Amen!

It's "sense"

Let's hope the Senate has more sense and passes it with even a HIGHER majority!

What they do is their business, pass all the laws you want, still does not make it a marriage.....that can only happen between a man and a women. Civil Unions, fine by me, and no law will change that.

Tommy B, your correct on self title of wingnut, individuals who commit suicide have only themselves to blame

Feel free to move anytime. Maryland has been a democratic state for as long as I've been aware.

Explain to me how insurance premiums are going to skyrocket over this?

You got that right! Just who do people think is going to have to pay for all the benefits & premiums to those new "family" members? I certainly hope those 2 republicans get voted out.

" Sick of small minded religious zealots and ignoramuses making ridiculous red herring arguments. Keep your bigotry where is belongs in your home and your house of worship."

Oh, you can forget me keeping any opinion of mine in my home.

Oh yes, let's just keep jumping on that Christian/Bible hating bandwagon shall we? Can't think of anything original?

BTW, I fully intend to get the usual bigoted, hate-filled verbal backlash. Just so you know, it doesn't bother me a bit!
The last time I posted on this topic - and tent not even critisizing anyone, two vehicles full of those so-called peace loving morons showed up at my house.

And you call us hypocrites? Ha!

I guess they thought they were going to intimidate me. They thought wrong. I turned our big dogs loose & took pictures of them!

Old Nurse 2 - You mentioned the cost of including same-sex spouses in insurance coverage. Are you saying it is okay to discriminate against same-sex spouses as long as you do it for financial reasons?

Yes, join the House in the 21st century. Human rights needs to continue taking slow steps forward.

Call one of your BIGOTS for more information MiCHAEL.

Alyssa, simply put, it is reflective of the continual tearing of the moral fabric of our country by liberals which will lead to our collective ruin as a nation.

I think that sums up the opposition?

Because God said so!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure the ruining of our nation has more to do with people burying their heads in the sand over the eroding of everyone's civil rights rather than the silly notion of the religious sanctity of marriage..this in an era where the divorce rate is around 50%.

Alyssa, you're confused because you don't understand the fundamental concept of government. The government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Whenever a bill is signed into law, all citizens must accept the legitimacy of that law whether they agree with it or not. It doesn't matter if you want to drive 100mph on 95, you cannot legally do so because society has decided that such a speed is unsafe. In the same light, by legalizing same-sex marriage, you are forcing all citizens to accept its legitimacy whether they agree with it or not. This means any protections provided by the law, or mandates required of the law, are forced upon all citizens. So yes, it does affect everyone.

Now the second question is why would anyone care who marries who? The reason is simple: You make law because you encourage that type of behavior. You don't set a speed limit because you only want some people to follow it. You don't make it illegal to steal because you want to restrict one class of citizens. You set law (and create institutions) because it will benefit the society. Traditional marriage falls into this desirable category as it would be a good thing if more people chose to get married and STAY married, raising families through natural means. A lot of our country's problems wouldn't exist if there weren't so many single-parent households. Would society benefit if all marriages were same-sex and no children were born into wedlock? Why would we promote such behavior?

Well written Christopher except the small issue of the 1st & 14th amendments to the US Constitution may get in the way. All laws are subject to the Constitution. A majority may not trample on the rights of a minority has been a long held view of the SCOTUS. The argument of marriage between one man and one woman is primarily religious which the establishment clause also disallows. Those are the arguments of the other side.

Society being better off without gay marriage is a theory, not a fact, as there is not enough data to support that conclusion.

You people talk about this issue like we are discussing the opening of a new bingo hall down the street. The gay life style is a perversion. To accept this life style and go along with it you must first forget that you have a brain and don't understand what it is to be normal. These people do not have to live this way. Even if you take religon out of the equation you still have nature to deal with, is it natural. How do they have children? Even dumb animals know who they are supposed to mate with. And it does effect everyone wether they live next door or not. The familys is the biulding blocks of society and is not meant to be made of some fabricated, fake idea of who Mom and Dad are. The next thing we will have to deal with is the teaching of this lie to our children in the schools our tax dollars pay for.

Alyssa, you are spot-on in your observation. Those who would claim that this somehow erodes the "moral fiber" of the country don't quite get that morals are always relative and generally local to the culture. The real underlying issue is one of ethics; something with which most on the "anti" side of this debate seem to have little or no acquaintance.

Bill jones - Homosexuality is not a perversion, but bigotry is. As for homosexuality being unnatural, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1000 species. I would say that Mother Nature loves the gays!

Christopher Airey, I do not understand why you believe granting same-sex couples access to marriage should indicate that society is suggesting ALL marriages should now be same-sex marriages. We allow people to choose which religion to follow or to choose "none of the above". Our world and society might be better off if we saw it as a both/and world in stead of an either/or world.

Christopher - you're also slightly confused. You are under the impression that homosexuality is a "lifestyle", or a "condition", or an "illness". From a societal benefit, it does seem that homosexuality causes harm. Natural instinct is to procreate and advance the species. Perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of saying we're overpopulating our spaces. Perhaps it's something that is in our environment that changes the genetic makeup of our brain. Don't know. What I do know, in looking at studies and actually talking to these people, is that it's not a "choice". If it were one or two people in millions, I would suggest that it's a flaw. It's not. It's millions of people. Just in America. And with that, we are discriminating against these people legally, emotionally, and physically.

I agree, there are a lot of problems caused by single-parent households. What causes the single-parent households? Homosexuality? Falling away from whatever god you believe in? Not being involved in the community, playing with our kids outside, continuing to learn and grow? I don't have an answer. However I think attitudes like yours, and many of the others here, with a lack of tolerance and acceptance for something you've been told is not right. I would be positive you haven't sat down and actually tried to have a conversation with someone who thinks differently than you do, seeking to understand as well as be understood.

I don't know what church you go to but I think you can leave religion out of it.

Alyssa, you asked why people are against it and I gave it to you.

I didn't say it was my position. Mark Patro, help!

Also please read the profile by clicking on the name before judgment is rendered. Thanks.

Those that do not obey God's laws (unless they repent) will have to answer to him. Good luck.

One might think the Big Guy in the sky has got a whole lot more important things to do like preventing earthquakes that kill 250,000 people than worrying about marriage on Earth. That's a pretty big universe out there.

Philip Einhorn - I agree. We should obey God's law to, "Not judge lest you be judged."

Just so youn know, I'm a Christian AND I think for myself AND I believe that people should have the right to legally marry the person they love. Please do not generalize. Thank you.

We are a REPUBLIC. We do not allow the majority to vote against a minority. It's common principle. Ruin the nation? Tell that to the two wonderful kids that I am raising and all the foster kids that have poured through our home because of how awesomely wonderful their straight parents are. I think you need to take off the rose colored glasses and get with reality. The log in your eye is causing you to trip. But, ok. Let it go to referendum. Guess what? A lawsuit would be filed and the same thing will happen as it did in California, only THIS time there is a legal precedent to overturn the referendum. So we waste tax payer money defending human rights because bigots (and make no mistake, cupcake, you ARE a bigot) like you can't get your head out of your collective butts long enough to realize that what you are doing is wrong. Keep up with your stance. The next few kids that kill themselves because they are terrified by bullies like you, well, those deaths lay on YOUR shoulders.

Isn't that the truth Philip, I checked the names there were a few Dems. that did not vote for it. But we will remember those that did.

Carol - Yes, we will remember the Democrats and Republicans who voted for gay marriage, and we will vote for them to be re-elected!

and conversely, I look forward to voting against my representative who chooses to oppress human rights, and violate the sanctity of the Founding Fathers concept of "Separation of Church and State".

I was thinking the same thing. Liberals are the true Americans in my eyes, because what could be more American than to fight for the rights of all? And regardless of your personal beliefs?

People hate what makes them uncomfortable, or worse makes them question their own religious faith.

It's sort of ironic you know. When the opposers don't get their way, they're somehow being "discriminated against." WHAT UTTER RUBBISH. It reminds me of one late conservative religious leader in NY accusing liberals of "Catholic bashing." Really? How, pray tell, can one "bash" an oppresssor?

Thank you, Tom!! F.Y.I. I have never responded to a thread before, but after reading a few of these posts, I could not stand it any longer. I totally appreciate your post. After 13 years of employment as a social worker, who specialized in the treatment of violent/sex offenders, I would like to add a few tidbits to your wonderful argument;

1) thank you for sparing me the redundant rhetoric on Kardashian, etc; But, if you feel the need, please add Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Maria Shriver/Arnie Schwarzenegger, Katie Perry/Russell Brand, Ashton/Demi, Scarlett Johansson/Ryan Reynolds [yawn] [sigh] and the rest of the failed "Bachelor/Bachelorette" romances to the list of pople that are contributing to the "moral fiber" of our country with their divorces. LOL!

Ps. I commend you for your efforts with the foster-care children that you have raised!!!! That is awesome!

Tom, please don't ever use celebrities or politicians to justify anything. Especially the Kardashians. Lol. Anyway, congratulations on this victory. My personal belief is still against gay marriage, but I do understand that not everybody see things my way (thank God for that). I also harbor no hatred towards the gay community for this. We are all people and should treat others as we would want to be treated. I don't really practice my religion, but I do believe in God. I believe he is the supreme judge, not us. I have way to many skeletons in my own closet to judge anyone, and I'm pretty sure a lot of the people posting here also do. Anyway.
The biggest down side of this if it passes is that now I'm going to be forced to go to more weddings. I HATE GOING TO WEDDINGS!

Well I agree with you about marriage rights, but I don't think that pointing to bad behavior in others really helps to make your case. It sounds whiny...more like, "Yeah, but look with HE did!" Peace out!

Alyssa, I apologize for adding this to your post; this was supposed to be added to Tom Barnes, but I ran out of characters (I wanted to keep it close to his - you seemed like a good proponent of my argument(s);

2) you might want to remind your friends Paul, Phillip, Chris Airey, and Park-won Soon; just take a little trip out of their mother's basements, and put down their "Playstation 3" for just a few minutes, and pick-up a book; if they read "Jack and Jill, and Why they Kill'...they will quickly learn that almost ALL of the twenty-five most ferocious teenage, serial killers/mass shooters, ALL came from affluent, hetero-sexual, familes (this certainly pertains to Eric Harris, and Dylan Kleebold - the Colombine shooters)....NOT one of them came from a "gay" household. Note; this does not include the Virginia Tech shooter (oh, wait...it should, because he wasn't from a "gay" house either). In fact, if memory serves me correctly (which I think it does); Josh Powell, was a straight guy as well - as he blew up his house, and two beautiful boys.

So, I am going to go to bed. But, please feel free to let me know next time a "homo" abuses his/her kids, and/or endangers them in the manner of the above noted people, who will always be in God's good graces, due to their "straightness", and their "traditonal marriage".

Bryan P. your apology is accepted in advance. Just why did you include me in that group?

Paul - most likely the same reason my original long winded post stated "PAUL" and not Philip... at first read I thought you were against, after re reading I realized my conclusion was incorrect. Once I started to write my response your name stuck... it's those gosh darn P's LOL

Brian - thank you for your kind words. We do what we do for the love of children and the sanctity of human life. You can catch my two boys at http://havredegrace.patch.com/articles/video-lewis-lane-singers-millennium-prayer#video-8528239 (I'm somewhere in the background holding my mic) Funny, we are a gay lead household but our children are singing a Christian song and giving praise to God. Yep, we are such heathens ;)

Tom, I presumed that, just giving Brian P a hard time. Add Birther Queens to your list of those to avoid.

Really uncalled for, Maylath. You're not helping your cause in any way. Regardless of how Pat McDonough voted, let's keep it somewhat civil and on point. I can understand frustration, but this is a conversation for adults, not children.

You are sick!

Disagree with the delegate if you will, but it only denegrates yourself to get that nasty.

Not I. I could not care less whether my opponents love or understand me. I have no need to seek out the approval of others as I am well aware of my worth. As for peace again not what is important. What I am interested in is legal justice. It does not require sentiment nor emotion merely application of the law. Whether you or anyone else likes me is not germane to the current discussion. marriage is not a religious construct it is a matter of contract law. The vows that are exchanged are conditions of that contract. I will do X in exchange for Y. The ketuba that is used in Judaism is exactly that, a contract. I know people hold these romanticized ideas about love and god and angels singing but it is more basic than that. The Catholic church refers to holy matrimony but the state marriage license which they apply for is exactly the same for the atheist married by a JOP. The church may indeed issue a separate document to be kept in its archives but again that is for their own record keeping not for the state. However one is not more married than the other nor more likely to retain an enduring relationship. The religious arguments that are continually used don't hold water and are quite suspect. And as I understand this legislation offers protection for religious institutions so they don't have to perform ceremonies they don't want to. Separation of church and state in action. Guess they don't like losing their edge? .

Shadow: SO well said. I applaud you.

Jim - easy answer on your concern on disagreeing. I think Texas should be returned to Mexico. You don't see me trying to get legislation passed to take away their statehood. Just because it's something I don't believe in doesn't mean I have to act on it and take away Texans rights to be American citizens and enjoy all the rights of every other American. Make sense yet?

Of course O'Malley should be working on the economics of the state. And he is, along with the Assembly. But our state doesn't start and stop at the dollar. It has citizens that have concerns that need to be addressed. The world didn't stop because George Bush screwed us and we decided to blame it all on the black guy in office.

Why do you think Texas should belong to Mexico?

mmm... I was using it as an example, altho making it's own country so they can't vote their collective bigotry into our country's laws or send us another wingnut President would be kind of nice ;)

It's a smokescreen Jim, nothing more nor less! Owe'Malley figures if we arguing about gay marriage, we don't notice when he picks our pockets!

tim. I don't think it was God's intention to have adam marry adam and when they want children they buy someone elses..

Ah yes, that old chestnut about Adam marrying Adam. We are talking about the same bible that includes some of God's other intentions like:

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, witches and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it’s inhabitants… even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

Oh Lord, Tim! Don't respond to that one. It's a wingnut and a half. If you respond to it, it just goes on and on like it's the "amdactivist show" each and every time. Best to ignore and talk around it's stupidity and snarky bullcrap.

Tim, There are 2 testaments in the Christian bible. Do you know the premise?

Thanks for the heads up Tom. It's too easy to get caught up in arguments with anonymous jack-holes on the internet. Nothing he says is going to change my mind, and nothing I say is going to change his mind. I would just like to believe the evidence exists to show him that he's wrong so when change does come he'll be the one left with egg on his face.

I do Steven, thanks.

Tom B, I actually think "he" is a "she", just guessing.

Thank you, Timothy. Great quote.

amdactivist - The United States is not a Christian nation, so it is irrelevant what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Good Democrats stood for the welfare of our state by fighting for legal equality of all people in our state.

There are 3 types of voters. Type 1) those that vote their conscience for the individual of whatever party that best matches or represents their views for the general welfare of their community, state and country. Types 2) and 3) are those that vote unthinkingly solely because there is a D or and R behind the name of the candidate. That is the problem with Maryland, Baltimore City and the Washington suburbs, they have a great number of type 2 and 3 voters!

Monica - thank you so much for standing by your child. Had I had a parent like you I probably wouldn't have ruined the lives of two wives trying to "play it straight" for years or torturing my soul over the entire God thing (I'm not saying my parents were bad parents, they just weren't supportive of anyone that was gay when I was younger... that's just how the world worked back then). It took years to realize that God doesn't make nor mistakes. Your child is VERY lucky, indeed!!!

Wow, Monica. So well said, so true, so uplifting. Thank you! Your daughter, your family and friends, your fellow parishioners are lucky, indeed.

Thank you, Monica! The sad fact is that these folks need our prayers too; those who think they know the mind of God forget that the prophets were all railing at the lack of justice in their communities; nothing more and nothing less. The trouble most of their arguments, however well reasoned or otherwise, is that they are all basically forming God in their own image. SHAME!

You are an amazing parent, and your daughter sounds wonderful! This is the unconditional love that we all should be practicing and supporting.

Good Lord.. I sure hope you are joking... But just in case: My kids are terminally straight and not confused at all. Marrying a different race? It's 2012. What are you, 200 or something? I didn't think anyone was that moronic to think that way... So please tell us you are joking and trying to make a point of how stupid the "against votes" were..

But we don't have the right to confer certain rights to one group of people over another group. That's where your argument falls apart. Guess that's what equality means.

You misquoted me Karl. I kept my statement on marital issues. You deleted words to what I said and applied quotes to them as if it was what I said. It was not what I said and was not a truthful thing to do. That is called creative quoting.

Hi Paul

Hello to you too.

But all of those people you describe are treated equally.

Mr. Schuub you speak with a sense of authority. May I assume that you know that, "Gay sex is not exactly the "natural" relationship...it happens, but it's not the same thing" from experience?

Karl - Being gay is natural for people who have a homosexual orientation, just as being straight is natural for who have a heterosexual orientation.

I said "Who has the right to decide we can not love and decide to spend our life with more then one person or anything else we decide."
Your quote "who has the right to decide anything else we decide"
Do you notice that my quote is longer then your misquote? Do you notice that adding or removing characters can change the meaning? You quite possibly don't understand the meaning of my quote and decided what it means for yourself. You cannot remove words from what someone said and say it is exactly what they said. All they have to do is repost both posts and show you it is not. Duh.

So Steven " Who has the right to decide we can not love and decide to spend our life with more then one person or anything else we decide." Feel better...I might suggest you it means the same thing now. My version of what you said merely simplified for the reader. In fact you're version even suggests we ought to sanction multiple partners - thought I'd leave that out to protect you.

What you did was totally change what I said. I did not mean what you said and I don't need you to protect me.

Smart people don't discriminate against others.

Casey: It's true. Then again, not everyone can be intelligent. Everyone can have an opinion though.

Hmmmmm.... You think gays are the only ones that support same gender marriage? I have a HUGE family - HUGE! They support the bill. Oh my, how naive you are.

Name calling and labeling people are two different things. But I will have to say that your lights seem to have been out for a long time....

Frankly, I would have trouble voting for O'Malley if he ran for dogcatcher!

John - More people in Maryland support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post. Our representitives represented their constituents well, and I have faith that the Senate will do the will of Marylanders and pass the gay marriage bill.

true that.

You are welcome to believe what you want about homosexuality, but do not use your opinions to deny gays their legal equality. Many rights cannot be granted by other legal agreements and wills, such as Social Security benefits, pensions. Only when the state and the federal governments recognize gay marriage will the rights of LGBT individuals be protected.

Casey A, you have latched onto a Birther Queen and as an earlier poster indicated you are probably better off talking to your dining room table, it is more intelligent and won't follow you around.

<3 Paul :)

The bill does not require your church to marry gay couples. Have you even tried reading it? You are not being forced into anything at all. Where in the bill does it say gay marriages will affect you? How is it still appropriate to continue to discriminate against long term loving couples when the state sanctions marriage for murderers, child abusers, adulterers ,etc. Does "equal protection under the laws " ring any bells at all with you or did you skip all those basic civics classes in school?

Well said. Thank you.

Of course, it is hindsight but I am pretty sure that if Ehrlich were the Governor, he would follow the path of Governor Christie of NJ. Now that is a governor with some guts. You made your bed - so lie in it!

I would call what Christie did is passing the buck by demanding a referendum. Be a man and either support it or don't. He was a weak chicken on this one.

What has this state come to? Maryland has come to her senses and granted legal equality to her LGBT individuals. God bless Maryland!!

Danie, where did you learn to start a sentence with "And"?

Good thing we've got that whole separation of church and state thing going on.

The next thing I expect we'll hear is that your rights are guaranteed by the Constitution..provided you're a straight, white, Christian male and that it's what the people want. Right?? Because the "it's-eroding-society-and-morality argument was tossed out over women's rights and civil rights as well.

Ugh...., it's not about beliefs, or protecting your beliefs, or even morality. It's about equal rights, equality, for everyone. Why do Christian conservatives act so damn scared about it?

Under God? Since 1952 Margaret. Before the communist scare people left other people alone and "Under God" didn't exist. The bumper sticker mentality of "adam and steve" is pretty moronic. God also just created the earth 4000 years ago, right? Grow up.

Yes, my bible has a rule about homosexuality, but it also says that my husband can't sit on the chair I just got out of if I'm on my period. Why do I have the right to tell someone else which rules they have to follow from my bible if I don't follow some myself (such as the chair). The rules made sense for the society they were written for, but things change, and we evolve. It's not in the ten commandments, do you think that could have been for a reason?
I personally believe that God doesn't make mistakes, and if she made someone gay, then that was God's decision, not mine or yours. There are even other species that have homosexuality as well, so it exists throughout nature.
Other religions actually venerate homosexual people because they have come closer to the balance of male/female.
If we are to be a truly free country, with religious freedom, don't you think that someone that is so important in those other religions should be given every right that we are? We live in a country that celebrates the separation of church and state so that everyone can believe in their own religion and practice it, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else. It is so that someone cannot force anyone else to believe in a different religion than their own. How would we like it if we lived in another country, like Daniel, and got thrown in a den of Lions because we believed differently? Our country is supposed to protect us and everyone else from that occurrence.
-admin

you are so right! I teach my children that everyone is different and to love all people!

Well said! I hope that your views are shared by many in our community, whether they be for or against gay marriage. It's nice to hear from the level-headed guy!

Civil rights should not be put to a public vote. If they were, many states in the south would likely still be segregated. The rights of the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Gay marriage and polygamy are 2 separate issues and should be dealt with separately.

Got no problem with polgamy either if all are consenting adults! It's simply none of my business!

"Gay marriage and polygamy are 2 separate issues and should be dealt with separately."
Not from the arguments I've seem posted on here or anywhere else.

1ke....that describes my family and friends perfectly! Thanks!
This is the civil rights issue of our generation. Years from now, our grandchildren will be appalled that this was even an issue, the same as women voting and segregation was to our parents and grandparents. "The times they are a changin" applies to issues of every generation. It's called progress. I am more than happy to be a part of a change that gives equal rights to all citizens.
I do have a question when God is brought into the equation. What about all of the other religions or non-religions? Shouldn't they be "equally" considered into all of this?
And I agree that God has a lot of other things to do than worry about who is marrying whom. She just had to handle the Grammy awards and the Oscars will be coming up soon. SMH.

Thank you for the clarification. It's a good plan to know what you are start talking about someone.
Deeg... I agree. My grandparents generation had to work so that other races be given the same rights as everyone else, and now I am appalled that they were ever left out. My parents generation had to work hard to give women equality, and now I cannot believe that someone actually thought I should not have the same rights because I was born without a y chromosome. Our generation is having to work hard for LGBT rights. I am sure that when it comes my daughters turn, there will be something else we don't even consider a problem yet that they will have to fight for. We live in a nation where every person is to be considered equal, and I hope that one day we actually accomplish that feat. I have friends who have partners, and I cannot imagine what it's like to have no right to make decisions for them in the hospital if they cannot make them for themselves, or to get taxed higher just because they cannot claim marriage, or to be not be allowed your partners pension because they are the same sex.
-admin
-admin

SJEC, you need to confirm whose behalf you are speaking. Your identity ihas been questioned,

Not madam and heave!!!

Not chatham and kiev!!!

Not stratum and receive!!!

Wow, it sure is fun to rhyme words written thousands of years ago by men who wanted to keep the uneducated masses under their control, and in the present day wish to keep that control by pushing their antiquated ideals on a modern society.

When your only argument is a bumper sticker, you have no argument at all. In fact, you show that you are pretty much lacking in any sense at all.

Unless there is another God out there making people, God made Adam, Eve, and Steve.

"Show me your papers. Schnell!"

The Priest and the Administrator both use this log in. The Administrator signs "-admin" at the bottom.
Personally, I did not respond to the legit ID act. I haven't seen anyone come up with a solution that is fair to either immigrants or citizens. We all come from immigrant ancestors, so we should want to help them.
I found a couple of quotes on the Episcopal news site if you want to know the official stand: "[Episcopal News Service] A bill that would severely limit the access refugees have to asylum in the United States faces strong opposition from faith-based agencies that work with threatened immigrants on a daily basis.
The REAL ID Act,..., would tighten the requirements for asylum-seekers to prove they are being persecuted in their home country while giving judges more discretion in evaluating whether the evidence of such persecution is sufficient." and "Episcopal Migration Ministries has been joined by 18 other interfaith groups in opposing the legislation." Sometimes you have to actually read an entire bill to realize that it can be very harmful.

And I've said it before, we are getting off topic. The topic here is whether one consenting adult should legally be allowed to marry another consenting adult.I personally believe that if the adults consent, then legally that should be all that matters. Only if you want to get it blessed should you then need to discuss that option with your priest, rabbi, shaman, or whatever religious leader you have.
-admin

Honestly? If people want to engage in a polyamorous relationship, it's fine by me. Want to marry multiple partners? Enjoy the headache. It won't affect my life, my marriage, or the world in which I live.

I'll bet everyone of them are bought and paid for by the democrat party.

Casey. thats not all true. I researched myself when I testified.. You also said you'd vote for the supporters of this bill. What if i told you that they voted for illegal aliens to get social security and state jobs maybe taking yours. Would you still vote for the gay supporters in office? I often here that many "democrats" using vote for a democrat because of one good issue.. Forget all the rest ...

Your argument is a fallacy. Therefore you're wrong.

Why stop at Pedophiles, who are we to tell someone they can't have 10 wives? Maybe someone wants to marry a dog or a horse? Maybe Adam and Steve wants to be Adam, Steve, Mary, Barry, and little Johnny whom by the way are all related.

Sigh.

And they call the gay people the perverts. Look where old straight boy Rob's mind is. Right in the gutter. Way to show your "straight side" Rob.

Rob - Pedophilia and homosexuality are 2 VERY different things. Homosexuals seek loving relationships with adults of the same sex. Pedophiles seek to sexually abuse children.

At this point you've lost the argument because you all agree with me. Your all for what "You" perceive as "Normal" but let's through in something that "You" don't agree with and "You" now have an argument against something that "You" don't agree with even though it contradicts every argument "You" made in support of what "You" supported that is exactly the same as what "You" called other people bigots for.

How can you argue for equal rights then turn around and be against it when you don't agree with it? At this point in your mind it shouldn't matter who wants to marry who or what because it's not going to change anything in your life. You will not be effected by someone that's married to a donkey so what right do you have to stop it?

Anyone that is against marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is for any marriage that anyone wants to have and if you're not then you are a hypocrite.

Oops, that's "Throw" I had to point that out because liberals never admit when they're wrong they attack and try to discredit the person because they have nothing.

Rob - You state that, "Anyone that is against marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman is for any marriage that anyone wants to have and if you're not then you are a hypocrite."

Allowing gay marriage does not mean you have to allow polygamous marriage or interspecies marriage. They are very different things. One is not equivalent to the other.

The question is, how can you be for equal rights, call someone a bigot then turn around and set your own limits on someone else?

Then there's the question, suppose a single guy doesn't want to make a lifelong commitment but wants the benefit of the marriage tax. SO he decides - I'll marry my dog and get the marriage tax but I'm still free to have multiple girlfriends. Are single people's rights being violated if gays are?

You all want to make this out to be about equality but even you have limits as to what you will except and it is at that point you lose the argument and become a hypocrite.

Rob - This article and the legislation it is addressing is about gay marriage. If you want to marry your dog, pass you own legislation.

As for bigotry, if you deny legal equality to a group of adults because of something outside fo their control, that is bigotry.

So only gays are adults that deserve their own law? Suppose there's this 12 year old that has parents that are hooked on drugs. They don't feed her regularly they live in filth, she hasn't been to school in a month and she's failing every glass. Along comes this 55 year old man that takes in and gives her the support she needs. During all of this the fall in love and she consensually has a physical relationship with him. A. should he be locked and B. should they be allowed to marry?

If you are against marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman then you are for any marriage anyone wants to have, if you are not then you are a hypocrite.

Rob a 12 year old is not a consenting adult, end of story.

Like I said before it doesn't matter at this point, it's about equal rights, it's been force fed that allowing same sex marriages is all about equal rights. Under that premise anything qualifies. You cannot be for one scenario and against another, you have no grounds in which to stand on. If you allow one you must allow another otherwise your argument falls apart and you lose the argument.

And that is the end of story.

Rob, us wanting equal rights for homosexuals is not equivalent to us wanting "any rights anyone wants for anyone" (which essentially covers all of these hypotheticals you're throwing out there).

It's about the nature of the right. Certain rights are essential, like the ability to marry who you please. But there are limits on all rights, when they come into conflict with other rights. The classic example is freedom of speech - I have the right to speak my mind, but I don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room.

So it's perfectly logical to say that the right to marry is an essential right, but say that there are limits on that when it comes into serious conflict with other rights. For example, you shouldn't have the right to marry another person who does not consent to that marriage (or an animal, who can't give consent). Or under your example, to a child, who doesn't yet have the capacity to consent. Or to a sham marriage, where the sole purpose is to fraudulently obtain tax benefits.

How is this logically inconsistent?

Adam - Well said!

Rob, I must disagree with your examples. The only example that you have between consenting adults is the one that said "who are we to tell someone they can't have 10 wives?" If someone wants to come up with legislation about that one, I'd be willing to listen, there is a precedent for it in many religions and cultures throughout the world. All of your other examples include children or animals, neither of which have the ability to give their consent. Until someone turns 18 they are not old enough in this country to be a consenting adult. That is the age they can vote, buy cigarettes, join the military, marry, or anything else other than rent a car or buy alcohol. Before they turn 18 decisions made must be made with the consent of a parent/guardian (a consenting adult).
Please keep in mind, again, that this issue is about which consenting HUMAN ADULT citizen of this country/state can marry another consenting human adult. If you want to make a legitimate argument about the actual issue at hand, I would be willing to listen.
-admin

There is already a law on the books with limits that states marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You want that law changed under what you consider unjust.

My question is who gives you the right to tell me that marriage should include people of the same sex? Then my next question is if you feel you have the right to change an already established law with limits to include what you believe but I do not then how can you be against any marriage that you don't think is right? Have you been given the power to pick and choose what everyone should agree with?

If any scenario of any kind comes up regardless if it includes a minor, animal or some loophole to get a tax advantage, by you supporting a change in the law that millions of people agree with and have for years then you cannot be against these scenarios without being a hypocrite.

I believe marriage should be limited to 1 man and 1 woman and you call me a bigot for it. But you can be for it when you agree with it and against it when you don't but you don't think of yourself as bigot or hypocrite. You can't have it both ways.

I don't agree with you and I'm not a bigot because of it. I would be against any of the scenarios that I listed because marriage should be limited to 1 man and 1 woman. The law is there so leave it alone because we've already established a limit and the majority of Americans don't want that changed.

St. John's Episcopal Church; Who cares what the law says, if we don't like the law all we have to do is claim it's unjust and call the people that support it bigots. What these people are telling us is that a law is only a law if you agree with it. If a minor wants to buy liquor then we need to change the law. If someone wants to marry 10 woman or a combination of men and women then we must change the law to allow that.

Doesn't anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

Again how can you be for something that other people disagree with and then turn around and tell someone else that they can't have what you have because you disagree with it?

The men that wrote our Constitution had the foresight to include "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution" because they knew that things change and that the constitution and the laws needed to be able to be changed to work with the culture. They didn't think they had it perfect.
I've even heard of laws that say you cannot cross the road with your peacock. There are so many laws on the books that are outdated or don't make sense anymore in our society. It is our job to constantly look and assess what laws make sense to our society and ask our representatives to change those that need to be changed. I must say that I wouldn't mind a revisit of All of our laws in this state and this country to make sure there is a need for each law that is still on the books. I will agree that most are needed, but some could definitely be changed to fit our society or stricken from the books. But the reality is, that takes a lot of time and energy. So what we do is look at the laws when we realize that it is necessary to change them because they are no longer correct for us or are actually harmful to us.
I do not think of this as hypocrisy, I think of this as patriotism.
-admin

Rob - Gay marriage does not infringe upon your legal rights. You are welcome think whatever you want about homosexuality, but do not use your opinion to deny gays and lesbians their legal equality.

St. John's Episcopal Church Please, Patriotism? It is an hypocrisy because at some point someone is going to come along and want to change what you don't agree with. Everyone reading this knows that there are adults dating minors - it might be a 25 year old dating a 16 year old or it might be a 40 year old dating a 14 year old. Because you know not all 14 year olds look and act like 14 year olds. So when those people say we want the right to marry and we feel the legal age should be lowered to 14 you cannot be against it because you are for changing the marriage law to fit what you believe. If you are then you are a hypocrite.

Casey; No marriage infringes on your rights so should we allow any marriage that anyone can dream up? I though not. Until you see the hypocrite that you are try thinking before you post.

Rob - You say, "No marriage infringes on your rights, so should we allow any marriage that anyone can dream up?" If you are referring to marriage involving children or animals as you have in your previous posts, the rights of the children/animals involved in the marriage are being infringed upon. A child and/or an animal cannot consent, so their rights are being violated.

No one is hurt by gay marriage, and no one's rights are being violated by gay marriage.

Casey the question is how can you be against any marriage that anyone wants to have? As I have given multiple examples I have yet to see anyone explain IF YOU ARE FOR CHANGING AN EXSISTING LAW THAT STATES MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN HOW CAN YOU BE AGAINST ANY MARRIAGE THAT SOME ONE ELSE WANTS TO HAVE? Again, if a group of people decide they want the legal age of marriage lowered to include people 14 years of age and older and they manage to get it on the ballot how can you vote against it and not be a hypocrite?

Are you trying to tell me that just because someone isn't at the magical age of 18 that they can't think for themselves? I personally know or have known some pretty smart early aged teens that are capable of making their own decisions. So the question remains as I have asked from the beginning. If you are for changing a law that a majority of Americans happen to agree with, (which means you are the minority) How can you be against changing the exact same law to include a group that gives the exact same reasoning that you give to include gays? The answer is you cannot without being a hypocrite.

Rob - TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS will not make your "All or nothing" argument against same-sex marriage any more valid. Marriage between 2 consenting adults, irregardless of the gender of the adults involved, is very different from marriage with someone underage. I taught high school for many years, and while I had some mature juniors and seniors, I cannot think of 1 that was ready for marriage before they were 18. I also find your statement to St. John's Episcopal Church very disturbing when you said, "Everyone reading this knows that there are adults dating minors - it might be a 25 year old dating a 16 year old or it might be a 40 year old dating a 14 year old." I do not know of any relationships between an adult and a minor, and if I did, I would tell the police because it is illegal. I hope that you would do the same.

You also state that the majority of Americans agree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. A recent poll by the Washington Post reported that there are more people in Maryland who support same-sex marriage than oppose it. You can verify at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/maryland-same-sex-marriage-bill-backed-by-senate-panel/2012/02/21/gIQAgeLxRR_story.html

Yeah I'm going to believe what the Washington Post has to say, why don't we just ask CNN? This very same issue lost big at the voting booth in the liberal capital of America - California. So they sued to have it over turned. In case you don't understand that, that means that a majority of the state didn't want it. I believe the same thing will happen here.
You say you're a teacher so I'm sure you've heard of several stories of teachers having sex with minors so don't act like your shocked to hear that an adult is in a relationship with a minor. I find it really hard to take anything you say serious because you actually believe that someone that is 17 years and 364 days old isn't smart enough to make their own decisions'. That isn't even the argument I making, the argument is that you want to change something that you don't agree with while a majority of Americans do. So when someone comes along and ask for the exact same thing that you want (now here's the part that you don't understand) regardless if there is already a law that prohibits it, how do you go against it without being a hypocrite?
Let's do another scenario. There are two cousins both are the age of 25 and they want to get married - are you for it or against it? And before you throw out some excuse to avoid answering the question again they know that there's a possibility that any children they have might be deformed. So they decide to get a vasectomy and adopt just as a homosexual couple would have to do.

Rob - If you are so determined to marry your cousin, call your legislator and ask them to sponsor a bill.

As for adults who have sex with underage children, yes I have heard stories. But unlike you who thinks that sex between underage children and adults is okay, I think adults who have sex with underage children should be put in jail.

You're the one that thinks it's ok for adults to marry minors and relatives. I am for marriage between 1 man and 1 woman and that's it.

Rob - You stated above that, ""Everyone reading this knows that there are adults dating minors - it might be a 25 year old dating a 16 year old or it might be a 40 year old dating a 14 year old." You must know different people than I do because I do not know any adults who are in relationships with minors, and if I did, I would turn them in to the police.

I am for marriage between 2 adults, regardless of the gender. That does not mean that I support pedophilia (as that impinges on the rights of the child involved) or beastiality (as that impinges on the rights of the animal involved).

I do not know this delegate. But to answer your question as to what kind of Democrat is she. She is most likely first a person and second a Democrat with a conscience-just like the rest of us that oppose this legislation contrary to us being labeled as bigots.
Those that place that label on we persons of conscience are the bigots of the worst sort.
So if she comes up for re-election than vote your conscience. Because i will when it comes Democrat delegates who supposedly represent me voted for this legislation.

I am more cynical than you and disagree as well.. I would wager that the primary thought in her mind was about getting re-elected and she made a political calculation. My point is made by Del. Boteler of Baltimore county telling his Republican colleague, Del. Wach, that his yea vote would be bad for his "political future".

It is your absolute right to vote as you wish. However many, and I don't know the number, who opposed the legislation are simply bigots. But I read the comments here.

She voted her seat, that's what she voted. I am beyond disappointed. She lost two votes today that I am certain of within my household. The number of people that promised the same at election time was overwhelming (99.9% of the people I know are straight). We are all shocked. She may very well find out that she needs to explain herself. But what I have come to realize in Harford County is that NO ONE thinks they need to explain themselves. They rely on the home church to do all the talking and all the voting. They forget HarCo is growing in leaps and bounds, and you may have a name like Glass or Jacobs or Delaney-James... old family roots deep seeded in county politics, but that will no longer secure your seat. People really don't give a rat's butt who your ancestors are; just because your family tree spoons instead of forking doesn't promise you a thing.

I have communicated with Mary-Dulany James in the past concerning gay marriage, and she has always been very unsupportive. Sad.

Michael Ernest - To deny rights to a group of people for something that is outside of their control is the very definition of bigotry. You are welcome to feel however you want about homosexuality, but do not use your opinions to deny gays legal equality.

"The majority of citizens" don't always know or do the right thing. The right thing is not to treat anyone as a minority.

The majority of citizens also didn't believe in blacks marrying whites, asians marrying whites, etc. Grow up, Karl. You are like a tired old bumper sticker. Some day you will be dead and gone and we WILL have equal rights.

Karl - More people in Maryland support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a recent poll by The Washington Post.

ROFL The earth is BILLIONS of years old.

LOL Paul

I am gay and I am happy. What is your point?

Marriage equality is not just a sexual issue. It is also about gays getting access to the over 1,100 federal benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. Winning gay marriage at the state level is a great step towards having the federal government recognize gay marriage as well.

Well said!

Scott, I'm offended by your term "sexual persuasion". You know this is offensive and yet you purposely use it anyway. Be appalled. But no one will care as long as you argue against offensiveness and turn around and use it.

Scott, I don't like the name calling, but some of the other sides comments are bordering on obscene.

But to your point about hiding behind a church, I'm not sure. If you click on that name in a post it takes you to a profile wherein it appears the Pastor is named. Either this is a fantastic ruse or real. The church has a website and appears to espouse the views of the poster. Might have to call the church to verify.

Scott, it appears something is up with the posting of this "church". It appears the Chuurch is real but the poster is now using "admin" at he end of their posts. I also believe the poster is female.

If you are seeking to deny legal equality to a segment of the population for something that is outside of their control, that is discrimination. If you support discrimination, you are a bigot. If you said the same things about interracial marriage that you do about gay marriage, would you still be shocked if people called you a bigot?

Casey, What makes Polyamorous marriage a different issue then Gay marriage other then the number of consenting adults?

steven bradley - I have no problem with polyamorous marriage. The difference between gay marriage and polyamorous marriage is gay marriage involves 2 individuals of the same gender while polyamorous marriage involves 3 or more people.

I fail to see how you can separate them and not be a hypocrite.

steven bradley - Gay marriage and polyamorous marriage are 2 different issues. If you think the state should allow polyamorous marriages, call your state delegate or senator.

Point 1 agreed, they are like vermin in the shadows afraid their neighbors will know their real feelings, the deepest recesses of their subconscious and I prefer not to have them on my team.

Right now polls are 50-44 in favor of legislation. I don't like what I consider an equal rights issue being placed on a referendum, but that is what is going to happen.

Hey guys . You really can't blame people for not using their real names. I'm not sure how smart it is to put that info out there. For one, after reading some of the hateful post on here, I'm not to sure I would trust some of the posters on here. There is the issue of identification theft, personal attacks or even stalking. I don't believe in living in fear, but I also don't believe in knowingly helping someone bring harm to me and my family. Remember that this is a very heated topic in the state and country, and the chances of anyone changing anyone's mind on this board is really slim.

This country would be much better off if all religions just kept in their church.

Not to mention all gays would be executed...

Rob - Stop the hate.

This is what we call a moderate.

This year.

http://www.elections.state.md.us/pdf/6-201-3A.pdf

Thank you.

You are welcome. Have a wonderful evening!
-admin

What is your name?

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history. Many of the patriarchs in the Bible had numerous wives. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. It is time for gays and lesbians to have legal equality and be allowed to marry.

Can you say "Politically Correct"? These major organizations would never go against the grain.

MTH - Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM because of studies (the first of which was in 1957) that showed that there was, "No scientific basis for inferring a predisposition to psychopathology or other maladjustment as intrinsic to homosexuality or bisexuality." Source - American Psychological Assocation. Policital correctness had nothing to do with it. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1973. There were precious few gay groups in existence in 1973, and they had virtually no political power.

wow Maylath. You have a way with words.. Are you an illegal or just hire them?

Why don't you have the fortitude to use your real name? You don't seem to mind using someone else's name when referring to them in a nasty manor.

he will be losing a lot of votes because of this. it was a shock to see he voted for it. i dont know.

For a HATE crime to be prosecuted, an actual CRIME needs to committed- ie assault, murder. Disagreeing is protected under the constitution including the worst kind of mean spirited speech.
The problem here IS "whether they should marry or not" and if "most of us don't have a problem with that" than we don't have a problem with this law. It does not dictate what anyone must believe or say,iIncluding those who believe that all citizens should be afforded equal civil rights and those that do not.

I agree with you Donna. I registered Libertarian about 5 years ago, because I became so fed up with the dog and pony show that goes on in Washington these days. I too believe in God and It does seem that some of these so called good Christians pick and choose what they want to from the Bible. Judge not and be ye not judged doesn't seem to ring a bell with them. These people do more to hurt organized religion than I think anything else could possibly do.

Spot on Donna. Spot on.

Much of the world's ills and much of the world's good deeds are done with religion in mind. It is not necessary to believe in a god to live a life in a moral or ethical manner.

Well said!

I don't understand why you would be able to decide who would represent the party if your not a member of that party. I don't understand why you would be able to do that anywhere.

That's that right attitude!
"If you don't agree with me, you're a moron."
So glad we have an intellectual here to keep up 'straight'.

Let's see, rock or fill dirt. Hmm. Tough call.

I rest my case.

So it is your age.

I keep seeing "posters" in the comment boxes including yours. I think you mean "pastors."
-admin

SJEC (for short), not to moan and groan, but until 9:10PM last night did you (admin) make clear who you were. Prior to that you were simply a poster, not a pastor.

My comment above is not typed incorrectly, it says some posters and that is exactly what it meant.

Sorry. I'm new to the online conversations. When I think of a poster, I think of poster board that someone has written on. When I think of someone commenting on a conversation, I think of a commentator. I thought about your response and remembered that someone I know called it "posting a comment", but I've only heard that once. I didn't recognize the jargon, I apologize.
-admin

SJEC, here's a link that might help you out. Suggestions, that's all.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-forum-etiquette.htm

PS, no need to apologize.

Paul, I read some of the articles on the site. Thank you, I found that very helpful!

If we always "follow[ed] the common sense of [our] ancestors" and failed to bring "all kind of issues into it," there would be very little progress in this country on rights we all now agree are essential--rights for women, racial minorities, etc. Unless you disagree that these were problems that needed to be solved, then it isn't enough for you to simply point to the status quo as the right path.

As to "keeping sex in the bedroom and our of the church and government," this is a phrase I hear bandied about and it really frustrates me. First, as many have pointed out, this is not an issue solely about sex. It's about being discriminated solely based on one's status. More importantly, marriage is an institution deeply intwined with the church and government. It comes along with important legal rights and social benefits. I would turn the question to you: why not have straight couples keep their sex in the bedroom and be prohibited from enjoying the governmental and societal benefits of marriage?

Adam, you have hooked a Birther Queen onto your post. I recommend you cut the line! <[;-))

This bill is for "Civil Marriage" not "Religious Marriage". And yes, religious institutions are exempt no matter what the opponents say.

The United States is not a Christian nation, thus what the Bible has to say about marriage is irrelevant. What do rights have to do with marriage? The Supreme Court recognized marriage as basic civil liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because people try to deny others the right to marry.

Well said.

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" . This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams. Weren't they both Deists?

So then what is wrong with civil unions that are "equal" to marriages in the eyes of the law?

Phil, you know when two categories are implemented, one or both are amended in different ways and then they are not the same. It’s the "not the same" which sets up "separate" and then "equal protection under the law" is violated. A relationship by two people which is recognized in the law should be defined by one set of laws to be equal. And the way we get there is by calling all two-people relations "marriage." To get to "equal" under a "civil union" description would mean we would have to dismantle "marriage" in civil law. No one that I have seen is writing or submitting legislation to do that. Many on your side are talking about it, but are not doing it. You should admit that this digression is simply a tactic to stall inclusion of same sex couple in Maryland law.

To answer your question directly, as a society we can condone/accept as legal as much as we want--at least up to the limit the Constitution allows. Recognizing gay marriage is perfectly within the power of the majority of the people--whether the Constitution itself requires gay marriage to ensure equal protection of the law is a debatable issue, but no one would argue that the Constitution would bar the majority from giving homosexuals that right. On the other hand, the Constitution certainly would not allow legalizing murder.

It's funny, many people on this thread are complaining with the decision because it doesn't reflect the will of the people. But you seem to have a problem with the law turning on the will of the people. So which is it?

Momofmany - You say that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, incest, bestiality, and murder. I disagree. A marriage between 2 people of the same gender hurts no one. Murder obviously involves one person harming another. With incest, when 2 people who are related have a child together, the child is very likely going to be harmed because of genetic factors. As for bestiality, animals cannot give consent, and thus you would be raping the animal. I have no problem with polygamy.

Next you mention the Holocaust to support your opinion against gay marriage. You do realize that thousands of gays were killed in the concentration camps in Germany because the Nazis viewed homosexuality to be, to use your words, an, "Illegal and immoral act?"

You are welcome to think whatever you want about homosexuality. Do not, however, use your opinion to deny gays and lesbians their legal equality. Otherwise, we risk repeating history by declaring a segment of the population to be second-class citizens unworthy of equal rights, and we know where that can lead.

Please add to that list of exterminees at least 500,000 SUSPECTED homosexual men. The story of Sodom (not Sodham... it's not a town in England) and Gomorrah (not Gomorah) had nothing whatever to do with sex. It was a story of what happens to people when they forsake their duty of hospitality. Remember, Lot offers the men of the town his daughter. The act that is being described is not anything like what you imagine; it is actually much like what an alpha dog does in the pack. In short, it was a way that men of the region had to express their domination over others. But hey, don't take my word for it; I got that from a very learned rabbi. After all, Genesis is a book of the Hebrew Bible, yes?

As to being "well on our way," well, all I can say is that same sex marriage has been a normative practice in several European countries with no adverse effect on anyone.

It should not be involved in the sanctioning of religious practice. Since most conservatives agree marriage is a religious construct than it would reason they should care if the government thinks that way. The real reason is it is not a fee but a tax. They are taxing you to get married when they charge you a fee for a liscence to do so. If they simply let religions decide who they will and will not marry, then they can charge a tax for those wanting to file joint tax returns! Some churches will marry same sex couples. Bottom line is government needs to get out of the marriage buisness.

Homosexuality is already considered, "normal" by the majority of mental health organizations. Every group seeking marriage equality should be judged on their own merits.

Anything you surround yourself in is normal to the people involved. Poor point.

steven bradley - Homosexuality is considered a normal part of human sexuality by the following medical and mental health associations: The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.

This is a direct quote from: National Association of Clinical Psychologists

“We say Homosexual behavior is a major detriment to a moral and just society.”

Want to guess how I found that quote from them?

Don't forget 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest for their patients. They don't mention 4 out of 5 dentists receive financial benefits from Crest.

It’s not hard to get a focus group to say or do what you want. They don’t take the first 12 people that walk through the door for a jury do they?

We've already seen a couple TV shows about poly relationships. We will continue to see them. More so on programming made for younger viewers. It will become normal. The younger people will be the ones that will accept it. They will become accustom to it do to seeing it regularly on TV. Then it will be normal. Any of this seem familiar to you. It’s a tried and true formula.

steven bradley - I just googled "National Association of Clinical Psychologists", and no website for the group came up. I wonder why that is...

It would make you feel better if I spent the $9.95 to register a website and took the hour to make it look fancy?

Don't get me wrong. I did create the group and wrote the document before I quoted it here. I can get peers to join the group and spread the mission statement and findings same as every other group you listed does.

steven bradley - That is the difference in our arguments. I quote professional mental health associations whose members have degrees in psychology when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. You make up documents and fake groups to support your argument. Kinda sad.

Casey, You don’t have to be sad. Someone made up the professional group you quoted at some point in time. It is not as if it was there and somebody stumbled upon it and its mission statement. I demonstrated how a group is formed and how to begin to spread the group’s beliefs. I did a quick check before I created the group to see if anyone else laid claim to the name before I used it and I wrote its first document and quoted part of it to you. That is basically how you start any group of that type. All I’d have to do is file the paperwork and it wouldn’t be anymore fake then the groups you quote. If it was in my interest I could grow the group with like minded professionals, solicit donations to run the group and even present evidence to the government as an expert witness. It really is that simple.

If we wanted to learn something useful from “professional mental health organizations” then it would be great to learn what “chemical imbalance” really means, what chemical is actually out of balance and how to treat those that supposedly suffer from it other then just prescribe one drug after another and tell them be happy and good luck. Your “professional mental health organizations” are hooey my friend.

steven bradley - Members of the professional mental health associations that I quoted have degrees in mental health, and they sponsor studies on mental health issues. For instance, homosexuality is considered normal because of studies (the first of which was in 1957) that showed that there was, "No scientific basis for inferring a predisposition to psychopathology or other maladjustment as intrinsic to homosexuality or bisexuality." Source - American Psychological Association.

You are free to create whatever professional group you want, but if the people in the group do not have the credentials to back up their conclusions, their statements will have little to no credibility.

Carol, using language that gay and lesbian people find offensive is the first way you raise the hair on our collective necks. This is not conducive to a polite conversation.

Is being in heterosexual relationship a "lifestyle"? The answer would be NO. Is being left handed or having green eyes a life style? The answer is NO.

As far as the Bible goes, there are just as many Christians who believe the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about "Same-sex Marriage" as there are who believe it speaks out against it. Consequently half of us are wrong.

I will admit it has some vague and confusing language referring to "lying with" someone. But the word "Homosexuality" was not in the Bible when it was written because that word and the concept of healthy same-sex relationship are 20th Century concepts. When I say here--> "You are twisting the truth." I am not calling you a name. I am pointing out your "lifestyle" choice.

Well said, Carol

"Lifestyle?" Condescending in the extreme.

We are talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Thus, what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is irrelevant.

As for the cost of including same-sex spouses in insurance coverage, are you saying it is okay to discriminate as long as you do it for financial reasons?

Ktown, very good. The Bible is truth if we all lived by it or a least tried to live by it we would all be better off. We need God back in everything, too many don't want Him at all until they need help.

Carol - The Bible does not condemn homosexuality when it is put in historical and cultural context and read using reason, as Jesus did.

I am a Christian, but I do not think it is right to push my personal beliefs onto other people. The United States is not a Christian nation. If the forefathers would have wanted the U.S. to be a Christian nation, they would have written God or Christ into the Constitution. God and/or Christ are not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution.

Ktown - You need to Paul's letter to the Romans in context. In Romans 1:21-28, Paul talks about people who refused to acknowledge and glorify God (v. 21), the worshipping of idols (v23), people who were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits (v.25), people who gave up their natural, innate passion for the opposite sex in search of pleasure (v. 26-27), and people who live lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, and hatred of God (v. 29-31).

Homosexuality is a natural part of human sexuality (for verification, check out the APA website). This reference is talking about heterosexual people who gave up their natural orientation to have s e x with people of the same gender in what Paul calls, "Their search for pleasure." It is not talking about gay people who naturally are attracted to people of the same gender.

But this argument is with you, and those like you. Not everyone believes the same way you do. Your god, religion, religious texts, etc. are open to interpretation and deciphered differently by all. Many Christians especially pick and choose which parts of the bible are "truth", which they should follow, and which they believe in. You stand behind your discrimination and point at your religion for support, when it is you that is punishing a group of people, not your god.

You lost me and many others at "If".

The wise don't need it and fools wont heed it.

We are talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Thus, what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is irrelevant.

As for the cost of including same-sex spouses in insurance coverage, are you saying it is okay to discriminate as long as you do it for financial reasons?

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality when it is put in historical and cultural context and read using reason. See my response to your post above concerning Paul's letter to the Romans.

47% of people in Maryland do not work? Do you have a source for your statistics?

Well said.

Adam, to this please add that it's not a "lifestyle." The term implies that there's a choice to be Gay or Straight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You don't even know how to read the ruling. It is from May 2011 and only applies to the Arizona law. It is not a national ruling. Maryland has no such law. Learn to read, most illegals are.

amdactivist, aka Birther Queen, you don't know the law. ICE can come visit me any day. Why dont you call them for me? I'll buy them lunch. You actually know very little, if anything other than how to run your mouth. Back in the dining room with the dining room chairs please, they miss their table. Have a good day. Bye.

Carol - Thank you for the thoughtful response. You sound like a very Christian, spiritual person. The way I live my faith in Christ is by accepting others without judgement, trying to see Christ in everyone that I meet, and seeking to do Christ's will every day.

We will have to agree to disagree about Sodom and Gomorrah. I re-read Genesis and still believe that it condemns rape and inhospitality, not homosexuality for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I also found the following quote from Ezekiel 16:49 which talks about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah: (NIV) “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

Take care and God bless!

Thank You Adam and Casey. God wants us to follow Him because we want to not because a law tells us to. God gave us a free will and a map to follow that being the Bible. We all fall short at times we can lose our way and have to get back to God, none of us are perfect or we would not be here. God loves us with all our flaws, He wants us to share that love with others. We can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. Blessings ~

There is nothing ridiculous about marriage equality. O’Malley and the representatives who voted for the same-sex marriage bill took a courageous stand against discrimination in our great state of Maryland, and I could not be prouder of them and our state.

Philip.. I totally agree and the ones that don't are the smile and hand shake voters..

Do you really think that pushing a bill like this would enhance his chances of picking up the Dem nomination? Please... get real.

1) Dropping the age of marriage to 14???? Ewwwww no.

2) How the heck do any of you keep up on this thread anyway? :) I gave up after about 150 posts.

Because it's not convenient for religious zealots who seem to think Jesus preached hatred of others.

Confused bunch, going straight up to the Vatican honestly. No one objective should be surprised though. Take a picture of the Pope and put it next to a picture of Emperor Palpatine, and tell me there aren't similarities in appearance :)

Well said, Felicity. Bravo!

Thank you, Felicity. I have always said that as the younger generations age, this will be a non-issue. I have 3 children, now in their mid - 20's for whom sexual orientation didn't matter.

Hi Felicity, Your response is exactly what this debate is about.

When someone chooses to be outside the norm there is always a price to pay. A liberal will tell you that there should be no consequences to any decision. I was in a long debate recently and the other side of the debate expressed that there should be no consequences to being in this country illegally. We are told that there are other countries where gay marriage is normal. To bring up there are countries where poly relationships are normal brings no response. There are countries where the age of marriage is much different then here. Girls are sold in many countries. A country that has an economy that will soon pass ours actually has rules stating how many children you can have. Girls are abandoned so the boys can be kept to work. Our government spends so much more money then they bring in that the same country I last spoke of is our primary lender and has the ability to effect our national policies.

Gay supporters say there should be marriage equality. Bring up that others aren’t allowed to marry and they say it is a separate issue. If you disagree you are closed minded and a bigot. You need to be open minded, that means agree with them. They have the only intelligent opinion or thought in their eyes. They will call you any number of names if you don’t agree.

steven bradley - A person does not choose to be gay. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is not a choice.

Your argument that gay marriage will lead to other types of marriage, presubably underage marriage and interspecies marriage, is a fallacy. When interracial marriage bans were struck down, you did not see states legalizing interspecies or underage marriage.

Casey, I did not say gay marriage leads to underage marriage or interspecies marriage. An argument was made gay marriage is common and has been in other countries. I commented that the common age of marriage is different in other countries. Maybe you think interspecies marriage or at least intimacy is common in other countries? We can use that argument to determine whether we should use what occurs in foreign countries as a guide for what we do here if you’d like.

“When interracial marriage bans were struck down, you did not see states legalizing interspecies or underage marriage.” I have no opinion on interracial marriage. You brought it up not me. Since you did we can point out that it occurred, now gay marriage, next poly marriage.

“A person does not choose to be gay.” That’s a great argument. Argue it with the young person that we are actually replying to. She speaks of the love of her parents whether she chooses to be a lesbian or not. “I don't know about everyone else, but in my household I was raised that choosing to be lesbian or gay may be difficult in society, but I would still be loved and treated the same.” I have no daught that there are people that are more attracted to people of the same sex then the opposite sex. In today’s society it is very chic. There are places and occupations that as a heterosexual man I would not be welcome. To people that have been inundated with homosexual images and programming it is a viable chose. That is exactly how it is viewed. You can deny it till the bull comes home. That doesn’t change the facts.

“According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation is not a choice.” According Felicia and the National Association of Clinical Psychologists it is a choose. So is poly relationships, and having sexual relations with anyone or thing else.

Steven, A search for "National Association of Clinical Psychologists" yields no results. The "National Association of Clinical Psycholgy" does however, and it is a division of the American Psychological Association, which has been pointed out to support the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. The validity of these kinds of claims comes down how widely the credentials of the organization making the claims are.

Brandon, What does "homosexuality is not a choice" exactly mean?

What I mean by "homosexuality is not a choice" is simple. A person's sexual orientation is what dictates who that person is attracted to with respect to in 1) an emotional way 2) sexual way. And since "homosexuality" is a sexal orientation I am saying that "sexual orientation" is not a choice.

Brandon, I have an emotional connection with friends of mine that are the same sex and I could go out tonight and have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. We could continue to do so and I could develop an emotional bond with this person. I could call myself homosexual without doing any of these things. These are choices I could make in my life. The fact that I have not chosen to do these things means I have a choice and you don’t?

Some people are attracted to people that are much younger then them. We have seen a bunch of reports of a high profile person that had sexual relations with minors of the same sex. Did he not have a choice?

steven bradley - I brought up interspecies and underage marriage because that is what the majority of posts I have read argue will happen if gay marriage is allowed. I repeat my argument that this did not happen after the laws banning interracial marriages were implemented, and this will not happen after gay marriage is legal.

So anyone that makes a chose needs to be protected from discrimination based on that chose. Lets repeal this on referendum and work together on drafting legislation that would be comprehensive anti discrimination legislation.

The "choice" LGBT people make is to be authentic. You seem to be making the choice to harass with your "choice" of words. Its OK to disprove, but do it on the merits of a valid n argument. When LGBT people use names for you like "hater" or "breeder" its just as disparaging. I get the impression that you would rather be a bully that have a discussion.
its pr

Brandon, I have no intention of bullying. I did not choose to harass anyone. It seems that I have just been called a bully by you and accused of harassment for having a debate with someone I feel has offered reasonable information that is different then mine. I would like to feel the information I have presented is reasonable and valid. I have no ill will towards Casey or anyone else I have directed my comments to. If you would like to debate please understand I will probably present facts you do not like or agree with. That does not make them invalid.

steven bradley - Sexual orientation is not a choice. You can make up as many false documents and mental health associations that you want (as you did when you quoted the National Association of Clinical Psychologists, which you admit is a group that you made up), but the fact remains that the American Psychological Association and its 154,000 members with degrees in psychology have state that sexual orientation is not a choice.

I think comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation is a great idea, and I would actively support it.

Adam - Well said, and thank you for the quote!

You are correct, that Steve and William can't have a child. They can adopt and raise a child better then Steve and William can. You know, a child abandoned by "natural" means.

Moreover, you make this 100% assumption God exists. He may. He may not. You don't know. People blindly believe based on stories. People also believe in different manifestations of God.
It doesn't make you right or wrong (because nothing is provable, one way or the other).

The one thing I keep going back to, is the real irony is that I thought Jesus once told his apostles to love one another as I've loved you. He'd be shaking his head at the lot of you today, I suspect.

Ultimately you are saying the only purpose for relationship is to have babies. In my world this is not always the case. When my 52 year old grandmother got remarried after the death of my grandfather she was not getting remarried to have more children.

Adam and Eve were the first Biblical example of a couple and I don't recall a marriage ceremony. That truth is in the Bible too.

In a world where the first example were the only truth all other races would be "Biblicaly wrong" according to your perspective. The world have evolved since the day Adam & Eve were created. the population has expanded and there is more genetic diversity.

The world changes a little bit each day and I think that is a gift from God that you reject when you do not accept that He has a hand in that too.

And as far as your thinking that homosexuality is "unnatural" you are simply wrong. Homosexual expression is documented to occur in more than 200 species.

and your conscience supports oppressing others rights?

Nice. No better then the charlatans in the Vatican.

my momma always said . wen that litle voice starts talkin to you . sometimes best to not listen .