Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3483 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>

Allowing folks who can never procreate to marry is NOT separating marriage from procreation.
How irrational are you?

If I have a music club, but I allow folks who don't like music to join, haven't I diminished it as a music club?

to any rational person the answer is yes, but I can see you will still say no...

but you will say anything, won't you Mona?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#3484 Mar 7, 2013
Rosa Parks believed in male/female marriage. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for marriage as one man and one woman.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3485 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
all smoke and mirrors as if a choice is the same as an impossibility...
you focus on the procreation is required part but you thereby neglect to see the aims of marriage to SOCIETY part of which the article I cited speaks...
i.e., the part ssm would have in negating marriage as providing stability for procreation...which in turn is a detriment to society...
in the end, we will have a decision in a relatively short time...
and I don't think you will like it...or the way the court will treat your "arguments".
I think CU's may be spared as a fallback...
Marriage will still provide stability for procreation even when same sex couples are permitted to marry. Sheesh. Who wants to change those laws???? Nobody.
How did the Appellate Court rule? "We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does." "Proposition 8 served no purpose,a nd has no effect, other than to lessen the status & human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."

I think YOU won't like what SCOTUS will rule.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3486 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
what was it about?
oh right, a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised."
<quoted text>
what about a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised" which concluded that "“We can be certain that same sex marriage will do no such thing as encourage stable marriage whether for heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. Marriage in Scandinavia, Spain, Netherlands and elsewhere is in deep decline.”
She continued:“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage - especially the separation between this and parenthood.”"?
Where did the study PROVE that "gay marriage is the cause of the eviseration of marriage?" It didn't. Just because two things occur at the same time DOES NOT make them have a cause/effect relationship. The study drew some bogus conclusions.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3487 Mar 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Rosa Parks believed in male/female marriage. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for marriage as one man and one woman.
Shut up Brian. You don't know what Rosa Parks believed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3488 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
what was it about?
oh right, a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised."
<quoted text>
what about a study that "contained a detailed analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised" which concluded that "“We can be certain that same sex marriage will do no such thing as encourage stable marriage whether for heterosexuals and/or homosexuals. Marriage in Scandinavia, Spain, Netherlands and elsewhere is in deep decline.”
She continued:“Same sex marriage is both an effect and a cause of the evisceration of marriage - especially the separation between this and parenthood.”"?
Again, that is an opinion piece from a right wing think tank. It is not a scientific study, and is contradicted by the data.

Allowing same sex couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change the incentives for opposite sex couples to get married. All of the incentives remain in full force and effect. There is no reason to believe opposite sex couples will stop taking advantage of those incentives simply because they are applied equally to same sex couples and their families.

"Overall, there is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe, and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws. Furthermore, the legal and cultural context in the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than in Europe, and those incentives will still exist even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do so in the United States."

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-...

“Obsidian Princess”

Since: Sep 09

louisiana

#3489 Mar 7, 2013
the church can go suck a dk. who cares if they wild out just because gay people can marry their love by law?

bring out black water.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3490 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage will still provide stability for procreation even when same sex couples are permitted to marry. Sheesh. Who wants to change those laws???? Nobody.
How did the Appellate Court rule? "We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does." "Proposition 8 served no purpose,a nd has no effect, other than to lessen the status & human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples."
I think YOU won't like what SCOTUS will rule.
given we have a recent study showing ssm damages the institution of marriage by breaking the tie to procreation, I would say its a rational reason to not include you...
right, we will find out soon.

and you will be crying and casting your pig-headedness to reality as the other side's bigotry...
for another LONG time....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3491 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
How irrational are you?
If I have a music club, but I allow folks who don't like music to join, haven't I diminished it as a music club?
to any rational person the answer is yes, but I can see you will still say no...
but you will say anything, won't you Mona?
Illogical as ever, I see.

You'll use any stupid argument, won't you?...always with your bogus anaolgies. You're comparing a music club to marriage??? Jesus jumped-up Christ! You're comparing liking music to having children? SERIOUSLY??????????

Having you as the club leader would diminish a music club.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3492 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, that is an opinion piece from a right wing think tank. It is not a scientific study, and is contradicted by the data.
Allowing same sex couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change the incentives for opposite sex couples to get married. All of the incentives remain in full force and effect. There is no reason to believe opposite sex couples will stop taking advantage of those incentives simply because they are applied equally to same sex couples and their families.
"Overall, there is no evidence that giving partnership rights to same-sex couples had any impact on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Marriage rates, divorce rates, and non-marital birth rates have been changing in Scandinavia, Europe, and the United States for the past thirty years. But those changes have occurred in all countries, regardless of whether or not they adopted same-sex partnership laws. Furthermore, the legal and cultural context in the United States gives many more incentives for heterosexual couples to marry than in Europe, and those incentives will still exist even if same-sex couples can marry. Giving same-sex couples marriage or marriage-like rights has not undermined heterosexual marriage in Europe, and it is not likely to do so in the United States."
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-...
AGAIN, you disagree as any reasonable person may do when there is a rational reason to do so...
I, supported by this expert analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised," disagree as is rational to do as well.

so it is rational for a state to find as CA did when adopting Prop 8.
see that now?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3493 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
How irrational are you?
If I have a music club, but I allow folks who don't like music to join, haven't I diminished it as a music club?
to any rational person the answer is yes, but I can see you will still say no...
but you will say anything, won't you Mona?
This ignores the fact gay people are musicians too, and are already in the band.

Gay people are already raising children both biologically related or adopted. Harming those families by denial of equal treatment under the same laws in effect, provides nothing to opposite sex couples and their children.

Again, SCOTUS has made it clear, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when the ability to have sex impossible. Not only is procreation not required, ability to have sex is not required. Marriage provide protections for children. It does not require them.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3494 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
This ignores the fact gay people are musicians too, and are already in the band.
nah, your like white folks who get a harmonica and think they are playing the blues...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3495 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Gay people are already raising children both biologically related or adopted.
so are single people...
its not enough...
you need to be more like couples who provide both a mom AND dad...
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

Again, SCOTUS has made it clear, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when the ability to have sex impossible.
Says you. They have specifically said for heterosexuals and NOT gays ...

what you miss is the CHOICE not to reproduce is as much a right as reproducing is, and that this speaks in no way to your specific INABILITY to have kids by the laws of nature as opposed to a natural defect like infertility...
its a rational distinction that people are free to use in a free society...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3496 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Illogical as ever, I see.
You'll use any stupid argument, won't you?...always with your bogus anaolgies. You're comparing a music club to marriage??? Jesus jumped-up Christ! You're comparing liking music to having children? SERIOUSLY??????????
Having you as the club leader would diminish a music club.
AHA!!
you already flew off into an irrational rage...
you lose DUDE.
period.(ha!)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3497 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN, you disagree as any reasonable person may do when there is a rational reason to do so...
I, supported by this expert analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised," disagree as is rational to do as well.
so it is rational for a state to find as CA did when adopting Prop 8.
see that now?
Prop 8 was a popular vote, with a straight majority voting on the equal rights of a minority. This is as fair as a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

It was supported by fear mongering, including false and misleading stories like the one you are promoting. The findings of fact in the court trials have shown there is no rational reason for denial of equal treatment under the law.

The 36,000 gay people currently in same sex marriages in Ca. has not stopped straight people from continuing to get married in Ca or any other state.

http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3498 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 was a popular vote, with a straight majority voting on the equal rights of a minority. This is as fair as a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
It was supported by fear mongering, including false and misleading stories like the one you are promoting. The findings of fact in the court trials have shown there is no rational reason for denial of equal treatment under the law.
The 36,000 gay people currently in same sex marriages in Ca. has not stopped straight people from continuing to get married in Ca or any other state.
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-...
yes, it was a state deciding for itself what a marriage is defined as, a definition that has been the province of the state since we were a union...

you can disagree, that's what rational is, its that rational people disagree...so your disagreement does not defeat any rationality in saying gays are different...or that their addition to marriage will not help society and may in fact harm it...
and thus you are not similarly situated...

you need to stop assuming your claimed right to marry is like the right to vote..or racial civil rights...
it is NOWHERE CLOSE...

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3499 Mar 7, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay
That is using the assumption that God is the Creator. Without such an assumption no such conclusion can be made. You see science is based upon assumptions.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3500 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 was a popular vote, with a straight majority voting on the equal rights of a minority. This is as fair as a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
It was supported by fear mongering, including false and misleading stories like the one you are promoting. The findings of fact in the court trials have shown there is no rational reason for denial of equal treatment under the law.
The 36,000 gay people currently in same sex marriages in Ca. has not stopped straight people from continuing to get married in Ca or any other state.
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-...
The sky didn't fall?
bronck burger

Bayonne, NJ

#3501 Mar 7, 2013
YO YO CHIC-CA-GO churchs SHUT UP and COOL OUT and eat some FRIED CHICKEN, WATER MELON and GRAPE SODA. YOU RACE-BAITING JERK'S.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3502 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so are single people...
its not enough...
you need to be more like couples who provide both a mom AND dad...
<quoted text>
Says you. They have specifically said for heterosexuals and NOT gays ...
what you miss is the CHOICE not to reproduce is as much a right as reproducing is, and that this speaks in no way to your specific INABILITY to have kids by the laws of nature as opposed to a natural defect like infertility...
its a rational distinction that people are free to use in a free society...
Single people can get married.

There is no reason to require one of each gender. Two same sex people can do just as well as an opposite sex couple. Yet having children is not required. Protections are provided for children, but they are not a requirement.

No, it is not me, but SCOTUS who says marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when procreation is impossible, and even when sex is impossible. They have never specifically said this applies only to heterosexuals and not gay people.

Gay people can and do procreate using all of the same methods employed by many straight couples. They also adopt just like straight couples. There is no reason to threat these families differently.

Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to opposite sex couples and families. It only harms same sex couples and their families needlessly.

Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples.

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
Poll: Support for gay marriage drops in Mich. (May '14) 4 hr scs2011 61
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr KiMare 26,892
Church-based institutions ponder same-sex benefits 5 hr Mitt s Baptism of... 10
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr KiMare 51,279
The day Cyclone Tracy unleashed hell on Darwin,... 6 hr Storm 1
Salvation Army: Boston jewelry gifts 'contagious' 8 hr Mitt s Baptism of... 1
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 8 hr Switches 39
More from around the web