Murdock decision helps Erlich

[CARLHAYDEN]

In yet another example of legislation from the bench, Judge Murdock has struck down Maryland's marriage law.

Liberals oppose having the people of Maryland vote on the issue of a constitutional amendment to correct the judge's power grab.

Now all Erlich has to do is campaign on the right of the people to vote on the constutional amendment while the opposition will have to defend the right of judges to rule over the people like third world tyrants.

One of the major points not widely noted is that on the issue of homosexual 'marriage,' blacks are even more opposed than whites!

Numericaly, blacks in Maryland are the core of the Democrat party.

This issue could also spill over into the Senate race, costing the Democrats a critically needed seat.

Once more the 'in you face' homosexuals are dropping bombs on the Democrats.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

It's "Ehrlich."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But the Republican governor of California said that gay marriage should be left to the courts to deal with.

[Cubby]

It certainly doesn't help the Democrats Carl, but Civil Rights should never be put up for a popularity contest.

And the Judges are doing their job in striking down outdated marriage laws. American law has no place for Judeo-Christian morality, just ask Thomas Jefferson. If the legislative branches at the state level weren't so ineffectual on this issue, then they could take care of it before the courts have to.

[nick]

He'll have to tip-toe on this topic very carefully.  Remember this is Maryland, not Mississippi.  Ehrlich's conservative base is already locked up.  What can he hope to gain from running to the right to the right of the judge on this issue?  Picking up conservative democrats?  My guess is they'll back him in '06 just like they did in '02 anyway.  It will also contradict Ehrlich's recent rush to the middle.

In the senate race Cardin has said in the past that he prefers civil unions over gay marriage, which is probably very much in line with the MD electorate. 

The bigger issue in the senate race will be abortion.  Will Steele support judges open to overturnig Roe?  Lets see how he deals with that one.

[WalterMitty]

the republican party really needs to avoid being the party of bigots and hateful intolerants.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's "Ehrlich."

Thank you for pointing out the typographical error.

[CARLHAYDEN]

He'll have to tip-toe on this topic very carefully.  Remember this is Maryland, not Mississippi.  Ehrlich's conservative base is already locked up.  What can he hope to gain from running to the right to the right of the judge on this issue?  Picking up conservative democrats?  My guess is they'll back him in '06 just like they did in '02 anyway.  It will also contradict Ehrlich's recent rush to the middle.

In the senate race Cardin has said in the past that he prefers civil unions over gay marriage, which is probably very much in line with the MD electorate. 

The bigger issue in the senate race will be abortion.  Will Steele support judges open to overturnig Roe?  Lets see how he deals with that one.

What I was pointing out was that there are THREE factors in this case:

First, should ours be a land ruled by tyrants called judges, and the voters having no practical power?

Second, is the issue of homosexual  "marriage" per se.  Now, in urban areas, hispanics and blacks tend to be MORE opposed to homosexual "marriage" than whites.

Third, is the issue of 'pecking order' in the Democrat party.  In Maryland, blacks make up more than twenty five per cent of the statewide Democrat base vote, whereas homosexuals make up about five per cent of the statewide Democrat base vote.  If you were to do a poll, I think you would find that Maryland blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to homosexual "marriage."  However, it seems that most Democrat officeholders in Maryland are more inclined to ignore the wishes of their black constituents in favor of sucking up to homosexuals.

[dazzleman]

the republican party really needs to avoid being the party of bigots and hateful intolerants.

It should be the party that supports issues being dealt with by the proper branches of government.

Connecticut has a civil union law, enacted without involvement from the courts.  Of course, the gay activists still aren't happy and are still looking to get gay marriage from the judicial branch, which is a big mistake in my opinion.  Haven't they seen what happened with Roe vs. Wade?  Do they still want to be fighting about it in 30 years, sweating bullets over every Supreme Court appointment?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

It's "Ehrlich."

Thank you for pointing out the typographical error.

Sorry if that sounded curt.  I retrospectively should have PMed you that instead.  I wasn't thinking.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No problem.

[CavanaughPark]

This cold definitely become a campaign issue for Ehrlich. Putting up to popular vote and letting MD voters ultimately decide gay marriage couldn't possibly be an unpopular position among the MD electorate themselves. That being said, I'm not sure what this judicial decision has with "in your face" homosexuals. Was the judge in this case gay?

[CARLHAYDEN]

This cold definitely become a campaign issue for Ehrlich. Putting up to popular vote and letting MD voters ultimately decide gay marriage couldn't possibly be an unpopular position among the MD electorate themselves. That being said, I'm not sure what this judicial decision has with "in your face" homosexuals. Was the judge in this case gay?

Well, if you look at Connecticut, the state legislature enacted Civil Unions with little dissent.

However, in Maryland the homosexuals declined and instead enlisted a black robed tyrant to dictate to the state.

[afleitch]

What Carl, would make a homosexual not 'in your face?' It's a vague term and I'd like to know what you mean by it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If there are legitimate greivances with respect to existing laws and policies, take them through the political process rather than going to some power drunk sociopath in a black robe.

In Connecticut, as I earlier cited, this was done.

[WalterMitty]

If there are legitimate greivances with respect to existing laws and policies, take them through the political process rather than going to some power drunk sociopath in a black robe.

In Connecticut, as I earlier cited, this was done.

so you think the same should have been done in the pre-civil rights south?

your democrats who ran the south didnt seem to be to eager to grant blacks their rights.

sometimes the courts have to step in.

[AuH2O]

It's OK, the Democrats didn't really want the Governship or Senate seat anyway.

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's OK, the Democrats didn't really want the Governship or Senate seat anyway.

Actually, the situation is a little more complex.

The Democrat elected officials in Maryland didn't want to have the issue to come up BUT, feel unable to oppose the homosexual lobby which is small but VERY powerful in the minds of elected Democrat officials in Maryland.

A few Democrat state legislators in Maryland who are up for election are floating a proposal to have a constitutional amendment which would both ban homosexual marriage and provide for civil unions.

I am told that the Democrat leadership in both houses of the Maryland legislature are adamantly opposed to such a compromise as they are unwilling to cross the homosexual lobby.

The counterproposal from dumb and dumber is to promise (fingers crossed) to consider this next year, AFTER the elections are over.

[nick]

Game, set, match...  Come again, better luck next time.

Same-Sex Marriage Maneuver Blocked

The debate over same-sex marriage in Annapolis has turned into a parliamentary chess game.

House Republicans arrived at this morning's session with a petition that they said had the 47 signatures needed to bring a constituation amendment banning same-sex marriage to an eventual vote on the House floor. That would have circumvented a committee likely to vote it down and forced delegates to take a stand on the controversial measure.

House Speaker Mike Busch (D-Anne Arundel), alerted to the petition, allowed the morning prayer and pledge of allegiance. Then Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery) moved to recess the session, the speaker banged his gavel, and the moment had passed.

"They stuffed us!" Republican Whip Tony O'Donnell (Calvert) gasped as the speaker walked off the floor.

If the House Judiciary Committee kills the bill, as expected this afternoon, Republicans will need far more votes to bring it back to the floor.

Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel), the bill's sponsor was dismayed with the speaker's latest move.

"Unbelievable," he said. "For him to act as a tyrant. We had the petition. This was an unprecedented maneuver."

House Majority Whip Anthony Brown (D-Prince George's) noted that the committee had spent seven hours hearing testimony on the bill. And he defended Busch. "Tyrants don't play by the rules," he said. "This speaker played by the rules."

[So the Heroes Fall]

LOL

[??????????]

LOL

O'Malley is a joke. His campaign really snowed the Maryland Democrats.

How's that BGE thing coming along NickShepDEM? hahaha