Maryland pastor Robert Anderson says his church, and others like it, will gather signatures to try and overturn the state’s gay "marriage" law. Photo by Morris Abernathy
Posted on 02/24/2012 6:26:28 PM PST by Graybeard58
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (BP) -- Religious leaders in Maryland say citizens will get the final say on a gay "marriage" bill that is set to become law -- with churches playing a critical role in possibly overturning it.
The Maryland Senate passed a bill Thursday (Feb. 23) by a vote of 25-22 that would redefine marriage, less than a week after the House of Delegates approved the same bill, 72-67. Democrats control both chambers, and Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley -- who endorsed the bill in his State of the State address -- is expected to sign it.
Maryland is but the latest state to act on the issue in what has been a dizzying year on the state level: Washington's governor signed a gay "marriage" bill, New Jersey's governor vetoed one and a coalition in Maine gathered enough valid signatures to place a gay "marriage" referendum on the fall ballot.
Like Washington state, Maryland law allows citizens to gather signatures in an attempt to "veto" new laws. Signature drives in both states likely will be successful. Maryland church groups must gather approximately 56,000 valid signatures for it to go on the November ballot.
A coalition has been formed known as Maryland Marriage Alliance (www.MarylandMarriageAlliance.com) to fight the law, which isn't set to take effect until January 2013.
"We will do whatever we can to mobilize for the referendum," Robert Anderson, pastor of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, Md., told Baptist Press. "[The other side has] got all the money. But with God, all things are possible."
Catholics, too, figure to be involved heavily. Baltimore Cardinal Edwin F. O'Brien released a statement after the vote, saying the archdiocese will "eagerly and zealously engage its 500,000 members in overturning this radical legislation" and will join with others "throughout Maryland in aggressively protecting the God-given institution of marriage."
Because of its proximity to the nation's capital, the Maryland vote figures to make national headlines. Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement shortly after the vote, saying it marked "an extraordinary victory for the people of Maryland and a critical step forward in the march for marriage equality nationwide."
Anderson called the issue one that goes beyond "political lines." As an African American, he said he is aware that blacks tend to vote Democratic. But by and large, he said, African American churches have been united against the bill. He said about 500 members of his predominantly African American church signed cards opposing the bill that were given to legislators.
"We're talking about something more basic to society and civilization," Anderson said. "Black churches and black clergy got involved when the homosexual community started to make it an issue of civil rights. That's a sacred cow among African Americans. We know what civil rights are. Our skin color -- we didn't have a choice. The color of your skin has nothing to do with sin.
"Homosexuality is sin," he added. "To be black, to be Asian, to be Native-American, that is not sin."
The state of Maryland, Anderson said, has a legitimate interest in defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
"From a sociological level, it's best for the children. Every child has a right to have a mom and a dad -- to say at the end of the day, 'Good night Mommy' or 'Good night Daddy.' Every study tells you that it's better for a child, overall in the long run, to have both a mother and a father."
North Carolina and Minnesota also will vote this year on the issue, although those votes will be on constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Gay "marriage" has lost in every state in which it has received a ballot vote, 31 in all.
"We are not giving up on any state, or any court -- or on the next generation," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a traditional group.
Michael Foust is associate editor of Baptist Press. Get Baptist Press headlines and breaking news on Twitter (@BaptistPress), Facebook (Facebook.com/BaptistPress) and in your email (baptistpress.com/SubscribeBP.asp).
Maryland pastor Robert Anderson says his church, and others like it, will gather signatures to try and overturn the state’s gay "marriage" law. Photo by Morris Abernathy
But conservatives aren’t supposed to talk about social issues. /sarc
Amen, Rev. don't let the queers equate this with black's civil rights struggle!
Moral Absolutes ping.
Hopefully the churches are realizing they can’t stay silent anymore. It is past time for a new true revival.
Nothing you do will matter.
Prop 8 was coopted by the government here in Kawleefawneeyah and then defeated on the courts.
Best to just cut the government out of marriage and have a private union.
With the lifting of DADT, can’t WAIT for the first “gay marriage” to happen in the Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis...
maybe ADM Mullen will be Best Man to the “husband”, er, “wife”, er, “spouse”....
I see your point about getting government out of marriage.
However, with various aspects of family law, and administering matters such as Social Security survivor’s benefits, health insurance plans by employers, child custody, and others, marital status makes a difference.
And if marital status makes a difference, then government, at some level, must have a definition of what marriage is. I think it might be difficult to just do away with marriage as a legal matter.
No. They need to fight this as a Constitutional issue. Homosexual “marriage” is irrational and unnatural and deprives children of their natural right—the one which leads to all men doing their duty (reason for laws) We can never deprive children AND SOCIETY of the main way to promote the General Welfare of human beings.
We cannot allow irrational, arbitrary laws which give special urges (especially when they are destructive to societies) special rights. It is unconstitutional. Throws out Just Law. Laws are suppose to reflect and NEVER CONFLICT with the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) which this bizarre idea of glorifying sodomy does since it removes Virtue which can never be Just.
Rights come from God IN THE USA and NOT from perverted, immoral “thinkers” as Barney Frank. Laws have to be in line with Natural Law Theory—the basis of our jurisprudence and Just Law.
We need ALWAYS to use REASON and LOGIC and SCIENCE in our laws. Nothing that advocates “special” rights for urges for a few—especially if it promotes immoral or destructive “lifestyles” creates arbitrary laws.
We have to have Just Laws—laws that destroy the ideology of Natural Law Theory—the basis of our legal system—are unconstitutional.
I will not be getting married in government sanctioned union.
I will create my own agreement with terms and conditions mutually agreed to and the government won’t be informed.
Placemark for pingout.
Alveda King -Niece to Dr.martin Luther King Jr. as published in the Washington Times Jan.4,1998 was saying the same things
back then (see King’s conservative daughter makes waves with agenda -story by Julia Duin Jan.4,1998,Washington Times) problem is the enemy has already piggybacked their “cause” to the “Civil Rights” movement (and the”already captured liberal community and the Press have been captured -see Warning to the Homophobes Steve Warren of Act Up The Advocate Sept.1987) And the enemy has likewise piggybacked their “cause” to the myth that the Nazi treated homosexuals like they did Jews during WWII. Guess they never read the Pink Swastika.But it has worked with those otherwise distracted-and with our Congress,and Courts.
Hopefully the Congregations will Not act like too many Catholics— and claim to be good Christians but just disagree with these Churches. As I said on a different posting (one from BBC) we ought let the Govt. define “marriage” how they want— so long as they do NOT force the Church —or Christians accept what is contrary to their religious Faith. Those who cannot agree with the doctrines and discipline of their church ought leave and not attempt to redefine the doctrines of the church.I see no other remedy.
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
"Behind the Violence, Says Jane Alpert, Was Sex"--November 09, 1981--
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20080637,00.html
"He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend."
Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1"...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..."
Campus Wars: The Peace Movement At American State Universities in the Vietnam Era
"What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/predicting_the_weatherman.html
Don't need no Weatherman to see which way the wind bl
ws.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818309/posts
Not guilty! Colonial Baptist is a good church in a solidly middle-class majority black suburb.
You can try; but in the event of divorce, the law of the land trumps individual agreements. That's one reason why the palimony case of Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola back in 1977 was the death knell of traditional marriage in American law. "No-fault" divorce, first introduced by the Bolsheviks, also undercut marriage; and by the way, two California "innovations" in family law -- no-fault divorce and legalized abortion -- were signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. Even he did not foresee the terrible consequences.
Now we have little more than a folk institution of marriage; whereas the divorce culture is much more powerful, since that's where the money is for lawyers. Rather like the way our Lawyer-in-Chief is divorcing us from our constitution, religion and economy.
Naw, I’m going to build a 100 acre lake and build a beautiful home for her on one side, while I build a castle with a moat on my side.
We’ll date each other to keep our interest up.
When the parrot or those shrill harpy noises start I will retreat to my citadel and pull up the drawbridge.
LOL
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Excellent, just what they should be doing. I'd advise doing outreach with Conservative synagogues and Hindu temples, make it across the board protests!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
