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

#2482 Feb 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig a little deeper, explore marital case law, even divorce law, which failure to consumate can be grounds for divorce.
<quoted text>
Then divorce. In CA, you can divorce for any, or no reason, really.(Irreconcilable differences)
Not a good reason to deny people equal rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Simple biology, sometimes, nine months later little nhjeff is born. You do know where babies come from, don't you? Ohhhhhhh...so that's it....Dad never had "the talk" with you. Perhaps its not too late. Or maybe you do know, but can't understand why you're not pregnant yet. Then you definately need to have "the talk".
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. And if fatherhood is an issue, get a DNA test.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm...the concept is "presumption of paternity". Say one half of a lesbian couple, at an office party, finds herself strangely attracted to a male coworker and friend. She and he, become "better aquainted", so to speak. Before ya know it, she finds herself in a family way. Assuming she maintains the pregnancy to term, and decides to keep the child, do you think that anyone will presume her female partner is the father?
No. But so what?
That's not a good reason to deny people equal rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Suppose the father want to assert paternal rights? Would that trump, her female partner's "parenthood" claim?
Who knows? Who cares? Let them work it out. That's why lawyers were invented.
Not a good reason to deny everybody equal rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that sex, and the possible result, conception, is at the top of the list, and quite possibly the sole legitimate reason why its prohibited. Now if same sex siblings were to seek marriage recognition, or at least all those 1000 plus benefits, that the nice gay couples want, there'd be no reason to deny them based on sex.
<quoted text>
Praise the Lord, finally some sanity. I see you had "the talk". Very good. Its refreshing to see someone on the proSSM side recognize that procreation and marriage are linked.
For some people. Many people who can't or don't want to procreate marry.
It's not a requirement.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously, "It is simply not a requirement."? What legally, culturally, religiously, etc.? Considering that marriage since the dawn of time has been virtually an exclusive male female relationship, would there really be a need for any society to "require" procreation for marriage? Just so that in the year 2001 plus, in the United States of America, some folks could try to justify same sex marriage?
Equal rights.
Pretty simple, really.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#2483 Feb 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that might violate tenents of the Social Gospel
<quoted text>
Actually they're standing up for all people in this regard, particularly the children, who seem largely forgotten in the desire for "rights". The right to marry already exists, just because some folks don't want to exercise it the same way as the it is intended, doesn't mean they don't have the right in the first place.
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2485 Feb 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then divorce. In CA, you can divorce for any, or no reason, really.(Irreconcilable differences)
Not a good reason to deny people equal rights.
<quoted text>
You don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry. And if fatherhood is an issue, get a DNA test.
<quoted text>
No. But so what?
That's not a good reason to deny people equal rights.
<quoted text>
Who knows? Who cares? Let them work it out. That's why lawyers were invented.
Not a good reason to deny everybody equal rights.
<quoted text>
For some people. Many people who can't or don't want to procreate marry.
It's not a requirement.
<quoted text>
Equal rights.
Pretty simple, really.
All men can marry a woman. Equal rights
All women can marry a man. Equal rights
All men are prohibited from marrying more than one woman. Equal rights
All women are prohibited from marrying more than one man. Equal rights
All men are prohibited from marrying their sister, daughter,mother, grandmother. Equal rights
All women are prohibited from marrying their brother, som, father,grandfather. Equal rights.

Pretty simple really.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2486 Feb 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?".
Rosie's law:

Equality demands urinals in the women's locker room. Tampon dispensers in the men's locker room.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2487 Feb 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Dig a little deeper, explore marital case law, even divorce law, which failure to consumate can be grounds for divorce.
This would not apply to a same-sex couple that had an active sexual relationship. Try again.
Simple biology, sometimes, nine months later little nhjeff is born. You do know where babies come from, don't you? Ohhhhhhh...so that's it....Dad never had "the talk" with you. Perhaps its not too late. Or maybe you do know, but can't understand why you're not pregnant yet. Then you definately need to have "the talk".
Do you really feel such a strong need to keep displaying your stupidity in such a condescending manner? It backfires.
Hmmmmmmm...the concept is "presumption of paternity". Say one half of a lesbian couple, at an office party, finds herself strangely attracted to a male coworker and friend. She and he, become "better aquainted", so to speak. Before ya know it, she finds herself in a family way. Assuming she maintains the pregnancy to term, and decides to keep the child, do you think that anyone will presume her female partner is the father? Suppose the father want to assert paternal rights? Would that trump, her female partner's "parenthood" claim?
As I said--and you obviously weren't comprehending--the presumption works unless challenged. The situation you described is not novel. Believe it or not, women in opposite-sex marriages have cheated with men and gotten pregnant before. As surprising as that reality is, courts have had to deal with the ensuing contradictory claims.

In this case, the lesbian's (or more accurately bisexual's) married partner assumes the parental role unless challenged.

Sometimes, a husband is unaware of the cuckolding. Sometimes, he is aware and prefers to treat the child as his anyway. Let's take the case of a spouse who got pregnant through rape. While some couples would agree to abort the baby, many would feel bound to carry it to term. Some might give up the child. But many would raise it as their own child. I doubt they would want to challenge the presumption of paternity.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that sex, and the possible result, conception, is at the top of the list, and quite possibly the sole legitimate reason why its prohibited. Now if same sex siblings were to seek marriage recognition, or at least all those 1000 plus benefits, that the nice gay couples want, there'd be no reason to deny them based on sex.
So you apparently intend to enlist an entire army of straw men. Nobody is advocating brothers or sisters be allowed to marry each other. Allowing same-sex marriages between siblings while not allowing opposite-sex marriages would not be equality, which is all we ever sought.
Praise the Lord, finally some sanity. I see you had "the talk". Very good. Its refreshing to see someone on the proSSM side recognize that procreation and marriage are linked.
Let's see: Some people who have no children are married, including some people who cannot or will not ever have children. Some people who have had children marry someone else with whom they cannot or will not ever have children. Some people who have never married and never will have children. Please explain the link between marriage and child-rearing.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2488 Feb 16, 2013
Seriously, "It is simply not a requirement."? What legally, culturally, religiously, etc.? Considering that marriage since the dawn of time has been virtually an exclusive male female relationship, would there really be a need for any society to "require" procreation for marriage? Just so that in the year 2001 plus, in the United States of America, some folks could try to justify same sex marriage?
Of course, you have ignored all the sound arguments that others have made for treating citizens equally. You keep going back to your small battalion of straw men: Children, polygamy, and incest.

We have dispensed with those arguments. It is time to move on or admit defeat.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2489 Feb 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you have ignored all the sound arguments that others have made for treating citizens equally. You keep going back to your small battalion of straw men: Children, polygamy, and incest.
We have dispensed with those arguments. It is time to move on or admit defeat.
What sound arguments? Equality does not mean distinctions, differences, and biology are ignored. Should urinals be installed in women's locker rooms in the name of "equality"? Tampon dispensing machines in the men's locker room?

How are children, straw men? The issue is , you wish to remove only those restrictions, and gender references from marriage which you do not like, or that undermine your argument.

Polygamy is marriage, and is practiced in many many societies around the globe, far more than SSM. Even in this country, consenting adults are engaged in plural marriage. What makes your consenting adult sexual relationship worthy of fundamentally redefining, legally, marriage, but not someone else's?

Why is okay for a man to father children with several women, live with said women, provide emotional, financial,and physical support to them and their children, all without criminal sanction, in most states anyway, but as soon as he uses the word "wives", and they, the women, say "our husband", there's an outcry?

I really cannot understand why you do not advocate for plural marriage practitioners? It seems odd that you are unable or unwilling to see the very change you seek will only serve to empower others using the same arguments you use. Is it a mindset, "As long as we gay marriage is legal, we don't care what happens after that"?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2490 Feb 16, 2013
Savant wrote:
BACKLASS?
Backlash, a well documented historical force.

.
Savant wrote:
I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if Medicare, Madicaid or Social Security is cut or threatened.
The Church used to administer charitable aid to the elderly, infirm and indigent, now the burden is on the taxpayer. Individuals used to manage their own retirements and they didn't live as long.

I want the Church to promise a backlash if Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't reformed.

.
Savant wrote:
I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if we don't get universal single payer health care.
The Church has already backlashed against a single regulated health care law that requires Churches and employers arrange health care insurance that pays for abortions and abortifacients.

.
Savant wrote:
I would like to see the Church stir up a backlash in reply to the violation of people voting rights
I'd like the church to be bipartisan.

.
Savant wrote:
or the rights of working people to collective bargaining.
Except collective bargaining for public employees, who only negotiate with their elected representative, wink-wink.

.
Savant wrote:
If the Church won't stand for justice,
Churches stand for morality, not justice.

.
Savant wrote:
but only AGAINST some people's rights, then we'd be better off without the Church.
Everyone has the right to marriage, there is no orientation test for a marriage license. The issue is redefining marriage in a way contrary to church doctrine, losing the blessing of gender integration and diversity for segregation and prejudice.

I oppose same sex marriage because its wrong for everyone.

.
Savant wrote:
To hell with it.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2491 Feb 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What sound arguments? Equality does not mean distinctions, differences, and biology are ignored. Should urinals be installed in women's locker rooms in the name of "equality"? Tampon dispensing machines in the men's locker room?
How are children, straw men?
The straw man is that children are some sort of requirement for marriage. Do you deny that opposite-sex couples can get married, even if they cannot or will not have children? Do you deny that couples have children without marrying? I have asked you this before. And you ignore the inconvenient but overarching reality.
The issue is , you wish to remove only those restrictions, and gender references from marriage which you do not like, or that undermine your argument.
The only restriction that I wish to remove is the gender of the spouses. You have no argument against that, which is why you keep introducing the same tired team of straw men.
Polygamy is marriage, and is practiced in many many societies around the globe, far more than SSM. Even in this country, consenting adults are engaged in plural marriage. What makes your consenting adult sexual relationship worthy of fundamentally redefining, legally, marriage, but not someone else's?
That, of course, is the crux of the issue. Marriage equality between two people regardless of sex requires on fundamental redefinition. Everyone understands EXACTLY what that entails. We are not asking for special rules for same-sex couples: Just the same rules that opposite-sex couples already follow.

You have never even attempted to answer the basic question "What are the changes required to accommodate polygamous couples." Do I support polygamy? Not in the form that it was historically practiced in, for instance, the Bible. Not in the form it is practiced in some countries in the world today. Are people free to replicate those practices in their personal lives in America? Yes. But should we codify them so that people are trapped in inherently unequal relationships? Should we codify them so that some polygamous group somewhere benefits, while other polygamous groups with different preferences are disadvantaged?

You always ask the same question, but you never explain what you mean by supporting polygamous marriage. That is why it is a straw man.
Why is okay for a man to father children with several women, live with said women, provide emotional, financial,and physical support to them and their children, all without criminal sanction, in most states anyway, but as soon as he uses the word "wives", and they, the women, say "our husband", there's an outcry?
I really cannot understand why you do not advocate for plural marriage practitioners? It seems odd that you are unable or unwilling to see the very change you seek will only serve to empower others using the same arguments you use. Is it a mindset, "As long as we gay marriage is legal, we don't care what happens after that"?
That is not true at all. It is YOU who don't care what happens to others. I DO care about people in polygamous relationships, and I hope that society will do its best to protect each member of that relationship. That is why I want to know what rules you propose to modify to accommodate polygamous relationships. That is why I want to know what polygamous couples themselves want.

You are merely using polygamous couples as straw men to deflect attention from your own ineptitude in addressing same-sex marriage. You are completely unwilling to fully consider the ramifications of society regulating polygamy.

In short, you are a disingenuous hypocrite for bringing them into the argument. You like to pretend that you are advocating for polygamists. In fact, you are using them.

Face it: You have nothing. You lost.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2492 Feb 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Churches stand for morality, not justice.
So you're saying that moral codes that are unconcerned with justice are valid and should be supported by society? Is that like the moral code of the Roman Catholic Church that says protecting priests is moral, justice to their child victims be damned?

You have a penchant for saying the stupidest things...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2493 Feb 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men can marry a woman. Equal rights
All women can marry a man. Equal rights
All men are prohibited from marrying more than one woman. Equal rights
All women are prohibited from marrying more than one man. Equal rights
All men are prohibited from marrying their sister, daughter,mother, grandmother. Equal rights
All women are prohibited from marrying their brother, som, father,grandfather. Equal rights.
Pretty simple really.
Why do you hate gay people? What do you personally have against how we choose a partner, and how we build a relationship?

Equal rights will be preserved, if all men are allowed to marry men, and all women are allowed to marry women, in accordance with the only way that gay people are suited to build a future with the person they love.

No one needs to get married (or become family) with someone they're already family with. No family members are even SEEKING this, so you can stop pretending that this is a "right" that anyone wants. They are not asking you to speak for them. But MILLIONS of gay people are fighting for this right.

You have no reason to fight against us, unless you simply hate everything and anything that gay people wish for. Is this REALLY only about marriage?

How did you feel about the "Don't ask, don't tell" military policy?

How do you feel about gay people being teachers in public schools?

If you were a landlord, how would you feel about renting to a gay couple?

If you were an employer, how would you feel about hiring a gay person?

If you were a parent, how would you feel about your child telling you they were gay?

Marriage is NEVER the only gay right that people oppose, if they oppose anything.

How do you REALLY feel? WHY?

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#2494 Feb 17, 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.
First incest marriage, 26 states allow for first cousins marriage and the states that don't will recognize them even though they feel that's incest marriage.
Next, necrophilia marriage really is you're mind that tainted to even come up with such a thing as far as bestial marriage has been debunked before we are after all talking about consenting adults
and since a dead person nor a tail wag isn't in any form giving consent makes your statement as ignorant as its publisher

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2495 Feb 17, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
First incest marriage, 26 states allow for first cousins marriage and the states that don't will recognize them even though they feel that's incest marriage.
Next, necrophilia marriage really is you're mind that tainted to even come up with such a thing as far as bestial marriage has been debunked before we are after all talking about consenting adults
and since a dead person nor a tail wag isn't in any form giving consent makes your statement as ignorant as its publisher
Animals can give consent, they don't bite when they acquiesce. Wills are the form of consent dead people use to describe the disposition of their remains.

Same sex marriage supporters will come after consent, if they can bring gender segregation to marriage.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#2496 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Animals can give consent, they don't bite when they acquiesce. Wills are the form of consent dead people use to describe the disposition of their remains.
Same sex marriage supporters will come after consent, if they can bring gender segregation to marriage.
I guess you you're never going to be able to wright out a will
it requires one to be in sound mind and body and your demonstrations show you are not.
you seem to like the term "segregation" quite allot the evilness of that term has never faded since the 1960's in Selma Alabama
if you approach a straight married and thank them for participating in a segregated marriage unless they have the same ignorant mindset as your self there going to be quite offended

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#2497 Feb 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
So you're saying that moral codes that are unconcerned with justice are valid and should be supported by society? Is that like the moral code of the Roman Catholic Church that says protecting priests is moral, justice to their child victims be damned? You have a penchant for saying the stupidest things...
The left attacks our religious institutions because they have a competing form of religion. They value 'equality' and increased government regulation to enforce that 'equality'; we favor freedom. Truth is superior to defamation, lies and nhjeff's posts.

Morality isn't like a newspaper headline, it isn't gossip or slander.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#2498 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The left attacks our religious institutions because they have a competing form of religion..
Aren't the majority of the "left" also often religious and often Christian?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#2499 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, and some married folks reproduce the stupid. Smile, you're on Candid Camera.
You ignored the point, of course, since you know there is no logical way to refute it. No state requires the ability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license. That can't be argued.

The insults don't help your cause, whatever it might be.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2500 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Animals can give consent, they don't bite when they acquiesce. Wills are the form of consent dead people use to describe the disposition of their remains.
Same sex marriage supporters will come after consent, if they can bring gender segregation to marriage.
Try a legal dictionary, fer pete's sake!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2501 Feb 17, 2013
“There is a significant and growing consensus among biblical scholars about the few biblical texts that are often referenced as the basis for condemning same-gender loving people of God. Contemporary biblical scholarship argues strongly against this condemnation and finds a much more significant Gospel message that supports the inclusion of LGBT persons into the full life and mission of the church.”
( United Church of Christ.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2502 Feb 17, 2013
Rev. Peter Gomes, Harvard University Chaplain: "If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it...
To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get." (Boston Globe, 2/8/04)

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 KiMerde 49,822
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr KiMerde 25,018
Norfolk Island considers gay marriage 3 hr Professor Jumper 2
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 3 hr Garry Ackerman 12
Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... 6 hr government of Ukr... 2
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 6 hr pathetic 31,266
Women dish on their most embarrassing wardrobe ... (Sep '13) 14 hr Kelly DJ 301
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••