Maryland House of Delegates passes gay marriage law. Senate a sure thing.

Feb 17, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.dailykos.com

It was close thing in Maryland today for marriage equality. The legislation needed 71 votes in the Maryland House of Delegates and it got 71, with 67 delegates opposed.

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of68
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
FYI-
An interesting development in Washington state. The anti-gay Attorney General who's running for Gov on the GOP ticket this Nov has given preliminary approval to the ballot language for the attempted repeal of marriage equality- Ref 74.
The language explaining the referendum uses the phrase "redefining marriage", even though that phrase shows up NO WHERE in the actual bill.
Pro-equality groups are going to file suit to get the language changed to something less anti-gay. Of note, the NOM website recommends using the phrase "redefining marriage" and avoiding at all costs the phrase "ban same-sex marriage" or "overturn same-sex marriage rights".
The GOOD news is any court challenge could delay the start date for collecting signatures, but does NOT effect the end date of 6 Jun. So the anti-gays could be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to use anti-gay language in the ballot. Depending on how long we can drag out the court challenges to the language, the anti-gays could be left with very little time to collect their signatures.
THANK YOU for this information. The assaultive war of the antigay on the rights of gay people has been waged on two unfair grounds: 1. The general public receives vast amounts of misinformation about gay people. 2. The state referenda and initiatives themselves are shoved through by the antigay on vastly unfair grounds.

It is in light of #2 that it is vitally important to fight them on every grounds where they're trying UNFAIRLY to tip the scales in their favor, as you have described here.

Unfortunately, NOM will stop at nothing ever, ever, ever, ever, ever. I could easily see them bringing suit to extend the period of time for signature-gathering because the lawsuit halted them from doing it.

This should not stop waging the battle of their goddamn lives against them all the way to the highest pertinent court to PREVENT them from doing such a thing, because I pah-rah-miss you, I p-r-o-m-i-s-e you that once you lodge one lawsuit, they go into overdrive and start trying to clutter the courts with every single thing they can think of, anything, anything, and then take each and every lawsuit to the highest possible level.

These people are *sociopathically obsessed* with this. As long as they have resources, the proudest and greatest thing the pro-gay can do is to fight them between now and the end of time, absolutely endlessly and with a ferocity that matches theirs and never lets up for a nanosecond.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
FYI-
An interesting development in Washington state. The anti-gay Attorney General who's running for Gov on the GOP ticket this Nov has given preliminary approval to the ballot language for the attempted repeal of marriage equality- Ref 74.
The language explaining the referendum uses the phrase "redefining marriage", even though that phrase shows up NO WHERE in the actual bill.
Pro-equality groups are going to file suit to get the language changed to something less anti-gay. Of note, the NOM website recommends using the phrase "redefining marriage" and avoiding at all costs the phrase "ban same-sex marriage" or "overturn same-sex marriage rights".
The GOOD news is any court challenge could delay the start date for collecting signatures, but does NOT effect the end date of 6 Jun. So the anti-gays could be shooting themselves in the foot by trying to use anti-gay language in the ballot. Depending on how long we can drag out the court challenges to the language, the anti-gays could be left with very little time to collect their signatures.
Getting this onto the ballot may not be the slam-dunk that everyone assumes. It seems to me that Initiative 71 made it onto the ballot courtesy of several questionable decisions in favor of petitioners.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
THANK YOU for this information. The assaultive war of the antigay on the rights of gay people has been waged on two unfair grounds: 1. The general public receives vast amounts of misinformation about gay people. 2. The state referenda and initiatives themselves are shoved through by the antigay on vastly unfair grounds.
It is in light of #2 that it is vitally important to fight them on every grounds where they're trying UNFAIRLY to tip the scales in their favor, as you have described here.
Unfortunately, NOM will stop at nothing ever, ever, ever, ever, ever. I could easily see them bringing suit to extend the period of time for signature-gathering because the lawsuit halted them from doing it.
This should not stop waging the battle of their goddamn lives against them all the way to the highest pertinent court to PREVENT them from doing such a thing, because I pah-rah-miss you, I p-r-o-m-i-s-e you that once you lodge one lawsuit, they go into overdrive and start trying to clutter the courts with every single thing they can think of, anything, anything, and then take each and every lawsuit to the highest possible level.
These people are *sociopathically obsessed* with this. As long as they have resources, the proudest and greatest thing the pro-gay can do is to fight them between now and the end of time, absolutely endlessly and with a ferocity that matches theirs and never lets up for a nanosecond.
Luckily the deadline for turning in signatures is very clear in the law, and the reason it can't be moved back is to ensure enough time to verify the signatures before the ballots have to be printed. They can't very well move the date of the election back.

So if they screw around with the deadline, it's just as likely it won't make it onto the ballot. Either way, we win!

The pro-equality groups already said they will challenge the proposed ballot language. Hopefully they just keep challenging it non-stop.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

After additional consideration, there IS another possibility here. Indulge me.

The anti-gays aren't as stupid as everyone thinks; they can read the polls too. Granted they are blinded by their hatred of us, but on some level they have to know there is a good possibility the voters will actually uphold the marriage law.

That said, it's possible the anti-gays are intentionally using language which they KNOW will be challenged in court. IF the legal challenges affect the signature gathering timeframe, and IF they fail to get enough signatures by the deadline, then the anti-gays can always claim that we once again used "judicial activism" to prevent a vote of the people.

This way they don't face the humiliation of losing a popular referendum AND can still claim that every state which voted on it upheld "traditional marriage" AND can still blame "the gays" & "liberal activist judges" for deny the people the right to vote on the issue.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
After additional consideration, there IS another possibility here. Indulge me.
The anti-gays aren't as stupid as everyone thinks; they can read the polls too. Granted they are blinded by their hatred of us, but on some level they have to know there is a good possibility the voters will actually uphold the marriage law.
That said, it's possible the anti-gays are intentionally using language which they KNOW will be challenged in court. IF the legal challenges affect the signature gathering timeframe, and IF they fail to get enough signatures by the deadline, then the anti-gays can always claim that we once again used "judicial activism" to prevent a vote of the people.
This way they don't face the humiliation of losing a popular referendum AND can still claim that every state which voted on it upheld "traditional marriage" AND can still blame "the gays" & "liberal activist judges" for deny the people the right to vote on the issue.
On the other hand, I'm quite sure these people believe they will always get their way if they spend enough money on it. And money isn't a problem for them when they can tap the Mormons and the Roman Catholics, plus plenty of centi-millionaires and billionaires.

There is not much I would put past them. But in this particular case, I think they are too confident in winning.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, I'm quite sure these people believe they will always get their way if they spend enough money on it. And money isn't a problem for them when they can tap the Mormons and the Roman Catholics, plus plenty of centi-millionaires and billionaires.
There is not much I would put past them. But in this particular case, I think they are too confident in winning.
You're probably right, and their overconfidence may be their achilles heel.

At this point a part of me hopes it actually does come to a vote in Washington. We really need to win a popular referendum vote on this issue to complete the trifecta of our court & legislative wins. Washington is probably the best shot we'll have at a popular vote win in any of the states currently working on marriage equality, and the timing is perfect with Obama on the 2012 ticket and the GOP in apparent disarray.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
After additional consideration, there IS another possibility here. Indulge me.
The anti-gays aren't as stupid as everyone thinks; they can read the polls too. Granted they are blinded by their hatred of us, but on some level they have to know there is a good possibility the voters will actually uphold the marriage law.
That said, it's possible the anti-gays are intentionally using language which they KNOW will be challenged in court. IF the legal challenges affect the signature gathering timeframe, and IF they fail to get enough signatures by the deadline, then the anti-gays can always claim that we once again used "judicial activism" to prevent a vote of the people.
This way they don't face the humiliation of losing a popular referendum AND can still claim that every state which voted on it upheld "traditional marriage" AND can still blame "the gays" & "liberal activist judges" for deny the people the right to vote on the issue.
Don't feel "shy" about it; theorizing is wonderful. This theory has a lot going for it.

Get this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46438194/ns/us_ne...

We've passed a threshold: Over 50 percent of children in a key demographic in America are now born out of wedlock.

There is absolutely no denying that the antigay are waging a "war" ON GAY PEOPLE ALONE, without taking any other factor(s) into consideration and without indicting THE PROPER PARTIES for problems with marriage as an institution.

There is little denying that any sensible, logical person would make the same finding.

There is less and less room to deny that any judge who heard a cause without prejudice would make the same finding as a matter of LAW, at this point.

The antigay are simply dumbfucks to pretend SIX STATES are causing any problem when over FIFTY PERCENT of these women aren't even bothering with marriage for the sake of their CHILDREN to begin with. There is zero way this points toward any gay couple, and every way it points toward heterosexual females.

(Cue fundamentalist screaming about women who don't know their place.)
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Feb 18, 2012
 
heard a cause = heard a case

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right, and their overconfidence may be their achilles heel.
At this point a part of me hopes it actually does come to a vote in Washington. We really need to win a popular referendum vote on this issue to complete the trifecta of our court & legislative wins. Washington is probably the best shot we'll have at a popular vote win in any of the states currently working on marriage equality, and the timing is perfect with Obama on the 2012 ticket and the GOP in apparent disarray.
I'm not sure why you think Maine isn't in great shape to win their battle. Maine's GLBT political groups are well-seasoned from initiative battles every few years, and they ran an excellent campaign against Question 1 in 2009. They only need a turn-around of 3%, and that might have happened just from the passage of three years time.

Did you notice the lack of enthusiasm of Mainers during last week's caucuses? It's pretty clear that Maine conservatives are not going to be enthusiastic about this fall's ballot choices.

And the anti-gay coalition pulled out all their usual tricks and misinformation in 2009. I don't think the arguments will be as successful the second time around.

Heck, even their Republican governor plans to vote for Question One in the fall!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Feb 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure why you think Maine isn't in great shape to win their battle. Maine's GLBT political groups are well-seasoned from initiative battles every few years, and they ran an excellent campaign against Question 1 in 2009. They only need a turn-around of 3%, and that might have happened just from the passage of three years time.
Did you notice the lack of enthusiasm of Mainers during last week's caucuses? It's pretty clear that Maine conservatives are not going to be enthusiastic about this fall's ballot choices.
And the anti-gay coalition pulled out all their usual tricks and misinformation in 2009. I don't think the arguments will be as successful the second time around.
Heck, even their Republican governor plans to vote for Question One in the fall!
I wasn't discounting Maine. I'm actually quite hopeful we'll have a tie for the 1st state to pass marriage equality by popular referendum. Should that happen, Maggie Gallagher is likely to have a stroke! Just an added bonus.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Feb 18, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't discounting Maine. I'm actually quite hopeful we'll have a tie for the 1st state to pass marriage equality by popular referendum. Should that happen, Maggie Gallagher is likely to have a stroke! Just an added bonus.
Polls close in Maine three hours earlier. And Maine will count faster--unless the Republicans run the election..

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Feb 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Polls close in Maine three hours earlier. And Maine will count faster--unless the Republicans run the election..
Okay, so maybe it won't be a tie. Of course there's always a chance Washington or Maryland might not even have a referendum vote either, though I'm not betting on that.

There is conflicting reporting from Maryland on whether the amendment to delay the effective date of the bill until Jan passed or not. I know it passed in the judiciary committee on Thu evening, but I was positive I heard it get defeated in the full House on Friday. Still seeking clarification on that. I would make the difference of setting up another Prop8 situation or not.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Feb 19, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so maybe it won't be a tie. Of course there's always a chance Washington or Maryland might not even have a referendum vote either, though I'm not betting on that.
There is conflicting reporting from Maryland on whether the amendment to delay the effective date of the bill until Jan passed or not. I know it passed in the judiciary committee on Thu evening, but I was positive I heard it get defeated in the full House on Friday. Still seeking clarification on that. I would make the difference of setting up another Prop8 situation or not.
I thought it had passed. But there was a point that I was a little confused which amendments were being voted on. Still, I thought the proceeding was much more clear than other legislative sessions that I've tuned in.

BTW: Did you catch the freak in NJ who ranted for ten minutes about the bill being given #1 before she was finally shut down?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Feb 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it had passed. But there was a point that I was a little confused which amendments were being voted on. Still, I thought the proceeding was much more clear than other legislative sessions that I've tuned in.
BTW: Did you catch the freak in NJ who ranted for ten minutes about the bill being given #1 before she was finally shut down?
Okay, directly from the Maryland General Assembly website-

There were only 2 amendments which passed. One says the bill won't go into affect if there are pending legal challenges to referendum signatures, and the other delays the effective date of the bill to 1 Jan 2013.

Unfortunately these amendments were necessary to get the 71 votes required to pass the bill. Both are intended to ensure the people have a chance to vote by referendum and to discourage any legal challenges to the signature gathering/verification proces.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Feb 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, directly from the Maryland General Assembly website-
There were only 2 amendments which passed. One says the bill won't go into affect if there are pending legal challenges to referendum signatures, and the other delays the effective date of the bill to 1 Jan 2013.
Unfortunately these amendments were necessary to get the 71 votes required to pass the bill. Both are intended to ensure the people have a chance to vote by referendum and to discourage any legal challenges to the signature gathering/verification proces.
My jaw dropped. It never, ever ends with these people.(The antigay.)

They claim that the pro-gay cannot win a single fair and square "victory" and yet they pass a bill MANIPULATING the process if anyone pro-gay should dare to take their signature-gathering to court?

This is *identical* to giving them carte blanche to cheat in any way they see fit, and leave the pro-gay quaking in their boots because "we better not take them to court, it'll delay everything!"

I'm well aware you may disagree vehemently, but were I in charge of all this, that little amendment would do absolutely zero to stop my lawsuit *if* I saw them being dishonest in any way. Couldn't care less. In fact, if they were blatantly dishonest, I would look to a lawsuit that reached beyond the "authority" of that amendment by any way I could get it.

It gives the antigay a carte blanche which I find too profoundly disturbing for words.

I recognize what you have said, that it was necessary to get the votes. I'd get the votes with it and without caring *what* might or would happen afterward; but that's "just me." And maybe, in their minds, privately, that is what the pro-gay intended. Who can know. None of us could guess what is privately in someone's mind.

It chills my spine that the antigay are *so god-fucking-damn hell-bent on this hatred* that they will pull out all the stops to manipulate *any* state's process in *any* way they can; this is WAY, WAY, WAY beyond any normal effort and well and truly into the land of clinical obsession. I am floored. I am floored. Anyone who doesn't realize how savagely, viciously, vehemently, ferociously these people must be fought, with what absolute and utter ferocity, oh my christ I feel sorry for you (not YOU; I am saying, whoever does not understand by this point).

I thank you for all the information you continue to bring to the board. I hope absolutely nothing more than that the pro-gay are committed to the point that they, too, have gone into the land of clinical obsession (and, hahahaha, it seems so, in some individual cases, and I applaud them).
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Feb 19, 2012
 
I remember a year or so ago, on these very boards, that a number of people were saying they were unhappy with the fact that they could not win fair and square. They disliked when the political or legal process seemed manipulative in any way.

That was around the time that I *stopped* caring HOW these victories were won. And I would well and truly understand if anyone else who read this post disagreed with me personally, but I am so, so, so damn far beyond caring *how* these victories are won that I no longer care *what* has to be done (legally) to obtain them.

And if I see the antigay getting away with anything that they are not called to task for, I will soon drop the word "legally" from that statement, and not care how ANY state or ANY legislature achieves this.

Why?

Because I'm reminded of voter disenfranchisement of blacks.

The pro-gay are having the odds stacked *deliberately and knowingly and willfully* against them, and the antigay DO NOT CARE that they are doing that. It must stop and it's a testament to how bad this has gotten that I am very nearly going against *my own makeup* at this point in not caring how victory is achieved.

I'd feel much the same way, I suppose, if a murderous rapist were attacking my small child. Everything goes out the window except for achieving an objective, which must be achieved at any cost.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Feb 19, 2012
 
Politics is war by other means.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Feb 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
My jaw dropped. It never, ever ends with these people.(The antigay.)
They claim that the pro-gay cannot win a single fair and square "victory" and yet they pass a bill MANIPULATING the process if anyone pro-gay should dare to take their signature-gathering to court?
The concern of the legislature is that the new law should not go into effect if sufficient signatures had been gathered, but court proceedings prevented a vote this November. This makes the situation more like Maine or Washington states, where laws don't go into effect if they are being challenged by referendum. Maryland has not such law.

Lawmakers were quite cognizant of the Prop 8 decision, which rested on the fact that California had recognized same-sex marriages, but withdrew the right. Had the law gone into effect in October and been voted down in November, Maryland would have been in completely analogous circumstance. The same predicament would occur if court challenges prevented a vote until late 2013, but the law went into effect on January 1.

I'm not clear from the wording of the amendment what should happen if court challenges are resolved in favor of a referendum, but too late to appear on the November 2012 ballot. It sounds like, once the court makes a decision about the referendum either way, marriages become legal from the later of that date of January 1, 2013.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Feb 19, 2012
 
No WONDER they call it "MARY" land !

:)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Feb 19, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
No WONDER they call it "MARY" land !
:)
It's where all those lovers in Virginia elope.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of68
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

7 Users are viewing the Baltimore Forum right now

Search the Baltimore Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min fetch almighty 1,033,606
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 19 min SevenTee 303,185
Ugly Mug Cafe opens on East Baltimore Street 52 min guest 11
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr ICP 2014k 17,699
In need of loan shark (Aug '12) 10 hr Michael 6
Debate: Marijuana - Baltimore, MD (Aug '10) Apr 14 Sneek Blee 51
Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hun... (Sep '07) Apr 14 Squach 123,275
•••

Freeze Warning for Baltimore County was issued at April 16 at 9:49PM EDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••