Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage

posted at 10:01 pm on February 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

It passed the House last week and the Senate tonight, and the governor’s signature is a fait accompli:

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials…

Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

The bill didn’t become viable until two more Democrats were elected to the Senate in 2010, which finally gave them the votes to move the bill out of committee. Next up: The inevitable popular referendum to see whether the law should be blocked. According to Ballotpedia, polls taken in early 2011 and 2012 show roughly 50 percent support for gay marriage in the state versus opposition in the low 40s. Much will depend on turnout, but the true significance of the referendum is that potentially it applies a bit more pressure to the Supreme Court to take this issue up constitutionally. That’s probably a done deal anyway thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling on Prop 8, but if Maryland’s gay-marriage opponents win the referendum and gay rights activists sue to have it thrown out, that’ll be two cases in two different states in two different regions involving a question of majority rule pitted directly against minority rights. Hard for the Court to resist.

Via Mediaite, here’s Chris Christie squaring off with WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart this a.m. on “Morning Joe” over his veto of New Jersey’s gay marriage bill. They’re actually both wrong here, I think. First Capehart accuses Christie of letting a popular referendum determine the civil rights of a minority, but that’s not actually true. As I understand it, any potential referendum in New Jersey would seek to overturn Christie’s veto by asking simply whether gay marriage should now be legalized. That’s different from a referendum asking whether gay marriage should be banned. The former, if it fails, adds nothing to the state constitution, merely affirming Christie’s veto and the status quo unless and until there’s a legislative majority willing to change it. Whereas the latter, if it passed, would lock in a constitutional prohibition barring future legislative efforts until a popular majority overturned it. Christie’s wrong too, though, in claiming that Obama’s trying to have it both ways on gay marriage while he’s standing on principle by resolving to veto the gay-marriage bill when it gets to his desk. Christie’s trying to have it both ways too by consistently talking up the referendum as a way around him. He knows full well that it’s likely to pass if it happens — according to a poll taken a few weeks ago, the public supports gay marriage 54/35 — but he wants to keep his ducks in a row on social issues in case he ends up on the national GOP ticket someday. By supporting a referendum so effusively, he’s basically encouraging New Jerseyites to legalize gay marriage for him so that he doesn’t have to get his hands dirty doing so. Which, of course, makes the scolding from Capehart and others ironic. Christie’s not booting the issue to the public because he wants the majority to crush the minority’s rights, he’s booting it because he expects the majority will affirm the minority’s rights and thereby nullify his politically expedient veto.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

residentblue on February 23, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Come on, you moocher. Obama already pays it.

Whine about something else, or become a looter. It pays better and you can exploit the sheep who mooch.

Schadenfreude on February 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Ease up on the self righteousness. One track mind never run the AM-Train.

residentblue on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

strongerthandirt on February 23, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Are you talking about conservatives or libertarians??? Wait, am I at reason.com?

Race and sex are completely different. Or do you propose unisex restrooms as well, in the name of equality and fairness? After all, have you seen the ladies room line at a ball game or concert?

Dongemaharu on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE THE ECONOMY, THE WAR ON CHRISTIANITY, CHRISTMAS, AND THE FACT THAT THIS COUNTRY IS CIRCLING THE DRAIN.

GhoulAid on February 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

aw yes, I remember that christmas morning when Obama nuked the North Pole! our world was never the same!

P.S.> how self-loathing do you have to be to be a gay republican?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Come on, people. Ejaculating in another dude’s butt is just the same as making a baby. It just is.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

So, I’m supposed to believe that a prima facie idiot like you understands the difference between an institute and an institution. Uh, no.

So, how much did you spend?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

You are going on and on because of a typo?

I thought you were just illiterate, now I realize you are a bigoted fool.

That is why I love me some internets!

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Count me among the folks who think government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. While I don’t applaud this, I also don’t really give a f*ck. Heteros have done far more damage to the “institution of marriage” than I reckon any gay couple that wants to get married could ever do,so..

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM

… your Internet history) suggest that you are okay with lesbian sex…

It’s Vintage, Duh on February 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

…um, depend on the lesbians… no fappage for old flabbage…

M240H on February 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Come on, people. Ejaculating in another dude’s butt is just the same as making a baby. It just is.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Cool strawman, bro.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

P.S.> how self-loathing do you have to be to be a gay republican?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Yes, because I’m gay and believe in limited government, less taxes, strong national defense, property rights, etc. that makes me self-loathing. How in the world could someone possibly support gay marriage and be a conservative!? Inconceivable!

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Uh-oh. I think I have a fairy fatwa on my head now.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Come on, people. Ejaculating in another dude’s butt is just the same as making a baby. It just is.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

have that graphic in your head much?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

1. Nobody is claiming that.

2. Why is it that those who seem most offended by homosexuality are the ones who most often graphically describe the acts?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM

“Tihs” is a typo.

Don’t hate on me for your retrograde union education. You ought to know better than to put your pea brain on full display for all of us to make fun.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Uh-oh. I think I have a fairy fatwa on my head now.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

We’ll probably need some pics. Y’know, to determine if you’re worth the effort or not.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM


Maryland becomes eighth state to legalize gay marriage

Launch the Santorum Copter! Super Santorum Friends, Away! Just like he showed up in WA right after the gay marriage bill passed to make frowny faces, this seems like an opportunity he won’t be able to pass up.

But who are his superfriend sidekicks? Batman and Wonder Woman are busy, and Aqua Man is just hopeless…

HTL on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

How exactly does this trample on religious liberties? As far as I can tell, this bill orders the State of Maryland to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The religious institutions are under no obligation to perform same-sex wedding services.

LukeinNE on February 23, 2012 at 10:15 PM

This has been discussed for years–going back at least to 2005.

From the article I linked above:

What is Marriage?
by
Robert George, Sherif Girgis, & Ryan T. Anderson

…the state’s value‐neutrality on this question (of the proper contours and norms of marriage) is impossible if there is to be any marriage law at all, abolishing the conjugal understanding of marriage would imply that committed same‐sex and opposite sex romantic unions are equivalently real marriages. The state would thus be forced to view conjugal‐marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions. In ways that have been catalogued by Marc Stern of the American Jewish Committee and by many other defenders of the rights of conscience, this would undermine religious freedom and the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

Here it is in an easier to read format:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0139.htm

INC on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

P.S.> how self-loathing do you have to be to be a gay republican?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

How self-defeating do you have to be to even insult gay people who will vote with you 95% of the time?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

P.S.> how self-loathing do you have to be to be a gay republican?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM

So one single issue should make you a liberal no matter what?

You’re a retard.

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

“Tihs” is a typo.

Don’t hate on me for your retrograde union education. You ought to know better than to put your pea brain on full display for all of us to make fun.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Flying off the wall because someone typed “institute” verses “institution”. I don’t think Pablo Honey is the ‘pea brain’ here.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

aw yes, I remember that christmas morning when Obama nuked the North Pole! our world was never the same!

P.S.> how self-loathing do you have to be to be a gay republican?

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 10:50 PM
i’m glad you find it funny. i don’t. you see, my decent, conservative parents got their hands on me before gay culture did. and now i am off to bed. and i will sleep easily, not staying up worrying about evil republicans and catholics.

GhoulAid on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

It is notmarriage“.

Which is the union of complementary opposites.

It is a joining of likes, which is something new and different.

Homosexuals shouldn’t try to co-opt, undermine, erode, distort, and destroy an existing word, concept, meaning and tradition.

They should come up with their own.

I suggest “Mirrage“.

A Mirror-image union.

Which is not the same as heterosexual marriage.

Not matter how much everybody tries to pretend otherwise.

profitsbeard on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

bill orders the State of Maryland to issue marriage licenses

In other words, real heterosexual marriage is now put on the same legal standing as fudge-packing. (Whoa, is that phrase going to make it past the Hot Air filter?)

Don’t you see what’s wrong with this?

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Flying off the wall because someone typed “institute” verses “institution”. I don’t think Pablo Honey is the ‘pea brain’ here.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Such an tantrum may be the reaction to viewing one of Emperor Norton’s diagrams of the ins (and outs) of gay not-sex. Some slack-cutting may be in order here.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Yes, because I’m gay and believe in limited government, less taxes, strong national defense, property rights, etc. that makes me self-loathing. How in the world could someone possibly support gay marriage and be a conservative!? Inconceivable!

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

gay conservative and gay republican are 2 different things. how does having a MASSIVE military limit government? or forced ultrasounds? or bans on marriage equality? that’s limited government?? the GOP is the hypocrite party no true conservative would join with them.

DBear on February 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

1. Nobody is claiming that.

See the headline? They just did.

2. Why is it that those who seem most offended by homosexuality are the ones who most often graphically describe the acts?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM

For the same reason many pro-life activists display grisly pictures of dismembered, aborted babies. When people try to pretend something is something else, visuals make that pretty much impossible.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

I hope I can leave this nation by the time 1/5th of the states approve gay marriage (10 states).

The idea of marriage is for 1 male and 1 woman to officially come together and start a family of their own. It’s not to ‘make people feel good’ or help people who want a sex change to know what the other gender is like – it has an actual function in society and the furthering of the species, and if they’re going to pervert that, then it’s better just to get rid of state-sponsored marriage in the first place. Let any combination of beings get married and it loses it’s purpose entirely.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Congratulations to Maryland.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I don’t think Pablo Honey is the ‘pea brain’ here.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Pablo Honey comments on two topics exclusively. Gay threads … and religion threads. In gay threads PH calls anyone who has a different opinion or viewpoint a bigot. In religion threads PH mocks people of faith (she’s you know … a bigot).

So a pea brain may be accurate.

darwin on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

For the same reason many pro-life activists display grisly pictures of dismembered, aborted babies. When people try to pretend something is something else, visuals make that pretty much impossible.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

As I asked earlier, if gay sex isn’t sex, is anal sex between a straight couple sex?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Today, “no thinking person” wants to be associated with anyone who opposes abortion on demand, either.

And so your point is what?

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Put those goalposts back where you found them!

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

I hope I can leave this nation by the time 1/5th of the states approve gay marriage (10 states).

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Why wait?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I hope I can leave this nation by the time 1/5th of the states approve gay marriage (10 states).

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Why? It only takes one state to allow same-sex marriage, then the full faith and credit clause kicks in.

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I hope I can leave this nation by the time 1/5th of the states approve gay marriage (10 states).

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I hope you can, too.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM

I thought the “Institute of Marriage” was a pretty funny Freudian Slip and deserving of the requisite disparagement of a mindless troll. Obviously, you disagree.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Fudge-packing? Really?

It would be too easy to join in mocking you for an obsession with hot man-on-man butt sex, but what I find more disturbing is your reduction of the concept of marriage to merely something sexual.

Crap, I failed miserably at marriage and I’m not that empty.

M240H on February 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

For the same reason many pro-life activists display grisly pictures of dismembered, aborted babies. When people try to pretend something is something else, visuals make that pretty much impossible.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

It has the same affect. Disgust for your cause.

(I left a typo in there for you to rant about my friend.)

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

M240H on February 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Gay sex just isn’t my thing…but it seems like some people can’t get enough of what they “hate”.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I hope I can leave this nation by the time 1/5th of the states approve gay marriage (10 states).

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Yeah, suuuure you will. Say hello to all the liberals who evacuated the USA after King Bush won a 2nd term. Oh wait, there aren’t any.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Pablo Honey comments on two topics exclusively. Gay threads … and religion threads. In gay threads PH calls anyone who has a different opinion or viewpoint a bigot. In religion threads PH mocks people of faith (she’s you know … a bigot).

So a pea brain may be accurate.

darwin on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

You are wrong.

I am not a she.

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Wow. This thread went south after I was on here 45 minutes ago.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

profitsbeard on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Exactly. This is an attempt to redefine marriage which has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman.

INC on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

In other words, real heterosexual marriage is now put on the same legal standing as fudge-packing. (Whoa, is that phrase going to make it past the Hot Air filter?)

Don’t you see what’s wrong with this?

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM

What if I have butt sex with my wife, are we still married then?

What if I just put my d*ck in her mouth?

Seriously, I need to know where to draw the line here.

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Wow. This thread went south after I was on here 45 minutes ago.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

E.T. is showing on AMC.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM

You are wrong.

I am not a she.

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

OK

darwin on February 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Both are sodomy, by definition. I guess lots of straight couples are actually gay, or something.

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

your reduction of the concept of marriage to merely something sexual

Not at all. I just mentioned that distinction because too may urban hipsters think that there is no distinction. I just wanted to dramatize a point.

Gay sex is not sex. Duh! Therefore, gay marriage cannot be marriage.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

As I asked earlier, if gay sex isn’t sex, is anal sex between a straight couple sex?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Do you understand the difference between weird or unusual things couples may choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom and the state putting its imprimatur on those acts, vis-a-vis gay marriage?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Yes, because I’m gay and believe in limited government, less taxes, strong national defense, property rights, etc. that makes me self-loathing. How in the world could someone possibly support gay marriage and be a conservative!? Inconceivable!

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Let’s go on a date? You sound like my type. ;-)

NoStoppingUs on February 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

You are wrong.

I am not a she.

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

But the surgery is nearly complete.

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Not at all. I just mentioned that distinction because too may urban hipsters think that there is no distinction. I just wanted to dramatize a point.

Gay sex is not sex. Duh! Therefore, gay marriage cannot be marriage.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

You’re defying my attempt to make a caricature of you because you’re a caricature of yourself. On some level I’m actually impressed.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Not at all. I just mentioned that distinction because too may urban hipsters think that there is no distinction. I just wanted to dramatize a point.

Gay sex is not sex. Duh! Therefore, gay marriage cannot be marriage.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM

So if a guy raped you in the anoos say in prison, that really isn’t rape because it isn’t a sexual act.

Right?

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Gay sex is not sex. Duh! Therefore, gay marriage cannot be marriage.

I love this “argument”. If gay sex isn’t sex than Christian”s should be all for it. Have all the gay not sex you want and then you’re still pure and virginal because you’ve never pounded a vag out of wedlock.

Oh, wait, straight people do that all the time? Well, isn’t that much more of a moral problem? Seem to remember that being mentioned more times in the bible than the gay stuff.

Cyhort on February 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

The idea of marriage is for 1 male and 1 woman to officially come together and start a family of their own.

Oh? I find it silly that those defending marriage cut it down to nothing but a ‘procreation’ mechanism like a social sperm bank.

Marriage is an institution that encompasses not just procreation, but companionship, social insurance, child rearing and the strengthening of the family unit. Just take a look at our wedding vows: publicly declaring “through sickness and through health … ’til death do we part”. Socially it’s an expression of love and companionship; economically it’s public recognition of our vow to keep each other off the government dole. Child-wise: Gays have children too!

As conservatives we believe marriage stresses commitment, fidelity, and strong family bonds. As conservatives we ought to encourage those values throughout all of society — GAY and straight.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I usually read through every thread….I’m not going to bother!

KOOLAID2 on February 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Do you understand the difference between weird or unusual things couples may choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom and the state putting its imprimatur on those acts, vis-a-vis gay marriage?

What about the 40 percent of gay men who don’t like anal sex? If two guys get together, fall in love, and get married but never do teh buttseks is that better or worse?

Cyhort on February 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

So if a guy raped you in the anoos say in prison, that really isn’t rape because it isn’t a sexual act.

Right?

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Depending on the guy, that could be assault with a deadly weapon.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Oh? I find it silly that those defending marriage cut it down to nothing but a ‘procreation’ mechanism like a social sperm bank.

Marriage is an institution that encompasses not just procreation, but companionship, social insurance, child rearing and the strengthening of the family unit. Just take a look at our wedding vows: publicly declaring “through sickness and through health … ’til death do we part”. Socially it’s an expression of love and companionship; economically it’s public recognition of our vow to keep each other off the government dole. Child-wise: Gays have children too!

As conservatives we believe marriage stresses commitment, fidelity, and strong family bonds. As conservatives we ought to encourage those values throughout all of society — GAY and straight.

*starts slow clap*

Cyhort on February 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM

What about the 40 percent of gay men who don’t like anal sex? If two guys get together, fall in love, and get married but never do teh buttseks is that better or worse?

Cyhort on February 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM

That is why Captain Norton needs to bring out those gay sex diagrams he has stashed away to explain these things to us.

Pablo Honey on February 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Apparently marriage has a “civilizing” effect on (heterosexual) men.

Sure would be awful for society if there was a social contract that had some sort of similar effect on the throngs of wild, wild gay men.

Jeddite on February 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Do you understand the difference between weird or unusual things couples may choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom and the state putting its imprimatur on those acts, vis-a-vis gay marriage?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

So is it a pre-requisite that a gay couple have butt-sex before they’re married. Maybe they can sign an agreement or something and promise not to have unnatural gross sex, our have their d*cks chopped off, out something.

Would that be acceptable?

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Do you understand the difference between weird or unusual things couples may choose to do in the privacy of their bedroom and the state putting its imprimatur on those acts, vis-a-vis gay marriage?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Neither oral nor anal sex is weird or unusual with straight couples, regardless of what you pretend. If that’s all they do, and never have children, should they be allowed to marry?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Redefining marriage is not a conservative value.

Here’s only one aspect of rearing children:

…according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of well being when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes fare best on the following indices:

Educational achievement: literacy and graduation rates;

Emotional health: rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide;

Familial and sexual development: strong sense of identity, timing of onset of puberty, rates of teen and out‐of‐wedlock pregnancy, and rates of sexual abuse; and

Child and adult behavior: rates of aggression, attention deficit disorder, delinquency, and incarceration.

INC on February 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Congratulations to Maryland.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

The only real fuss has been the no questions, anything goes transgender/bathroom access. Most moms, women’s advocates and folks who worry about kids aren’t keen on giving an opening to any man in a skirt who wants into a ladies room.

Laura in Maryland on February 23, 2012 at 11:25 PM

As conservatives we believe marriage stresses commitment, fidelity, and strong family bonds. As conservatives we ought to encourage those values throughout all of society — GAY and straight.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Conservatives used to value the benefits and importance of a mother and a father, because of the unique and vital lessons a man and a woman could impart on their child. This is something we used to value, and not dismiss.

And if a couple gets divorced or a father runs out on the family, this is hardly something gays should be citing as an example as a reason to erode the institution even more.

Dongemaharu on February 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Dongemaharu on February 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

That’s similar to what I said earlier:

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman.

What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means:

Because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and

Because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

INC on February 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM

This ended at the bottom of the first page. his is a 43 page Scribd document that’s worth your time.

What is Marriage?
by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, & Ryan T. Anderson

T

Here’s the table of contents to give you an idea of what is in it:

I.

A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart of the Debate

B. Real Marriage Is – And Is Only – The Union of Husband and Wife

1. Comprehensive Union
2. Special Link to Children
3. Marital Norms

C. How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?

1. Weakening Marriage
2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal
3. Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom

D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?

1. Still Real Marriages
2. Still in the Public Interest

E. Challenges for Revisionists

1. The State Has an Interest in Regulating Some Relationships?
2. Only if They Are Romantic?
3. Only if They Are Monogamous?

F. Isn’t Marriage Just Whatever We Say It Is?

II .

A. Why Not Spread Traditional Norms to the Gay Community?

B. What About Partners’ Concrete Needs?

C. Doesn’t the Conjugal Conception of Marriage Sacrifice Some People’s Fulfillment for Others’?

D. Isn’t It Only Natural?

E. Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?

Conclusion

INC on February 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

It’s only 2 states away. Hopefully the “social conservatives” will slow any progression down. I doubt it. Although, we do have Rick Santorum on our side… Wonder if he could still win Michigan, now?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM

We also have Nullification though.

inb4 “The Civil War!!1!”

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Don’t worry, I can still remain present on HotAir through the Internet. Unless I choose refuge in a 3rd World Nation, which isn’t supposed to have connections to the Internet. Then, there’s always the open oceans, or even space. They’ll launch the Bigelow Aerospace settlement which will be mankind’s first step into living in space. I used to not like that kind of stuff (Look but don’t touch-type here) but the way things are looking these days around the world…..

Yeah, suuuure you will. Say hello to all the liberals who evacuated the USA after King Bush won a 2nd term. Oh wait, there aren’t any.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I’m the kind of person who does what I say.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I’m not saying gays can’t be gay. They just can’t be married. But if they insist on being married, too, that’s going to provoke a reaction, as in reactionary.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Emperor Norton on February 23, 2012 at 11:33 PM

As conservatives we ought to encourage those values throughout all of society — GAY and straight.

ZachV on February 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Viewing gay couples like normal couples is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the idea of family. If you accept the fantasy of “gay marriage” then you pretty much accept any commune arrangement, among any group of people, for any reason … and you will be forcing adoption agencies to treat them all as if they were the same as a normal couple. Great. That certainly sounds like a winning strategy. Seeing how US immigration policy is almost entirely family-based (because we used to respect the idea of a real family) there are some major shocks that are going to come from this insanity.

And, BTW, single people are also entitled to whatever fringe benefits the married and pretend-married gays get for being married or pretend-married. The Equal Protection cr@p has gone way too far and is always being enforced to give better protection to the crybabies who are bringing the suits, which should have been thrown out on first appearance.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 23, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I’m the kind of person who does what I say.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I’d like to believe you are, it’s just that between the medium of the Internet and the precedent of broken promises in the arena of self-exiling…I have to take ANY such statement from ANYONE with a pound of salt.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society

Bingo.

Unfortunately, this is very unfashionable thinking. Not offending gays seems to be a higher priority than the long term implications of erasing any meaningful lines between male and female.

Dongemaharu on February 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I’m not married so maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about here, but how is sanctioning gay marriage reducing marriage to nothing more than the state putting a rubber stamp on your sex life? I always thought there was a lot more to marriage than just getting it on in the sack. I don’t imagine gay partnerships are much different from straight ones in any other respect.

I realize this is never going to happen, but in my perfect world, government wouldn’t even be in the marriage business in the first place. It’s as appropriate for government to use a sacred religious institution as a means of promoting a social agenda as it is for it to use the tax code to achieve the same means. Translation: The government needs to stay out of private matters, private contracts between individuals, and it needs to stop encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors according to what it deems desirable. It’s none of their effing business. Let families, churches and communities decide for themselves what desirable looks like.

NoLeftTurn on February 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

INC on February 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You’re presenting an article authored by two graduate students and a former chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. That’s like giving me something written by James Hansen or Michael Mann and saying “Global warming has been proven! Here, just read this!” The claims in this paper might be right but given whom the author is and the known axes he has to grind I’m going in with a healthy dose of skepticism. Anyways, back to reading.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM

So is anal sex between two straight people sex? If not, that gives tons of guys a way to say “No, honey, I didn’t have sex with her!”

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Paging Jenfidel…Jenfidel to the white courtesy phone please…

LazyHips on February 23, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Neither oral nor anal sex is weird or unusual with straight couples, regardless of what you pretend. If that’s all they do, and never have children, should they be allowed to marry?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Presumably, straight couples will have regular old vaginal sex at some point, which is how you and I are walking around now.

What do you want to do? Do you want a police state with minimum baby quotas – making sure straight married couples aren’t having too much oral and not enough vaginal?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM

I’m sure most of you here know my theory that the gay rights issue dies with the liberal white majority. Gay rights won’t have much traction with minorities. It’s nice to get a little unintended support from this story.

Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

DFCtomm on February 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM

I don’t imagine gay partnerships are much different from straight ones in any other respect.

NoLeftTurn on February 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM

You’re right. Men and women are the same creatures. Nothing different about them. Either one can have kids, so who needs the couple. Biological parents are so yesterday, anyway. Kids can be raised by anyone. It doesn’t matter. The biological relationship is just in our heads. Silly us.

I imagine groups of 5 women and 3 men who all sleep in the same bed are pretty much like any other family, save the nightly orgies. They’re a family. Let that commune adopt a few kids. What the heck. Give ‘em 6 to start.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Neither oral nor anal sex is weird or unusual with straight couples, regardless of what you pretend. If that’s all they do, and never have children, should they be allowed to marry?

MadisonConservative on February 23, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Presumably, straight couples will have regular old v@g1nal sex at some point, which is how you and I are walking around now.

What do you want to do? Do you want a police state with minimum baby quotas – making sure straight married couples aren’t having too much oral and not enough v@g1nal?

The Count on February 23, 2012 at 11:47 PM

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Take all the grains of salt you want.

Goodbye, America. It’s been nice while you lasted.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM

We also have Nullification though.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Which only applies to federal legislation. Nullification does not apply to the Constitution since the states were the ones who ratified it.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Take all the grains of salt you want.

Goodbye, America. It’s been nice while you lasted.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM

May I ask where you plan to go?? Certainly not Canada, the place is already full of socialist horror stories.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Take all the grains of salt you want.

Goodbye, America. It’s been nice while you lasted.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM

http://bit.ly/xasLPn

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:56 PM

There is no law that bars anyone from agreeing to legally-binding contracts that address any concerns that the gay-community has in this matter. All of the grievances they claim to address by “gay marriage” laws are simply a means to advance their radical-political goals.

shorebird on February 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Take all the grains of salt you want.

Goodbye, America. It’s been nice while you lasted.

The Nerve on February 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Why are you so threatened by love? Wouldn’t you want more love in the world? So what if two people who love each other get married? It doesn’t effect your life or your marriage (if you are married) at all.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

When you get past the hysteria that if gay marriage is legalized, an evil spirit is going to go around with a phallus-shaped wand making straight-marriage certificates disappear…

…the concerns are all about being religious people being threatened/jailed/sued for being ‘intolerant’. Because it’s already happening. In Europe and in Canada, not in Turd-World mudholes.

MelonCollie on February 24, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Why are you so threatened by love? Wouldn’t you want more love in the world? So what if two people who love each other get married? It doesn’t effect your life or your marriage (if you are married) at all.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Pedophiles love children.

Bestialists love animals.

Polygamists love multiple people.

Incest practitioners love blood relatives.

So since love is the only dividing factor, laws restricting marriage for these individuals are unconstitutional and should be overturned.

Unless, of course, you can state how allowing someone to marry a child affects your life or marriage.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

You’re a retard.

spinach.chin on February 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Let’s not throw that word around. I bet you can can come up with something witty and much better.

Laura in Maryland on February 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM

You’re right. Men and women are the same creatures. Nothing different about them. Either one can have kids, so who needs the couple. Biological parents are so yesterday, anyway. Kids can be raised by anyone. It doesn’t matter. The biological relationship is just in our heads. Silly us.

I imagine groups of 5 women and 3 men who all sleep in the same bed are pretty much like any other family, save the nightly orgies. They’re a family. Let that commune adopt a few kids. What the heck. Give ‘em 6 to start.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Not every couple wants to have children. That’s as true of straight couples as it is for gay ones. Should people who never intend to procreate be banned from getting married?

My point was that there are many OTHER reasons people choose to spend their lives together than just raising up a passel of rugrats. Companionship, financial support, physical intimacy, etc. Outside of what goes on in a couple’s bedroom — which is frankly nobody else’s frickin’ business and SCOTUS has already settled that debate — the things that bind gay couples together are not much different from the ones that bind straight ones.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

alchemist19 on February 23, 2012 at 11:39 PM

My comment above was the short version of what’s in the paper.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/23/maryland-becomes-eighth-state-to-legalize-gay-marriage/comment-page-2/#comment-5520592

I found the paper after I’d written that comment.

They cover a lot of ground in more detail than is possible in a brief comment.

As I said above marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman. To discuss such an important institution hardly qualifies as having an axe to grind.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 12:24 AM

For the governors next trick, he is ramming a gas tax increase down the taxpayers throat. happy days indeed

our legislature is such an embarrassemnt. at least i have the orioles to watch.

oh wait

analog kid on February 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Not every couple wants to have children. That’s as true of straight couples as it is for gay ones. Should people who never intend to procreate be banned from getting married?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Don’t give them any ideas; the childed have already voted themselves tax benefits out the wazoo.

MelonCollie on February 24, 2012 at 12:26 AM

My point was that there are many OTHER reasons people choose to spend their lives together than just raising up a passel of rugrats. Companionship, financial support, physical intimacy, etc. Outside of what goes on in a couple’s bedroom — which is frankly nobody else’s frickin’ business and SCOTUS has already settled that debate — the things that bind gay couples together are not much different from the ones that bind straight ones.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Well put!

LazyHips on February 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM

There is no law that bars anyone from agreeing to legally-binding contracts that address any concerns that the gay-community has in this matter. All of the grievances they claim to address by “gay marriage” laws are simply a means to advance their radical-political goals.

shorebird on February 24, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Yes, “separate but equal.” I agree that you can contract around a lot of things, but if one partner’s family is, say, not exactly accepting of the relationship, they can create a lot of heartache for the other partner if their loved one is sick or incapacitated. I don’t think it happens as often as some advocates would like to claim it does, but with only a handful of states recognizing domestic partnerships, it can potentially become a problem at some point.

Also, as a single person, I will tell you that laws dictating how assets are to be split upon death are a lot more favorable for marrieds than they are for singles. I’m not saying that should be taken away; I AM saying that single people should not be penalized by the stupid tax code for being unattached when their relatives pass on.

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Here’s the beginning of an answer:

Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation.

Marriages, in contrast, are a matter of urgent public interest, as the record of almost every culture attests – worth legally recognizing and regulating. Societies rely on families, built on strong marriages, to produce what they need but cannot form on their own: upright, decent people who make for reasonably conscientious, law‐abiding citizens. As they mature, children benefit from the love and care of both mother and father, and from the committed and exclusive love of their parents for each other.

INC on February 24, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Not every couple wants to have children. That’s as true of straight couples as it is for gay ones. Should people who never intend to procreate be banned from getting married?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

The reason marriage exists in the first place is because men and women who have sex have an extraordinarily-high chance of procreating whether they intend to or not.

Marriage exists because children happen, and it is better for society that they happen into an existing legal and benefits structure that is set up to support and encourage their parents to raise, educate, and take care of them. That is why society, through direct subsidization and legal streamlining, pays them to do it, and accepts that revenue drain as a necessary part of raising children.

Gay and lesbian couples? Zero benefit to society. Zero benefit obtained from their marrying. Marriage has no effect on gay and lesbian promiscuity and responsibility, especially when you have leaders of the gay and lesbian community like Dan Savage deriding and mocking monogamy and fidelity.

Why should society waste the money or devalue marriage so that gay marriage supporters, overwhelmingly liberals who openly mock the values and responsibilities of marriage, can have it?

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Also, I’m curious: These discussions here always seem to devolve in bizarre characterizations of gay sex between men. Almost no mention is ever made of sex between women. Is that because it’s different in some way?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:41 AM

good on Maryland now we need to get the other 42 recalcitrant staes going in the right direction.

Your Mamma loves me on February 24, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Disgusting. I will never to to Maryland again.

tjcat on February 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2012 at 12:30 AM

So, would you be for gay marriage if the couple getting married intended to, or already had, adopted? Since adopted kids need the same legal benefits as bio kids.

Cyhort on February 24, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Also, I’m curious: These discussions here always seem to devolve in bizarre characterizations of gay sex between men. Almost no mention is ever made of sex between women. Is that because it’s different in some way?

NoLeftTurn on February 24, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Dude that’s because most of the gents that post here are big closet cases(like their gay religious idol Frothy Mixture) and want to talk about gay sex with the other queens. Basically they are are cruising looking to hook up

Your Mamma loves me on February 24, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4