VIDEO: O'Malley Announces Plans To Sponsor Gay Marriage Bill

Alice July 29, 2011 at 04:43 am

Whew.......................

Alice July 29, 2011 at 04:56 am

Btw I did NOT vote for m.o.m. don't hate him, don't hate anyone, but I can't stand him. He is just too in love with himself to do the right thing ever. I'm not against gay marriage. I don't feel like anyone has a right to judge anyone. I think gay marriage would have been legit with or without m.o.m. so I am not giving him credit for anything except higher taxes. Oh and Shiela Dixon's retirement pay. :(

Tom Barnes July 29, 2011 at 10:44 am

Roxane - It is interesting when folks post insults. I often wonder if they are deflecting those things they actually see as faults within themselves. Sarcastic demonization of a fellow Catholic.... to what end? Judge not lest ye be judged. ;)

Tom Barnes July 29, 2011 at 10:49 am

Betty - I am hoping that our Governor - actually our Government - can multitask. Most of us juggle many things in our own homes and at work. If they can't, they have no reason to be in office. ;)
Regardless, the bottom line still remains: There is NEVER a bad time for equality. There is never a wrong time to make sure EVERY Marylander is granted the exact same rights, privilages and responsibilities. That is, if you believe in that sort of thing.

Bob July 29, 2011 at 10:50 am

1. Sharing one's faith is not forcing your beliefs on someone.
2. For all the talk of tolerance here, where's the tolerance (and respect) of Christian beliefs? 3. I'm really disappointed by some responses of "Christians" here.

Tom Barnes July 29, 2011 at 11:02 am

I absolutely love the references to "traditional marriage." Have we forgotten our history, even right here in Maryland? My mother, in 1972, could not have a hysterectomy without her husbands permission. In 1962, my grandmother could not have cobalt treatment for cancer without permission from her estranged husband. THAT is traditional marriage, folks. The husband OWNED the wife, OWNED the children. Until the 1970's, THAT was traditional marriage - it was a contract of ownership. We do **NOT** have traditional marriage. Stop kidding yourself, folks.
So what are you actually saying? What you are REALLY saying is that you want COMFORTABLE marriage - something that benefits you, doesn't embarrass you, doesn't make you think beyond your own self importance. Shall we grow up? If you do not believe in same gender marriage then don't have one. Duh. As for the "we have other things on our plate to worry about" - there is NO bad time to demand equality. When people stop demanding equality, they end up in ghetto's then possibly concentration camps. Think Jews. Think Japanese. Think African Americans. Slippery slope is what someone else said - and they are wrong AND right. They just don't realize which direction that slope is going.

Tom Barnes July 29, 2011 at 11:12 am

Sid - Come on. Traditional marriage means CONTRACTUAL marriage. We do not have traditional marriage. Women and children are no longer deemed property. They haven't been since the 70's. What we have is MODERN marriage. And traditional marriage - BIBILICALLY SPEAKING - says that Polygamy IS traditional marriage. Take a good read (this is just an alphabetical sample so you can "study to show yourself approved"): Abdon Abijah Abraham Ahab Ahasuerus
Ashur Belshazzar Benhadad Caleb David Eliphaz Elkanah Esau Ezra Gideon Heman Hosea Ibzan Issachar Jacob Jair Jehoiachin Jehoram Jerahmeel Joash Lamech Machir Manasseh Mered Moses Nahor Rehoboam Saul Shaharaim Shimei Simeon Solomon Terah Zedekiah Ziba I am not saying it should or shouldn't be legal, I'm just saying we can't have it both ways; we can't promote our personal beliefs as "the truth." We can only say "in my humble opionion"...

Catons-villain July 29, 2011 at 07:49 pm

"Stripping marriage of its unique connection to parenthood disregards the reasons why government has always elevated marriage over all other relationships as the fundamental building block of society."
One man-one woman couples (whether by choice or circumstance) can be childless. Same sex couples can have children (via adoption or surrogacy). Tying “marriage” to “parenting” seems archaic to me. Of course, I wouldn’t expect anything less than archaic from the Catholic Church (and in the interests of full disclosure – I’m Catholic).

Tom Barnes July 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm

Same sex couple, civil unioned in 2000. We have 2 children, one about to turn 16, the other 4 months behind him. One is mine, the other is adopted - from a STRAIGHT couple that abused him - physically and sexually. Everyone who meets my kids absolutely adores them. They are active in sports and school - and music and theater. They have girlfriends (they weren't suddenly converted) and a slew of trustworthy friends on which they can depend. I know quite a few gay parents with kids. As a foster parent, I know of NONE that lost their children due to physical or sexual abuse. However, with the number of kids that came through my house I can tell you I know PLENTY of children abused by their STRAIGHT parents because they ALL came from STRAIGHT people who threw them away. So, I REALLY don't want to hear how gay people can't be parents. When straight parents get their acts together, THEN tell us with all the sanctimonous crap how terrible gay parents are. Remember - we take care of a good part of straight people's disposal kin. Seriously.

Deneen Morgan-Burley September 6, 2011 at 06:23 pm

Solomon was God's anointed or chosen one. When he left off from following God's will, God's support of him left also. Solomon, once toted as the world's wisest man, died an educated fool for taking 700 wives and 300 concubines who induced him to serve false gods. He was not in good standing with God at his death.

Mark Patro September 6, 2011 at 06:35 pm

civil marriage is not a religious issue... not everyone that gets a civil marriage in Maryland is Christian. These Bible quotes do not apply.

Deneen Morgan-Burley September 6, 2011 at 06:37 pm

Any sexual union outside of holy matrimony between a man and a woman, is not recognized as a marriage ordained by God. It doesn't matter if the two individuals give consent. It doesn't matter if it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If it's not two people, a man and a woman, who are wed, it is a sinful union known as fornication. Fornication is recognized as a sin whether it's two men, two women, or a man and a woman who are not married. If people thought of unions in this way, it would be more clear what's acceptable according to God's standards and what's not. A consenting pair of heterosexuals, a man and a woman, commit fornication as well if they are not married. Back in the day, they used to call it "shacking up" or being "out of wedlock." Now, people treat it as if it's normal. It's not. That's why we have compound social problems in society today.

Deneen Morgan-Burley September 6, 2011 at 06:46 pm

Sex between a human being and an animal is another type of fornication known as BESTIALITY. Fornication, no matter who the parties, is what God detests. Fornication between two men: HOMOSEXUALITY; fornication between two women: LESBIANISM; fornication between a parent and child or anyone related by blood: INCEST. That's what God detests, the behavior, not the people. Many of them, he said, were in the congregation, but, they changed. They REPENTED of the sin.

Tom Barnes September 6, 2011 at 07:19 pm

Want to live in a religious country, let me know how Iran... Iraq... Afghanistan... Egypt... Syria. All those spouting 'bible' verses to support their brand of bigotry (and let's make no mistake - it IS bigotry in a religious sense... once you admit it, you will feel better about yourselves and your position on the issue) are really no different those in the >gasp< Taliban that want the same thing. No civil law - just religious wall. Call it what it is, folks. Seriously. Then ask yourself this: "When does someone elses religious beliefs stop being ok and when I can I be bigoted against them - or is it ok for them to be bigoted against me for *my* religious intolerance? Look in the mirror - ask the serious question, think about the implications THEN come back and tell us how your religious beliefs are the only correct ones. Because at THAT juncture you have done nothing more than Islam has done in proclaiming a 'holy war'.

Mark Patro September 6, 2011 at 07:45 pm

to Deneen: You are crossing over the line when you compare gay men to people who engage in sex with animals. But, of course I understand that your intention with this comment is to stimulate outrange which might result in a counter attack. This will not happen with me. You simply do not respect people who are different than you. Your comments are an attempt to make sex between two men or two women something other than normal when it is in fact as normal as heterosexual sex. Homosexuality occurs in many species which has been scientifically documented through observation. The Bible might imply to you that homosexuality is sinful, but other, including me, read it differently. I will reiterate my original point. Civil marriage is not about religion and your religion has nothing to do with civil law.

Lorna D. Rudnikas September 6, 2011 at 08:08 pm

Just curious - what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? I say this for the millions of heterosexual couples who have lived together as man and wife for many years but not in the eyes of the law.

Lorna D. Rudnikas September 6, 2011 at 08:12 pm

Should have commented further.....in other words do these folks who have lived together fall under the civil union description? Sorry I am a little uneducated in this regard. Perhaps you can help. And if civil union applies for one group - does apply for all?

Robert Armstrong September 6, 2011 at 08:22 pm

It's against the law down in the Teabag Republic
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/unmarried-living-together-youre-breaking-the-law-in-1807247.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss

Mark Patro September 6, 2011 at 08:47 pm

The difference between "civil unions" and "marriage" is explained in this article:
http://perryhall.patch.com/blog_posts/why-marriage-and-not-civil-unions

Eastsider September 6, 2011 at 08:50 pm

Possible new state slogan “Come to Maryland, the land of the Illegal sanctuary, legal homosexuality and the over taxed”

Bart September 7, 2011 at 12:17 am

Perhaps the REAL question should be: when did the "religious marriage" become part of our civil law? There should be no difference.

Lorna D. Rudnikas September 7, 2011 at 03:35 am

Another thought...is it possibly all about money, taxes, et al?

PastorLorenzo Epps September 7, 2011 at 07:53 am

It's your right to get married through the government...but...with God.....Who knows!

Mark Patro September 7, 2011 at 09:18 am

How many heterosexual couples get married because” it’s all about the money?” I think, in this day and age, the percentage of those kinds of relationships is very small. I find it a bit offensive that you are indicating a relationship between two men or two women who love each other and want to solidify that relationship in a permanently recognized relationship is based on a financial arrangement. Maybe you should get to know a same sex couple.

Lorna D. Rudnikas September 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Mark.....OMG - stop taking yourself so seriously. I am not zeroing in on Same Sex Couples!!! Nor on the religious aspect. It just so happens that not being married has its big-time issues when it comes to legal matters, taxes, estate inheritance,etc. no matter what your sexual orientation is and no matter how long you have been together as a couple and no matter how much love is involved.....all put in place by the legal system way, way back with no real thought about same sex anything. That is what I am referring to - and certainly not insinuating otherwise...neither same sex, different sex, zero sex honey child!!! I I bring to the table the unfortunate laws that :"punish" folks tax-wise, healthcare wise for not being together in any legal format. Most adults are aware of this.

Mark Patro September 7, 2011 at 01:06 pm

I am serious about this issue because it is so drastically misunderstood. The passage of a Marriage Equality law in Maryland could potentially affect 16,987 households in our state according to the 2010 census data. (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-08-11/news/bs-md-census-same-sex-couples-20110811_1_gay-couples-gay-households-marriage-bill) Your question about the inclusion of unmarried heterosexual couples being included in the description of "civil union" is one case in point. Maryland State Law does not define who is included in the “description of civil union” because Maryland does not have a civil union law. Unmarried heterosexual couples have the option to get married if they want to, same-sex couples do not have this option. That is the elementary basis for THIS discussion in the first place. The discrimination, as you see it, by heterosexual couples surrounding the “big-time issues when it comes to legal matters, taxes, estate inheritance, etc” is an entirely different matter. If unmarried couples want the tax benefits that married people have they should lobby for them and work to get those changes made in Annapolis. I have seen absolutely no effort in that direction. The opportunity to get married may seem like an arbitrary desire for you but it is not for many people who are excluded from the opportunity to get married and have it recognized by state law.

Bob September 7, 2011 at 01:23 pm

I'm really glad the issue of marriage equality is being brought to the forefront of Marylanders' consciousness. For too long I have been subjected to ridicule, bigotry and discrimination because I want to marry the woman I love, a consenting adult - my cousin. I've been called a redneck inbred by countless bigots both liberal and conservative. The worst is when people say my fight for marriage equality will lead to people marrying their dogs, etc....as if a dog could consent to such a thing. That is totally offensive. My cousin and I share the most beautiful love, moreso than most non-related couples....straight or gay. Let gay people marry...along with polygamists with consenting wives.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!

Jill September 7, 2011 at 01:45 pm

For everyone bringing up what's in the Bible, I want to know how you know what's in the Bible is the actual truth? You do know people used to trip off of moldy bread back then and then they wrote about what they "saw?" My God is a loving God that just wants his children to be happy, kind people. I don't understand why gay and lesbian marriages upset people so much. We are all human and should have the right to marry whomever we want. Marriage equality for all!

Bart September 7, 2011 at 02:31 pm

TROLL

Urge Tech January 3, 2013 at 04:57 am

Hello everyone, it�s my first go to see at this web site, and post is actually fruitful designed for me, keep up posting these content.
http://www.flightaccommodationpackages.com