Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13023 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And Ted Olsen offered a completely valid answer, which was probably exactly what Justice Sotomayor expected to hear. Have you ever heard the lawyer's axiom that you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer the witness is going to give?
He offered an answer tailored to the cause for which he was advocating.
“Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said.“And if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct.
“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.
Olson said banning gay marriage was “picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental.”
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-olson-pro...
Again, tailored to the cause for which he was advocating. Nor is it an "entirely different thing", gays and lesbians are still men and women, and as such have the same "status" as any other man or woman.
The reality remains that polygamy and gay marriage deal with entirely separate issues, and the only reason you continually return to polygamy, is that you have no valid argument specifically applicable to same sex marriage.
Grow up Pietro.
All part of the same issue, the SAME QUESTION!!!! How do we as a society define marriage?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#13024 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay Wastey, and I'll help you right back. Sounds good.
<quoted text>
Or polygamy on the installment plan. Polygamy maybe "socially unacceptable", but sharing a baby's daddy is not. Even lesbians do it.
<quoted text>
So the additional spouses get visas.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage changes the rules.
<quoted text>
As it stands right now, no, because no legal structure is in place for plural marriage.
<quoted text>
But therein lies the difference. Consensual polygamy, the "Sister Wives" version, is just that, consensual. So why should that consenting adult relationship not receive legal recognition, but a relationship of two men or two women, should?
<quoted text>
So let's keep marriage legally defined as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, and not tamper with it.
Polygamy by definition is more than one legal partner at the same time.

They only get visas if they are married in a country such as Saudi Arabia where Polygamy is practiced due to the fact that women are second class citizens.

Same sex marriage changes no rules. It is about two people making a legal marriage commitment.

Exactly. No structure is in place because the state has no compelling interest to do so.

Traditional marriage was a paternal construct which has become out-moded in many ways. Why do you promote discrimination against committed same sex couples? Why do you look down your nose on my marriage? That's not very nice.
Poof

Cambridge, IL

#13025 Nov 11, 2013
Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The good old "it's a separate issue" argument against polygamy.
Heard it agree a few hundred times. And I agree, it's a separate issue. Why does that mean it shouldn't be allowed?
Grow up.
polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, wealfare abuse,forced marriage of underage children, it is entirely different
Poof

Cambridge, IL

#13026 Nov 11, 2013
Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the irony. If you would grow up you might stop cheating and lying.
The Fine Print
By using Topix, you agree to these Terms of Service, which we reserve the right to change without notice. If you do not agree with these Terms of Service, do not use Topix. You are responsible for understanding these Terms of Service.

You are solely responsible for what you post on Topix.

We may remove any content for any reason, but we are not responsible for any failure or delay in removing any content. Topix does not claim ownership of the content you submit, but you grant us a license to use the content (subject, of course, to our Privacy Policy)

Grow up, and be responcible for your actions

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13027 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Men and women existed, as they do now, but the idea of a "sexual identity", no, certainly not even remotely widespread.
People attracted to the opposite sex and the same sex have existed throughout recorded history, small Peter. In less enlightened times, the majority simply discriminated against and/or criminalized the behavior of the minority as being "abnormal", typically based on religious belief. Whether such people labeled themselves in accordance with our current understanding doesn't mean sexual attraction targeted at the same or opposite gender didn't exist.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So enlighten me, what words did exist?
Much like today, heterosexuals considered themselves "normal" and "non-deviant". Language was directed at labeling gays and others as being different or deviant so the majority could then claim to be the opposite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes...yes...I know, men can be lesbians too.
That you fail to grasp the actual point of that particular citation and latch instead onto this oft repeated lie just demonstrates your illiteracy and general lack of intellect and education.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We are not worthy.
I'd agree the uneducable like you probably aren't but hope springs eternal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's not forget the "B"s, after all, is not bisexuality a form of polygamy, or part of modern polygamy?

No. Bisexuality refers to being attracted to both men and women; it has noting to do with wanting to marry more than one person at a t imd as yo stupidly assert.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides as long as you advocate for the abandonment of the monogamous conjugal marital standard, or to put it another way, one man and one woman as husband and wife, you also advocate for polygamy.
No, because the number restriction of marriage laws is separate and distinct from the gender restriction. Which is why polygamy wasn't automatically legalized in any state where same sex marriage is now legally recognized. Even your pathetic intellect should be capable of better reasoning than this, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know why SSMers don't publicly embrace polygamy.....bad strategy.
Or perhaps the people fighting for legal recognition of same sex marriage aren't interested in marrying more than one person at a time. Regardless, how they choose to exercise their right to petition government to address their grievances isn't subject to your demands or criticism.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13028 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
He offered an answer tailored to the cause for which he was advocating.
Typically an intelligent person tailors their responses to questions in court to their cause. It's called making a relevant argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, tailored to the cause for which he was advocating.
Again, being relevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor is it an "entirely different thing", gays and lesbians are still men and women, and as such have the same "status" as any other man or woman.
Pietro, once again you fail to address the core issue, namely a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between opposite sex couples. Any rational person who can count can see that polygamy seeks extraordinary protection of the law for three or more people, while same sex marriage sex equal protection for two people.

It is hardly my fault that you cannot articulate any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All part of the same issue, the SAME QUESTION!!!! How do we as a society define marriage?
The question is what limitations that specifically deny people the right to marry serve a legitimate state interest. There is no state interest in denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, a fact that you have tacitly supported each and every time you fail to indicate any such interest, whereas polygamists seek inherently greater protection of the law for three or more people.

Simply put, your continual return to arguments of polygamy does nothing to craft a valid argument against same sex marriage, and tends to indicate that you aren't bright enough to understand that the two issues are completely different, and that one has no bearing upon the other.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13029 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Maintaining legally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, does serve a compelling government interest, that is why 30 states chose to constitutionally define marriage as such.
Those same "compelling government interests" didn't save section 3 of DOMA when they were offered in Windsor v. United Sates. Why? Because SCOTUS didn't find them to be such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Great, so let's designate same sex relationships "marriage", as well as polygamist relationships, and siblings as well.
When polygamists and incest practitioners present their legal arguments before the courts as to why previously ruled compelling government interests to justify those restrictions are no longer valid, then by all means, let's.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Eliminate all the bigotry. It makes no sense to leave some bigotry in place, while eliminating others.
Your bigotry arises from imposing restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights based on your animus towards a minority group. The fact courts of late have not found your arguments to be "compelling government interests" substantiates the fact your desire to infringe others' rights is based on animus and not a constitutionally permissible reason.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13030 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Maintaining legally defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, does serve a compelling government interest, that is why 30 states chose to constitutionally define marriage as such.
No Pietro, those bans serve no such interest, and like DOMA, are not long for this world. The mere existence of a law does not mean that the law is constitutional.

The reality is that you can't advance a valid legal argument against equality for same sex couples to marry, a fact that you have proven ad nauseum. Those holding views similar to your own have been consistently losing in court for some time. It appear they can no more offer a valid legal argument against same sex marriage than you can.
At the same time, public support for marriage equality is growing, and it has already reached a point where the majority of the populace are in support of marriage equality.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13031 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So throughout the history of the Republic, marriage was understood to be a union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife, but "the restriction is only in place to prevent same sex couples from joining in marriage".
Something being “understood” is different from it being a “restriction” or a “requirement”. Don’t juggle terms.
Pietro Armando wrote:
By that reasoning, any adult claiming his or her personal intimate consensual relationship is "marriage" would it degrade anyone else's marriage.
That might be true, but it wouldn’t be the only argument they must make. There’s more to it than that. Don’t oversimplify.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The "requirement" was in line with the understanding of marriage throughout American history, and it also bars any recognition of polygamy, as well.
And it’s unconstitutional as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those aren't "functions of marriage".
There are 1,138 ENNUMERATED ways that marriage functions, and you think that these AREN’T functions of marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh but it is, not for same sex couples, though.
Would you tell opposite-sex married couples who do not procreate that their marriage is not functioning?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes individual marriages can, but not the function of marriage as it relates to society.
If someone can skip it altogether, then it’s not a “function”. I’ll agree that marriage can be important to families raising children, but that’s not ONLY for couples who BORE the children they’re raising. And it’s an irrelevant point to couples who cannot or choose not to have children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh look we've gained a function.
No, we haven’t. You can stop tacking on unnecessary “requirements”.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ooooooooo....how about this, marriage transforms a man and a woman into husband and wife.
That’s what I said. The title just depends on the gender of the person holding it.

Come to Washington state. Observe a marriage between two men. Walk up to them and tell them they AREN’T husbands.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Distantly family"? Marriage is allowed because the risk of sexually procreative birth defects are low.
Because they aren’t close enough to be the family that they need to be.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh it has,....it just took until the early 20th century for a word to be attributed to it, a word, by the way, which originally referenced "heterosexual" sexual behaviors. A "gay man" was a womanizer. Ironic.
No, it isn’t “ironic”. You’re ignoring a history of slander and violence, so you can act as if the origin of a word invalidates a people’s struggle.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, an unrelated man, and woman, or first cousins, become related once they accept each other as "husband and wife". A man wishes to become a husband because he has found a woman who wishes to be his wife, and vice versatile. They may be motivated by love, companionship, desire for children, financial reasons, etc, or a combination there of.
And how do you think it works in 14 states? We just call married men “husbands” and married women “wives”. Simple. Would you have me believe that won’t work?
Pietro Armando wrote:
YesWe must be speaking of two different institutions. I'm familiar with the institution of marriage, based on, centered around, and understood as, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. I've been locked up in that institution for over 20 years.
No, it’s the same one that you desire to see same-sex couples locked OUT of. There aren’t two institutions. There is no wall between us, no matter your desire for one. Our shared government recognizes BOTH our marriages the same. They don’t recognize two institutions.
Rizzo

Union City, CA

#13032 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, wealfare abuse,forced marriage of underage children, it is entirely different
There are perfectly good laws against all the crimes you hatefully and ignorantly associate with polygamy. If someone in a SSM does a crime do we ban SSM?

Stop deleting my posts punk.
Rizzo

Union City, CA

#13034 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>The Fine Print
By using Topix, you agree to these Terms of Service, which we reserve the right to change without notice. If you do not agree with these Terms of Service, do not use Topix. You are responsible for understanding these Terms of Service.
You are solely responsible for what you post on Topix.
We may remove any content for any reason, but we are not responsible for any failure or delay in removing any content. Topix does not claim ownership of the content you submit, but you grant us a license to use the content (subject, of course, to our Privacy Policy)
Grow up, and be responcible for your actions
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TK0EA9RFQ...
Rizzo

Union City, CA

#13035 Nov 11, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy by definition is more than one legal partner at the same time.
They only get visas if they are married in a country such as Saudi Arabia where Polygamy is practiced due to the fact that women are second class citizens.
Same sex marriage changes no rules. It is about two people making a legal marriage commitment.
Exactly. No structure is in place because the state has no compelling interest to do so.
Traditional marriage was a paternal construct which has become out-moded in many ways. Why do you promote discrimination against committed same sex couples? Why do you look down your nose on my marriage? That's not very nice.
I'd love to discuss this with you but Poof deletes anything I write that threatens his argument. So alas! I cannot. Censorship sucks.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13036 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhh....we get to the gist. The purpose is for SSC, not for society at large. Is there a compelling societal need for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women?
There’s no “compelling societal need” for ANYONE to marry. You can cohabitate with your favorite humans just as easily as I can.

But when two people pool all their resources and properties, and begin planning all future life decisions in tandem, they will require a legal contract to back all that up. Marriage is that contract. The government recognizes and upholds THAT contract the same as it upholds any OTHER contract.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitaminit here....weren't you complaining early in this post about all the rewrites?
Can you be more specific? What do rewrites (of what?) have to do with the merits of a polygamy argument?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Back to those pesky polygamists crashing our Big Fat Gay Wedding. Polygamist can, and do commit to each other and their families. Thanks for denigrating them, and their families though.
I’m sorry, but no. Holding open a revolving door of spouses coming and going does not constitute “commitment”.

And stop pretending to play bleeding-heart on behalf of polygamists. We all know you couldn’t care less about them except where they serve as a red herring to be thrown into unrelated arguments.

If you TRULY wanted polygamists to "crash the wedding", then you'd put in SOME effort in re-writing those 1,138 marriage rights that they would want to use. You haven't lifted a FINGER in that department, so I know you don't care if marriage could function between 3 or more parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bully for you! Will the Village People be performing?
Whether or not there’s a band, a gift registry, a photographer, a pastor or even a church present will not change the governmental recognition of our marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why have some judges found the arguments lacking?
I don’t know. Why do some judges believe in the devil? Why do some people gear their decisions around their fear of magical beings on the attack?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why have the people themselves, when offered the chance to vote on what definition of marriage is important to them, their state and society, voted thirty time in favor of the definition of marriage which had already existed?
Because Leviticus. Because of a pervading and slanderous campaign against gay people that’s been ongoing for about 20 centuries. Because most people are morons who would vote for slavery if it meant they got to have one. Popular doesn’t mean correct. When people are FINALLY made to THINK about the issue, and realize the impact it has on the loved ones in their lives, and the unfairness inherent in their previous position, then they change their minds.
Free Rizzo

Union City, CA

#13037 Nov 11, 2013
Disappeared! Like in some cheesy low rent third world banana republic! Censorship sucks. Don't let Poof Daddy Jizzy get away with this outrageous violation of my rights. Free Frankie!

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TK0EA9RFQ ...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13038 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, wealfare abuse,forced marriage of underage children, it is entirely different
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13039 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.

Com back to the topic at hand Pietro. If you are able.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13040 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.
What greater protection?
Is a family of 3 entitled to this greater protection of the law?
A family of 4?
Your parents obviously had at least one child, did they get greater protection?
Are these protections (?) not individual?
Did you finish high school?
Poof

Cambridge, IL

#13041 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as it consensual, why does it matter to the Glibtees?
Paco, repost in english

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13043 Nov 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They can have the consensual relationship, they are not entitled to the greater protection of the law they seek.
They seek the same as you seek, state designation of their personal intimate relationships as "marriage".

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13044 Nov 11, 2013
ah verkligen wrote:
So is Obama.
(Unless he's lying AGAIN...)
If you say so. That's unrelated to what I was talking about. Take it up with Obama.

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
Truth about Pagan Holidays 7 min Diamondiqa 98
Egypt bans release of "Exodus" film. ROFLMAO!!! 8 min African AE 89
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Anton Ciguhr 1,156,627
Are whites taller than us. 9 min Black Lotus Family 143
What if we deport 50 million black Americans? 12 min Stan0807 33
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 12 min Carly HI YAH 98,998
Iggy Azalea wins 2 rap/hip hop awards. BW beate... 13 min Lol 54
[Click Here] A white woman's message to the bla... 23 min Black Lotus Family 100
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr African AE 29,106
More from around the web