Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

BTW, the Maryland court has found laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman constitutional, there's no gender equality right in Maryland's Constitution either.

Brian_G wrote:

Protect marriage, No on 6!
Maryland's courts have found that defining marriage as one man and one woman doesn't violate the State's Constitution. There is no gender equality right in Maryland or the US Constitution.

The fact you claim gay marriage harms marriage shows your hatred of gay people.
And there is gender equality in the Constitution, 14th Amendment. ALL US citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. So, while discriminating on the basis of gender might not violate MD's constitution, it does violate the US Constitution.

Brian_G wrote:

BTW, the Maryland court has found laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman constitutional, there's no gender equality right in Maryland's Constitution either.

But there is in the US Constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Doesn't say "except for men" or "except for women"...

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The Nineteenth Amendment gives men and women the same right to vote, it doesn't give gender equality rights. Here's the text, read for yourself:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution, the Equal Rights Amendment failed ratification.

It would have been redundant. The 14th Amendment already gives all US citizens equal protection under the law.

Brian_G wrote:

[Q<quoted text>Rose is using sophistry, "a specious argument used for deceiv[e]." There's nothing wrong with masturbation, but solo marriage would harm civilization. There's nothing wrong with group sex, whatever floats your boat, but I oppose polygamy because that harms civilization too.

Red herrings.
And you can't point out a single way gay marriage would harm civilization.
Let's say today gay marriage were recognized everywhere on earth. OK, you wake up tomorrow and...
What? Zombies start eating people's brains? Well, you'd have nothing to worry about.

Brian_G wrote:

.
<quoted text>I've never insulted anyone except in retaliation,

So, you've never insulted anyone except when you have.
Got it.

Brian_G wrote:

and even then I use insults sparingly. This is where we differ.
I know Rose is sincere, she wants to change marriage because of her sympathy for homosexuals. Life isn't fair, homosexual unions are barren; tough love means keeping marriage as one man and one woman.

That makes no sense. You don't have to be able to spawn in order to marry.
.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I've offered over a hundred arguments on these pages,

And not one of them rational.

Brian_G wrote:

I've read thousands of arguments here. Rose refuses to debate the arguments because it's so much easier to dismiss political opponents as bigots.

You're claiming I won't debate!? Why bother with such a sorry lie?

Brian_G wrote:

The left isn't self aware, basis their arguments on emotion instead of reason and resorts to defaming opponents to win. They are very good at defamation; I give them that.

Actually, you're "arguments" are pure emotion. "Life isn't fair", "tough love" "harm civilization". Other con dumbs claim some god doesn't want gay marriage. That's totally irrational. Pure emotion.
My argument has nothing to do with emotion at all. It's a simple matter of equal rights.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The court's ruling imposed same sex marriage law on the state. Walker writes as conclusion: " [California's] constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis" and the Remedies section directs: "California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples"
Reject court imposed same sex marriage law!

Again, stupid, nobody has to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to. Nothing was imposed.

Why are you against equal rights?

You many different people out there still do not understand your imminent sake is at hand, that you need to give a full evaluation of the next course with no more Obama.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH OBAMA --NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS,AS ALL HAVE BEEN PROVEN that Obama is a big failure and the biggest trouble maker for all of you in modern times.
Do you want to ask Romney how to do the economy and foreign policy and so on?

Time is for you to move on.
YOU SHOULD KNOW THE CORRECTNESS AND THE RIGHT THINGS TO DO.

Why do you need to ask too much?
YOU CAN HELP YOURSELVES WHAT ARE TO BE REQUIRED

Mormons ARE GREAT TO BE PRESIDENT.
MORMONS resemble the faith of god.
Y0U ARE TO MAKE A MORMON TO BE YOUR NEW PRESIDENT NEXT.

After almost four years of troubling many of you, Obama is impossible to do any good in the economics, including security and other policy matters.

In economics, Obama has just done what you don't want--by making more people poorer while making super-wealthy more wealthy, to entice the off-balancing of vast disproportional rate of wealth among the population. His appetites for growing large levels of debts are the craving and sprees to dispose your money away.

He cannot do any security by talking about getting bin laden, because the Libya and Egypt crisis was created by him to make the violences by his intrusion way of acts in the regions.

What is he going to do about Libya, as he has done much harms under international attention, which shows US on world stage is being dragged down by him? And that makes more global people no longer respects US stand.

What else can you do now?

Why do you need to ask too many questions when you have been doomed by Obama already and since you want to do the recovery which Obama has failed in four years?

How can Obama just do other things of Iraq, and health care, without the focusing on the economy as the economy is the basic priority before anything else--by doing just Iraq? And now he is to do what, to get into the economy he has ruined after four years?
If you think that way, you are out of your minds.

Do you want to ask Romney how to do the economy and foreign policy and so on?

He already told you about the overall ballpark numbers for cutting costs and the basic concepts of how the economy will work.
He had been to the world, to France, Afghanistan, Middle east, Iraq and beyond places, with high exposure of experience on world state of outlook.

At this late time of your stake, you still want to make your direction confused by asking what if Romney gives your numbers and specifics without your providing files and details of what have been done that need to move on, to be . Obama has to turn al these things to Romney without omission so that Romney will have a good work on them for you.
all people.

You can do better than that by knowing your stand of getting your new man Romney precedes anything, that Obama is to be rid of, so that, that is the best thing for time allotment and all your needs to get done with.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH OBAMA --NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS.
Why do you need to ask too much, as Obama as been proven unworkable, to be fired, but only that you know all his failed matters and the economy are as important and essential as your concrete basic steps to move on for now?

But continuance with Obama makes you act like psychotics and will make your future gloomy, and do you know that?

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Again, stupid, nobody has to marry someone of the same sex if they don't want to. Nothing was imposed.

The Courts imposed new marriage law on the entire state. This is why we shouldn't follow Rose's social policy, they have no conception of consequences.

.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Why are you against equal rights?

Homosexuals have the equal right to marry under current law, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Homosexuals have always married under equal law with everyone else, I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde as two examples.

Creating new law for same sex marriage a is special right. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

The fact you claim gay marriage harms marriage shows your hatred of gay people...

That's a lie, I've called Rose on this many times. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I oppose redefining marriage as one person; I am against solo marriage. Does that show hatred of everyone who masturbates? I oppose redefining marriage to allow polygamy; Does that show hatred of Muslims?

NO! I oppose hate speech, I will argue against people who label all political opponents, sexists, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigots! The left is very good at defaming opponents; we can't let them get away with it.

Instead of arguing the issues, Rose prefers to call any defender of marriage as one man and one woman, a hater. That way, she may dismiss the arguments of haters, without having to think about the issue.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The Courts imposed new marriage law on the entire state. This is why we shouldn't follow Rose's social policy, they have no conception of consequences.
.
<quoted text> Homosexuals have the equal right to marry under current law, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. Homosexuals have always married under equal law with everyone else, I cite Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde as two examples.
Creating new law for same sex marriage a is special right. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

The Court found a lack of rational basis to continue to exclude a class of sovereign Citizens from full participation, and order that it end.

Brian_G wrote:

You would call it a special right if it applied to incestuous couples, polygamists and pedophiles; the same principle applies to same sex marriage. Every society has defined marriage as male/female. There is no copy of a same sex marriage law before the 21st Century.

Well, welcome to it!

I don't know WHAT I'd call it if there really WERE any incestuous, polygamist, or pedophilic people pursuing it. We may never know, if THEY don't step up and actually pursue it!

But the states which CURRENTLY ALLOW incestuous marriages don't call it a "special right". Did you fight hard to stop THEM? Are you fighting NOW to reverse their laws?

Both polygamy and pedophilia have ALREADY been socially examined, and outlawed. Before marriage could apply to THOSE situations, we'd need to review THOSE laws FIRST. No one is doing that. No one is calling for that. STOP PRETENDING THAT ANYONE IS.

ALL these red herrings which you have super-glued to your argument almost ALWAYS represent abusive, domineering relationships, that have NOTHING to do with love, mutual committment or equal partnership.

You CLAIM to respect and tolerate gay people, yet you can't stop comparing and aligning us with these criminal and harmful situations that are completely unrelated to what drives human beings to choose a partner for life. The only reasonable conclusion is that you see us as equally criminal and harmful, but that you restrict yourself from coming out and saying so directly.

No one has any desire to see patriarchal men assemble harems of meek women for themselves. No one is interested in helping greasy uncle Chester to corner his neice in the basement every time he babysits. The concept of allowing consenting same-sex adults to choose their life partner as a spouse is NOT AT ALL applicable to the largely illegal, and wholly unequal, distortions of human interaction that you can't help yourself from from trying to tie to homosexual relationships.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>That's a lie, I've called Rose on this many times. I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I oppose redefining marriage as one person; I am against solo marriage. Does that show hatred of everyone who masturbates? I oppose redefining marriage to allow polygamy; Does that show hatred of Muslims?
NO! I oppose hate speech, I will argue against people who label all political opponents, sexists, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigots! The left is very good at defaming opponents; we can't let them get away with it.
Instead of arguing the issues, Rose prefers to call any defender of marriage as one man and one woman, a hater. That way, she may dismiss the arguments of haters, without having to think about the issue.

it occurs to me that opposers don't have to change "hearts and minds" the gays do..
and their tact of calling everyone a bigot is not likely to work..

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
it occurs to me that opposers don't have to change "hearts and minds" the gays do..
and their tact of calling everyone a bigot is not likely to work..

Well, it certainly doesn't work on liars like you, that's for sure. Why would you even for one second contemplate WHY someone would call you a bigot? All it does it trigger your narcissistic rage.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, it certainly doesn't work on liars like you, that's for sure. Why would you even for one second contemplate WHY someone would call you a bigot? All it does it trigger your narcissistic rage.

rage?
where?

who lies?
you do.

The bible thumpers show no compassion and the gays show no tolerance...
I don't put much stock in either side...
and especially not to the cute names they call each other...

call me bigot...
I know better...

what would you know anyway, people from jersey are one step below human...
I have been all around this country and the only thing consistent is that everyone knows jersey sucks...
you know it too.

Though Rupert Everett blazed a trail for homosexual actors when he came out decades ago, he's now saying that gay men don't make good parents.
The actor best known for "Shakespeare in Love" and "My Best Friend's Wedding" told Britain's Sunday Times Magazine that his mother has met his boyfriend but "still wishes I had a wife and kids."
"She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her," he said. "I can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads."

I guess gays are bigots too...

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
rage?
where?
who lies?
you do.
The bible thumpers show no compassion and the gays show no tolerance...
I don't put much stock in either side...
and especially not to the cute names they call each other...
call me bigot...
I know better...
what would you know anyway, people from jersey are one step below human...
I have been all around this country and the only thing consistent is that everyone knows jersey sucks...
you know it too.

Where's your narcissistic rage?
Right here, silly girl: "what would you know anyway, people from jersey are one step below human...
I have been all around this country and the only thing consistent is that everyone knows jersey sucks...
you know it too."

I would have thought you learned about "hasty generalizations" in law school..... oh that's right.... you didn't go to law school. It's just your narcissistic rage.....

-Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
-Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
-Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
-Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person's ability by using contempt to minimize the other person.
-Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an "awkward" or "difficult" person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
blah blah, I know jersey is the worst...

go play with judge it icons or the poo water...
either way....

no need for me to continue with you...
Jersey is all i needed to hear...

good luck!

EdmondWA wrote:

...You CLAIM to respect and tolerate gay people, yet you can't stop comparing and aligning us with these criminal and harmful situations that are completely unrelated to what drives human beings to choose a partner for life. The only reasonable conclusion is that you see us as equally criminal and harmful, but that you restrict yourself from coming out and saying so directly.

In addition to often repeating, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality, I never write slander against homosexuals and condemn those that do.

I'm not comparing homosexuals with bestialists, incest couples, polygamists and necrophiliacs, I comparing the legal justification for changing the definition of marriage. You can't base your arguments on love or marriage equality without including those other groups.

.

EdmondWA wrote:

No one has any desire to see patriarchal men assemble harems of meek women for themselves. No one is interested in helping greasy uncle Chester to corner his neice in the basement every time he babysits. The concept of allowing consenting same-sex adults to choose their life partner as a spouse is NOT AT ALL applicable to the largely illegal, and wholly unequal, distortions of human interaction that you can't help yourself from from trying to tie to homosexual relationships.

If your legal arguments can justify polygamy, incest marriage or pedophile marriage, then you have bad arguments; don't blame me, blame your arguments.

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
go play with judge it icons or the poo water...
either way....
no need for me to continue with you...
Jersey is all i needed to hear...
good luck!

-Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
-Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.

yes, i agree that is exactly what you are doing...

pathetic.