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
2,101 - 2,120 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2211 Feb 6, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
So civil rights should be voted on?
<quoted text>
Actually its farther today, than it was just 10 years ago. Who would've thought a plural family would have their own reality show?
<quoted text>
Perhaps it may even surpass, or even bypass gay marriage in some parts of the country.
No civil rights shouldn't be voted on but they are.

Yes poly relationships have gained wider acceptance.

Yes it's feasible that their acceptance could surpass gay marriage acceptance. Hopefully both will be widely accepted everywhere.

So far, I don't think we've found anything we disagree on.
Poly Marriage Equality

Schenectady, NY

#2212 Feb 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what the rules for plural marriage will be. At this point, there is nothing to discuss.
The point of discussion would be marriage equality for plural marriages, as well as same sex.
Not everyone in the heterosexual community supports marriage.
True, but remember marriage, historically has been a male female union. Same sex marriage is only a few decades old.
But the rules that govern marriages between two people are well-known. So we can discuss it.
Those rules govern the relationship between husband and wife, yes? That is what is well known.

[QUOTE[
That's exactly what I've been saying: There's no reason existing laws cannot be adapted. But how do you propose to do so? It's up to you and fellow polygamists, not us.
[/QUOTE]

I would think it would be up to the legislature, lawyers, and/or courts.

[QUOTE[
We are not asking for any alterations in the laws, other than to drop gender references.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. The gender references u seek to drop are the very foundation for the laws in the first place. Plural marriage seeks, at least among those who currently practice, to maintain the gender references, but drop the number. Plural marriage, historically, is marriage. "Husband and wife" could still be used, along with other gender specific marital references. Cannot a man be a husband to more than one wife? Or a woman a wife to more than one husband?
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2213 Feb 6, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of discussion would be marriage equality for plural marriages, as well as same sex.
<quoted text>
True, but remember marriage, historically has been a male female union. Same sex marriage is only a few decades old.
<quoted text>
Those rules govern the relationship between husband and wife, yes? That is what is well known.
<quoted text>
I would think it would be up to the legislature, lawyers, and/or courts.
<quoted text>
Interesting. The gender references u seek to drop are the very foundation for the laws in the first place. Plural marriage seeks, at least among those who currently practice, to maintain the gender references, but drop the number. Plural marriage, historically, is marriage. "Husband and wife" could still be used, along with other gender specific marital references. Cannot a man be a husband to more than one wife? Or a woman a wife to more than one husband?
Lol. You think poly relationships are unique to straight couples? When all the wives and husbands are being sexually intimate with all the other wives and husbands there's alot less concern about primaries and secondaries and division of time.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2214 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I've never tried to refuse service to a woman; that's Tony's game, not mine. I'm for treating everyone with dignity and respect while recognizing gender role differences. Men and women are not equal, neither in law or in nature.
So, when are they going to start forcing members of pro sports teams to marry each other? LOLSER! The Ravens are in MD, and gay marriage is legal there. So, isn't it time for some of them to be forced to walk down the aisle?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2215 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They are not the same, they are different. Equal isn't different. Equal is the same.
If you have gender equality, women in combat units on the front lines and gender segregation marriage; society changes. I prefer treating women and children, protected groups and get to the lifeboats first. I like an ethical and moral society that teaches boys to become adult protectors and providers.
The Church is warning us of these dangers, you have the right to listen.
Smeg your stupid church. What dangers? Basketball players and football players will be forced to marry each other against their wills? Or do they have to be on the same team?
What's wrong with society changing?
You don't want women to be able to provide for ourselves, you want men to control women, don't try that "protectors and providers" bull. And not a one of us is going to have to use a lifeboat, ever.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2216 Feb 6, 2013
Poly Marriage Equality wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree that plural marriage should be included in discussing marriage equality? Yes, or no, please.
<quoted text>
There is no reason a polygamist consensus must be built first before plural marriage equality should be considered. Does everyone in the gay community support same sex marriage?
<quoted text>
Yet you've excepted rules made by others for opposite sex couples, and adopted them for your own.
<quoted text>
There's no reason the existing laws cannot be adapted to accommodate plural marriage. If the can be altered to accommodate same sex couples, they can be altered to accommodate plural marriage. Fair is fair.
Have you considered starting a polygamy topic?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2217 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>During a debate that lasted more than six hours, many Conservative MPs denounced the legislation, saying it was morally wrong, not a public priority, and unnecessarily divisive, threatening a corrosive legacy of bitterness.
Conservative lawmaker Gerald Howarth told parliament that the government had no mandate to push through a "massive social and cultural change".
"This is not evolution, it's revolution," added Edward Leigh, another Conservative member of parliament, saying marriage was "by its nature a heterosexual union".
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/uk-b...
Wow, there are backwards, knuckle dragging dullards in the UK, too. Who wudda thunk? Hey, if it's not a public priority, why argue about it for 6 hours?
Wonder if their pro footballers will have to marry each other against their will.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2218 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex couples have freedom of association; no state restricts homosexual's freedom to live as they please. What nobody gets is the special right to redefine marriage.
Advocating same sex marriage as a freedom issue is similar to advocating legalizing marijuana, K2, Spice and other drugs. Same sex marriage is harmful to the body of civilization in the same way drugs harm the human body.
Don't do drugs and keep marriage one man and one woman.
You idiot, K2 and Spice ARE legal. You can pick them up at a gas station or smoke shop, they are sold as "incense", dummy.(I, literally, wouldn't touch that stuff.)Pot should be legal.

And the fact you feel gay marriage is harmful to the body of civilization shows you are just a bigot.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2219 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make all my arguments based on reason, not ad hominem fallacies.
You mean reason like there will be forced marriages in prisons?
That kind of reason, idiot?
BTW, your claims that gay marriage will harm civilization are ad hominem fallacies.
Brian_G wrote:
<
<quoted text>Yet, I don't use religious arguments even though I appeal to allies in the religious community.
Gotta call BS. You mentioned a church a few posts ago.
Brian_G wrote:
<
We have allies in the homosexual community too; not every gay supports same sex marriage.
BS.
And if they did, they would be free not to marry. That's no reason for them to deny other people the right.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2220 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
there is no right to redefine marriage.
Gay America now has an 8 year history of marriage equality spanning 9 states and D.C.; and marriage is still the same thing it always was
.
The only difference is an increase in the number of married couples
http://makeitequal.org/

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2221 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution. Same sex marriage introduces a new standard of gender apartheid to the perfect diversity of male/female marriage.
There is equality for all people (both women and men are people) under a state's jurisdiction. 14th Amendment.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality; don't hate. Many conservative homosexuals are with us on the marriage issue.
Grow a pair, and admit, it's clear you hate gay people. If you didn't, you wouldn't claim gay marriages would harm civilization.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2222 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They hate religion because they don't care about right and wrong.
They hate your religion because they do care about right and wrong.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2223 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Which argument do you think is based on emotion? I try to deal with consequences, not feelings.
You make up the consequences based on your hatred of gay people. You claim members of pro sports teams will be forced to marry each other against their will. And people in prisons will be forced to marry against their will. Has that happened anyplace gay marriage is allowed?

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#2224 Feb 6, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
Gay America now has an 8 year history of marriage equality spanning 9 states and D.C.; and marriage is still the same thing it always was
.
The only difference is an increase in the number of married couples
http://makeitequal.org/
And this June, the Supreme Court will legalize marriage equality in all 50 of the US states.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2225 Feb 6, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words you hate free speech and also democracy? The very idea that folks like the abolitionists and the civil rights movement had religious based arguments. The concept of morality...
Would you ban all non queers from the electoral process?
Actually, slave owners used to buy-bull to "justify" slavery, the buy-bull has no problem with slavery, and tells slaves to obey their masters.

Fundies used the buy-bull to argue for Jim Crow, and the only argument against inter-racial marriage in Loving v VA was that god separated the races.
Born Again Gay

Alpharetta, GA

#2226 Feb 6, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
And this June, the Supreme Court will legalize marriage equality in all 50 of the US states.
The Summer of Marriage Equality is going to be an exciting time :)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2227 Feb 6, 2013
Born Again Gay wrote:
<quoted text>
The Summer of Marriage Equality is going to be an exciting time :)
Pride celebrations will be stellar.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2228 Feb 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>During a debate that lasted more than six hours, many Conservative MPs denounced the legislation, saying it was morally wrong, not a public priority, and unnecessarily divisive, threatening a corrosive legacy of bitterness.
Conservative lawmaker Gerald Howarth told parliament that the government had no mandate to push through a "massive social and cultural change".
"This is not evolution, it's revolution," added Edward Leigh, another Conservative member of parliament, saying marriage was "by its nature a heterosexual union".
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/uk-b...
good job quoting the people who lost LOL
Poly Marriage Equality

Windsor, CT

#2229 Feb 7, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. You think poly relationships are unique to straight couples?
No I do not, however I was referring to plural marriages, not the various other poly arrangements.
When all the wives and husbands are being sexually intimate with all the other wives and husbands there's alot less concern about primaries and secondaries and division of time.
The are plural marriages of one husband several wives in which the wives are intimate with each other.
Poly Marriage Equality

Windsor, CT

#2230 Feb 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you considered starting a polygamy topic?
At issue here, as stated by same sex marriage advocates, is 'marriage equality'. Therefore plural marriage is part of the discussion.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
3 states, plaintiffs want Supreme Court to hear... 3 hr Fa-Foxy 7
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 7 hr BoDidHe 49,477
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 8 hr KiMare 24,881
In the shade: Shade Redondo under construction ... 10 hr Veronica 2
Refusal to sell wedding gowns to lesbian couple... 11 hr TomInElPaso 151
Together 48 years, couple fights NC marriage ban 14 hr may 5
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 15 hr Wondering Why 31,195
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••