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
2,681 - 2,700 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2810
Feb 22, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>all believers are a "royal priesthood" in Christ so do we even need a "priest"? i get what the CC is trying to do there and respect their attempt at showing respect. the rest really is a topic for another thread.
So would polygamy be the topic of another thread. Are you a believer in a royal priesthood in Christ? What does "in Christ" mean?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2811
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 1
<quoted text>
Nor is sex, nor is love, nor is cohabitation, none of these things are required by law. What do you think the odds are there is a presumption in the law that a husband and wife will have sex, consumate their marriage, and who knows even beget children?
(edited for sace) <quoted text>
. <quoted text>
It does. It removes the conjugality as the basis for marriage. It also eliminates a prohibition against sibling, at least same sex sibling, marriages.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
"Equal treatment" for same sex couples requires removal of the conjugal basis for marriage, which affects all opposite sex couples.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
If the restriction against opposite sex siblings marrying is based on the possibility of sexual relations and conception resulting in children born with birth defect, no such restriction is necessary with same sex siblings.
The presumption of procreation is yours, not a fact of law. Most who perform marriage ceremonies make no presumption of procreation when they marry older couples. While religious ceremonies may require love, sex, cohabitation, and any other requirement they choose, a Judge, clerk, or Elvis impersonator in Vegas does not and may not.

The legal requirements include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, not closely related, or currently married. Gender restrictions are irrational as procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law. 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 no benefit to opposite sex couple families. It does not cause them to procreate nor does it stop them from procreating, or adopting, or remaining childless. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

The Minn. Baker case fails as an excuse to deny equal treatment because subsequent SCOTUS cases have made it clear procreation ability, intent, or even conjugal ability, are not a valid restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage. Your "conjugal basis of marriage" is your own prejudice, not a legal consideration, and therefore fails as a valid excuse for harming same sex couples.

Again, it is not the genetic problems we see with incest and polygamy that result in the prohibition. Incest is problematic and harmful for many reasons beyond the genetic procreation problems associated with incest and polygamy. Problems with abusive, inequitable relationships are varied and widely documented. This prohibition based on harm is well established in science and law. Kinship provides some protections, but changing incest to marriage is a different argument, separate from allowing otherwise qualified same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

And, as it appears you are beginning to understand, polygamy requires major changes to the laws that determine what marriage is for opposite sex couples and same sex couples as well, in addition to making fundamental changes to the structure of society as a whole. Equal treatment for same sex couples under the laws currently in effect makes no such fundamental changes to the law or to society.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2812
Feb 22, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So would polygamy be the topic of another thread. Are you a believer in a royal priesthood in Christ? What does "in Christ" mean?
Because polygamy is a different argument, requiring major changes to the laws currently in effect as well as major changes to the social order for opposite sex as well as same sex couples, you are correct that it belongs elsewhere.

Yet because it continues to be used as a fear based excuse to deny equal treatment, just as it was in the past to deny inter-racial marriage, it will continue to crop up in discussions treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.

It is an irrational excuse, but then as we have seen, all of the arguments against equal treatment as required by the constitution rely on irrational excuses.

Except for those with anti-social personality disorders, when using the law to harm others needlessly, there needs to be some rationalization to make the harm seem necessary, when in fact, it is not.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2813
Feb 22, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>all believers are a "royal priesthood" in Christ so do we even need a "priest"? i get what the CC is trying to do there and respect their attempt at showing respect. the rest really is a topic for another thread.
A modern priest would be a leader. The ancient priest stood in for God.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2814
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So would polygamy be the topic of another thread. Are you a believer in a royal priesthood in Christ? What does "in Christ" mean?
polygamy being an alternative marriage issue does have a place in this discussion because the obvious question is where does the idea of alternative marriages stop? on what premise is the argument for homosexual marriage? if it is equal rights then equal rights for what? i think that the answer that would be given no matter if it has validity or not would apply to a lot of alternative relationships that might want to be called marriages.

to the second question: yes.
to the third question: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" reconciled to God by Christ
"For [we] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
it's a faith and trust that promises salvation. we are justified and redeemed in Christ.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ"
the phrase "in Christ" appears 77 times in the Bible. it is an interesting study.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2815
Feb 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful response and asking for my thoughts. I'll respond....time's short at the moment.
Should I just assume that this is not going to happen?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2816
Feb 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are ye daft laddie? Plural marriages already exist, they simply don't have government recognition. The wives are married to the husband, not to each other. Each marriage could be considered as seperate. Granted allowances would have to made regarding assets, medical decisions, etc, but not impossible to create. If a woman were to have two husbands, they would be married to her, not to each other.
You're free-associating your personal fantasies and suppositions again. That doesn't help further the discussion, does it? Since no laws recognizing plural marriage or currently on the books in the U.S., your fantasies of they "should" or "could" be written are meaningless to the discussion, aren't they? So why do you continue down that road?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Was every law considered before SSM was legalized? No, we both know that. The courts are left to sort them out, particularly divorce.
They don't need to consider them all since no law regarding marriage is gender specific, therefore none of them will need to be changed. Or even looked at. If I'm wrong, by all means, find me a law regarding marriage (except the laws banning it, of course) that would need to be changed to accommodate same-sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
That appears to be the only significant similarity, or at least the one that gets offered the most by SSM advocates.
That's only because you continue under the misconception that marriage laws are gender-specific and require opposite genders to be valid. They're not and they don't, so why do you keep pretending they are?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
Ahhhh yes simple reality...that same reality that has people asking, "if gay marriage is legal, why not polygamy?"
For all the reasons we've all already supplied that you seem hell-bent on ignoring. Why do you assume that the only answer to that question is, "Well, by golly gosh, of COURSE!! If gay couples can get married, then marriage must instantly become a no-holds-barred, free-for-all where anyone and everyone can marry anyone and anything as often as they want and without regards to any sort of reality or reason. All marriage laws will have to be thrown out the window and the world will be in utter chaos forever." Seriously??
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does it bother you so to have polygamy and ssm linked?
It doesn't. Why do you keep claiming it does? It's foolish and pointless to compare the two because they have virtually nothing in common, but that doesn't seem to slow you down any, does it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text> Are you afraid they're going to crash the wedding?
Nope. My wedding had four people in attendance and none of them were polygamists. However, if we had had a larger wedding and hadn't had to leave the state we live in to get married, it's highly likely that polygamists would have been there. But they wouldn't have crashed it. They would have been invited guests.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides, Americans are polygamous to a degree. We marry have kids, divorce, remarry, and have more kids. Men father children with several different women, some women will give birth to children fathered by different men, although I sense the former is more common. So is the idea of a plural marriage, or polygamous marriage, that far removed from the current social reality?
On and on you go about plural marriage. You really need to start your own discussion on it since you're obviously pretty obsessed with it. I, personally, have no problem with the concept. As I've told you before, several times, if they want to pursue having their civil right to have the marriage of their choice legally recognized, they're welcome to pursue it. That IS their right, is it not?

Why are you so convinced that's a problem?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2817
Feb 22, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it is. Either way it would not apply to same sex siblings. If same sex first cousins can marry, why not same sex siblings?
You just LOVE those slippery-slope fallacies, don't you? If the slippery slope to degradation is a given, then we need to end ALL marriage immediately since it's the legal benefits and protections afforded to straight marriages that are the root of everyone else wanting in on the action.

If you really believed in the slippery slope fallacy, you wouldn't confine you argument to allowing straight marriage to continue, would you? You'd be fighting against the REAL root of the problem, not the one your lack of thought has suggested is the problem.

Get rid of straight marriage and your problem is solved.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The one constant, at least in terms of American marital jurisprudence is male female, at least unil1 2004. All the other changes, such as elevating the wife's status within the marriage didn't eliminate her from the marriage, at least legally, again prior to 2004 in all fifty states, since then she still is referenced as an integral part of the martial relationship in 32 states.
Appeals to history and tradition--always fallacies. As usual, society and culture are both evolving. It's normal and necessary. Get used to it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes it does, and you know it.
Nope. It doesn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks to legal SSM we now have "couples rights".
No, they don't. Why do you keep making things up like this?
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is a plural marriage?
We don't know from a legal point of view, do we? Since plural marriage hasn't been defined by law yet. You can continue fantasizing about what you wish it was, but you're wasting your time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
An interconnecting combination of couples. Kody and Mrs. Brown are one couple. Kody and Mrs. Brown are another couple, Kody and Mrs. Brown are a third couple.
That may well be how that particular polygamous family sees themselves, it may not be. It's definitely not how the polygamous families that *I* know see themselves. They consider all members to be married to equally to each other, not a collection of couples. They would find that to be bizarre and sexist to think that only the men are married to only the women. That makes no sense at all.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you see a pattern here?
Yes. You're obsessed with polygamy and you can't find an outlet for it, so you're wasting our time here trying to convince us that polygamy is the same as same-sex marriage. You're getting really boring, too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You should be proud, equal rights for same sex couples has opened the door to equal rights for opposite sex couples within a plural marriage.
If that's how you want to see it, you can, but you're just making it more and more obvious that you understand nothing about the law and how it works. Polygamists would be stupid not to refer to gains made by same-sex couples in their quest for equality. They would also be stupid not to refer to lax divorce laws and Biblical acceptance of polygamous marriages, but I don't hear you stomping and screaming about those two arguments. Why not?? Is it only when they refer to "the gays" that you get a little stiffie?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2818
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

We can preempt the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, like DOMA.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2819
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>polygamy being an alternative marriage issue does have a place in this discussion because the obvious question is where does the idea of alternative marriages stop? on what premise is the argument for homosexual marriage? if it is equal rights then equal rights for what? i think that the answer that would be given no matter if it has validity or not would apply to a lot of alternative relationships that might want to be called marriages.
to the second question: yes.
to the third question: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" reconciled to God by Christ
"For [we] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
it's a faith and trust that promises salvation. we are justified and redeemed in Christ.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ"
the phrase "in Christ" appears 77 times in the Bible. it is an interesting study.
so is reality.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2820
Feb 22, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
We can preempt the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, like DOMA.
You cant make amendments that take away other civil rights....No matter how much you nazi pigs want to.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2821
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
We can preempt the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, like DOMA.
Go for it, Brian. You know it doesn't stand a chance of getting out of committee, don't you? You don't have the votes. How many times must we repeat that fact before learning occurs with you? Why do you continue to offer "preemptions" that have zero chance of happening? Are you daft?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2822
Feb 22, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>polygamy being an alternative marriage issue does have a place in this discussion because the obvious question is where does the idea of alternative marriages stop? on what premise is the argument for homosexual marriage? if it is equal rights then equal rights for what? i think that the answer that would be given no matter if it has validity or not would apply to a lot of alternative relationships that might want to be called marriages.
to the second question: yes.
to the third question: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" reconciled to God by Christ
"For [we] are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
it's a faith and trust that promises salvation. we are justified and redeemed in Christ.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ"
the phrase "in Christ" appears 77 times in the Bible. it is an interesting study.
Polygamy has nothing to do with the marriage equality issue. We are talking about marriage between two individuals. Nothing else has anything to do with it. To answer your question about equal rights. Equal rights means equal protection of existing laws between two individuals who make a legal marriage commitment and set up a family arrangement. There are around 1,400 laws and statutes which apply to this existent legal entity.

The "In Christ" phrase is invented by Paul. It never appears in any Gospel. As such, it is highly suspect. How can someone be "in Christ?" I find this phase to be trite and meaningless.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2823
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
We can preempt the Supreme Court with a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, like DOMA.
Good luck with that. DOMA is about to be tossed. Since over half the citizens of the United States disagree with your premise, you would never get the 2/3 majority necessary to pass such a hateful amendment.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2824
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck with that. DOMA is about to be tossed. Since over half the citizens of the United States disagree with your premise, you would never get the 2/3 majority necessary to pass such a hateful amendment.
indeed.... let alone the 3/4th majority to ratify it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2825
Feb 22, 2013
 
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant make amendments that take away other civil rights....No matter how much you nazi pigs want to.
If you haven't seen this already, here is one of my favorite quotes I think you will enjoy:

"The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power."
Henry A. Wallace

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2826
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>indeed.... let alone the 3/4th majority to ratify it.
Exactly. Assuming that DOMA is tossed, such an amendment would immediately go to SCOTUS for the same treatment.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2827
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Assuming that DOMA is tossed, such an amendment would immediately go to SCOTUS for the same treatment.
Um, no it wouldn't.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2828
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Assuming that DOMA is tossed, such an amendment would immediately go to SCOTUS for the same treatment.
And still, no one has offered a rational, legitimate governmental interest for even trying to use the constitution to restrict freedom and deny equal treatment under the law.

But, again, I can't blame them, as no one has been able to do so. It seems the best argument in the briefs against equality rely on the fact some opposite sex couples are irresponsible and have unwanted, unplanned babies, while same sex couples plan their children and therefore don't have unwanted children.

Yet this fails to show how harming same sex couple families will provide any benefit to opposite sex couples. It won't make them any more responsible or any less fertile.

That leaves tradition as a popular excuse, but we know tradition has been used to continue atrocities like slavery, segregation, and mistreatment of women.

And that leaves us with nothing beyond prejudice. Unfortunately, Scalia has said he believes a tradition of prejudice is a valid reason for continuing that prejudice. It will be painfully interesting to see how he justifies his decision.

I also find it amazing so many want to use the document held up to the world as the symbol of freedom and justice for all, and change it to one that denies freedom and equality. We did it once before with prohibiton, and that didn't work out very well, and had to be undone.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2829
Feb 22, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Should I just assume that this is not going to happen?
Mi dispiace....got caught up in responding to other posters.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••