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

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2503 Feb 17, 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.
Economic rights do not exist, certainly not the right to work with a decent salary comfortably above poverty. Apparently, even voting rights are shaky now with the new restrictions imposed by the right. Universal health, commonplace in most democratic nations, does not exist in America. 12 million children go to bed hungry in America, and a Church which is supposedly concerned about children are silent about this (as about most other social rights) but militant against gay marriage. There has been a massive redistribution of wealth, but mainly from the have nots to the haves. Where is the Church's voice. Growing poverty is ok. Demonize the poor themselves, it seems. Hunger is Ok. Homelessness is OK. War and profiteering at the expense of the common good seems ok to thse theocratic hypocrites. But mention a gay couple getting married, and many Churches and churchmen are willing to wage a holy crusade.
If this is the attitude of the Church then to hell with the Church.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2504 Feb 17, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't the majority of the "left" also often religious and often Christian?
In the USA, the majority of the Left is religious; mainly Christian, Jews and probably Muslims.

But there are religious reactionaries as well; also mainly Christians, some Jews and probably some Muslims.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2505 Feb 17, 2013
So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and — something usually forgotten — to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society — fatherhood — especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many — that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination — the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed — and could be under the Charter — in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2506 Feb 17, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why would it have to be?
Virgin First Fruit

Alpharetta, GA

#2508 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
If religion was kept private and personal; there would be less need for laws to control it
.
a whole lot less laws

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2510 Feb 17, 2013
Gay people have been getting married for over 4,000 years. It just has never been and never will be the primary form of marriage:

"At times throughout history, same-sex relationships have enjoyed relative freedom within their respective places.

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated. "
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...

A book by the Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes same sex ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books,“Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae”(Paris, 1667).

Another book by Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.

"Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

Gay Marriage Is As Old As History www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2511 Feb 17, 2013
Over 30 years of research has shown children of same sex couples do just as well as (if not better than) opposite sex couples.

Hawaii Supreme court testamony from wittness opposed to marriage equality:

Dr Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that "gay and lesbian couples can , and do, make excellent parents" "that they are capable of raising a healthy child", and "that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage".

Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was "no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.

Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support.... and when you take a look at structural variables, there's not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.

Dr. Pepper Shwartz: "the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."

And this from anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in favor of Prop 8:

“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2512 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
You don't really buy your own baloney, do you?

Animals don't bite when they acquiesce... oh brother.

My cat wants to go outside this morning, he's whining and pacing at the pet door, but it's too wet out, I don't want him tracking in mud. He would go out in the pouring rain, he doesn't care. But can I be SURE he is acquiescing to me keeping him in? He isn't biting me!

If I take him down to the Lexus dealer, and he doesn't bite the salesman, does that mean my Russian Blue mix can sign for a 2013 LS?

No dead people use wills as a form of consent. Wills are only used by the living. I've never seen a dead person sign a form, or record a video. If a will isn't clear on an issue, what FURTHER type of consent can we get from the dead? Can we go knocking on the casket lid? If the dead could use a will to give pre-consent for a necropheliac marriage, what do they do for a divorce? Maybe the dead can give consent by not biting, also.

Your statements are so divorced from reality, it's hard to believe you're here for any reason other than "fun". Some people are trying to plan for their lives and their futures with their loved ones, you know. Your antics don't add anything mature or realistic to the mix.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2513 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Over 30 years of research has shown children of same sex couples do just as well as (if not better than) opposite sex couples.
Exactly what is "of" same sex couples? Did I miss something in biology class.
Hawaii Supreme court testamony from wittness opposed to marriage equality:
Dr Eggebeen (witness against marriage equality) also conceded that "gay and lesbian couples can , and do, make excellent parents" "that they are capable of raising a healthy child", and "that children of same sex couples would be helped if their families had access to or were able to receive benefits of marriage".
Why aren't the mother and father of these children married?
Dr. Charlotte Patterson: there was "no data or research which establishes that gay fathers and lesbian mothers are less capable of being good parents than non-gay people.
Dr. David Brodzinsky: The issue is not the structural variable, biological versus nonbiological, one parent versus two parent. The issue is really the process variables, how children are cared for, is the child provided warmth, it the child provided consistency of care, is the child provided a stimulated environment, is the e child given support.... and when you take a look at structural variables, there's not all that much support that structural variable in and of themselves are all that important.
Dr. Pepper Shwartz: "the primary quality of parenting is not the parenting structure, or biology, but is the nurturing relationship between parent and child."
Tell that to children who desire to know, interact with, and be raised by their own biological mother and father that the biological link can be easily dismissed.
And this from anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in favor of Prop 8:
“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”
He surrendered. The battle continues.

Since: Jan 12

Port Richey, FL

#2514 Feb 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
judging by his response to this post looks like you hit the nail rite on the head

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2515 Feb 17, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't really buy your own baloney, do you?
Animals don't bite when they acquiesce... oh brother.
My cat wants to go outside this morning, he's whining and pacing at the pet door, but it's too wet out, I don't want him tracking in mud. He would go out in the pouring rain, he doesn't care. But can I be SURE he is acquiescing to me keeping him in? He isn't biting me!
If I take him down to the Lexus dealer, and he doesn't bite the salesman, does that mean my Russian Blue mix can sign for a 2013 LS?
No dead people use wills as a form of consent. Wills are only used by the living. I've never seen a dead person sign a form, or record a video. If a will isn't clear on an issue, what FURTHER type of consent can we get from the dead? Can we go knocking on the casket lid? If the dead could use a will to give pre-consent for a necropheliac marriage, what do they do for a divorce? Maybe the dead can give consent by not biting, also.
Your statements are so divorced from reality, it's hard to believe you're here for any reason other than "fun". Some people are trying to plan for their lives and their futures with their loved ones, you know. Your antics don't add anything mature or realistic to the mix.
You will see absurd assertions like this unless you specify "informed consent". "Informed consent" is the legal requirement which includes the ability to demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the consequences of the legal contract the parties are entering. No animal or non living person or thing can demonstrate such an understand and appreciation of the consequences.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2516 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what is "of" same sex couples? Did I miss something in biology class.
<quoted text>
Why aren't the mother and father of these children married?
<quoted text>
Tell that to children who desire to know, interact with, and be raised by their own biological mother and father that the biological link can be easily dismissed.
<quoted text>
He surrendered. The battle continues.
I suspect your apparent lack of information is more a result of denial than lack of exposure to the information. Either way, the reality remains; same sex couples are raising children who are biologically related to one or both of the parents, or adopted children who have been discarded and often abused by their straight parents. This is nothing new.

You fail to refute the information encompassing over 30 years of research and clinical experience. Children do just as well (if not better) in same sex parent households. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex parent families, while harming same sex parent families for no rationally justifiable reason.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2517 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect your apparent lack of information is more a result of denial than lack of exposure to the information. Either way, the reality remains; same sex couples are raising children who are biologically related to one or both of the parents, or adopted children who have been discarded and often abused by their straight parents. This is nothing new.
Yes biologically related to the child's mother and father. Human reproduction still requires the genetic materials of both sexes.
You fail to refute the information encompassing over 30 years of research and clinical experience. Children do just as well (if not better) in same sex parent households. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex parent families, while harming same sex parent families for no rationally justifiable reason.
We both know the research is limited. There's simply not large numbers of children raised from birth to adulthood by SSCs, male or female, who have been together during that time period.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2518 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes biologically related to the child's mother and father. Human reproduction still requires the genetic materials of both sexes.
<quoted text>
We both know the research is limited. There's simply not large numbers of children raised from birth to adulthood by SSCs, male or female, who have been together during that time period.
It appears you are still ignoring adoption, as well as the many ways assisted reproduction can provide a biological relationship to one or both parents.

The reality remains; same sex couples are raising children who are biologically related to one or both of the parents, or adopted children who have been discarded and often abused by their straight parents.

Your rejection of over 30 years of research as well as clinical experience, fails to refute the findings.

You provide no rational governmental interest sufficient for harming those families through denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments. Denial of equal protection provides nothing to opposite sex parent families, while harming same sex parent families needlessly.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2519 Feb 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Here's a hint, Brian: Stupidity is not equivalent to morality. No matter how stupid you make your posts, none of us will be fooled that you stand for any form of morality.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2520 Feb 17, 2013
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

Yet treating others with respect and equality does not require a religious belief. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, believe in equality, fairness, and respect for others. While all beliefs have differences, all major religions, ethical systems, and philosophies agree that each person should treat others as they would themselves. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." Or in "natural law": that "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".

Not only is refusing to treat others as you would yourself a violation of every major ethical belief system, it is a violation of the promise of equality in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments.
Pietro Armando

Lynn, MA

#2521 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama
Yet treating others with respect and equality does not require a religious belief. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, believe in equality, fairness, and respect for others. While all beliefs have differences, all major religions, ethical systems, and philosophies agree that each person should treat others as they would themselves. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." Or in "natural law": that "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".
Not only is refusing to treat others as you would yourself a violation of every major ethical belief system, it is a violation of the promise of equality in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments.
The 5th and 14th amendments do not require a man be treated as a woman, or vice versa. Distinction can, and are made on the basis of gender.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2522 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The 5th and 14th amendments do not require a man be treated as a woman, or vice versa. Distinction can, and are made on the basis of gender.
So long as there is a legitimate governmental reason for doing so.

There is no legitimate governmental reason for making a distinction regarding the sex of the partners in civil marriage.

Banning civil marriage based solely on the sex of the partners benefits no one. Allowing civil marriage regardless of the sex of the partners harms no one.

There is no constitutional justification for sex discrimination in civil marriage.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2523 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama
"In recent days, I have been confronted in various places by very unhappy people. I could understand the depth of their anger and outrage — at me, at the Church, at about injustices that swirl around us.

Thanks to God’s special grace, I simply stood there, asking God to bless and forgive them."

~Cardinal Roger Mahoney, protector of Catholic child molesters.

I think the Dalai Lama may be too optimistic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The 5th and 14th amendments do not require a man be treated as a woman, or vice versa. Distinction can, and are made on the basis of gender.
You don't need to fall back on the Constitution to deny that gay people exist, or that we form valid relationships based on love, or that we deserve the same basic protections as any other citizens.

You can do those things yourself. That's not what the Constitution is for. Never was.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2524 Feb 17, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So long as there is a legitimate governmental reason for doing so.
There is no legitimate governmental reason for making a distinction regarding the sex of the partners in civil marriage.
There is no legitimate governmental reason for declaring either the husband or wife unnecessary to civil marriage.
Banning civil marriage based solely on the sex of the partners benefits no one.
Banning one sex from civil marriage through legal definition of same, based solely on the sex beneifts no one.
Allowing civil marriage regardless of the sex of the partners harms no one.
Allowing civil marriage regarding the sex of the partners, and what the sex of the partners represents, and potentially creates, harms not one.
There is no constitutional justification for sex discrimination in civil marriage.
Exactly, therefore both sexes should be present. Neither sex should be discriminated against, and thus excluded.

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
Texas Couples Ask U.S. Court To Allow Same-Sex ... 26 min Obvious 6
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 54 min Ratloder 113
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr Cali Girl 2014 26,029
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr enough now 31,422
Schuette urges court to take gay marriage case 3 hr Mitt s Airtight D... 15
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 5 hr Poof1 27
Totus Tuus...all yours (Mar '12) 12 hr ELIAS IBARRA 164

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE