Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

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

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

Full Story

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2273 Feb 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We agree.
.
<quoted text>A gay married to a lesbian is treated equally under the laws of every state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. There are no 'couple's' rights in the Constitution, either.
.
<quoted text>Some straight couples might choose same sex marriage; you wouldn't demand an orientation test, would you? People marry for many reasons other than sexual attraction.
No, stupid, but there is an equal protection clause. All citizens should have equal rights. Why should our rights depend on the type of genitals we have?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And what marriage is for gay couples, so does getting rid of marriage's gender integration and adding a new standard of gender segregation. Face it, same sex marriage is just as bad as polygamy, if not worse.
.
<quoted text>It's not equal, it's different; men and women are different too. Marriage isn't for everybody.
It wasn't for you! LOL.

BTW, when are members of professional sports teams going to have to start getting married to each other against their will? You said that would happen if gay marriage became legal. It's legal in several states and countries.
Poly Marriage Equality

Schenectady, NY

#2274 Feb 8, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have many argurments with what you are saying. I don't personally have a stake in it, but you do the legal footwork for your cause and if it ever comes to a referendum, personally I'll support it.
Why should it need a referendum?
The only arguement I have is that same sex marriage fundamentally changes our definition of marriage. It doesn't. What it does is allow yet another variation in a basic application.
Throughout American history, and human societal history, marriage has been virtually a male female relationship, of either one man one woman, or one man many women. Even in this country, plural marriage predates same sex marriage. I do not see how one can say same sex marriage is not a fundamental definitional change.
Let me give a loose analogy: say you have two dogs, say a german shepherd and a beagle. Though they may vary in appearance, they both share fundamental qualities that constitute what a canine is. You are making an argument akin to saying that when you think of a dog of you think of a german sheherd, that because a beagle does not have the same appearance as a german shepherd therefore it cannot be a dog, and that to include beagles under the catagory of "dog" fundamentally changes what a "dog" is.
I don't think that is an accurage analogy. You are using an individual comparison.
Same sex marriage is simply a variation among many variations on the theme of marriage and in no way changes the function of what a marriage does.
There is one significant function that marriage serves that cannot be served by a same sex pairing, consumation, conception, and procreation.
Even among straight couples there are variations on the theme, especially if the theme you are using is the man is head of household and there is a strict division of both power and duties within the home according to gender, and, usually, the presence of children. If the womyn is the breadwinner and the man is the home-maker, is their marriage somehow not a marriage because it doesn't fit into the 'traditional christian" standard?
Simply because "the man is the head of the household" does not mean the wife, or wives have no say, or power. Quite the contrary. I point to, as an example, the Brown family. Although Mr. Brown is considered the spiritual head of the household, that in no way renders the wives powerless. The family has stated this in numerous interviews.
A childless marriage? Society doesn't make the case, and the law certainly doesn't require some "tradional" template for couples to follow. So to say that same-sex couples "change the definition of marriage" or that somehow this particular variation is less valid, less acceptable is simply not a credible argument. Marriage is for society, as much as religion wants to use it to serve their ends. And as serving society should be applied as broadly as reasonably possible to address the needs of the members of that society. There are times when polygamy serve a culture-who knows, maybe that day will come in America.
That day is now. Why do you beleive otherwise?
But right now there are law-abiding, tax-paying same-sex couples as members of society to whom the benefits in the forms of tangible assets, legal protection and social acceptance are necessary, and that should have access to the institution of marriage.
As there are plural marriage families, who are also tax paying members of society. Why shouldn't they also have access to the institution of marriage, which as husband and wives they have helped build the institution?
Let me apologize in advance for any misspelling, grammer errors-I do my best to catch it before I post but not always sucsessful.
Thank you. Is the plural of "womyn", "whimmin"?:)
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#2275 Feb 8, 2013
At the risk of being too on topic, I think it's time churches were stripped of all their power. Then we don't have to worry about "backlash" or other self entitled drivel.

What's the religion of our polygamist? And does religion play into his ideas on marriage?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2276 Feb 8, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
At the risk of being too on topic, I think it's time churches were stripped of all their power. Then we don't have to worry about "backlash" or other self entitled drivel.
Actually; churches 'are' powerless
.
The Authorized King James Bible is an ancient book of wisdom; not a law book

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#2277 Feb 9, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
At the risk of being too on topic, I think it's time churches were stripped of all their power. Then we don't have to worry about "backlash" or other self entitled drivel.
What's the religion of our polygamist? And does religion play into his ideas on marriage?
We should do what they did in the Soviet Union and destroy organized religion. Before they did that the Russian Empire was dominated by the evil Orthodox church that was extremely racist and antisemitic.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#2278 Feb 9, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually; churches 'are' powerless
.
The Authorized King James Bible is an ancient book of wisdom; not a law book
wisdom? hmmm.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#2279 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We agree.
.
<quoted text>A gay married to a lesbian is treated equally under the laws of every state; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. There are no 'couple's' rights in the Constitution, either.
.
<quoted text>Some straight couples might choose same sex marriage; you wouldn't demand an orientation test, would you? People marry for many reasons other than sexual attraction.
.
<quoted text>And what marriage is for gay couples, so does getting rid of marriage's gender integration and adding a new standard of gender segregation. Face it, same sex marriage is just as bad as polygamy, if not worse.
.
<quoted text>It's not equal, it's different; men and women are different too. Marriage isn't for everybody.
A gay man married to a lesbian is fraud. Why are you encouraging crime?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2280 Feb 9, 2013
Why do you say "[a} gay man married to a lesbian is fraud"? Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else; especially if they want children. Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are examples; how are their marriages 'fraudulent'? What criminal statute do you believe they are breaking?

Please cite.
AzAdam

Santa Fe, NM

#2281 Feb 9, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually; churches 'are' powerless
.
The Authorized King James Bible is an ancient book of wisdom; not a law book
I wish you were right, but they're power does not come from their book of fairy tales. It comes from fear, from shame, and from money.
AzAdam

Santa Fe, NM

#2282 Feb 9, 2013
Wat the Tyler wrote:
<quoted text>
We should do what they did in the Soviet Union and destroy organized religion. Before they did that the Russian Empire was dominated by the evil Orthodox church that was extremely racist and antisemitic.
I was thinking more of everyone on the planner letting go of fear and shame and dropping the church like a hot potato.
AzAdam

Santa Fe, NM

#2283 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Why do you say "[a} gay man married to a lesbian is fraud"? Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else; especially if they want children. Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are examples; how are their marriages 'fraudulent'? What criminal statute do you believe they are breaking?
Please cite.
This argument worked against legalizing interracial marriage for a short time. Of course that was decades ago. Are you making a point? Or just giving a history lesson??

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2284 Feb 9, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
This argument worked against legalizing interracial marriage for a short time. Of course that was decades ago. Are you making a point? Or just giving a history lesson??
A 'short time', like the Bible's argument about Moses' interracial marriage? There are ancient arguments for interracial marriage but none for same sex marriage; let's think this through. Maybe novelty social policy is a form of consumerism we can't afford.

Remember, Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage; had the Lovings been a same sex couple the court would have decided differently. Racial differences are too small and unimportant to matter in marriage, gender differences are essential for the survival of the human race.

Keep marriage male/female because gender segregation marriage brings a new standard to the perfect diversity, affirmative action and political correctness of one man/one woman marriage.
sickofit

Faribault, MN

#2285 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A 'short time', like the Bible's argument about Moses' interracial marriage? There are ancient arguments for interracial marriage but none for same sex marriage; let's think this through. Maybe novelty social policy is a form of consumerism we can't afford.
Remember, Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage; had the Lovings been a same sex couple the court would have decided differently. Racial differences are too small and unimportant to matter in marriage, gender differences are essential for the survival of the human race.
Keep marriage male/female because gender segregation marriage brings a new standard to the perfect diversity, affirmative action and political correctness of one man/one woman marriage.
You nazi pigs will and are losing....Your hate and bigot is not wanted..MOVE TO IRAN.....FREEDOM AND EQUALITY FOR ALL..........
AzAdam

Santa Fe, NM

#2286 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A 'short time', like the Bible's argument about Moses' interracial marriage? There are ancient arguments for interracial marriage but none for same sex marriage; let's think this through. Maybe novelty social policy is a form of consumerism we can't afford.
Remember, Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage; had the Lovings been a same sex couple the court would have decided differently. Racial differences are too small and unimportant to matter in marriage, gender differences are essential for the survival of the human race.
Keep marriage male/female because gender segregation marriage brings a new standard to the perfect diversity, affirmative action and political correctness of one man/one woman marriage.
You're confusing the Bible for a history book. I'm not under that delusion.

As for interracial marriage, I wasn't referencing Loving. I was talking about the idea that gays should go ahead and marry heterosexually anyway. Nobody believes that. Not even anti-gay.

And this terminology you're advocating, nobody is buying it. Marriage is unrelated to segregation. We're not living in all male communes. We have females in every aspect if our lives except our bedroom. I have a daughter, mother, female friends, my daughters birth mom.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2287 Feb 9, 2013
sickofit wrote:
You nazi pigs will and are losing....Your hate and bigot is not wanted..MOVE TO IRAN.....FREEDOM AND EQUALITY FOR ALL..........
Along with freedom comes responsibility. Equality can't be given to the unequal; ersatz equality is a sucker's game. There is no right to gender equality in the US Constitution.

I don't demand my opponents go away, or insult them. I don't attribute their politics to hate of Republicans. Maybe that's my mistake.
sickofit

Faribault, MN

#2288 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Along with freedom comes responsibility. Equality can't be given to the unequal; ersatz equality is a sucker's game. There is no right to gender equality in the US Constitution.
I don't demand my opponents go away, or insult them. I don't attribute their politics to hate of Republicans. Maybe that's my mistake.
ALL EQUAL.....get that or leave,,,,You nazi pigs should mvoe to Iran then you cna hate and be violent and racist all you want.....

I DEMEND TRAITORS TO THE CONSTITUTION LEAVE,.........GOT IT HITLER BOY..

Your side is losing and always has in history..BIGOTRY IS EVIL........LIKE YOU.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2289 Feb 9, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
You're confusing the Bible for a history book. I'm not under that delusion.
Then, you consider it a Holy book?

.
AzAdam wrote:
As for interracial marriage, I wasn't referencing Loving.
Every court tested marriage case before the 21st Century, has been male/female or the Supreme Court decided against same sex marriage.

.
AzAdam wrote:
I was talking about the idea that gays should go ahead and marry heterosexually anyway. Nobody believes that. Not even anti-gay.
Meredith Baxter and Oscar Wilde are two examples, gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. What's going to happen to the marriages of homosexuals if same sex marriage was licensed? Would it cause more divorce or would you find a new bisexual exception for gender equality? Why not let homosexuals have both same sex and opposite sex marriage at the same time; if marriage is good, then why limit marriage to two?

.
AzAdam wrote:
And this terminology you're advocating, nobody is buying it. Marriage is unrelated to segregation.
Same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage where before the 21st century, all marriage in every country at every time, has been gender integrated, gender diversity is better than gender apartheid marriage always.

.
AzAdam wrote:
We're not living in all male communes.
Some do, some live in all female communities. Now, we'll have to see how those communities adapt to same sex marriage.

Since we have sex abuse now, there's no reason to expect that wouldn't spread through same sex marriage. Keep marriage male/female to keep prison rape illegal.

.
AzAdam wrote:
We have females in every aspect if our lives except our bedroom. I have a daughter, mother, female friends, my daughters birth mom.
Good, every child raised by a same sex couple is raised motherless or fatherless. I'm glad you didn't get soul custody and your same sex partner doesn't have custody rights at all. Same sex marriage could change that; for the worse.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2290 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Why do you say "[a} gay man married to a lesbian is fraud"? Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else; especially if they want children. Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are examples; how are their marriages 'fraudulent'? What criminal statute do you believe they are breaking?
Please cite.
Gay marriage means marriage between two people of the same sex. I don't know what you get out of playing your little word game, but I'm not playing.
Well, now that there is gay marriage is several states, when are they going to start forcing members of pro sports teams to marry each other? You said that would happen.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2291 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A 'short time', like the Bible's argument about Moses' interracial marriage? There are ancient arguments for interracial marriage but none for same sex marriage; let's think this through. Maybe novelty social policy is a form of consumerism we can't afford.
Remember, Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage; had the Lovings been a same sex couple the court would have decided differently.
If down were up, I wouldn't need a bra.
Brian_G wrote:
Racial differences are too small and unimportant to matter in marriage, gender differences are essential for the survival of the human race.
Keep marriage male/female because gender segregation marriage brings a new standard to the perfect diversity, affirmative action and political correctness of one man/one woman marriage.
The only argument against inter-racial marriage made in Loving v VA was:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Oh, and when are they going to start forcing members of pro sports teams to marry?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2292 Feb 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Along with freedom comes responsibility. Equality can't be given to the unequal; ersatz equality is a sucker's game. There is no right to gender equality in the US Constitution.
I don't demand my opponents go away, or insult them. I don't attribute their politics to hate of Republicans. Maybe that's my mistake.
Equality is given to the unequal, stupid people like you have the same rights intelligent people do.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr D-U-H 49,883
David James: Even on our streets we are citizen... 3 hr Dan 1
Pope chooses a moderate for Chicago archbishop 7 hr Belle Sexton 2
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 7 hr Currywurst 4
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 7 hr Grau 49
Southern Governor Fights Same-Sex Marriage - An... 7 hr Buford 4
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 10 hr GUMP locator 15
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••