Same-Sex Marriage Bill Falls Short in Maryland

[Brittain33]

It'll go to a 2012 referendum if it passes.

Yes, won't that be fun for the gays. Obama came out against Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 despite saying he didn't support marriage equality at the time; no doubt he's going to have to walk that same line in 2012, in which he fools nobody, but I have to hope he would have an impact on Maryland voters to get them to defeat the repeal. We're going to win one of these referenda one of these days, I just don't know when it will start.

[Brittain33]

It'll go to a 2012 referendum if it passes.

Yes, won't that be fun for the gays. Obama came out against Prop 8 when it was on the ballot in 2008 despite saying he didn't support marriage equality at the time; no doubt he's going to have to walk that same line in 2012, in which he fools nobody, but I have to hope he would have an impact on Maryland voters to get them to defeat the repeal. We're going to win one of these referenda one of these days, I just don't know when it will start.

ironically, arizona.

True, but there were special circumstances in the wording of that law which make the results hard to repeat.

[Brittain33]

It looks like the Maine situation where people vote to overturn the law.

[Brittain33]

The heavy black vote coming out to support Obama's reelection, sadly, will seriously hurt this at the polls. Much like CA in 08.

Black opposition in CA was overstated... there was an early exit poll showing high support for Prop 8 that was not borne out by other polls and by analysis of precincts. African-American support for gay marriage is on a par with the electorate as a whole. But it's not in line with Democratic voting patterns, plus many people have unrealistic expectations of African-American voters seeing this as a civil rights issue, so it gets commentary.

[Brittain33]

The Federal judge that got Prop 8 overturned is an outspoken gay.

Setting aside whether only straight people should be allowed to rule on this, as if they aren't biased by being unaffected by laws excluding same-sex couples from legal protections... that's not true. He's not outspoken at all, and to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been confirmed as something more than "everyone knows but it is not public."

[Brittain33]

We have this thing called Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment and marriage is a state issue not a federal one.

Really? The consequence of that is that DOMA is unconstitutional when the federal government declines to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal. I have been paying $1,000+ a year in extra income tax to the federal government because my partner's health care is considered taxable income and the federal government doesn't recognize our marriage. If it did, it would be tax free. How does it advance your morality for me to pay out of pocket like that? Do you consider the financial cost your attitude has on people like me, without dissuading me in any way from being gay?

[Brittain33]

Question for the homos and homo supporters here. Let's say that same-sex "marriage" passes in a State. A conservative Christian couple in said State does not wish to be put on the same level as this faux-"marriage" so they file for a divorce. After said divorce is granted, said couple goes to a church to be married again solely under the rules of said church, and said couple refuses to get a State marriage license.

1. Should the minister performing such a marriage without a license be punished?
2. Should the couple be punished for getting married without a license?
3. Should the State recognize the couple's religious marriage, despite the fact that said couple refuses to get a State license?
4. Say said couple then files their income taxes "married-filing jointly" should they then be punished by the IRS? Should they be permitted to file in this manner?

Please justify your responses in a manner logically consistent with your rhetoric and talking points.

No to all four. (I'm not just a homo, I'm a married homo!) What's the point you're making? It makes sense to me--there is state marriage which confers rights on the couple who gets married, they have the right to take part but are choosing not to, so what's it to me if they choose not to?

[Brittain33]

homo rhetoric

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is "homo rhetoric"? What specific arguments do you imagine we homos to be making that your proposal so deftly skewers?

I have to say, I really try to understand where opponents are coming from, and I am baffled as to what point it is you think you are making and are so confident in. Please, for us dumb homos and homo supporters, spell out exactly how your example disproves... what, exactly?

I am married in the state of Massachusetts because of the ruling in Goodridge that found that Massachusetts' constitutional protection of equal rights by sex meant that the traditional (I don't think it was even statutory) denial of marriage licenses to same-sex partners, based solely on the sex of one of them, was unconstitutional. Your example does not speak to that at all.

[Brittain33]

Wrong. I know several couples who have already made a vow to do exactly this.

I'm sure that's completely true and they're totally going to go through with it, too, even if it means giving up health insurance and paying more in taxes. In fact, I bet there are many couples in Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts who have done just that, and you'll prove it.

[Brittain33]

A strange game.

The only way to win is not to play.

[Brittain33]

1. Legislators expect this to go to a referendum in 2012 and get repealed, which is why some probably saw no point in going through with it.

2. PG is where the leader opposed to marriage equality in DC was based.

[Brittain33]

1. Legislators expect this to go to a referendum in 2012 and get repealed, which is why some probably saw no point in going through with it.

So there won't be a referendum because the vote failed?

Yes, the referendum would only be triggered if a law is passed and people gather signatures to repeal it.