From the office of Sen. Nancy Jacobs:
I oppose legalizing Gay Marriage in Maryland and will fight vehemently against Governor O’Malley’s initiative to pass this legislation.
It is my belief that the majority of my constituents and the majority of Marylanders oppose legalizing gay marriage.
Government has historically defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman and I believe it should remain that way. If gay couples want legal rights that traditional couples enjoy it can be granted civilly without legalizing gay marriage.
Traditional marriage is deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of many who believe this legislation threatens the institution of the traditional family.
Senator Nancy Jacobs
Minority Leader
(R-Harford and Cecil Counties)
Do you believe Sen. Jacobs’ belief is accurate?
I strongly disagree with Senator Jacobs!!!
I believe everyone in America is entitled to equal rights! We have to learn that everyone in America gets equal rights to marriage, health care, education, and employment.
This is going to make me work harder to get OMalley’s law passed.
I am a heterosexual woman.
I believe that Sen. Jacobs is probably accurate when she says that a majority of her constituents are opposed to gay marriage.
What I think about what her constituents believe I’ll discuss on Monday at 7am on WAMD.
I’ll have reps from both sides of this fight join me- a community leader opposed to gay marriage and a gay woman who wishes to get legally married. We let them fight it out.
Senator Jacobs – I am not sure I believe your premise; but even if you are correct what difference does it make what your constituents believe if they are wrong about a civil rights issue? If the majority of your constituents believed we should have segregated schools, would you thus vote to reopen Consolidated Central and bus African American students to Hickory as we did not much more than 50 years ago? Tell me Senator, would you make a vote that costs you your position because you know it is the right thing to do? Perhaps, Senator Jacobs, it is time for you to do what is right, and not just what is right wing.
Your position is illogical and based in feelings, not facts. There is NO valid comparison between race and sexuality. No one gets to choose their skin color, but determining who to have sex with is obviously a choice. Don’t insult the achievements of the civil rights movement but trying to include homosexuals who are choosing to engage in that type of behavior!
I’ll ask you the same question that got me to question that belief– When exactly did you make the choice to be straight? I’ve wracked my brain, and I honestly can’t pinpoint the moment that I made the choice to like women.
I must agree with you on this about Civil Rights and Marriage. I’m tired of seeing liberals compare all their fights to the Civil Rights movement. If I were from that era it would make me mad! They do it with Illegal’s (the correct term for what they are) and now gay marriage, which is apples to oranges on the issue. Just stop trying to link a historical righteous and correct movement with your push for what us married individuals find wrong and unnatural. I have no problem with the Civil Union for gay couples but do not accept their argument for the right of Marriage.
Yes, by all means let’s keep defining devancy down. Why not let two men and a woman or three men and six women all get married. What about people who love their pets? Should not they be allowed to be “married”?
No. MARRIAGE is one man and one woman.
Who says?
Your Creator. Whether or not you believe in Him is irrelevant, especially on judgement day.
This isn’t about hate or bigotry, but doing the right thing.
God’s standards>man’s standards.
You mean the invisible man in the sky? I came from monkeys thank you very much.
And where did your Monkey’s come from? that’s right the invisible man in the sky! It’s possible to believe in creationism and evolution!
@WATCHER – Sorry your family didn’t progress as far as most humans.
H.
Wow. All the evangelicals are mad now. So much for tolerance. And my family has progressed more than most, actually.
If I want them to read fairy tales, I’ll pick up some works by the Brothers Grimm.
It’s people like you that are so eager to cram your views down everyone’s throat. I have no problem with organized religion. People should feel free to make their own decisions about what to believe. But you give it a bad name.
Watcher, you are one despicable SOB. If you don’t agree with my theory you somehow inherit the right to malign my belief. If I don’t agree with your theory you get to malign me. Your taill is surely beginning to show. Can you cite the last time monkey stood up and became a human? Does your theory include some idea that evolution was a one time phenomenon and then stopped at where we now find ourselves? Who decided to stop it then? The THEORY of evolution has never been proved scientifically so it remains a theory, yet we teach our young that it is a proven fact.
Horse shit!
Tsk tsk. Such language from the has-been (or is that never was?) Aberdeen City Councilman. Can you prove the existence of God? I think not.
Again, I don’t question anyone’s individual beliefs as my wife is an active member of her church. But it’s people like you that ruin in for everyone. Cramming you belief system down everyone’s throat. Shame on you. You are a disgrace and thank The Invisible Man In The Sky that you weren’t elected mayor.
@Watcher
“For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.”
Blaise Pascal
P.S. Watcher is a fool
Gee Watcher, I didn’t realize that I might offend your tender sensibilities. Let me rephrase it, you are despicable and I hope that when you get home your mother runs out from under the porch and bites you.
I can see why you have decided to call yourself “watcher” rather than “Doer.” You only have the minimal intellect to demean the person but not actually answer the points of argument. What I or anyone else did in public service has absolutely nothing to do with the points made by me. I did not try “Cramming you belief system down everyone’s throat.” As a matter of face I did not even address my belief system.
As I said in the earlier post the idea of teaching our children that a theory is fact is nothing but equine fecal matter.
Go have coitus with yourself!
@YENSAN – Break out the thesaurus did we, Dave? And by the way, a “thesaurus” is a book not a several million year old dinosaur. Because, you know, life started before 2,011 years ago. Do you believe the Earth is flat, too?
I find your asinine attempts to put me down both immature and boorish. I’ll say it again, thankfully the good people of Aberdeen saw to it that you weren’t mayor. It really gets under you skin, doesn’t it?
P.S. – deny it all you want but science isn’t a theory. I’ll take science all day (and twice on Sunday – get it?) over believing in in an invisible man/woman/whatever.
My creators were my parents, not God, your argument holds little value for me.
Given all the evil things that happen in our world, why would I choose to believe in a God that allows such things to happen to innocents? I’m happy for you that you live in a place where you can believe in a God and others can choose not to believe.
Speaking of choice, I have come to believe that the only choice that homosexuals (as well as bisexuals, transgenders, etc.) make is to cast away the roles, beliefs, and rules that society forces upon them at birth and embrace their biological nature. The choice is not to BE gay, but to admit that they ARE gay, to themselves and to a society fearful of anyone unlike themselves. Homophobia is no different than racism, sexism, class prejudice, xenophobia, or any other bigoted belief based solely upon a genetic trait or circumstance that is beyond the control of the target.
I get that the God Squad will vehemently disagree with me. I’m probably going to Hell in their eyes, which quite frankly doesn’t bother me since as a skeptic I doubt Hell’s existence anyway. I know that my argument will not change any of their opinions. I just always like to remind myself that the Church tried and convicted Galileo of heresy, officially condemned him and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life for the crime of believing that the Sun was the center of the Universe. The Church has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. I don’t understand why any logical person would follow an organized religion that teaches its followers that they are destined to go to Hell from the day they are born and must prove that they are worthy to be rescued from that destiny, rather than assuming that all who are born are good until proven otherwise. Whatever.
Hey Concerned Teacher people choose gay sex for many reasons, but mostly for recreation.
People choose secularism because they want the convenience of situational beliefs.
Now, now, Nancy, calm down. You’d think the world was going to end if same-sex couples were allowed to marry here. Oh, wait, you and the rest of your fundamentalist friends do think the world is going to end. But it won’t be because of gay marriage, it might be because of global climate change, though. Wait, you don’t believe in that either, do you?
Face it, times have changed and the majority of America has, too. Harford and Cecil counties might be a little slow to catch on but, trust me, they’ll get there. In the meantime, step aside and watch the forces of progress, equality and justice win the hearts and minds of Maryland.
@Joe Smith
I lol’ed that people still believe in AGW.
I can’t believe this is even an issue in 2011. Ms. Jacobs, I am aware that many people define marriage in terms of their religious faith. We are not discussing that. The government CAN’T legislate a definition of marriage derived from the tenets of one religious faith–that would amount to establishing a national religion.
Further, you are incorrect in saying that “Government has historically defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.” As recently as a generation ago, government defined marriage as an institution between a white man and a white woman. As we grew as a society, the definition of marriage grew as well. Fifty years ago, people were up in arms about the notion of legalizing interracial marriage. To claim that our government has a centuries old, never-changing definition of marriage is disingenuous.
Finally, there is a fairly simple solution to all of this. Based on comments from Ms. Jacobs (and from my Republican-leaning friends and family), the issue here is more about semantics than it is about rights. Only a tiny minority seems interested in denying gay couples the same rights as straight couples (tax benefits, next of kin rights, workplace protections, etc). They simply want to distinguish it by labeling it with a different term of “civil union.” Since the issue is primarily one of religion, why not simply get government out of it? NOBODY would apply for a “marriage license” or get “marriage benefits.” From a strictly governmental point of view, label ALL unions between two consenting adults as a “civil union.” The churches could then be free to put the semiotic stamp of “marriage” on whichever unions fit their faith-based definitions.
I am in a same sex relationship and we have two kids. We have been partners since 1996. Our lives are much like yours, they revolve around work, the kid’s school, gymnastics, swimming, piano, ballet, etc. We had a cermony performed by a minister, but we are not legally bound. We have legal documents in place to protect our children – and to ensure that they have TWO parents.
I don’t really believe your premise that the majority of your constituency is against gay marriage. Recently, someone posted a poll on Chesapeake Mommies asking this question, and although there were some people who came out against it, most were either in favor of it or took the stance that it is a religious matter and should not be a civil one. I myself have really not experienced any censure directly. Granted, we’re not asking for input – further, I think that it’d be extremely rude if someone were to give it, but most people seem to accept us as people and as a family.
Therefore, I think that you need to take another look at your constituency…This issue isn’t worth your time and will make you look foolish.
It seems O’Malley is looking for yet another block of voters (he already has the illegals, government workers, those who don’t pay taxes, etc.) to help his political career (next stop – the Senate).
Should we really care whether people of the same sex “officially” marry? It may be another one of those issues that the people of Maryland need to decide and not O’Malley and his liberal buddies and followers. If it passes I bet there will be another move to put it on the ballot (similar to the tuition bill for illegals) and rightfully so.
But here are some things to think about: If same-sex marriage passes, what’s next? Will schools be required to teach our kids that same-sex sex is OK (it happened recently in California – the land of the fruit and nuts)? Will churches be required to perform same-sex marriage? Will there be other laws that follow allowing perverse unions?
Whatever the case, it should be the people of Maryland to vote on this issue and not a bunch of politicians . . . By the way, what stance will the Catholic Church take on this (O’Malley)? Perhaps there should be some consideration for excommunication . . .
Rob, posts like this make me really question the validity of the Tea Party’s focus on the constitution. You don’t seem to understand the very document that your group claims to champion. You, predictably, attempt to use the “what other kinds of marriages will be legal if we allow gay marriage” rhetoric. That argument is absurd. There are tangible financial and social rights granted to married couples. One segment of the population is denied those rights. Straight folks can’t marry 5 people at once. They cannot marry a houseplant or a child. Two consenting heterosexual adults CAN, however, enter into a marriage, a right denied to gays and lesbians. This is a constitutional issue, and politicians are sworn to uphold the US Constitution, not the whims of the masses. If you don’t like the way the politicians uphold the constitution, you can try to vote them out (bit of history–people were upset with politicians in the 1960s as well for defending the Constitution against the wishes of the majority).
You blatantly lie about the education policy in California. They are not teaching that homosexuality is good OR bad. They have added a curricular mandate that gay accomplishments be taught. Considering the epidemic of gay suicide over the last decade, it provides potential role models for these kids.
As is your habit, you also attempt to drum up unfounded fear of potential consequences. There is NO chance that churches will be required to perform gay marriages, and you know it. If churches were the ONLY place where legal marriages could be performed, then that might be a possibility, but from a government marriage standpoint, the only important part of the marriage is the properly filed license (the ceremony can be performed by a church, a military officer, a boat captain, an Elvis impersonator or a mime for all they care). The only reason to claim that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages is to drive up unfounded fear in the population. Seems par for the course for your group (were you on the “Death Panels” bandwagon as well?)
Finally, I am surprised that you try to use O’Malley’s faith against him. He, as an American politician, is concerned primarily with the Constitutions of both state and nation. I find it shocking that a representative of the Tea Party would want such a politician to place the tenets of his FAITH over the authority of the US Constitution. Or do you only have a problem with people placing faith over the Constitution when that faith is Islam? Why should Catholics be required to follow Church Law above all else while Muslims are being asked to publicly pledge that their faith takes a backseat to the law of the land? Don’t you see your own hypocrisy?
On this issue and others Jacobs represents those who are in what was called Future Shock in 1965 by Alvin Toffler. What Toffler wrote about in 1965 is happening today. Also, today the Internet has caused information overload. While these books were written years ago, they apply to what is happening today.
Here is an article you should read to understand why the Tea Party and Jacobs are voices of the past.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-14-futureshock14_ST_N.htm
“Toffler argues that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a “super-industrial society”. This change will overwhelm people, the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaving them disconnected and suffering from “shattering stress and disorientation” – future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems were symptoms of the future shock. In his discussion of the components of such shock, he also popularized the term information overload.
His analysis of that phenomenon is continued in his later publications, especially The Third Wave and Powershift.”
Sen. Jacobs, I am one of your MANY constituents who does NOT believe that legal marriage should be restricted to opposite sex partners. Note I say legal marriage – religious marriages should reflect the beliefs of their individual religions. But legal marriage, with its full rights and benefits, must be available to any couple, of any race, religion OR gender, who desires to make the commitment to each other. Your attitude against those who are different is disgusting and undignified.
No one is saying any religious institution must marry anyone – I am a straight female and was denied the sanctity of marriage within two different organized religions because my beliefs differed (and I think they were correct and proper to do so) – but no couple should be denied the legal state of marriage for any reason.
My marriage is not threatened by anyone else’s marriage. If yours is, Sen. Jacobs, I think that speaks to the fragility of the relationship, not to the appropriateness of any others. Let whomever marry do so, as long as they are two consenting adults live and let live. We have far more pressing issues to worry about!
“It is my belief that the majority of my constituents and the majority of Marylanders oppose legalizing gay marriage.”
While I cannot speak for the majority, whatever that is, I also live and vote in Harford County and do not oppose legalizing gay marriage. I think that if you are against gay marriage (or that other hot button issue–abortion) you shouldn’t do it. It is such an easy solution.
I think that homosexuality is biological. Who would choose to live a life where people want to beat you up because of who you love? Although I am heterosexual and have been married to the same Republican for nearly 30 years, I am not afraid to give people who love each other the right to marry and enjoy some of the very practical legal benefits the rest of us get.
Posting on Dagger, which seems to be overwhelmingly visited by conservatives, is very safe, Ms. Jacobs. I am certain you will hear what you want to hear on here. But I disagree and think that homosexuals deserve rights.
THANK YOU!! Very well explained. I wish Ms. Jacobs (and the other reps) would move on to more important issues and quit whipping up the insanity of those less fortunate folks who are intolerant, unforgiving, judgemental and unable to clearly understand how important civility and education are to the civilized world.
Ironic/funny how liberal Harford County can be on certain issues.
Same sex couples exist, Nancy. They live together. They raise children together. They committ to lifetimes together. No matter what religious bigots decide to believe, they are not going away. Their civil rights have long been denied, and it is time that their marriages be legalized. This will NOT lead to plural marriages, marriages between animals and humans, or whatever nonsense over-reacting pundits proclaim.
Marriage began as a legal contract of possession between man and women. Women’s families paid doweries. Women’s property became the soul possession of her husband. Etc. Etc.
Times are changing. Sixty years ago interracial marriages were also denied to people based upon the Bible. If one wishes to use the Bible as an excuse to deny such legal unions, then such religious people need also to remember that God created this Earth. What He has done is perfect, whether or not you understand His ways.
Barbara, regarding people using the Bible to deny interracial marriage: There was no sound theology to support this, unlike the numerous verses found that condemn homosexual relations.
Again, this isn’t about hate, which is what you imply by your “bigot” comment. I have gay friends and they know and respect my position, even if they don’t agree with it.
Sin is sin. The sin of gay sex is no worse than my own sins.
What constitutes “sound theology”? In the first half of the 20th Century, bigots frequently used Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 to argue for a Biblical justification for denying interracial marriage. At the time, that was very much considered to be “sound theology.” Today, of course, the majority view those passages differently (interpreting the verses to be a warning of marriage outside the faith rather than between the races).
Even with the modern interpretation, why do we not legislate against inter-faith marriages? There is just as much “sound theology” in the Bible banning that as there is against homosexuality. Why not ban divorce altogether? There is far more Biblical justification for that than there is for banning gay marriage.
This is why the Biblical argument against gay marriage utterly fails. Besides the fact that the Bible can’t be used as the sole justification for public policy, but you don’t even have the moral high ground. If you want to ban gay marriage using the Bible as your reason, you had best be lobbying for the criminalization of divorce, inter-faith marriages, infidelity, businesses being open on Sundays, etc etc etc. The lack of consistency makes you lose all credibility, because such people only use the Bible as a justification for criminalizing acts that they don’t already do. Such people selectively pick passages from the Bible to be used as a weapon while actively defending their own right to violate the word of God in areas that directly benefit themselves. Such people are pitiful cowards and I believe those folks are far more likely to descend to the pit of fire than most of the homosexual community.
Sound theology means rightly dividing scripture and not taking every verse at face value. Jesus said that if our hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off. Any educated, rational person knows that’s hyperbole.
Regarding your citations of Deuteronomy 7:3-4, look at the previous verses for full context. God was clearly referring to seven nations that fell deep into immorality (which, btw, is not subjective despite what the world told you)and warned the Israelites to not have anything to do with them, including marriage.
As for Corinthians 6:14, no sound and mentally stable theologian ever believed that “light” and “darkness” was a reference to race. In the Biblical context this is clearly “good” and “evil.”
Question….answered.
Yes, you answered the one rhetorical question in my whole post, while dodging the serious ones (I KNOW what sound theology means–my point was that, in the political arena, passages considered to be “sound theology” often lose that status over time).
I will re-pose my earlier questions:
Do you believe that divorce should be forbidden? Infidelity criminalized? Inter-faith marriage banned? Working on the Sabbath banned?
What is it about this ONE issue that makes it so much more important than the litany of other Biblical mandates that we refuse to mandate? Why do you insist on using the power of government to judge others, while simultaneously seeking to prevent government from judging yourself?
I Left: Gay marriage isn’t criminalized, so I’m not sure why you ask the question about divorce, infidelity, etc.
Biblically speaking, there are grounds for divorce: sexual immorality, which of course is adultery in the marriage context.
The important thing to remember is that the covenant between God and man is no longer the law, but grace. Obedience to God’s law will not save anyone, only repentance and faith will. Any good works are a response to the gospel, not a requirement.
No one sin will condemn a person, just as no one good deed will save them. But the more sin is normalized, the further people will be from their Creator, who yearns for them to be reconciled to Him.
All of my beliefs are simply based on my faith that God’s standard is infinitely better than our own. If Christianity doesn’t make you uncomfortable at some point, is it really faithful Christianity or is it tailoring it to meet your needs/wants/comfort level? I used to support gay marriage under the excuse it won’t affect me personally, but the issue at hand is far greater than me….it’s a God-ordained institution that never came into question until about 20 years ago. The slope is indeed slippery.
Homosexuality is a focus because it’s among the immoral things being normalized, along with corporate greed, war, etc. I concede it gets more focus from Christians than it should, but certainly not the inerrant Bible.
Ted,
Gay marriage is legally prohibited in most states, and Conservatives are actively fighting to keep it that way. I ask about divorce, infidelity, etc, because those sins feature FAR more often and with much stronger verbiage in the Bible than does homosexuality. Why try to legislate the former while ignoring the latter? I understand that there are (inconsistently mentioned) certain cases for approved divorce–yet divorce is not limited to those situations. You can get married one day and get divorced the next for no reason. The divorce rate has skyrocketed in recent decades. Why not attempt to legislate that based on your faith?
I also take issue with your claim that marriage is a “God-ordained institution that never came into question until about 20 years ago.” Do you honestly believe this? First of all, marriage existed for many centuries before the advent of Christianity. People were marrying each other well before they had a concept of the Bible or Christian law. Second, the institution of marriage has been in a state of perpetual question from the very start. Initially, it was a question of property–women were acquired by men. That continued to encompass political uses of marriage, with the children of warring factions being wed to attempt peace. I’ve already mentioned the more recent racial implications of marriage. As we have grown as a society, so too have we adjusted our definition of what is socially acceptable.
Finally, you state that you make a stand on the issue of gay marriage because you seek to stem the normalization of “immorality.” Do you honestly believe that you can legislate personal morality? Murder must be legislated because it impacts other people. You yourself noted that gay marriage doesn’t effect you. What is the possible benefit to forbidding gay marriage? Even if you believe that the act of homosexuality is a sin, you can avoid that sin by not committing it yourself. You can fulfill you evangelical responsibilities by encouraging others to do the same. What possible benefit is there in legislating against it? It does nothing to save your soul, nothing to save the souls of homosexuals, and has no positive social impact. What possible justification can you have for legislating this belief?
@I Left
Yes to gay marriage, to gay sex education, to celebrating gay history, to gay youth and to gay relationship experimentation.
We need to completely normalize and integrate the gay lifestyle into the fabric of American society and the world.
Homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage and gay is equal to straight. In fact homosexuality is preferable to heterosexuality since it is more civilized and intellectual.
SuperProgressive
Ted,
Who are you to judge? Last time I checked I’m only accountable for my sins and simply cannot judge another and be held accountable for his/hers actions. The bible states “Thou shall love thy neighbor” I thought God was incharge did not realize he left you in charge…..
I am going by the inerrant word of God. He *is* in charge, I just work for Him. 🙂
As for judging, isn’t your saying I am judging a judgement in and of itself?
And of course we’re supposed to love our neighbors….including gay people. I never said or implied otherwise.
Interesting to see in the news that now polygamists are suing to have their “marriages” legally recognized. I hate the term slippery slope but….
Who cares if a gay couple want to marry what part of their marriage will affect you? Do you pay the bills in that household? Will you fall apart because the marriage does or doesn’t fall apart? I really don’t see the point where it will hurt me or my family if they unite as 1. I could careless what people think about my marriage or my household why because they are simply not affected in any shape or form. What happened to separation from Church and State??? I think it’s time for people to get off the ban-wagon by using religion as their argument once you stop using it what argument do you have? If your against them using the word “MARRIAGE” then use civil union and move on.One would think we have bigger issues in this country then gay marriage. Jobs come to mind maybe dealing with the out of control spending in Washington maybe you just need to be fired up over something else that will have no direct impact on you…
Should read have a direct impact on you
If you argue against gay marriage with the Bible you should probably go back and read what the tenants of your religion are. Something about respecting your neighbors and treating others fairly. So what if their lifestyle is at odds with your religion? Religion has absolutely no bearing on what our government should and should not do.. If you want to discriminate and be a bigot it is your choice, but gays are not going to go away just because a few misled religious fanatics say that they are sinners.
I think gay marriage is an abomonable sin. I also believe it is not my place or the legislatures place to legislate a religious belief and defination like marriage. Furthmore I think the state needs to get out of the marriage buisness all together. I should not need the state to sanction my religious practice!
Wow, Cdev—
You are right on for once. That’s a very liberal statement. The good kind of liberal– the kind that means freedom.
The government should have NOTHING to do with the institution of marriage. We should eliminate all social incentive systems like tax benefits for married couples and money for single parents.
People will see the benefits/costs of marriage without the need for government to screw with the incentives.
It’s what I believe and because I believe it I also think it is not hte governments place to tell someone who can or can not get married according to the confines of their religious practice. My religion recognizes marriage between a man and a women but not all do!
From monkeys? It shows.
I remember how much attention Cuomo got for passing the gay marriage bill; pundits were tossing Cuomo’s name around as a replacement for Biden in 2012. We all know MOM has grand aspirations, and it would be a lot easier to run for the big gig from the VEEP position. Just saying…
I believe you have a good point . . . this brings a great deal of attention to the governor. He does nothing out of the goodness of his heart; like Obama, it’s all about him. Martin O’Malley has his eyes on higher office.
Since this topic has gotten so heated and is so divisive I’ve decided to hold off on discussing this today and dedicate all of Wednesday’s show to this issue.
Here are the questions I will pose to each side of the issue:
Anti-gay marriage-
1. Can you give a reasonable NON-biblical argument against gay marriage?
2. Why do you believe gay marriage will affect your family?
3. It seems as though many on the anti-gay
Marriage side have a belief that being gay is a choice despite the fact that the scientific community at large has said that it is in fact NOT a choice. Why do you disagree?
4. If the largest non-biblical argument against gay marriage is because of it’s alleged damage to the family- why not van divorce which has a much higher rate of damage to the family just based on sheer numbers?
For Pro- gay marriage supporters-
1. Why isn’t “civil union” good enough? Why the push for the word marriage if all of your legal concerns are dealt with in civil-union legislation?
2. Should gay marriage become legal, what role will public schools be forced to take with regard to educating students about the gay lifestyle?
3. With so many other big issues to be dealt with today- unemployment for instance- why tie up legislators with this fight right now?
4. Though many homosexuals believe that their rights to marry are being infringed, they have the EXACT same rights as everyone. They can get married to some one as long as it’s of the opposite sex. So essentially homosexuals are asking for SPECIAL right not equal rights. Why should they be given special rights and doesn’t this open the do for other special interest groups to get special rights?
Those are the questions- love to hear your answers.
Wednesdays whole show will tackle this issue. Tune in on 970am or at http://www.khztv.com/WAMD or use the tunein radio app on your smart phone to find us.
Btw- comments on the dagger may be used on air and personal attacks will not be dealt with kindly.
Maynard,
I am no expert on this issue and I won’t play one on the internet, but I like to believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
1. Despite the Left constantly describing themselves as the “Party of Science” they refuse to look at the fallacy of this issue. I’ve heard the argument that it *very rarely* occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and that should prove it is normal. When we start looking to wildlife to justify our actions/virtues, I start to fear for society. Another activity, that is much more common, in the animal world is cross-species interbreeding; hell, the polar bears are becoming endangered because they are breeding with brown bears. Don’t get me wrong, I am by no means equating homosexual sex with bestiality but when they use that logic they are opening up the door for comparisons to other absurd actions from within the animal kingdom
Speaking of opening up doors, where will we let the definition of marriage go? I saw that numerous polygamist groups had started filing and pre-filing lawsuits to have their marriages recognized. There is growing support for gay marriage (I’ll recognize this), but you can’t say the same for polygamy. I’m not going to say that this opens up the door to marrying inanimate objects and pets/animals but why not if we can continually redefine marriage?
Also, Charles Darwin, who the left constantly cites, effectively said that the purpose of life is to go on and reproduce in order to pass on your genes. To the extent of my knowledge, two men or two women together will never be able to reproduce and pass on their genes.
2. Gay marriage will surely affect families eventually. It won’t affect me or my family now, but when I have kids I don’t want them taught that homosexuality is normal in schools. I wouldn’t mind if my child had a gay teacher or professor but if they had a teacher telling them that homosexuality is okay I wouldn’t be happy about it.
3. I remember when AGW was just about a consensus idea. While I recognize that many scientific minds are saying that it is genetic, I do not believe this has been 100% proven yet. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it is/will be proven; are all of the genes we inherit beneficial? Think about all of the genetic diseases we can inherit. What about the genes that have been shown to have a link to inheriting proneness to alcoholism or obesity? You can battle your biology, is every person who has the obesity gene overweight or is everyone who has an increased susceptibility to alcoholism a raging drinker? No because while you are prone to something doesn’t mean that is the only way.
4. While that is most people’s argument, as I stated earlier it is not mine; I do believe it is certainly not beneficial though. I think liberalism in general is the most damaging thing to families. Once you get to the bottom they hold you there by subsidizing your stay and making it less profitable to get and hold a job. Contrary to what Marx and many of the modern liberal thinkers believe, hard work does indeed build character and you don’t get that collecting unemployment. The government has replaced the husband’s role in a family when the woman learns she would be making more money if she was a single mother. This is what they want though, as many people completely dependent on the government as possible.
Also assuming the divorce question was serious, if we tried banning divorce I am afraid that the same number of people would be hurt because of the women trying to get away from abusive men would be stuck.
With all that being said, I do lean to support same-sex civil unions. As crazy as it may sound judging from what I said earlier, I understand we should be tolerant of people even if we are different from them. I would like to hear some other people’s opinion from around the county, what time on Wednesday should I be listening for?
“what role will public schools be forced to take with regard to educating students about the gay lifestyle?”
Schools should teach the mechanics of homosexual sexual practices, history and culture from a scientific and academic standpoint.
SuperProgressive
“Should gay marriage become legal, what role will public schools be forced to take with regard to educating students about the gay lifestyle?”
This should be of no concern at all in Harford County. The HCPS policy is to teach abstinence only in health classes. Hakuna Matata.
Unable as I was to listen to or participate in your radio show, I offer these opinions in response to your questions.
1. Why isn’t “civil union” good enough? Why the push for the word marriage if all of your legal concerns are dealt with in civil-union legislation?
The reason to push for the word ‘marriage’ is because of the inherent economic and legal rights associated with the word. An example is that many employer-sponsored insurance plans do not extend benefits to civil partners or children of civil partners, while extending benefits to spouses and step-children.
2. Should gay marriage become legal, what role will public schools be forced to take with regard to educating students about the gay lifestyle?
Does the public school system educate students about the straight lifestyle? If they do, then I missed that part of my children’s education. As teachers, we have much more important things to do than to indoctrinate children with an official, government-sponsored version of the American Culture.
3. With so many other big issues to be dealt with today- unemployment for instance- why tie up legislators with this fight right now?
It shouldn’t tie up legislators at all. It should be a no-brainer, but the obstructionists in the legislature are fighting against it. Therefore, that question should be asked of them, not of me.
4. Though many homosexuals believe that their rights to marry are being infringed, they have the EXACT same rights as everyone. They can get married to some one as long as it’s of the opposite sex. So essentially homosexuals are asking for SPECIAL right not equal rights. Why should they be given special rights and doesn’t this open the do for other special interest groups to get special rights?
In 1963, blacks and whites had the right to drink the exact same water from public fountains, ride the same buses, and get drafted into the same military. Why then, did they need special rights to drink water from the same fountain, freely choose their seat on the bus, or be placed in the same military unit? It is not a morality issue, it is a civil rights issue. The US Government has already deemed it so when they gave crimes against homosexuals “hate crime” status. What other social groups are having their civil rights denied on such a grand scale and in such an organized manner? I cannot think of one.
I am straight. However, I know gays. I have taught students who were openly gay and who I suspected were closeted gays. It bothers me that in 21st century America there are still the same visceral anti-gay emotions that harken back to the anti-black wall of the 60s and the anti-female wall of the 19th century. It seems that some in this country still need to feel morally superior to others. It gives them their sense of self-righteousness, no matter how unearned it is.
When the only people you talk to are all members of the Klan for Liberty, of course you’re going to end up with such fool beliefs. If someone simply told you that they were gay would you run to the Bathroom and call the police like your heroine Michelle Bachman?
I find it hypocritical that the ones who scream for smaller government have no problem with the same government telling gay couples how to live their lives and that they can’t get married/have civil unions.
This isn’t going to ruin heterosexual marriage—straight couples already do a good job of doing that with adultery and domestic violence. So let them get married—and stop the obession with their bedrooms.
Catching up on the comments, I’m actually surprised at the ratio of intelligent ones. Take that how you want. I assumed this was going to be an extremist killing field.
This issue for me, just like abortion, or any other “morality” public issue, is only politically relevant in terms of how it impacts my wallet.
Just as I exercise my consumer choice to buy and not buy products and/or from companies that I don’t want to have my money for various reasons, these issues only really extend into law as far as the government extends their hands into my tax collection.
Beyond that, you cannot ever legislate the finer points of morality (unfortunately). There are a lot of things I’d like to see different about our world, and long ago as a student of political science I realized government isn’t the place to make those changes, prinicpally because there is seldom grounds for it in the Constitution. (that’s a good thing)
Instead of going about it vote by vote, I go about it person by person. If you ask me, it’s much more effective. And, you make many more new friends than enemies.
Let’s see how the law gets crafted. If it’s similar to the one in NY that includes protections for freedom of religion, I think you will see it approved easily in MD.
I don’t know that that’s a good thing, but it’s probably the legal thing.
@another political critic
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. We will be carrying on the discussion most of The day Wednesday.
With all due respect, I do respect your thoughts on this though id like to point out that your answers seem to be arguments against homosexuality itself rather than the specific issue of gay marriage. Arguments with regard to polygamy, gay education, etc ate all different arguments.
I’d like to stay off of the “slippery slope” and just focus on same sex marriage- what real negative consequence does it bring? Id rather not devolve into debate with regard to other issues. Those are different arguments for a different time.
Homosexuals aren’t going away if you ban gay marriage. Efforts to “normalize” to borrow a phrase won’t really be diminished. I just don’t see how allowing 2 men to marry will be the death knell of the World.
Thanks so much!
Many who argue against jump immediately
Hi Maynard,
Regarding your questions-
#1: Using two different words continues to promote
discrimination from a variety of venues. What will be the consequence, for example, of checking the “married” block vs the “civil union” block on applications/forms.
HMMMMM. In the interest of equality and the separation of church and state, why not have the govt. issue “Civil Union” certificates for all and allow churches to award “Marriage” certificates as they deem appropriate?
#2 As a teacher for 30 years, I can atest to the fact that public school teachers are charged with maintaining a neutral position regarding,religion, politics and sex. Question and discussions in these veins are routinely refered to parental inquiry. The word “parents” does not need to be gender specific.
One other thought: If O’Malley is “pandering” to a powerless minority, who is Jacobs “pandering” to?
the thought that children be raised in a home where their two daddies are playing hide the salami in the shower is wrong morally. Children have enough bullying to deal with in our schools and do not need to be made fun of for having two butch mommies or 2 bone smoking fathers… They can get married all they want but being allowed to adopt children is a different story.
WOW. Really? Someone should stop you before you breed.
Really that is how low you are going to stoop? What about many people who shouldn’t even think of having children who have them anyway and you think gay people shouldnt adopt….welcome to the 21st century, we dont have to adopt, we can do other things to have children.All women aren’t butch and all men aren’t light in the loafers. I am sure you would be surprised to find the amount of gay people you interact with on a daily basis that you dont even recognize. Im sure if they knew you , you may not be treated so kindly! You are an embarassment to the human race! And most people who are being bullied are probably going to a same sex families house to be consoled….I cannot imagine anyone with an issue coming to you for help, you would probably have them lobomotized
MORON
Have you been in a middle school recently?
Jacobs shows her usual rabble rousing trying to make us live by Catholic law.
Currently, I am more interested in the stock market. She does not seem apply her thinking to real issues.
What does this issue have to do issues that affect our lives daily?
Today, students in school do not have a problem with other students who have two mothers or dads.
Dog Fog,
You seem to be an expert on all this . . . why haven’t you run for office?
@ Rob – do you seriously lose sleep at night over gay marriage. This is such a non-issue
Students are the most receptive to normalizing homosexual sex in our society.
More and more students especially young women are engaging in same-sex exploration and experimentation. Lifestyle choice is a human right to be admired and celebrated.
Students need to learn the full spectrum of sexual education that parents won’t teach at home. We have gay teachers that should advise students on gay lifestyles.
SuperProgressive
If God agreed with same sex relationships, He wouldnt have destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. His Son does not disagree with Him either. Why would He? For one thing God the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are one. Senator Jacobs is doing what is right in God’s eyes. She is doing what is wrong in the president’s eyes and the governor’s eyes because neither one cares about what God wants. They both call themselves Christians and yet they support same sex marriage, abortion, etc. This includes Barbara Mikulski. Allowing gays to be open about their sexuality in the military is no different than allowing pedofiles to do the same. Both are wrong in God’s eyes. Of course Barbara kind of keeps her sexuality a secret. Will the heterosexual soldier be thrilled to think that the openly gay guy in his barracks may have a crush on him? What good does it do the military? It does no good. And the president wants a blank check to keep giving money to his socialist programs while supporting Muslim countries that hate us. The governor gives millions to the Hispanic headquarters near Washington. Wake up American voters. Wake up Maryland voters. We are going broke because of these policies. I welcome Mitt Romney to the White House. He made mistakes, but he is a good money manager. I welcome and support Senator Jabobs and her Godly and common sense approach to running an office in this state.
You are a bigot and homophobe not to mention an evangelical crackpot. I feel so sorry for you.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
Based on the reasoning above, I guess we better not allow any divorced people in the military. Or anyone who takes the Lord’s name in vain either. Man, it’s going to get hard to have a military after a while. I guess we’ll have an army of angels. Sweet.
Seems it ignore the fact that all sin is equal in God’s sight.
It’s best to ignore people who use that many words and still produce no coherent arguments.
Where on the map and what archaeological evidence do we have for God destroying Sodom and Gomorroah? Since you are only entering the Old Testament into evidence as a legal position are you also doing everything else the Old Testament tells you to do or are you a false prophet and I can deal with you you as the Old Testament says we should deal with all false prophets?
I’m guessing you don’t/haven’t studied theology…and that’s ok. Let me help you out: The OT is the old covenant between God and His people….when Jesus came, many things (but not everything) changed. No longer do people have to “do good things” to find forgiveness with him. Instead, we are saved by repentance and faith alone (as is often mentioned in the New Testament), and any good works we do are not a requirement, but a response to the grace we’ve received from God.
You may find this article helpful: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-hates-shrimp.html
One more thing…the only people who believe we are bound by the Old Testament law are Jewish people and the Westboro “Baptists,” the latter completely perverting the message of Christianity.
Fog dog you are foolish to believe that children with 2 moms or dads do not have serious bullying issues…
From people just like you….
Clay, great response….and not a trace of hate in it, as we are often accused of simply for standing up for our beliefs…but Jesus said it would be like that, right? Whether you believe in God or not, He is your Creator. The day will come when every tongue….black, white, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist…will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, King of kings and the one true God. Mock me, disagree all you want, but friends, I assure you that some things we “feel” are right, aren’t. I’ve been there….I know. I care about everyone here, even though I know none of you. Please find out about the Good News and Hope for all mankind. I don’t have all the answers…no one does….but I do know where I’ll be when I die and it is only by the grace of God I’ll be with Him.
“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.” Proverbs 14:12
You keep right on believing that, if it makes you feel good. Isn’t that what Faith is all about? Believing without question in something that they cannot prove? You obviously need to believe in this ideology to make your life complete. However, it does not give you the right, legally or morally, to impose your belief system on me or to consider yourself superior to me because I do not hold to the same beliefs you do.
If I were to create my own Doctrine, its first tenet would be: “All people are destined for Heaven until they prove themselves unworthy.” If this disagrees with the Doctrine of your faith, does that give it less value to you? If it does, then I would respectfully suggest that your faith is too restrictive, and that no amount of argument, no matter how reasoned or logical, will convince you otherwise. If that is the case, then your opinion and viewpoint carries no weight with me.
What – Faith is about doing and believing what feels good? Pope Benedict XVI just rolled over in his grave (Catholic secret – yes he’s been dead for 20 years – can’t you tell by looking at him?).
No, faith is about believing in something unprovable. My witty line (and it was witty) references the need some people have to believe in some higher power in order to make themselves feel good, to bring some order to their lives.
Sorry if my wit went over your head.