MD close to passing same-sex marriage

[Anachronism]

Because you only want to live, work or visit among GLBT single people? I can see that, sorta. Marriage does make most people a tad more settled...some would even say boring.

Actually, if these people could keep their PRIVATE lives PRIVATE, I'd have a lot less trouble with it, Madeline. I have no need, interest, or desire to see two people of any gender combination exchanging spit or anything like that in a public place. I definitely have no need to see two people of the same gender doing it. The legalization of Gay Marriage is one of many reasons I'm trying to get out of Massachusetts as quickly as I can.

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.

See, you have made the mistake of involving yourself in a function where your actions can be controlled by the government. I don't own a business. I don't own rental property. I can still choose to associate with only those people whose lifestyle I agree with. So, yes, on a personal level I DO get to discriminate.

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

If you ever run into me, please feel free to throw a punch. I'll even agree not to sue you or press assault charges. Just realize that I have no problem defending myself with and and/or force I feel necessary from any assault by man or woman.

And (and I mean this sincerely), we thank you for that.

I'm not sure why you would thank me for suggesting that your lifestyle should be restricted to the shadows of society and your own bedrooms, without any form of legal or societal recognition, as it has been for centuries.

 

[DiamondDave]

No one is asking you to accept their belief. The law specifically states that no religious institution can be forced to participate. This about civil rights and fairness before the law.

No... when government mandates acceptance of a choice thru legalities, it is indeed wrong... this law will tie in to discrimination laws, insurance laws, housing law, etc....

By definition, governmental intervention into this forces acceptance on a legal level

This is NOT about fairness (which is inherently SUBJECTIVE, not something government should be)... don't be deluded

Fairness before the law and the extension of civil rights under the Constitution is EXACTLY what the government should be doing. YOU'RE the one trying to enforce your personal choices on others.

No... fairness is SUBJECTIVE... hence why it has no place in government... now equal treatment under government and under law, all well and good... YOU are the one trying to force acceptance beyond what government should be doing for base equal treatment...

I am all for equal treatment of family units for taxation, inheritance and other governmental realms.... not for forcing someone to recognize a marriage they don't believe in, or force acceptance of a choice of sexual lifestyle....

but nice try

 

[martybegan]

No one is asking you to accept their belief. The law specifically states that no religious institution can be forced to participate. This about civil rights and fairness before the law.

My only concern is that sooner or later, someone is going to attempt to sue a religous organization for discrimination because they refused to marry them. At that point the law as written is pretty much moot, as it then becomes a fight between The 1st amendment right to practice ones religion, vs. Equal protection under the law based upon the 14th amendment.

All you need is a single court decsion going against a church that wouldn't marry a gay couple, and you will have a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Well, I'm sure it will end up like ALL THOSE lawsuits forcing churches to marry inter-racial couples and inter-faith or no-faith couples.

Most of the fights that happened over inter-racial marriage occured way before our current litigation-happy time period. As for inter-faith the usual requirement is to bring the children up as part of one religon to have the ceremony done it that tradition. No faith couples are not going to try to get a faith based marriage anyway.

Are you trying to tell me that somewhere, there will never be a religous gay couple that, when told thier church will not perform a gay marriage, will not sue them on grounds of discrimination?

This is a distinct possibility, and if it does happen, and the couple happens to win, it will be a giant clusterfuck as every person who railed against gay marriage would have a giant "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!" point.

 

[Madeline]

Because you only want to live, work or visit among GLBT single people? I can see that, sorta. Marriage does make most people a tad more settled...some would even say boring.

Actually, if these people could keep their PRIVATE lives PRIVATE, I'd have a lot less trouble with it, Madeline. I have no need, interest, or desire to see two people of any gender combination exchanging spit or anything like that in a public place. I definitely have no need to see two people of the same gender doing it. The legalization of Gay Marriage is one of many reasons I'm trying to get out of Massachusetts as quickly as I can.

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.

See, you have made the mistake of involving yourself in a function where your actions can be controlled by the government. I don't own a business. I don't own rental property. I can still choose to associate with only those people whose lifestyle I agree with. So, yes, on a personal level I DO get to discriminate.

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

If you ever run into me, please feel free to throw a punch. I'll even agree not to sue you or press assault charges. Just realize that I have no problem defending myself with and and/or force I feel necessary from any assault by man or woman.

And (and I mean this sincerely), we thank you for that.

I'm not sure why you would thank me for suggesting that your lifestyle should be restricted to the shadows of society and your own bedrooms, without any form of legal or societal recognition, as it has been for centuries.

I'm in Cleveland, Anachronism. Get yourself here and I will beat you snotless at pool, and then buy you lunch to console you.

But only in a gay poolroom and a gay restaurant!

 

[Madeline]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Md. Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill, Christian News, The Christian Post

How on earth can you redefine marriage at a fundamental level and pretend that it has no effect on marriage?

 

[Avatar4321]

Get government out of the marriage business.. have government recognize family couples for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, legal and medical decisions in case of emergency, etc.... treate everyone equally....

Government intervention in such things as gay or abnormal marriage forces acceptance... acceptance is a personal thing.... when left in the hands of the churches or whatever other private institutions, people can join as they choose, accept what they believe in, and live free without governmental repercussion... if someone chooses to be with a person of the same or opposite sex is entirely up to them in a free society, but in that free society they are not entitled to make everyone accept their same belief

No one is asking you to accept their belief. The law specifically states that no religious institution can be forced to participate. This about civil rights and fairness before the law.

No it's about forcing the public to accept deviant, immoral, and destructive behavior.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My only concern is that sooner or later, someone is going to attempt to sue a religous organization for discrimination because they refused to marry them. At that point the law as written is pretty much moot, as it then becomes a fight between The 1st amendment right to practice ones religion, vs. Equal protection under the law based upon the 14th amendment.

All you need is a single court decsion going against a church that wouldn't marry a gay couple, and you will have a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Could you cite for us any successful lawsuit against a Church for failure to perform a wedding that is against the doctrines of that Church for...

• Interracial marriage,
• Inter-faith marriage,
• Marriage where one (or both) members were divorced for conditions not recognized by that Church,
• and/or since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in multiple states, Same-sex marriage?

Thank you in advance for providing such supporting evidence.


Seems like using your logic the stricking of laws against interracial marriages should not have happened because there was a possibility that a Church could be sued for not marrying an interracial couple. (BTW - any one can sue anyone else for anything they want. Winning the case is a different matter.)


WW


>>>>

 

[Avatar4321]

Fairness before the law and the extension of civil rights under the Constitution is EXACTLY what the government should be doing. YOU'RE the one trying to enforce your personal choices on others.

Yeah. of course. By maintaining the status quo we are forcing our personal choice on people. The fact that the statute empowers the state government to regulate and redefine more relationships that they cannot currently enforce means that the opponents of the bill are trying to enforce personal choices on others.

It's amazing how you can twist reality so easily. You empower the government to enforce your viewpoints and not its the other guys who are the bad guys. You are just trying to "free" people with the use of violence.

 

[bodecea]

My only concern is that sooner or later, someone is going to attempt to sue a religous organization for discrimination because they refused to marry them. At that point the law as written is pretty much moot, as it then becomes a fight between The 1st amendment right to practice ones religion, vs. Equal protection under the law based upon the 14th amendment.

All you need is a single court decsion going against a church that wouldn't marry a gay couple, and you will have a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Well, I'm sure it will end up like ALL THOSE lawsuits forcing churches to marry inter-racial couples and inter-faith or no-faith couples.

Race is known to be determined from human genetic makeup... there is no such thing with being gay or the choice to marry someone of the same sex.... and we are allowed to have preferences of choice and discriminate in relation to choice... This is legislating the acceptance of a choice, something I am not for

I see you COMPLETELY missed my point. And COMPLETELY ignored my comments about churches being sued for refusing to perform inter-faith or no faith marriages.


But I suspect you don't want to see the point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Md. Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill, Christian News, The Christian Post

It's interesting to note that in the linked article (by The Christian Post) it cites a poll showing 54-37% the people of Maryland oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage. A little research shows that the cited poll was conducted for the National Organization of Marriage, a national action group that specifically opposes equal treatment for homosexuals under the law.

Independent polls show 46-44% (May, 2010 LINK) and 51-44% (Jan 2011, LINK) favor Same-sex Civil Marriage.


If it goes to a referendum in 2012, it will be an interesting fight to watch because it has the very real potential to be the first victory at the voting both for same-sex couples in terms of Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Get government out of the marriage business.. have government recognize family couples for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, legal and medical decisions in case of emergency, etc.... treate everyone equally....

Government intervention in such things as gay or abnormal marriage forces acceptance... acceptance is a personal thing.... when left in the hands of the churches or whatever other private institutions, people can join as they choose, accept what they believe in, and live free without governmental repercussion... if someone chooses to be with a person of the same or opposite sex is entirely up to them in a free society, but in that free society they are not entitled to make everyone accept their same belief

No one is asking you to accept their belief. The law specifically states that no religious institution can be forced to participate. This about civil rights and fairness before the law.

No it's about forcing the public to accept deviant, immoral, and destructive behavior.

You can accept or not accept what you want. You CANNOT, under the guise of your so-called morality, keep other law-abiding tax-paying citizens from equal treatment under the law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Md. Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill, Christian News, The Christian Post

It's interesting to note that in the linked article (by The Christian Post) it cites a poll showing 54-37% the people of Maryland oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage. A little research shows that the cited poll was conducted for the National Organization of Marriage, a national action group that specifically opposes equal treatment for homosexuals under the law.

Independent polls show 46-44% (May, 2010 LINK) and 51-44% (Jan 2011, LINK) favor Same-sex Civil Marriage.


If it goes to a referendum in 2012, it will be an interesting fight to watch because it has the very real potential to be the first victory at the voting both for same-sex couples in terms of Civil Marriage.



>>>>

I would like to think that we have learned something from California and Prop H8 and the minority neighborhoods and voters will NOT be taken for granted this time.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would like to think that we have learned something from California and Prop H8 and the minority neighborhoods and voters will NOT be taken for granted this time.

The first states to allow Same-sex Civil Marriage did so because of court order.

At least two that I can think of now have it based on legislative action (IIRC Vermont and New Hampshire) not court mandate.



If Same-sex Civil Marriage is approved by the voters in a Maryland referendum that would be huge, repeat HUGE, in terms of long term political capital against the social authoritarian talking point that Same-sex Civil Marriage has never won at the voting both.

If the referendum fails with the voters, I predict it would be a tipping point for voters in other states to know, "Hey, it's OK to vote to end discrimination."




>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

 

[Anachronism]

I'm in Cleveland, Anachronism. Get yourself here and I will beat you snotless at pool, and then buy you lunch to console you.

But only in a gay poolroom and a gay restaurant!

I don't make it out that way very often. Maybe the next time I'm visiting my brother just south of Buffalo.

Trust me, I'm not the sort you want to get involved with anything competitive around. I'm a terribly sore loser, and you wouldn't even get me into any of those types of establishments (for more than one reason).

 

[martybegan]

My only concern is that sooner or later, someone is going to attempt to sue a religous organization for discrimination because they refused to marry them. At that point the law as written is pretty much moot, as it then becomes a fight between The 1st amendment right to practice ones religion, vs. Equal protection under the law based upon the 14th amendment.

All you need is a single court decsion going against a church that wouldn't marry a gay couple, and you will have a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Could you cite for us any successful lawsuit against a Church for failure to perform a wedding that is against the doctrines of that Church for...

• Interracial marriage,
• Inter-faith marriage,
• Marriage where one (or both) members were divorced for conditions not recognized by that Church,
• and/or since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in multiple states, Same-sex marriage?

Thank you in advance for providing such supporting evidence.


Seems like using your logic the stricking of laws against interracial marriages should not have happened because there was a possibility that a Church could be sued for not marrying an interracial couple. (BTW - any one can sue anyone else for anything they want. Winning the case is a different matter.)


WW


>>>>

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.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

I'm a Conservative. I'm surprised they allowed me into the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts to begin with, 13 years ago.

I'm looking at PA right now. Texas would be great but I'm not sure I have the finances to make that big of a move right now. Utah is a religious theocracy; that's not what I'm lookin for. If it weren't for the chaos in the Middle East and their lack of RTKBA legislation I would have been there a long time ago.

 

[bodecea]

My only concern is that sooner or later, someone is going to attempt to sue a religous organization for discrimination because they refused to marry them. At that point the law as written is pretty much moot, as it then becomes a fight between The 1st amendment right to practice ones religion, vs. Equal protection under the law based upon the 14th amendment.

All you need is a single court decsion going against a church that wouldn't marry a gay couple, and you will have a shitstorm to end all shitstorms.

Could you cite for us any successful lawsuit against a Church for failure to perform a wedding that is against the doctrines of that Church for...

• Interracial marriage,
• Inter-faith marriage,
• Marriage where one (or both) members were divorced for conditions not recognized by that Church,
• and/or since Same-sex Civil Marriage is legal in multiple states, Same-sex marriage?

Thank you in advance for providing such supporting evidence.


Seems like using your logic the stricking of laws against interracial marriages should not have happened because there was a possibility that a Church could be sued for not marrying an interracial couple. (BTW - any one can sue anyone else for anything they want. Winning the case is a different matter.)


WW


>>>>

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.

Because you've been told it is something to be afraid of....but you haven't been told that there have been NO successful lawsuits against any church for refusing to marry couples they. don't. want. to.