Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
4,921 - 4,940 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5153 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A touch of fresh air.
<quoted text>
Many complexities. The DOMA ruling could have a positive effect for polygamists seeking due criminalization. I don't see how SCOTUS can let the states define marriage, if they don't allow the possibility of plural marriage at the state level. If anything the ruling just made the waters murkier.
[<quoted text>
Awwwwww....Wastey of course there is amico.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23494...
Joe Darger, a man from Utah who has three wives, said the court 'has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something thatís going to trickle down and impact us'.
Anita Wagner Illig, a leading polygamy activist as head of the group Practical Polyamory, told U.S. News & World Report that gay-rights campaigners had set a welcome precedent.
'We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,' she said.
'I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage - it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage.'
<quoted text>
Could a state decide to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone? If so, would the right still exist?
Thank you.

Indeed! Polygamy would require it's own legal action.

Yes you are correct, states will eventually be disallowed marriage discrimination.

Yes I see your connection also. Makes perfect sense in this legal context. I believe the Morrill Act is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Poly people could be allowed to marry, but legal succession, taxation and inheritance would be limited to a primary relationship. Keep in mind, Kings in the Bible only had one successor.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5154 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously folks, the poly people are thanking their lesbian sisters and gay brother for blazing the trail. Deny the connection all you want, but the red headed step children of the SSM movement aren't going away.
It this really important? If so, why?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5155 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't worry, liddy.....I'm sure the anticipation is killing you. Relax, have some vino, tune in later. Ciao
Why bother, you obviously lack the capacity to make a rational argument for your position, but that is at least in part because your position is utterly untenable.

There is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you are up to the task.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5156 Jul 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why bother, you obviously lack the capacity to make a rational argument for your position, but that is at least in part because your position is utterly untenable.
There is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you are up to the task.
There is no valid reason to allow same sex relationships to be called marriage. Individuals can legally marry, as the state defines marriage. Sorry no couple's right.
valirie

Newark, NJ

#5157 Jul 2, 2013
In my teen years I recall reading the historys of the ancients and in particular the Greeks, Romans. And when storys about thier sexual behavior came up the whole room would bust into laughter, young girls giggle about such things. To keep this short and to the point, I'm laughing at you people, the new greeks and romans. Same sex marrage, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh its just to much.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5158 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is no valid reason to allow same sex relationships to be called marriage. Individuals can legally marry, as the state defines marriage. Sorry no couple's right.
I never claimed there was a couples right.

I have said that there is no compelling state interest furthered by limiting the legal definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional.

If your only argument is that you are uncomfortable sharing to word, then it's probably time for you to grow up. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging existing same sex marriage bans, and a federal court in Michigan has already allowed one of the lawsuits to proceed forward, citing US v Windsor in his decision to do so. Such a case will likely end up before the US Supreme Court soon, and the court could find that all same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Both public opinion and the courts are shifting rapidly in favor of equality. Those who still resist this change lack a valid legal argument in support of their position.

If they were to do so, and same sex couples are granted equal protection of the law to marry, there would be no impact upon your life whatsoever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5159 Jul 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
DOMA has been struck down.
15 countries now recognize marriage equality.
13 U.S. states and Washington DC, and now the U.S. federal government recognize marriage equality.
Gays and lesbian civil advancements are now recognized in public school curriculum.
Gays and lesbians are fully recognized on public television and radio and news.
More and more parents are raising their children in environments where they will never be indoctrinated into a religiously generated sense of shame about who they are, should they HAPPEN be gay.
JOKES ON YOU VILLAGE IDIOT!!!
Knuckle dragging fool!!!
^^^This is less than half true, Section Three has been struck down. Sections One and Two stand as the law of the land:

Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5160 Jul 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is less than half true, Section Three has been struck down. Sections One and Two stand as the law of the land:
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
They will fall soon. People like yourself don't have the wherewithal to offer any argument justifying them. They violate full faith and credit.

I suspect that one of the new challenges to the state bans will make its way to the US Supreme Court and same sex marriage bans will be overturned on a broad basis, effectively rendering DOMA irrelevant.
valirie

Baltimore, MD

#5161 Jul 2, 2013
I have a valid argument to your theories validating same sex marrage. Degenerates, a weakened race, vandals, to destroy. Now let me look into my Crystal ball, a world in turmoil,

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5162 Jul 2, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
Pietro Armando--
"Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife,"
Legal fact, at least in 30 plus states.
Proving it's the bigots and homophobes, NOT gay people, insulting marriage.
Proving that statement is bizarre.
For you to pretend this is a "marriage," them "marrying" a person they do not love and have no attraction to, shows you don't give a damn about the institution.
It still marriage. Men and women have married, throughout history, for all sorts of reasons, not always romantic love. The idea of marrying for "love" is a relatively new concept, it also might explain the high divorce rate. So if a man marries a woman, and they are of mixed orientation, it's your assumption that love and attractiveness are automatically absent. Yes? Or did I mischaracterize what u wrote?

No state in the union requires a statement of sexual orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license, nor deny one if the couple is not "in love".....maybe they're just "in like".

The institution is founded on, centered around, and orientated to, the relationship of husband and wife. If u care about the institution, why do you seek to eliminate one half of it?
It is NOT equality to tell someone "You can get married, but not to anyone you actually love or are attracted to." This remains a cheap, stupid lie. No, gay people CANNOT marry in those states.
Then don't marry legally then. The law does not separate men into two categories, nor women. One union for all men and women. You have the right to marry, you don't want to exercise that right, legally, like anyone else of your gender.
"He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid."
No, it isn't. The "slippery slope" argument is a load of bull, they tried this stunt when interracial marriage was legalized.
Stunt? Interracial marriage was legal in various parts of the country in various times, before the bans. Mid 19th century NYC black men married white Irish/Scottish immigrant women. SSM is a new concept in the U.S.the issue of interracial marriage was one of whether or not they were marriages, but that they should be allowed to marry. Not so with SSM.
This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with incest. Totally separate issue.
No it's not sparky, it's all part of the issue. "How do we, as a society, at least legally, define marriage?".
"It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage"
You do.
Lie. They're NOT redefining marriage. It means exactly the same thing it always has.
"for them and no one else."
LIE. It is a redefinition of marriage, at,least be honest on that. Other SSM advocates have admitted that.
Lie. This is about EQUALITY, and your lame-ass "slippery slope" argument deals with unrelated issues that DO NOT damage equality or constitutional rights.
"Equality"? Do you wish to be treated equally as any other man? Yes or no? If yes, you have the same constitutional right as any other man has. No more, no less.
"Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy."
Lie. It does NOT.
Yes it does, why do you care? So more people get "marriage equality". I would think that would make you happy.
Does it really matter to u or any other SSM advocate it polygamy is legalized in some form? After all if the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife is discarded, why does it matter who gets the "marriage" tag, as long as they're consenting adults?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5163 Jul 2, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
Pietro Armando: "So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage"
----------
Lie. It does NOT..ANGLO American? You don't get such a blatant admission of the ties between racism and homophobia often.
"as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
You don't get such a blatant ignorance of legal historical conceptual origins like expressed above, add in the usual tactic, yelling "homophobia", and it amounts to quite the hissy fit. The American legal concept of marriage is derived from English, hence Anglo, common law. Do I understand now?
"Monogamous" is NOT part of the definition, a guy who has an affair is still married.
Oh yes silly me, to quote that great gay sex guru Dan Savage, "monogamish". Monogamous as in one wife, or husband at a time. Please stop drinking the spiked rainbow punch.
Pietro Armando :"I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field."
----------
First off, Clinton served this nation in many ways for many years. Secondly, the "morale" complaint was used by those who tried to keep blacks out of the military too.
Not to mention all the women he served. So much for that marriage vow.
Uhhhhhh. Oakie.....black troops including sailors, and later Marines, Airmen, and Revenue Cuttermen/Coast Guardsmen, have served since the Revolution. Not easy to hide skin color. The Civil War might not have been won by e North, if black troops weren't enlisted.
If your "morale" is harmed by gays or blacks being around you, you are the one with the problem.
Greater military minds, than mine, thought that way at the time, as well
Pietro Armando: "No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined."
--------
A pathetic, stupid, and intentional LIE. The right to marry the person you want to, the person you love and are attracted to, is DENIED gay couples.
Stop the Hissy fit, use your brain, and think about it. What I wrote is factually correct, you are lying to claim otherwise. There is no couple's right. A gay couple can't pool their rights to form a super right, no more than a man and two women can do the same in order to argue for plural marriage.

If you be with the one you love, love,the one your with.
The "Definition" you are clinging to DISCRIMINATES against gay people,
It also discriminates against polygamists, against people who wish to marry a sibling Guess what it "discriminates", against others too. Are you advocating we drop that "discrimination" too?
and violates the constitution of the United States.
All depends on which judge you ask.
Gay people DO NOT have the same rights, liar.
You're the liar. Liar, liar, throwing a hissy fit full of fire.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5164 Jul 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is less than half true, Section Three has been struck down. Sections One and Two stand as the law of the land:
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Keep clinging Brian_G! Nothing funnier. Jokes on you!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5165 Jul 2, 2013
How is this treat going for them? Lmao

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5166 Jul 2, 2013
Oops. How it this threat working out for the churches? Haven't they been attempting to exert political force already?

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5167 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I know...I know...the old, "how does it affect you?" question. All sorts of things don't affect, me, or you personally. That doesn't mean, anything goes, does it?
The gay community's request to have their marriages federally recognized is NOT a request for "anything goes".
Pietro Armando wrote:
My point is a fundamental social change in marriage, redefining it to include SSM, could have far reaching negative consequences. We've seen the effects of "no fault" divorce.
Like what? The only effect I've seen is that people who are in a bad marriage can get out.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I believe it weakens marriage, it undermines the whole point of a compelling state interest. If marriage is nothing more than a government bennies package, and a rubber stamp of any consenting adult intimate relationship, what is the point of recognizing it at all? Marriage is about men and women, and protecting the by products of their union, children.
This version of marriage has a real bias against children from unmarried parents. It also seems useless to married couples who have no children.

To suggest that it weakens ANYTHING for the state to uphold its compelling interest of treating gay citizens the same as ALL citizens is nothing but an insult. It's also just a retread of anti-interracial marriage arguments.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sure it does, if they had been gay "spouses for life", as opposed to same sex sibling "spouses for life", they would have gotten the tax break.
"Siblings" and "spouses" describes two different relationships, one of which is already family. Someone in the UK justice system believed that they should not get the break, so argue it with them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, joining men and women together as husband and wife. That's the function!
How is that a function? If you stop at the word "joining", you've defined the function enough.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Naturally they function together to produce, and are expected to raise, the next generation. And no, not envy couple is expected to, or should reproduce. Form and function.
But many gay couples WILL raise the next generation (RAISING children being more important than HAVING them). If straight couples need marriage to protect their children, then so do gay couples.

But no one needs a marriage to protect their children. Children are protected whether their parents are married or not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're right they could. But, there would have to be a require net that they be sterile. No such need with same sex siblings.
Siblings are already family. They don't need a contract to enshrine it further.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Noo waaaay?!:) I'm speaking of the concept of marriage in American law, which is derived from English common law. Awwwwww...but you knew that.
American law is always changing... but you knew that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Funny stuff
No joke, NJ has no incest laws. Many states already allow what you're worried gay marriage will cause.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Biology 101, available at your local high school.
No ennumerating for you, huh? As usual.

Biology has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage does not exist in nature or biology, it's entirely a human construct. No other animal does it. Procreation isn't inhibited in the absence of marriage, nor is it bolstered by its presence.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They, five of them anyway, were too busy, setting themselves up to revisit polygamy in the future, to deal with same sex siblings now.
Yes, I'm sure that's how they decided to busy themselves. I'm sure it was THAT, rather than the fact that these are separate issues with their own complications.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5168 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
He didn't argue that it shouldn't be legal. Nor did he point out the legal reality. Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states, and that marriage would be valid nation wide. He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid.
Sure, if you don't like Olson's answer.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage for them and no one else.
Every group will need to tackle this for themselves. We also didn't tackle Artificial Intelligence marriage rights. Does that mean we have to go back and address that, too?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy. So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife.
The ultimate goal is to ensure that gay people are treated with equality and respect by their government. I'm sorry that you see this as an attack against dictionaries. There's no benefit to us in simply "altering definitions" for the fun of it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
L v. T paved the way for SSM.
So, did you oppose the findings of L v. T or not? Did you worry and warn that decriminalizing sodomy would weaken society or marriage? Do you think it should be re-criminalized?
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM paves the way for polygamy, which has ways loomed in the background as the issue took shape. We now have polygamists cheering the recent ruling.
And I'm sure they'll have an interesting court case, once they re-write 1,138 marriage benefits to fit multi-party arrangements.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I hadn't given it much thought. Homosexuality is what it is.
You hadn't given it much thought??? I find that hard to believe. You're here nearly every day, giving these issues MUCH thought.

Try giving it some thought now. Should L v. T be overturned? Should sodomy be re-criminalized?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field.
And were you correct about that impact?
Pietro Armando wrote:
No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined.
Which is another way of saying gay couples can piss off. It says that if we want to protect a loved one in marriage, then it needs to be a loved one that we don't love.
Pietro Armando wrote:
U seek a right based on your redefinition of marriage.
You could make the same argument for L v. T, and say that we sought a right based on our redefinition of sex, or DADT based on our redefinition of military service.

You don't just get to "define" society out of our reach. If standing definitions are unequal (or recently changed a-la-1996 to deliberately exclude) then those definitions MUST be revisited. It's a pretty weak argument to say that gay people are justifiably excluded from social conventions simply because those conventions have been DEFINED that way.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why can't the same reasoning be applied to polygamy? Their right to marry is based on heir definition of marriage. Everybody gets to define it, and the state just rubber stamps it, right?
The state says everyone gets one marriage at a time. Letting people run rampant with infinite marriages defeats the purpose of choosing a person to protect and bond with. Why protect any person as "special" to you, if you can marry everyone? Why contract with any person, if you can have as many unlimited contracts as you want?

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5169 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know it never went away, now, thanks to SSM, polygamists are coming out of the closet, starring in reality shows, and cheering SCOTUS rulings related to SSM.
Good for them, may they find whatever justice they deserve.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Copy cat.
He said all that needed saying, and he did it well. I had nothing to add.

At least I GAVE an answer, instead of being 100's of pages into a debate and copping out with "I hadn't given it much thought", or resorting to vague "maybes" when specific, ennumerated listings have been requested.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible we could be witnessing the eventual disengagement of marriage by the state, or its delegalization? Let's assume for the sake of discussion. SSM becomes the law of the land, and in the process, one, or a few states legalize polygamy in some form. Other than incest, what other prohibitions remain? At that point why does the government need to be involved?
Because marriage is a legal contract. As long as that's true, then the government will be involved, enforcing that contract. If a hospital tries to deny visitation rights, that contract is there to ensure who is permitted to visit. If an outside party tries to infringe on a will or other agreement, that contract will prevent it. It ensures that the IRS doesn't take a $300,000 deduction on a spouses inheritance, or that someone may be buried with their military spouse.

You keep ascribing oddball "rights" and "functions" of marriage that either aren't really there, like something to do with children, or which don't actually do anything functional, like labeling of husbands and wives.

But the REAL rights and functions of marriage are tied up in those 1,138 federal and state benefits (and responsibilities). THEY function irrespective of labels, OR children, OR gender.

Until your arguments address THOSE 1,138 rights, you have nothing substantive. The state does NOTHING that isn't reflected by THOSE rights, and they CAN be applied as equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. But NOT for multi-party arrangements, not as those rights currently stand. Maybe someday, with drastic restructuring, but not yet.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5170 Jul 2, 2013
valirie wrote:
In my teen years I recall reading the historys of the ancients and in particular the Greeks, Romans. And when storys about thier sexual behavior came up the whole room would bust into laughter, young girls giggle about such things. To keep this short and to the point, I'm laughing at you people, the new greeks and romans. Same sex marrage, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh its just to much.
In other words, you're still and immature giggly school girl.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5171 Jul 2, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The gay community's request to have their marriages federally recognized is NOT a request for "anything goes".
Good answer! Well put.
Like what? The only effect I've seen is that people who are in a bad marriage can get out.
They could do that before. Why is adultery still on the books in some states as a crime, yet divorce is "no fault"?
This version of marriage has a real bias against children from unmarried parents. It also seems useless to married couples who have no children.
Why aren't the parents of the "unmarried parents" married? Not useless from a societal stand point, or the state.
To suggest that it weakens ANYTHING for the state to uphold its compelling interest of treating gay citizens the same as ALL citizens is nothing but an insult. It's also just a retread of anti-interracial marriage arguments.
The flaw in that statement is when the state treats gay citizens like any other citizen, apply the SAME laws on marriage to them, treat the as any other man or woman, gay folks cry foul. So which is it?
"Siblings" and "spouses" describes two different relationships, one of which is already family.
Not necessarily. Two adult siblings can, for just about all practical purposes, be spouses to each other, they live together, support each other financially, emotionally, physically, care giving, even take vacations together. So yes siblings can be if not spouses, inn a spousal relationship.

First cousins are also family, yet they can marry in several states, and if its a SSM state, ss FCs. So why not same sex siblings?
Someone in the UK justice system believed that they should not get the break, so argue it with them.
I sense u see the hypocrisy here too.
How is that a function? If you stop at the word "joining", you've defined the function enough.
Of course is a function. The idea is to encourage men and women not only to marry, but stay married.
But many gay couples WILL raise the next generation (RAISING children being more important than HAVING them).
I would guess more lesbian couples than male. Children are raised in a variety of situations,and yet we don't automatically designate the adult relationship involved, "marriage"
If straight couples need marriage to protect their children, then so do gay couples.
Technically, that would be opposite sex couples, they could be of mixed orientation. As long as the gay couple is of the opposite sex, they too "need marriage" to protect their children.
But no one needs a marriage to protect their children. Children are protected whether their parents are married or not.
The children do. It helps when the man and woman who made them commit themselves to each other, and their children in a stable marriage. We all benefit for that.
Siblings are already family. They don't need a contract to enshrine it further.
So are first cousins.
No joke, NJ has no incest laws. Many states already allow what you're worried gay marriage will cause.
Thanks I never knew that. Like Jersey doesn't elicit enough jokes, plus don't get me started on "Jersey Shore".
Biology has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage does not exist in nature or biology, it's entirely a human construct. No other animal does it. Procreation isn't inhibited in the absence of marriage, nor is it bolstered by its presence.
Impressive....nice....not that I agree with all of it, but well put, none the less.
Yes, I'm sure that's how they decided to busy themselves. I'm sure it was THAT, rather than the fact that these are separate issues with their own complications.
All joke aside, did SCOTUS clarify things, or muddy the waters further? It seems like they, the five. Left things more complicated than it was before.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5172 Jul 2, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for them, may they find whatever justice they deserve.
Atta boy, I knew you'd give an honest answer.
He said all that needed saying, and he did it well. I had nothing to add.
Fair enough.
At least I GAVE an answer, instead of being 100's of pages into a debate and copping out with "I hadn't given it much thought", or resorting to vague "maybes" when specific, ennumerated listings have been requested.
Ditto
Because marriage is a legal contract. As long as that's true, then the government will be involved, enforcing that contract. If a hospital tries to deny visitation rights, that contract is there to ensure who is permitted to visit. If an outside party tries to infringe on a will or other agreement, that contract will prevent it. It ensures that the IRS doesn't take a $300,000 deduction on a spouses inheritance, or that someone may be buried with their military spouse.
Yes it is.
You keep ascribing oddball "rights" and "functions" of marriage that either aren't really there, like something to do with children, or which don't actually do anything functional, like labeling of husbands and wives.
But the REAL rights and functions of marriage are tied up in those 1,138 federal and state benefits (and responsibilities). THEY function irrespective of labels, OR children, OR gender.
Where is this number from? Are they all "federal and state benefits (and responsibilities)"? This number is put forth like its gospel, but with no clear explanation.
Until your arguments address THOSE 1,138 rights, you have nothing substantive. The state does NOTHING that isn't reflected by THOSE rights, and they CAN be applied as equally to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples
Or not even a couple, any two people.
. But NOT for multi-party arrangements, not as those rights currently stand. Maybe someday, with drastic restructuring, but not yet.
Not impossible. It could be a matter of distribution, or assigning certain ones that are applicable to certain wives,.....or husbands. Maybe even a seniority system. The possibilities are endless.

It's gotta be exciting, marriage equality for all. And to think, the poly people have their lesbian sisters, and gay brothers to thank for blazing the trail.:)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Why do blacks claim to be the true Israelites? ... (May '11) 1 min Ben YISRAEL 4,943
Why should AAs come together and protect each o... 1 min chuckles 4
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 2 min African AE 25,138
AA BM Should Really Go Back To Africa and Here'... 2 min Blck 50
Cop shoots two black males ages 8 and 10 LMFAO! 5 min praythehateaway 41
What Do BM Think WW Love Them? 7 min Blck 92
BLACK WOMAN gives birth to WHITE BABY 7 min Capree 11
I don't want to marry a BLACK MAN 34 min Capree 3,556
Michael Brown .. STRONG ARM ROBBERY ??? 1 hr Enough 2,378
There's A War On The Black Male 1 hr AAA777 629
The Official 2014/2015 NFL Season Thread 1 hr GodBody 67
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

African-American People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••