Catholic Officials Lead Defeat of Maryland Gay Marriage Bill
- Posted on March 12, 2011 at 6:37pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland’s House speaker vows Democrats will try again next year to pass legislation legalizing gay marriage, noting intense lobbying by faith groups against the measure shows it remains divisive in a state known for its liberal politics.
A loose coalition of Democratic legislators failed to cobble together enough votes to overcome opposition from Republicans and religious groups, including the Catholic church and many black congregations, to make Maryland the sixth state to legalize gay marriage.
Lawmakers had planned to vote on the bill in the House, but it was withdrawn instead Friday and effectively killed for the year.
Opposition from some religious groups grew after the Senate narrowly passed its version of the measure Feb. 24. Then some black Democratic lawmakers withdrew their support, while freshman legislators had trouble determining what constituents wanted.
House leaders didn’t rely on a traditional whipping operation to line up votes on a hot-button social issue, even after Republicans gains last year.
“The vote would have been very close, make no mistake about it,” said House Speaker Michael Busch, D-Anne Arundel, after it was referred back to committee on a voice vote.
Busch had been meeting with his fellow delegates for days seeking votes, saying he will try again next year.
Delegate Anne Kaiser, D-Montgomery, one of the chamber’s openly gay members, said supporters were always a few votes short of the 71 needed and that many factors blocked their way.
“I think in some cases it was the churches back home,” Kaiser said. “I really can‘t explain people’s motivations. Many people who promised us their votes changed their minds.”
The bill’s withdrawal bitterly disappointed gay marriage supporters who said they had appeared close to a major victory after the Senate, considered the more conservative of Maryland’s two Democratic-controlled chambers, approved a similar proposal.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Rhode Island lawmakers are debating legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
But the Maryland bill hit trouble in the House two weeks ago after a committee had to delay a series of votes on the issue and some Democrats, including in the black community, began wavering.
Even if the bill had passed, there was a chance that it could have been put to voters in a referendum. Under Maryland law, citizens who gather enough signatures can petition for their right to vote on laws passed by legislators.
The issue divided the state’s top three political leaders, all Catholic Democrats. While Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller opposed legalizing gay marriage, Busch and Gov. Martin O’Malley supported it.
“I would have hoped that we could have resolved this issue and then let the people decide,” O’Malley said.
National groups on both sides of the debate had converged on Annapolis in the past week, with the National Organization for Marriage pledging to spend $1 million to oppose the re-election of supporters of the bill. The liberal Human Rights Campaign called voters urging them to ask their lawmakers to support the bill.
Opponents of gay marriage said it was a victory for protecting marriage.
“We took a position to support the existing definition (of marriage) as being between one man and woman and that prevailed,” said House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell, R-Calvert.
Catholic officials, led by The Maryland Catholic Conference, coordinated much of the opposition. After the Senate voted, leading bishops in Maryland signed a letter urging Catholics to contact their legislators and insisting the debate was “not over,” according to the Catholic News Service.
Maryland was founded by Catholics in the 17th century, and the Archdiocese of Baltimore says the Catholic population in Baltimore and its nine counties alone is nearly a half million.
—
Associated Press writer Brian Witte in Annapolis contributed to this report.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 668 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 382 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 252 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 259 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 107 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 252 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (73)
DAGNY
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 2:11pmFor EXCELLENT insight into the issue from military experts (and I do believe they are the only experts on this issue), read the February 2011 issue of WHISTLEBLOWER, Dropping the H-Bomb.
Report Post »DAGNY
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 2:08pmROMANS 1:26-27
Clearly the most problematic passage for all who wish to say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality is Romans 1:26-27:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Proponents of homosexuality have tried to remove the force of this passage by suggesting that either Paul was expressing his own uninspired opinion, or he was merely laying the groundwork for his teaching on grace. So he was mainly concerned with idolatry, and not any sin in particular.
Although a biblical writer’s opinion might indeed appear in Scripture (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:7), the suggestion that Romans 1:26-27 represents Paul’s uninspired opinion and is at variance with the rest of the Scripture, is erroneous. If we cannot trust Paul to express the will of God on this point, where can we trust him? What will be our standard? Unfortunately, our own opinions become the standard all too often.
The fact is, Paul meant exactly what Christians have long thought he meant—that homosexual behavior is symptomatic of sin in the world. This passage is not to be dismissed as too difficult to understand, or as an isolated passage that somehow is outweighed by an impressive array of passages teaching the opposite. Although this passage does not stand alone, from the standpoint of divine inspiration, one reference is enough.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is this: every time homosexual behavior is mentioned, it is condemned. The Bible is not homophobic (i.e., obsessively hostile toward homosexuality), but it clearly treats heterosexuality as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al.). These unsuccessful attempts to reinterpret the Bible’s teaching on the subject raise an even more crucial question: What Scripture can be presented that legitimizes homosexuality?
Apologetics Press
Report Post »http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/358
DAGNY
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:46pmPathetic…….. but it will create a steady voter bloc for the democrat party – just like ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Actually, I do not believe there are nearly as many “gays” as the media and the bogus “studies” they rely on tell us there are. This whole “gay” movements is based on a handful and magnified through faulty studies with an agenda.
There is not one faith that allows for us to indulge in our homosexual urges although there are plenty of homosexuals who are of a particular faith. Their ultimate destiny is in God’s hands, not ours.
However, our military is not the place to force the acceptance of gays. Actually, no one should be forced to accept something that goes against their faith. Unfortunately, our active duty soldiers were not consulted on this so once again we are being forced another social change forced upon us which is based on feelings rather than logic and the end user, the active duty soldier, was never consulted.
Report Post »eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:14pmWe‘d BETTER HONOR GOD’S WORD…
That’s the bottom line on this issue…PERIOD!
And, Chrisitian Church’s are held ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT STANDING UP & AGAINST THIS.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 9:37amGo honor God’s word in Iran. We are not a fundamentalist nation. The ideas expressed in the Declaration and Constitution did not come from the Bible. They were expressed by the Natural Law philosophers like John Locke. Religious people do not have the right to restrict other people of their natural rights. Since you are not directly injured by the allowance of gay marriage, it is unethical to restrict the freedom of an individual based on your own prejudices and your religion.
Report Post »null.n.void
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:39pmI am a resident of this blue state. Maryland is a beautiful place to live. I’d like for everyone to know that MOST of the folks you run into in Maryland do NOT support the Dems. Like many small states, the voting it dictated by a few counties and cities that are die hard blue. The fact that this bill was defeated for another year speaks volumes about the conservatives in this state as they try to slowly move us back to a shade of purple. It was much better when we had Erlich (R) as the governor and a moderate democrat legislature. It gave ALL voices a chance to be heard without too much swing one way or another. We were operating in the black for several years and frivolous bills like this were rare. When O’Malley took over, he bled the coffers dry and tried to blame it on an accounting error. He brought in fringe groups and touted them as “the norm”. He pledged allegiance to the Obama and to the craziness for which he stands, one state doomed to fail with liberals and social justice for all. Please don’t judge Maryland based on this craziness. Like a painful kidney stone, it too shall pass.
Report Post »Mainer forever
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:36pmWhy is it that gay people are always seeking approval for thier behavior?
Report Post »uptickusa
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:34pmLet’s begin by saying YOU ARE BORN GAY-Not a choice but an anomaly in the Genetic marking.Why don’t these radical misinformed organized religious nut jobs learn about the human anatomy make-up and the physical attributes which govern the life choices beyond the conventional predisposed attraction to other human beings.Please leave these people alone-God gave everyone the right to choose their path and yet we think we have the right to choose for them-PLEASE FORGIVE THEM LORD FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO..
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:31pm“Not a choice but an anomaly in the Genetic marking.”
Shall we call these anomalies DEFECTS? Are they functional anomalies?
What other sexual orientations are genetic? Is peadophilia genetic? Is rape genetic. There are whole fetish libraries devoted to these attractions. Is there any way for you to define what psychological health is so as to identify psychological sicknesses.
Report Post »DAGNY
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:58pmWell, we were all born sinners. That does entitle us to indulge in our sins. Our path is to become pure.
I don’t know a single gay man who is itching to go fight for our country. To the contrary, the gay men I know run from confrontation. I am talking only about the gay men I know personally.
I find it very hard to believe that this push for open gays in the military is anything more than a political agenda of the left – that being the well-known and tiresome daily decontructing of our faith-based nation. Watering down our military will be a major ***** in our armour.
Report Post »miles from nowhere
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:01pmAmen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »CincinnatiPol
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:39pmI echo the Amennnnn of MILES FROM NOWHERE to ILESFORDIAN’S well written and thoughtful, as well as informative comments. We all need to study them. Using the cesspool of the body for sexual gratification amongst many anonymous partners in bath houses, parks, etc. results in disease. AIDS is primarily, not exclusivelly, spread by immoral behavior. Every restaurant restroom reminds employees to wash their hands before returning to preparing our food. Same part of the body being used as in homosexual hookups. And homosexuals expect the rest of us to fund research/medicine for an AIDS cure? Vice is a choice. Leave us alone. And stop corrupting innocent government school children by the NEA radical curriculum that a normal family can be 2 daddies or 2 mommies as well as a mommy and a daddy. There is nothing ‘gay’, i.e. happy or joyful about unnatural sex. Even animals know better.
Report Post »s82a1a
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:53amI’m Catholic & conservative, but the one thing I don’t understand is banning gay marriage. My faith should not influence laws against other people. As a conservative, I believe in less laws & regulations for all of us, including gays that love each other. Who cares! Am I the only one that thinks this?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:44pmTake some time to understand how marriage functions not as an individual right but as a civic rite sanctioned by the state to serve the purposes of society. Marriages are given special protections to offset the difficulties they entail because the advantages to society of these marruages, in providing children and units of natural social cohesion, are essential for a healthy society.
The State cannot produce children and cannot raise them to psychological health as well as parents. The optimal rearing environment for children is under two parents who both share stong biological bonds with the children, and whose marital bond provides the safe haven needed for the child’s upbringing. No other social union serves this purpose as well as marriage. So why then should the state pretend otherwise? To force the state to declare a gay union as equal to a marriage is to effectively force it to reject the rationale for protecting and priveleging marriage in the first place.
By making marriage an individual RIGHT you have removed the state’s original concern for the purpose of marriage and made it apathetic toward the healthy rearing of children and the stable organizing of society. This is the evil of the radical libertarian philosophy. It mandates societal wilderness as the only alternative to tyranny. Ironically, by destabilizing society this way and encouraging the practical orphaning of a generation of children, the social junglke that will be produced will be used by the state to justify its abrogation of even more individual freedom.
N
Report Post »Bronco II
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:34amWith GOD BEFORE US WHO CAN COME AGAINST US? NO ONE.
Report Post »hank kelly
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:19amThis week, 37 priests have been identified as allegedly behaving inappropriately with children in the Philadelphia diocese. This week, a gay soldier died in Afghanistan. The Catholic church has the believes that it has the moral authority to determine who can marry the one they love. The dead gay soldier died defended their right to free speech. Who has the credibility? A gay soldier who died for his country, or, a church which has covered up it’s crimes and lies and wants to deny rights to others?
Report Post »Lady MacBeck
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:05pmHank – EXACTLY!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:26pmGOD has the authority.
If you don’t like God, try Nature. There is no natural purpose to homosexuality.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:09amThere was an imaginary experiment carried out 50 years ago. They put 100 gay men on one island and 100 gay women on another with no way to connect. The scientists came back 50 years later to find…………..what? Thats right! Nothing. Do not violate the natural laws and call it natural.
Report Post »mikee1
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 10:20amGay marriage is an oxymoron. It does not exist. Now, the liberals will tell you that is Christian nonsense and b.s. But they should be reminded that their “friends” in the media, the Muslims, will hang them from industrial cranes in public for suggesting such a policy in the lands of the Muslim Street. Keep that in mind, liberal half wits. You are opposing an entire world of religion with attempts at legislation like this. LOL.
Report Post »Edct
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 10:05amIt is about time the Catholics tried to save this country from total moral bankrupcy…maybe now some of the other Christian groups will get off their lazy butts and help this country.
Report Post »Formula382
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 9:55amGaydem says: “Did you know that Jesus said not one word — not one — about homosexuality. He did however condemn frequently and vehemently, those that condemn others ! (love the neighbor) Jesus may not have said anything about homosexuals but he sure had allot of suggestions for straight couples. Jesus died for the sins of homosexual just as he did for your sins, so bear your own cross and gays will deal with there’s when the time comes.”
Are you fogetting that God wiped Sodom and Gamora off the map…perhaps that was a little “clue” as to how God felt about Sodomy among other activities frequently practiced in the homosexual community. And the fact that Jesus in the new testimate speaks to heterosexuality is to be expected, they didn’t have that many people that were open about wanting to be butt pirates back then. It was frowned upon, hey…just like it is today.
Don’t hate the player Gaydem, you can hate the game. Truth is, gays can be gay but I’m completely against gay marriage as it is a union between man, woman and God. The gay community, in large part, didn’t want anything to do with marriage for many years and has only become central to the debate when corporate and social benefits were thrown in the mix.
Report Post »GayDem4Beck
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:49amLMAO – What a moral story ‘Sodom and Gamora’. You ever actually read the end of that story ? Or did you just get the part the Church wanted you to hear ? GIVE ME A BREAK
Thus, the daughters got their father so drunk they were able to have intercourse with him on two consecutive nights, the oldest daughter having her way with him the first night, followed by the youngest daughter on the following night. Interestingly, the text says that Lot was so drunk “he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. This text suggests a justification for an action that was not considered normal. The bible is filled with stories about multiple wives and incest. In fact, it was customary amongst nieces and nephews in order to keep pure bloodlines, even such as Abraham who had married his half-sister.
Report Post »Norma Perez
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 6:48pmOn homosexuality- Leviticus 13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Report Post »On Bestiality- 15: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.
On is it human to eat human? Genesis 3: Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all these things.
Genesis 4: But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Mr. Apathy
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 9:22amWith all the problems in our states with budget problems, health care issues and deteriorating schools why this? It’s amazing that Gay Rights issues are the red meat that Politicians and the Media try to distract us with.
I suppose this is more important to our national debt crisis and a presidency that lacks a military and foreign policy.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 7:30pmAMEN Mr Apathy!
Report Post »You are correct! With the country going to HELL in the proverbial handbasket Gay MARRIAGE is a useful distraction.
What is the percentage of gays in this nation…,6%? 8%?
I am all for civil unions. I am against Gay Marriage because of the law of unintended consequences.
If we legalize gay Marriage…,what special little groups step up after that demanding their “Marriage rights”?
9thCommandment
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:53amYet over half Catholics 52% voted for BHO & routinely voted 61% for DEMONcrats. Catholics are not alone when close to half Christians vote for DEMONcrats being sold on social justice issues and in turn give rise to anti-Christian policies that attack the bedrock of their faith.
Report Post »catholiccowboy
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 11:45amI’m sorry to say it but you are right on the social justice part, but I’m not so sure I agree with your claim of 50+% voted for this A-hole! I teach Catholicism to 9th and 10th grade confirmation. And I did a piece on social justice….and I made sure that my students and any other Catholic or Christian I run into understands the basic premises of social justice is something that comes form God. And can only be achieved in society when all of Gods laws and graces are adhered too. It is one of the fruits of Gods love that we thru our works and commitment can receive from him and him alone. Social justice without first a strong connection to GOD is nothing more than a fallacy and is a pagans attempt to circumvent one of Gods special graces for a personnel goal or objective……plan and simple!
Report Post »GayDem4Beck
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:39amWhat special rights ? How about equal rights, equal justice, equal freedom, equal liberties, equal pursuit of happiness ? Support of gay marriage was initially a Libertarian and Conservative idea not a Liberal one. It‘s the ’Christian‘ right that’s turned this issue around and pushed it to become a Liberal agenda.
Did you know that Jesus said not one word — not one — about homosexuality. He did however condemn frequently and vehemently, those that condemn others ! (love the neighbor) Jesus may not have said anything about homosexuals but he sure had allot of suggestions for straight couples. Jesus died for the sins of homosexual just as he did for your sins, so bear your own cross and gays will deal with there’s when the time comes.
I’ll call mine a Civil Union, if you call yours a Holy Union and drop the word Marriage. However today every straight couple I know, that’s had a Civil Union, call themselves “MARRIED”.
Lets do our own homework:
Marriage has evolved over the centuries, but some basic features have remained constant. In ancient Rome, it was accomplished by consent of the parties to live together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary. This early Roman model of marriage was displaced when the ‘Catholic Church’ declared in 1563 that marriages were not valid unless contracted in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. In England, under the ‘Anglican Church’, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of ‘Lord Hardwicke’s Act’ in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.
The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the ‘Common Law’. In the 1800s, state legislatures began to enact laws expressly to prohibit marriage without an observed ceremony and other requirements. Common-law marriage was prohibited in a majority of jurisdictions. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires all states that prohibit it to nonetheless recognize a common-law marriage created in a jurisdiction that allows it. U.S. Const. art. IV,
I can‘t believe I’m actually going to use a Rachel MadCow interview as a reference…. But she or he is interviewing the “Conservative Lawyer” fighting for Gay Marriage.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHi8hxZHYbo
Lady MacBeck
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:59amWell said! I agree completely!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:22pmPlease cite ONE conservative who is not a homosexual who was advocating gay marriage.
I remember 25 years ago when gay rights were being fought over and it was repeatedly said that gay rights had NOTHING to do with gay marriage. The idea of Gay marriage was considered a ridiculous fear, like polygamy, incest and bestiality today. How times change, and arguments.
By the way, Jesus said not ONE WORD about canabalism, or bestiality, or abortion, or rape, or witchcraft. But what he did say about morality pointed to a body of moral laws observed by Jews, whcih included proscriptians against all those things. If he wanted to make an exception for homosexual practice he did not do so.
It is claimed that heterosexuals have made a hash of marriage too, but it isn’t pointed out verey often HOW that has happened. Rampant divorce is the culprit and homosexuals are rightly not to be blaimed for this. It is the same sexual libertinism that created easy divorce that is leading to gay marriage, the same rejection of basic rules and boundaries that make human civilization possible, as if our level of civilization were natural and self-sustainable.
But let us contemplate the implicit argument behind this accusation of heterosexual failure at marriage beyond the obvious cynical one that straights must not really care about their own marriages so why sould they care about gay marriages. The possitive argument within this point is that gay marriage couldn’t make marriage any worse. But this ignores the reality of gay relationships versus straight. If we look at relationships outside marriage, and since the sexual revolution straights have radically increased their number of sexual relationships outside marriage, we still find that straights are more monogamous and more stable than homosexuals. The natural tendency of men and women to pair up in long-term bonds is far greater than that of gays. A marriage certificate will do nothing to change that, as recent experience bears out among those gays who have taken advantage of marriage. Their failure at marriage is afr greater than the record for normal (real) marriage.
“Marriage has evolved over the centuries, but some basic features have remained constant. ”
It is remarkable that you exclude the one single obvious factor that is constant throughout all forms of marriage in every society: that it is between a man and a woman. Even in polygamous societies a man who has many wives does not have one marriage but many marriages. Each wife requires a separate union. Omiting this can can only show that your argument is prejudicial and skewed from the beginning. You include onbly those facts which lead to your conclusion.
It is a feat of great political Psychosis to think claim that the basic binary nature of human existence, that we are a heterosexual species existing with two sexes integral for our reproduction and raisng of children, that this fundamental apsect of human nature should be treated as an optional feature in the most basic of human institutions.
The idea that a pairing of two men or two women could be functionally equal to the pairing of the two opposite sexes is as philosophically insane as saying that a possitive charged particle could be matched with another particle of either charge, possitive or negative, and the result would be the same. Things that are made different are made that way for a reason. It is a basic biological fact that two men cannot produce children, neither can two women. And two think they can raise them as well as a normal couple is insane as well. How, for example, could a lesbian couple raise a girl or a boy without distorting that child’s understanding of the relationship between men and women? Would not a boy begin to feel that his masculinity was despised; and would the girl not also begin to dispise males? How would a boy raise by two male homosexuals learn to be a man and to relate to women?
It is assmed that sexual nature is programmed and cannot be altered or disrupted, but this flies in the face of all psychiatric study. We are not irrational beasts who live on instinct alone. Our behavior and psychological makeup is a combination of genetic heritage and environmental factors. A social policy that ignores the basic heterosexual model of our biology and disregards those environmental factors that are meant to co-operate with and facilitate that biology is doomed tom failure, a failure that will probably be ignored by the same political insanity that created it.
Report Post »VLADTEPES
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:33amLived in Md for years, hell I would‘nt be suprised if they start letting perv’s marry animals in the future..
Report Post »Buck Bagaw
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 9:21amAfter all, it’s the “Free” state!!
Report Post »BLEMON01
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 5:22pmI thought we were the Old LIne State.
Report Post »jCo68
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 5:05pmYes, I’m sure that will happen, because animals have the legal standing to enter into a contract. /sarcasm.
Report Post »piper60
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:24amI agree with goatkid. If they had passed this one———who knows? Perhaps they next thing would have been to legalize pornography parlors being opened up right next door to the churches. There are a lot of congregations that have succumbed to the gay agenda. Too many of them would rather embrace PCism to gain a few parishioners than to stand up for scripture. We recently changed church congregations because of that. Too bad. Time to put on the full armor of God and cowboy up, people.
Report Post »goatkid
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 7:48amAll Christians need to stand together on this. Weather you are Catholic, or Baptist, or whatever. We have to stand together in order to defeat this. I don’t care what gays and lesbians do in the bedroom, Just leave marriage alone.
Report Post »CTHULHUWILLEATYOUFIRST
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:47amI hear you. I mean, we straight people has done such a GREAT job in honoring the institution of marriage!
Give me a break.
Report Post »Buck Bagaw
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 9:15amSome of us have, you probably haven’t.
Report Post »CTHULHUWILLEATYOUFIRST
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:18pmI‘m sure I’ve done a better job than you, *uck.
Buck Bagaw
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 2:25pmMaybe, but then I’m in one of those “mixed” marriages. You know the kind, one man and one woman.
Report Post »Obama Been Lauding
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 6:31amDeutscher,
Report Post »Obviously, you have no knowledge of military life.
I served over 35 years in the military, and can give you some information on the subject.
Service members were segregated, according to sex. Men in separate quarters than women.
Separate bathrooms, and showers as well. All done because of sexual orientation.
Now, are there going to be even more bathrooms, or is everyone going to have the same, (which would save money, letting everyone share a shower).
Same quarters for everyone? After all, gays are not a separate race, they are “Sexually Oriented”.
Buck Bagaw
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:59amDoncha know that those who have to look up “DD214” usually know far more about military issues than possessors of same?? You were too busy fighting and drinking those thirty-five years to notice how things really were. Oh yeah, Thanks!
Report Post »Rick in Iowa
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 6:15amSurprising story. So many American churches are political action coalitions for the commies and liberals it’s surprising to see this many bucking the trend.
Report Post »Buck Bagaw
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 8:47amThe change in the church’s “message” has been so subtle and prolonged that many people are not even aware of the changes, many of them as simple as inserting a politically correct word in the gospel here and there. From personal experience I know the Methodist Church has been doing this for years along with placing flaming liberals in the clergy to promote these “improvements”. But people who will accept gender neutral replacements to passages such as “men of good will” to “those with whom He finds favor” will not accept the supposition that queer folks exchanging rings and vows a marriage doth make. There really is a Limit, and it has been reached. Fifty years ago Church was “Church”, and nothing more. We have to get back to that concept.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 5:09amI hope the Catholics – Stand up for America – in every state.
Report Post »freeus
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 12:02pmI agree. We need more religious people to stand up to the degradation of the covenant of marriage before it is too late. I am committed (and encourage others) to supporting the National Organization of Marriage (NOM) and the concept of One Man One Woman for Life, especially if their Church isn’t on board.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 9:26amYou do realize the difference between civil and religious marriage, right? Civil marriage is a contract between people. Churches can define religious marriages however they want, but the due process clause does not allow governments to make arbitrary distinctions on gender when rights are involved, like the right to freely enter into a contract.
And the “protecting the institution” argument is the biggest straw man of them all. It is full of logical fallacies and a complete disregard for the notion of Natural Law. The general point of Natural Law is: if an action a person or group of persons takes does not cause injury to another then it cannot be prohibited without injury to the person or group of persons. No one is injured by letting gays get civil marriages. No churches are forced to perform ceremonies, and no one’s liberty is reduced. Your argument is that we need to “protect the institution” of marriage by reducing the liberty of an unpopular minority. You have no evidence that homosexual marriages will lead to a weakening of straight marriages other than homophobia and religious fundamentalism. In the end, your argument to disregard due process and have different sets of rights for different classes of people is based on emotion, prejudice, and religion. And as much as the fundamentalists like to believe it, we are not founded on the Bible and Christian fundamentalism; we are founded on the notions of Natural Law and self-governance.
Report Post »Fina Biscotti
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 5:08amWild – our military is lacking proper equipment and security – faced with the deranged Usurper Commander-in-Chief and his dangerous Rules of Engagement – the malicious intent for the shortage of ammunition for our military while on the battlefield – the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the lame-duck session – the costs of having gays openly serve in the military – gays wanting Special Treatment so they can openly troll among our American Troops – the federal government forcing members of our American Troops to be concerned of the feelings of gays serving in the military – as if our American Troops should be concerned about anything but the enemy.
We are faced with every state having a budget crisis bc of federal mandates wo funding – such as supporting ILLEGAL ALIENS with free services for their lifetime – and now everyone is STILL wasting time – on trying to force every American to be accepting of same-sex marriages – in every state.
Pathetic…….. but it will create a steady voter bloc for the democrat party – just like ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 5:26amHow does DADT repeal cost money? What are the special rights you refer to?
Report Post »Yes sensitivity training has begun for the repeal, but this training was done for other groups inclusion as well. As for trolling, first I think most guys can handle themselves, most front-line troops have far greater concerns, and I doubt gays are going to suddenly attack their coworkers.
In a few years no one will be worrying about the repeal.
Islesfordian
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 9:08amWhen the armed forces integrated it was a move to abolish an unnatural philosophy, racism. There is no such thing as difference in races. We are all human beings and can only be artificially divided into ethnic groups. There is no relevant physical difference between a Scandinavian and an Ethiopian. Nor does ethnicity necessarily have anything to do with character. The racist insticts of American soldiers were not natural but artificial, created by the racists environments in which they grew up. Creating an integrated military thus was emminently acheivable and only would encounter difficulty in the first generation.
However, when women were added to the armed forces it was a move to IMPOSE an unnatural philosophy and to prohibit an ineradicable natural instinct. Women can never be treated as just the same as men, especially in close quarters, under extreme duress, and by young hormonally charge soldiers. It creates great psychological dissonance to force young men to overcome their natural instincts toward women, instincts to see them as both objects of sexual desire and people to be protected. The feminist psychosis that saw male chivalry as oppressive was impressed on young men. Furthermore, the obvious physical differences between men and women were officially regarded as irrelevant, as if the “weaker sex” could be treated equally with the stronger without lowering standards, and as pregnancy on base, AND ON SHIPS, was not significantly more disruptive when it came to women than to men. The sexual integration of the armed forces has been a dissater that in our PC climate, and among or neutered politician and military brass, few want to pay attention to. The tortuous politicsw of sexual harrassment was also added to the burdens of the military.
Now, we are imposing upon these soldiers an added layer of political psychosis. We want these young men, trained to bond together as brothers and fight as one, to treat homosexuals as just one of the guys. The dislike among men for effeminant men is not unnatural. Classifying it as a phobia has been a signature political success, and a societal disaster. You can tell men that their natural impulses are wrong but that will not make them go away. So now we have young men forced to pretend that they feel just as comfortable among queers as regular men. Women, they instinctively know how to behave around, but they are forbidden to behave that way. Queers they instinctively want to keep at a distance, but now they are told that these gay soldiers mmust be brought into the intimate circle of comraderie, of the military unit in which everyone relies on each other and trusts them. The lives of soldiers in navigating sexual politics has been even more complicated. How can a unit of soldiers work together when in involves members who might be sexually attracted to each other? Imagine the anxiety of young men under a gay sargeant. Only a politician with his head up his ass and his ass comfortably in Washington would think that situation tolerable. But that jackass was probably never a Boy Scout.
This type of political impossition upon the military is destroying group morale and unit cohesion. It will force the soldiers to begin to distance themselves from the unit that contains homosexuals. Since soldiers are being treated as simply individuals by the political forces without regard for how the military functions the soldiers will begin to think that way to. Gone will be the esprit de corps that allowed a military unit to operate efficiently as one.
Think these political games are costing us billions.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 1:21pmIslesfordian,
Great comment.
Report Post »American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 2:42pmI deployed last year with this guy I’m 100% certain is gay. One of the first things he tells you when you meet him was that he was a “Cheerleader” in college. Not for the chicks. He liked doing flips and such. He was married but he was more of a lap dog for the wife. His favorite movie? Twilight. Even called his wife Bella.
The point to this story? We both went out on missions. Day in. Day out. although he acted pretty **** sometimes, he had my back when I needed it. He watched his sectors and did everything a soldier needed to do. He would have risked his life to save mine if time ever came. I would have saved his likewise. I don‘t care if you’re gay. If you sacrificed your time, you’re life and your future to serve your country, you’re alright with me.
I’ll take a gay guy willing to take a bullet for me than most of you heterosexual that never had the courage to serve and spew out hypocrisy out of every orifice of your body.
Report Post »Guerrino_P
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 3:39pmI agree 100%. Let people marry who they want and let us focus on more important things.
Report Post »MinorityRightsAdvocate
Posted on March 13, 2011 at 11:07pmNot only do they want the ability to serve openly, be married, etc. They also NOW enjoy special protection for medical care that is specifically tied to their lifestyle, and YOU PAY for it!
Here is a more detail on this, but repeal of DADT is much more a problem than most realize:
http://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/inexplicable-discrimination-directly-violating-%e2%80%9cequal%e2%80%9d-opportunity-in-the-military/
Report Post »proudinfidel54
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 12:42amDuetsher it is called B.P.B. Brainwash, Propoganda, Bombardment.
Report Post »Amos37
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 7:00amExcept for those pesky Christians who truly believe the Word of God, I’m sure they will still be talking about the DADT repeal.
Report Post »We keep trying to cater to the next group who deserves “equal rights” without regard for what giving those rights will entail. It’s too bad that for some reason people are so convinced we have a much better understanding of what humanity is today then we did yesterday. The True God told us that the last days would be perilous times going from bad to worse deceiving and being deceived, and issues such as these only exemplify how much we have decided to go on our own human understanding.
We all need to ask God what He wants us to do and accept the answer He gives.
See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him?