"As Maryland gays mourned Tuesday’s high court ruling upholding a ban on same-sex marriage, some said they were equally stunned and upset by the remarks of Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, who in private, had repeatedly assured plaintiffs in the case that he supports gay unions. After this week’s ruling, O’Malley said he backs civil unions as a compromise. Further, he invoked his Catholic religious beliefs, in a reference to 'the sacraments.'"
Cue banjos: a shooting suspect led police on a chase that ended in Herring Run Park.
Awww! Colin Jackson, the Crofton boy who was kidnapped by his "father" was reunited with his mom after a librarian in Swain County, NC, recognized him.
Remember this story? Vernon Brown and his cousin, Learnold Jones, robbed a Perry Hll Super Fresh, Jones fled to a nearby shed, then shot Officer David Garner, and was shot and killed himself. Now Brown has pled guilty in exchange for various charges being dropped.
A Russian teen pled guilty to an identity theft scheme.
If you've been following the whole Keith Washington story in PGC, the latest revelation is that he was "placed on restricted duty for more than a year in the mid-1990s after doctors and department officials determined that his inability to handle the stress of regular police work made him a potential danger."
Stomach-turning pervs In Hagtown dept: John Quebedeaux, 34, was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl while she was sleeping.
Stop the presses! This just in!:
Baltimore Sun Report
On a recent weekday, Wit Kosicki enjoyed the view of Evitts Mountain as his wife received a massage inside the Rocky Gap Lodge & Golf Resort.
41 comments:
I wonder why people get so upset about the whole marriage/civil union argument. As long as the legal rights are the same is it really that big a deal? No matter what the government labels it there will be gay couples who consider themselves to be married, just like there will be fundies who will never, ever think of gays as being married. The "seperate but equal" comparisons seem a bit over the top.
because you can't half-ass civil rights. Either you say, these people have equal rights under the law, or, due to a compelling state interest (a la post-9/11 'foreign detainess,') they don't.
Is everyone born here breathing and with a heartbeat entitled to the same treatment under US law, or not?
Do we believe in the First Amendment?
Or do we want politicians to govern according to what their exclusive hotline to God tells them to do?
sick. I can't imagine what it would be like to wake up to that. sick...
I guess O'Malley only supported gay marriage on the down low.
heeeee! Good one.
But if civil unions grant the same rights as marriage then are you really "half-assing" it? If there were a referendum on it I'd vote for gay marriage, but I also think a more pragmatic approach would yield far better results. Right now there are a huge number of people who're really hung up about the word "marrige." Change it to "civil union" and grant exactly the same legal rights, and a lot of people's objections will magically melt away. Once you have legal equality you can work on changing what you call it.
Yeah, I guess, and that would be a step towards getting the state out of the business of religious rites.
I am just getting really sick of politicians selling out to the dipped Christians. THAT is the slippery slope that leads to a Middle-Eastern style religious dictatorship. Civility going backwards!
Gay rights are one area where I'm pretty confident the good guys are winning. Just take a look at how much things have changed for the better in the past ten or twenty years. I'm a lot more concerned about "faith-based initiatives," attacks on abortion rights and the agencies like the FDA being run by fundamentalist loonies.
Looks like the Supreme Court will be reviewing the constitutionality of lethal injection. We should just switch to the guillotine, at least that way you can be sure it causes almost instant death.
OMG! O’Malley used the word “sacraments!” Let’s string him up from a big gay, secular tree. Better yet, let’s convince to our ideological opponents, rightly or wrongly, that we really are ridiculous and not to be taken seriously by pretending that using the word “sacraments” is somehow antigay.
sacramentssacramentssacramentssacramentssacramentssacraments
wow, eeb, that 2nd sentence makes my head hurt! Say what? Can you parse that for us?
O'Malley the good catholic, LOL. The only thing that man worships is himself, and his only sacrament is getting elected.
You know, I took (and still get) a lot of crap for voting Ehrlich, but I tellyouwhat, if he'd been governor, I think there would have been a good chance that the court, knowing where he stood, would have grown a pair and done the Constitutional thing, instead of wussing out with that mess of a decision.
Not tat I'd ever say I told you so..., but...
I am all for homosexuals changing the definition of marriage--I am also a huge advocate of "equal protection" --once homosexuals have convinced the public that "marriage " is open to interpitation then I will have my "equal protection" and will be allowed plural wives--and of course no one will be able to tell my buddy that "marrying" his sister is a "sin"--and my neighbor really ,really, really loves his German Sheppard--I think "equal protection" is wonderful
I just tell people I voted for Ehrlich because I didn't want Sheila Dixon to become mayor of Baltimore. That and the fact that I'm oh so fond of capital punishment.
BTW, that's pretty horrifying that you think the MD Court of Appeals would really change their decision based on who the governor is. Sounds like we need some new judges on the court.
The gay marriage = polygamy argument is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Legally a marriage between two people would work the same way regardless of the gender of those two people. If you had multiple spouses though it would be completely different. Which wife gets the house if the husband keels over dead? Also, last time I checked a dog isn't an adult who can legally sign a contract, so that argument is just as asinine.
And I just spent the weekend trying to convince one of my friends not to propose to his gf. Ah the irony, maybe they just shouldn't let anyone get married.
Parse? Sure, I was mocking the Washington Blade for being, you know, intentionally inflamatory - and I use the term inflamatory respectfully. Pure Anne Coulter tactics. I’ve seen links to Washington Blade articles and editorials elsewhere in the blogosphere, and the WB editorial position, from what I’ve seen, is always a little more than a little loony - and I’m fairly pro gay marriage. (Unless by “parse” you meant you wanted me to map out the sentence itself)
ppatin, I’ve got some gay friends down at the downtown athletic club. Apparently, O’Malley used to love strutting around in his towel in front of the gay section of the locker room. He’s either gay friendly, or a shameless narcissist. Personally, I think he is both.
O'Malley the narcissist? Shocking I tell you, just shocking.
BTW, David Simon will be speaking at Hopkins tomorrow at 8 PM, and O'Mouthy is giving a talk on Oct. 10th.
Um...
1. Polygamy is illegal, homosexuality is not. It's still illegal in Canada, Spain, Israel, South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, and other places where same-sex marriage is recognized.
2. Incest prohibitions are also still firmly in place everywhere same-sex marriage is recognized. The two are pretty obviously not related. Again, incest is an illegal act, same-sex sex is (generally) not anymore.
3. Animals lack legal standing. Gays, fortunately, don't. Dumb argument.
Attitudes towards gays and lesbians, etc are changing. Attitudes towards bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc are not. Plus, who do you REALLY THINK is going to suddenly advocate legalizing polygamy, bestiality, and incest?
But gay sex is so gross! Of couse they shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's just icky!
I wasn't being sarcastic or even kidding --and there are still laws on the books regarding sodomy(which is how a homosexual couple would consummate a "marriage")Im serious I think people should do as they wish especally if it violates judeo/christian standards- maybe marrying a dog is pushing the limits , but what if it were possible to prove consent (ie; love without peanut butter) whos to say what is right and what is wrong? homosexuals are unfairly discriminated against by the same group/set of standards that say incest is wrong--why would you defend gays but not sister fu*ers? I mean as long as they were consenting adults and took responsibility for their genetics--lets say I got fixed and my sister had her tubes tied, we are both adults why would you refuse to accept our love and allow us the same rights you would allow a homosexual couple--oh yeah "god said"
All anti-sodomy laws were struck down several years ago, genius. Go run Lawrence v. Texas through Wikipedia.
Ok, no more troll feeding for me, I promise.
Oh.
Um.
Okay.
Ive gotta admit that you Mr. ppatin really do know more about being a homosexual than I do, I humbly ask your forgivness and I will defer all gay questions to you before I make a complete ass of myself--
Yay, I'm the Baltimore Crime Blog's official gayness expert! Off to Grand Central to have a celebratory drink!
I personally don't think the courts have any business making these kind of grand, moral-political decisions(which are almost always split anyway). However, something does have to be done about the crumbling infrastructure of the family unit, especially in Baltimore (led by gay parents or straight at this rate). This seems like a much more important issue than what the legal definition of "marriage" is. Unfortunately, this marriage topic will probably continue to receive much more debate.
O'Malley is a quack.
Why is the government in the marriage business anyway?
As far as I am concerned, if you want to get married, you go to a church (or other relgious institution). Government should stay out of it - stop issuing certificates, stop taxing married folks differently...
God knows this government is not in the public safety business.
Take a look at my frickin' neighborhood !!
I just saw an effed-up bus ad on the way home, with some bride hanging on a man like her legs fell off. Verbiage: "Married people make more money."
WTF? If that's true (and I'm not sure it is, where's the bus getting its info?) that's messed up!
And why is bus the one breaking the news about this fuckified state of affairs?
My opinion, perhaps overly simplistic, is that Christians (of which group I count myself a member) shot ourselves (and everyone else) in the foot when we went along with allowing a secular government (which government ought to be) any say in marriage at all. Hmm - yay for run on sentences.
Anywho, I support a model like that of many European nations - EVERYONE there has a civil union if they want to be recognized by the government and there is a separate ceremony for a marriage blessed by the church.
Honestly, this may be semantics to some but it is not to those of us that believe marriage to be a sacrament as laid out by God. The separate ceremony model makes almost everyone happy.
As one might suspect, there's no evidence that supports the notion that marriage causes people to earn more money. In fact, says the Catholic Reporter, the Bush administration plans to spend $1.5 billion to find some.
(Married people do actually earn more as a group, but people who earn more are more likely to get married in the first place, so that doesn't mean marriage is the cure for poverty. Unless you get your hooks into some walking gravy train. Still, not an ideal strategy for long-term financial planning for your average single.)
But at least one local unmarried guy is doing well: Hal Donofrio, who receives state and federal funding to promote marriage, premarital virginity and "not giving it up" as part of an $870 million "faith-based program."
Thus & therefore, those irksome, condescending & lying-ass billboards don't get defaced nearly often enough.
Thank you and goodnight.
Cybrarian, I lurk here frequently and while I find the majority of your writings fair and scrupulously researched, that previous comment is a bit misleading. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but based on my own web-wanderings it appears that Hal Donofrio's organization (CFOC) has been around a lot longer than Bush, does not appear to be "faith-based" in content (based on their web page and no mention of any such attachments elsewhere on the web) and has simply applied for funding from a pool of money that is "a largely faith-based [government] program." I have only given this cursory attention and I could have missed something obvious - but not all abstinence-based programs are faith-based. Certainly, their successfulness is somewhat in question, but you can hardly fault the organization for applying for funding that is sitting out there, especially when his organization has existed long before the current president's personal agenda hit mainstream politics.
Just for the record, I dislike Bush and I think the billboards are silly considering their target audience (teens 15-19 in Balmer, DC, and New York City). Before anyone decides to jump on me for that.
This is true, Hal Donofrio's organization has been putting up ads since Bush senior was in office.
But they've always been abstinence ads. The pro-marriage ones have been since the W. cash infusion.
Telling children not to have sex, good advice.
Telling single people they should get married for financial gain, bad advice!
Fortunately, the divorce rate is actually down, as people are ignoring bozo billboards and waiting until they find the right person.
Clark has a point about polygamy. The Muslim population is growing in Maryland and they are allowed to have more than one wife (up to four according to the Koran). Who are we, the people of Maryland, to tell muslims that they can not express their respect for their faith in such a way, as a plural marriage?
As for Civil Unions, that should be everyone, not just gays. The term "marriage" should be the religous aspect of a union between people and a "Civil Union" should the legal protection provided by the secular state to those individuals.
Galt. How did you get the Baltimore crime online thing to query more than 14 days of crime? The search says 14 days max but your link had a months worth.
Any reader of this blog should realize that when any component of the City government says only or no (or in this case, maximum), it really means... maybe.
The system retains more data than it admits. You need to 'force' the span parameter in the URL.
I thought the answer may lie in that mess. It's pretty shady to limit 14 days. A month looks a lot meaner in Charles Village. Even though most of the robberies are unreported or junked.
Yep there it is:
%26NumDays%3D14
Hmm, that little search string trick is nice galt. Thanks. Although it really makes me feel that much worse about where I live. Sigh. Someone help me by all the entire 1400 block of Kuper Place and get them bulldozed. That'll be like 14 less crack houses in the Western.
Funny thing is,... 1400 Kuper is right next to the old Southwestern District Police HQ. Clear evidence that when they roll out, crime rolls right in.
Hire more cops now.
Post a Comment