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 ...
Yes, good point.
The anti ERA folks like Phyllis Schlafley were right.
Their efforts saved us from going the way of Canada. We'd have national gay marriage if ERA was in the US Constitution.
"Well, it's settled then! Let's just give up, kick back and embrace whatever obscenities the perverts decide to throw at us."
You know what is sad .... some people really think this way!
"Instead my point is that the culture has through No Fault Divorce and the trivialization of marriage via the mass media has established a institution of marriage that has little resemblance of its original intention."
Well, then ... FIX THAT PROBLEM instead of creating worse ones with gay marriage.
Phew, it's pretty nutty to think gay marriage will solve our no-fault divorce problems.
"If one accepts the general principle that marriage exists to give children a a stable structure within which to be born and reared to healthy adulthood, then gay marriage is clearly seen as a destructive repudiation and mockery of that principle."
Correct.
"It's my experience that much of the support for gay marriage at FR comes from socially immature single young men and women who don't buy into this general principle. I suspect it's because they view sex solely as recreation, an erotic all-senses-involved Play Station 2 game."
Possible. Another aspect to it is inculcation of Politically Correct viewpoints in schools etc. Nobody wants to be 'intolerant' where that means telling someone that what they want to do is something that shouldnt be validated. ie 'anything goes' becomes a virtue and any attempt to stand in the way a vice.
Secondly, don't agree to marry some one of the same sex as you.
Third, if your fiancee asks you to wear a dress, cancel the wedding.
I hope these tips have been of some help for those of you under attack by two queers who want to get married to each other.
You cannot see at all, blinded by your desire to pervert nature and truth.
The “birds and bees,” or mammalian reproductive biology, is too complex an issue for you... so is the natural law.
You are not at liberty in life to do as you please in regard to natural law or the laws of man (i.e., the U.S. Constitution, of which, you haven't a shred of a clue). We have the right to restrict your ‘pursuit of happiness,’ as it may infringe upon ours.
Furthermore, preternatural human pursuits cannot be reconciled with the natural law. Babies are not made in those fashions and the laws of man recognize this in most civilized places of the world.
If not, then the law means nothing and I can freely enforce my will and take my turn upon you as your king.
It wouldn't.
As would neither any other sham, farcical or pretend "marriage" prevent a man and a woman from entering into marriage.
Marriage has been recognized socially and culturally as between opposite sexes for at least all of recorded history.
It is given special status because of its unique role in the propagation and continuity of society.
No other relationship is comparable.
To redefine it to suit some sexually confused individuals demeans and dishonors marriage.
Trust our ancestors and Nature. Get with the program.
Let these "gay" people fight for their own union, call it 'pairriage' or whatever else they would like to name it but they can't have marriage.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right, a public act and a matter of public record - - the public has a right to restrict it by statute, as we do with a statutory license...
"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).
Now if you want to argue the Michael Jackson advocacy in defense of statutory rape, or that he should be able to marry that poor little kid, go somewhere else to do it... you are on the same page as he is...
Heterosexuals who can't reproduce are allowed to get married. So spare us the sanctimonius dribble about the purpose of marriage.
This will be my last post to you because you are often irrationa and a spin master.
I just wanted to point out that your first reply was illogical and factually incorrect. It is my hope that some day you will clear your head and think about what you are saying.
It's been going on since Cain and Able.
Nothing new, just a different front in the same war that's lasted thousands of years. A flair-up now and again. Actually, things are rather quiet now compared to 60 or 70 years ago. Enjoy the interlude.
See post 78.
I find it hypocritical that some freepers want to save marriage by not allowing homos to marry but they don't want dicorce outlawed.
The big question from an electoral point of view is--Can a Marriage Protection amendment be put on the ballot in Maryland and voted on in November of 2006?
No, they cannot. It takes a strictly heterosexual union to do that (i.e., penis and vagina, sperm and ovum), the evidence is axiomatic.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
It is my hope that some day you will clear your head and think about what you are saying.
You are a sophist... clear the fecal matter from your head because your mind is in a porcelain bowl. You are not much different than Michael Jackson...
You are wrong. The homosexual monogamy advocacy is an illogical premise to begin with... both in terms of biology and in law...
Did you actually read my entire post, or just stop halfway in the first sentence?
You have taken hold of a tar baby.
(sarcasm) I'm glad I put on my hazmat suit first.
Good luck!
I like the way he used "homosexual monogamy advocacy" as if that was a bd thing. Seems to me that would improve public health and save me some tax dollars.
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.