Maybe this isn't high on black lawmakers' agendas at a time when the price of gas is near record highs, people are spending more and more time away from their families because they're stuck in their cars in snarled traffic, families are struggling to pay their BGE bills (which have increased 72% since O'Malley took office) and (to cap it all off), O'Malley has unprecedented tax increases in store for everyone while at the same time funding his out of control spending proposals on the backs of low income earners through slot machines.

But, as far as the MD Democrats are concerned, now is as good a time as ever to debate gay marriage, elimination of the death penatly, legalized heorin, State controlled media and every other wacko left wing cause that's out of the mainstream.

I think we've all met those African-American coworkers who believe in Civil Rights except when it means other people get civil rights. As a white person, it always comes off badly when I explain to them their baldface ignorance. It really is a situation where people who have gone through the civil rights movement or are its heroes are going to have to take a stand against this kind of bigotry. There's nothing someone who looks like me can tell someone so rudely bigoted when they're so sure they're right in the face of the facts.

3 final paragraphs sympathetic to pro-gay marriage. Practically no explanation of traditional marriage view. And you know they could have included that. Ugg.

Gay marriage distorts and twists marriage, denying its procreative nature. That is the truth, regardless of relative arguments about equality.

Honestly, Ms Rein do you mean to tell me you could not find one articulate opponent of same-sex marriage within the black community? I mean you have plenty of equality rhetoric on the one-side and nothing from the other side.

Marriage is THE fundamental institution of the family, so goes marriage, so goes the family, and so goes society. Can't you possibly see another POV here besides the, "we don't want to discuss the meaning of marriage, because you can reduce it down to love and its a civil right, end of discussion."

Typical Leftist straw man.

This is not a debate between "religion" and "civil rights." This is a debate about marriage and the family. That all important foundational social institution that we won't be able to defend if we can't even define it.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

I have to comment to the alarmists here (that's you Fitz and Tony) that South Africa, Spain, and Canada have fully legalized gay marriage and none of the gloom and doom about the family that you are spouting has come true. Most of Europe has some sort of legal recognition of same sex unions and no news of fire and brimstone has been reported. I doubt anyone's family or marriage has been harmed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, or Vermont. Frankly, your opinions are irrational and have been proven false. By the latest polling, they are clearly out of the mainstream of Maryland views. If you were truly genuine about your concerns about the integrity of the family, you should tackle issues such as divorce, poverty, and education. All of those issues are directly correlated with the decline of the family. Instead you chose to scapegoat gay unions; It's completely disingenuous.

Don't forget Connecticut, InMoCo. The only state to legislatively pass civil unions that did not do so after a judicial decision. I didn't see any frogs bouncing off my car last time I drove through the Nutmeg State.

"Disingenuous" doesn't begin to describe it. "Bigots," maybe, or "hypocrites," or "political opportunists," definitely.

Check out our trailer on Gay Marriage. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the situation: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Delegate Derek Davis is entitled express his religious beliefs. If his particular church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman that is fine. NOTHING in the law that Senator Britt will introduce this January compels his church to hold marriage ceremonies. Indeed, it is a RELIGIOUS FREEDOM bill.

In the spirit of religious freedom, neither does Delegate Davis have the right -- nor does his particular church or denomination -- to impose its religious views against civil marriage on others.

The idea that Europe hasn't suffered a family collapse is insane. Northern European countries, ESPECIALLY those that legalize so-called gay marriage, have seen rising rates of co-habitation, declining marriage rates and more family dissolution. Please see reporting of stanely Kurtz on this issue. Gay marriage both causes and reinforces marital decline.

Insidious lies like gay marriage take years until the gilding wears off. Take the trumpeters of divorce in the 1970s in this country. They told us divorce is best and it won't have long term impact on children. In 1973 it would be hard to offer up long term evidence of what liberalization of divorce had done to America, in 2007 it is so easy a cave man could do it. And yet back then, the lies about divorce were as sweet sounding as the gilded lies of equality today.

Gay marraige distorts the truth about marriage for society at large.

"Gilded lies of equality." Wow, that's good, Tony, I'll have to remember that one.

Pray tell me this, however: what in the name of all that is good and holy does two gay men or two lesbians affirming their love and commitment to each other have to do with heterosexual marriage? Are you seriously telling me that because gays are allowed to marry in Europe, that straight people are affected somehow, that they no longer see wedded bliss as the procreative state of grace that you describe?

Three responses, T. First, if straights are that affected by gay behavior, there's some serious projection going on.

Second, how can Kurtz or others determine the impact of gays on straight attitudes about marriage apart from the fact that people are increasingly recognizing that modern marriage is not the state of grace that you describe?

Finally, people get divorced, Tony, and the rate of divorce has been steady for the best part of a generation. Are you blaming all of this on teh gays? Talk about projecting.

While you may find the nostalgic view of the 1950s "marriage" comforting, (1) it wasn't as you describe -- men left women all the time, it was women who were shackled by stingy divorce laws, and (2) women have, uh, let's say they've grown up since then. Maybe you should check it out.

Instead, your attitudes all scream that you want to return us to a time when men were men and women did what men want them to. Genie's out of that bottle, pal, and it ain't gonna go back. Grow up.

Lefty (writes)
"Pray tell me this, however: what in the name of all that is good and holy does two gay men or two lesbians affirming their love and commitment to each other have to do with heterosexual marriage? Are you seriously telling me that because gays are allowed to marry in Europe, that straight people are affected somehow, that they no longer see wedded bliss as the procreative state of grace that you describe?"

(I respond )
Such questions do not adequately come to grips with at the social institutional realities of marriage. The first elision is a common one in the popular debate, a shift from the macro to the micro. Genderless marriage proponents often deploy the language of autonomous individuality. By that, I mean a discourse focused solely on individuals qua individuals, or couples qua couples, with no reference to their social context or to institutional realities. An example of this is actually an effective political tactic deployed by genderless marriage proponents. The tactic is to ask, "How can letting me and my [same-sex] partner marry in any way hurt your marriage? "Or, "How is Jim and John marrying going to have any effect on yours and your husband's relationship."

By its very language, this question forces the issue into the micro framework, that is, it requires that the marriage issue be decided on the basis of benefits and harms to specific individuals or couples, as in "me and my partner" or "you and your husband." And by that same language, the question precludes consideration of the marriage issue in the macro framework, that is, the framework of a social institution."

Moreover, it is precisely because of this "forcing" mechanism that the question is so often an effective political tactic. After all, not many lay people are prepared to respond by saying, "Well, if Jim and John marry, that means that our society will have changed a core constitutive meaning of the vital social institution of marriage from the union of a man and a woman to the union of any two persons. With that radical change, the old institution will disappear and therefore, necessarily, its invaluable social goods will disappear. Those social goods have meant a great deal to my forebears and their society and to me and my society and I want my posterity to have those social goods down through their generations, because I don't think they can have a good society without them."

http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/105038/

"At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country."

"Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution."

"Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants). This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent), by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant to their own lives or that of their offspring. We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children. There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships."

"The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation."

"In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form. "

"Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order."

Signed: Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam

In response to Fitz's post....

Post 1:

This was very verbose and could have been summed up in 3 sentences. You still have not made any additional points of substance. You basically repeated what you wrote earlier (summarized), "If gay people get married then the institution of marriage will become meaningless and will vanish" which is more fear mongering without merit.

Post 2:

The link you posted is all in Dutch. We have no way of knowing who really wrote this and who they wrote it for. Secondly, the content is a complete opinion piece with no evidence to offer. According to the paper, the number of marriages declined over a certain time period. So what? How can you tie that to gays marrying? There's no evidence here to correlate the two let alone propose that one leads to the other. This is really a sad attempt.

Fitz's comments are a combination of social science psychobabble dressed up as political theory and the ramblings of five Dutch professors complaining about out of wedlock children in the Netherlands. I note that the professors' statement, released in 2004, was promulgated in this country by that noted scientific and nonpartisan institution, the Heritage Foundation. Really sound sources, there, Fitz.

Honestly, what all of this alleged concern about the "institution of marriage" comes down to is that conservatives believe that the "immoral behavior of the gays" is going to eventually destroy our society from within. Wait, where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, now I remember: Sodom and Gomorrah.

God will get us for this, right, Fitz? You're just doing us a favor by saving us from the wrath of a vengeful God for all of that sinful behavior by teh gays, right? And all we've gotta do is throw the notion of equality (those damn "gilded lies" again) under the bus and God will forgive us?

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, that's not my version of God. Even if it was, I wouldn't be so presumptuous and arrogant as to try to enshrine it into the law of this State and this country, but for conservatives, arrogance and hubris know no bounds. So take that crap and peddle it somewhere else, thank you very much.

The first point exposes the intellectual vapidity of taking a macro question and posing it in a micro framework.

The second point is an accurately transcribed letter from the very Scandinavian scholars mentioned at the end. It is an open letter to the Dutch press. As such it represents the opinions of those scholars.

I'm sure you would like to put the burden of proof on detractors of same-sex "marriage". Yes: social science, as a "soft" science, almost always remains arguable.

However, you are the ones purposing to redefine a fundamental social institution so I believe the burden is on you.

I'm sure you would like to put the burden of proof on detractors of same-sex "marriage". Yes: social science as a "soft" sciece almost always remaoins arguable.

However, you are the ones perposing to redifine a fundemantal social institution so I believe the burden is on you.

Leffty
So you dismiss this very charitable & measured response by academics as the work of the "ramblings of five Dutch professors complaining about out of wedlock children in the Netherlands" and then call on ME to produce more authoritative evidence.

Well Leffty...the problem with such an approach is that in order for such studies to come to the fore you need first #1 Run the experiment #2. Spend years compiling the data.

Certainly you have the integrity to admit that doing this requires I concede the very social change you are advocating for. By the time the evidence is in; and a social scientific consensus emerges - it has become to late for opponents of the change to be heard. (one thinks of advocates of no-fault divorce in the 70's and their predictions on impacts on children & society)

There is something in the law called burden shifting. The burden of proof falls upon one side or the other. This can make all the difference in the "outcome" of the argument.

Before I present anymore evidence concerning the deleterious effects on family formation caused by adoption of same-sex "marriage", - it would be edifying for you to cede some already established finding from the social science literature. In this way at least we have a basis for arguing about the desirability of certain family forms to begin with.

Outside of such concessions I can only assume that you are interested in elision & obfuscation rather than arrival at truth.

In that regard I offer some findings from the Maryland supreme courts recent decision on same-sex "marriage". Certainly you will concede that the very experienced advocates for same-sex "marriage" who argued before the Supreme Court would be loathe to cede foundational arguments to the opposition if they were truly contested within social science.

The Maryland Supreme court had noted that those advocating for same-sex "marriage" did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note - Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex "marriage" themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)"

2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."

Now- this could easily digress into a dispute concerning the evidence that suggests the natural married family is superior to other family forms, or that such evidence has even generated a consensus in the field as to optimal family formation.

Your opinion on this matter will be quite telling. It will tell me wether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those "doctrinaire conservatives" you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

First off, Fitz, it's the Maryland Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.

And I call BS on your two alleged "quotes" from the Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Conaway v. Deane. Those who are interested can read the opinion at the following website:

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf

Neither of your two "quotes" are anywhere in that opinion. Where did you get your information, or are you just making it up as you go along?

What the Court of Appeals majority did say, in spite of its ultimate conclusion, is that the "traditional family" is increasingly an anachronism. Here's a real quote, instead of a made up one:

"There appears to be a trend towards the gradual erosion of the "traditional" nuclear family in today's society to the extent that the classic family structure, consisting of a mother, father, and children born to them during the marriage, is less and less the norm. In 2000, of the 104.7 million households counted by the U.S. Census Bureau, only 55.3 million of them were composed of married couple households. Jason Fields & Lynne M. Casper, U.S. Census Bureau, America's Families and Living Arrangements: March 2000, Current Population Reports, P20-537, at 1 (2001), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pu bs/p20-537.pdf (hereinafter "America's Families 2000"). Of those 104.7 million households, only 24.1 percent were represented by the nuclear family (married couples with their own children). Id. at 3. This number represented a drastic decline from 40 percent of all house holds in 1970. Id The percentage of married opposite-sex households without children, however, remained constant from 1970 to 2000 at approximately 29 percent of all households in the United States. Id. As of 2000, therefore, there were just as many married households in the United States without marital children as those households with marital children. The period of time from 1970 to 1990, furthermore, saw an increase in births among unmarried women, "raising the proportion of 104 children living with a single parent." Id. at 4 (quoting Amara Bachu, U.S. Census Bureau, Trends in Premarital Childbearing: 1930-1994, Current Population Reports, P23-197 (1999)). In 2000, there were 10 million single-mother families in the United States (up from 3 million in 1970), and 2 million single-father families (up from 393,000 in 1970 ). Id. at 6-7, 8.

The statistics are not limited to households in which children live with one or both biological/genetic parents. Indeed, reports from the U.S. Census Bureau show that of the 72.1 million children in the United States in 2000, only 68 percent live in a married couple family home. Terry Lugalia, Julia Overturf, U.S. Census Bureau, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, CENSR-14, at 8 (2004), available at http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf (hereinafter "Children and the Households They Live In"). Four million, four hundred thousand children (6.1% of the total children in the United States) lived with one or both grandparents, whereas 5.9 million children lived with someone other than a biological/genetic parent. Id. at 2, 3. See also Brent Bennett, et al., To Grandmother's House We Go: Examining Troxel, Harrold, and the Future of Third-Party Visitation, 74 U. CIN. L. REV. 1549, 1553 (2006). In 2000 and closer to home, according the Census Bureau, 67 percent of all children in Baltimore lived outside of a married couple household, while 25.7 percent of all children live d with someone other than a biological/ genetic parent. The City ranked in the top five nationwide in both of these categories. Children and the Households They Live In, supra, at 18. Thus, reasonable doubt exists that the traditional model of what constitutes a family does not constitute the majority of households any longer."

Me again. There is no social science literature cited in the majority opinion, nor any of the dissenting opinions, either. There's no comparison of children raised in different environments. The Court not only does not make these findings, it does not discuss them, either, or whether any rebuttal has or can be made to such alleged "findings." There is only a brief discussion of the fading popularity of the "traditional family" structure.

In short, Fitz, you made it up, you fabricated it, you lied. I'm open to a discussion of just about any issue, but it's hard to have a discussion when the other participant makes stuff up to suit his purposes. You have no credibility, Fitz, so no, I'd rather not have a discussion with you.

Lefty writes
"And I call BS on your two alleged "quotes" from the Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Conaway v. Deane.
In short, Fitz, you made it up, you fabricated it, you lied. I'm open to a discussion of just about any issue, but it's hard to have a discussion when the other participant makes stuff up to suit his purposes. You have no credibility."

I never said it was discussed in the opinion. I said it was presented to the court in briefs and not disputed by advocates of same-sex "marriage". It was in front of the court as evidence & this evidence was never contested.

As far as the opinion of the Maryland High court (as well as the New York, Washington a various Federal district courts as lower courts)have ruled that: sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state's definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

Gay marriage is but the first step in a series of lies from the cultural left. A man and woman united together is different and is the complete face of humanity. It is a presumably fruitful union.

So-called gay marriage can't hold a candle to that.

I plan to tell everyone about Sweden and the Netherlands, about the social decline experienced in those countries as marriage has been assaulted by a phony equality.

Fitz:

Here's what you said:

"The Maryland Supreme court had noted that those advocating for same-sex "marriage" did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:"

You then set forth two statements, in quotation marks. To any rational reader, that indicates that you are quoting the Court. You were not. Now you claim that these findings were "presented to the court in briefs and not disputed."

First off, you've been caught in a lie and now you're changing your story. Second off, even assuming that such "evidence" was in the record of the case before the Court of Appeals (a questionable proposition, given your track record), it couldn't have been that important to the Court's ruling since IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED BY THE COURT IN ITS OPINION. Even though you originally said it was.

So to conclude: this very important evidence that you started out saying was central to the Court's holding, is actually (1) not discussed by the Court, and (2) at best, completely unimportant and irrelevant to the Court's decision. And what that Court did discuss instead was the fundamental change in the "traditional family" that has taken place over the past generation.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of either your truthfulness or the strength of your position. Game over.

Wrong again, InMoCo. Marriage is crumbling in places where the fiction of homosexual marriage has been given legal status. The longer it has been in place, the worse it gets. Go research the impact in Scandinavia and you'll see the family is falling fast there.

"Homosexual marriage" is not an affirmation of "love", it's an affirmation of perversion.

Oh, look, here comes the reliable war horse Rufus to chime in with some highly intellectual analysis.

Even though there's not much actually there (pretty standard for the Ruf), let's try to discuss what he's trying to say.

Rufus, look at the statistics I cited above in response to Fitz's baldfaced lying. They are undeniable -- the bottom line is that the "traditional family" has been eroding as the standard situation for over a generation (if not two) here in the United States, and also overseas. You can argue that this is good or bad, but the fact is that it is happening, and has been for quite some time now. And nothing you can say or do is going to stop that evolving situation from occurring. What are we evolving towards? Still unclear, but this much is certain: it will not be a return to Ward and June Cleaver raising Wally and the Beav in a nice house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, two dogs and a cat. Sorry to be the bearer of the bad news.

For the better part of the last two decades, there was an effort by religious conservatives to "blame" this change on any or all of the following: feminism, civil rights, lax divorce laws, permissive attitudes towards sex, pornography, just to name a few. It was a standard argument, it was complete nonsense, and it failed.

Now people like you want to retroactively say that all the blame should now fall on teh gays. Gimme a break, man. Are you going to tell me that the all-powerful homosexual indoctrination lobby was secretly eroding the model of the traditional family back in the 1960s and 1970s?

You and your ilk (BTW, if homosexual acts bother you so much that you continually refer to them as a "perversion," maybe you just shouldn't engage in them. What a concept, eh?) are looking for someone to blame, and now that you can't blame the blacks or the women or the hippies or the college kids or the pornographers anymore, you're left with the gays. You're all about putting off your problems on some other group, and it doesn't really matter who. Too much bitterness, too much resentment, too much hatred and discrimination. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the problem isn't with your never-ending succession of groups to blame, but with yourself? We know what you're against, but what, precisely, are you for?

And nothing you can say or do is going to stop that evolving situation from occurring. "

How utterly embarassing that you have no hope!!!

It doesn't mean you go back in time...as if there were only 2 choices!!! There is a 3rd way.

I think this entire discussion is being distorted. Marriage has a spiritual meaning and a legal and financial meaning.

I would think the two should be treated as two completely separate things.

I don't think (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong)anyone is asking that religious entities or officers of those entities be expected to perform, uphold or maintain state recognized same sex marriages.

Gay people are citizens and deserve the same rights and protections as straight people.

It seems not so long ago interracial marriage was the subject of this same debate.

The problem with the exclusion of some...is that it inevitably leads to the exclusion of others. Careful lest the next go round it be you.

We are for the truth of marriage. That the unification of the masculine and feminine truly represents the face of humanity. We believe that a presumably procreative union is morally good and demostrably different from a union which by design is infertile.

We believe children as a birthright deserve a mother and a father.

We believe gay marriage undermines and distorts the procreative piece of marriage by calling all unions equal, even though they are not. QED. We know this intellectually and invite you to this POV. We shouldn't have our integrity or personal character questioned because of this valid difference.

We want society to value unborn life because it comes from God above. We believe abortion is an evil act even if good people choose it.

We seek to reclaim an authentic sexual ethic in this country that will lead to stronger marriages and stronger families.

Stronger families mean less suffering, less poverty and more freedom to be all that we can be.

Inter-racial marriage does not violate 1)the one man, one woman, 2) and the PRESUMABLY fertile union model of marriage.

Gay marriage violates both.

For both of you,

Does this mean that infertile couples and zero populationists are contributing to the downfall of marriage as well?

Why do two people who don't have your same spiritual beliefs have to fulfill what you believe marriage's purpose is?

Just a thought.

For both of you,

Does this mean that infertile couples and zero populationists are contributing to the downfall of marriage as well?

Why do two people who don't have your same spiritual beliefs have to fulfill what you believe marriage's purpose is?

Just a thought.

1. Surley you can tell the difference between a PRESUMABLY fertile union and a definitely infertile one. You can also tell the difference between legalizing/approving of a by design infertile union and calling it the same as presumably fertile one and a marital union rendered infertile by pysiological reasons.

2. Marriage has real meaning. Its not just theology or "spiritual" meaning up in the clouds. Marriage really does unite man and woman to another. Marriage really is a presumably fertile union. These statements of fact are not theological presumptions or etherial beliefs being forced onto others but are everyday, secular, rational reality.

You miss understood my post. It was an attempt to establish certain social scientific facts about family formation that are not reasonably in dispute among tutored students in this debate.. These facts were asserted by the State in Maryland and not contested by same-sex "marriage" proponents.

As you state...

"the bottom line is that the "traditional family" has been eroding as the standard situation for over a generation (if not two) here in the United States, and also overseas. You can argue that this is good or bad, but the fact is that it is happening, and has been for quite some time now"

Yes its happening (duh) and its "bad". That is my point in bringing up the social scientific consensus about family formation.

I can see that you think that the family is irretrievably lost and/or not worth saving.

When I quote directly from court opinions I always quote the source

For example...

"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to "marriage," but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1

1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)