MD close to passing same-sex marriage

[WorldWatcher]

Please scroll up to my response to a similar point made by someone else.

In the other cases it is either that the religion itself has not issue with the marriage in question, or there are other factors involved. In the case of gay marriage, you can have people who beleive in the tenets of the religon, except for the things against gay relations, who feel discriminated against due to the religon denying them a marriage under thier tradition. In today's litigous environment, I do not see this never happening.

I was probably writing while you made your previous response.

In neither post have you provided any supporting legal evidence that there has ever been a successful lawsuit against a Church for failing to perform a wedding, you raise the specter of "Well what if...". Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing an interracial marriage, that is not justification for continued discrimination in the law. Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing an inter-faith marriage, that is not justification for continued discrimination in the law. Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing a marriage ceremony for a divorced couple, that is not justification to create a law barring a divorced individual from remarrying.



>>>>

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

People, more and more, are seeing that we are NOT the Boogie Man.

No, but that does not mean I have like, accept, or condone your lifestyle. Nor do I have to do business with anyone or any place that does.

You dun get to discriminate or violate the rights of anyone whom you disapprove of, either. For example, I loathe sexual bigots but I cannot refuse to serve one in my public restaurant or book one into my hotel.

I'm not even allowed to hit one! Sometimes, I think this freedom thingie is a pain in the ass.

Very telling that you want to hit people who exhibit behavior with which you disagree.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

BTW, I cannot be driven out of my home merely because two neighbors have a wedding I disapprove of, or two kids kiss where I can see them. Driving me from my home takes more serious events, like an infestation of rats -- or bigots.

In my case all it takes is an infestation of disgusting, immoral Liberals. I had hoped that Central/Western Massachusetts might be able to survive what goes on East of Rt. 128. I was wrong. Very wrong. Wrong enough that I'm looking at a total life change to get the hell out of here ASAP.

I understand that Massachusetts will be grateful to you when you leave. May I suggest an appropriate state like Texas or Mississippi or Utah? Or perhaps another country like Iran? Their lose will be Massachusett's gain.

What's wrong with Texas and Mississippi?

And I believe you meant loss. Even a bumpkin from LA knows that.

 

[rightwinger]

Another one bites the dust...

It is only a matter of time before it is the law of the land.

 

[martybegan]

Please scroll up to my response to a similar point made by someone else.

In the other cases it is either that the religion itself has not issue with the marriage in question, or there are other factors involved. In the case of gay marriage, you can have people who beleive in the tenets of the religon, except for the things against gay relations, who feel discriminated against due to the religon denying them a marriage under thier tradition. In today's litigous environment, I do not see this never happening.

I was probably writing while you made your previous response.

In neither post have you provided any supporting legal evidence that there has ever been a successful lawsuit against a Church for failing to perform a wedding, you raise the specter of "Well what if...". Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing an interracial marriage, that is not justification for continued discrimination in the law. Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing an inter-faith marriage, that is not justification for continued discrimination in the law. Well "What if..." it was possible that a Church might be sued for not performing a marriage ceremony for a divorced couple, that is not justification to create a law barring a divorced individual from remarrying.



>>>>

In no place in my post(s) did I ever imply that I am against this happening in Maryland. I have always said that there is no consitutional ban against gay marriage (I also think there is no constitutional right to one either), and that is has always been a legislative function of the state. If allowed to vote in a refurendum, however, I would oppose it being allowed, as to me it is not marriage, but would not throw a fit if a vote for it passed and it became law, nor would I attend rallies against it, or protest against it.

My concerns are actually something supporters should worry about far more than people who are against it. IF one of these lawsuits were to ever happen, and IF even one of them managed to succeed in any level of the judicial system, the backlash would be catastrophic on a national level, not just a state level. Such a lawsuit would play into all the fears and catastrophic predictions your opponents have been using for years.

 

[Anachronism]

It is only a matter of time before it is the law of the land.

At which point it will be time to see mushroom clouds over every state capital and Washington, DC.

 

[RDD_1210]

I've still yet to hear how homosexuals getting married has ANY impact on any other couple or family. I love the hypocrisy of people who want to be able to make their own choices without outside interference, but it's not ok for others to be treated the same way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In no place in my post(s) did I ever imply that I am against this happening in Maryland. I have always said that there is no consitutional ban against gay marriage (I also think there is no constitutional right to one either), and that is has always been a legislative function of the state. If allowed to vote in a refurendum, however, I would oppose it being allowed, as to me it is not marriage, but would not throw a fit if a vote for it passed and it became law, nor would I attend rallies against it, or protest against it.

So if you believe that Civil Marriage is a legislative function of the State, then do you support the repeal of the Federal DOMA and returning to the federal government recognizing all legal marriages entered into under State law.



[BTW - I just so you know, I support the replacement of DOMA because I feel it is defective in that is was obviously an discriminatory law target one group. DOMA **ONLY** exempts states for recognizing only one type of Civil Marriage. DOMA should be repealed and the federal government should recognize all legal Civil Marriages and Congress should provide (under it's Article IV Section 1 authority) that no state is required to recognize **ANY** Civil Marriage that conflicts with it's own laws. That returns the power to the States to decide on Civil Marriage.]



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've still yet to hear how homosexuals getting married has ANY impact on any other couple or family. I love the hypocrisy of people who want to be able to make their own choices without outside interference, but it's not ok for others to be treated the same way.

I've heard that Jane and Joan down the street having hot lesbian sex has been known to cause impotence in some men thinking about it caused by unwarranted stress.


Just say'n.



>>>>>

 

[bodecea]

In my case all it takes is an infestation of disgusting, immoral Liberals. I had hoped that Central/Western Massachusetts might be able to survive what goes on East of Rt. 128. I was wrong. Very wrong. Wrong enough that I'm looking at a total life change to get the hell out of here ASAP.

I understand that Massachusetts will be grateful to you when you leave. May I suggest an appropriate state like Texas or Mississippi or Utah? Or perhaps another country like Iran? Their lose will be Massachusett's gain.

What's wrong with Texas and Mississippi?

And I believe you meant loss. Even a bumpkin from LA knows that.

Did I say something was wrong with Texas and Mississippi? I simply said that they were more appropriate states for people like Anachronism. Don't you agree?

(And thank you....it should be "loss", not "lose"...my bad)

 

[DiamondDave]

I understand that Massachusetts will be grateful to you when you leave. May I suggest an appropriate state like Texas or Mississippi or Utah? Or perhaps another country like Iran? Their lose will be Massachusett's gain.

What's wrong with Texas and Mississippi?

And I believe you meant loss. Even a bumpkin from LA knows that.

Did I say something was wrong with Texas and Mississippi? I simply said that they were more appropriate states for people like Anachronism. Don't you agree?

(And thank you....it should be "loss", not "lose"...my bad)

And Greece is a more appropriate country for people like you then??? Would that be fair to say?

 

[bodecea]

It is only a matter of time before it is the law of the land.

At which point it will be time to see mushroom clouds over every state capital and Washington, DC.

Well, I was right. Iran is the country for you.

 

[R.D.]

I've still yet to hear how homosexuals getting married has ANY impact on any other couple or family. I love the hypocrisy of people who want to be able to make their own choices without outside interference, but it's not ok for others to be treated the same way.

It doesn't have an effect on any other couple, but it does on all families with kids. Both traditional and homosexual.

When young children daydream and think about adulthood, getting married like their parents today means man and woman. Throw gay into the equation and they are then thrown into the sexuality of family and not simply the unity and love of family.

A kid can want to live with a partner like his uncle, get married like his dad, live with a partner like his dad etc. At a young and impressionable age when they simply want to emulate someone they love keeping things separate but equal also keep young minds free to mature and discover at their own pace.

I don't mean this as saving the children from homosexuality, but saving them from the discovery and discussion of sex at all until they are ready.

 

[Epic_NG]

If it passes the House, Governor O'Malley promises to sign law. Law has provision that no religious institution can be forced to perform the marriages. Prediction: The sky will not fall and it will not effect my marriage one bit.

100% agree with your prediction and say it is about time that this happened.

As far as the kid who wants to "get married like his dad" can do so even if his dad is married to another guy. Marriage is about love, not gender. The discovery and discussion of sex should happen when it is time, having 2 parents of the same gender won't make it happen anymore because if everyone realized it is not a big deal it would be seen as normal and no one would question it.

 

[Anachronism]

Well, I was right. Iran is the country for you.

Nah. I'm more a believer in morality than in religion. Someplace like Saudi Arabia would work if it weren't for the RTKBA issue.

 

[RDD_1210]

I've still yet to hear how homosexuals getting married has ANY impact on any other couple or family. I love the hypocrisy of people who want to be able to make their own choices without outside interference, but it's not ok for others to be treated the same way.

It doesn't have an effect on any other couple, but it does on all families with kids. Both traditional and homosexual.

When young children daydream and think about adulthood, getting married like their parents today means man and woman. Throw gay into the equation and they are then thrown into the sexuality of family and not simply the unity and love of family.

A kid can want to live with a partner like his uncle, get married like his dad, live with a partner like his dad etc. At a young and impressionable age when they simply want to emulate someone they love keeping things separate but equal also keep young minds free to mature and discover at their own pace.

I don't mean this as saving the children from homosexuality, but saving them from the discovery and discussion of sex at all until they are ready.

Quite possibly one of the dumbest posts I've seen on this site in a long time. Believe me, that's no easy feat on this site. Bravo!

So, let me get this straight
- Kids want to one day marry, but if Gays can marry then the idea that marriage is about Love is lost? So gays don't marry because of love?

- So allowing gay people to marry might turn more kids gay?

Wouldn't "keeping young minds free" actually be reason to support gay marriage and show them that they should accept who they are because it's ok to be proud of your feelings and who you love?

 

[RDD_1210]

Well, I was right. Iran is the country for you.

Nah. I'm more a believer in morality than in religion. Someplace like Saudi Arabia would work if it weren't for the RTKBA issue.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't get out much? Probably single I'm guessing.

 

[bodecea]

What's wrong with Texas and Mississippi?

And I believe you meant loss. Even a bumpkin from LA knows that.

Did I say something was wrong with Texas and Mississippi? I simply said that they were more appropriate states for people like Anachronism. Don't you agree?

(And thank you....it should be "loss", not "lose"...my bad)

And Greece is a more appropriate country for people like you then??? Would that be fair to say?

Why would Greece be a more appropriate country for me? Please explain, because I am quite happy living in a country that is showing more and more that we are all indeed equal under the law...as it should be.

 

[DiamondDave]

Did I say something was wrong with Texas and Mississippi? I simply said that they were more appropriate states for people like Anachronism. Don't you agree?

(And thank you....it should be "loss", not "lose"...my bad)

And Greece is a more appropriate country for people like you then??? Would that be fair to say?

Why would Greece be a more appropriate country for me? Please explain, because I am quite happy living in a country that is showing more and more that we are all indeed equal under the law...as it should be.

Same snide reasoning behind your backhanded comment to Anachronism

 

[Anachronism]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't get out much? Probably single I'm guessing.

I get out plenty. I have a fairly active social life. I just do it on my own terms.

Yes, I am single, and while I would enjoy having a woman in my life, I have yet to meet a woman who would be worth violating my morals and values for in the 36+ years I've been alive.