Gay 'marriage' ban struck

The Washington Times ^ | January 21, 2006 | S. A. Miller

[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.

[JCEccles]

You are sick pup, bigsigh. I'll be happy when you're kicked off this site for good. Your last exile as about 50 years too short.

[MilspecRob]

Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women or a person and an animal (which we may as well allow if society ever recognizes homosexual unions as "marriages).

How would an animal give consent?

[bigsigh]

I can see where the mention of rights and freedom would be offensive to you. Maybe JR keeps me here as a counterpoint to let you "real" conservatives see how evil the world really is.

[bigsigh]

The ignorant posts usually equate gay marriage with animals, babies, and door knobs. It's required that someone on each homosexual marriage thread post this nonsense.

[DBeers]

Just so my warning was clear

Actually -your 'warning' simply seems to be a reassertion of your straw man arguments to what appears to be an ally in advocating the acceptance of the homosexualization of society.

I understand the need to bond, plan, and act with those of a similar opinion and position (that is why why we have the homosexual agenda oping list on FR).

As to morally liberal positions like the one you and Paul seem to advocate -maybe DU would prove more beneficial in this regard? You could both be 'conservative' on other issues here on FR then be yourself on moral issues at DU?

Seems like a win - win?

[JCEccles]

"Marriage" between two men makes as much sense as "marriage" between a man and an animal, a baby, or a door knob.

The fact that you can't see the logical bankruptcy and stupidity of the pro-gay marriage argument is proof of how seared your conscience is.

[Paul C. Jesup]

bigsigh: 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.

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Either state your reasoning for your opinions, or quit talking to me.

[Paul C. Jesup]

DBeers: As to morally liberal positions like the one you and Paul seem to advocate

Let's make one thing clear, my opinions come from reason and logic of 'cause and effect'. These things liberals and you lack.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Mammalian reproductive biology is logical, it is self apparent (axiomatic).

[Paul C. Jesup]

Mammalian reproductive biology is logical, it is self apparent

That is broad statement in that you do not explain in what manner you are using the term biology and it has nothing to do with 'divorse' what so ever.

[bigsigh]

For the life of me I don't know why you keep trying to get and ignorant person like me to be as smart as you.

[DBeers]

Let's make one thing clear, my opinions come from reason and logic of 'cause and effect'.

A morally liberal position remains morally liberal regardless how [it] is derived... Pleading 'logic' is no saving grace and is tantamount to the millions of saddened leftists who plead a lack of 'critical thinking' when describing the masses that oppose the liberal agenda they would impose upon the USA.

[JCEccles]

What is the rational effect of two men copulating anally or orally? Apart from spreading disease, that is.

Why should everyone in society be forced to accept a marriage founded on male-male copulation as the rational and moral equivalent of traditional male-female child-rearing marriage?

What "logic" do you subscribe to, anyway?

[bigsigh]

I think you've really stepped in it. You are giving up equal access to government, pursuit of happeness, and freedom as liberal issues. That doesn't say much for what you think the real conservative position should be.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

... my opinions come from reason and logic of 'cause and effect'.

Homosexual monogamy is not logical, nor is it a cause or effect of mammalian reproductive biology, it is a sterile fetish cult...

Your opinions come from the toilet...

[bigsigh]

I suggest if you don't like marriage between men, don't marry one. See? How simple!

[bigsigh]

No actually what I'm doing is avoiding talking to dash for all the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread; his posts submitted in evidence.

[Paul C. Jesup]

A morally liberal position remains morally liberal regardless how [it] is derived...

I am talking about 'logic', not 'morality', you need to keep up with the class.

Morality is a subjective concept that has been argued over since the dawn of humanity, on the other hand logic in 'cause and effect' is as hard as concrete.

Logic is black and white/good and evil. Morality is shades of gray.

[DBeers]

I think you've really stepped in it. You are giving up equal access to government, pursuit of happeness, and freedom as liberal issues. That doesn't say much for what you think the real conservative position should be.

I think you are on a thread about homosexual 'marriage' and objectively you are advocating for homosexual 'marriage' -one aspect of the homosexualization of society... All your other moral relative arguments are flawed and quite transparent...