MD close to passing same-sex marriage

[rightwinger]

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.

In other words....you are a jerk

 

[Anachronism]

In other words....you are a jerk

In other words I'm someone who is not interested in violating my own morals, values, and philosophies simply to please others or to make my own life "fun", "happy" or "pleasant". Those three things are not mandatory parts of life so far as I am concerned. I'd rather be Right than any one of the three of them, or all of them combined.

 

[jjfuller72]

At least we can count on Obama enforcing DOMA, right? YEA!!!!

 

[martybegan]

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 DOMA should be repealed and the federal government should recognize all legal Civil Marriages and Congress should provide (under it's Article IV Section 1 authority) that no state is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.]



>>>>

Then you run into the full faith clause between states, and then someone will sue on that basis.

Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal.

 

[R.D.]

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?

For you to get that out of what I said makes it clear you're an idiot.

So I ask myself, if an idiot calls me dumb do I consider it a compliment?

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

For you to get that out of what I said makes it clear you're an idiot.

So I ask myself, if an idiot calls me dumb do I consider it a compliment?

So tell me what part was wrong about my summary. Where did I misinterpret your statement?

 

[bodecea]

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

My reasoning was not snide....but apparently you just admitted that yours was. Ok, whatever floats your boat.

 

[bodecea]

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.]



>>>>

Then you run into the full faith clause between states, and then someone will sue on that basis.

Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal.

Well, that's simply not true.

 

[konradv]

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.

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.

Read the article. That wouldn't be possible under the MD law.

 

[konradv]

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?

Why would you pretend it does? Since you haven't given us an example, I can only conclude that this is a knee-jerk opinion without anything to back it up.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

My reasoning was not snide....but apparently you just admitted that yours was. Ok, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah.... And I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn...

Just as he can go to a place more 'appropriate' to people like yourself.... so very easily can you... out with the boy lovers, sheep fuckers, and big spending socialism worshipers

See... easy to play the stereotype game

 

[R.D.]

So tell me what part was wrong about my summary. Where did I misinterpret your statement?

Nope.

I can and did reply to you but I won't think for you.

 

[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.]



>>>>

Then you run into the full faith clause between states, and then someone will sue on that basis.

Well someone might sue the government because of the way DOMA is currently written, oh wait that's already happening.

As a pretty conservative type of guy it is much easier to defend the conservative position of smaller, less intrusive government, and states powers (I use powers because states don't have right people do and powers is what the 10th Amendment references) to define civil marriage then it is to try to defend the social authoritarian position of discriminating against a segment of the population because people don't like them.

Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal.

Not quite true, before the whole Same-Sex Civil Marriage thing there used to be laws where the only legal marriages were in the same race.

Not to mention that there are other places in this world historically and currently have marriage as one man and many women.

So no, there has not always been (nor is there currently) only one type of marriage.



>>>>

 

[konradv]

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.

Wouldn't happen under the MD law. Religious institutions will be free to refuse to marry same sex couples. That may be the case in other states, but the OP was about the MD law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Same snide reasoning behind your backhanded comment to Anachronism

Aren't you the poster that implied another poster as deluded and then called another poster an asshole?


Those who throw stones...



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Same Sex Marriage crosses the Mason Dixon Line!

 

[martybegan]

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.]



>>>>

Then you run into the full faith clause between states, and then someone will sue on that basis.

Well someone might sue the government because of the way DOMA is currently written, oh wait that's already happening.

As a pretty conservative type of guy it is much easier to defend the conservative position of smaller, less intrusive government, and states powers (I use powers because states don't have right people do and powers is what the 10th Amendment references) to define civil marriage then it is to try to defend the social authoritarian position of discriminating against a segment of the population because people don't like them.

Also, before all the gay marriage stuff started there WAS only one kind of marriage, one man, one woman. thats it. It was regular marriage legal, anything else illegal.

Not quite true, before the whole Same-Sex Civil Marriage thing there used to be laws where the only legal marriages were in the same race.

Not to mention that there are other places in this world historically and currently have marriage as one man and many women.

So no, there has not always been (nor is there currently) only one type of marriage.



>>>>

We are discussing US law here, and prior to the same sex marriage debate legal marriage was between a man and a woman, one of each, only 1 pair at the same time. Polygamy was only recognized for a brief time in Utah.

The restrictions of race on marriage are very very different than the current sex based restrictions, as race based restrictions in public law have been established as unconstitutional originally in the 1870's (which were erroneously overturned) and rightly re-recognized as unconstitutional during the 1950's and 1960's. With the exception to voting rights, restrictions in public law based on gender are still being upheld.

 

[RDD_1210]

So tell me what part was wrong about my summary. Where did I misinterpret your statement?

Nope.

I can and did reply to you but I won't think for you.

LOL, so my understanding of your view point was spot on. Way to stand up for your beliefs! You must be proud.

 

[bodecea]

So tell me what part was wrong about my summary. Where did I misinterpret your statement?

Nope.

I can and did reply to you but I won't think for you.

I know what that means.......

 

[RDD_1210]

So tell me what part was wrong about my summary. Where did I misinterpret your statement?

Nope.

I can and did reply to you but I won't think for you.

I know what that means.......

Perhaps he realized how ridiculous his comment was?



Nah.................