POLL: How Will Perry Hall Vote on Same-Sex Marriage?

Roni May 31, 2012 at 06:08 pm

Dan - Please define "ANY two people" further. I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Dan May 31, 2012 at 06:16 pm

Thank you for asking Roni. That's exactly the point, the re-definition is not explicit. It will be up for interpretation.

John May 31, 2012 at 06:17 pm

Paul,
My feeble mind can't grasp the concept of the universe or the big bang. It's hard to believe that since everything is infinite that it started with a finite event. What is the universe? Where does it end? There certainly must be some boundaries, somewhere right? I don't have the answers, but I know that they certainly aren't in the bible. My generalizations come from my personal experiences with people that claim to be "religious". I find that most of them are frauds and liars... Just my experiences. I'm smart enough to know that not everyone is like that, but from my experiences most of them are.

Paul May 31, 2012 at 06:20 pm

Genius points for FIFA. Write us a book sometime on your take on the origin of the universe. Please provide references.

Mark Patro May 31, 2012 at 06:21 pm

Dan, I am telling you what marriage means culturally. Of course it does not mean this in the law or we wouldn't need a Marriage Equlity law, and because conservatives redefined the definition in 1996 when they wrote DOMA (The defense of marriage act) before that time the law did not state that marriage was defined as the legal relationship between a man and a woman... So, my point is that the people who want to argue the legal definition should not be changed have already changed it. Isn't that the definition of hypocrisy?

Roni May 31, 2012 at 06:22 pm

Please provide "possibilities." ANY two people should be able to get married (if of legal age.) So you lost me. What is there to interpret?

Mark Patro May 31, 2012 at 06:27 pm

Dan, the law very explicitly defines what two individuals may and may not get married.
Read it for yourself. Scroll down to page 2: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/sb/sb0241f.pdf It would help if you knew what you were talking about instead of listening to other who do not and regurgitating those errors.

Paul May 31, 2012 at 06:34 pm

FIFA,
No one knows the origin of the universe. God is my answer to "how the matter got there in the beginning" since matter can be neither created or destroyed. If you consider that making up an answer, so be it. I assume you prefer to have no answer at all. Enjoy drifting through the cosmos.

Dan May 31, 2012 at 06:36 pm

Mark, your definition seems to be what you want marriage to mean. To me, marriage is between one man and one woman - which is what's included in the current definition of marriage.
As for the hypocrisy, No, I don't believe so, although I can only assume (or devote a chunk of time to research the why question) the reason was that lawmakers saw marriage as too implicit and put language in to protect it. I'm certainly no expert on law, and I could be wrong, but the majority of the changes to our laws seem to be focused on further restricting what's already enforced. Your proposed redefinition would be removing restrictions. My thoughts anyway. As for the bill you just posted a link to, this is exactly what we will be voting against. Please try not to insult me. I think that's fair. Roni, I don't have to provide any possibilities for you. The redefinition would be up to interpretation. You seem smart enough to think of a few.

Roni May 31, 2012 at 06:42 pm

Actually I can't Dan, which is why I asked. You said "Think of the possibilities" and all I can come us with is...
man marries woman man marries man woman married woman There's nothing left there to interpret.

Mark Patro May 31, 2012 at 06:50 pm

Dan first of all you can read my many responses to statements on this blog. You will learn that I never try to insult anyone. I am trying to point out that your side is saying that we are trying to change a definition and that we should do that. The implication, whether it is yours or not tries to insinuate that changing a definition is wrong. I am simply saying that "clarifying" a definition IS changing it. This is where the hypocrisy lies. I am not calling you a hypocrite which is why I did not use the work "you." I will not sink to that level.
And as far as as the link I posted it was in response to your comment about the definition not being explicit. I am stating that it is. the bill which is now law stipulates that a son may not marry his mother and it is changed to an individual may not marry the individual's mother. this means a daughter cannot marry her mother and a son may not marry his father, and it goes through many other possibilities. These restrictions were already in place the language is being changed to stipulate exactly who may not marry who. And as far as age goes that is written into other laws.

MM May 31, 2012 at 06:53 pm

Given the recent ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals, same sex marriages from other states should be recognized in Maryland. With that being the case all that will happen if the law is voted down in referendum will be to send couples down to DC to get married. This will cost Maryland money from marriages licenses, caterers, florists, etc.
Gay couples are already raising children, this is not going to stop. So voting against the law will only keep those children in families that are not as legally secure as others. Marriage is good for society, gay or straight, which is why the government encourages it. People who are married tend to be happier, healthier, and financially more secure. Which in the long run reduces the dependence on government programs and health care costs.

Jon May 31, 2012 at 08:01 pm

<i>BD said: If you read my post I did not say that homosexual couples are not loving. I am sure you can find instances of it. My point was that a loving father and a mother provide the best family unit.</i>
So, I'm going to get down to brass tacks here. There's NOTHING in this bill that changes any part of what you are talking about. Same sex couples can create a family today through a myriad of ways, regardless if this bill passes or not. Since that is the case, I don't see how your argument has any applicability here. What is the relationship between how you feel about the best environment to raise a family and the contents of this bill?

Jesse Date May 31, 2012 at 08:08 pm

Tim, I agree that the Church needs to stay out of government. The Church is a government entity of its own. However, religion won't ever stay out of government. I go to a Baptist church and I hear the message that Christ gave: love one another. And I certainly think that gays are great people and possibly quite capable of taking care of children. However, homosexuality in Abrahamic terms (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is considered to be a sin and I believe it. We were created to be with a member of the opposite sex. It is because God made us that way is why it is sacred to have a marriage of one man and one woman. In that regard, homosexuals do not have that sacred blessing and also cannot procreate. When it comes to the child, I believe that homosexuals are capable of loving a child as much as a married heterosexual couple is. But it's also in that duality that a balance is created in the home. You have the man, who is viewed as the tyrant ruler of the home. He is the king but as a proper father loves his kids and provides for them with all his heart. He teaches them about strength and looking out for your fellow man. The woman is softer. She teaches the values of loving one another and having an open mind. Introducing homosexual marriage into a child's life will bring confusion and questions into their life about who they are and where they stand. They'll want to know who their "true" parents are either to understand their choice or throw their hate at them.

Tim May 31, 2012 at 08:22 pm

Jesse: If we actually lived by the Bible, we'd still be in the dark ages.
I actually won't even argue that hetero couples in a happily married relationship are best equipped to raise children. However, this does NOT preclude same sex happily married couples from doing a similarly great job. It's just a bit tougher, I'd suspect. Sure, doing the whole surrogate thing (whether its surrogate womb or sperm) makes things complicated, but seriously folks. Who doesn't have a screwed up family in some way or another? Adopted kids may eventually be looking for their birth parents one way or the other. I find the refusal to allow kids to be adopted by a loving couple who have every intention to love, care, and raise them with proper values positively tragic. Additionally, backtracking half a step, we aren't even discussing child raising specifically. We're talking about the ability of two human beings who genuinely love one another to be legally married. Not married in a religious ceremony that would fly in the face of that Church's parishoners. On a semi-humorous tangent: How many religious overweight folks do you know who insist being homosexaul is a "choice", yet them being 30 lbs overweight is "genetic"?

Tim May 31, 2012 at 08:23 pm

Dan: It's a fair question. It's a real situation, and not unusual.
You can't bury your head in the sand. Well I mean, you CAN...but you know what I'm saying.

Mark Patro May 31, 2012 at 08:51 pm

Jon, if a gay man is going to have a relationship it will be with a man. That is the best relationship for him to be part of. If a lesbian is going to have a relationship it will be with a woman and that would aparently be the best relationship for her. IF either of these individuals chose to raise children with a partner it would be best for both of them to have a healthy and uplifting relationship before doing so. The best environment has nothing to do with the parents being a one man/one woman couple it has more to do with the loving environment in which the children are raised. Check the statistic, It appears to me that the children that do well from most perspectives are children raised by two lesbians, not by a heterosexual couple.

Bill Howard May 31, 2012 at 11:08 pm

@FIFA so you want to shut those churches up! Why not just arrest them for reading the Bible like they do in Scandonavia? Or do so at gun point like they did in Mexico in the 1920s? The left advocates freedom of expression and then goes and tells the church folks to shut up or else. Actually the church folk built and made this a great country. The other side is destroying it.
One last comment.......I go to church and I will never be shut up by you or any other anti-religeous biggots. May the Lord soften your heart and bless you.

Bill Howard May 31, 2012 at 11:16 pm

This feed is filled with the REAL prejudice here........anti-religeous bigotry that puts the opinions of people of faith in the cross hairs of those who want to demand that sins be celebrated.
However, this always happens before a civilization falls. This is why the Islamist feel assured that they can destroy and dominate our nation with-in a generation. I wonder how long Gay Marriage will last under the comming Sharia law?

Eric Martin June 1, 2012 at 02:09 am

First off, there is no civil right for anyone to get married. It is a privilege(like a driver's license) granted by the state in the societal interest of providing a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. Any two people, including homosexuals, can go get married right now. The difference is the recognition by the state of heterosexual marriage, as that is the only union that can procreate. It is the recognition that a male-female marriage is the best environment for raising those children that were created by that union. If the definition is changed simply to allow benefits to same-sex partners, that could be accomplished by a simple contract between the parties to provide those benefits. If marriage is viewed as a civil right under the law it opens a Pandora's Box of possible combinations which could involve incest between adult children and widowed parents or polygamy with multple wives and husbands. The slippery slope is a dangerous consequence of equating marriage as a civil right.

Tim June 1, 2012 at 04:29 am

Bill: Maybe that's because people' "faith" consistently involves oppressing others?
See, I'm not suggesting you not believe in whatever you choose to believe in, in your own private life. I have zero problem with people having whatever religious preferences they choose. It's another foundation of this country (along with Separation of Church and State) It's where this lack of logic affects public policy that I draw the line. The irony of all this, of course, is that the founders of this country were hardcore religious Puritans.

Tim June 1, 2012 at 04:34 am

Well done PH patch community. We actually made it 24 hours before someone brought out the epicly false "Slippery Slope/Pandora's Box" ol' standby.
That's progress.

Tim June 1, 2012 at 04:40 am

Latest Example:
http://www.kwch.com/kwch-news-ccd-ks-pastor-says-government-should-kill-gays-20120530,0,5097982.story

Al Carlson June 1, 2012 at 01:05 pm

I am stunned by the fact that this is such an issue. We have much, much bigger things to worry about. If I want to marry my refrigerator, I should be allowed and you should not worry about my little refrigo-human offspring and how they are going to turn out. What you should worry about is job creation, the economy and the fiscal situation this country is in. Get off of your pulpits, look at macro level issues and start to focus. I know a lot of you carry the anti-gay marriage flag because you think it's God's will. It is not - it is simply bigotry, hatred and a way for you to feel better about yourself. Wake up. This is not Afghanistan. This is not the 1950's.

Jae June 1, 2012 at 02:42 pm

Three simple words summarize the pathway of the new cultural "norms": Sodom and Gomorrah.

Brandon June 1, 2012 at 02:48 pm

Sodom & Gomorrah was about raping visitors to the village. It was not about loving gay relationships. If you are truly Christian you would know this. Stop spreading these hateful lies.

AllStar June 2, 2012 at 06:57 am

"Among the many blessings that God has showered upon us in Christ is the blessing of marriage, a gift bestowed by the Creator from the creation of the human race…It is a source of blessing to the couple, to their families, and to society and includes the wondrous gift of co-creating human life. Indeed, as Pope John Paul II never tired of reminding us, the future of humanity depends on marriage and the family." – U.S. Catholic Bishops, Pastoral Letter Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan

AllStar June 2, 2012 at 07:07 am

"...redefining marriage would threaten the civil right of religious freedom: it would compel everyone—even those opposed in conscience to same-sex sexual conduct—to treat same-sex relationships as if they represented the same moral good as marital relationships."

AllStar June 2, 2012 at 07:21 am

Unfortunately for you argument's sake, social issues like marriage and the family impact the economy greatly. Our tax money is being is being siphoned off at alarming rates to subsidize the vast numbers of out-of-wedlock children and single moms and dads. The damage to our economy and debt has been great and immeasurable. The acceptance of gay relationships in this country has already done a ton of damage to our nation. HIV and STDs in the gay community far outweigh the rates in the heterosexual community. Many with HIV end up on medical assistance so the tax payer gets the bill for tens of thousands of dollars of treatments for each individual who contracted HIV from their own immoral behavior. Taxpayers or businesses are also forced to foot the bill for hormone therapy for transsexuals and Viagra for homosexuals. This is all so unbelievably damaging to our nation.

DougW June 4, 2012 at 09:42 am

My bible has the word "Everyone" in John 3:16, not "Heterosexual".
There are churches that support the new law. http://www.stmarkscelebrates.org/welcome.htm is one, and there are many other Lutheran churches that agree.