Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on September 20, 2007, 05:58:52 AM
-
This is big considering the fact that Maryland is known for it's liberal views.
Md. Ban On Gay Marriage Is Upheld
from the Washington Post
The Maryland Catholic Conference and some local religious leaders also applauded the decision. "Our argument is not against gays," said Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., pastor of Hope Christian Church in Lanham and leader of a conservative group of black pastors. "It is to protect marriage."
But Kevin-Douglas Olive, a Baltimore teacher who is gay, said he plans to meet with a group of Quaker elders and seek their advice: Should he move away from a state that doesn't legally recognize his union with Russell Groff, who died in 2004?
They hoped to be celebrating a legal victory. But instead, the gay and lesbian plaintiffs in Maryland's same-sex marriage lawsuit found themselves blinking back tears as they gathered on the steps of a stately old Baltimore church and faced the media yesterday afternoon.
Yesterday's high-court ruling upheld Maryland's ban on same-sex marriage. The majority of states ban gay marriages, and a patchwork of laws, constitutional amendments and court rulings covers the legal rights of gay couples nationwide.
"I grew up in the South and thought if I moved north, things would be better," said Olive, 35. "I feel like I keep getting pushed. Or maybe I'm running."
Partners Patrick Wojahn and Dave Kolesar of College Park, who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they tried to prepare for the defeat but were still shocked and disappointed.
"I had gone through both scenarios for what they could decide over and over again," Wojahn, 32, said. "I was disappointed, but this isn't the first thing like this we've had to face."
Gay voters are a loyal constituency for the Democratic-controlled legislature, particularly in the Washington suburbs of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. But an effort to legalize same-sex marriage will be a tough sell in Annapolis, particularly in the Senate, where it would probably be filibustered by lawmakers from the state's more rural, conservative districts.
"It would be a tall order for the legislature to overturn existing law . . . but it's not out of the realm of possibility," said Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery), chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee. In the past, legislative battles over legalization of gay marriage and a constitutional amendment to ban it have ended in standoffs.
In a statement, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) said those "of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally." Spokesman Rich Abbruzzese said the governor backs a civil union law "as a reasonable compromise." But it is unclear how active he would become in the debate.
Frosh said the dynamic might be different on a bill seeking to legalize civil unions, but gay rights advocates said they are not pursuing that route for now.
Republicans said they would try to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ensure that legislation does not legalize same-sex marriage.
"It was a very scary proposition that some kind of far-reaching, activist interpretation of Maryland law that clearly was not intended could be foisted on the citizens of Maryland without the say of their elected representatives," said Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell (R-Calvert), the House minority leader.
Maryland's gay residents can adopt children and are protected from discrimination. A new law this year requires insurance companies to provide health benefits to same-sex couples if their employers want to provide them.
But they lack many legal protections, including financial support when a relationship ends, recognition as families for government benefits, and entitlement to property acquired during a marriage. The General Assembly passed a domestic partnership bill in 2005 that would have allowed gay partners to register with the state, but then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) vetoed it.
Yesterday's ruling caps a legal journey that began in 2004, when the ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of nine same-sex couples and Olive. Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled for the plaintiffs in January 2006, affirming Maryland's 1973 law as discriminatory and unable to "withstand constitutional challenge." She relied on a 1967 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down bans on interracial marriages.
The appeals court majority acknowledged that gay couples can be suitable parents but gave weight to the state's argument that preserving the legal definition of marriage encourages childbearing in households made up of a father and mother. "Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due, in large part, to its link to procreation," the majority wrote.
Some lawyers said yesterday that the plaintiffs probably would have fared better if they had filed the suit later. Two of the judges in the majority, who are viewed as among the most conservative on the court, have retired since the case began and are widely expected to be replaced by O'Malley with more liberal judges. Retired judges are often permitted to continue hearing cases until their replacements are named.
Staff writers Hamil R. Harris, Jenna Johnson, Ernesto Londożo, Eric Rich and John Wagner and researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
-
Gee, marriage has been around 1000s and 1000s of years and has survived without the help of republicans.
Marriage was started as a means of passing property down btn families. The religious connotations came later.
I think this defense of marriage effort is a subterfuge for fundamentalists & other true believers to inject their own brand of religion into people's lives.
I think this decision runs counter to the principles underlying the US Constitution re the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
Sometimes the laws have to change.
-
Yeah but you know what pisses me off that there is always a certain breed of people that need to have things unbalance, marriage has always been something a man and a woman would do, so why do some people see the need to change it?
Can I remember you all of the lesbian couple that got married after a shitstorm of protest and they divorced a half a year later? ::)
The same kinda people that have woman only gyms (god forbit we had men only gyms no handbags allowed ::) )
-
Yeah but you know what pisses me off that there is always a certain breed of people that need to have things unbalance, marriage has always been something a man and a woman would do, so why do some people see the need to change it?
Can I remember you all of the lesbian couple that got married after a shitstorm of protest and they divorced a half a year later? ::)
The same kinda people that have woman only gyms (god forbit we had men only gyms no handbags allowed ::) )
Maybe you are right. Maybe marriage needs to be defended. Heterosexual marriage is a dying institution...at least in the US. Since 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, maybe the republicans are onto something.
-
Any maybe, just maybe despite this new age of poltical correctness, people really just don't like homosexuals....and while most won't admit it or ever harm or even discriminate against them, they'd prefer to keep institutions like marriage between a man and a woman. I'm for civil unions..leave it at that.
-
Any maybe, just maybe despite this new age of poltical correctness, people really just don't like homosexuals....and while most won't admit it or ever harm or even discriminate against them, they'd prefer to keep institutions like marriage between a man and a woman. I'm for civil unions..leave it at that.
Political correctness has nothing to do with the constitutional principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The courts took a giant shit on a group of people's pursuit of happiness. They hurt no one in their pursuit but like you said, some people "just don't like them".
Sounds like a great reason to me for stomping on the dreams of other people.
-
Maybe you are right. Maybe marriage needs to be defended. Heterosexual marriage is a dying institution...at least in the US. Since 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, maybe the republicans are onto something.
et tu, Deck?
Please don't tell me it's all about republican vs. democrat with everything for you, bro? ???
-
et tu, Deck?
Please don't tell me it's all about republican vs. democrat with everything for you, bro? ???
I have no party to claim as my own. I think the best we can do is to find individual politicians that buck the trend of yes men.
Russ Feingold and Ron Paul come to mind. They represent what politicians should aspire to be.
On the other side of the equation: Fred Thompson, George Bush, John Kerry, Chris Dodd.
And I don't think that I break down all analysis as a duality of republican/democrat.
You have to admit it though, the republicans are truly bereft of decent, original ideas that unite people.
Their platform is founded on divisive issues like keeping gays from marrying.
-
I have no party to claim as my own. I think the best we can do is to find individual politicians that buck the trend of yes men.
Russ Feingold and Ron Paul come to mind. They represent what politicians should aspire to be.
On the other side of the equation: Fred Thompson, George Bush, John Kerry, Chris Dodd.
And I don't think that I break down all analysis as a duality of republican/democrat.
You have to admit it though, the republicans are truly bereft of decent, original ideas that unite people.
Their platform is founded on divisive issues like keeping gays from marrying.
you kind of contradicted yourself here, bro.
to answer your question though, i think it depends one which politician you speak of.
i agree with the individualist mentality though. i've long advocated for a 3rd party to arise, but i realize that it would most likely be much of the same that we already have with the two major parties. we really won't get to the heart of actually looking out for the people until we start doing away with the lobbyists. that's the money machine that drives it all.
-
you kind of contradicted yourself here, bro.
to answer your question though, i think it depends one which politician you speak of.
i agree with the individualist mentality though. i've long advocated for a 3rd party to arise, but i realize that it would most likely be much of the same that we already have with the two major parties. we really won't get to the heart of actually looking out for the people until we start doing away with the lobbyists. that's the money machine that drives it all.
I don't think I contradicted myself. A criticism of the republicans is not an endorsement of the democrats.
I do agree with your analysis on the money driving our politics. I think Federally funded elections and the elimination of corporate 'personhood' will change much. Corporations are not people and should not have the same rights as you and I.
-
guys it's the same kinda people that see the need to have a gay day or a Gay prides march through Hicktown Alabama, I have been raised to have no predigest against anybody and I never had anything against gays, quite the opposite they simply don't interest me since I believe what ever you do in your spare time is your own shit.
However I find people who need to be extra flamboyant for the sake of being gay super annoying.
-
Any maybe, just maybe despite this new age of poltical correctness, people really just don't like homosexuals....and while most won't admit it or ever harm or even discriminate against them, they'd prefer to keep institutions like marriage between a man and a woman. I'm for civil unions..leave it at that.
At least you're honest about liking them, the discrimination quip is questionable though.
-
At least you're honest about liking them, the discrimination quip is questionable though.
But this is the part I find puzzling... how can you NOT like anybody by the means how they fuck? That's like saying I know for a fact Colleague Sam is spanking his wife and I don't like that... so I don't like him.
Don't liking somebody because of the way they act is more understandable for me, but simply not liking a whole bunch of people because of their sexual preference seems a little foolish to me.
-
I think this defense of marriage effort is a subterfuge for fundamentalists & other true believers to inject their own brand of religion into people's lives.
Except opposition to homosexual marriage is not limited to "fundamentalists & other true believers." How do you explain the widespread, non ideaological opposition to homosexual marriage? For example, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Defense of Marriage Act:
Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/
-
Decker,
If gay marriage and abortion weren't issues... is there any difference between the parties?
The process is so corrupt that we need those issues to distract us.
-
Except opposition to homosexual marriage is not limited to "fundamentalists & other true believers." How do you explain the widespread, non ideaological opposition to homosexual marriage? For example, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Defense of Marriage Act:
Senators voted 85-14 for the Defense of Marriage Act. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill in July, and President Clinton has said he will sign it.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/
That was a republican congress. I think HH is right--some people just don't like them.
The Maryland Catholic Conference and some local religious leaders also applauded the decision.
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
Let's face it, we live in a nation dominated by christians. Outside of the United Church of Christ, I can't think of one organized religious group that endorses gay marriage. Churches play a large role in political life in this country. The laity follow the clergy. The politicians follow the both.
-
Decker,
If gay marriage and abortion weren't issues... is there any difference between the parties?
The process is so corrupt that we need those issues to distract us.
Yes there is a difference. The democrats, when in power, throw the middle class and poor a bone once in a great while. The republicans would never do that instead concentrating on funneling governmental resources to the financial elites...even to the detriment of the country's economic well-being.
Granted that's not a great difference.
-
That was a republican congress. I think HH is right--some people just don't like them.
The Maryland Catholic Conference and some local religious leaders also applauded the decision.
http://www.catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
Let's face it, we live in a nation dominated by christians. Outside of the United Church of Christ, I can't think of one organized religious group that endorses gay marriage. Churches play a large role in political life in this country. The laity follow the clergy. The politicians follow the both.
It was a bipartisan vote: 32 Democrats voted for the bill in the Senate and 118 Democrats voted for it in the House. How do you explain that?
Yes our nation is dominated by Christians, but opposition to homosexual marriage is not driven solely by Christians. Voters have rejected it pretty much everywhere. Face it Decker, this isn't just a religious issue dominated by Christians.
-
Yes there is a difference. The democrats, when in power, throw the middle class and poor a bone once in a great while. The republicans would never do that instead concentrating on funneling governmental resources to the financial elites...even to the detriment of the country's economic well-being.
Granted that's not a great difference.
When did this ever happen? Democrats have done everything in their power to stop tax cuts and prevent meaningful tort reform. Most pf them have never met a tax they didn't like. You know damn well Al Gore cast the deciding vote to prevent even the tax on a land line that was added to pay for something like the Spanish American War debt, LOL! Repubs give money to their own kind, Dems think people are too stupid to have their own money so they create programs whenever there is an excess.
They're all whores.
-
It was a bipartisan vote. How do you explain that?
Yes our nation is dominated by Christians, but opposition to homosexual marriage is not driven solely by Christians. Voters have rejected it pretty much everywhere. Face it Decker, this isn't just a religious issue dominated by Christians.
Bipartisan = politicians beholden to an image of religious piety to play to the laity beholden to the clergy.
I'm not a mindreader re the motivation of politicians/people against gay marriage: I don't know why they do what they do. But I can point to almost every organized religion in america and show you its official line against gay marriage.
You cannot deny that.
-
When did this ever happen? Democrats have done everything in their power to stop tax cuts and prevent meaningful tort reform. Most pf them have never met a tax they didn't like. You know damn well Al Gore cast the deciding vote to prevent even the tax on a land line that was added to pay for something like the Spanish American War debt, LOL! Repubs give money to their own kind, Dems think people are too stupid to have their own money so they create programs whenever there is an excess.
They're all whores.
For the most part, yes they are worthless these politicians. Democrats have cut taxes on poor and middle class, are against the destruction of Soc. Sec. through a 'system of private accounts", and started head start. Is that great? No. Is it better than the republicans? Yes. (tort reform is a sop to the medical/industrial elites to cap damages to a paltry sum--if doctors want to stay out of court, stop cutting off the wrong goddam leg or ask the industrialists to stop making toys that poison our children)
-
Bipartisan = politicians beholden to an image of religious piety to play to the laity beholden to the clergy.
I'm not a mindreader re the motivation of politicians/people against gay marriage: I don't know why they do what they do. But I can point to almost every organized religion in america and show you its official line against gay marriage.
You cannot deny that.
I don't deny organized religion opposes homosexual marriage. They have to if they're going to be consistent.
I can deny that the opposition to homosexual marriage is limited to "fundamentalists & other true believers." Thirty-two Democrats voted for the bill in the Senate and 118 Democrats voted for it in the House. That is an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I bet if I looked at the numbers of the numerous state legislatures that have adopted variations of the Defense of Marriage Act, I would find similar bipartisan support.
-
I don't deny organized religion opposes homosexual marriage. They have to if they're going to be consistent.
I can deny that the opposition to homosexual marriage is limited to "fundamentalists & other true believers." Thirty-two Democrats voted for the bill in the Senate and 118 Democrats voted for it in the House. That is an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I bet if I looked at the numbers of the numerous state legislatures that have adopted variations of the Defense of Marriage Act, I would find similar bipartisan support.
I would agree. They (politicians) are the true believers I point to.
Look at it this way: either they are against gay marriage b/c they are told to do so by the clergy or they just dislike gay people and view them as a threat to marriage itself.
I have yet to see a compelling explanation of why gay people are a threat to marriage. Do you know why? I don't.
-
I would agree. They (politicians) are the true believers I point to.
Look at it this way: either they are against gay marriage b/c they are told to do so by the clergy or they just dislike gay people and view them as a threat to marriage itself.
I have yet to see a compelling explanation of why gay people are a threat to marriage. Do you know why? I don't.
You mean a person cannot reach his or her own conclusion that they are opposed to homosexual marriage? Why isn't that an option?
I think there are a number of reasons why people oppose homosexual marriage: some are undoubtedly "homophobes," some on religious grounds, some want to preserve the marriage tradition, some think it is an unnatural lifestyle. I'm sure there are other reasons.
-
You mean a person cannot reach his or her own conclusion that they are opposed to homosexual marriage? Why isn't that an option?
I think there are a number of reasons why people oppose homosexual marriage: some are undoubtedly "homophobes," some on religious grounds, some want to preserve the marriage tradition, some think it is an unnatural lifestyle. I'm sure there are other reasons.
It is an option, but like I said, I haven't seen a good explanation yet (I take that back, I am related to a psychologist who claimed that he'd cured two homosexuals through therapy). An unnatural lifestyle means not in nature: we know that's not true. To preserve marriage as between a man and a woman--why...why should that be preserved?
I don't know and, at this moment, I don't care. I'm tired, it's 90 degrees outside (not bad for a Sept. afternoon in Milwaukee) and I'm starving. That was unpleasant.
I guess I'll wrap this up by stating that I view life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as core values to the constitution...to our way of life. If we are going to continue to deny these people their own pursuit, we'd better have a damn good reason why. I just cannot accept from the majority--I just don't like them.
-
It is an option, but like I said, I haven't seen a good explanation yet (I take that back, I am related to a psychologist who claimed that he'd cured two homosexuals through therapy). An unnatural lifestyle means not in nature: we know that's not true. To preserve marriage as between a man and a woman--why...why should that be preserved?
I don't know and, at this moment, I don't care. I'm tired, it's 90 degrees outside (not bad for a Sept. afternoon in Milwaukee) and I'm starving. That was unpleasant.
I guess I'll wrap this up by stating that I view life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as core values to the constitution...to our way of life. If we are going to continue to deny these people their own pursuit, we'd better have a damn good reason why. I just cannot accept from the majority--I just don't like them.
I don't think we are denying anyone their liberty. A man can marry a woman and vice versa. We don't let a person have more than one wife. That's not a denial of liberty either. We regulate lifestyle choices all the time. For example, we recently banned smoking in bars over here (in other words, we regulated a lifestyle choice).
It's currently 81 degrees. Not bad for September in Honolulu. Go get some food mang. :)
-
I don't think we are denying anyone their liberty. A man can marry a woman and vice versa. We don't let a person have more than one wife. That's not a denial of liberty either. We regulate lifestyle choices all the time. For example, we recently banned smoking in bars over here (in other words, we regulated a lifestyle choice).
It's currently 81 degrees. Not bad for September in Honolulu. Go get some food mang. :)
It's not the liberty part for me, it's the pursuit of happiness. That's purely American. I understand that marriage is regulated, but it's permitted. Same with smoking. To have a blanket prohibition like this just strikes me as un-american.
Isn't that something how smoking bans are spreading across the country? That's gonna hurt the tavern business.
-
It's not the liberty part for me, it's the pursuit of happiness. That's purely American. I understand that marriage is regulated, but it's permitted. Same with smoking. To have a blanket prohibition like this just strikes me as un-american.
Isn't that something how smoking bans are spreading across the country? That's gonna hurt the tavern business.
We regulate the pursuit of happiness all the time too. I understand that type of libertarian bent. I agree with much of it. It's really not a problem in my eyes until you start asking the government and taxpayers to endorse certain behavior.
I'm all in favor of smoking bans. I don't think it has affected our businesses here at all.
-
To have a blanket prohibition like this just strikes me as un-american.
It is un-American.
-
Notice....... the forefathers wrote "the pursuit of happiness", not its attainment. :)
-
Notice....... the forefathers wrote "the pursuit of happiness", not its attainment. :)
Good point.
I think there is a stronger argument that our old sodomy laws interfered with the pursuit of happiness, because they criminalized behavior that took place behind closed doors between consenting adults. Quite a different story when you take that private behavior and ask the government to endorse it.