Wedding bells for same-sex couples; bye-bye domestic partnerships

[Bloomin Onion]

In fact surveys according to the SUn itself has said that on the Eastern Shore, people were against the Dream Act by double digit margins. That it was tied in the Baltimore area, and that most of the support came from the DC area. I don't believe that the Dream Act would have succeeded in Baltimore County, Anne Arundel, or any of the Shore counties if not for voter fraud and illegals voting illegally like they do everything else illegally. They proabbly also bused CASA people from Baltimore City and PG County into Anne Arundel and Baltimore County to vote. Illegal aliens also usually have multiple fake names and IDs they could have voted many times.

Our amigo Manuelito in Teacher's class might also be known as Carlito, Pablito, or Miguelito or Juanito in other false documents.

[pepper]

Can you explain why you are only opposed to hispanic illegals?

Not speaking for that guy, but are you aware of the numbers as relates to illegal immigrants' respective populations, based on country of origin in Maryland? In the US in general?

If theres a debate on the subject, it's going to focus on Hispanics due to numbers. That reality should be allowed to be pointed out without it being considered racist, as you're implying.

We share a border with a seriously crappy country, thats home to a largely Hispanic population thats looking to escape.

[bmore_ken]

They need to send investigator over to the Eastern Shore to see what happened because I don't see the average good ol boy from Cambridge voting in favor of illegal immigration.

Maybe you should make a phone call and get that ball rolling. Tell them you're a friend of Uncle Fester or Cool Nana, you'll get "special" treatment

[bmore_ken]

We share a border with a seriously crappy country, thats home to a largely Hispanic population thats looking to escape.

I thought they were all going back now? You guys need to make up your minds

[The Eternal White Belt]

Well not ALL of Maryland. After being involved in the anti-Dream Act movement, I am now part of the effort to make English the official language in Carroll County.

Ah, Carroll County, the second least relevant county in Maryland. You go on with your bad self... I'm sure you're efforts won't be wasted.

At least let the illegals the Dream Act will attract go to the areas like Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and PGC where they are welcome. Us in the REST of Maryland do not welcome them. The Baltimore County Council actually endorsed the referendum effort and most people here are also against the Dream Act. I'm sure all the illegals now are boasting of their victory, how proud they are to be illegal, how their illegal immigration has paid off. Well one day they will be judged maybe not by this government, but they WILL be judged by God.

Yes, and if there is a god, I'm sure he will be proud of how you stood up to the children and said "go away - you aren't my problem." That sounds like something a Christian god would be proud of.

[Bloomin Onion]

Under what criteria do you classify Carroll as the 2nd least relevent county? What would be the first, Garrett? Though I'm sure Deep Creek Lake and the surrounding area contribute far more to the state's economy than a place like Baltimore City or PG County which suck up large amounts of tax money from other areas, many time more than what they pay in taxes and yet demand more and more money to help their crime-ridden housing projects, drug infested streets, and failing public schools and transportation systems.

Baltimore City should be glad its in liberal Maryland or else it will be completely rotting like Detroit or like New Orleans where the state government doesn't like to give that much money to the cities. The Eastern Shore, Carroll County, and Western Maryland will be better off not being part of the state, then they would not have to deal with all the liberal laws, development restrictions, taxes, wealth redistribution and environmental regulations set forth by Annapolis. And I don't think the people of Garrett County welcome illegals anymore than their neighbors in West Virginia, and people in Carroll don't welcome illegals anymore than their neighbors in Pennsylvania. Maryland has a few liberal areas that control the state and make life harder for everyone else through taxes and regulations.

[Baltimatt]

Licenses will be able to be issued before new year, effective January 1

Maryland courts can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting in December, as long as the effective date is Jan. 1, according to an opinion issued this afternoon by Attorney General Doug Gansler. The 19-page opinion will likely lead to a slew of New Year's Eve weddings in the Free State, as gay couples who've long waited for the law to change can finally marry at midnight.

It has been clear that Maryland's new law legalizing same-sex marriage would take effect Jan. 1 if approved at referendum, but many believed the first licenses would be issued a few days later because of the New Year holiday and a mandatory 48-hour waiting period.

Those married in other states will have legally valid marriages in Maryland and will not be issued licenses.

In additional to allowing same-sex couples to wed when the law takes effect, this decision will also spread out the rush of applicants who may show up when the law takes effect.

[BiggSeth]

"wedding bells will be able to ring for same-sex couples January1"

according to the law, churches do not have to "ring their wedding bells" if they choose not to recognize same-sex unions.....


Question 6
Civil Marriage Protection Act


Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

how long until the militant gay agenda goes after churches for refusing to ring their bells for what their faith teaches them is an abomination to God??

I give it 8 months, once the spring/summer wedding season is well underway, the professional victim class will come out and try to compel churches to give them their "right to have bells run in their honor"

[Baltimatt]

"wedding bells will be able to ring for same-sex couples January1"

according to the law, churches do not have to "ring their wedding bells" if they choose not to recognize same-sex unions.....


Question 6
Civil Marriage Protection Act


Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Uhh, yes. This is a well known fact. I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up.

In other breaking news from Sethworld, the sky is blue.

how long until the militant gay agenda goes after churches for refusing to ring their bells for what their faith teaches them is an abomination to God??

I give it 8 months, once the spring/summer wedding season is well underway, the professional victim class will come out and try to compel churches to give them their "right to have bells run in their honor"

How long until the militant divorcé agenda goes after churches, particularly Catholic ones?

Indeed, I usually at your posts.

[bud]

Shouldn't this be merged with other same-sex marriage threads? The same happens for other topics.

[BiggSeth]

Uhh, yes. This is a well known fact. I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up.

In other breaking news from Sethworld, the sky is blue.



How long until the militant divorcé agenda goes after churches, particularly Catholic ones?



Indeed, I usually at your posts.

your lack of any substance on-topic in your response leads me to believe that I am onto something here....

as as for your straw man "militant divorce agenda", we'll just file that one with the other nonsensical talking points from the militant gay agenda-types like comparing gays to the struggels of blacks before the Civil rights acts of the 60s....

You know it is comming,you should just disavow the demands now and distinguish yourself from those who make gay people just look like professional victims, demading more and more and more....

[Baltimatt]

Seth--

The only lack of substance and nonsensical talking points come from you.

I was pointing out the news that same-sex couples will be able to obtain their marriage licenses beforehand so that they be able to get married when the law goes into effect, instead of having to wait until the court opens on 2 January and then wait the two additional days before being able to get married.

How do you response? Certainly not with anything of substance.

[Baltimatt]

How many years have state-issued marriage licenses been around? How many times have couples gone after churches for refusing to marry them? Maybe BiggSeth knows.

[BiggSeth]

How many years have state-issued marriage licenses been around? How many times have couples gone after churches for refusing to marry them? Maybe BiggSeth knows.

once again, irelevant.

traditional marriage is not considered an abomination by churches. The law as voted for by the people of MD clearly states



protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

But as with everything else, this will be challenged as well. You said wedding bells can ring, that insinuates that churches will ring their bells in celebration of a same-sex union. I asked the question how long before same-sex couples are told by the churches who own and ring said wedding bells "no thanks, take your abomination to the sacred union as described by GOD elsewhere. No bells fro you!"??

and then after this plays out for a few months, how long until the professional victim class/social agitators in the militant gay agenda movement are in the courts trying to change the law?

it is a valid question, based on the actions of said militant gay agenda movement members in other states where they did not get their agenda foisted on the voters of said States. What did they do???

they venue shopped looking for sympatheitc courts to file suit to FORCE their lifestyle choices on the voters of a State.

So with the imperical evidence of the past decades, why would one beleive that the militant gay agenda movement will be satisfied with simply being allowed to marry? Of course they are going to try and compel the churches to accept their unions and ring their bells in celebration of what most churches view as an abomination.

now you will attack me personally again, make some far-fetched comparison to the civil rights movement and gays getting church bells rung for them, and of course call my questions in this public fourm of debate nonsensical....again.

[Baltimatt]

Wow, BiggSeth.

Wedding bells is figurative.

same-sex marriage is not considered an abomination by churches.

It isn't? I thought the point you were making is that some churches consider it an abomination.

But as with everything else, this will be challenged as well.

But then how is my question about opposite-sex couple suing church "irelevant"?

The "professional victims" are the anti-same-sex marriage crowd. Folks like BiggSeth who fears people will be have a "lifestyle choices" "forced" on them.

"Far-fetched" certainly describes yours posts.

Please tell me what lifestyle choices have been forced on people?

[BiggSeth]

Wow, BiggSeth.

Wedding bells is figurative.



It isn't? I thought the point you were making is that some churches consider it an abomination.



But then how is my question about opposite-sex couple suing church "irelevant"?

The "professional victims" are the anti-same-sex marriage crowd. Folks like BiggSeth who fears people will be have a "lifestyle choices" "forced" on them.

"Far-fetched" certainly describes yours posts.

Please tell me what lifestyle choices have been forced on people?

first off, thank you for editing my response, I meant to say(and have subsequently fixed the response) traditional marraiges are not considered an abomination by the churches.

Divorcees are not suing in Federal court to force the Catholic faith to accept their divorce as a legitamate option in the eyes of God.

I love how you attack me, yet cannot disput the facts.....

I said that once the same-sex marriage crowd is denied access to churches for a 'traditional' wedding, they will seek to change the law to compel churches to accept what many religions consider an abomination before God. 2 people of the same sex entering into a mockery of the holy union between a man and a woman.

See, the difference?

as for what lifestyle choices are being forced on people....

Matt I know you don't want to admit it, (and personally I could care less what you do with whom in your private life and home) but the gay community represents about 3% of the total population.

There are people in the other 97% of the population whose values and morals find the act of homosexuality offensive to themselves and their religious values. The simple sight of 2 men kissing, or 2 women doing the same is not a part of their value set.

Is it "right" or "Wrong"??? well, the argument could be made that homosexuality is "wrong". In fact there are still Nations on this earth where people are executed for being gay.

The simple solution is to be happy that you have your same-sex unions in State, and not try to force the religious institutions into accepting that which goes agains their morals, vlaues, and teachings.

My original point was that I fear the militant gay agenda folks are not going to be happy with just that. They are going to want more and more and more.

you ahve to admit that based on their recent history, I am more than likely correct in my prediction.

Notice I never once called baltimatt anything nasty, or demeaning. The same cannot be said for him, one of our esteemed "site moderators".

[Jeebus]

I said that once the same-sex marriage crowd is denied access to churches for a 'traditional' wedding, they will seek to change the law to compel churches to accept what many religions consider an abomination before God. 2 people of the same sex entering into a mockery of the holy union between a man and a woman.

See, the difference?

Did you read the law before you voted against it?

Here it is, pay very close attention to the part about "religion":

Civil Marriage Protection Act (Ch. 2 of the 2012 Legislative Session)

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying;

protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs;

affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith;

and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

That was easy, huh?

Next frivolous objection?

[Baltimatt]

first off, thank you for editing my response, I meant to say(and have subsequently fixed the response) traditional marraiges are not considered an abomination by the churches.

I didn't edit your response.

Divorcees are not suing in Federal court to force the Catholic faith to accept their divorce as a legitamate option in the eyes of God.

And gays are not suing in Federal court of force any religion to accept that same-sex marriage is a legitimate option in the eyes of God.

I love how you attack me, yet cannot disput the facts.....

I said that once the same-sex marriage crowd is denied access to churches for a 'traditional' wedding, they will seek to change the law to compel churches to accept what many religions consider an abomination before God. 2 people of the same sex entering into a mockery of the holy union between a man and a woman.

See, the difference?

This is not a fact. Do you have an example of a church being sued to accept same-sex marriage?

as for what lifestyle choices are being forced on people....

Matt I know you don't want to admit it, (and personally I could care less what you do with whom in your private life and home) but the gay community represents about 3% of the total population.

There are people in the other 97% of the population whose values and morals find the act of homosexuality offensive to themselves and their religious values. The simple sight of 2 men kissing, or 2 women doing the same is not a part of their value set.

And what portion of the population is Muslim and Jewish? These two groups specifically deny the Trinity and could be considered offensive to Christians, particularly denying the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Is it "right" or "Wrong"??? well, the argument could be made that homosexuality is "wrong". In fact there are still Nations on this earth where people are executed for being gay.

Fortunately this is not one of them.

The simple solution is to be happy that you have your same-sex unions in State, and not try to force the religious institutions into accepting that which goes agains their morals, vlaues, and teachings.

I am not trying to force religious institutions into accepting what goes against their morals. Why are you accusing me of something I don't support.

My original point was that I fear the militant gay agenda folks are not going to be happy with just that. They are going to want more and more and more.

you ahve to admit that based on their recent history, I am more than likely correct in my prediction.

Please, give me an example.

Notice I never once called baltimatt anything nasty, or demeaning. The same cannot be said for him, one of our esteemed "site moderators".

I try to criticize your posts, not you. Sorry if I missed the mark.

[BiggSeth]

Did you read the law before you voted against it?

Here it is, pay very close attention to the part about "religion":



That was easy, huh?

Next frivolous objection?

I DID read the part about religion, AND I stated that MY prediction is that the militant gay agenda gang will next go to court to expand the law to FORCE churches to grant them access for their same-sex unions so they may have a "church wedding" and hear "wedding bells"

thanks for chiming in, apparently you have more reading in your future....

[BiggSeth]

I didn't edit your response.


And gays are not suing in Federal court of force any religion to accept that same-sex marriage is a legitimate option in the eyes of God.



This is not a fact. Do you have an example of a church being sued to accept same-sex marriage?



And what portion of the population is Muslim and Jewish? These two groups specifically deny the Trinity and could be considered offensive to Christians, particularly denying the divinity of Jesus Christ.



Fortunately this is not one of them.



I am not trying to force religious institutions into accepting what goes against their morals. Why are you accusing me of something I don't support.



Please, give me an example.



I try to criticize your posts, not you. Sorry if I missed the mark.

response to bolded:

1 My entire debate point is my prediction that the Federal or State lawsuits are on the horizon, based on past behavior from the professional victims in the militant gay agenda movement.

2. Muslims kill gays for being gay. not a great comparative object. Also Muslim and Jewish are religions, not sexual prefreences. Just like gay is not a race, gay is not an established religion. your comparison holds no value. It would be like comparing adultery to wet newspapers.

3.Unless you are "outing" yourself(pun intended) as one of the militant gay agenda crowd, I never acused YOU of anything.

4. you DID miss your mark, see below:

In other breaking news from Sethworld, the sky is blue.

The only lack of substance and nonsensical talking points come from you.

How many years have state-issued marriage licenses been around? How many times have couples gone after churches for refusing to marry them? Maybe BiggSeth knows.

Folks like BiggSeth who fears people will be have a "lifestyle choices" "forced" on them.

Personal attacks from a site moderator in a thread about somethingfor which he seems to carry a great deal of "passion" .....Maybe baltimatt should refrain from contributing to any threads about same-sex unions or "gay rights" in general until he can learn to use some restraint when a fellow poster hits a nerve during debate......