Why is this "breaking news"?

No God in here. Ever wonder why our nation is on a down-hill slide? "Follow my statutes and commandments, else the land vomit you out". What part of that don't you understand?

One WOULD expect the right-wing Washington Times (a.k.a., the Evening Moon) to issue misleading information to disconcert same-sex couples. Or is this old fogey being overly cynical?

and single on a federal return. Ahhh a tax accountants nightmare begins

Everything I saw on teevee and heard from the politicians said that the gay marriage thing was all about love.

This seems to be all about money.

Which is it?

oh please. it's about equal rights. that's all. don't be deliberately obtuse. And because I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll need it, here's the dictionary definition:

ob·tuse
/əbˈt(y)o͞os/
Adjective
Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

Synonyms
dull - blunt - dense - slow-witted

In this case the rights (as opposed to "rights") originate from the government to treat all its citizens equally. In this case equal tax law for all married couples. See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

Afterall it was all about money!

So... breaking news is that homosexual couples now have same rights as heterosexual couples.

Is this just an excuse to run a "Homosexual ______ story" to drum up the responses of:

1) GOD IS DEAD
2) Oppression stfu
3) It's unnatural with the poking
4) lol u bigot

Conversation threads?

Because that's all these are.

We should just start sharing recipes for blueberry muffins in any "Gay Marriage = Page Views" story on Patch.

As it relates to this article (equal tax regulations for all married couples), yes, it's about money. But marriage equality is also about the right of all spouses to visit one another in the hospital (not universally allowed in the USA), about the right not to lose one's job or be denied housing because of one's sexual orientation and same sex marriage status (still permissible in 26 states), aboit basic human and civil rights, compassion, love (of course you donkeys), etc. Yes, some of the issues are about equal rights as pertains to money, like spousal benefits, taxes and inheritance. I understand that these are new concepts and upsetting to many as they mistakenly believe their ignorant bigotry is based on their religion, though neither Christ nor Mohammed ever mentioned the subject. But that's the extent if my tolerance so from here out just consider my response to be: "Go %@#! yourselves red neck bigots. Gay people are no longer afraid of you, we're winning, and your hatred is dying along with you. I'm satisfied with that.

it is cheaper to file taxes as single person -

Seems like there are a lot of jimmies being rustled in here

No. The homosexual community is not winning , it is a self defeating livestyle, you cannot procreate and continue so you adopt and brainwash kids to believe its normal fact is its not the natural order of things no matter how hard you force you're beliefs on the rest of us

this is great news, although I wish it applied to this year as well. Next thing we need is to do away the impution tax on health insurance for same sex spouces.

I'm waiting for the State of Maryland to pass a law to make it legal for me to marry my pet hamster, Percy.

More for MarkV:
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yes its not natural, pair bonding is simply to procreate and have offspring and insure the continuation of the species, mankind thinks it is smarter than nature and a lot people in the scientific community are like any other group and will push an agenda that they support,wake up, its not that hard to figure out

Jeff Hawkins. We are not all equal in intellect, income, education, refinement, etc. But UNDER THE LAW, we should all share equal rights that permit us to pursue a more informed opinion, or in the case of some in this thread, flee from fact-based discussion and adhere to superstition. Nothing in my argument insists that you or anyone else has to believe as I do. Nobody is saying YOU have to marry someone of the same sex. Everything in your argument says that your superstition/religion/cult/sect...whatever, somehow trumps my CIVIL rights. Nope. Not happening anymore. #WINNING!

bfrank: is procreation really all that special? 500,000 babies are born every. single. day. Not so special that hetero breeding thing of yours. But I love kids, and the fact that gay couples can now have with a surrogate or adopt kids and raise them is a blessing on children and I don't see the human race petering out of existence because Maryland allows same sex married couples to file joint tax returns. Take a deep breath. Or, as I like to say: Go %@#! yourselves red neck bigots. Gay people are no longer afraid of you, we're winning, and your hatred is dying along with you. I'm satisfied with that."

JEFF HAWKINS: MEA CUPLA. I think I mistook your point. Peace.

Jeff, sorry man. Yeah, I'm a little militant. I come by it honestly and it's an effective approach for me on this issue. It isn't the only, or even the MOST effective approach out there, but I'm SO over all this horsesh•t, I just blast away when confronted with it OVER and OVER and OVER. Not always attractive and it certainly doesn't win friends. But it is my response to a lifetime of experience with bullying, inequality, public distain, violence, and government sanctioned hate speech. I'm too old to back down now, even though I may not always be my own best advocate.

As a hetero married male this subject doesn't affect my life one bit. The morning after the same sex referendum was defeated the Sun still rose in the East, the World kept turning. People are only on this earth for a finite period. If it makes them happy to be married then go for it.

The "Why don't I just marry my pet hampster" comment is insane.
Gay Marriage is with TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Last time I checked, a hampster did not fall into that catergory. A hampster is not "of age" and cannot consent.
Please!

Um...no becuase that is called Incest and INCEST is illegal

Why is this news? This was the whole point of SSM legislation. Why is anyone surprised b this.

The debate on this one is over.

Agreed.

Why does this story surprise anyone? What did people think when we voted that all married couples should be treated the same? Same-sex marriage was always about more then just a gay or lesbian couple having rice thrown at them.

What about marriage between a man and three women? What about a man and his dog? I love my dog and I make love to it... am I entitled to marriage? Why not? We've expanded the definition this far... why is it any different? What about a transgender man and three other transgender people? Why can't we be married under state law in some sort of kabal?

I am just bringing up some issues that I find repulsive. I DO THINK GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES should have the right to be married. It isn't my or the government's business what they do in their homes. BUT I ALSO WANT THE "LGBT" community to stand up to the beastiality, amorphous and other side communities that want to latch on to their movement. Sorry, I want them to come out strongly and reject these truly crazy ideas and ideals.

Sorry, I don't support a man and his cat and I don't support threesomes as equal or needing protection under a law.

It would be a lawyer's dream... that's for sure. Three, four, five, ten adults getting married. One dies or decides to move on. Great money for the divorce lawyers. And how about kids with three, four, ten parents? Where do they go after divorce? And how about a Muslim guy, who can now force, legally, his marriage on 2-3 women who are otherwise scared to say "no" because of their families/culture/upbringing. Now we can have all the benefits of a Muslim society where women are treated like sub-humans and the property of men! Awesome! And it will be legal under the law.

Sorry, I reject it. It won't lead to many positive things.

Yes, I've heard of a married couple being referred to as a "corporate" entity.

That being the case, why stop at two? The possibilities are endless. And as Craig states, particularly for the lawyers.

Wow. I find this interesting. That this story is o. The crofton patch, but the strong opinions both pro and con are not from Crofton. Nor are the Pate h reporters. So what is the purpose of posting this article I. The crofton patch and not the Pikesville or Towson or Wheaton or. ...patch instead. Brian Sears can you explain why you post this article (or anyone else in patch who may have done this) in the Crofton Patch? Why is it newsworthy to this communty particularly? Thank you.

number9dream: The reason for the story is in graph 3. The "breaking news" bulletin was my mistake. I accidentally clicked the box as I was clicking a box to feature the story. Once the story was approved, the alert couldn't be pulled back. My fat fingers or I was moving faster than I should have. There's nothing else to infer from it. If it offended you or anyone else, I apologize for the unwarranted alert and will make every effort to not do it again.

A comment by user Baylee C. was removed because it contained masked profanity. You can review Patch's terms of use here: http://towson.patch.com/terms

A comment by user "David" was removed because it contained masked profanity. You can review Patch's terms of use here: http://towson.patch.com/terms

Uggg. Some people still don't get it. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Nothing. Two atheists can get married by the justice of the peace.

And if you want to reference homesexuals in the Bible, let's also discuss how the Bible feels about slavery - because I've read it and the Bible thinks slavery is just fantastic.

Unbelievable. Two of them can simply claim that they are a "couple" and enjoy the advantage of a joint return. Can I declare that I am in a relationship with a tree?

Voice of Reason-maybe the people making sure the marriage is authentic will be the same "dedicated" people checking for medicaid fraud HAHA. You have no idea and before you counter this statement do some research out in the community.

It no longer matters if you supported SSM or not. The referendum passed and it is now the law of the land.

You dont have to like it, but it's time to let it go.

Best to get rid of the whole income tax. Ne sex issues and income tax was always a Marxist favorite anyway.

I would bet most gay folks are against the idea (and even legislation) of several people entering into a marriage. Most Patch commentators proclaiming their homosexual partnership have been silent on defending this idea. Maryland should make people partnerships the same as corporate partnerships...any number of people and any gender. It removes the religion from the subject, which seems to have become the analytical argument. Rewritten tax codes to address the people partnerships will handle the other problem of defunct marriage tax benefits and medical decisions. I do believe the Civil Marriage Protection Acts have cracked the nut wide open for such unthought of arrangements. I am generally a conservative thinker and traditionalist, but see these measures as the only way to avoid all citizens from claiming discrimination by the current marriage laws.