E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRachel Maddow notes that support for marriage equality in Maryland has surged among African-Americans since President Barack Obama declared his support for equality.
Gay marriage opponents in Maryland said Tuesday they’ve handed in more than double the signatures required to hold a ballot referendum to squash the state’s new same-sex marriage law.
Thursday is the deadline to submit to election officials at least one-third of the 56,000 signatures needed to get the referendum on the November ballot. But Maryland Marriage Alliance, which supports defining marriage as between a man and a woman, said it handed in some 122,000 later Tuesday.
The final deadline for all signatures, which the state Board of Elections has to count and verify, is June 30. Derek McCoy, executive director of Maryland Marriage Alliance, told msnbc.com that he was confident they now had the signatures to get on the ballot but they would still continue to collect them.
“What we’re finding is that people are just engaged and passionate about this, even after Obama and the NAACP came out” in support of gay marriage," McCoy said. “Anybody that was on the fence is no longer on the fence.”
A similar effort is under way in Washington state, where legislation approving same-sex marriage was signed into law by the governor earlier this year. Six states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while 31 states have constitutional amendments that effectively ban gay marriage (this tally does not include California, where federal judges have ruled the amendment unconstitutional though further appeals are expected).
In mid-May, North Carolina became the most recent state to ban same-sex marriage. The day after that vote, President Barack Obama said he supported same-sex marriage, becoming the first American president to do so.
Obama who? Gay marriage foes seek to extend gains
Obama: 'I think same-sex couples should be able to get married'
In North Carolina gay marriage vote, it's Bill Clinton versus Billy Graham
Since then, a survey of Maryland voters has shown a “significant” uptick for support of gay marriage among African-Americans, according to results released last Thursday by Public Policy Polling, which said it did the poll on behalf of Marylanders for Marriage Equality -- the group campaigning to keep the same-sex marriage law on the books.
Some 57 percent of the state’s voters say they would support the law in November, compared to 37 percent who are opposed. Meanwhile, 56 percent of African-Americans say they’ll back the new law, with 39 percent opposed, almost a complete reversal from earlier numbers, said the polling firm.
The survey’s overall margin of error was plus or minus 3.4 percent, and for the African-American sample it was plus or minus 4.9 percent.
Nationwide, a Gallup poll released in May revealed closer numbers, with 50 percent of Americans saying same-sex marriage should be legal, compared to 48 percent opposed. Support for gay marriage fell slightly in that poll from a record high of 53 percent in 2011, the first time a majority of Americans favored gay marriage. Opposition was 45 percent in that poll.
Kevin Nix, a spokesman for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, said his group expected opponents to get the required signatures since it was a “low bar” to cross.
“We’re all planning on this going to a referendum,” he said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Teen wins right to wear 'Jesus Is Not a Homophobe' T-shirt to school
- Nuclear terrorism: 1986 NEST files reveal confusion in training exercise
- Violent holiday weekend claims at least 10 lives in Chicago
- What caused naked face-chewing attack: Bath salts, LSD?
- Video: Bear cools off in backyard pool
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Mildred Loving in 1967's Civil Rights Case of Loving v. Virginia said:
The bottom line is that humans have a strong aversion to inequality and suffering and that fight against it will never stop.
equality under the law - it's in the constitution
But some in Maryland (part of the old south) seem to still live in the past!
The (bigots) always find a reason (anti-gay-marriage now) to stay in sight. You have to love freedom, but for the bigots, freedom also means the freedom to be a bigot.
I'm appalled that so much bigotry and hatred towards "others" (in this case gays) comes from religious people. Christians seem determined to judge, divide, hate, and impose their own morality on everyone else. They are intolerant to a fault and apparently they cannot live contently in a heterogeneous population without legislating their beliefs onto others. In other words Christians appear to not be compatible with democratic government and with modern society.
This is a big problem since Christians view America as a "Christian nation" but clearly not all Americans are Christians. I think the decision by Christians to inject their religion into politics was a very destructive move for the future of this country and I think it's clear that both our form of government as well as Christian religions will suffer as a result. Until Christians learn to tolerate others this country is going to experience a great deal of political strife and the country will pay a steep price for the move towards theocracy.
So far, whenever and wherever the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman was put to popular vote, it always won. Kinda outweighs all the public opinion surveys.
Vox populi, vox dei.
Well said!
And that's why the civil rights of a minority should never be put to a vote by the majority.
These people profess to be "Christians" but they are actually Old Testament advocates, not the followers of the direct teaching of Christ. I wonder if they would let you purchase one of their daughters for a couple of goats? Or if they require their female slaves to marry one of their male slaves? It's all right there in their OT Bible, so it must be OK.
Maryland will be the first state to affirm the marriage equality through referendum. While I do not think civil rights should be left to popular vote, my state is going to do the right thing and affirm the legalization of gay marriage at the polls.
The people have spoken 32 straight times - Maryland will easily extend the streak to 33. Won't even be close, like North Carolina. Only gays like things forced down their throats.
Hey Tim,
"Some 57 percent of the state’s voters say they would support the law in November, compared to 37 percent who are opposed. Meanwhile, 56 percent of African-Americans say they’ll back the new law, with 39 percent opposed, almost a complete reversal from earlier numbers, said the polling firm."
I'm not sure where you live, but I live in Maryland. We are nothing like North Carolina.
Dear sadmoron; not everyone in my state supported that bigoted anti-gay marriage amendment; I voted against it. Our state is one of the largest states and we do have a lot of progressives here including myself. So don't paint us all with one broad brush. I do hope that the people of Maryland will vote down any anti-gay marriage amendment as it is such a waste of time to be trying to put these amendments on the ballot. But I am embarassed that the voters of NC voted for the amendment. But I'm telling youy there was a lot of opposition to it and I'm mad as hell that it passed.
Hopefully this referendum will be the turning point for the right for gays to marry. I hope their will be enough voters supporting gay marriage. It would be an embarrassment for us to be compared with North Carolina.
Tim, Maryland has one of the highest education rates in the country. If it's one thing bigotry can't stand up to, it's knowledge. There's a lot of us in the great state of Maryland who are hoping the fear and hate mongers get a different result from their endless nonsense this time. This is Maryland. We don't teach our kids that hate is some kind of family value. Not in my state
I remember when you announced you were coming to Washington State after the Governor signed in Gay Marriage. You said you would come here and get it on the ballet before it took affect. And look what you accomplished, Oh wait, you never showed up. Uh Oh Gay Marriage will be legal next Thursday. Whats wrong, Wa to far away from the Hate State North Carolina?? Are you so inbred you can no longer read maps?? Man you really worked it out here. My guess the same not even showing up in you'll do Md.
Just think. Were 5 hrs from Ca. All the No on 4 people can take a Sunday trip up here.
My brother and his husband got married in Iowa. That's right gay marriage in the heartland. Oop, drop the ball again??
You're very likely wrong given the poll numbers, and given that Maryland is heavily Catholic.
Just an FYI, 71% of Catholics support marriage equality. The real dumb bigots tend to be the Southern Baptists and other evangelicals.
Also, that "32 straight times" isn't quite correct. Arizona voted against bigotry the first time a ban was put on the ballot, in 2006.
AP......you must live in one of 4 counties in MD......because ALL of the rest of the counties have a majority opposed to this Homosexual Marriage law. The other 19 counties also did not elect the current Gov. It is a shame that 4 counties dictate law for the rest of the state of MD, especially since they are mostly Rural and conservative, I guess they are just fear and hate mongers.....Just saying, You might want to consider this the next time you ski in western MD, or tan in Ocean City!
Oh, and FYI....The Maryland Marriage Alliance group was founded by and supported by Black Church Congregations in MD....so the Poll numbers don't add up.
Humans are a social species under attack by an anti-social virus called conservatism.
@Bill- You do not know what you are talking about and have obviously never read the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)
1 Timothy 1:8-11 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Homosexuality is just as big as a sin in the New Testament as it was in the Old Testament; the difference is that Christ showed His love for all sinners by giving them the opportunity to repent and turn away from their sins. Christ taught about love and kindness, but he also taught about judgement and repentance.
I am not, in any way condoning, the hatred that many Christians feel towards GLBT members. However, there are just as many GLBT advocates who are hateful and angry. Bigotry can go both ways and you will rarely get a gay person to admit that they are an angry bigot towards moral conservatives.
Mommy: I understand what you are saying, but I said "Christ's teaching," not "Paul's teaching." When the church became essentially "Pauline," the simple teaching of Jesus was turned into a new set of Commandments (remember, Christ said I have a new Commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself). Paul and others added a bunch of new one's to keep everyone in line accoding to their values, not Christ's.
Haters !
Any referendum in Maryland that seeks to overturn the gay marriage law, is unconstitutional.
Period.
Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas.
mommy-619269 - some translations of the bible i have read do not include the word "homosexual" in the corinthians verse you quote. i have read and interpreted many different bibles from the 20th century and while the message is the same, the language is very different. i would not be so quick to take everything at face value.
Hey Anon User, do you suppose ANY referendum saying blacks could vote, ride in front of the bus, drink from segregated fountains, etc would have passed in the 50's or 60's??? How about women voting at the turn of the century??? Yeah.. that's what I thought.
The whole idea of letting a popular vote decide a matter of inequality or descrimination is just absurd. Can't wait for the SCOTUS to eventually rule all these laws are unconstitional. Folks, you always say FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AT ALL COST... well guess what... marriage between a man and woman is NOT in the constitution. The only place it is against the law is when a bigot state passed a law to keep "them gays out of our state"... Can't wait.. can't wait...
@Bill: Here is Christ's teaching Mark 7:14-23: “Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, ‘Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.’ After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ‘Are you so dull?’ he asked. ‘Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.’ He went on: ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him `unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man `unclean.’”
I feel like you are trying to twist the New Testament to make it where Jesus and Paul were teaching different moral expectations; this is NOT the case. You either believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God or you don't. All of the Apostle's words were divinely inspired so you can't choose verses from the first four books that you "like" and ignore the rest; all of the Apostle's were charged with taking Christ's words to the Jews and Gentiles alike.
Homosexuality is a sin. Christ love all sinners, but wants them to repent because it is impossible to follow the Old Testament law. Christ died so sinners can repent and have their sins forgiven- IF they repent.
Actually, your Jesus was totally gay and really loved John.....he even told his mother that John was part of the family, like a common-law marriage.
@mommy
please, I need some one to help me out on this:
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicañs, but not Cañadiañs. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Cañadiañs? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contacts/glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Civil rights should NEVER be voted on -- putting the fate of a minority in the hands of the majority goes against everything this country was founded on. If that were the way of things women still wouldn't be able to vote and blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus. Just because everyone wants something doesn't make it the right thing. I'm sure everyone would like to pay no taxes. Why don't we put that on the ballot? Because it's ridiculous!!
Sam Adams:
This is not a CIVIL Right issue. She these folks were not "born" this way i.e. I am a black person and therefore my skin tone is dark and that cannot be changed. Civil rights are for those who cannot change the way they are. Relgion and who you sleep with is your personal CHOICE not a right.
Civil rights protect freedom (choices you make) as well as equality (how you were born). For example, imagine if they tried to make a law that it's illegal to speak with a southern accent. Yes, it is possible to change your accent, but why?? Such a law is both unreasonable and unfair, because it singles out one group of people, southerners, and restricts their liberty for no good reason.
It's the same with laws that single out gays for unfair treatment. You can then try to argue that there is a good reason to treat gays differently than everyone else, based on the Bible, etc. However, this doesn't change the original point that gay rights ARE civil rights. The fact that some so-called "ex-gays" claim to have changed their sexual orientation is immaterial.
Sexual orientation is inborn, just as race is inborn, usa. Furthermore, civil rights protect EVERYONE and cover a multitude of rights, whether inborn or choices. For example, religion is a choice, yet you have the right to choose your religion, or choose whether you worship at all -- and that is a protected civil right. Marriage is a civil right (according to the US Supreme Court), and we certainly choose whether we wish to marry or not, and who we marry -- but we do not choose our sexual orientation.
USAisGreat,
You're dead wrong...
Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...
Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...
On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.
So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people.
Talk about child abuse...No child wants to be raised by two Chaz Bonos...Just ask them. Every child deserves the chance to role model from a mother and a father, which gay marriage precludes.
Sure, its great for the gay parents, but its not great for their kids, no matter how much the LGBT claim otherwise. Indoctrinating a child in the LGBT lifestyle is, to borrow an argument from Richard Dawkins, akin to child abuse.
LGBT -- child abusers, and they are proud of it!
Yes, it is a right. The First Amendment to the constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would argue therefore that practice of my religion the way I choose is my right.
Now keep that in mind for a moment. I'm Wiccan, and we Wiccans have sects for lesbians (the Dianics) and gays (the Minoan Brotherhood). If two of our Dianics or two of our Minoans want to get married but there is a law in our state that says they can't, then that law is unconstitutional because it 'prohibits the free exercise' of our chosen belief system.
Now, if you are against a law that allows our Dianics and Minoans to marry, please give me a constitutionally-based argument why banning it would NOT be an infringement of our rights.
And yes, Wicca/paganism IS a recognized belief system/religion by the US government.
Koza,
Got anything to back that up? Any sources, citations, studies, science, social-science? And I mean, credible stuff, not put out by any group with the words, Family, Protection, or Christian in their name.
Also, what do you suggest we do with all the single parent homes and kids being raised in them, if having two parents of different sexes is so vital?
Furthermore, I think child abuse, is forcing an already confused adolescent into a closet, where they live in shame and denial, until finally killing themselves. THAT sounds more like child abuse to me.
Sarah,
Yeah, ask the black community how all those fatherless families are working out.
That you even have to ask if I have studies indicates that you are not familiar with them. OK, you are biased and ignorant. No surprise there.
LGBT are biased, ignorant, and proud of it!
Koza,
Okay, so you're saying you CAN'T provide anything, non-biased, to back your claim up. Gotch ya. And I didn't ask whether or not you thought those single parent families were working out, I asked what do you propose we should do about it.
So???
Sarah -I have no bias, unlike the LGBT. My interest is only that the welfare of the children is considered. The LGBT only consider theirs, the children are an afterthought, at best.
Do you REALLY suggest children want to be raised by two Chaz Bonos? That that is better for them? That is quite a reach. Simply go to any school. Show them a picture of Chaz before. Show them a picture now. Explain to them the surgical procedure. The drugs. And then ask them. Very few, if any, will say "Yeah, I'll take two of those for my parents, please." LOL.
The other problem is you, like most LGBT, are simply not well-read. You think your lack of knowledge on the subject somehow validates your LGBT view. No it does not...facts are facts regardless of your knowledge of them
LGBT - are ignorant, biased, and proud of it!
Really? That's not what the experts say:
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
Got anything else?
Koza,
This...
Doesn't qualify as one of these...
If you're going to make such an "important" point and have such a strong conviction, you should be able to back it up with credible evidence.
Can you please provide some? And you still haven't answered my question, why do you keep dodging it???
Also, what do you suggest we do with all the single parent homes and kids being raised in them, if having two parents of different sexes is so vital?
And single-parent families. And children from those families can grow up to be perfectly well-adjusted productive individuals.
You know, I do know several LGBT couples who are raising offspring, and they go out of their way NOT to say 'oh this is great, this is better, do it this way.' They strive to present both sides of the issue, and I have noticed that said offspring don't find their parents' choices offensive, and actually grow up to be considerably more tolerant and open-minded and empathetic than others--having no doubt been the butt of jokes an persecution from their schoolmates, they have a better empathy for others who are persecuted and bullied and discriminated against.
ErinNJ -- LOL.
You must be joking. As I said, ask the kids themselves. Do it. You will lose. At that point, the studies become irrelevant...however, lets continue
Have you read any studies, or do you find things on the .net to support your bias without reading the underlying studies?
Sarah,
Your opinion is irrelevant. You have been told the facts, and you ignore them. So that means your opinion may be safely ignored also.
Amanda -- You show your bias...why? Because you have an agenda. You support LGBT, and anything that may be against it, you simply don't want to hear...and children suffer. Nice.
Single parent family parents are not optimal.
Koza,
If I've been told facts, then you should be able to provide some sort of credible evidence to back them up. YOU'VE ASSERTED things, but if what you're asserting is factual, please provide me with a simple source or citation so that I may look it up for myself. Why should I simply take your word for it?
And, you still haven't answered my question...
Also, what do you suggest we do with all the single parent homes and kids being raised in them, if having two parents of different sexes is so vital?
Actually, the studies performed by the major scientific and medical organizations (a few of which I cited) DID "ask the kids themselves" -- and they did not just ask them, they observed their behavior and interactions with others over periods of time. That is what makes their studies more credible than ones purportedly conducted by, say, groups like the Family Research Council, World Nut Daily, Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, or any of the other hate groups that say they have "studied" homosexuals and homosexuality.
Yes, I did find these studies on the Internet (no "." required; learn some English grammar), and I also read the background of these studies. The fact that you have N-O-T-H-I-N-G credible to support your claims (as Sarah has repeatedly asked you) tells us all we need to know about you: you need an education.
YOU have been told the facts, while you have provided none. That means that your opinion is not only irrelevant, it is uninformed -- and demonstrates your lack of intellect and education. I wonder if you can even dress yourself.
ROFLMAO! And YOU have no "agenda"? Your posts scream it: you hate gays, and anything and anyone that may support them, so YOU simply don't want to hear or read anything -- much less factual data that can be supported -- to the contrary. And children suffer, as well as an entire group of people whose lives do not affect you in the least.
Pretty pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
And you are showing your bias. I haven't seen you provide or quote any legitimate sources for your assertions. Yes, I support LGBT-I also support heteros. Have you ever actually sat down and talked to a gay or lesbian couple who are raising children? have you listened to their point of view? Until you've sat and talked with them, gotten to know them and their children, you can't make sweeping judgments like that.
I do believe that two parent homes are ideal but I also acknowledge that it is NOT necessary and children can grow up perfectly fine in homes with one aren't, or an absentee parent (military families with a parental unit who is deployed.) Growing up, my Dad was in the military for the first ten years of my life, so I was basically raised in a single-parent home. And I'm fine.
Koza thinks if she says it is so.. then it is so... without any proof. Further goes on to say our thoughts are irrelavent just because they don't agree with hers... what a joke. If you looked a all the one and two parent homes in my county that are str8, I would take a gay couple ANY day of the week over these crack heads, Meth using red neck parents here. Just because parents are str8 does NOT make them parents of the year.
The biggest joke of Koza the troll is how she equates Lesbians and Gays as child abusers... obviously she hasn't read the studies that shows str8 people do more child abusing than gays. I know that from personal experience.
This is a general statement about how very harmful and destructive religion is in general.
Religion put all of Europe in the Dark Ages!
http://see_the_truth.webs.com/Inquisition.html
The Dark Ages never ended! The majority of the people in the U.S. are religious! The majority of people in power and control in the U.S, are religious! Church and State are "NOT" separated here!!
History repeats itself!
IN OTHER WORDS, RELIGION IS SLOWLY AND INSIDIOUSLY PUTTING THE U.S. IN ANOTHER DARK AGES AND PEOPLE DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT!!
We are using up all our resources on the planet and polluting the whole planet at the same time because of O-V-E-R-P-O-P-U-L-A-T-I-O-N caused by religion and its policies of- anti-abortion, anti-condom, anti-gay, right-to-life, be fruitful and multiply, etc, etc, etc...
Religion is a horrible, toxic, infectious, viral, addictive, mental drug and poison that's extremely harmful and destructive!!
Religion causes ignorance, delusion, prejudice, abuse, hatred, fighting, bloodshed, destruction, killing and war!!
Religion stops the advancement of science, technology, learning and progress for the whole human race!! Look what religion did to Galileo, now Darwin, Hawking, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
For those of you who don't know, Bush is an extreme, ultra conservative, Christian fundamentalist!! The 8 years of deep wound damage that Bush, Cheney and religion did to the United States is M-A-S-S-I-V-E!!!
It's going to take many, many, many years to recover from the massive deep wound damage that Bush, Cheney and religion did to the U.S. and the world with their "Holy-Oil-War", etc, etc...!!
It will take Obama, or anyone else, a minimum of 8 years to start getting the U.S. back on track from the massive mess that Bush, Cheney and religion caused!! Deep wounds take a long time to heal!!
I'M VERY VERY SERIOUS! THE U.S. AND THE WORLD ARE IN MAJOR SERIOUS TROUBLE IF WE CAN'T FIND SOME WAY TO STAMP OUT RELIGION!!
These links will show you how foolish, harmful and destructive religion is! Please take a look at these awesome links. I promise you'll learn something!-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kla-BcN8u8Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ&feature=related
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=12236&page=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM&feature=related
http://godisimaginary.com/
http://jesusneverexisted.com/
http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/
Let's hope that when the cases finally hit the SCOTUS, they will rule ALL state laws banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, along with the DOMA, just as they did with inter-racial marriages.
Why leave it up to chance, why not just sue the Federal Government for violating the 1st Amendment by creating legislation that supports a religious institution. I personally don't think marriage is 'owned' by any religion, but if they're so hell-bent on defining it as such, it would be a clear cut case of a constitutional violation.
Strip marriage completely from any recognition in America, and make a point to say that the zealots who sought to define marriage in a religious manner are the ones who effectively nullified your wedding in the eyes of the Government.
@B Murphy, I totaly agree, take government out of marriage. So when a couples sanctimonious relationship fails, their church can decide who gets the house, car, kids and who pays the bills and child support. And when they start crying about it say well this is what you wanted. Religious definition of marriage has no place in American politics. In the U.S. marriage license is a state and federaly recognized contract not a religious institute.
anti-trust proponent, let's hope you will not be appointed to SCOTUS by the time of the hearing, so the balance that exists will not be upset.
Anonymous: there is no "balance" on the SCOTUS currently; there's a conservative majority.
Not on this issue. If it gets addressed by the current court, it will be at least 5-4 for marriage equality, possibly 6-3 if Scalia believes in stare decisis.
skrekk: I think Scalia only believes in following stare decisis if it fits his political ideology.
In Lawrence v Texas, Scalia wrote in his dissent:
I think Justice Anthony has found himself on the wrong side of history to often these last couple of years and will vote with the majority to rule Prop 8 (California) and similar anti-gay amendments/laws in violation of the 14th Amendment.
I truly hope that Chief Justice Roberts will stake his claim in history by marshaling all nine justices for a 9-0 vote in favor of equal rights for all.
Chief Justice Earl Warren fought furiously for a unanimous vote in Brown v Board and had to overcome 5 votes in various stages of opposition against Brown to get to a 9-0 decision.
Hey Chief Justice Roberts, be brave!
You're a very optimistic man. I can just about guarantee that Roberts, Thomas and Alito will vote against equality.
Here's the other part of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence:
Scalia was in fact correct in that part of his dissent. There simply is no rational basis to deny marriage equality.
@adam and eve, you need medication.
For all of you in favor in having rights for gays I got to ask you one question: Where does it end. I mean Pedophiles are born that way and so are folks who like bestiality. If we go down this road then we should have to ACKNOWLEDGE all sexual preferences since by not doing so would be in your words discriminating to those minorities.
Oh FFS, do you people ever give up with the 'slippery slope' arguments. Two words... Informed consent, something neither a child nor an animal can provide.
GTFO with this nonsense.
USA,
Grover has it right. Legal adults under the law, with recognized capacity for informed consent. Now I have a question for you...
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
AdamSteve,
We got you at an 11, we need you at a one.
adam and eve not steve
this was pretty funny. (if it's serious well, you spell terribly and live in fear, but i'm pretty sure it's satire.)
adam and eve not steve banned for making anti-gay remarks.
it wasn't a joke???? good riddance!!!!!!!
Civil rights should never be put up to a popular vote. If Black civil rights had been voted on, things would have gone badly. This is not the way to do this. Civil rights for the gay community should be upheld by the constitution, not the whim of the ballot box.
Sadly Anti trust I have absolutely no confidence that that will happen. Discrimination is alive and well, and this is one of the last groups that bigots can lawfully discriminate against. And if the SCOTUS does actually show their humanity and find all these bans unconstitutional, the bigots will just find another group to bash with impunity. Sad.
It seems bigots never tire of being on the wrong side of history. They always have to have someone to hate.
That's because they hate themselves.
And because they are quite ignorant and intolerant.
One has to wonder where this 50 percent nationally for gay marriage is if they keep losing at the ballot box.
Most states (NC and CA being the exceptions) passed these laws 6 or 7 years ago. Attitudes have shifted ovet the last few years.
That's what I hear, and yet the legislative trend seems to be in the opposite direction
I'm beginning to think that the 50 percent exist solely in the Northeast and San Francsico
they get those signatures at the bigoted churches.
You mean the Republican fundraiser and lobbying corporations formerly known as churches?
all right, dumdums-ill explain it-the 15 states that allow gay marriage and/or the equivalent of gay equality is roughly 35% of the US population-got it? in the backwards, redneck religious states that passed bigoted laws, it was often very close-sometimes just a few percenatge points. There hasnt been a vote in states besides Maine and NC in almost 5 years. Most peopel now realize that gays are normal and healthy and just want equality-thats where the 53% comes in! yay!!
The media and appellate courts.
It's because the electorate is almost always more conservative and bigoted than the general public. Young people don't vote while old people do, and the age demographics on marriage equality show that most of the bigots are elderly.
Also, a number of the state-wide votes banning same-sex marriage have been in Republican primaries (like in NC) or in off-year elections, which always turns out more conservatives.
no, actually it's because elections are won by those who turn out and in this country, and quite simply, most adults don't vote. Imagine what would happen if they did (well, you don't have to imagine. Look at all of the polls nationwide.) Such antiquated, bigotry as NC's would never happen.
Maybe a better question would be "who gets to count the ballots?" Wasn't there something about "ROMMNEY WON! ROMMNEY WON!" "opps, we mean Santorum won, sorry 'bout that" in the GOP primaries? How about the conservative woman who was counting votes who had a couple thousand liberal ballots that were only on her personal laptop? (California?) Conservatives don't count so good sometimes, but it's always for the greater good.
Just askin'
I'm still trying to figure out how gay people getting married affects anyone but the individuals involved.
Haven't you been paying attention? It's a direct line to mandatory live Donkey Shows for elementary schools
Or why this is even a reportable issue, anywhere in America. They're not creating war or trying to blow us up. It just seems to me that, regardless of my opinion on their lifestyle, if nobody is being physically harmed or economically deprived by their choice to marry, whoopee ding-dong.
I think the big issues to be worked on first in this country are the economy, jobs, and war (meaning the stopping-of wars). Focus on that first, and quit worrying about the trivially small, which this gay marriage issue really is, at the most.
I agree!!!!!
As long as your civil rights aren't being violated, they're just not that important. The civil rights of other people are trivial.
I am sorry to hear that the bigots in Maryland found enough support to try to vote away someone's civil rights. Thankfully, with a week to go here in Washington, the last I heard the RWNJs are falling far short.
Fair-minded people outnumber bigots in Maryland. Voters will affirm the legislature's vote.
I agree with that statement, but what matters is whether or not fair-minded voters outnumber bigoted voters. That's why polls don't always match up with results.
Those opposed to Equality can never explain their opposition without resorting to 1) "God Sez... (and we're going to be His Enforcers even if you have different beliefs)," 2) Tradition, or 3) "Yuck, Men Having Sex!!" There is no rational reason that they ever present to support discrimination, because it doesn't really effect anything except their precious feelings.
Unfortunately after gay people are finally left alone it will be the Arab and Indians.... There is plenty of hate to go around. Sick people. Keep your nose out of my life unless I do something that hurts you. My disability, skin color, sexual preference and gender identity do nothing to harm you. Step off and let me have my civil rights. I pay my taxes. I work hard. I volunteer. I help the needy. Tell me then, how my marriage is harming you?
MAybe we can outlaw public bigotry
Sorry, that was in response to the Drop Tuner Below. I agree with your post.
The only polls that matter are the ones where you step into a booth and cast a vote. And those have ALL supported banning gay marriage.
Oh really? IN that case we need to go back and invalidate the election of 2000, where the only votes that mattered were the 9 supreme court justices, 5 of which voted to install a president to in fact (as it was later proven) did not win the election. Spare us your ignorance.
But they won't always, so I hope you still support the will of the people when it starts going against you.
DropDtuner
As others have noted, if interracial marriage had been put to a vote it would never have passed either; that's why you should not be able to vote on civil rights, because emotionally-appealing prejudices tend to get out the vote. Any bets as to whether a popular vote would expel all Muslims from the United States, or turn us into a Christian Theocracy?
Those polls do NOT represent 100% of American citizens..only voting Americans..In NC only 39% of the people eligible to vote actually voted..and 60% of the 39% voted for that bigoted Amendment..And it was on a Republican Primary ballot..They didn't have the balls to put it on the general election ballot because they would've lost.
Really? "All supported banning gay marriage?" What about the states who made gay marriage legal?
Congrats Bigots. Way to uphold the tradition of voting on minorities' rights. I hope you never get to know what it feels like.
I hope they DO get to find out what it feels like..maybe a family member will be born gay and they'll have to tell them they can't marry the one person they love.
I work in a hotel that houses many Arabian Students - aka Muslim. These kids know I'm gay and have no problem with it. They know enough to realize that here, in the USA, religion does not rule. If these KIDS have that sense, why the fk dont these idiots who are against gay marrage have the same sense? I guess, as mentioned often in the above posts, bigotry knows no bounds. Pathetic!!
Bigots and haters, pure an simple. Unable to empathize with people who differ, they'd rather legislate to ensure that ALL people are forced to live by their rules and their ideas of morality. I can only hope that the majority of people in MD will show them that love wins out over bigotry and hatred.
Polls and survey's done by third party interests (obviously with funding from homosexual leaning groups) are obviously leaning towards the outcome that homosexual group wants. The data is cut and sliced and diced to show what the sponsor wants. These are junk surveys. Do not believe in them. Give the raw data- I will show using SAS, statistical principles - how they are fixed.
Let's go (people) to the Ballot , by-pass these Governors and legislators who take money from homosexual groups and are ready to do anything for anybody who gives money.
Civil rights should not be put to a popular vote. Many states would still ban interracial marriage and allow segregation if minority rights were not protected.
Master: ALL of the polls throughout the country show the same thing: you are dead wrong. There has been a tide shift away from bigotry and hate of homosexuals...and anyone who couldn't see this happening and why just wasn't paying attention. Once the first courageous homosexuals began demanding to be treated with respect, once people began seeing that the "monsters" people like you told them to hate were really pretty normal neighbors, friends and even members of their own family--this was inevitable. The bigotry was going to fall --To understand just how ridiculous your bogeyman fake poll argument is...Try asking anyone under 35 (who doesn't already know you're a homophobe) to tell you just how deeply they care about who someone else chooses to love.
There is something very fascinating, though troubling about stories like this. I keep reading of polls whose results indicate that people in general now support same sex marriage but whenever there is an actual referendum or initiative or ballot question same sex marriage is voted down. What accounts for the apparent discrepancy? Are the polls inaccurate? Slanted to obtain a favorable outcome? Or are those opposed to same sex marriage more likely to turn out to vote than those in favor of it? Tis a puzzlement.
Read #6.7
Sad but fairly true, skrekk.
I think a majority of people accept same sex marriage, and most polls bear that out. I also think that a vast majority of people don't vote in national elections...and the polls (or voter results) supports this, too.
For whatever reason, people with negative opinions are more likely to come forward than those with a positive opinion. Complaints (for example) are always going to be more likely than compliments.
On an issue like this, which is basically a "yes/no" sort of question, the participants are asked to take action to place their opinion on record. If the actual population beliefs are close to 50/50, the results of the election are more likely to be "no" than "yes."
Why? I don't know. That's just how people are. I can't remember what that phenomenon is called - it was covered in one of my statistics classes, and that was some time ago.
It's not brain surgery. Elections are never decided by large majorities--most eligible voters do not vote, particularly in primary elections like N. Carolina's recent vote on this issue. Polls however are a representative sampling of how people feel about issues, regardless of whether they bother to show up at the polls.
As proven in Colorado and California, what the people want doesn't matter.
Why should the majority ever be permitted to vote on the civil rights of a disfavored minority?
We have a constitution and bill of rights to prevent that sort of abuse.
skrekk: right. Can you imagine if Dwight Eisenhower put the idea of racial integration of the military up to popular vote?? He did it...took hell for it...was told no white soldier would fight next to a black one...ordered it anyway, and very rightly predicted it would be accepted despite the predictions of the end of life as America knew it. It's like Churchill said: "I like the Americans. They always do the right thing. After first trying everything else." I think we've tried everything else. Marriage equality whatever state your in, is inevitable.
Brilliant quotation from Churchill. And it's sadly true. For a nation ostensibly founded on the bedrock of equality for everyone, we sure as hell are painfully slow in getting around to actually implementing it. That equality took some 150 years for women (who still aren't 100% there), an additional 30-40 years for black people, and wow, handicapped people didn't get equal treatment under the law until the 1990s, more than 200 years after America's founding. And now gay Americans are fighting for THEIR rights. So much for "liberty and justice for ALL." Nice catchphrase, would be even nicer if we took it to heart.
Cunical: You don't get to "vote" away your fellow taxpaying Americans' civil rights. If that was the case, slavery would still be legal in South Carolina.
In NC we have voting booths in churches, which I think should be illegal..The churches send buses or drivers to pick up people that will vote their way..
There is only ONE way to STOP this madness.
Petition the IRS to PULL the 501(c)(3) Tax Exemption from ALL RELIGIONS [read churches] !
Religious organizations are not allowed to *politic* from the pulpit.
The so called Evangelical Christians are behind this and a lot more.
If they want to play then then can pay !
I don't think you'd get much except from the Superchurches.
The church I've been attending for the last decade struggles to make their budget year in and year out and has little time for anything more than passing out popsicles at the Memorial Day parade and throwing a one day Saturday mini-carnival on land two other churches own once a year.
And don't say tax the two churches who own that land, that would be stupid for my town since they can lease it for 1 dollar a year to serve as their town green for all other events the church gets no cut of.
JustRad: I don't think the point is to get revenue. It's to tell all religions that if they're going to play politics, they're going to have to be ruled by politics. That would mean paying taxes.
Even if churches stay out of politics, they still should be paying property taxes. There's no reason the general public should be subsidizing religion through the tax base.
I have no problem with the CHURCHES themselves not paying taxes, many are as Justrad said, sorta on the poor side. But when they start owning and renting propriety and condos and factories they should pay taxes on them. And yes, churches are supposed to be about God, not about politics.
Funny thing about religions is they like the old testament much more then the new testament, the wrath of God stuff instead of the love and forgiveness Jesus was talking about.
Is there no end to hatred?
No. It's what we as a country do best.
IMHO
USA is wasting its time (including our President) on such issues. This is no-where critical to our nation. what our nation needs is to control debt, stop wars that are not needed, get accountability from all politicians and improve the economy.
People who are Gay (or homosexual group) are generally people who are well off (look at the the TV hosts, talk show hosts, hollywood people, they have money, all they want is some inferior sexual satisfaction in the form of gay sex). IMHO - homosexual sex act - is an utterly inferior sexual act that leads to where.
If a person or a person's family does not have a job, or money to make ends meet, then, being a homo or fighting for his or her homo right (they already have rights) is not on the top of their list. It will be to get a job. Naturally they will not care if the "marriage" definition is changed or not.
So the homosexual problem is the problem of the rich - who are earning well and socially better off. It is the rich homosexuals who have penetrated everywhere and are trying to screw the rest of the majority... It should not happen this way as the motive of homosexual cause in an inferior one. It is an inferior goal. Now Obama is pursuing an inferior goal, rather than focus on bigger problems our country has...
They want even more rights (such as changing the definition of marriage) which is utter non-sense. Why cannot we change the definition of marriage and include marriage between two adults, 4 adults, 10 adults (marriage can be among a group of 10 people, so all 9 can get benefits from one insurance company), why cannot marriage be between animal and man or woman (like in the PORN culture of USA)?? Where to stop ?
Marriage = one man and one woman, keep it simple and stop sweating it
Master of Universe - What? Say again?
Also, please tell me why people like you *always* bring animals into the argument?!? Where IS your head at, man?!?
Master of the Universe NOT.
Most people don't give a sh ; it what you think. People can and are entiteled to make up their own minds what is right for them so please fu ; ck off.
Brilliant bigot logic.....because some gay people are wealthy, all gay people should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.
IC WHUT U DID THAR
Gotta be a troll. That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read, "Master."
Master, if you want to keep it simple...if you're against gay marriage, DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!! can't get simpler then that..
Master,
Master,
We'll start with this...
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
Now, polygamy is a little more difficult, so I'll try to help you out here...
First, the question is off point, seeing as it wouldn't lead to polygamy. Then, with a basis in abuse and an onus of rewritting pretty much all of our state/federal laws, I think that explains it pretty well. Furthermore, I wouldn't really have a problem with it. SCOTUS did, way back in the day, which has led to the standing we have on it now, i.e. the onus of rewriting everything. But the limited number of people who would engage in it, are welcome to, as far as I'm concerened, however then what happens with the 1000+ benefits that marriage bestows?
Why polygamy is illegal has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. It's more of a 1st Amendment issue. That's why it's such a strawman, here. Unless someone can answer my original question, which would be the link between the gender of one party and polygamy, bringing this up is nothing but a distraction.
It's not like we going to legalize gay marriage, and then the next day a shload of people are going to be screaming about wanting to marry numerous spouses. Those who want to engage in polygamy, already do, albeit underground. That won't change with the legalization of gay marriage, unless you can find a link between the two.
Idiots! Withour economy teetering on the edge of an abyss, this is all you're concerned about? I guess it's a great way to distract from the dismal record of the present administration!
TONY - 718521
There is no administration in the last 100 years that can match the dismal effects of the GW Bush years. If you give a crap about being accurate, check out the claims made by the Right that Liberals are tax and spend, then compare that info with the Right spend then tax system and you'll find that the Right is way worse for our economics than the left ever was.
In case you've been asleep, Bush started two long lasting and super expensive wars he never included in the budget or found ANYWAY to pay for them. On top of that he did the Perscription drug deal the very same way. So, that immediately cost us nearly 4 trillion dollars and still counting.
Check your facts by checking them all and get your head out of FOX NEWS, it will stunt your mental growth.
Tony: most adults can do more than one thing at one time. Seriously?? "teetering on the edge of abyss"??? No, we were there, but thankfully, THAT President is now just they guy whose name even his own party won't mention.
Sick and tired of these Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, Anti-Christian, Anti-Human bigots! Their only joy in life is hurting others and our country, how evil is that? A lot worse to be one of these bigoted, hateful souls and I'm sure they're a lot more offensive to the Creator than any gay person on the planet.
I just love this effort. The anti-gay Christian thugs will be totally humiliated at the ballot box, just like they were in the legislature. During the last few months, 3 to be exact, approval for gay marriage in Maryland has risen 12 points and is still climbing for one simple reason. Large sections of this state are a African American (29%) and both President Obama and the President of the NAACP have endorsed same sex marriage. The same thing would happen if Proposition 8 were re-voted in California simply because it was the Black and Mormon Churches that fought it.
Which brings up another point. I would like to know why all those churches who were telling people how to vote in California still have their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and why is the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service not investigating them? Same goes for that psych patient preacher in North Carolina who said Gays and Lesbians should be put in cages and left to die out and then told the congregation not to vote for Obama because of his courage (although he did not say courage:)). These people are committing fraud on the American tax payer. If they want a seat at the political table, they have to ante up.
Ok, Im with you on everything except the anti-christian thing. Patriot, Christianity is the bloodiest religion to every walk the earth. The Aztecs, who used to tear the hearts out of people cannot even come close to the body count these people have wracked up. In at least two cases American churches were linked to financing the death penalty for gays in Uganda and "corrective" rapes in South Africa. I am currently collecting material for a book on the subject. I have been collecting stories for about a week and already have more than a dozen incidents of violence by Christians against both the LGBT community and Abortion doctors. My friend, the world NEEDS to be anti-christian, just like it needs to be anti-cancer. We need to stop fearing these people and their fantasies.
Ok, Im with you on everything except the anti-christian thing. Patriot, Christianity is the bloodiest religion to every walk the earth. The Aztecs, who used to tear the hearts out of people cannot even come close to the body count these people have wracked up. In at least two cases American churches were linked to financing the death penalty for gays in Uganda and "corrective" rapes in South Africa. I am currently collecting material for a book on the subject. I have been collecting stories for about a week and already have more than a dozen incidents of violence by Christians against both the LGBT community and Abortion doctors. My friend, the world NEEDS to be anti-christian, just like it needs to be anti-cancer. We need to stop fearing these people and their fantasies.
Carlos.....Large sections of the state are Black??? Outside of Baltimore city, and County and the suburbs of DC.....where else is the Black vote a majority? Certainly not the other 19 counties! Besides, the Maryland Marriage Alliance was founded by Black Church congregations in the majority Black populated areas. What you claim, makes no sense.
Pastor: I agree with Carlos because these 5 counties are large enough to account for the majority of the votes for MD. As you stated before it was not the 19 counties who voted for the Clown we have as the Governor nor the slime ball Steny Hoyer who ironically enough lives in St. Marys County and he lost down here (to Charles Lollar)but still won since PG and Montgomery Counties account for the majority votes here in MD yet none of those 5 counties account for the majority of the tax revenue here in MD. I personally think those 5 counties you are referring to should be placed under Washington DC and therefore Maryland would then have a true sense of what the folks here want.
The feces follies want to bring our culture some of their culture of diseases and death. Millions of Americans say marriage is defined as one man and one woman not man and animal or man and man. GAY ; got aids yet is abnormal
So in order to reduce STDs, your plan is to deny gays the institutional support of monogamy.
Brilliant bigot logic.
Big L - I read some of your posts yesterday.....was thinking that after a night of sleeping off whatever you were diong/drinking, some reasonable thoughts would return....guess not
BigL: Let's be clear about something you're obviously a bit foggy on...you do not speak for any decent heterosexual so whoever you are referring to by "our" culture sure as heck wouldn't include me or anyone I know. Just try and communicate more plainly if you can. You are scared of gays. Got that. You hate gays. Got that too. You think you might somehow TURN gay. Ok, ok. I think we've all got it now.
BigL, thanks for showing us that illiteracy and ignorance ALWAYS go together.
Big L-4172784, does that mean you'll have to stop having sex with your goat?