Fight for/against same-sex marriage begins in Maryland for 2012.

[Bmoreteacher]

Seriously? It's every citizen's right to protest by referendum (in this case) if they feel that their elected officials are not representing them.

Yet we have not historically voted on issues of others' rights. I don't think now is any time to start.

[Saticon3]

How will voting down gay marriage get back at him? Is it really worth screwing over thousands of MD gay couples? That seems incredibly petty.

it would show that he's not such the great popular leader of Md that he would like everybody to think that he is. Let me clarify- as I said I am not opposed to gay marriage and do not intend to sign or vote for the referendum , but I said I am not opposed to GM- that doesn't mean I'm for it either, it just doesn't matter much one way or another to me- while I will support GM at the polls, I can imagine that some fence sitters wil not and that anti-Omallye sentiments may be the tipper for some people.

[Sprightly]

Yet we have not historically voted on issues of others' rights. I don't think now is any time to start.

Not accurate:

http://dls.state.md.us/data/libandin...endum-2011.pdf

[Bmoreteacher]

Not accurate:

http://dls.state.md.us/data/libandin...endum-2011.pdf

So we voted on major issues like slavery, women's suffrage, integration, civil rights, etc?

[Sprightly]

So we voted on major issues like slavery, women's suffrage, integration, civil rights, etc?

Did you bother to read the list?

[Saticon3]

gay marriage is coming, its fait accompli, the only question is how soon it comes to your neighborhood, that's my sense of it anyway----- not worth the trouble to opose it let others do as they wish so long as they don't harm anyone else while doing it and for the life of me, I just can't see how two people of any gender marrying each other harms the rest of us. Let it happen,imho.

[MontanaJack]

In 1964 according to that link Maryland voters approved a measure repealing the state's Jim Crow laws, which is nice and all; but let's face it, it would have failed in any state below Maryland.

[Sprightly]

gay marriage is coming, its fait accompli, the only question is how soon it comes to your neighborhood, that's my sense of it anyway----- not worth the trouble to opose it let others do as they wish so long as they don't harm anyone else while doing it and for the life of me, I just can't see how two people of any gender marrying each other harms the rest of us. Let it happen,imho.

I agree and I have no interest in signing a petition to bring the subject to referendum. I just wanted Bmoreteacher to understand that we have, as a people, voted on such issues in the past. And, that is our right as citizens.

[Bmoreteacher]

Did you bother to read the list?

Yup...did we AS A COUNTRY vote on those issues?

[Bmoreteacher]

I agree and I have no interest in signing a petition to bring the subject to referendum. I just wanted Bmoreteacher to understand that we have, as a people, voted on such issues in the past. And, that is our right as citizens.

We have not voted on major issues of civil rights as a country, nor should we.

[Sprightly]

Yup...did we AS A COUNTRY vote on those issues?

You don't get to move the goal post. We are talking about a Maryland referendum. And we DID vote by referendum regarding racial segregation in public accommodations. Now, you either did not read the content of the link I provided or you just can't say the words, "Oh. I did not realize that."

And, the Federal Government has no procedures for conducting a referendum. It's a States right.

[Bmoreteacher]

You don't get to move the goal post. We are talking about a Maryland referendum. And we DID vote by referendum regarding racial segregation in public accommodations. Now, you either did not read the content of the link I provided or you just can't say the words, "Oh. I did not realize that."

And, the Federal Government has no procedures for conducting a referendum. It's a States right.

My apologies, 1 out of the multiple examples I gave was decided by a vote in MD, which eventually became irrelevant because of Federal laws.

[MooGoo]

What an incredibly stupid, baseless statement! I know many, many gays that have kids (or work around kids...you know, like teachers?)

Not at all. I think prolly you know more gay couples than I do. In fact, I am certain of it.

All of the ones I know are incredibly self-absorbed and spend way too much time in front of a mirror.

[MooGoo]

The church does that already. They keep impecable records of that!

The state financial aspect is what is at the heart of it. If the state called them civil unions and all religious marriages where civil unions but not all civil unions where religious marriages would you be OK with that?

Nah. I want it on the ballot in November. Let the people of Maryland have their voices heard. Then, I will accept whatever outcome is decided.

[MooGoo]

Then why don't you want people to be free to marry someone of the same sex?

Because it is wrong.

[Baltimatt]

What makes it wrong?

[MooGoo]

What makes it wrong?

Against the laws of nature. Wrong in the eyes of the lord. Against Society's mores and norms.

If it was so "right" then why aren't people allowed to do it in Muslim Countries? Some of the most populated Countries in the world? If is is so "right", then how come only a small percentage of any population consider themselves "gay"?

Taken to it's logical conclusion from your standpoint, If it was so "right" then why isn't everyone "gay"?

If it is so "right", then why is the legislature in Maryland afraid for the question to appear on a ballot before the voters of Maryland?

[MontanaJack]

Against the laws of nature. Wrong in the eyes of the lord. Against Society's mores and norms.

If it was so "right" then why aren't people allowed to do it in Muslim Countries? Some of the most populated Countries in the world? If is is so "right", then how come only a small percentage of any population consider themselves "gay"?

Taken to it's logical conclusion from your standpoint, If it was so "right" then why isn't everyone "gay"?

If it is so "right", then why is the legislature in Maryland afraid for the question to appear on a ballot before the voters of Maryland?

Not sure if serious. ?

[Baltimatt]

Against the laws of nature. Wrong in the eyes of the lord. Against Society's mores and norms.

It certainly isn't against a homosexual's nature; it is his nature. And are you suggesting it is up to our legislature to determine what is right in the eyes of the lord [sic]? We have a bunch of mutually contradictory religions out here. Should the legislature determine which one is correct, or do we allow people to be free to believe and worship as they see fit?

If it was so "right" then why aren't people allowed to do it in Muslim Countries? Some of the most populated Countries in the world? If is is so "right", then how come only a small percentage of any population consider themselves "gay"?

So, what Muslim countries do should be our standard? If Saudi Arabia bars the free practice of any religion other than Islam, should we make that our guiding philosophy, too? As far as the percentage of the population which is gay, so what? A small percentage of the population is left handed, too. And ???

Taken to it's logical conclusion from your standpoint, If it was so "right" then why isn't everyone "gay"?

If it is so "right", then why is the legislature in Maryland afraid for the question to appear on a ballot before the voters of Maryland?

Most people are straight. That doesn't make homosexuality a wrong.

[bmore_ken]

according to the Catholic Faith marriage is forever until death. You can not get divorced and if you do legally remarriage is infact adultery since according to them you are still married to your wife.

One of many examples of religious types following the Bible "a la carte"