Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Read more: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Read more

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2565 Feb 18, 2013
And after all that, still no rational, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right based on gender, is offered. Fear of vague future consequences is the best argument, yet still fails to provide a rational governmental interest.

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. Removing the gender restriction does not impose any restrictions on anyone. It removes one irrational restriction. It does not require removing any other restrictions.

Removal of the gender restriction does not alter or restrict the marriages of straight people. Marriage remains unchanged for straight couples. Removal of other restrictions would change marriage for straight couples, like the many changes in the past removing restrictions on inter-racial couples, divorce, and others.

Churches remain free to place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies.

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. Again, it does not change marriage for straight couples. Excuses that change marriage for straight people are therefore separate and different arguments.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2566 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called evidence by anecdote, a weak form of supporting an argument or claim.
And Lopez makes for a pretty poor anecdote. In need of "scholarly" support for the failed Regnerus claim, NOM and its Witherspoon Institute found this assistant professor of English at Cal State Northridge.
Ooooooo. Talk about bringing out the big guns.
Do you honestly think that there aren't children, conceived through use of a freeze pop, and raised by lesbians, who have issues, or wish they could know, or had known their biological father? The desire to know occurs even by children raised by opposite sex married couples.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2567 Feb 18, 2013
Each individual is free to conceptualize marriage for themselves, any way they choose.

That means you are free to think of your marriage in any way you wish, and attach any personal meaning you choose for yourself. Marriage means different things to each person who thinks about it. Whatever meaning you wish to attach to it for yourself, is your choice, and you are free to do so.

But the legal restrictions on marriage are minimal, as they should be for any fundamental civil right.

The government does not impose on you a complicated set of ideas about what marriage is for you. Raising children or not, romantic or not, living together or not, having sex or not. They allow you to decide that for yourself with your partner, within a few basic restrictions: You must be of legal age, have the ability to demonstrate informed consent, not be a close blood relative, and not be currently married. For any citizen, beyond that there are no other standard requirements*, and you are free to conceptualize marriage for yourself in any way you choose for yourself. You are not allowed to impose your conceptualizations on others beyond what the law allows.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. All humans qualify, and while reasonable restrictions may be made, gender is not one of them.

*(some states may still require blood tests and waiting periods)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2568 Feb 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And after all that, still no rational, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right based on gender, is offered. Fear of vague future consequences is the best argument, yet still fails to provide a rational governmental interest.
The right is not denied, but rather based on the conjugal concept of marriage. One cannot fundamentally alter the concept, and then claim they do not have a right based on THEIR altered concept.
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Yes, marriage as defined and regulated by the state.If one does not wish state regulation of one's marriage, one should not marry according to the state requirements and dictates.
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.
So very kind of you to leave those restrictions in place that do not conflict with your concept of marriage.
Within those limits, gay people qualify. Removing the gender restriction does not impose any restrictions on anyone. It removes one irrational restriction. It does not require removing any other restrictions.
There is no gender restriction, both genders are able, and are necessary, and it is not irrational. It is the very reason marriage exists as a distinctly recognized union.
Removal of the gender restriction does not alter or restrict the marriages of straight people.
There is no gender restriction, Each gender is necessary for the marital relationship.
Marriage remains unchanged for straight couples. Removal of other restrictions would change marriage for straight couples, like the many changes in the past removing restrictions on inter-racial couples, divorce, and others.
The orientation of the couple is irrelevant, all that matters is the couple is of the opposite sex. No change is thus needed, both genders are involved as is various orientations.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification.
A procreational requirement is unnessary for conjugal marriage. Consumation, defined as the first act of coital sexual inercourse of husband and wife, is considered to be part of the marital relationship. Consumation can lead to conception, and thus procreation.
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.
Gay people can, and do reproduce, as a party to an opposite sex couple, as have untold millions of married opposite sex couples througout time and place.Gay people have also adopted, as part of a married opposite sex couple.
Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Why is that same reasoning not applied to plural marriages?
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. Again, it does not change marriage for straight couples. Excuses that change marriage for straight people are therefore separate and different arguments.
Gay couples are seeking to fundamentally alter the conjugal concept of marriage and replace it with a two person, gender compostion irrlelevant, model. Thus removing the reason for government interest. Conjugality.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2569 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but of course any funded and trotted out by LGBT M.O.U.S.E. supporting organizations is right on the money every single time.
Which one are you referring to? I didn't offer Lopez as a source, YOU did.

His veracity and legitimacy are an issue when you cite him, since he has been a mouthpiece for an avowed anti-gay organization, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), and its offshoot, the Witherspoon Institute.

But I guess I shouldn't expect you to know anything about the sources you cite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Everyone has opposite sex parents, even you, and poster boy Zach too. The may not be raised by their bio parents, but they still have them.
Everyone has opposite-sex biological parents, yes. And most are raised by them, but not all. Some are raised by same-sex legal parents, and their children call them parents.

So what? How does the Lopez anecdote prove anything, other than its anecdotal value?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2570 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
...Everyone has opposite sex parents, even you, and poster boy Zach too. The may not be raised by their bio parents, but they still have them.
What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying to those children raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite-sex couples are afforded?

Why would you deny children the protections of having legally married parents?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2571 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
...
Gay couples are seeking to fundamentally alter the conjugal concept of marriage and replace it with a two person, gender compostion irrlelevant, model. Thus removing the reason for government interest. Conjugality.
The "conjugal concept of marriage" is a claim. It's not a fact.

You continue to claim that the SOLE reason for government's interest in civil marriage is "conjugality", without providing any evidence in any state where "conjugality" is necessary or sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage.

Your placement of the burden of showing that government's interest overrides the interests of the citizen turns the notion of the relationship between the government and the citizen on its head.

The government exists to serve the interest of the citizen; the citizen doesn't exist to serve the interest of the government.

Civil marriage benefits the individuals who enter into it, any children that they may have, and the society as a whole. The government's interest is in protecting the rights of citizens to enter into a civil marriage.

The gender of the partners makes absolutely no difference. There is no legitimate governmental interest in denying civil marriage based solely on the sex of one partner relative to the other.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2572 Feb 18, 2013
While we can conceptualize the perfect environment for raising children, real life does not live up to what we can imagine as the best. We do not restrict fundamental rights based on what we would like the world to look like. Every person is promised the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, just the equal opportunity under the law to strive for it.

With about 100,000 thousand children available for adoption living in institutionalized care who go without homes every year, we don't even restrict adoption to two parents, even though we know two is often better than one. Gay couples often take in those unwanted, rejected, and often abused older children who are harder to place than newborns.

We also know it is the relationship between the parent and child that determines success, not the gender or even always the number, of parents. Of the thousands of abused children I have worked with, all had straight parents. While I know there are exceptions, my experience hasn't included any. Having two straight parents is no guarantee the child will be wanted, loved, nurtured, or not abused or killed.

So while marriage does not require raising children, or vice versa, the choice to have children or not has also been recognized as a fundamental right, beyond the restriction of the government, unless a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. In the real world, not being raised by both biological parents has always been a reality for many. It fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for attempting to control the reproductive choices of adults. It can't be done, even in China where they try.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2573 Feb 18, 2013
When you accept the reality that families have in the past taken and still take different forms, and we don't use the law to deny equal rights to any of those other families whether they have children or not, it becomes clear that using the law to deny to gay people the same rights granted to others is simply cruel, and more about preserving the prejudice and discrimination against gay people than it is protecting the institution of marriage, or the children.

Gay people have always been around no matter how well accepted or how severely punished. The reality is, gay people have in the past and will continue to form relationships.

The question then becomes, are we going to accept reality and encourage strong, committed relationships around the shared values of family, fidelity, and responsibility, with the help of friends, family, and the government, or is it in the best interest of society to make laws that attack and demean such relationships, causing unjustified harm to those couples and their children.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2574 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly think that there aren't children, conceived through use of a freeze pop, and raised by lesbians, who have issues, or wish they could know, or had known their biological father? The desire to know occurs even by children raised by opposite sex married couples.
So what? How do these anecdotes advance the discussion in any meaningful way? Children are adopted and raised by BOTH opposite- and same-sex couples. And hundreds of thousands of children are waiting to be adopted TODAY.

And the fact remains that the vast majority (84% according to the US Census) of children raised by same-sex couples are the biological offspring of one of the partners.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2575 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The right is not denied, but rather based on the conjugal concept of marriage. One cannot fundamentally alter the concept, and then claim they do not have a right based on THEIR altered concept.
<quoted text>
Yes, marriage as defined and regulated by the state.If one does not wish state regulation of one's marriage, one should not marry according to the state requirements and dictates.
<quoted text>
So very kind of you to leave those restrictions in place that do not conflict with your concept of marriage.
<quoted text>
There is no gender restriction, both genders are able, and are necessary, and it is not irrational. It is the very reason marriage exists as a distinctly recognized union.
<quoted text>
There is no gender restriction, Each gender is necessary for the marital relationship.
<quoted text>
The orientation of the couple is irrelevant, all that matters is the couple is of the opposite sex. No change is thus needed, both genders are involved as is various orientations.
<quoted text>
A procreational requirement is unnessary for conjugal marriage. Consumation, defined as the first act of coital sexual inercourse of husband and wife, is considered to be part of the marital relationship. Consumation can lead to conception, and thus procreation.
<quoted text>
Gay people can, and do reproduce, as a party to an opposite sex couple, as have untold millions of married opposite sex couples througout time and place.Gay people have also adopted, as part of a married opposite sex couple.
<quoted text>
Why is that same reasoning not applied to plural marriages?
<quoted text>
Gay couples are seeking to fundamentally alter the conjugal concept of marriage and replace it with a two person, gender compostion irrlelevant, model. Thus removing the reason for government interest. Conjugality.
Your requirements are your personal requirements. They are not requirements of law.

You wish to restrict marriage to two opposite genders. This is an artificial restriction. Sterile couples get married every day. Procreation intent ability, or even ability to copulate, are not required. People who cannot possible have sex are still allowed to get married.

You show no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for restricting gender to one of each. It is your personal conceptualization that requires one of each.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#2576 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....Catholic Charities, parish food banks, clothing drives, etc.
I spoke of ECONOMIC RIGHTS, not private charities.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2577 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying to those children raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite-sex couples are afforded?
Why would you deny children the protections of having legally married parents?
That's the question none of them will answer.

I believe it is because they simply don't care. They consider the tens of thousands of children already being raised by gay couples to be lost and contaminated already.

Their only concern is to make having and raising children as difficult and challenging as possible for ALL gay couples, in order to frighten many away from parenthood.

They just aren't honest about their goals.

That they cannot show that the children of gay couples suffer specifically because their parents can only be attracted to the same gender is of no consequence to them.

Logic, empathy, and compassion have no place in their thought process.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2578 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? How do these anecdotes advance the discussion in any meaningful way? Children are adopted and raised by BOTH opposite- and same-sex couples. And hundreds of thousands of children are waiting to be adopted TODAY.
And the fact remains that the vast majority (84% according to the US Census) of children raised by same-sex couples are the biological offspring of one of the partners.
What percentage of those are from one or both partners previous conjugal marriage, or other opposite sex relationship?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2579 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying to those children raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite-sex couples are afforded?
"Exact same"???? Seriously? They're not the "exact same", we both know this. But seeing as how you brought up this line of reasoning, let's go with it. Should children born into plural marriages receive "the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite sex couples are afforded"? What about kids raised by, their mother and aunt, father and uncle, and the list goes on and on. Why is there aSSC exception to the "exact same protections" rule?
Why would you deny children the protections of having legally married parents?
I ask you the same question, as it applies to the Brown family. You remember the Browns don't you, Kody and his wives, Janelle, Meri, Christine and Robyn. Perhaps you can explain why their children shouldn't have legally married parents. Fair is fair.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2580 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What percentage of those are from one or both partners previous conjugal marriage, or other opposite sex relationship?
What is this notion of "conjugal" marriage? Isn't this really just a needlessly repetitious and meaningless phrase?

Conjugal: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

Married or marital marriage?

The real question remains unanswered: Why should children of same-sex couples be denied the protections and benefits the law affords children whose parents are married?

Why are you afraid to explain why you advocate this?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2581 Feb 18, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the question none of them will answer.
I believe it is because they simply don't care. They consider the tens of thousands of children already being raised by gay couples to be lost and contaminated already.
Their only concern is to make having and raising children as difficult and challenging as possible for ALL gay couples, in order to frighten many away from parenthood.
They just aren't honest about their goals.
That they cannot show that the children of gay couples suffer specifically because their parents can only be attracted to the same gender is of no consequence to them.
Logic, empathy, and compassion have no place in their thought process.
Do you mean this question Questy
Jerald wrote:
What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying to those children raised by same-sex couples the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite-sex couples are afforded?
Why would you deny children the protections of having legally married parents?
Or is it this one?

What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying children raised by opposite sex couples as part of a plural marriage the exact same protections and advantages that their peers who are raised by married opposite-sex couples are afforded?

Why would you deny children the protections of having legally married parents?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2582 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exact same"???? Seriously? They're not the "exact same", we both know this.


Civil marriage is not the same as civil marriage? Feel free to explain how that is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But seeing as how you brought up this line of reasoning, let's go with it. Should children born into plural marriages...


See, once again, you're unable to argue the merits of this issue, and you go off onto polygamy.

You've made this logical error several times. The limitation in civil marriage based on sex is not contingent or dependent on the limitation based on any other attribute, and vice versa. You repeatedly offer it as if it is, and without any logical basis.

If you can't make your case on the merits of the issue at hand, then admit it and be done with it.

Why should children being raised by same-sex couples be denied the benefits and protections that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex married couples?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2583 Feb 18, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The "conjugal concept of marriage" is a claim. It's not a fact.
Husband and wife is a claim not a fact? What have you've been drinking.
You continue to claim that the SOLE reason for government's interest in civil marriage is "conjugality", without providing any evidence in any state where "conjugality" is necessary or sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage.
Simply put, "conjugal", as in "husband AND wife", and as it pertains to their relationship.
The gender of the partners makes absolutely no difference. There is no legitimate governmental interest in denying civil marriage based solely on the sex of one partner relative to the other.
It sure does. Explain to me why, in the year of Our Lord two thousand thirteen, the government has a sudden interest in two men, or two women marrying each other? Why didn't this interest exist before 2004? Are there legions of unwed pregnant men running around out there? Are women "living in sin" with each other? Please explain this sudden interest in the lives of two men, or two women? What will happen if two men, or two women don't marry? Will anyone notice?

Its been said that marriage developed as a means of dealing with the products, children, of the male female sexual union. If true it could explain why marriage has been a virutal male female union throughout time and place, and why there's no deep seated historical same sex marriage culture, male or female. What "problem" exists that requires same sex marriage? Why does the government care?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2584 Feb 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is the legitimate governmental reason for denying children raised by opposite sex couples as part of a plural marriage...
Still can't come up with an argument?

I'm not arguing polygamy or plural marriage. Apparently you want to shift the topic because you're unable to make a solid case. Or perhaps you might have to make an argument that you know will sound bigoted, heartless, or irrational.

This thread is about same-sex couples in civil marriage. Want to argue polygamy? Start a new thread.

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 Potsdam gay pride parade brings faith and aware... 14 min 123kid 60
News The Supreme Court's big gay-marriage case could... 15 min Sir Andrew 11
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 16 min Blackburn 31,803
News Which presidential hopefuls would attend a gay ... 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 82
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr Belle Sexton 2,551
News LTE: In Open Letter to Clearfield Community, Lo... 1 hr stand up guy 46
News Gay Marriage' Rooted in Fraud, Child Rape 1 hr Apoca Lips 10
More from around the web