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.

[DBeers]

My position is that you and Paul C. Jesup are advocating for homosexual 'marriage' which I oppose and is one aspect of the homosexualization of society that I also oppose. It ids clear that the judge acted against the will of the people in this case and I suggest that only liberals like the ACLU that advocate the homosexualization of society would disagree...

It is my understanding that such liberal positions are not entertained on FR let alone given space to debate:

You may be on the wrong Forum? 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.

However, this is just my opinion. I again state my opinion and refer the 'debate' which I also oppose to the moderator as only the moderator can put an end to the 'debate'...

[JCEccles]

Gasp! Straw man argument? You're not suggesting that Paul C. Jesup would use anything but rigorous logic, do you?

Then again, he has no difficulty redefining words (such as monogamy) to mean anything he wants them to mean. I don't know why he would bother limiting himself to rigorous logic.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Ping all the veteran FReepers on the H/A pinglist to your post. Its time to take a stand.

[bigsigh]

Be careful, if you base marriage on need. I was very needy and my wife was very gracious. LOL.

[bigsigh]

I am advocating for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happeness. I am advocating for equal access to gevernment for adult taxpayers.

Because you can't respond to this you are trying to paint us as anti-FR and liberal.

I think it's clear which position is actually more conservative and american and which of us has run out of argument.

[bigsigh]

And your call to the moderator to end the debat speaks for itself.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I stated that 'morality' is subjective in that it individually deals with each person's own 'moral' code of right and wrong.

No you did not, you said this:

Morality is shades of gray.

Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.

Like the pagan pantheons of gods, individual interpretations of “morality” are just as illogical and meaningless.

[little jeremiah]

My, my, the homosexual apologists are out in full force on this thread.

Whining about homophobes being against allowing homosexuals the protection of marriage so they can be monogamous instead of rutting around in public bathrooms and bath houses is nothing but lying propaganda. Pretending that a homosexual pairing can be a marriage, equivalent to a man and a woman, is a ploy to destroy marriage. The homosexual propaganda talking point that "why do gay people marrying affect YOUR marriage?" is nothing but crap.

It is obvious to anyone who isn't a shill for the "gay" agenda that calling same sex sodomy "marriage" does indeed cheapen and further destroy actual marriage, just like counterfeit money devalues real money.

And it is undeniable that children do much, MUCH better being raised by their natural father and mother who are married than in any other arrangement. And kids who are raised by homosexuals have terrible difficulties. The more "gay" so-called marriage is pushed, the more kids are adopted or otherwise obtained by homosexuals. These trophy children are nothing but guinea pigs in a terrible social experiment.

The homosexual promoters on FR ought to go to the Clown Posse where they will fit right in.

Moderator: Why are homosexual promoters allowed free rein on FR lately?

[Barnacle]

Well the reason stated that people are against 'gay marriage' is because it threatens the institution of the marriage between a man and a woman.

So I asked the question of how the 'gay marriage' movement prevents a man and woman from getting married.

I find your logic a bit hard to follow here. First, you state a fact, "people are against 'gay marriage' is because it threatens the institution of the marriage between a man and a woman."

Then you make make a leap to the question of, "how the 'gay marriage' movement prevents a man and woman from getting married."

"Prevention" is not a prerequisite to "threaten".

Non sequitur extraordinaire.

[DBeers]

And your call to the moderator to end the debat speaks for itself.

You are correct. Conservatism -out in the open for all to see. It is those that advocate the homosexualization of society that should crawl back into the moral liberal darkness from whence they came. There is no compromise with the homosexual agenda.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

I am advocating for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happeness.

No. You're advocating the unwholesome deviant perverted behavior of homosexuality under the guise of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You are perverting what the constitution stands for to defend perverted reprobates who want to play house and sodomize each other and demand that activists judges force the rest of society who doesn't consent to accept it as normal.

[bigsigh]

my, my the anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-pursuit of happeness ping list is waking up. And they're playing the mod card because they can't win on the merits.

[bigsigh]

You mind reader you. All along I thought I knew what I was advocating and you came along and corrected it. Thanx.

BTW Einstein. Those ideas were in the declaration not the constitution. Have someone explain it to you.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

And your call to the moderator to end the debat speaks for itself.

He wasn't calling for the end of debate, but for the ejection of a left wing homo activist troll...

[little jeremiah]

Total crap and you know it. Your mindless trotting out of liberal gay-speak propaganda is out of place on FR. No one can figure out why you and your pals are given free rein to spew homo talking points here.

I posted to the Mod so that hopefully s/he will clean up this thread from shills for the "gay" agenda.

[bigsigh]

However, this is just my opinion. I again state my opinion and refer the 'debate' which I also oppose to the moderator as only the moderator can put an end to the 'debate'..."

How many times will you be wrong on the same thread and what's your record?

[bigsigh]

You wrongly misrepresent my position again. I don't support that or any agenda. I support the freedoms I have expressed. You continue to put gay marriage and children's issues together because it's the only way you can consistently bash taxpaying citizens who are homosexual. You can name call all you want, but your pitch has become a mere whine with a geek chorus to back you up.

The owner has a choice. He can let us debate this or he can be stuck with you and your rants. It's his call as usual.

Now, did you have something coherent to add?

[little jeremiah]

What's really revealing about your promotion of homosexual marriage is that the only reason it's being debated at all is because of judicial fiat shoving "gay" marriage and other aspects of the homosexual agenda down everyones' throats. Let people vote on it and the entire homosexual agenda is DOA.

So you and the other homosexual agenda promoters want big government, especially power mad judges, to force the "gay" agenda down everyones' throats whether they want it or not. You are the big government nanny staters, not us.

[JCEccles]

Homosexual marriage is a liberal goal, central to the liberal identity and ideology. It is part and parcel of the humanist manifesto, which was concocted and penned by flaming communists. It is not and never has been associated with conservatism notwithstanding Goldwater's idiosyncratic conversion to gay rights in the closing years of his senility.

For you to turn this truth on its head is to assert that Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and the nutcases at DU are political conservatives. Incredible!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

My point was there's absolutly no constitutional right to perversion. And there's damn sure no constitutional right for you to advocate perversion here on FR.