From Del. Glen Glass:
Thank you for taking time out of your day to let me know your thoughts and concerns about the following bills, which are very important to me. It is an honor to serve as your Delegate.
I stand strong in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman and do not believe that marriage should be redefined. People have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Children of Maryland need a loving Mother and Father providing them as much balance as possible. House Bill 438 would teach children one or the other parent is not necessary, is dispensable or un-important. Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages, let’s not confuse them any further.
This year two committees are being brought together in an attempt to avoid the possibility of the issue going to a referendum.
This year’s bills are:
HB 474 – Maryland Marriage Protection Act
Scheduled Hearing on 2/10 at 1:00 p.m. (Judiciary)
HB 438 – Civil Marriage Protection Act – Crossfiled with Senate Bill 241
I recognize the sensitivity of this issue, respect everyone’s opinion and am always available to listen to your views and opinions. However, I was elected to make tough decisions to uphold the Constitution and the rights of my Constituents and that is what I will do.
We will continue to monitor this process and update you should there be any changes.
Glen Glass
Town Hall meeting with Delegate Glen Glass to share your thoughts and concerns and hear what’s going on so far in Annapolis.
Saturday, February 18th, 1:30p.m. – 2:30p.m.
Aberdeen Library
21 Franklin St
410-273-5608
I believe in marriage being between a man and a woman.
I believe marriage can take many forms:
Woman+Man+Man
Man+Woman+Woman
Man+Man
Woman+Woman
Woman+Woman+Man+Man
Etc…………….
Go on PTBL. There’s still farmer+sheep
Woman+German Shepard
Man+boy
Using the solid logic of the GTL group any relationship, between species is perfectly alright.
No need to have inter-species marriage. We only need to decriminalize the act.
ARTURO: That is the lowest form of misrepresentation. It is typical of people who have a shaky hold on an argument. You have made a False Premise statement because your argument is based on a slippery slope (or thin edge of the wedge, camel’s nose) argument: asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.
And BTW I am not Proud to be more Liberal.
What does a relationship between consenting adults have to do with some sicko’s desire to bang farm animals?
We see this argument all the time that legalizing gay marriage will somehow lead to legalizing marriages between adults and children, adults and animals, adults and inanimate objects, etc. It just doesn’t make any sense. So long as the people involved are consenting adults who really cares if they’re 2 men, 2 women, or multiple adults (though why anyone would want multiple spouses is beyond me…1 is plenty.)
There are two parts to a marriage. The religious side and the civil side. If a particular religion doesn’t want to perform gay marriages then that’s fine. That doesn’t mean they can’t go in front of a judge and get married and be recognized by the government and be eligible for the benefits (and drawbacks) that come along with it. Plenty of people get married in front of judges already.
The same types of bs arguments were being made 60 years ago about blacks and whites getting married.
I think everyone missed your point. Right now we have a clear dividing line – a man and woman can marry, period, no one else. Once we change this and allow gay marriage, the dividing lines are not so clear and the door has opened to allow any possibility to be considered. I understand that in Sweden gay marriage is allowed and now people are pressing for brothers and sisters to be allowed to marry.
@Extremely PNTBL,
I do not support gay marriage. If it becomes the law of the land based on the premise of equal rights in being able to marry the one you love, what would be the argument for not permitting brother + brother, or sister + sister being able to marry?
It’s interesting that so many people do not like your comment/question, yet no one offers any debate to your question.
This makes me ill…. No vote for you.
Aren’t there more important things to worry about if you are a member of the State House or Senate? Please….focus on the economy, education, public safety, lowering taxes and improving our infrastructure. Do not let the religious right corrupt any politicians or major issues.
You got it on the head there Driving… Don’t let the religious right get in the way of what we know to be good and fair. The secular left are the only ones who know right from wrong.
Being religious is an affliction like alcoholism or OCD that needs treatment and pity from those on the left.
Proud to be more Liberal
You really need your ass kicked…….
We need government to set us free! It’s the only way for us to be free from the tyranny of the 1% and the conservative right wingers.
Arty Babes,
The RR seems to be the party that gets overzealous on these issues, however, the Elite Leftists have made plenty of crazy comments are their own. I only ask that freedom of religion = preventing religious groups from hijacking our nation’s policies or politicians.
Arty Babes,
The RR seems to be the party that gets overzealous on these issues, however, the Elite Leftists have made plenty of crazy comments on their own. I only ask that freedom of religion = preventing religious groups from hijacking our nation’s policies or politicians.
I believe a marriage is between two people who love each other and want to make a commitment to each other.
Del. Glass should be glad he’s not my representative, because that would be one vote he wouldn’t get.
Mike Gorman,
And it keeps up him at night. Really. Sometimes for one or two minutes past his normal bed time.
P***ed With the Government,
Del. Glass needs to represent the people who sent him there. The crazy notion that somehow the person who gets elected suddenly has some responsibility to cast aside the values and promises he ran on is only the viewpoint of the losers. Your guy lost. Get over it. Believe me, O’Malley doesn’t get up every morning thinking he has to somehow represent Alex R. The only context in which he sees Alex R. is “how much more money can I squeeze from Alex to reward those who voted for me”?
We need to promote all forms of relationships and allow children to learn about the pros and cons enabling them to choose their options.
@drivinmecrazyinharford it looks like this one is already corrupted by the religious right… time for a new one.
So…..Glen Glass indicates that single (divorced heterosexual) parents cannot provide a positive example for their children. Hey Glen, how many children do YOU have? ZERO! Why? Who knows! Maybe that’s a good thing, as you’d probably be a bad influence on them if you did. Hell, you’d be away in Annapolis for 3 months every year, leaving them with a single parent (mother). Hey, maybe that would be a GOOD thing….yes, that would be GOOD!
I see Glass is engaged in one of his wholly unjustified attacks on marriage equality under the guise to support the sanctity of traditional marriage. If he, and his “religious” cadre, really supported “traditional marriage” then they would also be opposed to divorce which they are not. In fact, marriage is mostly threatened in the southern “Bible Belt” while the liberal northeast has the lowest divorce rate. What hypocrites!
The irony! See your post above…
Thats because liberals tend not to marry. They’d rather shack up and have babies out of wedlock so the gubmint can take care of them.
The only way that could be considered more of a racist comment would be by openly using race words in it. I’m a conservative white male and I am appalled by that. There is no humor to be found, and is stereotyping at its worst. I think I just lost 2 points on my IQ because I read and had to process what you said.
How is his comment racist?
PPOOKEY: I think Pookey got pooked once too often and it destroyed brain cells. Is there any data to support this claim?
Dear Mr. Glass,
Thanks for supporting traditional marriage between one man and one woman! There are times which I wrestle with the entire marriage concept as being a religious concept all together which would make the point against pushing for any legislation to be for or against marriage unfair.
As we take a closer look at marriage we see an ideal form of contract by a commitment and mutual sacrifice between two individuals of the opposite sex having the potential to procreate under the obvious physical capabilities inherent to male and female physical and psychological make up.
Any individual’s world view and the perspective which guides a person constitutes a religion and makes something in their lives a deity or ultimate authority whether it be “God in Heaven” or perhaps themselves and their own self determined perception of truth. We as citizens of the United States of America utilize the privilege of believing and
acting in the realm of our beliefs. We have to bear a vigilant respect to the ultimate consequences of misguided uses of our inherent and obvious physical designs and makeup in ways which tear down the fundamental structure of our society.
The concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a inherent,obvious, ideal application of a contractual agreement which optimizes the physical and psychological makeup of each participant when both are in the frame of mind to make long and short term choices to the mutual benefit of each other and of those they may care for in regards to offspring or in-laws.
Regarding anyone whom I obviously disagree with I am thankful them for their honest opinions and respect them as much as I have the ability to cope with their -less than optimal choices- and I pray to God’s for mercy
toward them as they deal with the consequences of -less than optimal lifestyles- which are destructive, costly and irresponsible to maintain a thriving family, neighborhood, community and country.
Sincerely,
Carl Phillips
Forest Hill, MD
I wish you would tell my ex that. She behaved selfishly and ignorantly towards the end of our marriage and allowed me to apologize for my shortcomings while she continued to enjoy the freedom of self determination without regard for my rights or the rights of my son. God has nothing to do with this – especially when individuals have free will, and narcissistic tendencies. There’s a lot of them out there, and some of them espouse to be Christians.
Carl: You stated, “…I pray to God’s for mercy toward them as they deal with the consequences of -less than optimal lifestyles- which are destructive, costly and irresponsible to maintain a thriving family, neighborhood, community and country.”
This is a statement that not only sounds arrogant and insulting, it does not comport with reality. Born-again evangelical Christians have the highest divorce rate in the nation. Moreover, they use religion as found in the Bible as a justification for their acts. Some of the things the Bible tells us are: wives should submit themselves to their husbands, women should not speak, salves may be purchased and beaten, if a virgin is raped and does not scream loud enough then she must be stoned. Women should have their head covered. And in Deuteronomy, a marriage is only valid It the woman is a virgin and she should be executed if she is not… and those who commit adultery should be stoned to death.
The point is that the interpretation of the Bible’s commandments evolves over time to reflect society. One cannot use the Bible to justify opposition to marriage equality. Who are you to judge what is a:”… less than optimal lifestyles…”? It seems to me that religion is NOT a good guide on how to maintain a good marriage as they have such a poor record and have not always maintained “…a thriving family, neighborhood, community and country.”
Read this: http://sapphiresky.org/2010/03/04/christian-divorce-rates/
Secondly, please refrain from trying to use the Bible to make a point when those of who do read it and understand it see your misuse of it. Honestly, it does not give a flattering image.
PTBL – should that be ‘proud to be a lie-beral’? what data do you have to support your claim that christians have the highest divorce rate? Also, you pointed to several quotes, and I give you the benefit of the doubt that they are indeed from the Bible, that are from the Old Testament. As per Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Law of the Old Testament was essentially done away with when Christ died on the cross and was resurrected. Please, if you are going to use Scripture to attempt to make your point, educate yourself first.
However, since you feel a need to use the Holy Scripture for your arguments, I will counter. With most of the book of 1 Corrintians, mostly in chapter 6. Oh, but you like the Old Testament. Perhaps Leviticus will please you: 20:13 “if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon themselves.” Now, before you take this out of context, the death referenced here is not an earthly death, but a spiritual one, and the two involved have only themselves and each other to blame.
Also, you purport that Carl’s prayers for those who engage in such behavior is arrogant and insulting, and does not comport with (your) reality. Actually, he is doing precisely what his God has called him to do: to pray for those involved and entangled in a sinful lifestyle. Remember, you want freedom of speech and freedom to practice one’s own religion. Or does that not apply to Christians?
Anyway, God Bless and have a great weekend,
Jeffery Beck
Jeffery: It is convenient to be able to choose which part of the Bible is True (for you) and false (for me). Either it is the Word of God and True or it is not. You can’t have it both ways man.
• The Associated Press computed divorce statistics from data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health. The data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. “Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce…the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average” of 4.2/1000 people.
• Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
• George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: “While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages.”
• Barna’s results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise “questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families.” The data challenge “the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage.”
• Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: “In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. …Just being born again is not a rabbit’s foot.” Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been “saved.”
• “We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding.” “It doesn’t. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation.”
• The Associated Press analyzed divorce statistics from the US Census Bureau. They found that Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S. at 2.4 per 1,000 population. Texas had the highest rate at 4.1 per 1,000. They found that the highest divorce rates are found in the “Bible Belt.” According to the Boston Globe: “The AP report stated that ‘the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.’ The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.”
You have a great weekend too.
PTBL –
LocalGuy posted a link which thoroughly disproves Barma’s study, please read it.
As for me picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are true, you are either lying to yourself about reality or are wholly ignorant of the Bible which you quoted. As i stated, Christ’s death and resurrection did away with the Law of the Old Testament. That is NOT to say that the Old Testament is not true or that lessons cannot be learned from it. Please, go and take a Biblical Theology class, or something similar, before you try to debate me on the Bible and it’s meaning. That is one topic where you simply don’t stand a chance against me.
Jeffery Beck
JEFF: I did read it but I just don’t put much credence in a religious site that obviously is not impartial. Just because I do not accept everything you do that does not mean I am “…either lying to yourself about reality or are wholly ignorant of the Bible which you quoted” How do you define reality? I define it using impartial statistics compiled by the Census Bureau. You will not be able to argue that the Old Testament is both true and wrong. You need to take a class in logic before you lecture me.
PTBL – I never said that the Old Testament was ‘both true and wrong’. you need to stop mincing my words. go re-read my 2 previous posts on the topic, nice and slow, to make sure you understand. if you need help, reply to this post and I’ll go through it again with smaller words, and i’ll type slower.
your census data showed which states had higher divorce rates. big deal. did it also show which states had the highest rates of marriage? The study from which you pulled most of your argument was no less biased than the one that localguy shared with us. At least that study dug a little deeper into the real data.
Not that any of it matters, because all of that data was for HETEROSEXUAL marriages!
Burn another straw man.
God bless,
Jeffery Beck
JEFF: Please explain what you meant by “…the Law of the Old Testament was essentially done away with when Christ died on the cross and was resurrected.” If something is “done away with” it is, by definition, wrong. You attempt at sarcastic rejoinders only points out the weakness of your arguments. How do you define “real data?” I define it from a source that is not proselytizing.
PTBL –
since you are obviously too lazy or self-absorbed to learn for yourself, fine. The Scriptures you were quoting and referencing were from Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That is Old Testament Law for the Jews of the Old Testament. With Christ’s death and resurrection, not only did he wipe away the sins of his believers, but he also did away with those laws, and His Gospel became law. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament for that.
As for ‘real data’, I simply meant that the biased religious study that was posted earlier dug past the surface of the original study to discover what exact questions were asked, what qualified one as born-again or evangelical, etc. your definition of ‘born-again’ may be very different than mine, and thus bears a little more burden for an explanation.
Jeffery Beck
Carl, if marriage is reserved for those “having the potential to procreate”, would that mean a widow and widower in their 60’s do not deserve the sanctity of marriage? Or those couple where one of the parties cannot bear children?
Bel Air Mom –
clearly Carl’s intent was that 2 men, regardless of age, reproductive issues, etc., cannot procreate, no matter how hard they try. Likewise, neither can 2 women. Obviously, since the only natural method (without the aid of a laboratory) for humans to reproduce is for a man and woman to have sexual intercourse, it can easily be understood that this was Carl’s intent.
Go burn another straw man.
God Bless,
Jeffery Beck
So are you saying that marriage is all about having the proper anatomy rather than sharing a loving commitment to another person?
Bel Air Mom –
“So are you saying that marriage is all about having the proper anatomy rather than sharing a loving commitment to another person?”
No, marriage is not ALL ABOUT having the proper anatomy, but that is certainly a big part of it. So many beliefs are intertwined on this issue, and you’re trying to pluck one or two out to disprove the whole. To those of us with Judeo-Chirstian values (which is the vast majority of Americans), sex is to be reserved for marriage. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Divorce is, at a minimum, frowned upon except in cases of abuse or infidelity.
Certainly, a loving relationship is a big part of the equation as well. As far as I’m concerned, though, absolutely no good can come from a homosexual relationship, regardless of how strong of a “loving commitment” there may be. Remember, God struck down an entire city, largely due to their homosexual acts.
Please, go and read the Bible before you attempt to debate Cristian beliefs and theology.
Jeffery Beck
@Bel Air Mom,
It is neither. Marriage in this day and age is about money and benefits provided through the legal process, and the same is true when a marriage is dissolved.
BEL AIR MOM: Jeff likes to lecture people about Christian beliefs such as “…Divorce is, at a minimum, frowned upon except in cases of abuse or infidelity….Please, go and read the Bible before you attempt to debate Cristian (sic.) beliefs (sic.) and theology.”
He fails to acknowledge that “Christians” especially Evangelical Christians lead the country in these “frowned upon” divorces. You are correct when you state that marriage is, or should be, between people that share a loving commitment to each other: anything else is a fraud.
All Jeff is doing is “whistling in a graveyard” in an attempt to dispel those spirits of reality haunting him and his kind with the message that his beliefs are not enough: the only thing that really matters in life are actions and those actions do not depend upon a religion. Remember that “Christians” have murdered and tortured more people in the name of “God” than can be counted and the world was not better for it.
@JTOWNEJEFF,
While Christians may believe that sex should be reserved for marriage, that in reality does not happen. Most Americans have had sex prior to marriage.
Carl,
Your procreation argument is pure nonsense. Are people who are unable to procreate, for any number of possible reasons, also banned from marrying in your narrow minded world?
Oh Carl,
Please stop bringing religious beliefs into political decisions. Thank goodness you may express your opinion about anything in this country. Let us all cherish the separation of religious institutions and State. Its all about choice. No one side is correct.
Hey, I’m a conservative and all but really why does everyone care about gay marriage? Half of marriages end up in divorce. They should be afforded equal rights under law no matter what my opinion is on there lifestyle. Glenn Glass needs to respect the freedom and liberty of all his constituents.
Wow there are things we can agree upon!
Cool, we all agree… why should we exclude any group from the thrill of a hotly contested divorce?
As another fiscal conservative, I agree with you. Glass should be working on the economy and not worrying about the loving personal relationships of others.
Decoydude –
How do you suppose Del. Glass avoid the issue of gay marriage? Should he just call in sick on the day it comes to the House Floor for debate and vote? Would that make him a better public servant in your eyes? I urge Del. Glass to vote his conscience and to vote in line with his constituents on this matter.
Jeffery Beck
JTJ – I noticed that we have some other conservatives on this board in opposition to Glass and you on this issue. I support this going to the voters. Would you?
I would certainly have no problem with this debate being brought to referendum. However, it sounds as though that may not be possible, based on what Del. Glass has said, and on what I’ve been told from other delegates. Certainly, that would be the best option at this point, though. Sadly, I believe the powers that be in Annapolis will do all they can to prevent the People of Maryland have their voices be heard.
Jeffery Beck
I fully agree with Decoy Dude. Glass should be doing other things, but it was not him who has caused the marriage issue to float to the top of the Annapolis septic tank. That great Savior of all that is right, Marty, caused this flap.
Delegate Glass,
The only reason that, in your words, “children are confused enough right now with sexual messages” is because of bigoted attitudes such as yours. The world will not end when Maryland joins the 7 other states that passed this measure. In fact, Maryland will have taken another step into the 21st century.
Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Harford County
Tom, you were out of line, and by the way your hot dogs suck.
Agreed, Rohm. Something about Tom handling those 7-11 weiners makes them very unappetizing.
Can you marry a weiner? Tom just because 7 states have lost their moral compass it doesn’t mean we have to follow. I would guess if this was put on the ballot the People of the State of Maryland would soundly defeat Martin’s marriage plan. California, Martin’s Utopia voted against the same sex marriage. Now they want the courts to overturn what the people choice at the ballot box.
I firmly support Tom’s right to marry a weiner, however now we get into the question is it a kosher weiner, a cocktail weinie,a ballpark frank, or simply one of the nasty slim jim looking bits of ungodly stems he pushs onto unsuspecting school kids along with smokes and sugary sodas.
As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, the best argument I have for my opposition and my detractors is to point out their own stupidity.
Tom Meyers is right we should promote gay marriage as superior to traditional marriage and get more kids to consider this normal lifestyle choice.
If we are successful gay relationships will be the norm and not alternative.
Gay Secular Atheists Have an Agenda……yes they do, doesn’t everyone?
I do not support the state defining or getting in the middle of Marriage PERIOD!!!!! In fact I do not recognize the state as an authority on Marriage. My Marriage is a covent in front of GOD between me and my wife that we confer sacramentally on each other. That is what my religious beliefs are. If someone elses religious beliefs allow for men to marry men then so be it but the state should stop taxing marriage and stop regulating my religion. If they want to provide for a tax to file a joint tax return then so be it!
Dead on.
What will happen is Gay Marriage is legalized?
http://www.good.is/post/the-only-gay-marriage-graph-that-really-matters/
And, almost on cue, is Tom Myers chiming in with his name-calling. Calling someone a ‘bigot’ because he/she has legitimate moral and religious beliefs puts you on the same level as Mrs. O’Malley calling some people ‘cowards’ for voting against her husband. Hint: that wasn’t a compliment.
Good day and God Bless,
Jeffery Beck
For the record, I don’t agree with Tom Myers. I don’t even like him very much. That said, I also don’t think that Del. Glass should impose his “legitimate moral and religious beliefs” on the rest of us.
What? You say: ” I also don’t think that Del. Glass should impose his “legitimate moral and religious beliefs” on the rest of us.”
Would it be true that there are people imposing their moral and religious/nonreligious beliefs on the rest of us, by advocating in favor of gay marriage?
If yes, leave him alone and let him speak his mind.
If no, that’s called a double standard.
Actually, it’s not. You see, Glass would prevent gay couples from marrying. Whereas if those same couples were to marry, it would not affect you in the least.
Why don’t you speak out against Larry King and his eight wives, or serial adulterer Newt Gingrich or someone who makes a mockery of marriage like Kim Kardashian? I find all of those examples far more offensive and damaging to children, quite frankly, than my gay neighbors marrying.
The gay marriage folks are not sayaing you must enter into a gay relationaship. They simply want what the rest of get by paying a tribute to the state, joint filing status and healthcare benefits. As I said above the state should simply charge a fee for civil unions for everyone and let churches and other religious do the marrying according to their beliefs, which incidently may include homosexual marriage or polygamomy etc.
CDEV –
So, you’re o.k. with me and my 7 wives and our 24 Children moving in next door to you? i highly doubt that.
Yes I am but the townhouses next door on both sides lack bump outs and only have 3 bedrooms and 2 baths, so it will be crowded you may be happier in the end unit on our row with a bumpout, 4 bed rooms, 3 baths and a basement with a rough in which can be converted to extra bedrooms. Our row of nieghbors would welcome you…..we don’t judge unless you steal and then we shoot!
Oh, come on, Watcher. Once you get to know me personally, you’ll see how much of a nice guy I am. 🙂
Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Maryland
“Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Harford County”
Why does he insist on referring to himself in the plural? Shouldn’t his group of one be called “Young Democrat of Harford County”?
Phil, it’s either that or sign his posts with:
Tom Myers, 7-11 cashier and stockboy who still lives with mother at age 30
By the way, if you run a search for the Young Dems of Harford County, they have a very professional and active website.
The front page boasts of their next meeting at Sean Bolan’s on Wednesday, Feb 16…2011!
PHIL DIRT: You are so correct, it difficult in this little corner of Mississippi.
Terrance: Using personal attacks as an argument says more about you than it does about Tom. Do you have anything constructive to add to this?
Be careful what you say, Jeff. I never called Delegate Glass a bigot. I said his attitude was bigoted. It’s the same kind of attitude that wanted to prevent interracial marriages and marriages of black people to other black people. I would say that this is the Civil Rights issue of the 21st century, but that would insinuate that this issue did not need to be addressed before then. The fact that a progressive state such as Maryland waited until 2012 to potentially pass this measure just demonstrates how Stone Age certain aspects of our society are.
Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Maryland
Tom Myers.
A large coalition of black ministers and churches are against gay marriage. Are these the bigoted and stone age mentality people you are talking about?
Bobbie P,
10 out of 10 insane liberal democrat pin-headed slurpy-slinging failed comics agree that ‘black ministers against gay marriage’ are self-loathing bigots.
Anonymous posters on the Dagger should not refer to others as failures, Cletus.
I am not anonymous Mr. Myers. I do believe you should answer the question. Are you saying that the black religious leaders and their congregations who oppose gay marriage are bigoted, and think like they are still in the stone age? I think it is a fair question given your previous comments.
@Bobbie P,
It would seem that is exactly what Mr. Myers means. He is accusing a large and very solid segment of the Democrat’s base to be bigots and of Stone Age mentality. How bigoted is that???
Delegate Glass TOWERS over his colleagues as a statesman. He presents the truth in clear, authoritative language. I love this guy. He is Harford County’s gift to Maryland and America.
Very well said Mr. Glass
If this has no effect on you what difference does it make to you who gets married? That what I thought…Only God can judge people if that is what you believe in..so let people be who they are and mind your own damn business
Maybe he knows the kids i know. They defended this behavior but after they acted on it they tried to commit suicide.The adults are fighting for a sex act and we are losing kids to overdoses and suicde. Maybe the homosexual community needs to take a step back and consider that maybe they are being used to complete an agenda. Then what do you do when they use you to get elected then turn on your minority way of life?
Are you serious?
I hate to tell you but that ship sailed long before the Gay marriage movement. People began having sex out of the sanctity of marriage and gay sex long ago. They don’t need a state sanctioned marriage to continue to have sex anymore then heterosexuals.
Hello everone, Right now there are people testifying in the Joint Hearing room about gay marriage. As an elected official(Delegate) I have to check yes OR no on issues, not yes AND no. I am very sensitive to all views and I care about everyone. If this bill passes, it should go to a referendum so that the people of Maryland decide, not the politicians in Annapolis. The way the Democrat leaders are doing this, having two committees hear the bill, would prevent referendum from happining,that’s wrong. I respect everyone and I always listen. Have a great weekend, Glen
Del.Glen Glass 443-360-8607
Delegate– thanks for keeping us updated about this. Who should we be calling in order to influence this vote? And what happened in the Delegation meeting today with the Hotel Tax? Are you still supporting it?
You should call your delegates the ones in your district.
Um, didn’t you lose by like, a lot?
Delegate Glass,
Thanks for keeping us informed. The powers that be will never let this go to referendum, they know it would be defeated.
Delegate Glass, if you wish the members of the majority party (and also of the electorate) include you in future discussions and deliberations, you can start by having the common decency to refer to the Democratic Party appropriately. It is one thing when posters on Dagger wish to allow their vitriol to become disrespectful; it is another all together when our elected leaders do the same. I would have hoped that the voters of Harford County would expect a bit more of their leaders; you can disagree without being disrespectful…
Delegate Glass needs to refer to his opposition as “Democratic leaders.” Otherwise, he should refer to himself as a “Republic delegate.” That would be best for “everone.”
Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Harford County
HEllo everyone, I’m in the committee hearing room now, the room is packed. The committees members will be voting next week if they have the votes to pass the bill. I will be sending out a detailed email Monday to keep you informed. Your Del. and servant, Glen
Del. Glen Glass
443-360-8607
So you agree with me that marriage can be about more than the ability to have children?
As i was re-reading this very enlightening comment thread, i came across this one. not really sure how it missed the first time:
Proud to be a Liberal:
Being religious is an affliction like alcoholism or OCD that needs treatment and pity from those on the left.
How can I ever have an honest debate with someone who views me in such a way simply for my beliefs? Maybe after i commit myself to Sheppard Pratt and get some serious medication, counseling, and most importantly, pity from the elite leftists, maybe then I’ll be able to discuss these matters with PTBL.
Wish me luck, I’ll see you all in 6 to 12 months! I hope I can get ‘cured’ of my affliction!
Jeffery Beck
@Jeff,
Don’t waste your time even with the initial evaluation. You don’t need to be cured. PTLB on the other hand, is a prime candidate for extensive therapy. Shepard Pratt has an extensive rehab program for people who can’t resist labeling others.
JEFF and Mike need a lesson in reading as I did not post that quote. Try to think before you attack boys. Jeff, good luck in you cure.
your
Oh, PTBL –
“All Jeff is doing is “whistling in a graveyard” in an attempt to dispel those spirits of reality haunting him and his kind with the message that his beliefs are not enough: the only thing that really matters in life are actions and those actions do not depend upon a religion. Remember that “Christians” have murdered and tortured more people in the name of “God” than can be counted and the world was not better for it.”
Not really sure what “whistling in graveyard” even means, but whatever. I have no spirits haunting me. “His kind”. what kind is that? Christian? Conservative? The evil religious right?
Actually, actions DO depend on a religion. My actions are (or at least should be; i’m not perfect) a direct result of my beliefs and a reflection thereof. And the same is true of every religion. Everyone’s actions are a direct result of their beliefs.
And when have Christians murdered and tortured in the name of God? You’d have to go back to Medieval times to find anything substantive to back that up. Meanwhile, you’ll defend Muslims that have done/are doing the EXACT SAME THING. “oh, it’s not a muslim thing. they’re a fringe group.” More double standards from the left.
Mike Welsh –
You are correct. And I am guilty as charged. My first son was born out of wedlock. I suffered discipline from the church, my parents disgrace, and the ire of my future in-laws. but I repented and sought forgiveness from those I hurt and from God. And guess what? I am forgiven! The grace of God is really amazing like that. We are all Human, and certainly far from perfect, and if we accept Christ as our Savior, he forgives our short-comings. trust me, I know; I have a lot of short-comings!
Good day and God Bless,
Jeffery Beck
None of us can claim to be perfect, and most have many short-comings, although they are reluctant to admit them. Some don’t even realize they have them. I am glad you have found happiness in your life as it makes each and every day more valuable.
Humans suck Jeff. Hiding behind a religion to justify your sins of commission or or your sins of omission does not make humans suck any less. Ultimately the choice lies within. If you keep using religion as proof of your good behavior or a scape goat for bad behavior I will argue that having no religion at least allows you to only blame yourself for your actions.
JEFF: You stated, “And when have Christians murdered and tortured in the name of God? You’d have to go back to Medieval times to find anything substantive to back that up.” Catholics and Protestants were murdering each not 30 years ago in Ireland. I guess that does not count to you?
“Meanwhile, you’ll defend Muslims that have done/are doing the EXACT SAME THING.” Why would you say I would defend anyone that kills in the name of religion? Do you have any reason for making such an outrageous statement?
I do not find ANY difference between any fundamentalist (or over religious) group: Christian, Taliban, Jewish, Mormon (see Mountain Meadows massacre), The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, they all have ONE thing in common. They believe that they are the only people who know the TRUTH. They are the only ones who will be saved and all others are damned. They are all exclusive. As you say, “…if we accept Christ as our Savior, he forgives our short-comings”. You are saying that there is NO room in the ark for non-believers.
To give an example of this I remember a popular, millionaire televangelist who answered a question about if God loved ALL his children. You know what he said; unbelievers are not God’s children but the Devil’s children. In one fell swoop he gave his flock license to do what they will to them. That is why “religious” people feel they can murder doctors that perform abortions. (Ever wonder that it is mostly men who want to control a woman’s body?) One can do anything bad and “…he forgives our short-comings”.
I think these people believe one only needs faith to reach the promised land: not science, not facts, not data only faith. I think you believe ALL other religions are false religions and are damned. I do not believe that. I believe in inclusion. I believe “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” And I believe this for ALL people and not just those in your little sect.
@PTLB,
Your reference to the killing in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants is off base with regard to the reason. They were not killing in the name of God. The conflict was over social class and a divided Ireland.
The divided Ireland and social class was a long standing fued between the Irish and the English which became further exacerbated by religion and the differences. So in a very real way religion was a route cause.
MIKE: You are wrong, all religious conflicts are about social class (or economics) and God is but the justification. Read about the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 and you will see that what was true then is true today. Religion is a common rubric for violence against others for ALL religions at ALL times. Its what all of you have in common.
@PTBL,
“Its what all of you have in common.”
I take it you believe that I am a religious person. I am not a member of any religious order, nor have I ever been. I assume you are not a religious person either, since you made reference to “what all of ‘you’ have in common”. Please give me the reference on the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre that describes killing “in the name of God”.
MIKE: Today’s NY Times has an article that describes just what I meant. “The Roman Inquisition was one of several inquisitions conducted under the auspices of the church. These had in common a deeply rooted sense of fear (of heretics, of Jews, of Protestantism) and a deeply rooted moral certainty, a conviction that the cause was not only just but also so urgent that nothing must stand in the way: not practical considerations … and certainly not competing considerations of principle or moderation. That’s the way it is with moral certainty. It sweeps objections aside and makes anything permissible if pursued with an appeal to a higher justification.” February 11, 2012 The Certainty of Doubt By CULLEN MURPHY
While this piece is specifically about the Catholic Church, it is equally true about ALL religions or “higher justifications” that seek to correct another group. This is what makes “religious” people so dangerous. They feel that their actions are justified, if not ordered, by their God.
As far as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 is concerned, I would suggest you do some reading about it. Wikipedia states: “Ordinary lay Catholics were involved in the mass killings; they believed they were executing the wishes of the king and of God.”
I would also add the Holocaust although it also affected millions of people that were simply characterized as unwanted and tainting the gene pool. At the root of it all was an intense hatred for the Jews based on the false premise that they collectively killed Christ all by themselves. The lesson of His Crucifixion is lost on many who today call themselves Christians.
@PTLB,
I read both references you suggested. The Wikipedia reference on St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 contained much information, however I did not find the sentence you placed in quotes regarding killing in the name of God. I did read that killing did occur as a result of belief that the King had ordered it. With regard to “The Certainty of Doubt” article in today’s NY Times, it does talk about actions by one against another as a result of moral certainty. Cullen Murphy states “That’s the way it is with moral certainty. It sweeps objections aside and makes anything permissible if pursued with an appeal to a higher justification. That higher justification does not need to be God, though God remains serviceable. The higher justification can also be the forces of history. It can be rationalism and science. It can be some assertion of the common good. It can be national security.”
I would agree with Murphy. While it is possible to claim God as a cause of action, it is more likely that the higher justification is something other than God.
Glenn is the only one in Annapolis that stand by his convictions. Keep it up Glenn and be the one voice of truth and honesty. Let us know what is going on down there you are the peoples voice!!!
I hope you run for hire office!!!
Bad etiquette to post as a pseudonym, Delegate.
Also, you pledged to not raise taxes, and yet the hotel tax is being pushed by you, solely.
If you are on here you know I’m not Glenn. But I think he is doing a great job. He tells it the way it is!!!!
Delegate Glass is channeling Dan Quayle when he believes that only a loving mother and father can possibly insure the successful development of children into fully functional adults. Speaking as a single father who’s wife left him and her son for a man in a trailer, because it’s what she wanted, I can assure you that my son knows he is loved, is evolving decent morals (also without benefit of a Christian upbringing). All this occurs while I watch a young couple repeatedly at odds with law enforcement (happily married despite the violence in the home) and on state assistance for food, power and medical care while potentially trafficking in controlled substances.
So Mr Glass… you are delusional. The institution of marriage, as defined by you, is not a label you should proffer on people YOU think are worthy. There are many out there practicing good parenting skills without the benefit of your narrow minded view of the world. Next I suppose you will insist that the marriage should be the preferred Judeo-Christian kind. Stay out of the bedroom Mr Glass.
You seem to be a very unhappy person Mr. Porter. Perhaps you will one day find happiness in your life. I certainly hope you do.
MIKE: Showing how condescending and judgmental you are is not a good trait. You are not being a good Christian bro.
On the contrary Mike, I am very happy. My life is merely compromised by people who are ignorant, arrogant, or incompetent and have no regard for the rights of others. Aside from that I assure you in my own little world I am extremely happy with the way things are going. And it doesn’t come from believing in a magic man in the sky or an evil man underground or what a work of fiction crafted by thousands of years of superstition has to say about contemporary society.
Yes Mr. Porter, I think I see a glimmer of happiness showing through from your comments. If you say you’re happy, then you’re happy!!
no, not really: Raising revenue that the County needs from out of town visitors is a GOOD thing No. Why would you look a gift horse in the mouth?
Religion is silly. Anyone who uses their religion as the basis for an opinion on an issue does not deserve to contribute to a rational debate. Religion can be used to justify anything which is why it should be considered irrelevent, but unfortunately too many are blinded by it. It is preventing so many from having the same benefits as everyone else…whether that is marriage benefits to homosexuals or contraception to those who work for religious organizations. Opinions should be based on reason and logic…evidence. Stop believing in fairy tales. Grow up, be an adult and contribute to the twenty-first century. Stop trying to take us back to the first.
Let’s all of us remember that he was also a liberal Jew.
Does that make me Christ-like?
Well there is a good side bad side kind of thing to that. You are considerate of the rights of others but you will stop others from stoning the prostitute, which kind of irritates the unwashed masses. You believe in compassion for the poor and avoiding violence and probably some sort of notion that we should all do our part. Personal responsibility is still paramount although you are probably capable of understanding and forgiving others for their shortcomings, arrogance and ignorance. Just to stray off topic here… I would like to add that you probably also believe that a discussion of patriotism and sacrifice should not stop when it comes to talking about paying your fair share of taxes. I would dare say that neither Mitt, The Grinch who stole SC, or Rick are as far from Chrsit like as I can possibly imagine.
Just so I’m clear on this……..you support the broad spectrum of rights for others in particular the Gay Community but NOT those who have faith based opinions??? Kinda makes you the supreme hypocrite don’t it?!
“1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage….." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
DONE!
Jesus was gay – why won’t you let him get married?
Just so I’m clear on this……..you support the broad spectrum of rights for others in particular the Gay Community but NOT those who have faith based opinions??? Kinda makes you the supreme hypocrite don’t it?!
William F. Buckley, my favorite conservative commentator once observed that his right to punch someone else in the nose ends where his fist ends, and where the nose of the other person begins. Can you understand that or should I get out the flash cards?
Homosexuals have been prevented from having the same rights as everyone else as it relates to marriage rights.
What rights do those with “faith-based opinions” give up if homosexuals are given equal marriage benefits? You can certainly have what ever opinion you want, even faith-based opinions which are as has been said “silly”, but don’t let your opinions take away the rights of others. Better yet, don’t try to include them in adult conversation. Otherwise, be prepared to bow to all rediculous religious (i e made up) claims about anything.
Homosexuals are not taking away your rights by being given equal marriage benefits. Don’t be a faith-based retard.
MPC: Please tell me how marriage equality between adults impinges in any way on you. Religious opinion, contrarily, has been an immeasurable driving force on the lives of ordinary people for millennia, and not always in a positive way either. I am not considering faith based opinions per se, but the actions committed by these people that have been generated by religious teachings. I am referring to people such as Fred Phelps who is as hateful and unchristian a person as I can imagine. But even he has the right to his opinions, and more importantly, to demonstrate those opinions.
So for you to say anyone does not support full and open freedom to opinions just demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about.
@ Proud to be liberal:
I am a liberal as well! I am free to choose the version of truth I base my perspectives on and I thoroughly enjoy the freedom to listen in a forum such as this and share my opinions with you! I am free to share my faith and opinons and enjoy drawing conclusions about obvious parameters our society and nation must be based on to avoid anarchy.
Thanks for sharing your religion and sharing what it appears not to include.
@ Bel Air Mom:
The ability to have children is not a precursor or rule to qualify for a marriage committment between a man and woman. Your life between you and your spouse if lived in a nobel,virtuous and loving way will be an encouragement to all and inspire those who do have children to stay in love as a couple. Thanks for your comments!
@ Jeff Beck-Thanks for your comments, we have a lot in common :), Have a good and Godly one, Carl
No Carl, it includes Bel Air Mom. Why wouldn’t it? You are indulging in projection where you project your prejudices/beliefs/thoughts on to others.
How about this question… Why is the government involved in the marriage debate anyway? God created marriage. It is a Biblical concept. Humanity didn’t just decide one day that we should start this whole marriage thing. Liberals are so big on the idea of the separation of church and state, so why is the state getting involved with something that should just be left with the church? Wouldn’t that save all of us the time of arguing this to focus on issues that the government is constitutionally charged with?
You’re kidding right? Marriage was created by God? It is a biblical concept? Humans did actually just one day decide, after millenia, that marriage solidified many of the already existing pairings of mates. Marriage was here long before any of the major modern day religions even existed. You truly are a faith-based retard.
Although I agree that the government should not support or condemn any marriage, government is responsible for overseeing contracts, which is what marriage really is, and when that contract dissolves, the parties must agree to the terms of the dissolved contract, which obviously doesn’t always happen…which is where the government is necessary. Which is also why homosexuals should be provided equal marriage rights and all of the benefits and consequences of it.
Stop using religion as a reason to support an opinion. It’s too easy and childish. Anyone can come up with a religious reason for doing anything. Base your opinions on evidence and then you can sit with the adults in the room.
Hello there WMT,
Let me remind you that the U.S. Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union….” The omission of God in the Constitution was not an accident, but rather a deliberate action by our Founding Fathers to keep government separate from religion.
The Constitution does not include the phrase “Separation of Church & State,” nor does it say “Freedom of religion.” However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a “wall of separation between church and State.” James Madison had also written that “Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.” There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non-religion. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
Many Christian’s who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as “proof” of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them.
Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Lots of arguments to make here, but I have not the time today.
Can we agree that the Maryland Constitution establishes the government of Maryland? I think that is somewhere there shall be no disagreement.
Now, check this out, from the Maryland Consitution:
Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
I understand the church and state argument well. Unless I am misreading something, I’m not sure how you disagree with me here. My point about church and state was that liberals misinterpret this phrase, and will argue that God and government have no connection whatsoever. They do, however, want the government involved here. For what it’s worth, of course a huge number of conservatives also want a constitutional amendment.
I didn’t give you my opinion on the topic… You may want to read that again. I only said that the government shouldn’t have an opinion of it. And you need to study up on you religious history. In your anger to disagree with people you make yourself look like an idiot among those who know what we are talking about. I’m sure you will flip out here and repeat what you hear on MSNBC about how terrible Christians are and how we use religion as a crutch. I’m sure you watch other liberal programming that is somehow financially supported by George Soros, too. Good for you. There are some of us here, though, who understand the truth about world history, and that even if you remove religion from the Bible, it is still an accurate history of the world.
And yes, marriage has evolved into a contract… Because the government got involved! It was originally and Biblically a covenant. Similar, but different. Your logical conclusions lack, well, logic. Again, you can disagree and use language that shows your ignorance all you want. Welcome to America: we’re even YOU can voice you opinion!
WMT is an example of faith based logic which is, of course, an oxymoron. Logic is based upon fact and figures, religion is based upon beliefs. There does not need to have an intersection of the two. Each has an important role to play. Each is valid in its own way. I just object to using religion as bases for an argument.
I especially object to any hint that one religion is more valid than another. They are ALL equal in my eyes and anyone can practice whatever they want, or nothing at all, as long as they DO NOT try to impose their religious beliefs on me. An example of that is trying to impose your abortion beliefs on me. If you do not believe in abortions, or birth control, fine, but stay away from my reproductive rights and body.
The bible is an accurate history of the world? Really? You can certainly believe whatever you like, but you shouldn’t be using words like “accurate” when the evidence you are using is the Bible. I too, have a bible, and it tells me that Jesus was a homosexual who wanted to marry each of his disciples, but unfortunately, that was against the law at the time.
Stop believing in fairy tales and use evidence to develop your opinions. The body of evidence regarding the history of life on this planet suggests that the bible is a great way to learn how stupid our species can be and that you are an idiot.
My point in the beginning was only that the government should not be involved in marriage, and that marriage was a religious institution. If you don’t believe in God, you still have to accept the fact that religion existed throughout history. Government made marriage into a contract and made a mess of things. A logical person simply can not argue those facts.
And PTBL: who is saying that one religion is better than another? I didn’t! You say that you object to using religion as a bases for an argument. Marriage started as a religious concept. How are you not seeing this!
You keep referring to my opinions, I have not given you an opinion on gay marriage. All I am saying is that marriage and government don’t go together. I am not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. Now PTBL is making the abortion parallel. Wow, didn’t see that coming.
“religion has existed throughout history” is an opinion based on your religioius beleifs. And, based on evidence and not religion, your opinion is false. Just read any biology textbook and you’ll find out the startling revelation that humans have not always existed.
Also, “marriage was a religious institution” is an opinon based on your religious beleifs. It is also false. Marriage predates organized religion. Check any anthropology textbook.
Your worldview is clouded by a cloak of religion.
I too would like to see the government removed from issue of marriage, but that is unrealistic. We need the government to oversee the contract that is formed by a marriage. Without those contracts and supervision by the government, who will decide the dipute between the contracted individuals, especially when those disputes often involve the custody of children?
WMT: Marriage did not begin as a religious institution. Quite the contrary, it became one when the CHURCH inserted itself into it as a means for political control:
• “In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly…
• There were several types of marriages in ancient Roman society. The traditional (“conventional”) form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony. In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one. She now was subject to the authority of her husband. There was the free marriage known as sine manu. In this arrangement, the wife remained a member of her original family; she stayed under the authority of her father, kept her family rights of inheritance with her old family and did not gain any with the new family…
• From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, no uniform religious or other ceremony being required…With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required” (Wikipedia
So you see WMT, it was the Church, and not government, who made marriage into a contract. You could be taken more seriously if you had a good grasp of facts. Try a little research.
The Gospel according to Wikipedia and our failed liberal education system. I genuinely feel bad for you for what you don’t realize that you don’t understand. There’s not much else to say here… Good luck with all that.
Attack our sources or bring some of your own to the table. And we can mutually discredit each others sources. Then when you have your head on straight, you can think for yourself instead of believing what someone else told you to believe. If you don’t have a uterus, your a spectator in the issue of women’s choices on contraception or abortion. If you do not wish to have a gay marriage, changing the law will not make you get one. It’s about choice. All of us have our own ideas and while you may not like how we form them or question our method of belief, that is not for you to say any more than it is for us to criticize you for yours. In other words: Back off – you have an opinion that is good for you and you alone, and maybe the people who superficially share your belief. Because each of us is an individual and I do not belong to the same hive mind that you have become a part of.
WMT: Your ignorance must be a bitch. I’ll keep my liberal education and you can keep your lack of education. If you have sources that contradict my research, please feel free to enlighten us. Unless you have something to add besides your snide remarks, stop wasting my time. You are not showing yourself as anything other than as an unthinking stooge for propaganda.
If our education system worked people would have give up on religion long ago.
It was Lenin that said, “Religion is the opium of the masses.” He and the Bolsheviks then set about to discriminate, persecute, or enslave those that held onto their religious beliefs. We certainly saw how well the secular government of the U.S.S.R. (and others) treated their citizens when the “State” became the only acceptable/allowable institution to believe in. Education gives us the power to think for ourselves and allows us to make choices of our own volition. While the education system certainly is not perfect I would suggest that we are far from the indoctrination/propaganda machine you would have it be. It is that same education system that allows others to choose to be atheists or agnostics.
An important point you made…”Education…allows us to make choices of our own volition.” history teacher. Unfortunately, WMT and many others here don’t want some people to have a choice, although, to be fair, WMT seems to urealistically want the government removed from the marriage issue entirely. Also, unfortunately, not all public school systems perform equally well at keeping religious ideology out of the classroom. Spend a day in many Texas, Louisianna or mosth Southern state schools and you will find gross violations of the establishment clause.
I have not read anyone’s post here indicating that those with religious beleifs should be persecuted or enslaved. What I have read here from many posts is that religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to inhibit someone else’s rights, such as the right to the benefits of marriage because they are a homosexual. I have also posted that using religious beleifs to justify your veiwpoint is juvenile. People are certainly entitled to believe whatever they want, but decisions that impact another person should be based on reason and evidence, not proclamations handed down by a fairy tale.
We salute you!
Jesus was gay – why won’t you let him get married?
Fairy Tale? Really………
To quote the great Frank Pemberton speaking of the hereafter: “if my guy wins….you’re screwed”. Lighten TF up will ya
Bahahahahahaha
How many guys are there in the fight? 2, 3, 4, 1,000,000,000, infinite? I bet you play the lottery every day, too.
My guy says that Jesus is a homosexual and is going to rain down a pool of Santorum on this country if gays are not allowed to have equal marriage rights? I demand my religious freedom to be recognized by the government!!!
You truly are a faith-based retard.
Marriage is not a religious act. It is a legal act and couples can choose to incorporate religion into their ceremony. Churches can refuse to perform weddings based on their beliefs, all a same sex couple needs to do is to be married by a judge.
I don’t see why this should be an outrage, considering some of the celebrity marriages that last less than a year or even six months. The “sanctity of marriage” sure isn’t being upheld by these unions or non-famous straight couples who don’t adhere to their marriage vows. The world isn’t going to crumble morally because we allow John and Joe or Jane and Joy to make their relationship legal.
I also have to question the principles of those who keep crying for smaller government—it can’t be smaller government for those that share the same political and religious values, while others should have every aspect of their personal lives controlled by Washington and the state they live in. You can’t cherry pick these types of things.
as I said….lighten TF up Dude or Dudette or what ever you chose to be……that is a choice too ain’t it?
Yeah, hopefully if this passes. Then those of us that want to engage in palygamy will get that instituted as well!!
TSB: You want multiple wives?: move to Utah. An estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people live a polygamist lifestyle in the US, many in sects splintered from the Mormon Church.
Why discriminate against multiple people who want to marry? Are you anti-equality?
Why should i have to. move. if it’s OK for the homosexualcommunity to marry here than why not those of us that want multiple spouses? what is the argument against that?
Because that is a FALSE ANALOGY. They are not related. All that is wanted is marriage equality. Are you against equality?
Proud To Be Liberal,
Why should we care if brothers married one another? What difference does it make if they are related? They can’t reproduce with one another. Same for sisters, and even more so for those who are step-brother/sister to one another.
Why indeed. Do you have some kind of secret?
Proud to be Liberal
So you believe brothers should be able to marry one another and sisters should be able to marry one another? And, no I don’t have any secrets in that regard.
MIKE: I believe you are trying to obfuscate a serious topic with extraneous topics because you do not have a cogent thing to say.
Proud To Be Liberal,
Sounds like you are trying to avoid answering Mike’s question. Do you have a cogent argument (other than currently against the law) as to why brothers should not be able to marry one another? You were very vocal on the same sex marriage issue.
Mike: I’m sorry you are unable to understand my answer. You question is an illogical bifurcation argument or perhaps a false dichotomy. All I will say is that we all must follow the law of the land or try to change it. I will not be drawn into your little games.
It is obvious to me that many tea baggers and hypocritical “Christian” haters and homophobes are opposed to marriage equality. I pity their problem. Christ taught acceptance and love and you people are the antithesis of that. I think you should go and pray.
Proud To Be Liberal
Once again you have refused to answer Mike’s question. Of course we must follow the law, or work to change it. Your refusal to really answer Mike’s question is beginning to reveal your bigotry, a label you have so willingly attached to others. I suspect Mike knows this and that is the reason he has asked the question.
Mike Welsh,
Proud to be Liberal is in a loving three-way sexual relationship with his brother and pet hairless chihuahua. Question is will Proud to be Liberal marry or seek out other family members and animals to have sex with?
Gay Secular Atheists Have an Agenda
Actually the state should get out of the Marriage buisness PERIOD! If your religion recognizes multiple spouses then fine. Furthermore MIKE Reproduction is not required for marriage otherwise we should abolish marriage for the infertile or the elderly!
CDEV
How about you CDEV, do you believe brothers should be allowed to marry one another? Many posters believe those who oppose same sex marriage are bigots.
I have a libertarian view on this. I do not believe anyone should have to pay a tax to the state to legitamitize their religious beliefs. I believe if the state wants to charge people a fee to file joint tax returns than that should be open to any two people and they should find some term for it, not marriage. I do not believe homsexuals should marry each other because my faith teaches that although I recognize other faiths have different views on this. I also think Consanguination is a bad genetic idea too but not my religion. Bottom line the state should stop issuing marriage liscences all together!
CDEV
Thank you for answering the question. I look forward to an answer from Proud To Be Liberal, who does support gay marriage.
BOBBY and MIKE: I will repost my answer to the first time you asked this: “Because that is a FALSE ANALOGY. They are not related. All that is wanted is marriage equality.”
PTLB,
That was an answer that you gave to TSB, which prompted my question in the first place. You continue to avoid the real question which I will repeat for you. Do you believe brothers should be able to marry one another?