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: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2438 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps Rosie you could explain what it means "to marry"? Why a distinction is made?
to enter into the legal, binding contract that is our social construct of marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2439 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What doesn't he understand? Polgsmy, or plural marriage is gaining greater consideration thanks to legal ssm. Kody and the Sister wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.
The question he posed, which I have also posed, is where do we draw the line?
It's an ever shifting line, Petey. it always has been.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2440 Feb 15, 2013
If we ever lose gender integrated marriage, and people start gender segregation marriage, they'll go after brother/sister incest and polygamy next.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2442 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. One male and one female, except for those states that have seceeded from the conjugal union.
<quoted text>
That works if the gay couple is of the opposite sex. No different treatment from any other opposite sex married couple.
<quoted text>
No gender is restricted, each may equally participate in the marital relationship, in fact each is necessary for said relationship, founded on the male female sexual and physical union.
<quoted text>
"Poly", while it changes the number, maintains the conjugal nature of the marital relationship. The number is different, not the nature. Husband and wife are still present. The marriage(s) is(are) still consumated, conception is still possible, presumption of paternity is maintained, etc.
2=2
<quoted text>
True, but 1 plus 1, under the proper circumstances can add up to 3, or more.
<quoted text>
Same sex couples, by the fact they are of the same sex, ARE treated differently, and that is what you seek.
The "poly excuse" is a dual edged sword. SSMers claim it is a "scare tatic" used by opponents to deny SSM. Yet proponents of SSM fail to realize that by arguing for same sex marriage under the guise of "marriage equality", they are in fact also arguing for plural marriage. They just don't want to admit it. So it begs the question, "where is the line drawn"?
<quoted text>
The adults in the Brown family are all volunteers.
Show where US law has ever required procreation ability, intent, or even the possibility of having sex.
(It never has. There is no such requirement.)

Again, the line has been drawn at two people. Rational reasons have been presented and acknowledged all the way to the Supreme Court. They will have to overcome those rational arguments if they want to change the laws that determine "what" marriage is for everyone.

Treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the "what" of marriage for opposite sex or same sex couples. Only the "who" is expanded by removing the gender restriction. Poly arrangements require changing the "what" of marriage for everyone.

Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Fundamental rights may only be delayed or restricted when a legitimate and compelling governmental interest for doing so can be demonstrated. You provide no rational legitimate governmental interest in restricting equal participation under the laws currently in effect based on gender.

1+ 1 never equals more than two married people.(Children aren't married to their parents. Same sex couples can adopt or reproduce using the same assisted methods straight couples use.)

(Additionally, same sex marriage is nothing new. It may be rare, but examples can be found at various times and places.)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2443 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If we ever lose gender integrated marriage, and people start gender segregation marriage, they'll go after brother/sister incest and polygamy next.
Ummm...catch up. It has already happened and your invented scenario hasn't.

Proven wrong befoer you were told to parrot it.

Wanna cracker pretty bird? squawk!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2444 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If we ever lose gender integrated marriage, and people start gender segregation marriage, they'll go after brother/sister incest and polygamy next.
Irrational fear mongering.

There is no reason to believe the crime of incest would ever become legal, let alone a condition for marriage. We know from history and science, incest is inherently harmful in many ways.

We also know from history that polygamy has a destabilizing effect on society, with rich and older men having many wives, while others have none. Inequality of relationships, child abuse, property rights, and many of the over 1,138 federal rights and protections that currently determine what marriage is, would have to be changed. Allowing same sex couples to participate under the laws currently in effect, does not require any changes to those rights and protections.

You should also know, even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2445 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh but I have, you simply don't like them. Besides the burden is on you as to why it should be legal. Its been said that marriage developed as a way of dealing with the products of the male female sexual union, children. If it is true, it would explain why SSM is virtually a recent modern Western invention. There's not a problem to solve. Why, pray tell, does American society in the 21st century need men to marry other men, and women to marry other women? What will happen if they don't? Will anyone notice? Is it to eliminate the stigma of "living in sin"? "Make honest men, and women"?
So your reasons amount to the abstract relationship to a different issue--polygamy--and conception. I've already addressed the former, but of course you aren't listening.

As for the children: That argument would work only if one became married by HAVING children. Why should we recognize ANY marriage that has no children involved? The fact is, nobody heterosexual couple is required to be physically capable of conception in order to marry. No heterosexual couple is required to DESIRE to conceive in order to marry. No heterosexual couples is required to TRY to conceive in order to marry. If you wish to use that argument, then the burden falls on you to explain the disparate treatment of same-sex couples--even those who are raising children--from heterosexual couples who may not be fertile.

The reality which you refuse to acknowledge is that marriage is a commitment between two people and, as a result of that commitment, their lives become inextricably intertwined. Marital privileges are merely an acknowledgment of the obvious: The spouses have the most personal interest in the well-being of each other. The spouses rely on each others' economic success or failure. Typically, they live together in a home that, regardless of who pays for it, they both maintain, improve, and love.

Yet you want to continue to deny the marital exemption for transfers of wealth and inheritance. You want to continue to deny jointly filing tax returns, even though one spouse may keep house and care for children while the other works.

In short, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that it makes little sense to treat two people who've chosen to join together as strangers.

Same-sex marriage is nothing more than the simple acknowledgement that all people have similar needs, hopes, and desires, regardless of sexual orientation.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2446 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"For the past 20 years, the same-sex "marriage" advocates have been fairly successful in divorcing homosexuality from polygamy." ( because the two are very different in many ways.)
This opinion piece fails to address the fact that poly arrangements would require changing the laws that determine what marriage is, for everyone. It also fails to consider the change in social dynamics for the entire society poly arraignments would impose. Same sex couple marriage does not require any changes in what marriage is for opposite sex couples, or same sex couples.

Again, 2=2
3 or more does not equal 2.
It is something very different.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2447 Feb 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Ummm...catch up. It has already happened and your invented scenario hasn't. Proven wrong befoer you were told to parrot it. Wanna cracker pretty bird? squawk!
No, it already has:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
"First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name..."

Ad hominem is fallacy, even parrots are right now and again.
Virgin First Fruit

Alpharetta, GA

#2448 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If we ever lose gender integrated marriage, and people start gender segregation marriage, they'll go after brother/sister incest and polygamy next.
Marriage establishes legal kinship between two consenting adults
.
brother and sister are already legally kin; so marriage is redundant for them
.
Polygamy? Really none of anyone else's business
.
Certainly not any of my business
.
yours?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2449 Feb 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Irrational fear mongering.
Most same sex marriage supporters refuse to consider the consequences of their policy.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
There is no reason to believe the crime of incest would ever become legal, let alone a condition for marriage.
Every justification for same sex marriage will be used to support brother/sister incest marriage and polygamy.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
We know from history and science, incest is inherently harmful in many ways.
There is an incest taboo, just as there is a same sex marriage taboo. There's no scientific evidence adult brother/sister incest is harmful, that's just an excuse to impose your religious values.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
We also know from history that polygamy has a destabilizing effect on society, with rich and older men having many wives, while others have none.
Why should Muslims be denied marriage equality if homosexuals can redefine marriage for their marriage equality?

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Inequality of relationships, child abuse, property rights, and many of the over 1,138 federal rights and protections that currently determine what marriage is, would have to be changed. Allowing same sex couples to participate under the laws currently in effect, does not require any changes to those rights and protections.
Same sex marriage would create new intrusive government regulations around marriage, more wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries and higher taxes to pay for it all.

Single people would be harmed economically by same sex marriage.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
You should also know, even rabidly anti-gay WBC, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court which documents that marriage took place under the written law before the time of Noah: "Another Midrash says that males just didn't sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."
^^^Here's Not Yet Equal citing a Westboro Baptist Church religious argument. Wow, talk about clueless!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2450 Feb 15, 2013
Virgin First Fruit wrote:
Marriage establishes legal kinship between two consenting adults. brother and sister are already legally kin; so marriage is redundant for them
Brother and sister aren't next of kin, if they are married to someone else or have children. So, in the case of brother/sister incest marriage, those couples won't be deprived marriage equality, just like same sex marriage.

.
Virgin First Fruit wrote:
Polygamy? Really none of anyone else's business. Certainly not any of my business. yours?
Marriage is everyone's business, single and married. Marriage isn't for everybody.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2451 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, it already has:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
"First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name..."
Ad hominem is fallacy, even parrots are right now and again.
One whole trio?!? how's the sky looking chicken little? so if all of the hundred or so polygamists in the US got married, assuming the laws were created to make them equal to current marriages, what big whoop would that be to you?

no breakdown of society, no rioting in the streets, no atonal music...just life as usual...
sickofit

Faribault, MN

#2452 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Brother and sister aren't next of kin, if they are married to someone else or have children. So, in the case of brother/sister incest marriage, those couples won't be deprived marriage equality, just like same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>Marriage is everyone's business, single and married. Marriage isn't for everybody.
Mind your own business hitler boy....You nazi pukes sure do hate freedom and equality dont you? Oh well doesnt matter within no more then 20 years same sex marriage will be legal in all states.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2453 Feb 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://fpiw.blogspot.com/2011/ 08/polygamist-lawsuit-uses-sam e-sex.html?m=1
For the past 20 years...
I am unsure if this is intended to be a reply to me or not. People are not usually very interested in cut-and-paste postings from other articles. It's lazy, unoriginal, and impersonal. You should express your own thoughts using your own words.

If this Turley fellow can get a fair hearing in court, then I say good for him. I see no problem with polygamy on its general merits. I would listen to its arguments, and try to make a fair decision, if I were a judge.

However, to say that the issues of homosexuality and polygamy are analogous, where one word can simply be substituted for another, simply shows that you have not looked into this very deeply (a problem that can arise from just copying arguments from other sources).

The article you quote from cites the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which rescinded anti-sodomy laws. But this has nothing to do with marriage. This law applies to polygamists just as it applies to homosexuals, or even heterosexuals. Mr. Turley may now engage in sodomy, just like everyone else can.

But legalizing polygamy would require a drastic restructuring of current marriage laws, whereas same-sex marriages do not. The laws and policies that currently apply to 2 people of the opposite sex can be applied to 2 people of the same sex with no changes. But this is not true when applying those laws to 3, or 4, or 10 people. Marriage makes clear the arrangement that 2 people share, with regards to inheritances, tax laws, power-of-attorney, etc. If we are considering a 10-person marriage, then who inherits what from whom? Who represents whom in legal cases? How are pensions divided? What happens when parties C, D and E disagree with parties B, F and G?

These questions CAN be answered, with a deeper inspection into existing laws, but it requires an entirely new set of efforts and fields of expertise, which are not necessary when legalizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. For us, the state simply needs to say “Yes, you may marry a person of the same gender rather than of a different gender.” ALL other legal considerations remain exactly the same.

And incest, as mentioned in your quote, is not even in the same ballpark. One of the most important elements of marriage, one that functions at its most basic level, is that it takes two unrelated people and makes them into family, facilitating all their legal decisions. People who are already related have no need of this step. They are not lacking in any of these legal protections. They are already family.

This issue is not about the government caring “what people do sexually”, but about how they commit their lives, resources, and futures to one another. Gay people make this commitment in exactly the same way that straight people do. But if you want to expand that commitment among multiple people, it becomes vastly more complex, and easily recognizable as a separate issue. It must be dealt with separately. You cannot simply FORCE polygamy into this issue, in hopes of stopping the efforts of gay people from reaching marriage equality.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2454 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, it already has:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301
"First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2005-09-26 23:08
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose “civil unions” that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name..."
Ad hominem is fallacy, even parrots are right now and again.
Oh there you go again, Brian. You always claim that civil unions are an appropriate compromise for that same-sex couples should accept. And then you provide another example of "problems" with marriage by use of a civil union example.

Did you read the article you posted? The trio got a civil union. They didn't get married.

Promote full equality. Treat all loving couples the same under one law: Marriage. Stop inventing novel institutions that allow anything goes.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2455 Feb 15, 2013
Once standards fall, they topple like dominoes. Today, marriage segregation, tomorrow, marriage equality for non-couples, why does everything have to be binary? Incest marriage, necrophilia marriage and bestial marriage are couples too.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2456 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most same sex marriage supporters refuse to consider the consequences of their policy.
.
<quoted text>Every justification for same sex marriage will be used to support brother/sister incest marriage and polygamy.
.
<quoted text>There is an incest taboo, just as there is a same sex marriage taboo. There's no scientific evidence adult brother/sister incest is harmful, that's just an excuse to impose your religious values.
.
<quoted text>Why should Muslims be denied marriage equality if homosexuals can redefine marriage for their marriage equality?
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage would create new intrusive government regulations around marriage, more wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries and higher taxes to pay for it all.
Single people would be harmed economically by same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>^^^Here's Not Yet Equal citing a Westboro Baptist Church religious argument. Wow, talk about clueless!
Calling someone clueless betrays your claim you never resort to insults.

The WBC documentation is from a Supreme Court brief. It is presented as a legal argument, and counters your claim same sex marriage has never existed in any law. If even anti-gay WBC admits it has been law, there remains little support for the popular assertion marriage has always been man and woman. Of course Boswell and several others have written books about same sex marriage throughout history in Asia, Europe, and the Americas as well, which continues to be denied by those opposed to treating gay people as fully equal persons under the law.

Again, incest and polygamy have clearly been shown to be harmful in a variety of ways, most of which have been covered with you repeatedly. Genetic problems and abusive control issues are well documented.

They also require changing the rules for straight and gay couples as well, while allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect do not alter the rules of "what" marriage is, despite your unsupported claims to the contrary.

Muslims and all other religious beliefs are already allowed to participate under the rules currently in effect.

Again, you offer unsupportable fear mongering and pejorative terminology, but no rational, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2457 Feb 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Once standards fall, they topple like dominoes. Today, marriage segregation, tomorrow, marriage equality for non-couples, why does everything have to be binary? Incest marriage, necrophilia marriage and bestial marriage are couples too.
Again, you offer unsupportable fear mongering and pejorative terminology, but no rational, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.

Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.(Animals fail to qualify)

Reasonable restrictions can only be made if they they present a compelling and legitimate governmental interest. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married. Dead people can't demonstrate informed consent and neither can young children.

Gay couples are asking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Equal treatment under the laws currently in effect do not change the restrictions due to age, informed consent, not being closely related, currently married, or human.

Neither tradition nor gender provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2459 Feb 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>to enter into the legal, binding contract that is our social construct of marriage.
Now now Woody...that question was for Rosie. Your answer.....hmmmmmm......needs a little more....we'll get back to this.

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) 17 min Boy G 50,583
Open and shut 37 min Ace Macmillan 5
Gay marriage news: NC magistrate won't marry co... 48 min Jonah1 166
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 14
Catholic bishops drop moves to accept gays 1 hr Christsharian Law 32
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr RevKen 25,270
Pat Robertson Tells Bigoted Idaho Wedding Chape... 3 hr Smack Down 1

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE