Posted on 01/21/2006 8:23:11 PM PST by MediaAnalyst
BALTIMORE -- A Circuit Court judge yesterday ruled that Maryland's 33-year-old ban on same-sex "marriage" is unconstitutional.
- snip -
"After much study and serious reflection, this court holds that Maryland's statutory prohibition against same-sex marriage cannot withstand this constitutional challenge," Judge Murdock said in her 22-page ruling. The law defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment, which guarantees "equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex," the judge said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Only if you define homosexuality as a third sex.
or bad for that matter
What does "homosexual monogamy advocacy" mean?
You are dealing with a poster who would make George Orwell proud. I think his intent was to refer to advocates of gay marriage. He has twisted that to monogamy and used it with a bad connotation. I think if more gays were monogamous that would be a good thing, would it not?
Yes it would.
That would make them heterosexual. The word “monogamy” denotes a biological procreation as does polygamy... homosexuals can do neither of them, their union does not produce offspring.
Homosexual activity is never a good thing.
I would think you would avoid it then.
Your post was illogical in both the first and second part.
It just so happens that the first was chief among them...
How so? My comments were straight forward. Please explain your logic?
You want it embraced by the public... you are a sick pervert...
If so, that's arrogant on your part.
On the issue of opposing the homosexualization of society -more specifically not regognizing the new attemped innovation of homosexual 'marriage' -anyone including the judges that ignore the will of the people are the arrogant ones. The position that supports the homosexualization of society is the 'arrogant' position and happens to be a liberal position not welcome on FR:
What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
What again is your position?
No, they were sophistry... equivocations at best...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Please explain your logic?
Mammalian reproductive biology is logical, it is self apparent (axiomatic).
The issue would be easier to avoid if there were no homosexual activists promoting it. It would be easier to avoid even here on FR if there were not those glorifying it -calling it 'love' -lamenting over the opposition to it. It would be easier to avoid if there were not those suggesting it on par, equal to and as beneficial to society as the historically proven, procreatively beneficial, and genetically viable norm of heterosexual activity.
Adults have the right to have sex with each other if both give consent.
People should not go to jail for having sex that offends others religious beliefs or because they think it's icky.
When the government gets involved in honoring contracts or bestowing benefits based upon being married, it should honor the contract between adults regardless of homo or hetero status. The government is not here to enforce religious beliefs or impose sexual morality upon the citizenery.
Two men or women marrying each other does not effect my marriage or morals one iota.
People have the right to select the marriage partner of their choice, as long as both are of legal age to enter into a contract or it does no physical harm to others.
Some people here are so hateful of homosexuality they lump any good for homosexuals under an agenda which was written by some extremist. If you say anything that isn't negative then they label you "pro-agenda." This is a sophomoric propaganda technique. There is a world of difference between NAMBLA and gay marriage. But those who are malicious or lazy just go for the agenda slur.
JR doesn't like homosexualism, whatever that is, but the rights of people apply wheteher or not they are homosexual. Some of these issues need to be taken issue by issue and not painted with a broad brush.
You oppose issue by who supports them and you will sometimes go against your own values. If Susan Sarandon and BS supported the war in Iraq, would conservatives then oppose it?
Conservatives don't applaud and advance schemes that rot the foundation of the nation. You are no conservative.
Just so my warning was clear.............You'redebating a uy who believes that a homosexual cannot produce a child. Who believes you shouldn't marry if you can't conceive with your spouse. Apparently, the government will be administering fertility tests and make you swear to have 2.3 children.
Shhhhhhhhhhhh. I'm in the witness protection program.
You are a liar.
Marrige is a religious rite, not a civil right. It is a privileged practice and a public act that requires a statutory license...
Here is the case law:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).] See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.