Same-Sex Marriage Bill Falls Short in Maryland

[Sbane]

I hope the people of Maryland decide to say no to allowing gay marriage.

They won't, and it will be coming to your state soon.........

Look for an amendment to ban gay marriage in Indiana by 2012. Now that the GOP has full legislative control. Also we have the governors mansion and it's likely that we'll be keeping it at least till 2016. So be ready to hear that Indiana has banned gay marriage in a landslide.

It's coming to all 50 states......where will you move to get away from the gayz couplez then?

Are you aware that EVERY TIME the issue of marriage has been on the ballot, GAY MARRIAGE GETS DEFEATED. Even in California. The Federal judge that got Prop 8 overturned is an outspoken gay. The people Of California chose to protect traditional marriage and the judge has NO JURISDICTION regarding the issue. We have this thing called Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment and marriage is a state issue not a federal one. Though personally I think government should leave marriage to the faith communities.

You should go check out the results of prop 22 in 2000 and compare it with prop 8. You think prop 8 would pass in 2012? Gay Marriage is coming, Calvinist Libertas, and sooner than you think.

[Sbane]

If Maryland does pass gay marriage, and the people get a chance to stop it, I have a feeling they will. It won't be a huge margin, but I don't think Maryland is ready to accept gay marriage just yet. California would barely vote to legalize gay marriage in 2012, so it's unlikely Maryland would be in favor. I know some have been saying there are enough white liberals in the DC suburbs to make it happen, but those aren't the swing voters. The swing voters are well educated blacks and Baltimore suburbanites. Are they in favor of gay marriage yet? I don't think so.

[Smash255]

If Maryland does pass gay marriage, and the people get a chance to stop it, I have a feeling they will. It won't be a huge margin, but I don't think Maryland is ready to accept gay marriage just yet. California would barely vote to legalize gay marriage in 2012, so it's unlikely Maryland would be in favor. I know some have been saying there are enough white liberals in the DC suburbs to make it happen, but those aren't the swing voters. The swing voters are well educated blacks and Baltimore suburbanites. Are they in favor of gay marriage yet? I don't think so.

I think that well educated backs wouldn't vote that much different from well educated whites on this issue.  I don't see the voters in Prince George's for example voting to overturn gay marriage.

[Sbane]

If Maryland does pass gay marriage, and the people get a chance to stop it, I have a feeling they will. It won't be a huge margin, but I don't think Maryland is ready to accept gay marriage just yet. California would barely vote to legalize gay marriage in 2012, so it's unlikely Maryland would be in favor. I know some have been saying there are enough white liberals in the DC suburbs to make it happen, but those aren't the swing voters. The swing voters are well educated blacks and Baltimore suburbanites. Are they in favor of gay marriage yet? I don't think so.

I think that well educated backs wouldn't vote that much different from well educated whites on this issue.  I don't see the voters in Prince George's for example voting to overturn gay marriage.

But don't you think blacks might be more religious than the white population in Maryland, especially in the DC area? In the south, that might not be the case, but in the north I do think the black population is more religious than the population at large.

[Smash255]

If Maryland does pass gay marriage, and the people get a chance to stop it, I have a feeling they will. It won't be a huge margin, but I don't think Maryland is ready to accept gay marriage just yet. California would barely vote to legalize gay marriage in 2012, so it's unlikely Maryland would be in favor. I know some have been saying there are enough white liberals in the DC suburbs to make it happen, but those aren't the swing voters. The swing voters are well educated blacks and Baltimore suburbanites. Are they in favor of gay marriage yet? I don't think so.

I think that well educated backs wouldn't vote that much different from well educated whites on this issue.  I don't see the voters in Prince George's for example voting to overturn gay marriage.

But don't you think blacks might be more religious than the white population in Maryland, especially in the DC area? In the south, that might not be the case, but in the north I do think the black population is more religious than the population at large.

In some cases yes, but I wouldn't underestimate the education factor.   Many heavily black areas tend to be more Democratic than liberal, Prince George's on the other hand strikes me as just about as liberal as it is Democratic.  Now, I wouldn't expect Prince George's to vote against overturning the legalization of same-sex marriage by the same margin Montgomery County would, but I don't expect it to be close either.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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?

Ultimately I want government out of deciding who gets married. It belongs to religious instuitions.

[Franzl]

So you would not oppose equal (civil) recognition under the law for homosexual couples as long as churches can exclusively use the word "marriage"?

[Smash255]

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?

Ultimately I want government out of deciding who gets married. It belongs to religious instuitions.

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You should go check out the results of prop 22 in 2000 and compare it with prop 8. You think prop 8 would pass in 2012? Gay Marriage is coming, Calvinist Libertas, and sooner than you think.
[/quote]

I am not a Calvinist. I was born into a Wesleyan/Holiness/Methodist church  and as a pre-teen converted to the Assemblies of God. My screen name is in honor of John Calvin Coolidge who was the 30th President of the United States.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.

[Lunar]

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,

I have a little doubt, I think he'll flip on gay marriage and support it again

[Thomas D]

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?

Ultimately I want government out of deciding who gets married. It belongs to religious intuitions.

So then would you support Civil Unions for gay people, and Straight people who the church doesn't want to marry, such as people who've been divorced?

[Smash255]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.
[/quote]

Doesn't that conflict with your churches should be able to decide who can marry and not the government idea??  

[Smash255]

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 then be punished by the IRS?

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

In order to come up with a logical response a logical question needs to be asked.  The crap above is many things, logical is not one of them....

[Thomas D]

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 then be punished by the IRS?

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

I'll take a shot.. No to all 4.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.

Doesn't that conflict with your churches should be able to decide who can marry and not the government idea??  
[/quote]

I'm looking at the long term picture here.

First we reform tax policy, by that i mean we get back to a hard commidity based standard, then eliminate the Fed and the IRS, then we get government out of the marriage issue.

As for civil unions, Those would be for those who don't desire a religious based marriage except gays who would still be forbidden even on civil unions.

As I have stated here before I'm for nondiscrimination regarding gays up to but not including military service, civil unions or marriage. It is not a God given or an intrisnic difference such as Race, Gender Creed, Religion, Political idealology, or Color.

[Smash255]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.

Doesn't that conflict with your churches should be able to decide who can marry and not the government idea??  

I'm looking at the long term picture here.

First we reform tax policy, by that i mean we get back to a hard commidity based standard, then eliminate the Fed and the IRS, then we get government out of the marriage issue.

As for civil unions, Those would be for those who don't desire a religious based marriage except gays who would still be forbidden even on civil unions.

As I have stated here before I'm for nondiscrimination regarding gays up to but not including military service, civil unions or marriage. It is not a God given or an intrisnic difference such as Race, Gender Creed, Religion, Political idealology, or Color.

[/quote]

Based off that comment you strongly favor of discrimination......

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.

Doesn't that conflict with your churches should be able to decide who can marry and not the government idea??  

I'm looking at the long term picture here.

First we reform tax policy, by that i mean we get back to a hard commidity based standard, then eliminate the Fed and the IRS, then we get government out of the marriage issue.

As for civil unions, Those would be for those who don't desire a religious based marriage except gays who would still be forbidden even on civil unions.

As I have stated here before I'm for nondiscrimination regarding gays up to but not including military service, civil unions or marriage. It is not a God given or an intrisnic difference such as Race, Gender Creed, Religion, Political idealology, or Color.

Based off that comment you strongly favor of discrimination......
[/quote]

And I have the whole of human history on my side on this one.

[Thomas D]

And I have the whole of human history on my side on this one.

Just because we've always done something one way doesn't make it right.

[Smash255]

So you favor tax increases for married couples then??

Absolutely not. Until we can drastically reform our tax policy, I favor eliminating the marriage penalty.

Doesn't that conflict with your churches should be able to decide who can marry and not the government idea??  

I'm looking at the long term picture here.

First we reform tax policy, by that i mean we get back to a hard commidity based standard, then eliminate the Fed and the IRS, then we get government out of the marriage issue.

As for civil unions, Those would be for those who don't desire a religious based marriage except gays who would still be forbidden even on civil unions.

As I have stated here before I'm for nondiscrimination regarding gays up to but not including military service, civil unions or marriage. It is not a God given or an intrisnic difference such as Race, Gender Creed, Religion, Political idealology, or Color.

Based off that comment you strongly favor of discrimination......

And I have the whole of human history on my side on this one.
[/quote]

So did those who supported slavery

So did those who thought women were property

So did those that felt blacks shouldn't vote

So did those that felt blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are avoiding the question.

There was no question, just nonsense.  No couple is going to get divorced and get remarried again because gays can suddenly marry.

[Thomas D]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good, now can you explain why? Especially your response to 3 & 4, which are inconsistent with the prevailing rhetoric on this issue.

3. Should the State recognize the couple's religious marriage, despite the fact that said couple refuses to get a State license?

No. If you want the state to consider you married you have to get a state issued 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?

No. Because the IRS should not be asking that question in the first place.

[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?

[memphis]

And I have the whole of human history on my side on this one.

Just because we've always done something one way doesn't make it right.

Appeal to tradition is, in fact, a logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

[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.