Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: 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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3298 Mar 1, 2013
Thank you gentlemen for your consideration.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3299 Mar 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thank you gentlemen for your consideration.
"....and here's your Sign."

" http://www.bing.com/videos/search...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3300 Mar 1, 2013
eJohn wrote:
Get ready to be ignored again or watch yet another tap-dance. He's clearly not here for a two-way debate. He's just amusing himself by repeating the same thing over and over and seeing how long people will continue to respond to him.
Good luck.
It's such a boringly common tactic, and so disingenuous.

"Oh, but if we consider same-sex marriage, we must also consider polygamy! Polygamists are being discriminated against! Polygamists have rights, too! Polygamists feel love and have families too!"

All the while, people like Pietro HAVE NO INTEREST in actually defending or advocating polygamy. They PRETEND to, in order to force the conversation into unrelated directions. A conversation based on pretense is the best you can hope for in these cases, and it would be better just to have no conversation at all.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#3301 Mar 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms homosexuals because same sex marriage is taboo.
If you want tolerance and acceptance, I recommend you don't violate your culture's taboos.
Are you always this stupid, or is this a special occasion?
innocennt till guilty

Bolingbrook, IL

#3302 Mar 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Are you always this stupid, or is this a special occasion?
No that type of stupid rhetoric is his idle speed

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3303 Mar 2, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's such a boringly common tactic, and so disingenuous.
As it is when SOME, not saying you, marriage equality advocates will dismiss plural MARRIAGE as not worthy of inclusion in the MARRIAGE equality debate.
"Oh, but if we consider same-sex marriage, we must also consider polygamy! Polygamists are being discriminated against! Polygamists have rights, too! Polygamists feel love and have families too!"
Sounds like arguments used to advocate for SSM could also be used to advocate for plural marriage.
All the while, people like Pietro HAVE NO INTEREST in actually defending or advocating polygamy. They PRETEND to, in order to force the conversation into unrelated directions. A conversation based on pretense is the best you can hope for in these cases, and it would be better just to have no conversation at all.
So attack the messenger, but not the message? Does one have to have an advocacy interest in a subject in order to discuss it?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3304 Mar 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Marriage it is a fundamental right of all persons.
Do all persons have the fundamental right to marry any other person or persons?
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
]

Who determines what constitutes a fundamental right?
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
What happens when judicial scrutiny reach opposite and conflicting descions as what constitutes a compelling and legitimate governmental interest?
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married. Gender is not a restriction. Restricting marriage to one of each gender, provides no governmental interest.
[QUOTE]

Even when it has been shown after judicial scrutiny to be a legitimate governmental interest?

[QUOTE]
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate excuse for denial of equal treatment under the law.
Are men, and women, whose sexual union is the primary means by which procreation occurs, given equal treatment under the law that recognizes their different procreational roles?
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.
Is it rational for children to be created and raised by their own biological mother and father if at all possible? Is it rational to discriminate against other non nuclear biological family structures besides ssc headed families, such as step families, adult sibling headed families, and plural marriage families, that have also produced, and/or adopted children, and are raising them?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3305 Mar 3, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Fine, I'll bite one last time. Try to notice that I give consideration and acknowledgement to EACH of your points and questions. You don't have to be as diligent with mine, but ignoring them completely is very frustrating for someone trying to have a TWO-way debate.
Grazie
Glad to hear you acknowledge that, but I don't think that "complex" even begins to cover. EVERY legal aspect of marriage would need to be completely re-written to reflect the needs of multiple people, whereas 2 people of the same gender would require NO changes to a system which already serves 2 people.
True, but the legal aspects of marriage were written for husband and wife, and the foundation of those laws reflect that. The laws also reference the physical sexual union of husband and wife, which would not apply to same sex couples.
]
Polygamy requires consideration of the complexities (and possibly disbalances) that it brings to the legal aspects of marriage, the financial ones, and even the emotional ones.
True......emotional ones? Are you expecting the law to regulate emotions?
No, it doesn't. And some of us are AGREEING with you on that. I have no opposition to polygamy on principle. The complexities I list above are not BARRIERS to legalized polygamy, but only points that should be considered, before legalization could be addressed.
[QUOTE]

Agreed. That, however, is the job of legislators, lawyers, and to a certain degree, judges.

[QUOTE]
Maybe, although it seems that a consistent federal standard would be a better idea. Independent state structure would mean that a polygamous family might need to re-work their marriage if they move to another state.
That is up to the states, the laboratories of democracy.

[

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3306 Mar 3, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Yes, it should. The Constitution requires this, actually. I'm a resident of Washington state, but my marriage should not be penalized or dissolved if I move. The "U" in "USA" is there for a reason.
SSM is new territory, we both know that. That's why DOMA was enacted.
Like what? Name them. What adjustments do same-sex couples need for entering or exiting marriage, that opposite-sex couples do not? Seriously, citation needed here.
Consummation is not an issue, nor is presumption of paternity a concern. Also, with gay marriage, comes gay divorce. The courts are still sorting through that.
]
Conjugality never WAS a standard of marriage.
Marriage as a whole, yes, and the state's interest in it. Why else bar blood relatives from marrying, if not a fear they might "conjugate".
When a couple stands before a member of the clergy or an appropriate gov't official for their marriage, they aren't asked if they intend to conjugate. They're asked if they intend to love and honor each other, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, forsaking all others, until death. If they CAN'T conjugate, they aren't DENIED marriage.
[
They are also asked if the will accept each other as lawfully wedded husband and wife. Is there not a presumption in that question that conjugation, consummation actually will occur? Perhaps not for every couple, but marriage as a whole.
LOVE for each other is the standard.
We both know that is not a legal standard, nor requirement. How would it be defined? Romantic love, companionship love, friendship? If a couple simply like each other, would they be denied a license?
Sure, and that point will be when marriage is no longer supplemented by over 1000 legal, contractual rights. When we no longer require a regulatory body to enforce those rights, THEN there will be no need for legal recognition. But I don't see those rights going anywhere for a long time, do you?

No, but if trends are any indications, marriage rates are declining.

[QUOTE]
Those rights and laws have long served a COUPLE (2 people) who want to bond to each other (and no others) and share their lives in security. They would require a drastic re-write to serve MORE than 2, and while that doesn't FORBID consideration of polygamy, it does make it a SEPARATE ISSUE, not one to be crammed into same-sex marriage JUST to make the conversation more difficult.
They've served husband and wife. What you are advocating is a fundamental change in our collective historical, legal, cultural , and/or religious understanding of marriage as a male female union. Such a change would logically raise the question, "if we change it for one group SSCs, why do we not change if for, another, polygamists, who historically, have far greater recognition, and practice, both in this country, and around the globe. Your argument in that regard seems to be number trumps nature, as in the nature of marriage as an opposite sex union.
Your arguments do not recognize the basic humanity, or the legal needs, of gay people who fall in love and bond with another person just as you do.
I do. I also believe, as there are coupled gay people who share this view, that same sex couples should be granted legal recognition, but that marriage should remain a union of husband AND wife.
A polygamist simply wants MORE than what either of us gets, and that's a conversation for another time.
If you retread what you just wrote, you'll realize that polygamists,also want to love and bond with another person. S/he simply wants to bond with more than one.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3307 Mar 3, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Are you always this stupid, or is this a special occasion?
sadly, with 'Brian G" (a.k. a.'Briancheesefreeze' in some circles) both is always true.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3308 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it is when SOME, not saying you, marriage equality advocates will dismiss plural MARRIAGE as not worthy of inclusion in the MARRIAGE equality debate.
It isn't disengenous, it's legitimate. Plural marriage is a separate issue entirely. It CAN be included in the debate, most importantly for discussing how different it is, and how much it requires a complete rewrite of nearly EVERY right and protection that marriage provides. Marriage is currently arranged to fulfill the needs of 2, and only 2 people. Same-sex marriages wouldn't change a single ONE of those rights, while polygamy would change them ALL. Marriage is defined by couplehood, and the exclusively mutual vows that they make to each other. The number in a "couple" is strictly 2. Adding trios or more requires a whole new set of considerations.

I'd illustrate this point by making a list of questions, "what-if" scenarios giving examples of how polygamy complicates the issue because of the varying parties involved, but I've already BEEN doing that and I've heard no suggestions from you for handling any of them. The most I've heard you acknowledge them is "No doubt it would be complex".

But that's the CRUX of the issue. These endless complexities are what MAKE polygamy a necessarily separate issue, yet you continue to try to shoehorn it into the discussion, as if you glanced at these complexities and shrugged them off. My questions about them represents me including them in the debate, which you call for above. Your lack of answering them shows that you're not truly interested in having them included in the debate, you're just hoping they'll hamstring the same-sex marriage portion of the debate. Well, they won't.

If you truly wanted to debate polygamy, you'd answer my questions and we'd have a debate. But by ignoring my attempts at discussion, I think it's fair for me to assume that you're waiving that discussion. The debate happened, you had your chance and you abstained. The conclusion was, this is a separate issue, better debated separately. And you shouldn't castigate people for not wanting a discussion with you about a subject that you don't want to discuss.

Yes, polygamists DO have rights, but they can at least marry SOMEONE. Someone that they can feel love and attraction toward, and seek to build a future with (unlike telling gays that we DO have marriage rights, as long as we marry someone of the opposite sex). This discussion is about letting people marry ONE other, rather than unfairly being restricted to ZERO. We should address those who get no serving at all, before we tackle those who stack their plates.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like arguments used to advocate for SSM could also be used to advocate for plural marriage.
Then let's HAVE that discussion, if that's what you truly want. But recognize that there's a HUGE extension to those arguments that must ALSO be used to advocate for plural marriage, while the argument against same-sex marriage usually boils down to "gays are icky".
Pietro Armando wrote:
So attack the messenger, but not the message? Does one have to have an advocacy interest in a subject in order to discuss it?
The messenger is being attacked because he does not truly WANT to discuss the message, he is only using it to forestall debate of the topic on the table, which is what everyone PREFERS to discuss.

If you want to discuss it, then LET'S DISCUSS IT. I have many points I'm ready to make. I'd be eager to hear your replies to each of them.

But consider yourself lucky to get a discussion from even this ONE person. The other posters are right to reject discussion on the subject, as it is entirely unrelated. It's unlikely that any of them ARE polygamists, and they probably have few words of experience to say on the subject. It's MORE likely that they are not allowed even ONE spouse, and cannot securely provide for the ONLY person they love.
Tebia

Pekin, IL

#3309 Mar 3, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't disengenous, it's legitimate. Plural marriage is a separate issue entirely..
Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it. Your whole hate based movement is based on repeating the same illogical lies, over and over again. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

You can make no logical case for homosexual 'marriage.'
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3310 Mar 3, 2013
Tebia wrote:
<quoted text>Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it. Your whole hate based movement is based on repeating the same illogical lies, over and over again. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
You can make no logical case for homosexual 'marriage.'
You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3311 Mar 3, 2013
Tebia wrote:
<quoted text>Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it. Your whole hate based movement is based on repeating the same illogical lies, over and over again. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
You can make no logical case for homosexual 'marriage.'
"Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it. Your whole hate based movement is based on repeating the same illogical lies, over and over again. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud."

Exactly how is it different. How is two people bound by a civil contract different if it is mm mf or ff... how,...

"It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements"

So here is the thing... it MAY be rejected.... but they the homosexual have the option to accept or reject it. That is the difference. When (not if but When) ssm becomes law of the land, there will be gays who say it is not for them... just like there are hetero men and women who say marriage is not for them. Some know it before ever gettig married some after 2 or 3 failed marriages. So what...
Now as far as the marriages not being exclusive...
A) Please provide link to studies...
B) How is their marriages not being exclusive any more your business than your neighbors cheating on each other.... or haaving an "open" marriage.... oh thats right it isnt.... but that is different right?

"No homosexual relationship shares the rea sons for government involvement in real marriage.No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother."

I LOVE when people like you use the "they can not have children" defense.... Because it begs the question ... If the reason for government involvement in marriage is children... then why do we allow infertile people, people who have been fixed, and post menopausal women the right to get married. "No child is ever born as a direct result" of them..." so they should not be allowed to get married either... right.
Now as far as providing mother and father....
A) again no law saying ther has to be both.
B) many studies show that children of ssc turn out as well as those of osc...

"You can make no logical case for homosexual 'marriage."

See according to the 14th and 5th amendments... the state must show an over whelming reason to have two sets of laws for its citizens. You have yet to show overwhelming reasons. Can't be children as those who are "barren" are allowed to marry. SSM will not harm society... so it is you who have yet to make a logical case against ssm... well except for you predjudice... which we all know is not logical

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3312 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>....the legal aspects of marriage were written for husband and wife,[
Wrong. You just fantasize that because you wish that was the case. By all means, prove me wrong by citing some marriage laws that are specific to the gender of the spouses.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
and the foundation of those laws reflect that.
Wrong again. What does "the foundation of those laws" even mean?? What is the foundation of a law? How do these imaginary foundations "reflect that"?? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

People that can't be bothered to think through their positions often throw around catchy but meaningless catch phrases to impress the other idiots that can't be bothered to think through their positions. You do that nonstop.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>The laws also reference the physical sexual union of husband and wife, which would not apply to same sex couples.
LOL!!!!! Seriously?? Please DO show us where the law "references" having sex!! Too funny.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>......emotional ones? Are you expecting the law to regulate emotions?
Are you expecting anyone to not notice this obvious attempt at a smokescreen? You got nothing.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3313 Mar 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>SSM is new territory, we both know that. That's why DOMA was enacted.

[QUOTE]
Like what? Name them. What adjustments do same-sex couples need for entering or exiting marriage, that opposite-sex couples do not? Seriously, citation needed here.
"

Consummation is not an issue, nor is presumption of paternity a concern. Also, with gay marriage, comes gay divorce. The courts are still sorting through that.

[QUOTE]]
Conjugality never WAS a standard of marriage.
"

Marriage as a whole, yes, and the state's interest in it. Why else bar blood relatives from marrying, if not a fear they might "conjugate".

[QUOTE]
When a couple stands before a member of the clergy or an appropriate gov't official for their marriage, they aren't asked if they intend to conjugate. They're asked if they intend to love and honor each other, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, forsaking all others, until death. If they CAN'T conjugate, they aren't DENIED marriage.
["

They are also asked if the will accept each other as lawfully wedded husband and wife. Is there not a presumption in that question that conjugation, consummation actually will occur? Perhaps not for every couple, but marriage as a whole.

[QUOTE]
LOVE for each other is the standard.
"

We both know that is not a legal standard, nor requirement. How would it be defined? Romantic love, companionship love, friendship? If a couple simply like each other, would they be denied a license?

[QUOTE]
Sure, and that point will be when marriage is no longer supplemented by over 1000 legal, contractual rights. When we no longer require a regulatory body to enforce those rights, THEN there will be no need for legal recognition. But I don't see those rights going anywhere for a long time, do you?

No, but if trends are any indications, marriage rates are declining.

[QUOTE]
Those rights and laws have long served a COUPLE (2 people) who want to bond to each other (and no others) and share their lives in security. They would require a drastic re-write to serve MORE than 2, and while that doesn't FORBID consideration of polygamy, it does make it a SEPARATE ISSUE, not one to be crammed into same-sex marriage JUST to make the conversation more difficult.
"

They've served husband and wife. What you are advocating is a fundamental change in our collective historical, legal, cultural , and/or religious understanding of marriage as a male female union. Such a change would logically raise the question, "if we change it for one group SSCs, why do we not change if for, another, polygamists, who historically, have far greater recognition, and practice, both in this country, and around the globe. Your argument in that regard seems to be number trumps nature, as in the nature of marriage as an opposite sex union.

[QUOTE]
Your arguments do not recognize the basic humanity, or the legal needs, of gay people who fall in love and bond with another person just as you do. "

I do. I also believe, as there are coupled gay people who share this view, that same sex couples should be granted legal recognition, but that marriage should remain a union of husband AND wife.

[QUOTE]
A polygamist simply wants MORE than what either of us gets, and that's a conversation for another time."

If you retread what you just wrote, you'll realize that polygamists,also want to love and bond with another person. S/he simply wants to bond with more than one.

You just refuse to think, don't you?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3314 Mar 4, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You just refuse to think, don't you?
And here I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.....awwwwwww

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3315 Mar 4, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. You just fantasize that because you wish that was the case. By all means, prove me wrong by citing some marriage laws that are specific to the gender of the spouses.
Sigh....ssm is a recent legal construct in American marital jurisprudence. We both know that. No fantasy there. The mere fact that the gendered terms, "bride and groom", or "husband and wife", are used proves that.
Wrong again. What does "the foundation of those laws" even mean?? What is the foundation of a law? How do these imaginary foundations "reflect that"?? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Helllloooooo....founded on, based,and referring to the relation ship of husband and wife, not husband and husband, wife and wife, nor spouses for life. Do some legal research.
People that can't be bothered to think through their positions often throw around catchy but meaningless catch phrases to impress the other idiots that can't be bothered to think through their positions. You do that nonstop.
[/QUOTE

People so,wrapped up in their cause can't bother to think about the other side positions. You do that non stop.

[QUOTE]
LOL!!!!! Seriously?? Please DO show us where the law "references" having sex!! Too funny.
What do you think "to consummate" a marriage means? Or engage in "marital relations"? How about presumption of paternity.
Are you expecting anyone to not notice this obvious attempt at a smokescreen? You got nothing.
I think you've been smoking those funny cigarettes again.

Since: Mar 07

Drakes Branch, VA

#3316 Mar 4, 2013
Tebia wrote:
<quoted text>Homomarriage is a totally different issue from real marriage you idiot, and you can make no logical case for it..
The case is simple.

Just take all of the same proven benefits and protections that marriage brings to straight couples, and apply them equally to gay couples. It's not hard to understand.

Just a few:

Marriage provides social and legal recognition to families.

Marriage help to provide financial security for families.

Marriage usually means a committed couple, and this often means a more stable environment for raising children.

Marriage provide security for the elderly.

And David, these apply EQUALLY to gay couples, who choose to marry, and their families. If you believe otherwise, you need to prove it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3318 Mar 4, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't disengenous, it's legitimate. Plural marriage is a separate issue entirely. It CAN be included in the debate, most importantly for discussing how different it is, and how much it requires a complete rewrite of nearly EVERY right and protection that marriage provides. Marriage is currently arranged to fulfill the needs of 2, and only 2 people.
Again I agree polygamy would complex, and obviously require some rewriting of various marriage laws. One possible solution would be to create a marriage structure to deal specifically with it. I disagree it is a separate issue, at least not a totally separate issue. It's part of the debate for reasons you did not site. First, it's include in the debate of how society defines marriage, not just legally, but in a larger sense, culturally. Our collective historic, cultural, legal, and/or concept of marriage is that of an opposite sex union. SSM is a recent construct, at least in this country. Second, why polygamy differs in number, it still preserves the opposite sex composition of monogamous opposite sex marriage. So, it's number, SSM, and monogamous OSM, compared to nature, husband(s) and wife(wives), of monogamous or polygamous OSM.

Same-sex marriages wouldn't change a single ONE of those rights, while polygamy would change them ALL. Marriage is defined by couplehood, and the exclusively mutual vows that they make to each other. The number in a "couple" is strictly 2. Adding trios or more requires a whole new set of considerations.
Again, I agree it would require rewriting of marriage laws, or the creation of a polygamous/plural marriage structure. However I disagree marriage is defined by "couple hood". Historically, in most of the planet today, marriage is defined as union of male female, either monogamous, or polygamous. A husband can Vostok be faithful to his wives, as can a woman vow to be faithful to her husbands.
I'd illustrate this point by making a list of questions, "what-if" scenarios giving examples of how polygamy complicates the issue because of the varying parties involved, but I've already BEEN doing that and I've heard no suggestions from you for handling any of them. The most I've heard you acknowledge them is "No doubt it would be complex".
Why not a polygamous/plural marriage structure? It could address the legal issues and needs of such an arrangement. How that is to be created is the job of legislatures, attorneys, and judges, not you or I.
But that's the CRUX of the issue. These endless complexities are what MAKE polygamy a necessarily separate issue, yet you continue to try to shoehorn it into the discussion, as if you glanced at these complexities and shrugged them off. My questions about them represents me including them in the debate, which you call for above. Your lack of answering them shows that you're not truly interested in having them included in the debate, you're just hoping they'll hamstring the same-sex marriage portion of the debate. Well, they won't.
It still comes down to the definition of marriage. Polygamy and SSM as part of that debate on marriage definition. If you're going to advocate for MARRIAGE EQUALITY, then polygamy has to be included. It should be given equal consideration as a legitimate form of marriage as you claim SSM should be. It hat doesn't change the fact that polygamy would require far greater legal restructuring. It should be given EQUAL CONSIDERATION as SSM is. BOTH forms represent a fundamental change from the historic legal understanding of marriage in American marital jurisprudence.

Part 2 next post.

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 13 min RalphB 1,526
News Indiana Gov. Pence set to sign religious object... 14 min WeTheSheeple 21
News Indiana House OKs religious objection bill by w... 18 min WeTheSheeple 51
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 28 min WeTheSheeple 1,885
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 31 min Chris Toal 30,762
Wedding Dresses 1 hr karan023 1
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 2 hr serfs up 39
More from around the web