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

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3524 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
Hmmmmm....interesting...if you look close contained within that are arguments in favor of plural marriage. Or are children of such marriage not worthy if a stable family structure?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3525 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The exception thus becomes the rule.Married OSCs, or those seeking to marry, who cannot, or choose not, to procreate are the exceptions to the rule of marriage as a means by which society links children to their mother and father in one recognized family unit. SSM, changes the exception to the rule.
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, period. Doesn't matter if the people who don't procreate are the exceptions or the rule, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3526 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Tweaked"? It's been fundamentally altered. The very nature of the marital relationship, the exclusive union of husband and wife, as the foundation of legal marriage, has been reduced to "two persons regardless of gender composition".(snip)
<quoted text>
BFD.
"Changing the definition of marriage will change the definition of marriage" just isn't a valid argument.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3527 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>...i.e., the part ssm would have in negating marriage as providing stability for procreation...which in turn is a detriment to society...
Wow. Same-sex couples have such power?!?!?!? So 2-3% of the married couples that are same-sex have the power to "negate marriage as providing stability for procreation" and be "a detriment to society"?? Really??

Tell me, is that because same-sex couples are so awesome that everyone will want to be part of one??

Or is it that the 97-98% of married couples that are straight are so fragile that the mere presence of a tiny percentage of same-sex couples will confuse and upset them to the point where they will forget that they're heterosexual and stop having sex with each other?

You make a compelling argument. I just need some clarification on it. Okay??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3528 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>You wrote: "that separating marriage from procreation is damaging to society is damn near self evident..."

I wrote: Except that nobody.... NOBODY is trying to separate marriage from procreation."

You wrote: "by allowing folks who can never procreate marry, you say that does not create a divide?"

Allowing folks who can never procreate to marry is NOT separating marriage from procreation. Procreation enthusiasts are still able to marry and still able to procreate. It doesn't affect them AT ALL.

How irrational are you?
Not to mention the fact that we allow people that can't procreate to marry every single day and, so far, those other couples that CAN procreate are still somehow managing to get the job done.

I would suggest that irrational isn't quite the right term. I think totally and hopelessly delusional is closer to the mark.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3529 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>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....
LOL!!!! OMG!! You actually believe that, don't you??? Too funny!!

I take it you were born without the part of your brain that handles basic logic functions, weren't you??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3530 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?
I bet that op ed you're referring to forgot to mention that marriage rates in those places have been on a steady decline since the 1950's--nearly 50 years before the first same-sex marriages became legal.

Care to explain to us the link to an "effect" that started 50 years before the "cause"??

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3531 Mar 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, period. Doesn't matter if the people who don't procreate are the exceptions or the rule, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Do you really think you've found the golden "aha" SSM argument? Seriously? That somehow since the founding of the republic....it probably goes back farther than that....procreation had to be required in order to marry? I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that....I could be wrong....sex between men and women makes babies. I'm thinking in the history of human societies that had a major role in the development of marriage.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3532 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....
What type of sex do you imagine children have with their parents such that the gender of the parents matters?

You see, I've always believed that a person's gender and their sexual orientation is totally immaterial unless someone is planning on embarking in a sexual relationship with that person.

So every time I hear people like you declaring that children should have one penis-owning parent and one vagina-owning parent, I figure you must think that gender is relevant. Therefore, you must be thinking.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3533 Mar 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
BFD.
Awwwwww.....Rosie called me Best Friend Dude, again. Do u see that everybody?
"Changing the definition of marriage will change the definition of marriage" just isn't a valid argument.
Not quite what I said....but ya gave it a good try.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3534 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmmm....folks said that about "no fault" divorce at one point too. A generation or two later.....
A generation or two later, people are no longer forced to lie about each other and demonized each other in divorce court simply because their marriage has run it's course.

Fewer people are stuck in loveless marriages living loveless lives because they don't have grounds for a divorce.

People have an easier time leaving abusive spouses and no longer have to be forced to endure a lifetime of physical abuse because the law doesn't allow then to divorce.

Gee, things aren't better at all, are they?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3535 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry. Those couldn't have been mine.
Oh that's right no horns, and there's two eyes. My bad.:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3536 Mar 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the fact that we allow people that can't procreate to marry every single day and, so far, those other couples that CAN procreate are still somehow managing to get the job done.
Golly Mr. eCleaver you sure are smart. Good thing you pointed it out, I don't think anyone noticed that before, after all men and women who can't procreate were allowed to marry since 1776, maybe even earlier. That just crazy isn't it Mr.cleaver? Before ya know it folks will get the crazy idea that men and women make babies..that's just plumb silly.....we all know the stork brings them.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3537 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmmm....interesting. ..if you look close contained within that are arguments in favor of plural marriage. Or are children of such marriage not worthy if a stable family structure?
Polygamy--the irrelevant argument they always bring up when all their anti-gay anti-marriage arguments have fallen flat.

Congratulations!

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3538 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really think you've found the golden "aha" SSM argument? Seriously? That somehow since the founding of the republic....it probably goes back farther than that....procreation had to be required in order to marry? I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that....I could be wrong....sex between men and women makes babies. I'm thinking in the history of human societies that had a major role in the development of marriage.
Look, stupid, you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, so the fact gay couples can't procreate is a non issue when it comes to the marriage debate.
Next.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3539 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Do you really think you've found the golden "aha" SSM argument? Seriously? That somehow since the founding of the republic....it probably goes back farther than that....procreation had to be required in order to marry? I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose that....I could be wrong....sex between men and women makes babies. I'm thinking in the history of human societies that had a major role in the development of marriage.
That's because you've obviously never studied the social history of marriage, have you? Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights.

This bizarre notion that only married people are allowed to have babies and people that have babies must be married has no basis at all in history. Or reality.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3540 Mar 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because you've obviously never studied the social history of marriage, have you? Throughout most of history, marriage has been about consolidating and preserving family fortunes and protecting inheritance rights.
This bizarre notion that only married people are allowed to have babies and people that have babies must be married has no basis at all in history. Or reality.
Exactly. "Traditional" marriage is really a rather modern concept.
AzAdam

Scottsdale, AZ

#3541 Mar 7, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
BFD.
"Changing the definition of marriage will change the definition of marriage" just isn't a valid argument.
Oh, it's valid. It's correct. It's irrelavent.
Reverend Wilson

Wilmington, OH

#3542 Mar 7, 2013
Homosexuality is a sin some churches condone it but it is a clear violation of Bible scripture

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3543 Mar 7, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, it's valid. It's correct. It's irrelavent.
No, it's not valid, it's like going into a debate about legalizing pot and arguing that pot shouldn't be legalized because pot is illegal.

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 20 min Static Charge 26,583
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 38 min dee lightful 153
Will the Supreme Court End Gay Marriage as an E... 1 hr truth to power 433
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 1 hr Ainu 28
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from th... 2 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 61
Elvis Presley's sex secrets exposed 4 hr Myself 5
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 4 hr Grau 148