Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2525 Feb 17, 2013
Savant wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hmmmmm....Catholic Charities, parish food banks, clothing drives, etc.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2526 Feb 17, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the Dalai Lama may be too optimistic.
<quoted text>
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.
I don't believe he was suggesting any religion lives up to the Golden Rule, just that they all claim it as a primary goal.

Unfortunately, many forget, or find excuses to ignore it. I interpret his message as a reminder to those who have lost sight of the goal.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2527 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no legitimate governmental reason for declaring either the husband or wife unnecessary to civil marriage.
Feel free to show where anyone is doing that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Banning one sex from civil marriage through legal definition of same, based solely on the sex beneifts no one.
Feel free to show where anyone is doing that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Allowing civil marriage regarding the sex of the partners, and what the sex of the partners represents, and potentially creates, harms not one.
Feel free to show how allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage interferes with or denies the ability of opposite-sex partners to obtain a civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, therefore both sexes should be present. Neither sex should be discriminated against, and thus excluded.
Feel free to provide evidence of anyone who was "discriminated against" in being allowed to obtain a civil marriage where limitation on sex have been removed.

Your claim that removing discrimination in civil marriage based on sex is somehow a discrimination against an individual based on sex (or against one sex or the other) is not logically coherent.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2528 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
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 few comments. First, yes there are some scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, I've said this numerous times in various threads and post. Second, such unions were necessarily considered marriage, or at least not in the same way as a male female union. Third, they seem to be on a very limited scale, involving the upper levels of society, and primarily among males. Lastly, such unions do not appear to have created a deep seated historical root that gave rise to a sustained seated same sex marriage culture and structure, male or female, paralleling opposite sex marriage.
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
"Can be interpreted"...as John Boswell attempted, even though there is no compelling evidence these unions were of a sexual nature. Critics of Boswell have pointed out that the Church did have religious brother bonding ceremonies, that were not sexual in nature.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2529 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no legitimate governmental reason for declaring either the husband or wife unnecessary to civil marriage.
<quoted text>
Banning one sex from civil marriage through legal definition of same, based solely on the sex beneifts no one.
<quoted text>
Allowing civil marriage regarding the sex of the partners, and what the sex of the partners represents, and potentially creates, harms not one.
<quoted text>
Exactly, therefore both sexes should be present. Neither sex should be discriminated against, and thus excluded.
Removing the gender restriction does not ban, exclude, or discriminate against either sex. It does the opposite. Straight people can still marry someone of the opposite sex, and two people are still required. Neither is unnecessary. Removing the gender requirement imposes no restriction on anyone. It removes restrictions, allowing greater freedom.

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”(SCOTUS 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992))

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2530 Feb 17, 2013
Each individual is free to conceptualize marriage for themselves, any way they choose.

But from a legal perspective, marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny. Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, gay people qualify.

While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking 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.

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

As Justice Kennedy wrote about the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

Laws that treat gay people less than equal to straight people are laws that only serve to oppress. It is time to overcome the prejudices we were taught as children and stop harming our neighbors and family members by passing laws that dehumanize and harm gay citizens through denial of the legal equality promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2531 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.
I never denied that SSCs are raising children, who are either adopted, or the biological offspring of one of the partners. Nor have I stated that gay people can't be good parents, they can. The fact remains, is there is not a large number of SSCs, male or female who are raising, or who have raised, a child(ren) from birth to adulthood in an intact SSR. How do you compare a child born to, and raised by, his/her own biological married parents in a stable home to any other family structure including those headed by SSCs? At least parent in any other stucture, is not going to be the biological parent. Honestly, of those on this thread raised by his/her own bio parents in a stable married home, would have prefered not to have his/own parents? Issues of abuse not with standing.
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.
Better than what? Being with their own married Mom and Dad in a low conflict stable home? Really, which one of your parents, do you want to discard, your Mom, or your Dad?
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.
What about, adult sibling headed families? Are they not suffering just as much harm? How about a mother, and her mother, raising children together? Are they suffering harm because of "denial of equal treatment under law"? Until you are willing to extend such treatment to other family structures, you cannot claim a harm.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2532 Feb 17, 2013
Great!!!

These dumb asses forget that it was a gay man, Bayard Rustin, who did more to promote their civil rights than any other person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#2533 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
I don't believe he was suggesting any religion lives up to the Golden Rule, just that they all claim it as a primary goal.
Unfortunately, many forget, or find excuses to ignore it. I interpret his message as a reminder to those who have lost sight of the goal.
Oh, I agree. I generally find the Dalai Lama to be a respectable person. I was just presenting Cardinal Mahony as contrast.

I've heard of something called the Platinum Rule, which exceeds and improves on the Golden Rule, and basically says "Treat others in the way they would like to be treated".

This requires getting to know people on a more personal level, and learning from them HOW they like to be treated, a good first step in communication and cooperation. A Christian might like to be prayed for, and the Golden Rule would lead them to do that for others, believing that's what others want since that's what they want for themselves. But a non-Christian might NOT want to be prayed for, and the Platinum Rule corrects for that imposition. The Golden Rule certainly wouldn't lead a Sado-masochist to treat others in a way that MOST people would want to be treated.

It's funny that modern humans can come up with these improvements, while the purported source of all kindness and morality didn't.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2534 Feb 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact remains, is there is not a large number of SSCs, male or female who are raising, or who have raised, a child(ren) from birth to adulthood in an intact SSR.
Really? First define "large number." Then back-up your claim. By most people's definition, tens of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples is a large number---or at least large enough.
How do you compare a child born to, and raised by, his/her own biological married parents in a stable home to any other family structure including those headed by SSCs?[QUOTE]
Easy. You look at their emotional health, their social adjustment to the community, and their success. Throw in any other measure that suits your fancy. Then compare the children raised by same-sex couples to children raised by two biological parents. All studies that have done this found same-sex parents to be completely adequate.
[QUOTE]At least parent in any other stucture, is not going to be the biological parent. Honestly, of those on this thread raised by his/her own bio parents in a stable married home, would have prefered not to have his/own parents? Issues of abuse not with standing.

I am very lucky to have had the two biological parents who conceived me and raised me. My half-brother and half-sister consider themselves extremely lucky to have been raised by the same parents. In fact, they may consider themselves even luckier.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2535 Feb 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
This would not apply to a same-sex couple that had an active sexual relationship. Try again.
Exactly, because the foundation of the conjugal marital relationship is the sexual union of husband and wife, which would explain the specific language addressing that. Language that does not apply to a same sex couple.
Do you really feel such a strong need to keep displaying your stupidity in such a condescending manner? It backfires.
Do you really need to ignore biology, and its role in which relationship society chooses to formally recognize.
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.
And there have been cases that despite the evidence to the contrary, the husband is still considered to be the father of the child, and thus is responsible for support. Its not like the wife can claim she's not the mother. Different genders, different standards.
In this case, the lesbian's (or more accurately bisexual's) married partner assumes the parental role unless challenged.
That could be quite the condumdrum. Both the bio father and the lesbian partner, fighting it out to see who gets to be the other parent. Who would be listed on the birth certificate?
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.
True, sometimes hubby doesn't find out until years later. As I stated, the courts have still held him financially responsible.
So you apparently intend to enlist an entire army of straw men. Nobody is advocating brothers or sisters be allowed to marry each other.
[QUOTE]

No strawmen, simply pointing out that once the standard is changed, it opens up other possibilities. For example, two adult sisters with young children, both recently widowed, move in together with their children. They agree to raise their children together, provide emotional, financial, and physical support for each other and the children. Time passes the children grow up and move out, but the sister continue to live together and support each other. Why shouldn't their relationship receive governmental support in the form of those 1,000 plus benefits that married couples get? How are they, other than a lack of a physical intimate relationship, that much different from a female SSC?

[QUOTE]
Allowing same-sex marriages between siblings while not allowing opposite-sex marriages would not be equality, which is all we ever sought.
Hmmmmm...perhaps I misunderstood that part? Are you in favor of same sex sibling marriages?
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.
Really? Sex between men and women make babies. Its preferable that sex, and making babies take place between husband and wife, and the people who made the kids, raise them. Some OSCs who thought they couldn't have kids, get pregnant anyway. Or want kids, get pregnant anyway. its really not that difficult. You and I are on this planet, because our Mom and Dad had SEX, the coital kind.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2536 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Each individual is free to conceptualize marriage for themselves, any way they choose.
I'm sure there's still a line somewhere.
But from a legal perspective, marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
Yes, but still defined, and regulated by the state.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Oh well, no marriage for E.T.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny. Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, gay people qualify.
That they do, and have the same right to marry as straight people, and bisexual people, and even trisexual people.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification.
Why would it have to be? Did sex between men and women stop making babies? is it prefereable that sex take place within the marital relationship, so that if conception were to occur, the child would be born to his married mother and father? Is that not a legitimate societal interest?
Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted.
Its only "irrational" because same sex sexual relations do not produce children. Gay people are not the only ones raising children either biologically related or adopted, yet we do not designate other situations in which said children are being raised as marriage. Why should gay people be any different in that regard?
Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
By that reasoning, two adult siblings raising children, are harmed needlessly as well. They are not being treated equally either. Is harm ok for them?
Gay couples are seeking 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.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.
A fundamental right created, sustained, and founded on, the relationship of husband and wife. How is that right, of the individual, applied to a SSC, when either the husband or wife, is removed by their own desire and request?
As Justice Kennedy wrote about the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."
Laws that treat gay people less than equal to straight people are laws that only serve to oppress.
The laws apply to all.
It is time to overcome the prejudices we were taught as children and stop harming our neighbors and family members by passing laws that dehumanize and harm gay citizens through denial of the legal equality promised in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution..
By what reasoning to we pass a law that ignores biology, and the the differences between the sexes? By what reasoning to we fundamentally legally redefine a relationship, that has been throughout time and place, a union of male and female, and is the relationship upon which society builds itself?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2537 Feb 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Great!!!
These dumb asses forget that it was a gay man, Bayard Rustin, who did more to promote their civil rights than any other person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin
Wastey!

Che si deech? How the heck are ya?
judi

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#2538 Feb 17, 2013

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2539 Feb 17, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? First define "large number." Then back-up your claim. By most people's definition, tens of thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples is a large number---or at least large enough.
Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. I said since birth, not simply being raised by SSCs, which does not take into account the opposite sex biological parent, and his/her involvement in raising the child(ren).
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact remains, is there is not a large number of SSCs, male or female who are raising, or who have raised, a child(ren) from birth to adulthood in an intact SSR.
I am very lucky to have had the two biological parents who conceived me and raised me. My half-brother and half-sister consider themselves extremely lucky to have been raised by the same parents. In fact, they may consider themselves even luckier.
Glad to hear it. That first line sounded "Spock-ish". How about, "I'm very lucky to have had my biological Mom and Dad to raise me". Unless you refered to them as "Biological Parent #1", and "Biological Parent #2". I doubt you thought either one was expendable. Grandparents involved?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2540 Feb 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing the gender restriction does not ban, exclude, or discriminate against either sex. It does the opposite. Straight people can still marry someone of the opposite sex, and two people are still required. Neither is unnecessary.
Can a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex, or should the law require marriage only within one's orientation?
Removing the gender requirement imposes no restriction on anyone. It removes restrictions, allowing greater freedom.
Ya know something, Splenda, you might be on to something. Let's really go crazy, and remove the number restriction. Imagine the freedom with that! Kody and the Sister Wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.
“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”(SCOTUS 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992))
I suppose if you ever decide to teminate a pregnancy, that will come in handy.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2541 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure there's still a line somewhere.
One that you have a great difficulty defending.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That they do, and have the same right to marry as straight people, and bisexual people, and even trisexual people.
The "right" to marry a partner to whom one is not attracted is no right at all. That may appear to be "equal treatment", but it is not equal protection, which is what the law requires.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why would it have to be? Did sex between men and women stop making babies? is it prefereable that sex take place within the marital relationship, so that if conception were to occur, the child would be born to his married mother and father? Is that not a legitimate societal interest?
Feel free to provide evidence how allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage would interfere with this interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its only "irrational" because same sex sexual relations do not produce children. Gay people are not the only ones raising children either biologically related or adopted, yet we do not designate other situations in which said children are being raised as marriage. Why should gay people be any different in that regard?
Same-sex couples should be afforded the right to obtain a civil marriage because there is no legitimate governmental interest in denying it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
By that reasoning, two adult siblings raising children, are harmed needlessly as well. They are not being treated equally either. Is harm ok for them?
Apparently, you've conceded the argument on the basis of the sex of the partners, and wish to switch to arguments about already closely related persons.

The one common denominator in ALL civil marriages is that civil marriage establishes kinship between unrelated (or not closely related) adults. Siblings are already closely related.

Or are you claiming that your only argument against "sibling marriage" is dependent or contingent on the argument against same-sex couples being allowed to marry? So you've lost that argument, too?
Pietro Armando wrote:
A fundamental right created, sustained, and founded on, the relationship of husband and wife.


Circular reasoning that begs the question.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The laws apply to all.
The laws that deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners don't offer equal protection.
Pietro Armando wrote:
By what reasoning to we pass a law that ignores biology, and the the differences between the sexes? By what reasoning to we fundamentally legally redefine a relationship, that has been throughout time and place, a union of male and female, and is the relationship upon which society builds itself?
The easy answer is justice and liberty.

Your arguments are weak and lazy. "Ignoring biology?" How does allowing same-sex couples to marry "ignore biology" if procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage?

How does allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage alter, change or deny the ability of opposite-sex couples to form that which you claim "is the relationship upon which society builds itself"?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2542 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
One that you have a great difficulty defending.
<quoted text>
The "right" to marry a partner to whom one is not attracted is no right at all. That may appear to be "equal treatment", but it is not equal protection, which is what the law requires.
<quoted text>
Feel free to provide evidence how allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage would interfere with this interest.
<quoted text>
Same-sex couples should be afforded the right to obtain a civil marriage because there is no legitimate governmental interest in denying it.
<quoted text>
Apparently, you've conceded the argument on the basis of the sex of the partners, and wish to switch to arguments about already closely related persons.
The one common denominator in ALL civil marriages is that civil marriage establishes kinship between unrelated (or not closely related) adults. Siblings are already closely related.
Or are you claiming that your only argument against "sibling marriage" is dependent or contingent on the argument against same-sex couples being allowed to marry? So you've lost that argument, too?
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning that begs the question.
<quoted text>
The laws that deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners don't offer equal protection.
<quoted text>
The easy answer is justice and liberty.
Your arguments are weak and lazy. "Ignoring biology?" How does allowing same-sex couples to marry "ignore biology" if procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage?
How does allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage alter, change or deny the ability of opposite-sex couples to form that which you claim "is the relationship upon which society builds itself"?
Thank you. Well done.

And still, we see no legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment for same sex couples under the laws currently in effect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2543 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex, or should the law require marriage only within one's orientation?
<quoted text>
Ya know something, Splenda, you might be on to something. Let's really go crazy, and remove the number restriction. Imagine the freedom with that! Kody and the Sister Wives thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters for their support.
<quoted text>
I suppose if you ever decide to teminate a pregnancy, that will come in handy.
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny. Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, same sex couples still qualify.

Gay couples are seeking 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.

Treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change any of those 1,138 federal laws or the state laws beyond the restriction on gender. It does not "fundamentally redefine" what marriage is. The current and future marriages of opposite sex couples are not altered in any legal way.

There is no reason to add any new restrictions, such as a test for gender or sexual orientation. Yes, that means a gay person could marry a straight person and vice versa, just as they can anywhere today, but who would want to, and so what if they do. It is not the business of the government to tell them how to live their private lives, absent harm to others. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Again, removing the gender restriction does not alter any of the rules that determine the "what" of marriage. It does not require removing the reasonable restrictions on age, informed consent, close blood relative, or two person limit. Your desire to compare it to poly relationships therefore fails the test of reason. Poly would require changing the property, child custody, inheritance, and many other rules for straight people and gay people alike. Therefore it is an entirely different argument. More marriages under the same rules does not require changing those rules to something entirely different for everyone.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment for same sex couples under the laws currently in effect. But that is understandable, as there aren't any.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2544 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
One that you have a great difficulty defending.
That was a response to "Not Yet Equal"'s statement:

"Each indiviudual is free to conceptualize marriage for themselves, anyway they choose."

Would that line mean, anything goes?
The "right" to marry a partner to whom one is not attracted is no right at all. That may appear to be "equal treatment", but it is not equal protection, which is what the law requires.
The right to marry is, or at least was, nationwide, is the right to enter into a legally recognized conjugal union of husband and wife. Based on that, you have that right. The law does not require the right to marry be tailored to every sexual predisposition, desire, and/or orientation.
Feel free to provide evidence how allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage would interfere with this interest.
Same-sex couples should be afforded the right to obtain a civil marriage because there is no legitimate governmental interest in denying it.
The fact that marriage is not longer understood to be an exclusive, and distinct, legally recognized relationship of husband and wife, illustrates this. What governmental interest is there in calling a same sex intimate sexual relationship marriage? What is the foundation? What is the specific governamental interest? Would anything happen if government were not recognize such relationships as marriage?
Apparently, you've conceded the argument on the basis of the sex of the partners, and wish to switch to arguments about already closely related persons.
No, just pointing out the flaw in the argument that SSCs rasising children should be allowed to marry. Is it ok not to treat two adult siblings who are raising children unequally?
The one common denominator in ALL civil marriages is that civil marriage establishes kinship between unrelated (or not closely related) adults. Siblings are already closely related.
So, first cousins are related as well, not really that far removed from siblings. Why would it matter if two same sex siblings married? There's no risk of children being conceived should they be intimate with each other. Remember, SSM changes the standard. Its fun to watch you try and argue that SSM is the line in the sand, and that no other significant changes should be allowed.
Or are you claiming that your only argument against "sibling marriage" is dependent or contingent on the argument against same-sex couples being allowed to marry? So you've lost that argument, too?
The current definition, at least in 32 states plus, of marriage as a union of husband and wife, doesn't need to be changed. It works just fine.
Circular reasoning that begs the question.
When was SSM created again in this country? 1604? or 2004? The answer to that question may determine, upon what relationship, Husband and wife", or same sex spouses for life, marriage laws customs, tradtition, etc, were based. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say the first one, husband and wife.
The laws that deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners don't offer equal protection.
What "equal protection" are you specifically refering to? How is the wife and husband not equally protected?

to be continued.....

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
News Royal Wedding: 'Beverly Hills' pumped for its p... 22 hr Concerned White 14
News Al Sharpton: Royal Wedding Shows 'Last Breath' ... 23 hr OccupyThis 191
News Doria Ragland and her daughter Meghan Markle Thu Satan 21
News For Some African-Americans, Meghan Markle Is Ca... Thu Blacks are inferior 7
News 'The blackest moment in global pop culture sinc... Thu GeezAlready 3
News Gay Kentucky man loses bid to challenge GOP cle... Wed Used to be a Demo... 9
News African-Americans hail royal wedding's nod to b... May 23 Lori899 8