Maryland court upholds same-sex marriage ban

[Oracle of Delphi]

BALTIMORE - Maryland’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, ending a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples who claimed they were being denied equal protection under the law.

Maryland’s 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, the Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision. It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20839946/

Edited September 18, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[CARBIZ]

BALTIMORE - Maryland’s highest court on Tuesday upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, ending a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples who claimed they were being denied equal protection under the law.

Maryland’s 1973 ban on gay marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, the Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision. It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20839946/

"It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage"

Yeah, like having babies is going out of style! What are there - 300 million Americans and climbing?

Still, since marriage doesn't seem to be working for you guys, why would it work for us?

[ocnblu]

Same-sex marriage bans will fall, they have to sooner or later, if we are to continue to value the U.S. Constitution.

[Flybrian]

Homosexuals are gay.

[CARBIZ]

Well, it's going to get ridiculous where a couple from Canada who are LEGALLY married move to Maryland and suddenly their marriage is not recognized?

I personally could care less, (my partner and I have been together 5 1/2 years and don't need a piece of paper to keep us together), but eventually it's going to get silly as some states allow gay marriage and others don't.

Either a law is a law everywhere in an enlightened society, or anachy will result. Already large chunks of the population abuse laws because there are so many asinine, unfair or generally unenforceable laws on the books.

[Camino LS6]

Either a law is a law everywhere in an enlightened society, or anachy will result. Already large chunks of the population abuse laws because there are so many asinine, unfair or generally unenforceable laws on the books.

This statement applies to soooo many issues. The knuckleheads in government had better wise up.

[DetroitNut90]

I feel so proud to be a Marylander: my state's high court ruled in favor of the state's "legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriages" (whatever the hell that means), and a whacko in the General Assembly is preparing a blatantly discriminatory bill.

Edited September 19, 2007 by DetroitNut90

[FAPTurbo]

Canada legalized it, and the sky hasn't fallen, and Satan hasn't sent our souls into a churning fire.

If two dudes want to get married, that's their right. It's not as if us straight folk are doing the institution of marriage any favours these days.

[Dsuupr]

Until they allow polygamy for religous groups (Morman, Christian & Muslim) they shouldn't allow same sex marriages. Atleast the others have religous reasons. I'm not saying there shouldn't be same sex marriages, I'm just saying without one how could there be the other.

Something else to think about. If in fact our country isn't religous based how come we don't allow for multiple mate marriages?

[FAPTurbo]

Something else to think about. If in fact our country isn't religous based how come we don't allow for multiple mate marriages?

Because those relationships are often abusive, and full of religious doctrine that does not agree with a progressive, Western society. Plus, most of the religions that practice polygamy aren't exactly friendly to homosexuals. (See Islam)

[Farkas]

multiple mate marriages?

Multiple Mate Marriages, I LOL'd when I read that. It's just funny to say.

6 Places currently allow gay marriage (Belgium, Canada, Massachusetts, The Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain. Why is it so hard for everyone else to just accept people for who they are and let them live their lives. Everyone should have equal rights, and the right to marriage to whomever they please should not be denied. And its not like marriage has any sanctity anymore; Brittany Spears can get married for 55 hours and thats OK, but two men/women can't get married even though they love each other? WTF.

/rant

[Oracle of Delphi]

Until they allow polygamy for religous groups (Morman, Christian & Muslim) they shouldn't allow same sex marriages. Atleast the others have religous reasons. I'm not saying there shouldn't be same sex marriages, I'm just saying without one how could there be the other.

Something else to think about. If in fact our country isn't religous based how come we don't allow for multiple mate marriages?

Are you a Mormon? One of my friends is.

[K.C.]

<song> Sometimes men love men. Sometimes women love women. And then there are bisexuals but some just say they're kididng themselves. </song>

[FAPTurbo]

I wonder how many of those that uphold this ban tap their feet in the Mens room?

Because of Larry Craig, I'm afraid of tapping my feet to a good Van Halen song.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I wonder how many of those that uphold this ban tap their feet in the Mens room?

Because of Larry Craig, I'm afraid of tapping my feet to a good Van Halen song.

Do you normally tap your feet in the Men's room as you listen to Van Halen?

[Intrepidation]

Politics should stay out of the bed.

[Satty]

Politics should stay out of the bed.

Says the guy who has obviously never taken part in a reverse shopvac with a poor transient boy while listening to the 9/11 Comission report he recently paid $12 for on iTunes.

[regfootball]

random thoughts....... flame it or whatever, just tossing some devil's advocate out there.

the concept of marraige as a religious deal (in a lot of denominations) is defined as man+woman bound by God (for the purpose of creation of family). I think religion defined marraige before sovereign states did. i may be wrong and in some religions, divorce is not supposed to be an option. marraige for many is recongnized as being eternal that cannot be changed or reverted or swapped or cancelled out by decisions of humans themselves.

many folks do not believe in religion, yet i think the concept of marraige most likely is religion based and has carried through time that way. do you think early humans especially men would by their own accord sign up to the concept of being with one person for ever and ever and ever......

over time the United states in terms of maintaining separation of church and state has tried to make marraige more of a tax code and civil status issue, while still trying to promote the very ward cleaver/gotta have mom and dad bring up the kids in happy homes thing. for stability, uncle same still feels it best if mom and dad get drunk, bump uglies, move into a nice suburban two story, and pop out a little johnny and jenny. mom and pop stay together till death to us part because we all benefit supposedly from the nuclear family and stability. Now, if they broaden the definition of marraige for civil purposes, it really becomes something different than the religious definition of marraige which the whole thing has been loosely based on so far. So if this is where society wants to move with laws and the social code, to be fair, you really gotta open it up to same gender and polygamy and just about anything if you truly want to separate the civil marraige concept from the religious one.

strip any benefits to taxes, wealth transfer, and health care for being married completely out of everything, because we don't want to discriminate against single people. marraige should really not even be any sort of civil status on record anywhere. divorce should not exist in legal terms. owning property with the one you are married to should merely be joint ownership, not married persons owning assets that can be fought over in court on taxpayer dollars.

health plans should only recognize status of dependents, not spouses. the person you commit to, is a dependent on your plan, just like your natural birth kid or adopted kid.

how you get married or how you define it then becomes entirely up to you. your commitment is truly what you wish it to be.

the core of what i am saying....as a country lets decide if we are going to cling to the notion of the religious concept of marraige, or if we are going to define marraige and civil unions in a more encompassing sort of way. we all like to think any society especially ours which says we have separation of church and state, should have it fully, but doggone it if a lot of our legal code isn't based upon what the puritans brought over with themselves on the boat. so you cannot deny religion has not influenced our civil law. there is no full separation and never will be. thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not steal. thou shalt not marry more than one woman although you have been screwing the lights out of the neighbor's wife when he is away at work. that is why we struggle as a society with it and can't neccessarily update it fast enough for everyone.

really its one thing to get legal and civil acceptance of same gender marraige and alernatively, polygamous arrangements....but if you really want to crack the code on the issue, i think the best way to break down the barriers through acceptance will be through the religious arena. because that's i think where the whole concept of marraige and monogamy most likely originated. If same gender marraige and polygamy becomes challenged and more accepted in religion, then it will be an easier path to acceptance in our civil code. For many folks this might be an unacceptable idea....but it probably is where the battle really needs to fought to be most fruitful.

try it on the pope and see what he says...LOL.....now those mormons, they are on to something....amish too........

Edited September 19, 2007 by regfootball

[Dsuupr]

#1; I'm not mormon nor would I be one to get additional wives.

#2; Saying those religions that support polygamy are religions that are abusive is like saying all gay people have aids. When I went to Guinea (Africa) I saw MANY loving and positive marriages with more than 1 wife. The Christians, Muslims and Mormons that have multiple marriages are a part of our Western Society believe in it and thrive in it. They just are not legally married to more than 1 wife.

[CARBIZ]

Religious control of marriage is all about subjugating women and children in a time when men ruled the roost and women were nothing more than chattel. Remember: the Bible, Koran, Torah - whatever your flavor, were written BY old white men FOR old white men.

But the biggest over-riding factor in all of this is the fact that it is no longer necessary to be MARRIED by the age of 14, have six kids by the age of 20 because we are going to be DEAD by the age of 30. MOst of the problems in the world today are directly derived from the fact that in nearly all 'Third World Countries,' their religious leaders and governments have not come to grips with this fact. You don't need to have 10 kids because 7 will die before the age of 5. Since we in the West have so graciously brought modern medicine to those countries, we have indirectly allowed a whole new batch of problems to fester.

Most Western countries are pushing EIGHTY as the AVERAGE life expectancy. What fifteen year old (or even 25 year old) is fully capable of making decisions that are going to effect the next 60-70 years of their life? When I look at the person I was 25 years ago - what my priorities were, my hopes, my dreams, and I look at where I am today, would I want myself bound 'til death do us part' by a decision that I made one horny night 25 years ago?

This is the rub of the matter. We are going to enter into a 'social contract', IMO, over the next twenty or thirty years. We can laugh or cry at the idea, but many so-called 'marriages' break up because they stay together for the kids, but when the kids are gone the spouses look across the table breakfast table at a stranger.

If polygamous relationships are what works for a group of people, who are all on equal terms, then so be it. I know of two gay couples who had a third live with them for 3 or 4 years in a symbiotic relationship and it did not seem to strain or effect anyone. Jealousy basically goes back to the concept of 'ownership' and the biblical concept of gluttony and greed.

So whether Churches (of Mosques) want to admit it or not, marriage is basically dead. Educated, liberated women do not want to stay at home and cook any more - why else is Islam fighting women's liberation with every ounce of its being? They don't want to go down the path of 'decadence' and 'decay' that they believe the West has.

The sooner we as a society figure out how to deal with this new reality, the better off we will all be. Gay marriage is the LEAST of our problems.

Edited September 19, 2007 by CARBIZ

[regfootball]

so if 'marraige is dead', then lets remove the concept from the books in our civil and legal system then.