You know, much like I feel about the Skins, I have always loved the Washington Post. It's always been a fun paper to read. Unfortunately, over the last few years, it's had more misses than hits.
When they score a victory, I am, understandably overjoyed. They scored one such victory, a tremendous victory, yesterday. In the Saturday editorial page they correctly agreed with the Maryland Court ruling on gay marriage.
Here's the Post's own words:
"IN 2004, NINE same-sex couples in Maryland challenged the state's ban on gay marriage; in 2006 they achieved a surprising victory before Baltimore trial Judge M. Brooke Murdock. Judge Murdock concluded that the state's law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated a state law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet in handing the couples this win, Judge Murdock also sowed the seeds for a predictable defeat this week before Maryland's highest court. By a 4 to 3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly rejected Judge Murdock's reasoning"
The Washington Post- they're making a comeback!
September 23, 2007 8:43 PM
Anonymous said...
"This is about living a multidimensional life in a multidimensional world."
I don't what you're smoking, Jim, but this doesn't describe you and TTF. You're basically stuck in a materialist world view and can't see that it is insufficient to reveal truth.
Read I Corinthians 13.
September 23, 2007 8:47 PM
Anonymous said...
Go watch www.zeitgeistmovie.com and learn about your faith.
As a gay man, I agree totally with you. I do get frustrated when gay organizations tell us not to address the opposition or call them out when they lie.
I have had many disagreements with folks who go by this brand of activism. In the long run, I decided to do it my own way when it comes to addressing the lies of what I call the "anti-gay" industry. And I think others should ignore that idea that we don't address these folks head on. We just have to make sure that we know what we are talking about and can pinpoint the lies word for word. - www.holybullies.com
September 23, 2007 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...
"Washingtonian" provides an excerpt from this morning's editorial in the Washington Post. Here is the link to the whole thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101954.html
And here is the whole text. The only thing the Post agrees with is that the Maryland ERA is not a basis for requiring equal marriage rights. As for the reasoning of the rest of the decision, the Post clearly is dismayed, as are so many of us.
A Defeat for Gay Marriage Maryland's legislature should take up the challenge in a Court of Appeals decision. Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A16
IN 2004, NINE same-sex couples in Maryland challenged the state's ban on gay marriage; in 2006 they achieved a surprising victory before Baltimore trial Judge M. Brooke Murdock. Judge Murdock concluded that the state's law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated a state law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet in handing the couples this win, Judge Murdock also sowed the seeds for a predictable defeat this week before Maryland's highest court. By a 4 to 3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly rejected Judge Murdock's reasoning, noting that the law preventing discrimination on the basis of sex was written in the 1970s to protect women; lawmakers never intended it to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Still, the analysis in the decision was disturbing. Before upholding the ban as constitutional, the court had to examine whether Maryland had a rational basis for limiting marriage and its benefits to heterosexual couples. The court explained its finding in support of the state this way: "The State has a legitimate interest in encouraging . . . a union that is uniquely capable of producing offspring within the marital unit."
This gem of illogic became the foundation for maintaining a status quo that continues to leave the nine couples and thousands of others with no legal avenues of appeal and without a panoply of benefits, including rights of inheritance and the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeals all but invited gay rights advocates to take their case to the legislature: "[O]ur opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex." The American Civil Liberties Union, which helped to represent the nine couples in court, is poised to push a same-sex marriage law in January when the state legislature reconvenes; the group says it has no interest in considering a compromise involving civil unions.
While we see no reason that committed same-sex couples should not enjoy all the benefits of marriage, we worry that the refusal to discuss civil unions could be shortsighted. Now that the Maryland high court has spoken and the matter has returned to the political arena where it belongs, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who favors civil unions, should take up the cause. He would be ensuring nothing more and nothing less than that all Marylanders have the possibility of equal treatment under the law.
September 23, 2007 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...
The Post still won, David. It's no secret that they would like to see open homosexuality become commonplace and just another fun aspect of life in our area. They showed integrity, however, by not attacking the court for making an obviously correct decision that the issue belongs in the legislature not the court. You didn't hear any of radical fringe gay advocacy groups recognizing this.
The Washington Post- the tide is turning and there's a riptide to the right.
No chance of gay marriage passing the legislature in our true blue state, btw.
September 24, 2007 8:52 AM
Anonymous said...
the issue belongs in the legislature not the court. You didn't hear any of radical fringe gay advocacy groups recognizing this.
No no no. What everybody sees is that anti-gay groups have appealed to another court seeking interference in a legislative issue; namely the MCPS curriculum.
Elected members of the MCPS Board of Education voted to approve two revised MCPS health education curricula, however, the "radical fringe" CRC and their out of state cohorts have gone to both federal and state courts, seeking the intervention of these courts into this quasi-legislative curriculum matter.
I'd say there's a one hundred percent certainty of a curriculum that teaches "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" being approved by voters right here in MoCo.
The ERA does require that same sex couples be allowed to marry. If a man has a right to marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman. Anything else is sex discrimination.
Aunt Bea, you're right, the anti-gay bigots are ironically hypocritical. They rant about how the legislature should decide, not the courts, but then go to court to try to overturn the sex education curriculim.
Jim, I totally agree with you, one should not simply sit back and let the anti-gay industry tell lies, one must expose them and tell the truth - thanks for doing so so well.
September 24, 2007 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...
"I'd say there's a one hundred percent certainty of a curriculum that teaches "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" being approved by voters right here in MoCo."
Well, CRC would welcome a referendum and TTF would oppose it so...what does that tell you?
September 24, 2007 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...
"They rant about how the legislature should decide, not the courts, but then go to court to try to overturn the sex education curriculim."
This what happens when foreigners chime in. MCPS BOE is not a legislative body.
September 24, 2007 2:19 PM
Anonymous said...
CRC would welcome a referendum
Yeah, I'm sure they *think* they can get the voters of MoCo to support homophobia and NARTH. Afterall, in 2006, the CRC did such a great job getting MoCo citizens to vote for the MCPS BOE candidates they put up. Ooops, they didn't put up any candidates!
Well, they did a great job getting MoCo citizens to vote for the candidates they supported. Oh yeah, no candidate they supported was successful because only pro-curriculum revision candidates won.
At least they got some fresh air going around to primary polling places handing out their little fliers.
September 24, 2007 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Deny all you want, Beatrice. You know I'm right. TTF, MCPS BOE, you, talk a good game but:
Go ahead, Buddy. Run for office on a purely CRC platform, and let's see what happens. You guys can afford it. BoE might cost you $20,000, state office $75-100,000. Hey, run for Congress while you're at it.
Go ahead -- make my day.
September 24, 2007 4:45 PM
Anonymous said...
In spite of your opinion, I'd be happy to put the MCPS curriculum to a vote of MoCo voters. As demonstrated last year with the election of Judy Docca and Shirley Brandman as well as the reelection of Nancy Navarro and Pat O'Neal, voters here support tolerance and diversity.
Oh, and btw, both the Governor and the most powerful man in the statehouse, Mike Miller, support civil unions. What are you going to say once that passes in our true blue state? Full marriage equality will be a reality in MD within ten years.
September 24, 2007 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Here's an excerpt from cinnamon man's post on Aug 20:
"Here's a fun little story from this morning's Post:
"Senate President Thomas V Mike Miller Jr said yesterday that he would not support legislation to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions in Maryland, signaling that supporters of gay marriage will face resistance...Miller says he see no reason to change the law...""
September 24, 2007 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...
Here's an excerpt from The Gazette on Sept 21
"Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has called civil unions ‘‘a reasonable compromise,” said O’Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.
Some lawmakers believe such a compromise could happen.
‘‘Start counting heads on both sides,” Weldon said. ‘‘I think the numbers on the fringes of both are the minority of the number of people who could pass a vote.”
But Miller said there are enough votes to pass a civil union law."
Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has called civil unions ‘‘a reasonable compromise,” said O’Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.
Some lawmakers believe such a compromise could happen.
‘‘Start counting heads on both sides,” Weldon said. ‘‘I think the numbers on the fringes of both are the minority of the number of people who could pass a vote.”
But Miller said there are enough votes to pass a civil union law.
Never said it was. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people like you whining about how the courts shouldn't be used to force change and then yourselves trying to use the courts to force change.
September 25, 2007 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education's ruling against the suers:
The local board, as we have stated herein, made a policy decision to adopt the three additional lessons systemwide. It did so through a quasi-legislative process. The Appellants cannot turn that process into an adjudicatory process by demanding a hearing on the correctness of the content in the three additional lessons. But that is just what they have requested this Board to do...Not only do the Appellants not have a legal right to such a hearing, the "facts" they allege are in dispute are, for the many reasons explained herein, within the legal purview of the school to include or not include in the three lessons.
September 25, 2007 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...
"Who's scared to put it to a vote now?"
If you mean the MCPS curriculum to be voted on by the voters of Montgomery County, as was discussed before, that would be MCPS BOE, TTF and you.
September 26, 2007 6:05 AM
Anonymous said...
Well, I can't speak for TTF or the MCPS BOE but for me, that's your imagination working over time. I'm itching for a vote on this curriculum in this county because I have faith the result will finally open your eyes to the fine calibre of your fellow residents. We don't expect everyone to march in lockstep, quite the contrary. We celebrate our diversity.
September 26, 2007 7:13 AM
Ridiculous. That's the only way to describe this sunny fall morning. Yellow leaves are drifting down on a light breeze, the sun at an angle illuminating them as if from within against the morning shade on the hedge across the street. There are a few cars on the road, but not many, I think lots of people slept in today. I probably should have, but I woke up and decided to come downstairs -- I'm thinking there will be a nice, brisk nap in my future.
I've been thinking about something recently that's hard to put into words, which means of course I'll try and probably end up offending someone, well, it wouldn't be the first time.
There is a debate in Montgomery County over the sex-ed curriculum. Nominally, the controversy is about the content of some classes, whether they are objective or if they "go too far" or something. But except for a couple of reporters who misunderstand what's going on, I don't think anybody really thinks this is just about a couple of health classes.
It's about two kinds of ways of thinking. The people in the CRC are certain that they're right and everything else follows from that. They make up facts, they distort what people say, they ignore the obvious. Some people call this "faith-based reasoning," which is to say, not reasoning at all, but a belief that they are doing what God wishes and so everything is justified. There is a right way to live, a straight and narrow path of righteousness surrounded on both sides by temptation, and anyone not on that path is lost and needs to be saved. Oh, and anyone not on the path is also contributing to the temptation and must be opposed in every way -- this is the "love the sinner, hate the sin" paradox, they want to love everybody and hate who they are at the same time.
Our side takes it differently. We tend to think there are many paths to wisdom, and someone on a different path from ours might have something to teach us.
Well, I'm just stating the obvious here. The point is, these are two entirely different ways of thinking. I don't mind if people think the way the CRC folks do, I was never offended by religious or conservative people, but when their narrow views become the driving force for prejudice it is necessary for reasonable people to speak up. We could just as easily be fighting about evolution, or book-banning, or preaching in the classroom, this controversy isn't just about what some teachers will say in some health classes.
Teach the Facts has some gay and transgender members, but most of us are straight, and only a couple of our members are in this specifically because of their advocacy of gay rights. I think I can say that our members are people who see something going terribly wrong with our society, America becoming the opposite of what it should be, and we are people who believe that if we work together we can turn it around.
Because the issue of sexual orientation is on the table in our county, that's what we talk about. Well, it is an important issue, and the school district has gotten itself into a position where it has to tip one way or the other, there is no neutral position they can get away with. Gay and transgender people have come a long, long way in the past several decades, it is amazing to see how our society's views have changed. They've changed our minds deliberately, consciously, taking every opportunity to explain their perspective, to portray themselves in a sympathetic way, to argue for fairness, and people have listened and mostly come around. The sea-change is built on little events, one at a time, and the sex-ed curriculum in our county is one of those events.
Gay folks are watching what's happening with their fingers crossed, hoping the school district is able to do the right thing and get this curriculum implemented. It's not a big thing, but ... well, yes, it is a big thing. It might make a lot of difference if students could get accurate facts in the classroom, it could prevent a lot of ugliness and pain. But mostly, my point here is that the gay community is watching from the sidelines, they haven't been a big part of this battle.
We at Teach the Facts are what the gay activists call "straight allies," or at least most of us are, the straight ones. We support their cause, we believe that sexual minorities should be respected like anybody else, we oppose discrimination and hatred based on somebody's sexuality, even if the outcome of the debate doesn't really affect us personally. They are correct in seeing us as allies.
And now I want to try to talk about something that is kind of difficult, and I'll probably say this wrong. It seems to me sometimes that gay people, including the "activist" ones, don't really understand straight people very well. I can understand why, and of course it goes both ways, but I don't think I've ever heard anybody talk about this.
One thing about straight allies is ... we're straight. It is a different experience, being a straight person in the world. We don't worry about how people will react when they find out. We don't feel like a minority everywhere we go. Our gay-dar is mostly pretty bad. Our orientation is not something we are reminded of every time we talk to another straight person.
Over the years, we have talked with people from some of the gay rights organizations, and they seem to have figured out the best way to fight their particular fight. Almost universally, they have counseled us not to engage the opposition, not to name them, not to talk about what the other side says. They advise us to develop a positive message and stick to it. I see the sense of this, and it is a strategy that has worked well for them, but it seems to me that this is how you act when you're outnumbered. But we aren't outnumbered in any sense, being straight in a straight world, blue in one of the bluest counties in the country; we are free to speak out. If we catch the CRC telling a big fat lie, man, we want to stop them. I don't see anything wrong or even risky about pointing out their inconsistencies, with explaining to the world why they are saying the nutty things they say, with pointing out the insanity of their distortions. It seems to me, somebody has to do it, somebody has to keep track of the facts, and when the CRC says something it needs to be dragged out into the light of day and exposed for what it is.
[Image] Years ago, a friend stitched this little sampler with a favorite saying of mine on it: Be less stupid. I doubt you can actually increase a person's intelligence, but you can decrease their stupidity level. In our controversy over this topic of sexual orientation, it is easy to forget what the issue is. To read the papers, you'd think it was about gay people: it's not. This is about straight people. This is about straight people becoming less stupid. Gay people have staked out their turf, they are not unclear about what they want, they want to be treated like everybody else, and that is perfectly reasonable. They may disagree among themselves about where the lines should be drawn, if they should demand marriage, for instance, or settle for civil unions, how outrageous they should be in public, and why or why not. Stuff like that. But we aren't involved in any of that, every community has its issues to work out. This isn't about gay people, they are what they are and they do what they do. What we care about is getting other straight people to be less stupid.
Let me tell you what this is to me, this Teach the Facts thing. This is about living a multidimensional life in a multidimensional world. It is human nature to simplify, to reduce the number of factors you have to think about at any one time. I do it, you do it, it's the only way to survive without bumping into things. But life is so much richer than that, there are so many really cool things going on, great people and interesting thoughts, and I hate missing out on all that good stuff. If all you can do is evaluate whether something is consistent with the Bible, or what effect some event will have on your particular community, then you are reducing the world to one dimension, and it will be impossible to understand really how things fit together.
I am sure it is possible to see the numerous moving parts and how they all work together without becoming remote and coldly intellectual about life. Personally I love the complexity of the world, the impossibility of resolving some things, simultaneous with the absolute necessity of resolving them. I love engaging with that. You have to keep expanding, you have to spread your arms wider and wider to sweep it all in. I don't recommend it for everyone, but for me, that's what this is. This is not about taking one side or the other, it's about transcending sides.
"Sunday Morning Ramble About Being Less Stupid"
26 Comments -
You know, much like I feel about the Skins, I have always loved the Washington Post. It's always been a fun paper to read. Unfortunately, over the last few years, it's had more misses than hits.
When they score a victory, I am, understandably overjoyed. They scored one such victory, a tremendous victory, yesterday. In the Saturday editorial page they correctly agreed with the Maryland Court ruling on gay marriage.
Here's the Post's own words:
"IN 2004, NINE same-sex couples in Maryland challenged the state's ban on gay marriage; in 2006 they achieved a surprising victory before Baltimore trial Judge M. Brooke Murdock. Judge Murdock concluded that the state's law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated a state law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet in handing the couples this win, Judge Murdock also sowed the seeds for a predictable defeat this week before Maryland's highest court. By a 4 to 3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly rejected Judge Murdock's reasoning"
The Washington Post- they're making a comeback!
September 23, 2007 8:43 PM
"This is about living a multidimensional life in a multidimensional world."
I don't what you're smoking, Jim, but this doesn't describe you and TTF. You're basically stuck in a materialist world view and can't see that it is insufficient to reveal truth.
Read I Corinthians 13.
September 23, 2007 8:47 PM
Go watch www.zeitgeistmovie.com and learn about your faith.
September 23, 2007 10:45 PM
I hear ya my friend.
As a gay man, I agree totally with you. I do get frustrated when gay organizations tell us not to address the opposition or call them out when they lie.
I have had many disagreements with folks who go by this brand of activism. In the long run, I decided to do it my own way when it comes to addressing the lies of what I call the
"anti-gay" industry. And I think others should ignore that idea that we don't address these folks head on. We just have to make sure that we know what we are talking about and can pinpoint the lies word for word. - www.holybullies.com
September 23, 2007 10:46 PM
"Washingtonian" provides an excerpt from this morning's editorial in the Washington Post. Here is the link to the whole thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092101954.html
And here is the whole text. The only thing the Post agrees with is that the Maryland ERA is not a basis for requiring equal marriage rights. As for the reasoning of the rest of the decision, the Post clearly is dismayed, as are so many of us.
A Defeat for Gay Marriage
Maryland's legislature should take up the challenge in a Court of Appeals decision.
Saturday, September 22, 2007; Page A16
IN 2004, NINE same-sex couples in Maryland challenged the state's ban on gay marriage; in 2006 they achieved a surprising victory before Baltimore trial Judge M. Brooke Murdock. Judge Murdock concluded that the state's law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman violated a state law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex. Yet in handing the couples this win, Judge Murdock also sowed the seeds for a predictable defeat this week before Maryland's highest court. By a 4 to 3 vote, the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly rejected Judge Murdock's reasoning, noting that the law preventing discrimination on the basis of sex was written in the 1970s to protect women; lawmakers never intended it to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Still, the analysis in the decision was disturbing. Before upholding the ban as constitutional, the court had to examine whether Maryland had a rational basis for limiting marriage and its benefits to heterosexual couples. The court explained its finding in support of the state this way: "The State has a legitimate interest in encouraging . . . a union that is uniquely capable of producing offspring within the marital unit."
This gem of illogic became the foundation for maintaining a status quo that continues to leave the nine couples and thousands of others with no legal avenues of appeal and without a panoply of benefits, including rights of inheritance and the right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeals all but invited gay rights advocates to take their case to the legislature: "[O]ur opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex." The American Civil Liberties Union, which helped to represent the nine couples in court, is poised to push a same-sex marriage law in January when the state legislature reconvenes; the group says it has no interest in considering a compromise involving civil unions.
While we see no reason that committed same-sex couples should not enjoy all the benefits of marriage, we worry that the refusal to discuss civil unions could be shortsighted. Now that the Maryland high court has spoken and the matter has returned to the political arena where it belongs, Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), who favors civil unions, should take up the cause. He would be ensuring nothing more and nothing less than that all Marylanders have the possibility of equal treatment under the law.
September 23, 2007 10:57 PM
The Post still won, David. It's no secret that they would like to see open homosexuality become commonplace and just another fun aspect of life in our area. They showed integrity, however, by not attacking the court for making an obviously correct decision that the issue belongs in the legislature not the court. You didn't hear any of radical fringe gay advocacy groups recognizing this.
The Washington Post- the tide is turning and there's a riptide to the right.
No chance of gay marriage passing the legislature in our true blue state, btw.
September 24, 2007 8:52 AM
the issue belongs in the legislature not the court. You didn't hear any of radical fringe gay advocacy groups recognizing this.
No no no. What everybody sees is that anti-gay groups have appealed to another court seeking interference in a legislative issue; namely the MCPS curriculum.
Elected members of the MCPS Board of Education voted to approve two revised MCPS health education curricula, however, the "radical fringe" CRC and their out of state cohorts have gone to both federal and state courts, seeking the intervention of these courts into this quasi-legislative curriculum matter.
I'd say there's a one hundred percent certainty of a curriculum that teaches "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" being approved by voters right here in MoCo.
September 24, 2007 12:20 PM
The ERA does require that same sex couples be allowed to marry. If a man has a right to marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right he has to marry a woman. Anything else is sex discrimination.
September 24, 2007 1:08 PM
Aunt Bea, you're right, the anti-gay bigots are ironically hypocritical. They rant about how the legislature should decide, not the courts, but then go to court to try to overturn the sex education curriculim.
September 24, 2007 1:10 PM
Jim, I totally agree with you, one should not simply sit back and let the anti-gay industry tell lies, one must expose them and tell the truth - thanks for doing so so well.
September 24, 2007 1:11 PM
"I'd say there's a one hundred percent certainty of a curriculum that teaches "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality" being approved by voters right here in MoCo."
Well, CRC would welcome a referendum and TTF would oppose it so...what does that tell you?
September 24, 2007 2:17 PM
"They rant about how the legislature should decide, not the courts, but then go to court to try to overturn the sex education curriculim."
This what happens when foreigners chime in. MCPS BOE is not a legislative body.
September 24, 2007 2:19 PM
CRC would welcome a referendum
Yeah, I'm sure they *think* they can get the voters of MoCo to support homophobia and NARTH. Afterall, in 2006, the CRC did such a great job getting MoCo citizens to vote for the MCPS BOE candidates they put up. Ooops, they didn't put up any candidates!
Well, they did a great job getting MoCo citizens to vote for the candidates they supported. Oh yeah, no candidate they supported was successful because only pro-curriculum revision candidates won.
At least they got some fresh air going around to primary polling places handing out their little fliers.
September 24, 2007 3:34 PM
Deny all you want, Beatrice. You know I'm right. TTF, MCPS BOE, you, talk a good game but:
you would be scared to put it to a vote.
September 24, 2007 4:05 PM
Go ahead, Buddy. Run for office on a purely CRC platform, and let's see what happens. You guys can afford it. BoE might cost you $20,000, state office $75-100,000. Hey, run for Congress while you're at it.
Go ahead -- make my day.
September 24, 2007 4:45 PM
In spite of your opinion, I'd be happy to put the MCPS curriculum to a vote of MoCo voters. As demonstrated last year with the election of Judy Docca and Shirley Brandman as well as the reelection of Nancy Navarro and Pat O'Neal, voters here support tolerance and diversity.
September 24, 2007 4:48 PM
Oh, and btw, both the Governor and the most powerful man in the statehouse, Mike Miller, support civil unions. What are you going to say once that passes in our true blue state? Full marriage equality will be a reality in MD within ten years.
September 24, 2007 4:50 PM
Here's an excerpt from cinnamon man's post on Aug 20:
"Here's a fun little story from this morning's Post:
"Senate President Thomas V Mike Miller Jr said yesterday that he would not support legislation to legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions in Maryland, signaling that supporters of gay marriage will face resistance...Miller says he see no reason to change the law...""
September 24, 2007 8:40 PM
Here's an excerpt from The Gazette on Sept 21
"Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has called civil unions ‘‘a reasonable compromise,” said O’Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.
Some lawmakers believe such a compromise could happen.
‘‘Start counting heads on both sides,” Weldon said. ‘‘I think the numbers on the fringes of both are the minority of the number of people who could pass a vote.”
But Miller said there are enough votes to pass a civil union law."
September 24, 2007 9:20 PM
From The Gazette:
Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) has called civil unions ‘‘a reasonable compromise,” said O’Malley spokesman Rick Abbruzzese.
Some lawmakers believe such a compromise could happen.
‘‘Start counting heads on both sides,” Weldon said. ‘‘I think the numbers on the fringes of both are the minority of the number of people who could pass a vote.”
But Miller said there are enough votes to pass a civil union law.
September 24, 2007 9:50 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooo!!!!!!!
September 24, 2007 11:39 PM
Who's scared to put it to a vote now?
September 25, 2007 6:55 AM
Buddy said "MCPS BOE is not a legislative body.".
Never said it was. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people like you whining about how the courts shouldn't be used to force change and then yourselves trying to use the courts to force change.
September 25, 2007 2:20 PM
Excerpt from the Maryland State Board of Education's ruling against the suers:
The local board, as we have stated herein, made a policy decision to adopt the three additional lessons systemwide. It did so through a quasi-legislative process. The Appellants cannot turn that process into an adjudicatory process by demanding a hearing on the correctness of the content in the three additional lessons. But that is just what they have requested this Board to do...Not only do the Appellants not have a legal right to such a hearing, the "facts" they allege are in dispute are, for the many reasons explained herein, within the legal purview of the school to include or not include in the three lessons.
September 25, 2007 6:44 PM
"Who's scared to put it to a vote now?"
If you mean the MCPS curriculum to be voted on by the voters of Montgomery County, as was discussed before, that would be MCPS BOE, TTF and you.
September 26, 2007 6:05 AM
Well, I can't speak for TTF or the MCPS BOE but for me, that's your imagination working over time. I'm itching for a vote on this curriculum in this county because I have faith the result will finally open your eyes to the fine calibre of your fellow residents. We don't expect everyone to march in lockstep, quite the contrary. We celebrate our diversity.
September 26, 2007 7:13 AM