The Hartford, MD Aegis Newspaper:
A number of Harford County churches and religious leaders are leading the local fight to revoke Maryland's new same-sex marriage law before it can go into effect.
Several Harford churches are supporting the Maryland Marriage Alliance coalition in a statewide petition drive challenging the law passed by the Maryland General Assembly earlier this year.
That law does not take effect until January 2013, and its opponents must get at least 56,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November.
"That is a slam dunk," Southern Harford Del. Glen Glass predicted, noting the drive already has more than 30,000 signatures statewide. He expects it will ultimately get more than 75,000.
The marriage drive is doing really, really well," Glass said Tuesday. "[The Alliance leaders] are spending a lot of money and they are going church to church, and getting tons of signatures."
Oak Grove Baptist Church, on Churchville Road in Bel Air, has been the local distribution point for the petition drive and the church is leading a petition sign-up effort through Saturday at the Motor Vehicle Administration location in Bel Air.
The church's marquee at Churchville and Thomas Run roads has been advertising that drive.
The church has already reached the goal of 6,446 signatures set for Harford County by the Alliance, organizer LaVerne Cash said Monday.
The petitioners must get at least a third of the required signatures by the end of May and the remainder by the end of June, she said.
For Oak Grove Baptist and many other Harford churches, opposing same-sex marriage is a matter of biblical principle.
32 Comments
Oh, how I hate the qualifiers for marriage. Marriage is marriage. It is those who want to change marriage who need the qualifiers.
"Protect Marriage" says it all, and implies that all other kinds of so-called "marriages" are not marriages at all. We can use the qualifiers here only to make the distinction when opponents of marriage fail to use their qualifiers.
I have all of the faith that Maryland can get the necessary signatures that are needed to get this on the ballot. Then this November they can be the 33rd state to reject marriage corruption.
As we've seen many times, the opposition has had some success in advancing the false narrative that protecting marriage is the equivalent of hate. It's great to see so many churches speaking out and taking a stand to protect marriage. As we continue to speak out we will begin to roll back the opposition's false narrative.
It's important to remember that protecting marriage is not only a religious goal. It's also a common sense goal which can be shared by people who do not practice any faith. It is well established that children do best when raised in a loving, low conflict family consisting of a married mother and father.
We need to work to strengthen marriage rather than redefining it. Redefining marriage only weakens it further, rendering it meaningless. Marriage is nothing less than the foundation of our society, as well as its future.
With the growing support for marriage equality in Maryland, we see that NOM is getting very nervous. Yep, 57 to 37 percent.
Barb, your posts make me chuckle.
Pete,
You make for a sad drunk. Maybe you should go sleep this one off before you take your hallucinations to the next level.
Randy, just because marriage equality is going to win in Maryland doesn't mean you have to stop hating gays.
Sorry, Pete, but that's not really what the numbers say.
What do the numbers say, Lefty?
Pete,
The very fact that you are the one demanding others change to accomodate your depravity only serves to prove that you are the hater; you hate everything that shows your depravity in the proper light.
Well Pete, you know what I say about polls: Polls, schmolls.
Two words for ya: North Caro....oh you know the rest.
Cali baby. didn't the polls of Prop gr8 going down to defeat by 15 points; how did that one work out for ya?
That's right; you heard it right here from me first:
Proposition GR8 will be upheld on appeal!
Enjoy the polls. Pete.
We'll enjoy the election.
Glad to see the amazing work of the Maryland Marriage Alliance paying off!
Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.
The church established marriage in these United States; not the state. The state does not have the right to change the meaning of a construct the state had no hand in creating.
You are being disingenuous Skoooter and everybody is just now starting to realize it.
YOU are the one being disingenuous, Randy. There are two types of marriage: civil, public marriage and religious, private marriage. Religion has dominion over the latter. The government regulates the former.
"There are two types of marriage: civil, public marriage and religious, private marriage. Religion has dominion over the latter. The government regulates the former."
If the two are different, then why insist on calling them the same thing? That's like calling black people: white people or women: men. That's the problem when the government clams the authority to define and redefine terms. They tell us what to say and how to say it and then dictate what our attitudes and beliefs about them should be. That's too much big government for my taste.
Bryce,
The government’s role in marriage is in its recognition of the general welfare the structure of traditional marriage provides to future generations. To come in two hundred and thirty-five years after the fact and change said structure from a public good into a personal good is to over-reach its authority. The spirit of the separation of church and state is a two edged sword; government must not redefine a construct that was recognized as universal and all encompassing into one that serves opposing ideologies.
If you want separate but equal drinking fountains in your isolated world then by all means do so, but you are dead wrong to insist we incorporate your separate but equal philosophy into our society.
Bryce,
The seperate but equal war has alread been decided; you lost.
Pete is absolutely right about the recent Maryland poll done by PPP. Lefty, you really should check things out before you accuse someone of being incorrect.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/MarylandPollingMemo.pdf
You guys are pretty slow learners, aren't you? Haven't you realized by now how much the polls overestimate support for SS"M"? Referendum after referendum has proven that in every state whose polls show majority support for SS"M", and it will again come November.
Hi Bryce, hi Bruce. Yeah, I guess we're all figuring that Pete was referring to the poll that PPP did for MD that Bruce linked to. If that's the case, then a couple of things about the poll strike me as problematic right off the bat.
First, there's the usual question of undercounting SSM opponents. When compared against election results, polls have *continually* underpredicted opposition to gay marriage, regardless of state, regardless of election year, regardless of polling methodology -- everything. No one has yet come up with a really satisfactory explanation for this, and I don't know how PPP could adjust their polls to take the effect into account. But it's still something to keep in mind when looking at their numbers.
Also, please look at Q3. Notice that before asking how those polled would vote on the marriage referendum, PPP helpfully prompts them with this vaguely-worded, leading question about legal recognition for same-sex couples:
Of course, virtually everyone is in favor of gay people getting hospital visits. Should I point out that on real ballots, there won't be any such hints allowed as to the "right" answer?
Moreover, I follow this issue pretty closely, and even I'm not 100% sure what they're asking. Is this about redefining marriage, or are they talking about those civil domestic homosexual gay marriage union partnership things? To me, it sounds more like the latter. Which is good, *because like they just reminded me*, I am in favor of hospital visits.
Helpfully reminded of things that might pique my sympathies and armed with an ambiguous definition of gay marriage, I am now primed to answer PPP's next question:
46% say that they would vote for the law and "feel strongly" about their answer; 36% say they would vote against the law and feel strongly; 11% say they would vote for the law and do not feel strongly; 1% say they would vote against the law and do not feel strongly; 6% are not sure.
Compare the results of that earlier question: 52% say "they should be recognized"; 39% say "they should not be recognized"; and 9% aren't sure. Somehow, more people are willing to vote for a same-sex marriage law than are willing to agree to any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples -- huh? That does not sound likely.
Here's what I think. Taking all this into consideration, I think that the 46% figure for strong support of the gay marriage law probably represents a ceiling for gay marriage support in Maryland, if it means anything at all.
Bruce:
Enjoy the polls.
We will enjoy the election.
@Bryce&Bruce
I've written you a reply about the PPP Maryland figures, but longer comments can take a while to get approved... Still waiting.
Lefty, very interesting breakdown of question #3 in the PPP poll. It’s actually what’s known in research as a “double-barreled” question—one that asks for a single answer to a combination of questions. Some people will favor both ssm and visitation/inheritance rights; some will favor neither; some will favor only the visitation/inheritance rights.
It’s like asking, “Do you favor investing in renewable energy, while raising taxes on oil companies?”
For a minute, I was wondering how PPP managed to slip in a double-barrel. But I looked in one of my textbooks and read that competent researchers can fall prey to the double-barrel at times, and have done so on national polls regarding topics as important as foreign relations
Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, I believe same-sex couples already have, at the very least, hospital visitation rights in Maryland. There is a package of legal protections, though not a full-fledge DP or CU system.
The question is why? Why are they so invested in taking away the rights of citizens of that state? What hatred drives them want to hurt families?
SS"M" is not a natural right with a common sense or moral basis. It does, in fact, threaten natural rights, such as religious freedom (conscience freedoms) & free speech. The issue isn't hatred, the issue is freedom from statism.
Great News!
http://www.nowedge2012.com
the good people of this country are fighting back.
John 4:20
No, Eve, the issue is your freedom to hate.
There is no sign that Eve hates. Doug, you're seeing things that aren't there.
patrick:
They sure are!
http://newsone.com/2006898/obama-gay-marriage/