Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
2,501 - 2,520 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2625
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why don't you take your list of "consequences" down to the courthouse and file a complaint?
I'm sure NOM would pay you for anything you could actually prove in court.
Do you honestly think such a fundamental change in marriage law won't have long term consequences?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2626
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you honestly think such a fundamental change in marriage law won't have long term consequences?
It absolutely will. The consequences will be:

Gay people will have an easier time of forming families, and in building a life with the person they love, and for planning for their mutual futures together.

Gay people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.

That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2627
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect is not a "fundamental change" in marriage. Nothing changes for those already married, or for straight couples planning to get married in the future. All of the laws that determine "what" marriage is for straight couples remain in full force and effect.

Pejorative terminology and fear of the future does not alter the facts. Opposite sex marriage is not changed by allowing same sex couples equal participation under the current laws.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2628
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly think such a fundamental change in marriage law won't have long term consequences?
Oh, it'll have PLENTY of consequences--all positive. You have YET to demonstrate anything negative from such a move. You just keep yammering on about Kody Brown and his wives.

If you HAD a supportable reason, you would certainly have given it by now, right?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2629
Feb 19, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect is not a "fundamental change" in marriage. Nothing changes for those already married, or for straight couples planning to get married in the future. All of the laws that determine "what" marriage is for straight couples remain in full force and effect.
That's funny. We both know it is. The conjugality of the marital union, the relationship of husband and wife, has been reduced in law, in those states that have legal SSM, to a union of two persons. So yes there is a fundamental change. 32 U.S. states have constitutionally confirmed the conjugality of the marital relationship.
Pejorative terminology and fear of the future does not alter the facts. Opposite sex marriage is not changed by allowing same sex couples equal participation under the current laws.
Nor will SSM be changed by the eventual legalization of plural marriage. What's good for the goose.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2630
Feb 19, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it'll have PLENTY of consequences--all positive. You have YET to demonstrate anything negative from such a move. You just keep yammering on about Kody Brown and his wives.
If you HAD a supportable reason, you would certainly have given it by now, right?
Oh so you're a fan of the "Sister Wives"? There will not be true marriage equality until all marriages are equal. The Brown family wants to thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters, for their support.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2631
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It absolutely will. The consequences will be:
Gay people will have an easier time of forming families, and in building a life with the person they love, and for planning for their mutual futures together.
Gay people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.
That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.
Don't forget the Brown family. They will have an easier time presenting their case for marriage equality thanks in large part to the work of SSM advocates. They will also have an easier time forming families, and building a life with the persons they love, and for planning their mutual futures together.
Poly people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.
That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.

Ya just might be onto something here.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2632
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't forget the Brown family. They will have an easier time presenting their case for marriage equality thanks in large part to the work of SSM advocates. They will also have an easier time forming families, and building a life with the persons they love, and for planning their mutual futures together.
Poly people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.
That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.
Ya just might be onto something here.
Petey... just get a young mistress for god's sake like all good italian boys. you don't need to marry her also, just buy her a nice necklace on her birthday and such...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2633
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so you're a fan of the "Sister Wives"? There will not be true marriage equality until all marriages are equal. The Brown family wants to thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters, for their support.
Their gay brothers and sisters aren't moving to get the laws changed that would make poly marriage equal. they're gonna have to do that on their own...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2634
Feb 19, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Petey... just get a young mistress for god's sake like all good italian boys. you don't need to marry her also, just buy her a nice necklace on her birthday and such...
Woody

You DA Man! That was funny. Salud. Ya know at least you bring some humor to the discussion. Grazie.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2635
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't forget the Brown family. They will have an easier time presenting their case for marriage equality thanks in large part to the work of SSM advocates. They will also have an easier time forming families, and building a life with the persons they love, and for planning their mutual futures together.
Poly people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.
That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.
Ya just might be onto something here.
Well, if you think so, then maybe you're right. I don't know any "Brown family", so I couldn't say.

I do know that I don't have an automatic, knee-jerk negative reaction to polyamory or polygamy. If that's what makes all the people in a family happy, then maybe it IS worth considering. Why not?

Though I think it would be important to be sure that ALL of them were happy, and that it wasn't simply a case of one power-hungry male trying to build his own personal harem of meek and servile women. Funny how we never seem to see a singular woman with a stableful of husbands, or 4 women with 4 men in a fully equitable poly-relationship. ALWAYS it's one man and his many wives, dressed up in the American version of burqas. Most of them are too afraid to even talk to the camera. Families like THAT might jsut have something to hide, wouldn't you think?

And, before polygamy could be legalized, we'd have to comb through things like tax laws, inheritance laws, pensions, social security, etc, to be sure that these things were being handled equitably and fairly. I see the potential for people to "game" the system, increasing their benefits over the rest of, by simply increasing their spouses. These laws don't translate well for poly-families of 10, the way they do for couples. These are considerations that require no change for gender, the way they do for quantity. Have you considered all this?

It's nice that this Brown family is fighting for something unique, but at least each of them currently has the right to have at least ONE spouse to share their lives with. Gay people can't even get the ONE, which is pretty shoddy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2636
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Their gay brothers and sisters aren't moving to get the laws changed that would make poly marriage equal. they're gonna have to do that on their own...
Woody, all they have to do, which they done in several states is move the bar, lower it, remove it, etc. The conjugal, husband AND wife, aspect was dropped. Now it's a union of "two people", major change there., that we both know. Well if that's no longer relevant, why is the number two? After all polygamy predates SSM in this country by a few hundred years, or so. Plus we have the new face of plural marriage, the Brown family,who have cited SSM in their lawsuits. Many of the same pro SSM arguments are also pro poly augments.

It's the whole gay wedding crashers, that elicits hatred from some gay folks towards polys, isn't it? "How dare they crash our party?" There's plenty of room in the "marriage equality" clubhouse for all.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2637
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Woody, all they have to do, which they done in several states is move the bar, lower it, remove it, etc. The conjugal, husband AND wife, aspect was dropped. Now it's a union of "two people", major change there., that we both know. Well if that's no longer relevant, why is the number two? After all polygamy predates SSM in this country by a few hundred years, or so. Plus we have the new face of plural marriage, the Brown family,who have cited SSM in their lawsuits. Many of the same pro SSM arguments are also pro poly augments.
It's the whole gay wedding crashers, that elicits hatred from some gay folks towards polys, isn't it? "How dare they crash our party?" There's plenty of room in the "marriage equality" clubhouse for all.
no bar was lowered.

again, just get the laws changed to make it equal marriage and it should pass. why isn't that happening?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2638
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no bar was lowered.
again, just get the laws changed to make it equal marriage and it should pass. why isn't that happening?
It was definitely moved. "Ah what the heck, we don't need no stinking conjugality....it's only been the foundation of marriage for oh I don't know since the dawn of time maybe". Poof....gone...just like that. Who knows maybe in time, marriage will just be a quaint little custom, that very few people engage in anymore.

Seriously....why does plural marriage, send some SSMers into Hissy fits? If, so I'm told, SSM won't effect my marriage, why will plural marriage effect SSCs and their marriages?

A gay-wedding crasher
Editorial
A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
July 31, 2011
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.

The Utah case involves Kody Brown, his legal wife, Meri Brown, and three other "sister wives." It's not actually about marriage, and it doesn't challenge the right of the state to refuse to issue wedding licenses to polygamous families. The Browns are in court because they fear they will be prosecuted.

The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Kennedy emphasized in Lawrence that same-sex marriage wasn't before the court. Similarly, in an interview with the New York Times, Turley suggested that decriminalizing polygamy will not inevitably lead to a movement for polygamous marriage. But language addressed to one issue often surfaces in cases dealing with others. When Massachusetts' highest court decided to strike down the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, it cited the Lawrence opinion.

So is polygamy about to receive the same legal status that same-sex marriage now has in several states? Not in the near term. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage, a prerequisite, some think, for acceptance of polygamous marriage. Meanwhile, the federal court in Utah, in parallel with Lawrence, may rule simply that the Browns and other polygamous families are immune to prosecution but can't have their multiple "spiritual marriages" blessed by the law.

But, like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples.
Gays Run the World

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2639
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Woody, all they have to do, which they done in several states is move the bar, lower it, remove it, etc. The conjugal, husband AND wife, aspect was dropped. Now it's a union of "two people", major change there., that we both know. Well if that's no longer relevant, why is the number two? After all polygamy predates SSM in this country by a few hundred years, or so. Plus we have the new face of plural marriage, the Brown family,who have cited SSM in their lawsuits. Many of the same pro SSM arguments are also pro poly augments.
It's the whole gay wedding crashers, that elicits hatred from some gay folks towards polys, isn't it? "How dare they crash our party?" There's plenty of room in the "marriage equality" clubhouse for all.
You'll just have to wait your turn
.
Our next project is Citizenship Tracks for immigrants

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2640
Feb 19, 2013
 
Gays Run the World wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll just have to wait your turn
.
Our next project is Citizenship Tracks for immigrants
Nice moniker...had to chuckle.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2641
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Oh so you're a fan of the "Sister Wives"? There will not be true marriage equality until all marriages are equal. The Brown family wants to thank their gay brothers, and lesbian sisters, for their support.
Sooooo.... No evidence of negative consequences of marriage equality?

Didn't think so.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2642
Feb 19, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Don't forget the Brown family. They will have an easier time presenting their case for marriage equality thanks in large part to the work of SSM advocates. They will also have an easier time forming families, and building a life with the persons they love, and for planning their mutual futures together.
Poly people will see less and less pointless discrimination and hatred aimed at them.
That's about it. These are net gains for ALL of society.

Ya just might be onto something here.
And the problem with polygamists pursuing their civil rights would be.....?

Oh, yeah. You hate it when other people are treated equally. Got it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2643
Feb 19, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooooo.... No evidence of negative consequences of marriage equality?
Didn't think so.
Oh so you like the fact that Kody and the girls are supporting gay marriage, perhaps you'll let them in the marriage equality clubhouse. "Marriage Equality"...its not just for gay people anymore.

Here they are, and on "Ellen"...no doubt...priceless

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2644
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
And the problem with polygamists pursuing their civil rights would be.....?
Oh, yeah. You hate it when other people are treated equally. Got it.
eJohn

Sounds like an electronic portable bathroom ...but anyway...really? Usually its the SSMers who cringe at the mention of plural marriage and same sex marriage in the same sentence, let alone the same discussion. Think about it, and I use America's favorite polygamists, the Brown family, as an example, why is it acceptable for a man to father several children out of wedlock with several different women, and almost no one takes notice anymore...but if a different man, like Kody does the same thing AND lives with said women and call them his wives, and they in turn call him their husband...then it becomes, "oh noooooo...he can't do that...that's not right...that's 'unequal' "?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••