Let gays marry. No reason to make just straight married men suffer.

Sad day for gay families, sad day for Maryland.

Jeez, I used to be proud to live in progressive MD; this is the first time I've had to read in the paper that the state I live in really doesn't believe I deserve equal rights. Next step? Show the way and I will follow...

Thank goodness. At least Maryland's Court of Appeals has retained some conservatism and moral sense.

My heart goes out to gay people in Maryland. I'm ashamed that our courts feel that they can basically tell you who you can and cannot be with. Sad day.

If gays can't get married in a state named Maryland, they're pretty much out of luck.

"Our laws should reflect what is best for children, not what is best for adults," she said.
Sheesh. Is she admitting that same-sex marriage is what is best for adults? If "our laws should reflect what is best for children," then we should have parent-qualification laws that would prevent mentally ill, drug and alcohol addicted, violent adults, to say nothing of religious fanatics, from having chldren.

"...State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure...."

Rest assured, when courts note they're preserving "tradition," they're rationalizing some brand of discrimination.

I agree that we need more Family Values in America. Let me paint a picture for you. I am a CPA and my wife is a teacher. We just celebrated our 13th anniversary. I work full-time to support her and our four children. We decided that she would be a stay-at-home mom last year when our twin girls were born. We pay our taxes, attend church, don't use drugs, are involved in community activites, socialize and watch out for our neighbors and IMHO are downright good, law-abiding Amercian citizens. We are trying to instill good ole' American values in our children - work hard, do unto others as they would do unto you, etc. This is what this country needs.

Oh, by the way, I am a female CPA and my wife, well, she's not legally my wife, but we've been in a committed, monogomous, loving relationship for 13 years so I do consider her my wife. The problem is we can't marry so we don't have the same, not special, but the same protections as straight couples do. All we want is to protect each other and our family. We don't want to pay an inheritenance tax on the same house we live in and share if one of us dies, we want to have access to insurance, and we don't want to worry about a homophobic nurse kicking us out of the hospital room because we're not "family". To those out there that think this doesn't happen, it does. I had to show a nurse the adoption papers to convince her that my partner and I were both legally our son's mothers so we could both visit him in the NICU. It sickens me to hear conservatives go on and on about Family Values. I have great family values. How about you?

Lets get this straight. First the court are telling you anything about what u can or can not do, the people you voted into office are. The courts are simply saying, there is nothing unconstititional about the law that was created. It's not the courts fault that people we voted into office, as well as the overwhelming majority of people in probably 49 or 50 states, don't approve of the idea of gay marriage. If you don't like it, get these people out of office, and vote for someone who supports your views.
I for one could care less either way, while I am disturbed by gay marriage, and prefer that homosexuality not exist at all, I'm pretty sure that when we constantly throw out the word freedom in this country wd dont just mean freedom for the majority, but freedom for all, even those we disagree with.

Maryland: Keeping Its Citizens Ready for the 19th Century.

William wrote: "Thank goodness. At least Maryland's Court of Appeals has retained some conservatism and moral sense."

You have very twisted "morals" if you think oppressing your fellow citizens and relegating them to second-class citizenship is righteous. It's wrong, and future generations will look back with astonishment that common sense, equal rights and fairness were so misunderstood in this era. Do you know what will change when gays have equal marriage rights? *Nothing* at all. It's just a matter of time, so opponents of human rights and equality under the law in "the Land of the Free" (what a joke) are just wasting their time. Why do you care what kind of legal arrangements people you don't even know make? Your family and marriage is threatened how, exactly? Obviously, many gay people are pro-family. That's the whole point of this struggle and it's actually a "conservative" value. SHAME on the anti-family bigots who hurt families and children with their hateful and oppressive anti-gay ideology.

This decision continues the pattern of marriage discrimination that has kept same-sex couples and their families from attaining the rights and responsibilities of marriage that many heterosexual couples take for granted.

Wow, think about all those gay people who moved from VA to MD thinking they were going to get married one day. There's always MA. Wonder how thye decide which one's the husband and which one's the wife?

This decision breaks my heart. I had put such hope in our court system to recognize that my partner and I deserve the same basic human decency as straight couples do. Silly me.

Very disappointing. But, at the end of the day, this is a setback that will eventually be overturned by legislation. It may not happen today; it may not happen next week; but the time will come - perhaps in the next decade or the one following - where equality will rule the day.

The court got it right. The ACLU is notorious for using a legal strategy that circumvents our legislative system because that's the only way their cases can slide through the system. Americans and the ACLU do not see eye to eye.

Thank you,

James

Cute, Stick. Isn't mindless oppression hilarious? Doesn't it bring such joy to your heart to deny your fellow citizens the rights and privileges you and I enjoy?

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

One day, we as a nation will be ashamed of this era and the pointless injustice cheered on by people like you. Shame on you.

I would just like to reply to Stick's posting. I can completely understand that some individuals have a moral objection to gay marriage and I can respect that. What I have a hard time understanding is the humor that you seem to see in this situation. I hope that you understand that there are a lot of people in genuine pain over this. Whether you approve of their lifestyle or not, I don't EVER find someone else's pain to be funny or an appropriate target for jokes.

I agree with the majority of the posters (and assume the opposition isn't capable of accessing the internet due to the fact that it doesn't fit into their 'biblical worldview'---thank 'whoever' for that). Why would anyone ever think that denying equal rights to ALL americans is justified? How do they live with the cognitive dissonance that must allow them to think this way.

Stop the pathetic attempts to spin this. Gay people are free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like me. The same freakin' rights apply, OK?? No one is "oppressing" them. Unfortunately for them, gays make up a tiny percent of the population and are simply not going to be able to turn the world on its ear to advance their "cause." They are basically a "special interest group." You know, just like the ones that we despise on Capital Hill. People are tired of having to suck up to special interest groups and having their lives affected by them. I shudder to think what health care costs would be like for the the majority of people if gays, with the stigma of AIDS forever attached to them, were allowed to legally marry. Insurers would have a field day raising rates to compensate for the dramatically increased risk. Many people already can't afford it. And the impact to health care costs is just ONE example. The "right" to wave a freak flag ends right at my wallet.

Homosexuality is the alternative option when heterosexuality does not work for an individual. I don't think that anyone would deny that. As such, people have been voting in a way that rejects any notion that the two lifestyles are equivalent. That is not an attack on gays, but on the obviously false presumption that homosexuality is just another stop on the normal path of an average person's sexual experiences.

I cannot say how any of this should be reflected in marriage laws. Quite frankly, I really do not care. I have not heard any good arguments for allowing homosexual marriage other than "it's not fair not too", "hetero couples are screwed up too, so where's the harm", or "a few of us are good parents", and the classic "you can't tell people whome to love" as if the state really cared at all about love when it issued marriage licenses. An average homosexual marriage would NOT be the same as a heterosexual one, and many of the public policy concerns embodied in marriage laws, for example survivorship rights (e.g. the care and maintenance of minor children), would have to be seriously reevaluated. You don't just snap your fingers capriciously because a small group of people feel unloved.

The laws still would have to be created by the legislature. The court was merely determining whether a current statute was unconstitutional or not, if I am reading this correctly. As such, the ACLU could not have been circumventing the legislature. The legislature can still pass a law - now, it just faces an uphill battle, as this decision will have to be overturned in order for any law the legislature passes be deemed constitutional.

As Maryland has in place an ERA, the court was incorrect; to not allow people the same rights as others under the law is not equal protection under the law. Its a shame the judiciary cannot step aside from its political leanings to actual interpret the words of the consitution.

Hey Realist,

If they really want to make a difference in Maryland, they will start to require IQ tests before marriage to keep complete morons like you from reproducing.

Stick wrote: "Wonder how thye decide which one's the husband and which one's the wife?"

Gee, I don't know. But I imagine it's similar to the process you'd employ to make such weighty decisions as whether to watch NASCAR or pro wrestling.

You don't have to be a lawyer, much less a Court of Appeals judge, to understand that this decision was made not on law but on personal views and opinions. There is no rational legal basis for upholding this law. I had planned on staying in my home state of Maryland my entire life, but this is infuriating. Massachusetts can have my income tax instead.

Realist,

For one thing, your argument that I could marry a man just like you can is the same one that was struck down in Loving vs. Virginia. People had the right to marry someone of their same race, whether they were white or black. It was still discrimination. I face sex discrimination when I apply for a marriage license with my partner and get turned down solely on the basis that I am female. Why is this not clear to you?

As far as how much it would cost you, what - you think insurance companies have never heard of AIDS? That they don't cover any gay people now? Good heavens. Get educated... The only difference would be that employers would have to extend partner benefits to the partners of gay employees, too - which would not have any kind of effect on your precious wallet.

Your right to make laws affecting my life stops when you don't have a rational basis for it.

Still wondering what business the State has in marriage. If you want sense, which will not happen anytime soon, the State should only handle the civil union part. That would be between any two people who wish it. Contractual, if you will.

Marriage is a religous commitment, which should be handled on its own. You should be able to have the first without the second getting in the way. The fact that my 'church' would not recognize a _marriage_ has nothing to do with their commitment.

When I married we had two ceremonies, a civil, performed by a judge, and a religous, performed by a Rabbi. And just to reinforce the difference, if we only had the religous ceremony, the state would not have considered us married.

How does letting people commit to each other hurt me, or "the children"? It is interesting that a majority of studies show more divorces in states that scream that they are "pro-marriage" than in states that try to have equality for all.

If the State wants to do this "for the children" it should get out of the marriage business.

Joe Schmoe has lived up to his name with his cockamamie analysis ... it is a piddling, unsophisticated rant. I don't care if Joe Schmoe, or any other Schmoe, does not love me. What I am concerned about is being able to share the same rights with my partner as Dick and Mary.

"Homosexuality is the alternative option when heterosexuality does not work for an individual. I don't think that anyone would deny that."

I deny that. What an asinine premise. Straight people who are unlucky in love don't just "snap [their] fingers capriciously" and turn gay.

The anti-gay ignorance on display in this discussion thread is truly astonishing.

JoeSchmoe and Realist, your arguments are full of paper tigers. "with the stigma of AIDS forever attached" - WTF? Is that a clumsy way to try to say all homosexuals have HIV? Lesbians have lower rates of HIV than straight African Americans. Should marriage by African Americans be banned?

The ruling is a set back, but let's actually read it. It is simply saying that they cannot find grounds for considering a current law unconstitutional, but that "our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions"

The court's logic makes no sense to me. Can anyone explain this?

The decision seems to say that denying gay marriage is a way to make sure children are born and raised in straight marriages.

Does allowing gay marriage stop heterosexuals from getting married and raising children? No, it doesn't

Does denying gay marriage stop gay couples from having and raising children? No it doesn't.

How does the issue of gay marriage have any effect on how children are raised and it what families? The only effect it has is that by denying gay marriage, you dent the children of gay couples of the benefits that the children of straight couples enjoy.

It cannot be discrimination if any person can marry any other person of the opposite sex who is not a child, parent, or other close family member and who is not already legally married.

If they are not of the opposite sex, then it is not a marriage and the point is now moot, so says the Supreme Court of the State of Maryland.

And you know that the legislature will never pass a law to support "same-sex marriage."

Hey, did anyone else notice that CAC in Takoma Park is advocating Eugenics? Someone should let CAC know that they Third Reich ended back in 1945 and its racial policies ended with it!

Men pretending to be women
Women pretending to be men
Pretend 'marriages'
Pretend 'families'
Why do the rest of us have to agree to
a fantasy?

I am so shattered. I wanted to marry my partner of eight years; we've built a life together in our town and all I wanted was to be able to be married like all our friends. To know that he'd be taken care of by survivors' benefits, that we could hold joint title to our house without tax penalties, to know that we could visit each other in hospital without having to beg permission. And now the unelected Court tells me that we may not, that the discrimination and disadvantage I am under is not bad enough, or real enough, for them to help me and I should throw myself on the mercy of the legislature and ask them nicely to make me an equal citizen.

I can't express how angry and hurt I am that my family is not valued by the courts. If you disagree, if you feel all well and good about it, then just try to put yourself in my shoes. Did you ask to be heterosexual? Do you remember the day you evaluated all your options and decided to be attracted to and one day marry an opposite sex person? Or was that natural to you, your attraction and love directed only one way from your earliest awakening of interest, was your attraction as much a part of you as your eyes and skin? And now imagine that being called sick, or not as healthy as others' attractions...wouldn't you feel 'unloved' -- or worse -- like a throw-away person of little value, a second-class citizen, illegitimate, not quite as good, slightly unworthy? And how can you call that 'all well and good?'

JoeSchmoe:

Thank you for highlighting the fact that people who don't support equality under the law simply don't understand the issues. Your assumption that homosexuality is a choice is clearly false. Ask any gay person whether they made the choice to be gay. Wouldn't they know better than you whether it's a choice? You are just using that to continue the oppression of gay people and the continuation of their second-class citizenship in this country. It's tired and transparent, and it doesn't fool anybody. Nor does the bizarrely ignorant comment that gay people are free to marry people who they don't want to marry. Gay people are not the majority, but that doesn't mean homosexulaity is not a normal aspect of human sexuality. Most people don't have red hair, either. Does that mean they're abnormal? Stop obsessing about the sex and start thinking about human beings.

Why can straight couples who can't or don't want children be "allowed" to marry according to your standards? Are you aware there are over 1,000 rights and privileges that come with civil marriage? Why would you want to deny that to hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding American citizens? Why do they have fewer rights than convicted felons? What's in it for you? I really don't understand why you oppose something that would only affect people who happen to be gay, and it would only make their union and families stronger and more protected.

Finally, while obviously public opinion is changing and for young people it's just not a big issue, in a democracy, people shouldn't be allowed to vote on the civil rights of others. Should interracial marriage not have been legalized when the majority opposed it?

These are your fellow citizens. Stop oppressing them and being in denial about how you are hurting them.

Realist would, of course, scream oppression loudly if the situation were exactly reversed and everyone was allowed to have only a same-sex spouse.

If the State's best interest is for me to get Married and pro create, then is it not also in their best interest to provide a living wage and health insurance and provide all that is necessary for that family to flourish?

What really bothers me most about these supreme court decisions that have come down lately is that they all seem to use "children" as the reason for allowing discrimination.

If you take the Maryland decision as a sample, it seems to be that Maryland would also be able to make it illegal for any non married woman to have a child. Under their same logic, it would be best for the children to only be born and raised in opposite sex married families. So, it should be constitutional to deny any non married woman the right to give birth to a child. I guess it would be constitutional in Maryland to either force unmarried women to use contraceptives. Or, to immediately take a child born to an unmarried woman and put it up for adoption to a married couple.

Another Marylander wrote: "Someone should let CAC know that they Third Reich ended back in 1945 and its racial policies ended with it!"

That has nothing to do with the issue, but please learn about the Nazi treatment of gay people and then get back to us. Should we end the policies of the Third Reich or not? Opponents of gay rights are no different than Nazis or the Taliban. Their excuses for this mindless oppression is exactly the same and will be defeated.

David Adams, my life is quite real, I assure you. I'm not pretending to be a woman, either--I am very much a man. I'm certainly more of a man than someone who hides behind his keyboard to denigrate his fellow citizens.

Marriage equality will have to be legislated and eventually it will. I support giving any two consenting human adults the right to enter into the state sponsored contract we call marriage. But then, I thought it was OK for Catholics to marry Protestants, so, I guess I'm just some sort of wild libertine.

Well, it just reaffirms what I always thought about Maryland when I was growing up in the Northeast - it's a backwards redneck state - at least a decade behind on racial equality. Why should this be any different. Too bad for all the businesses that could have benefited from this - and good for the economies of other states that will sell weddings to people regardless of the color of their money.

This isn't as big a defeat for homosexuals as many here seem to think just an invitation to lobby through the state legislature. Keep in mind that which is decided by the courts often becomes a culture war issue and any rights established by it will be continually under attack while that which is established by statute is usually much more difficult to overturn.

Paul,

Shattered is a good word for it. Me too. I just married my partner on Sept. 1st (after 5 years together) and I was so hoping that we could make it legal. But no, the court would rather accept an appeal so full of holes you could drain spaghetti in it than do their jobs and make an unpopular, but constitutional, STAND on a civil rights issue.

The State's legislature made the law. The court backed it up. If a minority population group wants special preference, they shouldn't expect it just because they want it - or that it seems right to them. Guess what? you're in the minority - get used to folks not agreeing with you (especially when your proclivities run afoul of nature).

I was beginning to think we were insane to even consider this for discussion. We can't change that you are Gay. Do as you please, but don't force society to change the will of nature. You have to answer to your maker in the end. ITS WRONG. Hopefully we can move on to other issues like WAR, EDUCATION and POVERTY now.

Finally some sanity in this cesspool of a state.

Some Idiot,

The rights of a minority should not be up for a vote by the majority. The fact is, our constitution should prevent this gender discrimination (yes, it is gender discrimination: two kinds. One - every man that applies to marry a man will be denied, while a woman would be approved. Two - every woman that applies to marry a woman will be denied, while a man would be approved. Two cirumstances, two instances of gender discrimination, one law). But the courts are too chickensh*t to do what's right for MY children, since a lot of people think my family isn't good enough.

Well, it's quite clear from reading these posts that people who SUPPORT equal rights for gays use reason with a strong sense of freedom and fairness, while people who OPPOSE equality use only fearmongering, stereotypes and hysteria over change.

I haven't read anything remotely convincing about why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Nothing. It's all just bigotry. Sad.

JV,

Yeah, those interracial couples should have just shut up and not asked for special preference, either.

Tom Rivers,

Please do prove to us that civil marriage is the "will of nature". Yes, those other issues are important too, but my civil rights are being trampled on and that kinda irks me, ya know?

The ignorance on display in many of the comments here about homosexuality (such as the one that says gays are straight people who've failed at it) proves one thing - our education system has failed.

But then, this the religious in this country are blinded by their faith, the only science they seem to believe in is gravity, I shouldn't be surprised.

Karen, there is nothing unnatural about interracial marriage. And about your civil "rights" being trampled, I'll reiterate; having a "feeling" that you should have the "right" to something is not the same as "having" the right. IOW - you want the right, and you want others to agree with you. Well many of us don't. Does that mean I/we think you're less of a person? No - it just means that marriage should only be an arrangement between a man and a woman.

Go ahead, let homosexuals marry and (attempt to) procreate... they'd be gone in one generation because it simply isn't natural. This is an UNNATURAL behavior simply evidenced by the design of the human body and further by all of human history.

Hey, "simple truth" - I seriously hope none of your kids are gay. It would really suck to have such a bigot for a parent.

On the one hand: you can't get married.
On the other hand: you're not being tied to a fence rail. Gays act like they've had something taken away from them. Exactly when did the info that you can't marry each other become news to you? It's tradition in a Judeo-Christian country. We let you guys out of the closet, now this.

P.S.

I'm gay, and my parents were straight. So your argument that we'd all be gone in one generation is just plain dumb.

P.P.S.

I am pregnant. Donor sperm. Does that scandalize you?

To JV:

Equal marriage rights are not "special preference," and in a free democracy, minority groups should be protected from what de Toqueville called "the tyranny of the majority." (Not that the the anti-equality crowd understands freedom or democracy.)

You are simply saying it's okay to deny minority groups equal rights because they are not the majority. And if they simply demand all the rights YOU have, then you dismiss it by pretending it's "special rights". But you are wrong. Thankfully, the next generation overwhelmingly supports equal rights for gay Americans. So you won't be able to hide behind that false sense of justification for long.

Hey Stick,

Thanks, really, a thousand thanks for not tying us to fence rails. Thanks for 'letting me out of the closet' by 'allowing' me to have parents who trust me when I say "I didn't choose this, and I'm fine, really."

Who said it was news? Miscegenation laws weren't news to Loving and Loving's fiancee, either. The traditions of Judeo-Christianity have zero bearing on the US Constitution and its guarantees of equal protection.

Abolish marriage rights. It's discriminatory against single people. I live with a friend, and we care about each other and pool our resources. Why should we be less entitled to rights than a gay couple? Because we're straight? "Marriage rights" is nothing more than an arbitrary decision that certain people are entitled to X & Y benefits. Why a man and a woman? Why "two people who love each other"? Why not three people who just happen to get along? And don't give me some line about committment in this day and age of easy divorce. And don't give me some line about the committed gay relationships out there, because there are some, but they sure as heck break up just like straight people too.

William: This case may be many things, but it's not a victory for conservative values. A true conservative would be horrified at the thought of the government telling people they can't marry. It's a shame, really. The far freaky right has stolen the word 'conservative' and has basically bastardized it almost beyond recognition.

Scott G (Ashburn VA) is more likely to be friends with Larry Craig. And a special triple-tap to you, Tom.

We Bestialists were born this way. There should not be a reason that we shouldn't be allowed to marry sheep. End the oppression of Bestialists everywhere. We and our Fur Friends are not second class citizens and we demand our rights.

Farm animals need loving too.

Hey simple TRUTH,

Maybe gay people can just adopt the millions of abandoned, abused and neglected children "NATURALLY" created by us heterosexuals. Problem solved.

Realist:

Actually, gay marriage would encourage monogamy, which would help reduce AIDS rates.

As for gays having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, you can't be serious with that argument. Would you be happy being told you could only marry someone of the same sex? Why not? You'd be equal to gays, wouldn't you?

'i have the answer':

You're right to a point. Except that our family and estate laws are geared toward *two-person* sets, and provisions aren't made for the contract to be between more than two people. This causes practical issues that are not encountered when the contract is opened up to same-sex pairs (it's already open to you and your friend, assuming neither of you is married and you're opposite sex - no law says you must be in love.)

Not that it's not insurmountable, but it is a consideration. Same-sex marriage is actually an *easier* answer.

Oh, and to the lovely "bestialist" -

As soon as you find a sheep that has the ability to enter into contracts and consent to marriage and/or sex, you come find me and I'll lobby for your right to have sex with/marry it.

The bottom line is that each generation gets to define the laws under which they live. And you may be right that the next generation may allow for gay marriage - but maybe they won't. Does that mean that we're bigots if we believe that gay marriage is wrong? - maybe you think so. But understand this, I don't hate gays, and I certainly don't want gays to suffer any more than they already have. But I also have to vote my conscience - just as you do. Regards.

Goanna Humpa wrote: "We Bestialists were born this way. There should not be a reason that we shouldn't be allowed to marry sheep. End the oppression of Bestialists everywhere. We and our Fur Friends are not second class citizens and we demand our rights. Farm animals need loving too."

Why are you saying these things? Nobody is talking about marrying animals, or trees or anything like that. We are talking about two consenting adults, American citizens and HUMAN BEINGS marrying the person of their choice. I'm sure you're trying to be inflamatory, but you've only proven...again...that you have no legitimate opposition to gay marriage.

Today, there are people crying over this decision. It directly affects their lives.

Had the ruling gone the other way, how many tears would have been shed, other than tears of joy?

This is a stomach punch. Good people suffer when the laws are unjust.

I'll believe that marriage is for procreation only right after all states pass a bill saying if you fail to pump out a kid in the first two years of marriage you get your marriage dissolved.

Otherwise, that argument is pretty much BS. Much like all the other arguments against gay marriage.

But, hey, I'm open to suggestion here. If you want to deny me the benefits of marriage, then how about giving me back my taxes? You know, the ones that go to support all the programs and government protections available only to straight married couples.

While I sympathize with the desires of gay people to have officially recognized unions (my brother is gay), I nonetheless agree with the above posts that you do not establish a "right" simply by wanting something. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuals are a small minority, and the sexual aspect of it does make a lot of people uncomfortable. Your advocates and the ACLU are painting themselves into a corner by persuing over-aggressive tactics that simply try to smear anyone opposed as "bigoted" or "intolerant". Rather than try to convince anyone of the purported correctness of your stance, you just look down your noses at others as some sort of uncultured redneck louts (who are, of course, resisting your efforts because THEY think YOU are immoral). Here's a classic example from this very discussion thread:

"Opponents of gay rights are no different than Nazis or the Taliban. Their excuses for this mindless oppression is exactly the same and will be defeated."

This is a great tactic. Everyone knows that all internet debates are won by the first side to accuse the other of being Nazis. You would be better served by actually coming up with a cohesive, persuasive argument as to why gay marriage - an entirely new social and legal construct - is appropriate, rather than just call it a "right" that its opponents are too stupid/intolerant/evil to acknowledge as such. It's also interesting how people who press for such "rights" also often want to remove actual, literal constitutional rights such as the 2nd amendment, but that's another thread entirely.

Sorry,

If I offended anybody, "Karen". This is my opinion only mine. My beliefs are not with a majority just myself. This is just something that is not important to me. I do wish that your children are not taunted and ridicule for the choices that you have made. One thing you must know children sometimes are very mean to other children. I would hate for your children to suffer for the choices that you made. Know matter how you or others claim this is something about equal rights its not, this is your kind trying to change the beliefs and ways of others. Have a good life.

I agree with corbett. This discussion is full of ignorant attacks on gays. The assumption that all gays are HIV positive, that all gays are pretending to be women, or that they are a special interest group.

The most amazing pattern is that comments made by gays directed at the fact that there are no equal rights for an estimated 4.6 million people in this country. The response from those that uphold the court ruling, however, is just a personal attack on gays.

Why is that in this country a man and a woman can get drunk, wake up married and have all benefits of a married couple, while a gay couple can live together for decades without even getting automatic visitation rights in the hospital, not to mention tax breaks and other financial benefits.

And please don't jump to biblical defenses about gay amorality, because if I recall the non-virgin brides were not exactly looked well upon in the bible. For that matter neither were the people who have adulterous thoughts, however, it is perfectly acceptable for married man to oggle a pretty girl who walks by.

I guess I just think it's ridiculous to attack a group that simply wants equal treatment without taking anything away from other groups.

I don't get it. Why do so many people hate gays and lesbians? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us?

Shawn,

No, you don't have to "vote your conscience". This is a false notion. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, don't do it. My conscience tells me eating meat is wrong. However, I would not vote to make eating meat illegal if such a question were ever put to me on a ballot - nor would I ask my legislators to vote that way. It's a matter of freedom - yours to eat meat, mine not to. Me to marry someone of the same sex, you to marry someone of the opposite sex. My church to bless my civil marriage, your church not to.

Actually, I'm just trying to be funny, but it's really a tough house out there today. I hope that gays can some day get a real sense of humor about themselves that's a little more thick-skinned than Will and Grace.

As for those who want to limit marriage to humans, well, what about Pedophiles and Necrophiliacs. Parents are able to enter into contracts for their kids and the objects of the Necrophiliac's affection could enter into a contract at one point. Certainly, the next of kin can.

What about the rights of children to the benefits of marriage?. Example -- not losing their home when what partner dies because the other can't afford the inheritance taxes?

GayMafia, what justification is there for heterosexual couples to marry? Also what are the reasons to prohibit gay marriages? If the gays are unable to marry due to their inability to procreate, then the states should simply set up potency requirements for all couples who wish to marry. The barren woman or an impotent man then should have no right to marry since they also do no contribute to procreation within the state.

JV,

No, I'm not trying to change your beliefs about gay people. I couldn't care less whether you think it's wrong or not, since I have my own mind and know that there's nothing wrong with my marriage. What I am trying to change is the notion that because *you believe* that gayness is immoral, you should therefore be able to take away my freedom to marry the person of my choosing, based on the sex of that person. As a conscientous American citizen, you should know where your power over me ends, and it ends at baseless sex discrimination.

We define deviancy down; what is deviant today is fairness tomorrow. Before there was the closet, then they wanted just to be let out and live their lives. Now they want to turn the natural order on its head and marry. So it's not a stretch to see that soon the pedophiles and beastialists will be out in force defining their deviancy as mainstream just because there's a lot of them.

Sorry sequoia, but the anti-homosexual laws in 1930's Germany were from the Wiemar Republic.

Sorry Hillman, but using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't work here. All people concerned with Liberty do not want the force of government used to make us acknowledge moral fictions such as "same-sex marriage" as if they were real.

By the way, when Kinsey did his study of human sexuality, according to his results in the United States 37% of all men reported having homosexual activity in their life and 13% of all women. Hardly a small group of people.

Parents are not able to enter their kids into marriage below a certain age (one that's entirely too young, to my eye!) True fact. Look it up.

As for necrophiliacs, may I point you to the part where you say ".... at one point". Ah, there it is - dead people can't enter into marriages! They're dead! (Tell that to the Mormons, though. They marry off dead people. True fact. Look it up.)

As for whether you're funny or not, you're not. You wouldn't have a sense of humor about it if YOUR wonderful marriage was being compared, in all seriousness, to bestiality and necrophilia day in and day out.

Another Marylander,

Under what moral authority and ethical theory do you declare same-sex marriages to be "moral fictions"?

I agree completely with lonebear that there should be two ceremonies, one civil/legal and one (optional) religious, for any couple who wants to get married. This is one area where the church is not at all separate from the state, and it needs to be.

Civil marriage would be open to absolutely anyone of legal age, and grant equal rights and protections without prejudice. Couples could decide for themselves whether they wanted to have a spiritual or religious ceremony as well, and those in their faith community would have to figure out whether they want to stand on the side of love and acceptance or ignorance and fear.

It took a long time for interracial marriage to become legal in this country, and a surprisingly large percentage of Americans (20% in general, more in Alabama, where 40% of residents voted to keep the interracial marriage ban in 2000) still oppose it. Yet in the forty years since Loving v. Virginia, the majority of people have come to see that the arguments used against interracial marriage were absurd, bigoted, and embarrassing.

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observations show us that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sick and effeminate," a Georgia judge declared in 1869, forbidding a white Frenchman and a black woman to marry.

"Such connections never elevate the inferior race to the position of the superior, but they bring down the superior to that of the inferior. They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good," he added.

Taking racism even further, a Missouri judge handed down an 1883 ruling based on the preposterous notion that human racial groups are so different biologically that, like horses and donkeys, certain combinations produce sterile offspring: "It is stated as a well authenticated fact that if the (children) of a black man and white woman and a white man and a black woman intermarry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Such lectures didn't end with the 19th century, though. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia's law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," Bazile declared. "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages."

It was pointed out many times by the courts that anyone was free to marry another person of the same race, so therefore there was no discrimination, as long as they didn't go against God's law and choose to love someone of another race.

Change a few words, and every single argument that was used then is now being used against same-sex marriage. Let us hope that it will take less than forty years for these opinions against same-sex marriage to become laughable and unthinkable as well.

To see quotes and ideas in context, as well as many more correlative arguments, see vtfreetomarry.org, buddybuddy.com, and a host of other informative sites.

I am so sick of people like Anoither Marylander and their crap about same sex marriage being "fiction." Do you read anyone else's posts? Go up and read the one from "We Need More Family Values." What about that family's life is fictional? Is that what you teach you kids -- to tell her kids that their life and their family is a fraud? You should be so ashamed of yourself. You are the one living in a fictional world -- the one where someone else is responsible for your problems and you can be smug in your so-called morality. If you cared about children and a real moral foundation for society, you would support marriage for all families.

And I see the typical nonsense about not permitting infertile heterosexual couples marry is making the rounds.

But when heterosexuals are incapable of having children, it is a matter of accident or physical defect. Of course, they may choose to remain childless and we don't need the government making that choice for them.

Homosexuals cannot have children by design. It is the way that nature meant things to be.

Childless heterosexual couples at least reinforce the natural and proper family structure. Homosexual couples cannot, again by design.

Gay Mafia:

Obviously, those who want to continue the mindless oppression of their fellow citizens who happen to be gay do not respond to cohesive, persuasive arguments. They are talking about bestiality, "special rights", deem themselves God and proclaim omnipotence over what is "natural" and so on. NOT ONE has actually attempted to actually say why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry -- at least not remotely rationally -- and "that's the way it's always been" just isn't an argument to continue an injustice. Some have tried to say marriage is for procreation, but somehow heterosexuals (even the worst criminals in the country) are "allowed" to get married even if they can't or don't want to have kids. Marriage may be a religious sacrament to some, but not for all. My brother is an athiest and he was "allowed" to get married. That's because marriage is a LEGAL and personal contract between two people. Denial of this basic human right is pointless oppression and classic bigotry, and don't pretend hating inequality and bigotry is somehow "intolerance."

Anybody who say's gay people should't be allowed to marry "cuz it ain't in the Bible" is no different than the Taliban. Only, they are twisting Christianity into a weapon of oppression instead of Islam. God has nothing to do with it. This is not a theocracy. I'll bet these "Christians" are upset that the Taliban uses the Quran to opress them in many societies. There are also many echoes of Jim Crow and segregation in their arguments. And an anti-equality poster initially made the Nazi reference while ignoring the fact that he shares Nazis views about gays.

I wish more Americans actually thought about the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't say..."unless you're gay!"

Reyhan -- Thanks for the history lesson. I hope the Justices who wrote the majority opinion read it and contemplate the company in which they will be lumped by future generations.

Dan, I care about children enough to want all of them raised by a mother and father as nature intended.

Karen, the authority is called reality. Things work a certain way in nature for a reason.

Another Maryland -- Join the real world. The fact is that there are, have always been, and always will be children born to and raised by gay couples. Laws shouldn't be written based on your fantasy world.

Why do people blame the deep feelings that so many people have against homosexual marriage on the Bible? I know of no culture, religion, tribe, society etc in the world that had homosexual marriage. So from all around the world for a million years human beings saw "marriage" as between a man and a woman. Maybe a man and a few women. I think this is one of the most deep seated natural instincts in the human species. there is NO precedent for homosexual marriage so why act so outraged when something so new, so unprecedented isn't accepted in the first 10 or so years its tried. If nature had thought it a good idea for 2 men/women to raise a human child it would happen. You don't overturn a million plus years of instinct, behavior and practice quickly, if at all.

Another Marylander,

"Reality" is not a moral authority, nor is it an ethical theory. Try again. You're getting closer with "things work a certain way in nature for a reason", but I'm not sure you're thinking through the implications of it.

Leni,

"I know of no culture, religion, tribe, society etc in the world that had homosexual marriage."

This is because you haven't studied it. Seek and ye shall find, grasshopper.

Another Maryland -- And I am sure all of those children appreciate your concern for their well being. What a crock.

Well, Another Marylander, that certainly didn't stop the Nazis from sending gays to the gas chamber.

Another Marylander, don't discuss the natural way of things as most species in nature practice homosexual and/or bisexual relations. You're mixing up natural with the biblically moral, which is hardly the same thing.

In addition to that I do not advocate prohibiting straight couples to marry just because of inability to have children, however, gay couples are denied that option for that same reason.

As for heterosexual couples forming proper family structure, I want to know what is the definition of proper? A man whose wife is frigid and who cheats on her is hardly more proper than a couple made of two women who love each other and are fully committed to each other.

Karen -- Thanks for your reply to Leni. My thoughts exactly. Although I doubt she will do the research. She is probably afraid it will make her gay.

Leni,

The biblical connection is very clear, that's where the marriage came from. Until the belief in god came about, humans did not marry each other. Unfortunately the nations adopted the biblical principle of marriage along with the biblical moral reservations towards gay relationships.

Goanna Humpa -- please just stop it. We are not talking about necrophilia, beastiality, pedophilia or anything else. We are talking about two consenting, living, human adults making a commitment to each other. Why do people like you bring these things up when the topic is gay marriage? I don't get it. Maybe heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry because of those things?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The above quote is Amendment XIV, Section 1 of our federal Constitution. If someone out there has an explanation of how the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision does not flagrantly violate these guarantees of privileges, immunities, and equal protection of the laws, I would certainly like to hear it. See especailly the 11:01am 9/18 post by We need more Family values. Right on, Sister!

Not that it's anyone's business, but I am a 60-year-old male, married to the same woman since I was 21, and have never had gay sex in my life. But, since my wife and I chose not to procreate, I suppose our marriage has no value in the eyes of some people.

So effed up.

I quote Jonathan Wallace:

"We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe."

I do not condone anything that doesn't lead to the survival of the human race. If all humans were gay they would face extinction. Trivial people. Thankfully there are "breeders".

Sorry sequoia, but screaming "Nazi" at the top of your voice is a poor substitute for either fact or logic.

Leni says, "If nature had thought it a good idea for 2 men/women to raise a human child it would happen. You don't overturn a million plus years of instinct, behavior and practice quickly, if at all."

Sorry Leni, but that is not a valid argument. First of all, 2 women / 2 men do raise children all the time. And guess what - no responsible study has ever concluded that the children are negatively affected or developmentally, morally, sexually, intellectually, or socially stunted at all. They are as well adjusted as kids raised in more "traditional" households. If nature was so against it, that wouldn't be the case. There is nothing to suggest gay people can't be great, committed and loving parents.

And the nature argument can just go on and on. Is it wrong to take medicine for a serious illness? If not, why? That's obviously not what nature intended. Nature intended for the ill person to suffer and maybe die. Do you use electric lights? Why? Nature intends for night time to be dark. Ever flown on an airplane? Not exactly what nature intended, now is it?

god, gays do not try to increase the number of gays in the world, nor will allowing them to get married increase their number. In fact most of the gays were born as a result of heterosexual people getting married.

"God",

Then I guess we should kill old people, because they add nothing to the survival of our race.

Trivial, right?

Another Marylander,

Neither is saying "It's nature" over and over. Marriage is in no way indicated by human nature. Indiscriminate sex, however, is.

Another Marylander wrote: "Sorry sequoia, but screaming "Nazi" at the top of your voice is a poor substitute for either fact or logic."

Errrr, then why were you babbling on about the CAC of Takoma Park, eugenics and the Third Reich? Mmmmmkay buddy.

"God",

Plus, I'm gay, not infertile. Donor insemination works for me just as well as it does for a straight couple with male-factor infertility.

Another Marylander,

"Dan, I care about children enough to want all of them raised by a mother and father as nature intended."

So what you are saying is that my children would be better off never having existed, than for them to be brought up with two moms who want them and love them very, very much.

Nice.

Another Marylander,

Oh, and you're ALSO saying that once my children exist, it's better than they are punished as a warning to future lesbians who might want to be moms, than for their moms to be able to give them the security, permanence, and stability of legal marriage.

In reading some of these posts, it occurs to me that perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of some opponents of equal civil marriage... I want to assure you that, when gay marriage is made legal, (as it already is in MA, Canada, The Netherlands, and several other places) it doesn't mean YOU have to get gay-married! Really! There will still be the exact same number of straights, the same number of gays, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to bear or adopt children, the same number of people, gay or straight, who choose to remain childless.

The only thing that will change is that there will be greater protections and responsibilities for all those who want to enter into a legal marriage contract, and perhaps there will be more tolerance towards others as less institutionalized discrimination leads to greater understanding over the generations.

Playground bullies will always find ways to ostracize those they perceive as different and therefore threatening, but they will have one less piece of ammunition if their taunts are not backed up by the law of the land. For now, if you are concerned that the children of GLBT people will be picked on at school, perhaps the best course of action would be to teach your children not to pick on them.

Since Another Marylander is quite obviously a heterosexual white male, he has no clue what it is like to be treated like a second class citizen because of gender, race, or sexual orientation. Maybe if it WAS possible to be discriminated against for being a complete moron he would get a taste of what it is like to be an African American lesbian. But, unfortunately, there is not yet any legislation against being a ignorant redneck with the IQ of pocket lint so an intelligent black lesbian is now a second-class citizen in this great state of ours but a Another Stupid Redneck -- uhm, I mean, Another Marylander, has complete Constitutional protection. What a great society we live in! Heil Hitler!

EXACTLY reyhan.

Nothing will change for anybody but gay couples *when* gay people have equal marriage rights. I'm straight and I do not understand the hysteria. Why are people so upset about what kinds of legal and personal arrangements others who they don't even know make? Gay couples (which newsflash: already exist) will simply have legal recognition and rights. What's the problem?

There is no rational argument against gay marriage.

Oh, Lyoshka: Your Biblical argument is so stupid that it's almost unfair of me to shoot it down.

First, there were numerous societies that had marriage long before the Bible. Two spring instantly to mind: the Romans and the Greeks. But there were countless others.

And lest we forget, Biblical marriage includes polygamy, forced marriage of underage girls, and the marrying of two sisters to the same man.

Care to defend those 'traditional' marriage values?

What? Why not?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
Genesis 1:27

I was created in God's image. I am gay.
The bible tells me God made me gay. What is the issue here?

Lyoshka:

My apologies. I misunderstood your post. I apologize.

Oh Hillman, both Romans and the Greeks were married before their own gods. I did not claim that marriage came to be because of the bible. It came to be as a religious rite, however, later bible defined the marriage terms.

Ironically though I was not defending biblical or "traditional" values in any of my posts, and it is quite sad that you did not read them past my comments on the bible.

No problem Hillman, please disregard my comment as well. This issue really accounts for a short fuse for a lot of us.

Actually marriage was first entered into by the ancient egyptians as a way to make 2 strangers into a "family".

Of course this was long before Christianity.

Another_karen,

What I don't get is the ones who use "and he created them male and female" as an argument for the immorality of being gay. It doesn't say "he created them male and female and heterosexual". I'm still female. I just love another female, which while it complicates my reproductive plans just as much as male-factor infertility in a straight couple does, it does not preclude us from leaving our parents and cleaving unto each other, being fruitful and multiplying, or reproducing within the context of lifelong, monogamous marriage.

Sheesh.

Right on, sister Karen. All I want is a way to be family, legally, to my partner. Not "hold medical POA" or be a "benificiary of her will". Be Family.

Karen:

I read nowhere in the bible where it says that lesbians are immoral. As a matter of fact the story of Ruth and Naomi might indicate that God may not have had a problem with women loving women at all.

Jesus says nothing at all about homosexuality...Not one thing.

Yet the number one argument against allowing us to marry is "the bible says so". My reply to that is "really -- Show me where".

another_karen wrote: "Yet the number one argument against allowing us to marry is "the bible says so". My reply to that is "really -- Show me where".

Or even more importantly to me...what does that have to do with equal rights under the law in 21st-century America? This is not a theocracy under the Bible and frankly, the views of ancient Middle Easterners aren't relevant to this discussion.

The bottom line is, if you oppose gay marriage, don't enter into a gay marriage. Is that so hard?

another_karen,

There's that business with the Apostle Paul and that naughty church in Corinth, but I contend that a) it would be unnatural for me to have sex with someone I wasn't attracted to, b) it's clear upon study of the original texts that it was idolatry and pagan temple sex rituals that Paul was saying God had such a problem with, and c) I am not a Christian so why does this matter to me again??

I am so very sad about this decision.

Actually Even Paul was referring to men with men. Lesbians are not mentioned.

I wish the court would have come up with better reasoning then "that's the way it's always been". I guess I will just have to push the legislature and give money to equality maryland. Maybe we should try to start a petition to put ALLOWING gay marriage on the ballot.

sequoia,

"The bottom line is, if you oppose gay marriage, don't enter into a gay marriage. Is that so hard?"

Yes, it is, if your goal is to enforce modern Christian godliness and your own narrow brand of family values on *everyone*.

Literally, someone filed a intervention motion in this appeal claiming that because being gay is against her religion, allowing gay marriage is oppression of her right to practice her religion. HAH! Can a motion be dismissed on the grounds that it's retarded? It was dismissed, but that really is the attitude of some people.

I love you, Karen. Let's join an ex-gay ministry, turn nice 'n straight, and get married so we can leave this crazy world behind.

another_karen,

Unfortunately, at this juncture, the number of people who care enough to vote against gay marriage usually outnumber the people who care enough to vote for gay marriage, even if the number of people who - when asked - support gay marriage or at least civil unions is larger.

Our rights shouldn't be decided upon by the legislature (what is granted by the legislature can easily be taken away), but it sure as heck shouldn't come down to a popular vote. This is a constitutional republic for a reason. Notice that the word "constitutional" comes first... hmmm....

Gay Takoma Guy,

Well, see, I'm already married... but thanks :-) We wouldn't have to go through a legal divorce to make that happen, but I believe in the sanctity of my own marriage (and isn't that what's really important?)

I agree with you Karen but doing something is better than doing nothing. If nothing else I would like to do it for nothing more than to "stick it" to Don Dwyer

From Schmtiz Blitz: schmitzblitz.wordpress.com

This morning, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the state statute which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman in a 4-3 decision.
The court found that 1) the statue does not discriminate on the basis of gender 2) that sexual orientation is neither a suspect or quasi-suspect class, whereby discriminatory laws require a higher scrutiny 3) that there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex and 4) that the statute in question is related to a legitimate state objective, that is, upholding traditional marriage.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the Maryland constitution, but I'm going to offer some thoughts on point 3 it relates to the United States constitution (and maybe some of the others in future posts, time permitting).
The Supreme Court has stated that fundamental rights are "those liberties that are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," and have repeatedly found that marriage is included in the list of fundamental rights. Opponents to marriage equality argue correctly that same sex marriage has never been apart of our nation's history or tradition.
Marriage itself, has. Herein lies the distinction. Same sex couples are not asking for the right of some special same sex marriage, they are asking for the right to be included in the preexisting institution of marriage, pure and simple.
The way that a right is defined plays a huge role in determing if its is in fact a legitimate right or no. The more broadly defined, the more likely it is to fit within tradition, thus being upheld, and vice versa.
Imagine if this 'most specific' methodology had been applied in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down the state's ban on interracial marriage. Had the Lovings claimed that the right to a mixed race marriage was rooted in our nation's history and tradition, they would have been instructed to review the long history of America's antimiscegenation laws. The first antimiscegenation law in North America was enacted in Virginia in 1691. Thirty one states maintained such laws by 1945; sixteen states still held them by the time Loving was decided.
Further, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Chief Justice Taney cited the long standing antimiscegenation laws in his decision to deny citizenship to blacks, stating, "intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes" The Lovings' claim was upheld, because they called upon the more general right to marry, rather than the specific right to marry someone of a different race, which clearly went against the longstanding traditions of the United States.
The Loving decision provides an important comparison for those who support same sex marriage. First it establishes that one of the most basic decisions in family life is the decision of whom one chooses to marry. It shows that the right to marry is not limited to longstanding legal or cultural traditions of exclusion. It also provides a framework by which the right of gays to marry should be addressed.
Just as the Lovings petitioned for, and the courts recognized, the fundamental right to marry, rather than the fundamental right to marry someone of a different race, so too should courts recognize that gays seek the right to marry in the broadest sense, rather than the specific right to marry someone of the same sex.
All of that being said, though I would have welcomed a decision from the court that recognized the equality of gay families, I respect their restraint. I have said before that I believe decisions involving divisive social issues such as gay equality are better decided by the legislature rather than judges, even if it means the path to equality is slower. I believe the legislature lends an air of legitimacy that the judiciary is largely lost.

Dear karen,

You said, regarding abolishing a *legal* definition of marriage altogether:
"Not that it's not insurmountable, but it is a consideration. Same-sex marriage is actually an *easier* answer."

Are you interested in what is easy, or what is equal? Because the easiest solution is to change nothing. But to shoot for some middle ground is unjustifiable amongst the logics in this thread that say so simply that never is it right for a majority to step on the rights of a minority. What about those people who are never fortunate enough to find someone they care that deeply about, or what about thoose who are polyamorous? (these people are very real) Why stop with gay? It's a two-bit compromise of self-serving logic, because it's an easier pill to swallow, even though it goes in the wrong direction from true equality.

Sadly, the Court of Appeals (majority) got it wrong. Historically, States began to regulate marriage for societal reasons, not having to do with procreation, but, for the purpose of structuring who inherits property. Both marriage licenses and birth certificates are a relatively "new" (last 150 years) phenomena.
In addition, marriages (of both opposite and same-sex)existed long before the Decalogue was scribed. At that point, two types of marriages existed, those sanctioned by religion, and all others.
Bringing this matter to current day, the decision should have addressed the difference between religiously sanctioned marriage and "civil" marriage. It did not.
Had those who hold conservative "values" fully analyzed the claim presented, and been intellectually honest, they would have concluded that the State's interest remains one of societal construct, thus allowing both 'religious based' (opposite sex) marriage and "civil" marriage (both opposite and same sex), and, in the process eliminating the clear discriminatory effect of the current statute.

Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work.

i just don't understand why someone else's marriage is anyone else's business. it's not yours, mine or the government. it's a personal choice by two adults, I don't understand where everyone else thinks they come in

I've often wondered why there hasn't been a stronger lobbying force from the legal community to end anti-gay discrimination and permit marriage. Think of all those astonishingly rich divorce settlements! The truth is, in another few years, this issue will be long settled and gay people will be marrying and divorcing just like their straight neighbors. All you have to do is talk to teenagers and young adults about the issue now to see the wave of change that's on the horizon. My otherwise average, heterosexual teenage neices and nephews are as progressive on this issue as my most informed gay friends.

also " a man and a woman in a low conflict marriage"???!!!! ha!!! you'll be stressed to find that!!

Silversurfer, In that case, walk outside, grab the very first man and the very first woman you see and that would be a perfect couple because their biological parts are aligned.

Now on the other hand if you're talking about matching in terms of personalities and other factors, then physical body structure doesn't have anything to do with it.

Silversurfer,

As far as I can tell, I contain carbon and am therefore "organic". So does my partner. Our naughty bits do not repel each other with a force inversely related to distance, either, so I'm not sure what magnets have to do with it. Do you have sex with any woman that is close enough that the pull of your opposite "poles" (heehee) is enough to overcome inertia? (Wait, don't answer that.)

As for textbooks, what are you talking about? Do you think that allowing gay marriage means that "mom" and "dad" cease to have their meanings? Seriously, the incoherency and absurdity of your comment is only working against "your side".

Silversurfer,

Your argument doesn't hold water for the simple fact that sex between 2 males and/or 2 females is prevalent in many species (as is bisexuality) therefore making homosexuality just as "natural" as heterosexuality. Nice try though and thanks for playing.

Alyson,

Actually, my religion has no objection to same-sex marriages, and my minister just last month officiated and blessed our wedding. So religious marriages can be same-sex, right now, right this very minute, in Maryland. Civil marriages can't, though, for unconstitutional "reasons".

My ride will be here soon, but I just want to add that there's a rally tonight at 6:30 pm (two hours from now!!) at the First Unitarian Church in Baltimore and St. George's Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale. Please come and show your support for marriage equality! More info at the Equality Maryland site (you can google it.)

In the article there's a typo in paragraph six. The quotation incorrectly reads, "our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or reasons." It should read, "our opinion should by no meand be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex."

I found one additional gay rights cliche: opposing gay marriage was a characteristic of other mean people in history.

I never made any attack on homosexuality, but everyone I encounter is completely monolithic and inflexible. Unless I am all with you, I am the enemy. A wise professor once said to me-there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but it is naive to deny that this is a deviation from an optinal state, heterosexuality, not vice-versa, nor is it an equivalence. I now here arguments like it is better to be gay, we're all gay, etc. Are you people delusional? I am sure the responses will answer that question.

I am willing to be convinced, but you'll never convince me by name calling. Convince me in a way that is not full of irrational, emotional rants about fairness, psychology, outrageous statistics about how all people are really gay (you have to separate homosexual urges from a purely gay lifestyle, dolts), love, family values, pseudo-biology. I'd also like to know what benefits society accrues by allowing gay marriage. Really I would.

All I see is a gay rights movement living in a straw house. Year after year, it is the same tired stuff. I really don't have to care. Try to convince me why I should.

silversurfer: "Very good news! It looks like children's textbooks can still use the words mother and father or mom and dad. This is how nature intended it....the ying and the yang; ac-dc; the plug and the receptacle; etc. Anything other than the male-female gig is inorganic, it is unnatural. Nothing really to do with religion at all, it's all about nature, what is and isn't organic and/or natural....kinda like how magnets work."

Magnets, huh? Sorry buddy, but YOU are not the ultimate authority on what is "natural". If and when homosexuality, as mounting evidence suggests, *is* a natural state of being for some people, would you drop your objection to equal rights for your fellow citizens? I'm guessing no, because you're full of sh*t and are only trying to justify your bigotry.

You haven't even made a point. Marriage is a man-made institution, and all of human civilization is essentially "against nature". Do you live naked in a cave, silversurfer? Why not? All that matters according to your thinly velied homophobia is what's "natural" or "organic"? Hypocrite.

I wish you could hear how absurd you sound.

Y'know, the world would be a far better place if people would mind their own business. What folks choose to do, who they choose to love, and what goes on in their homes is none of my concern. Nor should it be.

People trying to control what others do with their lives, in an issue where it causes no physical harm to another human (like marriage), does concern me. Accept that not everyone has the same values, but know that everyone does have the same rights in this country. We don't live in a theocracy, thank goodness, and I'm tired of people trotting out their religion every time someone does something that offends them. That gay couple who got married down the street isn't going to bother you or your family any. Why do you care who other people marry?

Live your own life, try to be the best person you can be, and keep your nose- and your personal beliefs- out of other people's business.

Karen,

If your church's clergy officiated at a "marriage" without a State license being issued, it is not recognized as a marriage in the State of Maryland.

The issue for the government of Maryland, all branches, is whether or not the citizens of the State will continue to confuse the Constitutional "separation of church and State" with the unstated, yet clear, religious underpinnings of our laws. To do so results in marriage laws that discriminate; to not do so results in "civil marriage" being a civil right (as opposed to "civil marriage" being a religiously based right).

Additionally, if I were to admit to being a cigarette smoker while applying for a health insurance policy, I will be hit with a larger insurance premium due to my "high risk" lifestyle choice of using tobacco products.

Conversely, a homosexual male who also conducts himself in "high risk" behaviour[as borne out by the numbers put out by the Center for Disease Control - homosexual males(and intravenous drug users) have a much shorter life expectancy than most other sub-groups...and have higher medical costs due to their frequent transmission of hiv/aids, hepatitis, other std's...all this is a matter of public record], will likely NEVER be subjected to higher insurance premiums because attorneys will fight it as "discrimination". So, tell me why again that I, as a smoker who engages in a "high risk" lifestyle will be penalized financially, but a homosexual who practices an equally "high risk" lifestyle will not? Who's really being discriminated against?

And what of "hate crimes"? If I get my ass kicked, the perpetrator can be charged with assault & battery, etc. If a homosexual gets smacked around the perp is likely to face an "ad-charge"(an additional charge) as in a "hate crime". I don't receive that kind of extra legal protection when violence has been foisted upon me. I ask again, who really gets the special treatment?

Hey, you people who prefer your 'alternative lifestyle'. You oughtta be thankful you ain't livin' under 'Sharia Law'...then you'd REALLY experience discrimination of the worst kind...sanctioned acts of random