Comments on: Maryland marriage language http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Thu, 23 May 2013 19:55:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: MattNYC http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137425 MattNYC Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:19:30 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137425 Timothy, Thanks for the clarification :) Timothy,

Thanks for the clarification :)

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137419 Timothy Kincaid Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:44:28 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137419 This referendum does not establish law. It simply validates the law that the legislature already passed. The language that is relevant is the language in Maryland's marriage bill and that is not ambiguous. This referendum does not establish law. It simply validates the law that the legislature already passed. The language that is relevant is the language in Maryland’s marriage bill and that is not ambiguous.

]]> By: JFE http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137418 JFE Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:34:04 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137418 @Matt My thoughts exactly, although that better not happen, since, if this passes, we will have gotten it through two houses of legislature AND a majority of citizens to vote for a right of the minority, something that has not happened in American history. I mean, seriously, how many more hoops do we have to jump through? @Matt My thoughts exactly, although that better not happen, since, if this passes, we will have gotten it through two houses of legislature AND a majority of citizens to vote for a right of the minority, something that has not happened in American history. I mean, seriously, how many more hoops do we have to jump through?

]]> By: MattNYC http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137411 MattNYC Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:35:02 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137411 Er, actually, with more thought--not to split hairs--maybe using "gay and lesbian" couples is not specific enough. I'm not a lawyer, but I bet if the anti-gays lose, they will try to argue that it doesn't define what a gay or lesbian couple is. Unless the code underlying this proposed law does include it already. Er, actually, with more thought–not to split hairs–maybe using “gay and lesbian” couples is not specific enough. I’m not a lawyer, but I bet if the anti-gays lose, they will try to argue that it doesn’t define what a gay or lesbian couple is. Unless the code underlying this proposed law does include it already.

]]> By: Mark F. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137402 Mark F. Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:30:53 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137402 Good language. Good language.

]]> By: MattNYC http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/08/23/48005/comment-page-1#comment-137382 MattNYC Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:06:43 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=48005#comment-137382 I like it. I was assuming they'd use "same sex" or "same gender" instead of G&L, but I think this actually dilutes the "ick" factor for anyone who immediately cringes at the word "sex." I like it. I was assuming they’d use “same sex” or “same gender” instead of G&L, but I think this actually dilutes the “ick” factor for anyone who immediately cringes at the word “sex.”

]]>