Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Full Story

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2911 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.acluutah.org/plural marriage.htm
National ACLU Policy on Plural Marriage
NOTE: The following extracts represent the progression of what has now become the current national ACLU policy on plural marriage.
Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978:
Still a different argument and in no way an inevitable consequence of equal treatment for same sex couples under the laws currently in effect.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2912 Feb 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil and reasonable are not the same things.(As of course you know.) If you had time to review the last several pages, you would see the same attempt to equate plural marriage to same sex couple marriage despite the many examples demonstrating they are very different social and legal structures in many different ways. We have also pointed out there are many inequity of relationship problems inherent with incest, beyond the genetic considerations. But at least he hasn't trotted out the horse argument!


Those genetic considerations would be non existent with same sex siblings.
You would also see the repeated assertion biological procreation is the basis for marriage, when no such requirement has ever been included in our laws, and sterile couples as well as those who cannot even have sex due to physical limitations or incarceration are still allowed to marry.
Marriage is a conjugal union of husband AND wife. Everything stems from that. Procreation is a non issue w/SSCs
But I don't want to discourage you. He has demonstrated a slight willingness to admit there are some differences between 2 and 3 or more, but can't let go of the non-existent procreation requirement.
If that is not the basis, why does it matter who marries?
He has also admitted he doesn't support plural marriage, but sees the drastic change it would require to both the structure of society and the law, as an inevitable consequence of allowing same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.
Good luck.
Plural marriage is limited in geographic area, and number of practioners. What you are either unwilling, or unable to acknowledge, plural marriage still contains both sexes, and bio children of both husband and wife, or wives. SSM does not.

First, plural marriage is

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2913 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't absence of government regulation remove restrictions on freedom?
<quoted text>
Each state is free to define marriage as it wishes. One state cannot force a state to do otherwise.
<quoted text>
Different courts have ruled differently in regards to marriage and SSCs.
<quoted text>
Human reproduction is sexual. A SSC cannot reproduce in this manner, nor can they provide both mother and father in one union.
<quoted text>
That argument fails to acknowledge the link between procreation and marriage.
<quoted text>
It is not fear mongering nor can equal treatment be applied to an unequal situation. An OSC is just that. A SSC is either male or female, it does not contain both sexes. Thus the rules are different.
<quoted text>
Why would something that occurs naturally need to be required?
<quoted text>
SSCs cannot participate under the same rules as OSCs, for the simple fact they are of the same sex. The basis of marriage, and its nature is conjugality, the union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Plural marriage is marriage, historically, culturally, religiously, and/or legally in many parts of the world, including the U.S. It still maintains the opposite sex nature of the marital relationship. SSM does not. SSM preserves the number, but not the nature.
A constitutional amendment intended to deny equal rights can in no way be considered a removal of any restrictions. It is a additional, unnecessary restriction that provides no benefit to opposite sex couples and only harms same sex couples by denial of a fundamental right. Everyone understands despite the semantics, this proposal is intended to deny equal legal treatment to same sex couples.

While states can determine their own rules for marriage, they are usually required to recognize the marriages performed in other states and countries. Currently, only the legal marriages of same sex couples change when they cross state lines, while the marriages of opposite sex couples remain intact.
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." (Article 4, Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution)

Human reproduction does not require both parties be present. Many straight couples use assisted reproduction methods. These children are treated equally to children created by any other method, as well as adopted. Requiring a biological mother and father is not a legal consideration. Nor are one of each gender or even two. Ability to procreate is not a requirement, and the courts have made it clear, marriage remains a fundamental right, even when the ability to have sex is missing. No sex, no procreation is required, but children, no matter how created or adopted, are afforded protections under marriage if the couple decides to add children to the marriage. These are protections of marriage, not requirements for it.

You still fail to show how "promoting and protecting conjugal marriage" is affected by equal treatment for same sex couples. All of the same legal incentives remain the same. Opposite sex couples will not be any less conjugal than they are today, nor will they be any less inclined. Denial of equal treatment does nothing to promote responsible procreation among heterosexuals, nor does it inhibit their procreation.

Same sex couples are in fact currently participating under the same laws in effect for straight people in 10 states, DC, and many other countries. Your insistence marriage requires one of each gender just doesn't hold up. Insistence it must be so, fails to demonstrate any legitimate governmental interest. Circular reasoning fails as a reasonable excuse.

SSM does not change OSM. Plural marriage changes both, in numerous and fundamental ways. It also restructures the society in fundamental ways. It therefore is an entirely different argument. Again, the natural procreation argument is irrational as an excuse.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2914 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Those genetic considerations would be non existent with same sex siblings.
<quoted text>
Marriage is a conjugal union of husband AND wife. Everything stems from that. Procreation is a non issue w/SSCs
<quoted text>
If that is not the basis, why does it matter who marries?
<quoted text>
Plural marriage is limited in geographic area, and number of practioners. What you are either unwilling, or unable to acknowledge, plural marriage still contains both sexes, and bio children of both husband and wife, or wives. SSM does not.
First, plural marriage is
Those genetic considerations are also non existent if one or both are sterile. It is very easy to have an operation to remove reproduction as a consideration, yet we don't remove the incest restriction if one has an operation, or is sterile due to age, accident, or is incarcerated.

Again, there are many reasons for prohibiting incest beyond genetic considerations. These relationships are often inequitable, controlling, and abusive.

Again, your insistence procreation is a requirement, coupled with your denial that same sex couples have children, has nothing to do with the legal requirements of marriage.

Marriage provides security to both parties of the marriage in over a thousand ways. It protects them if something happens to the other person, or if the other person decides to leave. Most elderly people who get married have no intention or desire to include children, and so do many younger straight couples. Children are protected by marriage, but they have never been the sole purpose, or required. It is not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to couples who can't or don't want to have children.

Again, plural marriage is a very different legal and social structure.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2915 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A few points. Although all those points mentioned on polygamy are valid concerns, they do not necessarily apply to consensual plural marriage arrangements. The adults in such relationships have chosen them, and they contain biological children of both the husband and wife.
Gay people do raise adopted children, particularly in some cases children who have special needs, and are good parents. However that alone is not grounds for marital designation.
Gay people CAN marry under the rules currently in effect and be treated like any other husband or wife in an opposite sex marriage.
Why is dignity important as a criteria in evaluating the legality of ssm, but not plural marriage?
SSM preserves the number of the current marriage structure but not the nature. Plural marriage preserves the nature but not the number. So which trumps which, or are both worthy of legalization?
Equal treatment for SS couples does not change the nature of marriage for OS couples. Neither the numbers, nor the nature of the marriage is changed by allowing SS couples equal treatment under the same laws currently in effect.

Changing the numbers changes the entire social structure of society in additon to changing the laws that determine what marriage is today.

Polygamy is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, and relationship dynamics of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight people currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, or relationship dynamics for straight people.

Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.

As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society. Allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.

As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.

It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.

Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but
possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society, and does not alter the current structure.

There are other frequently observed problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships.

You fail to refute these examples which help to point out why polygamy is a separate and very different argument.

It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

You have yet to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the laws currently in effect, to the marriages of same sex couples.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2917 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a conjugal union of husband AND wife.
Marriage is a legal contract between two non-related consenting adults. No one is required to "conjugate."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2918 Feb 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal contract between two non-related consenting adults. No one is required to "conjugate."
Conjugal as in Husband AND wife. So yes, couples are conjugal at least in 32 states.
Vic

Pekin, IL

#2919 Feb 24, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a legal contract between two non-related consenting adults. No one is required to "conjugate."
In the USA, marriage is solely defined as between man and wife.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2920 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Legally they still accepted each other as, and were pronounced,'husband and wife'. It all stems from that.
They did that because they loved each other, and wanted to ensure their bond with the weight of the law behind it, and provide for each other's futures. THAT is what it all stems from. That's WHY they married, that's what drove their DESIRE to marry. Gay people feel this same love, and have the same needs for their bond.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its about 'husband and wife', everything else stems from that. The law presumes the couple will consummate their marriage, engage in 'marital relations', etc.
The law did NOT presume that for this couple. The law KNEW they would not and could not. The law had an opportunity to oppose their marriage, and didn't even raise an eyebrow.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is every couple able or willing to do that? No, there will always be exceptions, but they do not invalidate the rule.
If so many exceptions can exist, then there is no point in having such a useless rule. Consummation is NOT what the law expects a couple to do. Love and protect one another is what the law expects them to. It's WHY they marry, it's what they themselves intend to do.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the conjugal sexual aspect is no longer the legal foundation of marriage, and the state's interest in it, then there's no reason to prohibit siblings, or other opposite sex adult blood relatives from marrying. Nor is there any sufficient reason to regulate marriage at all. Why would it matter who married who?
The state has an interest in treating all its citizens fairly and equitably. It SAYS so in the Constitution. Denial of marriage is not the ONLY denial that gay people have had to endure. No one has ever stopped siblings from joining the military. The Bible doesn't call for the DEATHS of polygamists (quite the opposite, those people are handsomely rewarded). Marriage equality is the last remaining vestige of state-sanctioned homophobia.

The reasons for regulating marriage are that long list of rights that I mentioned in a previous post, over 1000 of them. Marriage swoops them all up, and assigns each half of the couple as the other's legal representative, so that people don't have to go through the trouble of enacting each one separately. The government gets involved to back that agreement up, to enforce its solidity, and to prevent outside parties from interfering. Blood relatives have no such need of what marriage provides. Marriage makes unrelated people into kin, facilitating the bond they've chosen in each other. Blood relatives already ARE kin.

In any case, FIND me some blood relatives that are seeking this (redundant) legal recognition. Can you pull up a YouTube analogy to the Brown family, where a brother and sister have a need for marriage, and are trying to put a respectable publice face on their relationship? Siblings don't seek relationships in this fashion. Gay couples DO. Gay couples ACTUALLY HAVE A NEED to ensure for their mutual futures. Marriage serves a specific and necessary purpose for us.

By "the conjugal sexual aspect", there's no doubt that you mean "having children". But not all straight couples will do that, and some that do may seek artificial assitance. Gay couples are no different in that aspect. The rights granted with marriage do not diminish if children are not present, because marriage addresses the needs of the COUPLE. A gay couple has these same needs. Marriage strengthens the support that they seek to give each other.

Marriage DOES provide a couple with more stability and security, important qualities to have if that couple is raising a family, as many gay couples are. Denying them marriage has a significant impact on those families, leaving them WITHOUT the precious protections that you enjoy, and leaving them stigmatized as "invalid".

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2921 Feb 24, 2013
Vic wrote:
In the USA, marriage is solely defined as between man and wife.
Not for long.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2922 Feb 24, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for long.
His statement isn't even true.

9 states define marriage without any restriction on gender, and RI recognizes out of state and country same gender couple equally under their laws, making 10 states and DC, that recognize marriage equality. Canada and Mexico also recognize those marriages equally.

But denial is a powerful defense mechanism. Yet what can you expect from someone who thinks refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law is an example of live and let live.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2923 Feb 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Conjugal as in Husband AND wife. So yes, couples are conjugal at least in 32 states.
Many couples remain "conjugal" in all 50 states, while there are many who are not in all 50 states. Treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect did not and will not change that.

Yet it has never been a requirement of law. Your desire to make it a requirement now, but not for all opposite sex couples and only for same sex couples, is irrational. It provides no benefit to opposite sex couples, and you have yet to demonstrate any. It only harms same sex couples needlessly.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2924 Feb 24, 2013
Same sex marriage is disunity politics. A small group of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals want to change marriage law for everybody. There's no law or ban on cohabitation and labeling yourself married if you are in a same sex couple, the law keeps marriage gender diverse. Same sex marriage is against federal law, violating the Defense of Marriage Act our Vice President voted to enact.

Keeping marriage as is, that's the conservative, moderate policy. Criminalizing same sex marriage the way polygamy is criminalized or changing marriage law for everyone are the extremist, radical policies.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2925 Feb 24, 2013
"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." ( In Re Marriage Cases, p.117)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2926 Feb 24, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples,
^^^Only because same sex marriage supporters live in a fantasy world where actions have no consequences.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." ( In Re Marriage Cases, p.117)
How do same sex couples have "their children"? Everyone of those children had a mother or father and these same sex couples have them now, what's up with that? Are these the same children we see on our milk containers?

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2927 Feb 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is disunity politics. A small group of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals want to change marriage law for everybody. There's no law or ban on cohabitation and labeling yourself married if you are in a same sex couple, the law keeps marriage gender diverse. Same sex marriage is against federal law, violating the Defense of Marriage Act our Vice President voted to enact.
Keeping marriage as is, that's the conservative, moderate policy. Criminalizing same sex marriage the way polygamy is criminalized or changing marriage law for everyone are the extremist, radical policies.
LOL @ "change marriage law for everybody."

What a stupid statement.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2928 Feb 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Only because same sex marriage supporters live in a fantasy world where actions have no consequences.
.
<quoted text>How do same sex couples have "their children"? Everyone of those children had a mother or father and these same sex couples have them now, what's up with that? Are these the same children we see on our milk containers?
Just what are you insinuating?

The fact is it doesn't matter "how" same sex couples have come to raise children. They have, and they always will. Those children necessarily must be treated equally under the law. They aren't if their parents' marriage is not legally recognized. The children are penalized because of your prejudice. Soon your prejudice won't matter because the law will be corrected to reflect American freedom and equality.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2929 Feb 24, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
If so many exceptions can exist, then there is no point in having such a useless rule. Consummation is NOT what the law expects a couple to do. Love and protect one another is what the law expects them to. It's WHY they marry, it's what they themselves intend to do.
and/or gay marriages without children can be considered just another one of those very same exceptions, i.e. straight couples choosing not to have kids or straight couples who are infertile.

Not that it is even necessary to qualify them except when arguing with buffoons on this board!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2930 Feb 24, 2013
Vic wrote:
<quoted text>In the USA, marriage is solely defined as between man and wife.
Not for long David. And no it isn't.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2931 Feb 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
...How do same sex couples have "their children"? Everyone of those children had a mother or father and these same sex couples have them now, what's up with that? Are these the same children we see on our milk containers?
The vast majority of their children (84%) are the biological offspring of one of the partners.

There is no rational basis for denying these children the exact same protections and benefits that civil marriage provides their peers who are being raised by opposite-sex couples.

Why would anyone want to do that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Somali Women: You Are Wrong About Bad Features ... 4 min Be_Real_Fool 1
White Power is finally ending, Blacks will righ... 4 min Truth 697
Since white people have the most dating eligibi... 4 min Rock 15
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Teaman 1,110,717
Why do blacks claim to be the true Israelites? ... (May '11) 5 min Carly HI YAH 6,180
Sagging or hanging your pants off your ass 6 min Bychance37 17
White Men have Higher IQ than Black Men 8 min Michele 12
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 11 min African AE 24,614
BW Cuffed by Police for Kissing WM: Prostitute??? 29 min Capree 285
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 30 min NotSoDivineMsM 120,891
Even Rapper Drake, Called East African Women, "... 1 hr Stupid Thread 62
•••

African-American People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••