Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3381 Mar 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>Why should anyone believe God exists?
What proof (via the scientific method) do you have to prove he doesn't exist?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3382 Mar 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While there are various explanations of natural law, one of the tenets that appears throughout the various versions, is the ethic of reciprocity and equality. That "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".
"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama
Yet treating others with respect and equality does not require any religious belief. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, believe in equality, fairness, and respect for others.
While all belief systems have differences, all major religions, ethical systems, and philosophies agree that each person should treat others as they would themselves. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as "Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you." Or in "natural law": that "no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest".
Not only is refusing to treat others as you would yourself under the law a violation of every major ethical belief system, it is a violation of the promise of equality in the founding documents and required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
The promise of equality does not negate the reality of difference. For example, the constitution establishes certain qualifications for certain elective offices. The President must be a native born citizen. Does that mean the constitution treats all Americans equal? Or the same? Is a native born citizen treated differently from a naturalized in regards to the office of President?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3383 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
What proof (via the scientific method) do you have to prove he doesn't exist?
There is no tangible or readily verifiable evidence that God exists.

NEXT

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3384 Mar 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>There is no tangible or readily verifiable evidence that God exists.

NEXT
Nor can you use the scientific method to disprove his existence. NEXT. BTW you may wanna change your profile pic. It's misleading.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3385 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The promise of equality does not negate the reality of difference. For example, the constitution establishes certain qualifications for certain elective offices. The President must be a native born citizen. Does that mean the constitution treats all Americans equal? Or the same? Is a native born citizen treated differently from a naturalized in regards to the office of President?
Restrictions on fundamental rights may be made, but only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Gender is not one of them.

The constitution specifically requires equal treatment for all persons.

Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

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

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, not being closely related, or currently married.

Gender is not a restriction. There is no legitimate reason to require one of each.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction. 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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3386 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you cannot use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God, there is no reason to consider that he doesn't exist. Do you get that?! Once again you are left with your own opinion. And, while you are certainly entitled to it, the mere fact that you have it doesn't make it necessarily correct. Thus your condemnation of all things contrary to your own personal opinion is as arrogant as it is absurd.
So why do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Afterall, She is the TRUE God of LOVE. she loves all her creation and supports same-sex couples. She has never destroyed entire civilizations, much less the entire Earth. She will watch over and protect us forever, not throw 99% of her creation into the Lake of Fire. Oh FSM! Please protect us from that imposter worshipped by so many others!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3387 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Afterall, She is the TRUE God of LOVE. she loves all her creation and supports same-sex couples. She has never destroyed entire civilizations, much less the entire Earth. She will watch over and protect us forever, not throw 99% of her creation into the Lake of Fire. Oh FSM! Please protect us from that imposter worshipped by so many others!
Plus she makes a heck of a marinara sauce.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3388 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>So why do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Afterall, She is the TRUE God of LOVE. she loves all her creation and supports same-sex couples. She has never destroyed entire civilizations, much less the entire Earth. She will watch over and protect us forever, not throw 99% of her creation into the Lake of Fire. Oh FSM! Please protect us from that imposter worshipped by so many others!
I don't believe in the spaghetti monster. There is no scientific evidence.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3389 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So why are you posting in an attempt to prove to me that he doesn't exist when you and I both know that He can neither be proven or disproven using the scientific method? Furthermore why would you quote something you don't believe in in the first place?
Um, using the scientific methods proves there is no god.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3390 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
What proof (via the scientific method) do you have to prove he doesn't exist?
The fact that stupid people like you think he does.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3391 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So why do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Afterall, She is the TRUE God of LOVE. she loves all her creation and supports same-sex couples. She has never destroyed entire civilizations, much less the entire Earth. She will watch over and protect us forever, not throw 99% of her creation into the Lake of Fire. Oh FSM! Please protect us from that imposter worshipped by so many others!
Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster is worshiped byyyyyyy.......are ya ready?

PASTAFARIANS!

I'll be here all week ladies and germs, please be kind to your waitress.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3392 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Restrictions on fundamental rights may be made, but only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Gender is not one of them.
Gender is the very reason for the fundamental right to begin with, such a right is based on the concept of marriage as "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." In some societies, husband and wives is also a formal union.
The constitution specifically requires equal treatment for all persons.
The constituion does not require equal treatment for all persons, for every situation, as indicated by the qualifications for president. Only natural born citizens are qualitfied to become president. Naturalized citizens cannot.
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
That is predicated on recognition by the state.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
A requirement absent in American marital jurisprudence. It also implies the that non humans may marry.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated and withstand judicial scrutiny.
Judicial scrutiny is subject to the opinions of various courts in the judicial system. Different courts have reached different conclusions after "judicial scrutiny".
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, not being closely related, or currently married.
Reasonable restrictions is dependent on one's personal concept of marriage. One who views marriage as a connjugal mongamous arrangement will believe the restrictions on number of participants, and the restriction of the union to one man and one woman will find those reasonable.
Gender is not a restriction. There is no legitimate reason to require one of each.
There is no legitimate reason to reject the requirement of one of each.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction.
Procreation ability need not be a requirement, considering it is a natural consequence of the the male female sexual union. Requiring procreation would be unreasonable, for it is understood that not every opposite sex couple can procreate, nor desire to procreate. Never the less this does not negate the orientation of the marital relationship around the procreative aspect of the male female sexual relationship, and the state's interest in it, and society as well.
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 is not "irrational", but completely rational. It has been understood by virtually all human societies throughout history, that marriage is, a union of a man and a woman, or man and women, is the building blocks of the society and thus the need for special recognition, and privelege.

It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Such reasoning fails in that it is not limited to "same sex couple families". If lack of marital recognition harms SSC families, does it stand to reason it also harms plural families needlessly for they lack marital recognition as well?
Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect,
SSCs sought and have been granted a legal redefintion of marriage so they could marry. The Fed govt, & most states disagree with such a redefinition and thus, do not wish to change thier laws.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3393 Mar 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there is no evidence at all for god, there is no reason to even consider the idea he exists.
Do you get that!?
If god did exist, there would be evidence of his existence. But since there is none, we KNOW he doesn't exist. Just like I KNOW there is no elephant in my shower. If there were an elephant in my shower, there would be some evidence of one.
You have no idea what the scientific method is.
Well Rosie, you're living proof he has a sense of humor!:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3394 Mar 6, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it would require a MAJOR rewrite of virtually EVERY marriage law. Current laws simply designate "the other person" as the beneficiary. But "other people" would require an inspection of EACH law, to determine WHICH other person (or people) would be the beneficiary in each situation, or if it would be MORE than one person (and if more, then in what distribution?). And no person's choices would guarantee that they would be chosen BACK in each case. Frankly, it would be a MESS.
One possible solution would be to create a "plural marriage" structure, or "multi party marriage" structure. If other multi party legal contracts can be created for other matters, why not one for marriage?
Only if you limit the spouses to opposite genders (requiring, ironically, the legalization of polygamy while retaining a ban on same-sex marriages). If a man marries 3 women, and some of the women marry some different men, then there are same-sex combinations in this polygamous arrangement.
This is the over-all problem with "multi-party" marriages: the permutations possible. They are endless. Three or four, ten, forty, a hundred, a thousand? Is there any end? Each time a new number is added, the above marriage laws must be reviewed AGAIN.
True, it would open it up to the possibility of various, seemingly endless permutations.
As I say, I have no problem with polygamy "in principle". But "in practice" polygamy is an exercise in infinity. It requires steps and rewrites that same-sex marriage simply does not, at any level. The very process of even CONSIDERING polygamy would be an entity unto itself, entirely unlike considering same-sex marriage in every way.
The one aspect that polygamouts marriage, as it is commonly practiced, maintains, that SSM does not, is the opposite nature of the marital relationship. SSm is virtually a modern western construct, polygamy has deep historical roots throughout the world, and in this country.
Well, in the US, marriage is only a "couplehood" arrangment. I don't know where you live. But "historically" is not a strong argument to make.
It's a coupling of a man and woman. That, historically, is a strong argument ot make. Why does SSm, male or female, not have deep sustained historical roots, cross culturally, cross time?
I could say that "historically", it has been accepted to shun and revile gay people, and even put them to death.
Not everywhere. Some societies have tolerated and/or accepted same sex sexual behavior, long before the modern gay identity developed. Not all such societies have equated that behavior with formal relationship recognition, marriage or otherwise.
"Historically", polygamy HAD its day in court, and failed.
So did SSM, for a time, but if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
At the urging (and with the help) of polygamists. Since I am not a polygamist, I don't see that I should even attempt to CONTRIBUTE to such a discussion. It's strange that you push for conversation on polygamy with people who don't seek to participate in polygamy.
It's strange to legally redefine marraige for one group, SSCs, but not for another, polygamists, whose form of marriage has been practiced, and is still practiced, for thousands of years, and in this country, among some native peoples, long before there was a United States. Why if I wish to discuss the issue of marriage redefinition, wouldn't I seek out those, such as yourself, who wish it? SSM advocates are seeking a nationwide redefiniton of marriage. Gay people as part of a SSC cannot legally marry unless marriage is first legally defined, or redefined. As individuals, gay people can marry as anyone else can. But that's not the objective of the movement.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3395 Mar 6, 2013
So tired of this Pietro guy. He's had nothing new to say in over 100 pages, yet he keeps posting the same debunked nonsense. I wish there were an 'ignore' button for individual posters.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3396 Mar 6, 2013
[QUOTE who=EdmondWA]<quoted text>
EdomondWA writes:
Why would you say it HAS to be? Many placese have shown that these issues can be tackled separately. I see no reason why any intelligent person couldn't easily separate these issues, and address them one at a time.
[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmmm....I suppose that depends to a ceratin degeee one's approach. SSM advocates don't wish to include polygamy in their arguments for fear, I suspect, it will distract attention from their cause, undermine support, and give opponents additional reasons to continue to oppose SSM.

Poly advocates see the legal success that SSM has had and wish to emulate them for, if not reconition at this point, at lease decriminalization.

Mongamous conjugal marriage supporters, seem, for the most part to reject both SSM, and polygamy.
This is like arguing that one person might like a chocolate chip cookie, while another might prefer an Oreo, but someone who wants TEN cookies is being discriminated against.
Or that's like arguing that one person would like one chip in his/her choclate chip cookie, and another would like more than one chip, perhaps lots of chips. The cookie itself, minus the chips would represent, more than likely the male sex, the chips, female. I suppose it could be reversed.

C'mon now not a bad analogy....not great, but not bad either.
"Number" is a very important concept in marriage, as it complicates the issue endlessly. I see a FAR more urgent need to address the injustice of the people who must settle for ZERO, than for any need to address the people for whom one spouse isn't enough.
Complicates yes....unprecedented.......yes and no. Yes interms of American marital jurisprudence, no in terms of marriage form.
This all begins to look like you personally have some objection to same-sex marriage, beyond not including polygamy in the discussion.
Here's my take. I'm a married man of 20 plus years with children. I beleive most people should marry, and honor that committment and thier families. In our society, marriage has taken a beating. Marriage rates are down, divorce is higher today than it was 30 to 40 years ago. Second and third marriages have an ever higher divorce rate. Throw in increased cohabitiation rates, and out of wedlock birthrates, and marriage is no longer the respectied institution it once was. I'm sure the "sexual revolution" had a role as well. Anyway, if the state of marriage wasn't what it is today, SSM would remain inconceivable.

I don't think that redefining marriage, removing the opposites sex legal requirement is beneficial to society as a whole. The long term negative consequences, as we found out with "no fault" divorce, is too much of a risk to futher weaken marriage in the eyes of the law. I think the state can and should provide some form of legal protection, which many states have done, for SSCs.

The polygamy issues poses problems for both those who wish to retain the legal definition of one man and one woman as husband and wife, and those who seek a redefintion to a non gender specific two person "spouses for life" union. The greater burden is on the SSM redefinitionists, who have to offer compelling reasons why, only thier redefintion of marriage should be legalized, and no other. For those who wish to maintain the current defintion, one man and one woman as husband and wife, plural marriage presents a dilema. Its perfectly legal for a man to father several children with several different women, and only be financially obligated to support the children. It's also accepttable, perhaps not with his wife, nor morally, for a married man to have a mistress. If a man father children out of wedlock, and wants marry the mothers of his children, with their consent of course, it is unacceptable, even taboo. Why? By denying these families exist, and not granting marital recognition, do we stigmatize them, as it is alleged that denial of SSM does to SSC headed families?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3397 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
So tired of this Pietro guy. He's had nothing new to say in over 100 pages, yet he keeps posting the same debunked nonsense. I wish there were an 'ignore' button for individual posters.
I do, too. He's still just churning out the same "Unless you support polygamy, you can't support same-sex marriage" bull that's been debunked over and over.

He clearly as nothing else, but he can't stand to be out of the discussion. Sucks to be him, I guess.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3398 Mar 6, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>So why do you deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Afterall, She is the TRUE God of LOVE. she loves all her creation and supports same-sex couples. She has never destroyed entire civilizations, much less the entire Earth. She will watch over and protect us forever, not throw 99% of her creation into the Lake of Fire. Oh FSM! Please protect us from that imposter worshipped by so many others!
I simply said I don't worship it. If you wanna believe in the FSM, then go right ahead. That's not for me to judge.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3399 Mar 6, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Um, using the scientific methods proves there is no god.
So you can use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God? Show me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3400 Mar 6, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that stupid people like you think he does.
Lol While your opinion of me is somewhat humerus, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God.

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
Efforts underway to change GOP on gay marriage 44 min Xstain Fumblement... 72
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr KiMare 25,045
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 3 hr James 69
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Resident 49,907
First Gay Couple Marries In Coahuila, Mexico 4 hr Darnell 8
Justice Kagan performs her first same-sex wedding 5 hr Xstain Fumblement... 14
Support for gay marriage may be ebbing, survey ... 6 hr JohnInToronto 5
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••