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
10,061 - 10,080 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10931
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
https://www.google.com/search...
con·ju·gal
&#712;känj&#601;g& #601;l/
adjective
1.
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife.
"conjugal loyalty"
synonyms: marital, matrimonial, nuptial, marriage, bridal; More
Origin
More
early 16th cent.: from Latin conjugalis , from conjux , conjug-‘spouse,’ from con-‘together’+ jugum ‘a yoke.’
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conjugal
Adj. 1. conjugal - of or relating to marriage or to the relationship between a wife and husband; "connubial bliss"; "conjugal visits"
connubial
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/conjuga...
The adjective conjugal describes all husband-and-wife matters, so if someone who is married says, "Single people don't understand how I feel," you can be sure it's a conjugal situation.
The word conjugal comes from the Latin word, conjux, meaning "husband, wife." You’ve no doubt heard of the term “conjugal visits,” to describe private visits between a prisoner and a spouse. But it can describe anything that happens between married people, such as conjugal obligations, which are the things you do to keep a marriage going, or just general conjugal, or married, life.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/connubi...
connubial
Use the adjective connubial to describe something that relates to marriage or to the relationship between husband and wife, such as connubial bliss or a connubial argument about who will take out the trash.
Accent the second syllable in connubial: "ka-NEW-bee-ul." The Latin prefix con- means "together" and nubilis means "marriageable," which itself comes from nubere, meaning "take as husband." Nubere is also responsible for the word nubile, which was coined in the 1640s to describe a woman who was considered "marriage material." Today, it refers to a young, attractive woman."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Consortium
The marital alliance between a Husband and Wife and their respective right to each other's support, cooperation, aid, and companionship.
Notice even 2 of your definitions say; "relating to marriage OR the relationship between husband and wife."

As Terra quotes, marriage can be gender neutral. Ignoring the definitions that include both genders doesn't change the fact the word still applies equally based on marriage, not gender. Many words have more than one definition and this one can apply to marriage regardless of gender.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10932
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are promoting incest and polygamy, it's up to you to show that these things are not harmful to society. Prove that in societies that allow polygamy, women's rights are always protected, and young males are not marginalized but those that already have all the wives.
The burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine marriage, starting with SSM advocates. Why does your consorting adult relationship merit greater consideration than a consensual polygamous one, or even a consensual sibling, at least same sex, one. If anything legalizing polygamy, as some have suggested, would protect all involved.
Prove that incest doesn't go hand in hand with child abuse and abuse of power, and that the children of inbreeding will healthier than other children.
Prove that allowing two same sex first cousin to marry, is that much different from allowing two same sex siblings.
We already KNOW that two unrelated consenting adults marrying isn't harmful.
Actually first cousins can marry. The full effect of redefining marriage has yet to be realized, whether god, bad, or neutral.
But, of course, you could care less about such things, since you are only using them as a straw man argument against TWO unrelated people marrying.
Two unrelated adults, or first cousins can marry in every state in the union provided they are of the opposite sex.
This is the fallback argument of folks who just can't seen to come up with a rational reason to deny gay couples legal marriage.
No, they're legitimate questions. Why should legal marriage be redefined for same sex couples, but no one else? Is the SSM argument somehow morally, or ethically superior? Why does it matter, to you or any other SSM advocate if other consenting adult relationships are designated marriage by the state? It seems odd that you argue for the rejection of the monogamous conjugal union of husband and wife as the sole legal marital standard, and yet are unwilling to accept any other alternative forms of marriage other than your own.

And it's doesn't get any less silly with time.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10934
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine marriage, starting with SSM advocates.
Helloooooooooo..... Why do you think SCOTUS struck down DOMA?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10936
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Helloooooooooo..... Why do you think SCOTUS struck down DOMA?
They didn't, just part 3 and it was 5-4.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10938
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Removing the gender restriction does not require removing any other restriction. Same sex couples have shown their marriages are the same legal form and function to the marriages of opposite sex couples.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10939
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10940
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gill v OPM
"This court can readily dispose of the notion that denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages might encourage responsible procreation, because the government concedes that this objective bears no rational relationship to the operation of DOMA.

But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10941
Oct 4, 2013
 
APA's Position: APA’s brief, in support of the plaintiffs/appellees, was joined by the Massachusetts Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The brief applies social science research to rebut some of the justifications offered for the prohibition in section 3 of DOMA of any federal recognition of the marriages of same-sex couples. Those justifications, involving procreation, the welfare of children and the like, are closely similar to those offered in cases defending states’ refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry. The amicus brief provides extensive psychological research on key points, including how homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen, and is highly resistant to change. Also provided is current scientific research on the nature of same-sex relationships, the role of child-rearing, and the stigma resulting from denying the label “marriage” to same-sex unions. For example, the brief cited psychological research showing that gay and lesbian parents are not any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, and that their children are not less adjusted. The brief also addresses how denying federal recognition to legally married same-sex couples stigmatizes them. http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/g...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10942
Oct 4, 2013
 
First Circuit Appellate Court:
"Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88; City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446-50, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10943
Oct 4, 2013
 
"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10944
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine marriage, starting with SSM advocates....
We have made our case that the gender restriction provides no legitimate governmental interest.

The courts have recognized couple marriage is the same legal form and function, and gender is an unnecessary burden and therefore a violation of the equal protections clauses of the constitution.

You have not overcome the court findings that the number restriction and incest restriction are valid restrictions. Again, gender is an entirely different restriction than the restrictions on age, number, informed consent, and incest.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10945
Oct 4, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While you and I understand not all religious scholars, leaders, and believers are anti-gay, many other religious organizations including the Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. continue to promote anti-gay prejudice and laws. As long as the major groups continue to claim the prejudice they promote is the will of God, many will continue to accept their position as fact.
I agree. And, unfortunately, no amount of legislation will change attitudes and even if all the religious leaders in the country suddenly embraced the idea of homosexuality and same sex marriage as acceptable in modern society, it would not make any difference. It would simply give more people, more reasons to hate Christians. And, they have plenty of reasons, or excuses, to do that now. As I said, some denominations have begun to accept gays and plenty of people who don't believe in God and don't like church anymore than they do gays will continue to think negatively about both.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10948
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dixieland wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, Because you had 1 more queer than our side had normal people in a 5-4 vote.
You call yourself normal? Normal people could care less if queer folk get married or not. Your obsession with the private lives of others is sick. A good therapist could help you with your problem.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10949
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. And, unfortunately, no amount of legislation will change attitudes and even if all the religious leaders in the country suddenly embraced the idea of homosexuality and same sex marriage as acceptable in modern society, it would not make any difference. It would simply give more people, more reasons to hate Christians.
76% of Americans identify as Christians. I think you mean that it would simply give more Christians more reasons to hate homosexuals.
For the record, I don't hate anyone, I don't practice any religion and I think homosexuality is a birth defect.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10950
Oct 4, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
76% of Americans identify as Christians. I think you mean that it would simply give more Christians more reasons to hate homosexuals.
For the record, I don't hate anyone, I don't practice any religion and I think homosexuality is a birth defect.
1. Many of those Christians have beloved family members who are LGBT people. Many chose to love rather than to judge.

2. Homosexuality is simply a variation which occurs to both a varying degree and percentage.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10951
Oct 4, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
76% of Americans identify as Christians. I think you mean that it would simply give more Christians more reasons to hate homosexuals.
For the record, I don't hate anyone, I don't practice any religion and I think homosexuality is a birth defect.
Again, not all Christians single out gay people for punishment. Many accept them as they are, and many celebrate same sex marriages in their churches. This was going on long before the laws recognized their marriages. Even most American Catholics support marriage equality, despite the official opposition of the church.

Do we use the law to deny equal fundamental rights to anyone with a birth defect?

Is marriage restricted on the basis of birth defect?

No matter what your motivation, the results are the same. The prejudice and legal discrimination you promote result in needless suffering and death.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10952
Oct 4, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't, just part 3 and it was 5-4.
I suppose you think that means something?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10953
Oct 4, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
76% of Americans identify as Christians. I think you mean that it would simply give more Christians more reasons to hate homosexuals.
For the record, I don't hate anyone, I don't practice any religion and I think homosexuality is a birth defect.
What you think and reality are two very different things.

Ten years of impotence.... you must be REALLY pissed by now.

Aaaaaawwwwwww..........

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10954
Oct 4, 2013
 
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. And, unfortunately, no amount of legislation will change attitudes and even if all the religious leaders in the country suddenly embraced the idea of homosexuality and same sex marriage as acceptable in modern society, it would not make any difference. It would simply give more people, more reasons to hate Christians. And, they have plenty of reasons, or excuses, to do that now. As I said, some denominations have begun to accept gays and plenty of people who don't believe in God and don't like church anymore than they do gays will continue to think negatively about both.
I think we agree many Christians accept gay people as they are, and understand adult relationships based on mutual love and respect are not a sin or violation of scripture. This has been the case throughout history at various times and places. The first same sex religious marriage ceremony I attended was in '74.

While I would agree no amount of legislation will change the attitudes of some, I would argue it will change the attitudes of many. Most importantly though, removing anti-gay laws will mean the government no longer teaches anti-gay prejudice, and no longer enshrines it in the law. And this is one of the problems for many opposed to equality. They understand that once the government no longer enshrines prejudice but actively prohibits it, they have no support for their prejudice beyond a handfull of mistranslated ancient verses that contradict the Golden Rule.

Laws that deny equal treatment, stigmatize those being denied. Such laws tell them and everyone else, they are worth less. This dehumanization translates to a wide variety and severity of harm, including abuse by others as well as self destructive behavior. Prejudice enshrined in the law causes needless suffering and death.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10955
Oct 4, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
and it was 5-4.
LOL!!! As if that means anything to anyone other than bigots!!!!!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••