join Maryland or DC. But, I doubt the rest of VA would want to give up the tax-base cash cow that NoVA is.
As I said in other posts, I’m a transplanted Yankee from Maine, so it’s all just geography to me. I plan to retire to my farm in Maine in a few years, anyway.
Please go…NOW
*for clarification, liberal right means right thinkers as in “correct thinkers”. left is right. Thank you.
The gay couples I know were sexually abused as children. They are women and are now married. They are going to have children with there bi sexual male friends. This enables them to apply for assistance using the children. I asked will the children have the fathers last name so they know who their relations are? They told me I was being ridiculous now days thats not important. How many of you out there are sleeping with your relatives? Remember its dumb adults that think like this that cause incest. Dont make fun of West Va. This is why I do not agree with same sex marriage or women who have children and dont give the fathers last name.
And, this circumstance is the basis you use to classify all same-sex couples? It is a good thing opposite-sex marriage is not up for a vote.
Do you actually think the situation you describe is common? Is there something in water in Harford County? The postings in this forum are the opposite in number to anything I have ever seen.
I don’t know if there is an “average” or “typical” gay couple, but I can tell you among my friends, most of whom are gay couples, I never have heard of anything remotely approaching your claims.
Here’s a blurb from U.S. News & World Report about states with gay marriage. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage
Here are some education and income level statistics for gays: http://www.commercialcloset.com/common/news/reports/detail.cfm?Classification=report&QID=5426&ClientID=11064&TopicID=384&subsection=resources&subnav=resources
My point is that you somehow know this lesbian couple and I gather you are extrapolating that the behavior you describe is the norm. I cannot say that my experience ever was what your was.
I would not deny an entire group of people civil rights based upon one couple you know.
Your illustration of the importance of naming the children after their fathers is interesting. A young lady from a superficially fine upstanding family in a good neighborhood in Harford County, attending a good school, raised Catholic and was entered into dance, and cheerleading is now effectively single after she married her third father out of prison. She has defrauded the state of $20,000 in unemployment benefits and has defaulted on four leases. She gave each of her three baby daddies’ last names to her four children and none of them pay child support while she continues to receive aid from the state. So in a way she embodies your sense of morality… in fact she’s a poster child for all that is right with heterosexual upbringing where the parents simply ignored her. Like good and proper parents do of the kind you wish for.
you can vote until the cows come home, of which there aren’t many now in Harford County, they’ve all been replaced with upper class Dundalk, “hons”, and East Bal’more elite, but aside from that, even if it passes in O’Malley’s Tax Heaven, Maryland, marriage will NEVER be marriage if it’s between two men or two women. Obviously, it isn’t defined as such, and never will be. Civil Unions, okay. Just keep the guy on guy stuff, and the hetero PDA’s. I DO NOT want my kids seeing that. Period.
Unless you put your kids on a island, I doubt they will avoid seeing the real world. We had our Cold War, our Radio Free Europe, our Voice of America, out reach-out to other cultures. All had some success.
But, hands down, what has and will open the world to all (both good and bad) is the internet and social media. The Arab Spring would not have happened (or, at least as easily and as widespread) without Facebook, Twitter, and the internet.
In World War I, there was an old song, “How Ya Keep ’em down on the Farm?” (After they’ve seen Paris?) http://youtu.be/UgqVCJpRqWQ
I look at those very cloistered religious groups such as the Amish and strict Catholic doctrine types. You can’t hide, cover-up, shelter, the kids from the rest of the world.
So, you have two choices – try to hide the world and suffer the resentment from your kids years later, or embrace change and explain the real world to kids.
My parents opted for the latter. I got to see the whole world, warts and all, and because of the values my parents instilled in me, I think I turned out okay. I certainly can say I have very little “culture shock” (as some friends do) and little bothers me. Not bad.
Dear CHUCKGG,
Maybe if your parents instilled better moral values or taught some type of religion in your upbringing, you wouldn’t have so many shortfalls. It is funny how you knock religions and in the same breath complain about your gay rights. Maybe you should just stop typing, you are just pushing others to vote against you. Being from Montgomery Co. is no better than Harford Co. so don’t knock it. Please find another forum.
Perhaps, if your parents taught you some manners and respect for others, you might have a different view of just what a shortfall is. I consider myself very fortunate to have been raised with the attitude to explore everything in the world, including religions, and make up my own mind. This, in contrast to blindly swallowing the Kool-Aid fed to many.
I never said Montgomery/Harford was better/worse. I just noted the views of those who post in this forum which I gather is “Harford County News” based, that most of the views are extremely intolerant of others.
You see, SSM will not in the slightest affect you, your family, or your religion. Not in the slightest. Yet, for some reason, you and many here feel it perfectly fine and legitimate to vote against the civil rights of a minority, especially when that civil right is important to them. I find that just rude and more than a little self-centered and intolerant.
I personally don’t have any problems with tractor pulls, NASCAR, and country & western music. They are not something I am particularly interested in but as it does not bother me, has no effect on anyone but those interested in it, I have no objections to its existence.
I also find it odd that you suggest that I find another forum. I gather you don’t see any point to hearing views other than your own. That is an interesting way to become more aware of the world. Perhaps, you have no interest in that.
As far as voting against me? Believe me, people who are anti-SSM are pretty much set in their ways. They only time they change their view is when a close friend or family member comes out of the closet and introduces their partner of many years. Then, sometimes they change their view.
ChuckGG, My marrying my sister or brother would in no way affect you, however you don’t seem to support my civil right to do so. You seem very narrow minded.
Amen Bear! We must end the bigotry of people like ChuckGG! Equality for all!
I have no problem if Bear wishes to marry his sister. In fact, he seems like the type that would. Of course, his ability to marry his sister is not the question on the ballot. In order to do that he would need to go through the whole process to get the measure on a ballot. It’s a free country. He’s welcome to try. Of course, he would need to get the majority of his fellow citizens to vote in favor of the law. That’s the way it works.
Ted,
You are so correct. ChuckGG, while supporting SSM for reasons of civil rights, and the theme “it in no way affects you” also has a bias against others, who are in love, and who would want to marry same sex partners from within their own family, which of course, would in no way affect Chuck. Chuck does this while saying that I somehow seem like a person who would do such a thing, whatever that means. There seems to be no end to the bigotry of people like ChuckGG.
I’m pretty sure Ted is being absurd to illustrate the absurd. The word “bigot” is used far too loosely today – just because you don’t agree with SSM (or inter-family marriage) doesn’t make a person a bigot.
True bigotry is what you see from the likes of the Westboro “Baptist Church.”
That being said, it is difficult to see how anyone could be for SSM and against the marriage of family members who truly love one another. I personally use my faith as my guide and believe what the Bible says on both topics…and before those who think that inter-family marriage is condoned by Christianity, please take a theology or hermaneutics course before responding.
Bob,
ChuckGG and others state that the basis for SSM in America is a matter of civil rights, and consistently states that such a marriage would not affect anyone else. Thus their rational that there is no valid reason for disallowing such a marriage. If he is correct then their exists no valid reason for him not to support marriage between same sex brothers or same sex sisters, other than he is just a bigot.
But, of course, that is not the question on the ballot.
Not this year, Chuck.
Not a True Reflection: Your is sage advice. Thanks.
The threats to marriage are spousal abuse, child abuse, and cheating on a spouse, not whether or not gays marry. If a church chooses not to marry same sex partners, that is their business, but the government (we want less government, remember) should stay out of this issue.
My questions are, 1) What’s it to me? 2) What’s it to you?
Agreed. If everyone is so worried about the “sanctity of marriage,” why aren’t they working on outlawing divorce? The numbers, we all know: About 50% of marriages end in divorce (probably gay ones, too). But, what is new and even more interesting is the number of couples (straight) living together but NOT married. That number also is around 50%. The conclusion I must draw is that gay marriages aside, what’s going on with straight marriage given the divorce rate and the “shacking up” (as we used to call it)factor?
Given the Religious Right states that only 3% of the population is gay, and following the current rate of marriage between straight couples being around 50%, that might extrapolate to 1.5% of the gay population being in a civil marriage. I doubt 1.5% of anything is going to impact straight marriage.
And, again, no more of the marrying of a family member, motor vehicle, pet donkey, or small child. If you wish to advocate for those options, go ahead, be my guest. Follow the procedures to get it on the ballot. It’s a free country. The question on this ballot is for same-sex marriage, not these other situations.
ChuckGG,
I agree that marrying a member of your immediate family or even extended family is not one the ballot. However, that does not take away from your being a bigot, for not supporting or explaining why same sex family members should not be allowed to marry.
When brothers marry one another it in no way affects you. Yet you are against such loving relationships thus making you a bigot and a hypocrite for the very same reasons you see persons who would not approve of same sex marriage. Brother marrying brother or sister marrying sister would do nothing to destroy the gene pool, nor would it affect you and your spouse in any way.
Sadly, you are just a bigot.
What a load of hogwash! I never once said you couldn’t marry whomever you wished to marry. It’s entirely up to you. I frankly don’t care who you marry, or what family members marry other family members. Calling me a bigot because you haul out these strawman arguments is just plain bizarre. If you want to pursue all these other permutations of marriage then run through the process to get it on the ballot. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the current issue.
The point is simply this: What is on the ballot this November is whether or not two people of the same gender can be legally married in a civil marriage ceremony. It isn’t about two dogs humping. It has nothing to do with aardvarks. Sheep are not mentioned. So, stick to the issue.
Calling me a bigot? That is a stretch. The only intolerance I have is for people who act like the south end of northbound mule.
ChuckGG,
You are getting very agitated here Chuck. Your bias is showing. No one talked about two dogs humping or sheep getting it on, except you. Gays seem to start screaming about animal sex whenever the conversation turns to real equality for all persons to marry who they want, thus your bigotry is showing.
Real equality for all persons would not prohibit marriage between any persons who loved one another and wanted a committed relationship through marriage. You don’t support real equality for all, plain and simple.
Bob – Again, I cannot reply to a reply, but to respond to both of your questions/points:
1. I agree, those other alternatives are not on the ballot “this year.” They might be next year but I doubt it. That’s not saying that someone could not try. They certainly are welcome and entitled to do so. If one were serious about such options, they must now gain a sense of how I feel, having the majority of people vote of the civil rights of a minority. I realize you consider consult your religion on this matter, but this is all about civil marriage and not religious marriage. Had the law said “civil unions,” I wonder if you would be as concerned? The problem with civil unions vs. marriage is a legal quagmire that I won’t go into here but suffice it to say that legally civil unions do not equal marriage – even if you restrict that comparison to legal matters only. And, there is no practical way in the law to make civil unions equal to civil marriage. Just take my word for it or talk to a Constitutional attorney for clarification. It has to do with the same term meaning the same thing and so on.
2. Bigot – yes, the Westboro Baptist Church takes the cake on that one. Above and beyond the bigotry, their actions are downright rude and ill-mannered. Hardly the behavior expected of gentlemen and gentlewomen. And, believe me, they are doing nothing for the reputation of religion. If there ever was a group that people could point to as an example of religion run amok, they would be the poster child.
I suspect eventually SSM, that is, civil marriage, will be the law of the land. Older people are against it percentage-wise, but the young crowd approves of it in the 70+% range. The repeal of DADT has gone very well. I have yet to hear a negative report. Again, that’s a young crowd vs. us older coots. We often hear this “32 of 32” states voted it down. Well, yes, but many of those votes were taken years ago and much has happened since then.
It may not happen nationwide in my lifetime but it is good to know now the gay teen can see he/she is not alone in the world. That’s a far cry from what it was in the generation before me (I’m in my 50’s) where there were witch hunts and people jumped off bridges and all that.
Nice chatting, BTW.
I wonder why the Eskimos do not have a word for gay marriage?
Maybe for the same reason that English doesn’t either? Last I checked “gay marriage” was two words.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron in English.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Civil Union is merely newspeak.
So is “Intelligent Creationism.”
Entropy must be your enemy.
Please stick to the topic.
Well, after the law changes, it eventually will be just “marriage.” I’m sure back in 1967 when inter-racial marriage was all in the news, people raised an eyebrow or two and said slyly, “oh, it’s a ‘mixed marriage,’ don’t you know.” The key-phrase for a black-and-white couple.
Now, it’s just “marriage.” I have not heard the phrase, “mixed marriage” used since I last heard the word, “divorcee.” Remember that one?
It was okay for a man to be divorced but for a woman, that meant she was “loose.”
Thankfully, times have changed.
ChuckGG, you seem to be outnumbered, but I give you credit, you are hanging in there. My big hope for you is that you are as committed to the really big issues facing this country today e.g.,Iran’s nuclear capability, unemployment, our tax policies, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, our tremendous aid program to foreign nations, our national debt, and so on and so on. While this thread deals with SSM, I hope you don’t vote for people because of their position on just one issue. Care to address this. These are the real problems that are going to affect all of us regardless of our sexual preferences.
Monster: No, I am not a one-issue voter. I was a 30+ year Republican until the GOP I knew disappeared and was replaced by the ultra-religious and ultra-socially conservative crowd called the Tea Party Express (TPE). I am the first one to talk about fiscal policy but as these social issues that the TPE continues to haul out have nothing to do with government or fiscal policy, and the traditional GOP (now, sadly dismissed as RINOs), are either dead or have abandoned the party, I switched to Independent. I could no longer be a part of a group that wants to change our democracy into a theocracy. If they had stuck with the fiscal issues, I might have been okay with them. Even if they had remained neutral on social issues, I could have lived with that. But, to actively yammer on about Constitutional amendments to ban SSM, reintroducing DADT, and attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade, they lost my vote. If it was ALL about the economy, as they claimed, these social issues would not be front-and-center.
I truly have no problem with religion. From a small child, I did not believe a word of it but I had no problem with anyone who did, just as long as they did not try to impose their particular religious beliefs into my secular government. Doing so is no different than trying to impose Sharia law into our laws. I know the religious crowd will claim Christianity is different because it’s the “only true religion.” Yeah, well, that’s what the Imams say about Islam.
As far as those major issues go, I used to live and work in Iran for Bell Helicopter under the Shah. I went through the revolution and was evacuated out of Tehran in February 1979 to Germany. I’ve worked at the Pentagon, the Navy Yard, and a variety of defense installations over the years. So, I don’t think I’m someone’s fool when it comes to these issues.
But, to answer your question about one-issue voter. As I said, no, I’m not. But, I also think the way a party and/or a candidate treats minorities speaks volumes as to how they would treat others. I also look at Romney as probably the least “street wise” candidate I have seen since Jimmy Carter. I have seen nothing that endears Romney to me as far as economic plans and other non-social issues. When you add-on the social issues, Romney is a no-go for me.
I also see a number of people voting for Romney because he is not Obama. And, some of that is due to the fact he’s black. Yes, I know, I am going to hear the “race card” played. Well, yes, because I have heard a number of people tell me directly and indirectly that they don’t want a “n-word” in the White House. The indirect slam that possibly is subconscious I heard from a lady friend, “Obama has fancy state dinners and uses Air Force One too much.” Oh, really? Actually, a lot less than some Presidents, but the point was she did not consider Obama a “real” President. It is amazing the degree to which I see this attitude in the news. Having lived through and participated in civil rights marches decades ago, I thought for sure that racism was confined to the KKK and some places in the deep south. In my circle of friends, family, and co-workers, I simply do run into such beliefs.
I believe Romney really is a moderate but he has to play to his base. Of the candidates the GOP, er, ah, Tea Party put forward this year, Romney was about the only sane one in the group. I was dumbstruck at the level of ignorance and questionable intelligence in that group. I would say Jon Huntsman was on my list and despite some conservative social issues, I would have voted for him. Very sharp. Very bright. Obviously was a fish out of water in that lineup. There seems to be this real distrust and dislike for “intellectuals.” It has become a dirty word among the TPE crowd.
I don’t know if that answers your question. I will be voting for Obama and for Question 6 (I think it is). And, that vote for Obama was not because he is pro-SSM. Actually, the President really has little say in the matter. Marriage is a state issue, not Federal, and while he has his bully pulpit, it carries little weight on state decisions such as SSM (my opinion).
Since when is being outnumbered an indication of moral or intellectual superiority?
ChuckGG, thanks for the honesty. I have to disagree with you on your political view of Obama’s abilities to lead this country. I wish you hadn’t played the race card, and I believe you know it was wrong also. There are many blacks who will vote for Obama for no other reason then he is black. Racism is wrong no matter what color practice it.
You’re welcome, but I will stick with the race card because I have seen it first-hand and frankly have been stunned at what I heard coming from people I thought would never say such a thing. I mean, using the n-word when he got elected. There is just something visceral in them than cannot condone a black man at the White House. I’ve never seen anything like it.
Of course, black people may well vote for Obama because he’s black. Just as people from Wisconsin probably will vote for Ryan because that’s his home state. I am not surprised at that. But, I think that might be different than NOT voting for someone just because of their color, ancestry, whatever. One is negative, the other positive.
Some other points: All that claptrap about him being a Muslim and the birth-certificate fiasco? No other President had to go through that. You see, for me, when I hear of that kind of malarkey, the credibility of the GOP/TP just goes right down the drain. It’s so utterly preposterous, I cannot even imagine people would believe it. What’s next? Elvis really is still alive? Come on.
Well, I’m a transplanted Yankee from Maine so this whole racism thing was new to me. Of course, I heard about it, read about it in history books, but never had experienced it first-hand. I can honestly say I have never experienced anti-gay epithets or gay violence, either. Who knows why, I just haven’t.
As far as Obama goes, given the choice between Romney’s policies (if we only knew some details) and Obama’s (if Congress would have any other goal other than to make Obama a one-term President), I will take Obama’s.
Chuck
Whats up with your comment “all this claptrap about Obama being a Muslim”? What if he is a Muslim, would that make any difference? Do you care if Obama is a Muslim?
What if he’s a Martian! Don’t you care if he’s a Martian? Wouldn’t that make a difference to you?
I have nothing against Muslims or Martians, do you?
No.
Chuck,
I’ve been ignoring this conversation because it goes no where and you strike me as a hypocrite.
First piece of advice… leave Montgomery County – I live in Harford County and have never once heard the President’s name in the same sentence as the n-word. Perhaps MontCo is more hick than you’d like.
Second, President Obama does not deserve a second term. His first term began with a virtual super majority in Congress for two years. His agenda was derailed not from a filibuster-proof majority friendly to his ideas, but from the mere unpopularity of his programs. If his programs were so popular, such as Obamacare, and good for everyone; why did states like Nebraska get exempted to gain their votes for it?
From everything I’ve heard Obama’s second term only offers a second go at the already failed policies of his first term. The unemployment numbers are falling not from job creation, but rather people abandoning the search for a job. That is not a healthy outlook.
The gridlock in Washington stems less from a party of no, but more from the idea that bipartisanship means “our way or the highway” approach by the Democrats. The recent strategies of the Democrats to demonize parts of the population to push its agenda does nothing to unite the people (think 1%, birthers, Tea Party, religious whackjobs, etc…). People willing to think issues through will see that they slide in and out of the targeted groups… these objective thinkers want to know why the fingers are pointed at times and at others are not? Frankly, it tells me the Democrats are seeking to appease a very small group of people who do not fit into any of their categories of intolerance.
For the record, I’m not a Republican and am really struggling who to vote for this year…
We gave two terms to an idit that gave us an elective war, depleted the surplus and had a vice president that said deficits don’t matter. He casually ignored corporate malfeasance and short term mindsets of major corprations while he created fear in the minds of the simple with the prospect of an Iraq providing “NUCULAR” weapons to Al Qaeda. We put up with your white idiot that could do no wrong (but managed), I think you can tolerate the smart black man who was hired to clean up that mess Mr Bush left in 2008.
This coming from a man who lists as a demand the proper landscaping and yard maintenance as promised per his APG terms of employment.
Why not leave the name-calling out and deal with the facts? The US was attacked in 9/11/2001 as a result of perceived weakness due to the lack of response to attacks in previous decade. As a result, we have had no attacks on the US mainland since, something ‘experts’ said was not possible. Iraq was actively pursuing WMD’s. There is no doubt about that, according to all intelligence sources. They are no longer a threat.
Obama decided to ‘reset’ our relations with foreign countries, creating uncertainty around the globe, which is perceived as weakness. As a result, we are being attacked both militarily and economically. The respect for this nation diminishes everyday, both from within and internationally.
I cannot tolerate another 4 years of this wandering around, spending money on boondoggle fads (Solyndra, cash for clunkers, etc.), disrespect for the Constitution and blaming everyone else for lack of success. Obama had no experience at anything, no accomplishments and a background that was hidden. He needs to stop whining and start leading, or move out of the way (my preference as he is not capable of leading this country).
You really need to take a long look at what caused the mess and you will be looking at the very members of the Democratic Party that jumped up and down blaming Bush. They were warned this would happen and ignored the warnings. Bush asked for greater regulation of the NGOs that led to the collapse.
“white idiot” ? wow, whatever credibility you had has just been lost
Mr. Porter,
Name calling is the first sign of weakness. Deflection is the second. You nailed both in one post.
How exactly do the failures of the current president find their cause in the failures of the previous president?
What happened to the 10 million jobs waiting for the stimulus money for ‘shovel ready’ projects?
I would actually agree that Mr. Obama was hired to clean up a mess. He had virtually unprecedented latitude to do exactly what he dreamed of doing with his super majority in Congress for two full years. Yet his policies could not gain traction – why not? How exactly can Bush be blamed for that? How exactly could any Republican be blamed for that? Answer the question.
So, people like me who do not belong to one of the political mega corporations that control this country – you call them parties – are left to decide whom to cast the precious ballot for based not on prejudiced biases of party affiliation, but rather the strength of the argument. Since Mr. Obama pledged to clean the mess up and has failed to do so, and in many cases made it worse, and promises only to keep on keeping on thinking he has indeed made progress (though, unemployment is actually higher if they calculated it like they used to and the debt is through the ceiling)… I’m left to ask myself; Why should he be returned to office?
Of course the problem is compounded by the speculation that Mr. Romney can either do or not do better.
I’m more of the mind that a compromise needs to be reached… well, both parties have shelved that idea. Thus, if you feel compelled to reply to my comments as tacit support for the other guy because your guy is a failure – I can’t help you.
Conversely, if this election were to be decided by other issues, like the one at hand, SSM, the decision is easy.
One more thing… If you play the race card, don’t do it from the bottom of the deck. You have no idea what color I am. And also, playing that card means you know lost the hand.
What Obama is this year is defeated. For all of you liberals, please keep all legs and arms inside the carriage, it’s gonna be a rough ride for you. The idiotic liberal elite media is portraying it as close in VA, NC, FL. NO WAY. Romney wins all three. Even the thug union bosses can’t lie steal and cheat,(while I must admit they’re some of the best in the world at doing it) enough to steal this election. As for gay marriage, it won’t pass, even in Maryland. Thank goodness we’re about to turn from socialism back to capitalism. Not a minute too soon!
Mike – I just don’t see the basis for your view. It is not supported by the polls from well-known and reputable companies. You are asking for a clean-sweep. I doubt Romney can pull his campaign out of its nose dive.
The only chance Romney has for winning this is to do very well in the upcoming debates. I’d give him a 50:50 on that. Everyone who is planning to vote has already made up their mind except for a small percentage. This small percentage is what both campaigns are vying for.
The problem with Romney is that he’s not really a very likeable guy and people do vote for likability and their wallets. And, the numbers are out that the economy is getting better. I know a lot of the votes for Romney really are votes against Obama. If that’s all you have, swaying the undecided voters is going to be a tough battle.
My hope is that when Obama wins his second-term that Congress will grow up, act like adults, and work together. I’m not optimistic that will happen, but it wouldn’t happen, either, even if Romney were to win.
As far as gay marriage goes, it’s on the ballot in 4 States. I think it will pass in at least 3 of the 4. Minnesota is a question. Why do I suspect this? Pretty simple. You know the expression of “rats from a sinking ship?” The rats know when the ship is going down. In Maine, in 2009, the Mormons and the Catholics dumped millions into the State to defeat SSM and they successfully repealed the SSM law but at a great cost both financially and with their credibility.
This year, the Catholic church has backed way off. All they are doing is issuing a pastoral letter talking about the importance of marriage and that is being distributed to the local Catholic churches. But, no money for ads, no “second plate for hate” being passed around, no contributions to other groups. Say what you want about the Catholics, but they are no fools when it comes to money and bad Public Relations. They see SSM in Maine as likely to pass and they want to distance themselves from it lest they look like the losers in the battle. Plus, they have had some big pushbacks from the laity and you don’t help your cause by alienating your customers. The Catholic church is really hurting for new, young families. Those who are in the pews generally are older. Since SSM with the under 30 crowd has better than a 70% approval rating, driving away young people is hardly in the interest of the church.
Well, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. I hope we all can check back with each other after the election just to see how your predictions held up. Speaking of that – has anyone checked the Vegas bookie numbers? What are they saying? They must be the most impartial given they are in all this for the money. I’ll have to see if I can track down the odds.
Ever read the pied piper Chuck? Do you expect Obama to all of a sudden becoome a great leader, and a financial wiz? Look for substance instead of swallowing liberal talking points hook line and sinker. This country is more divided then ever, and there is no chance the republicans work with a reelected Obama after this vile campaign. You seem to be a one issue voter chuck, and thats great to vote that way while the country crumbles around you. I would be angered that Obama was opposed to my issue until he all of a sudden needed my vote.
Democrats like to label conservatives as radical, but who really are the crazy ones? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU
Having some degree of experience of history, I do not take my vote lightly. I have no problem with Obama. He has done as well as can be expected given the hand he was dealt and with the GOP having said to his face that their primary goal was to make Obama a one-term President. Well, that’s certainly a mature, progressive, and sportsmanlike response to the 2008 election results.
Romney truly does nothing for me. I find him naive and out-of-touch with the real world. He kind of reminds me of Jimmy Carter when he first came to office – clueless.
You really haven’t the foggiest idea what socialism is. You sit here with your narrow mind in your tiny part of the world and imagine all the terrible things that are on the outside waiting to come in and take away your rights. A French Diplomat (Yes, French, they helped us with the revolution in case you didn’t know) once said that “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography.” If that never happened, if you didn’t get your Faux News updates with the pictures it is unlikely you would even know how to spell Iraq or find it on a map let alone who it’s neighbors are. Socialism (however you define it) has a variety of manifestations throughout the world and man of those locations are country’s with higher rates of education, live birth, life span and lower levels of poverty and substance abuse. Your capitalism left unchecked, was the reason Teddy Roosevelt became a known as a great reformer. Enjoy Romney, whatever it is he stands for at this moment. There is an extremely good chance that if he gets elected I will get more of what I want than you will.
So you believe in socialism and will gladly trade our rights for your comfort. Lots of Americans died fighting for everything you just gave up on.
To a state marriage is nothing but a revenue source. They are not for marriage equality, but attempting to find ways to build their coffers.
Well, then, there should be no objection to civil marriage for same-sex couples, since civil marriage is about about money and the legal status and has nothing to do with religious tenets. I can live with that.
Like it or not, the State has this institution called civil marriage and many of our laws are affected one way or the other by whether or not an individual is legally married. And, while it might have appeased the religious crowd if another word other than “marriage” had been used for all couples, straight and gay, that ship has sailed. We are stuck with what we have. I would argue that no church owns the word, “marriage.” It’s just a word. It means one concept in the religious context and it means a similar, but different concept in the secular world.
I swear we would not hear 1/10 of the objections to same-sex marriage if it were called something else such as same-sex unions. But we cannot convert all marriages to “unions” and leave the word “marriage” to the churches. That isn’t going to happen. People will just have to understand “marriage” is a homonym – same word, different meaning. So, if semantics is all the issue is about, then there are bigger fish to fry in the world.
This is the greatest election in the history because its touches the fundamental aspect of man existence. This is the time to decide whether to give gays an opportunity to ruins our society by polluting the next generation with their evil desires because the evil a generation allows, the next generation will sees it as a normal way of life or promote the dignity and the sanity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Sam, what business is it of yours what another person does in their bedroom?
B,
So you believe this is all about the bedroom?
Mike – Sadly, some people seem to think the only reason a same-sex couple is together is to have a non-stop hump-fest. They seem to have a difficult time understanding the couple loves each other. It makes me wonder how they feel about their own marriages. Did these guys marry their wives because they love them, or because they are good breeding stock and brood mares?
Until they understand (and they may never) a same-sex couple loves each other, I doubt they ever will “get it.” Perhaps, if they did, they might better understand why civil marriage is so important to them.
We have a vote coming up in less than a month. Imagine, right now, if the validity of your straight marriage was on the ballot. The majority of your fellow citizens will vote and decide whether you and your spouse can be legally married, can file jointly on your taxes, can have spousal insurance benefits, can have the right to visit your spouse in the hospital or even to make medical decisions for you. Imagine that scenario. Now, you know how I feel.
My point Mike, is it is none of our business who Chuck loves, how he lives his life, or what he does in his own home. This is a civil rights issue. This is clearly a situation where people are trying to assert their religious views into government, and deny others their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Let them have their gay marriage and gay divorce.
And how you feel is not a valid legal argument Chuck, and clearly, most people don’t care. However, when you argue the point that you are being discriminated against, that your rights are being violated, others cannot deny your point.
There are children involved in many of these relationships, and they need the stability and protection that legal marriage provides.
B – thanks for your comments. I agree that how I feel is not a valid legal argument but it was my attempt to at least try to humanize the issue as the logic of reason and law rarely is understood by those with strong religious views.
When I have asked for a legal argument against same-sex marriage, all I hear are crickets chirping. Those against SSM cannot provide even a reasonable legal justification for the continued civil rights discrimination. Just review the transcripts from the Prop-8 case in the 9th Circuit. Those against SSM (for Prop-8) were scratching for some kind of justification but found none.
I suspect SSM will pass in Maryland and just as is the case in the other 6 states, DC, and a bunch of other countries, the world will not come to an end because gay couples now have a piece of paper from the government.
I agree with you on this issue Chuck, you are still out of your mind voting for Obama.
The “sanity” of marriage? To paraphrase Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he cannot spell.”
The world may come to an end but it will not be because two men and their kids who are living together today as a family, just like many other couples before them, now have a piece of paper from the government saying they may file jointly on their income taxes.
The evil you worry about comes from dogmatic religious doctrine designed to separate people, keeping them in isolation so they have a common enemy – those “other” people. Whip up discontent and you can keep the funds flowing into the coffers. Every despot and demigod in history learned this trick. The idea of openness and inclusion is the antithesis of the mantra of the older churches. In another hundred years, with any luck, today’s divisive churches will be placed on the dusty shelves of history.
The greatest election in history? Are you kidding? The fundamental aspect of man’s existence is the Gay Marriage Referendum?
Same reaction here. I did not realize Gay Marriage carried such weight. Really, this is much ado about nothing. The numbers are small. The biggest impact will be the marriage license forms at City Hall will need to be reprinted. After that, unless you are participant in a SSM ceremony, this will impact you about as much as the latest UK cricket scores.