Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4153 May 14, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Getting "married" will not solve these complications, the way it does for just two people.
And getting divorced would complicate it still FURTHER....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4154 May 14, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that we've told you exactly how we want the marriage laws to change: Simply stop excluding us.
The reality is you're not excluded. The right to marry is the same for every male, and every female, provided they meet the other basic requirements set forth by the state.
That doesn't work with multiple partners. Marriage laws in the West have evolved to support reciprocal commitment and benefits to just two people. Other societies practice polygamy, and none of those societies treat women by the standards we expect in the West--inside or outside of marriage.
Marriage laws in the West are founded on the monogamous union of husband and wife. As to polygamy, you ignore the consenting adults who choose to enter into such arrangements, e.g. The Brown family.
Will changing marriage laws to accommodate multiple partners affect the laws for those who prefer single partners? How can we know if we don't know what the changes are.
Why should that matter to you? It's not up to you or I to sort at out. If maintaining the legal standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal standard, why should it matter if SSM is legal, plural marriage is legal, or even same sex sibling marriage is legal? If same sex first cousins, who are already related, can marry, why not allow siblings? Not much of a difference.
There is no reasonable comparison between the changes required to support same sex couples (none) and the unknown changes required to support multiple partners.
Insisting that they are the same only makes you foolish.
You're still ignoring the point. Why should it matter to the SSM movement? So poly marriage is more complex, so what? Is the only significant SSM selling point is that it requires "minimal change"?. If the state of Utah. For example, created a "plural marriage union", would you argue against it? I don't understand, why you, or other SSM supporters would be bothered by legal polygamy. As long as SSM is legal, do you really care if poly becomes legal in some form? Or does it somehow make SSM less special?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4155 May 14, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage provides its own answers to your questions. Marriage takes TWO people and unites them as family, so that they are bonded to one another, and so that they legally represent each other in every way. They are each other's power of attorney, each other's next-of-kin, each other's designated heir, etc. It's highly convenient for there to be two and only two people, because one person picks the other for each designation, and that person picks them back. Marriage fills in every checkmark, listing person A as person B's "other half" and vise versa.
Ohhhhhhhhhkay.....I see that you didn't quite grasp what I wrote,or perhaps it wasn't clear enough. Marriage take a man and woman, and transforms them into "legally recognized" husband and wife, not to mention, historically, culturally, and/or religiously. That's what it does. You want to drop the "husband and wife" but keep the number two. Welllll Edmond if ya do that younalsomhave to drop any references to the sexual union of husband and wife as well. No "consummation" including annulments on grounds of failure to consummate, "marital relations", presumption of paternity, etc.
Polygamy complicates that to no end. Person A might choose person B for half their designees, and person C for the other half. While person C might choose person A for a third of them, person B for a third, and person D for a third. Person D might make entirely different choices. Relationship ABC might make different choices and distributions than relationship ABCD. They all have to make complex decisions about their pensions, their social security, their shared property, the custody of their children, etc etc etc. Getting "married" will not solve these complications, the way it does for just two people.
Sooooooooo what....doesn't matter....that's for minds greater than yours or one to sort out.
Marriage would have to be overhauled DRASTICALLY to work for multi-party families. It could certainly be done, I don't see any "moral" objection to it, but nhjeff is right, we can't just say "go ahead and make those changes" without knowing that a deep analysis has been made first, by people rigorously trained in family law (or whatever fields are appropriate). No such changes are necessary for same-sex marriage.
First, SSM fundamentally changes the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, and thus the state's interest in it. Second, SSMers don't need a detailed analysis in order for polygamy to be legalized. It doesn't need your stamp of approval.
But nhjeff is right again, polygamists should be the catalyst for those changes. If you are not a polygamist, and you are discussing the issue with someone who is not a polygamist, what would make you think that either of you are qualified to settle the issue?
Qualifications are irrelevant. Ultimately we are discussing the issue of how marriage is defined. I say husband and wife, you say, spouses for life. So if its not the first, why should it matter if husband and wives, or vice versa, are included?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4156 May 14, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're still ignoring the point. Why should it matter to the SSM movement? So poly marriage is more complex, so what? Is the only significant SSM selling point is that it requires "minimal change"?. If the state of Utah. For example, created a "plural marriage union", would you argue against it? I don't understand, why you, or other SSM supporters would be bothered by legal polygamy. As long as SSM is legal, do you really care if poly becomes legal in some form? Or does it somehow make SSM less special?
No, I am not the one ignoring the point. You continue to twist the circumstances to make an illegitimate argument. Everyone can see how illogical you are. You are just a fool.

But let me spell it out for you: As we have all stated before, we are not bothered by groups of people creating their own solutions to complex problems of living together. I merely want them to define the rules they'd like to enforce and agree to them before I even consider.

Now why would anyone be concerned about polygamous relationships? Employers might be concerned that a modern-day Solomon might have 1000 wives and concubines and many thousands of children. Will the employer be bound to buy health insurance for thousands of members of his employee's family? Will he be guilty of discrimination if he provides insurance only to one single spouse? How many spouses will be eligible for spousal Social Security benefits? Is it fair to monogamous couples to give them only one spousal benefit while Solomon's thousand wives each collect their own?

How we change the law to accommodate our modern-day Solomon IS important! But it's more important to Solomon than it is to you or me. So let Solomon draft the rules. Then we shall see if they make sense for the rest of society.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4157 May 14, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
The REAL question is - why DENY gay couples the right to marry?
Or the REAL issue is why redefine marriage? Why remove the conjugal, opposite sex requirement?
I've outlined some reasons above why we might deny polygamous relationships the right to marry, because they would not fit within marriage's 2-person format without a massive restructuring. But such a denial would not be a "line in the sand". If polygamists made the right presentations, suggested the best legal re-arrangements, I could see it happening. But their denial is not analogous to the denial of marriage for gay couples. We DO fit into a 2-person format
Yes, you do meet the "two person format". The number is maintained, but not the nature, opposite sex. Why should that be dropped for a minority within a sexual minority? Particularly if it could, have negative consequences for marriage, conjugal, and society as a whole? We've seen the damage that "no fault" divorce has created.
. Our genders do not prevent us from loving each other, or caring for one another, or caring for any children, or designating each other as heirs,
Absolutely, true, no disagreement there......no reason such issue couldn't be addressed in a civil union...which some stares have done. I would hope that those gay couples who entered into such a union are respected for having done so, by the gay community, and their families.

or any function of marriage whatsoever.
Sigh....really Edmond? Any function? Ya might want to rethink that last statement. Here's one, accepting each other as husband and wife....or consummating the marriage.....or.....
Nhjeff is right about one more thing, you've been told all this over and over and over. Why does it not sink in?
We're making progress here Edmond....let's not stop now....to be continued.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4158 May 15, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters in the Obama administration leaked confidential IRS information to the press. Keeping marriage male/female means less intrusive government regulation around marriage, less wasteful government spending and stopping higher taxes.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4159 May 15, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
.....

Nhjeff is right about one more thing, you've been told all this over and over and over. Why does it not sink in?
The first reason is because it's the ONLY one he has. He has no logical or rational reason to deny gay COUPLES the right to marry.

Second, his goal is to change the conversation and draw you in. It's a game, and if you begin to discuss polygamy instead of gay couples marrying, then he feels that he has won.

It doesn't really make sense, but that's the game.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4160 May 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters in the Obama administration leaked confidential IRS information to the press. Keeping marriage male/female means less intrusive government regulation around marriage, less wasteful government spending and stopping higher taxes.
Same sex marriage opponents in the Bush Administration lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.

And neither problem has anything to do with gay folks marrying.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4161 May 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The first reason is because it's the ONLY one he has. He has no logical or rational reason to deny gay COUPLES the right to marry.
Technically, gay couples can marry in all fifty states, and have their marriage legally recognized in all fifty states, provided the couple is of the opposite sex. The opposite to your statement is there is no logical reason to designate a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship marriage.
Second, his goal is to change the conversation and draw you in. It's a game, and if you begin to discuss polygamy instead of gay couples marrying, then he feels that he has won.
It doesn't really make sense, but that's the game.
Actually Questy, it's all part of the conversation as to how we, as a society, define marriage legally. To quote another poster, who is a self described supporter of SSM:

"II find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put simply, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?"

Why does it matter to you if polygamy becomes legal? You have already stated the marital legal standard of one man and one woman as husband and wife should be eliminated, do why do you care if the number is also changed?

Would it matter if the state stopped issuing marriage licenses at all?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4162 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh.......geeeee....oh by gosh by golly Johnneeee....ya stumped me on that one. Perhaps it's based on thousands of years of societal evolution throughout time and place, that defined marriage as a union of male and female. It might of have someone to do with that pesky sex between men and women makes babies.....even ones who grow up to post on Internet forums under r name of eJohn
This doesn't address the question, does it?? The question on the table was, "What is the rational reason for designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage?"

To which I responded, "Name the reason for designating an opposite sex intimate sexual relationship as marriage and you'll have your answer."

Then you fly off on a wild tangent including revisionist, inaccurate "history" and making babies, neither of which have anything to do with why a couple would be designated as being married.

So do you want to try again to answer your own question? Or should we just agree that you can't?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4163 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides what pre existing relationship structure is SSM based on? Hmmmmmmm.......yes you there in the back row....eJohn is it......do you know the answer?
Wow. You *really* don't think your positions through very far, do you??

Answer what pre-existing relationship structure opposite-sex marriage is based on and you'll have your answer.

See there?? If you thought your comment through before you posted them, you'd already have your answer.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4164 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage take a man and woman, and transforms them into "legally recognized" husband and wife, not to mention, historically, culturally, and/or religiously.
History, culture and religion are forces for change. Expect them to do just that.

Historically, culturally and religiously, it has always been acceptable to exclude and denigrate gay people, even physically assault them. That has changed. Other things will change with it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You want to drop the "husband and wife" but keep the number two. Welllll Edmond if ya do that younalsomhave to drop any references to the sexual union of husband and wife as well. No "consummation" including annulments on grounds of failure to consummate, "marital relations", presumption of paternity, etc.
Please. How many marriages really rely on all that? I know marriages that have dropped each of those "references". You use the references you like for your marriage, and I'll use the ones I like for mine. Deal?
Pietro Armando wrote:
that's for minds greater than yours or one to sort out.
Let me know when they do.
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, SSM fundamentally changes the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, and thus the state's interest in it.
In what specific way is this changed? Please describe.

As I see it, marriage is (and always has been) a contract between two people. The state upholds such contracts, always has, always will. No change.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Second, SSMers don't need a detailed analysis in order for polygamy to be legalized. It doesn't need your stamp of approval.
Nor yours. But if it will happen, it will be polygamists who do it. It needs at least THEIR stamp of approval, and neither of us can provide that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Qualifications are irrelevant. Ultimately we are discussing the issue of how marriage is defined. I say husband and wife, you say, spouses for life. So if its not the first, why should it matter if husband and wives, or vice versa, are included?
I see no reason that the definition of marriage should be "Gays need not apply". That seems to be your only goal.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4165 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or the REAL issue is why redefine marriage? Why remove the conjugal, opposite sex requirement?
How is that a "requirement"? Please describe.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, you do meet the "two person format". The number is maintained, but not the nature, opposite sex. Why should that be dropped for a minority within a sexual minority? Particularly if it could, have negative consequences for marriage, conjugal, and society as a whole? We've seen the damage that "no fault" divorce has created.
The damage from ANY divorce is the crumbling of a family. That's hard no matter what the legal arrangement is. What are these negative consequences, exactly? Can you be more specific?

Why SHOULDN'T the opposite sex requirement be dropped? Gay couples have the same needs that straight couples do, as provided by marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Absolutely, true, no disagreement there......no reason such issue couldn't be addressed in a civil union...which some stares have done. I would hope that those gay couples who entered into such a union are respected for having done so, by the gay community, and their families.
To say that you don't care if gay people have the exact same rights, but your only issue is that we shouldn't have the exact same title... This is segregation for segregation's sake.

If there is no difference between the functions of marriages and civil unions, then why HAVE a difference? Let a single institution provide that single function.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sigh....really Edmond? Any function? Ya might want to rethink that last statement. Here's one, accepting each other as husband and wife....or consummating the marriage.....or.....
Consummation is NOT a function of marriage. It MIGHT happen, it might NOT. A marriage is not dissolved if consummation doesn't happen. You can't possibly care who is consummating their marriages and who isn't.

I will accept my spouse as my spouse. You can call your spouse whatever you like. This is also not a function of marriage.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4166 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Technically, gay couples can marry in all fifty states, and have their marriage legally recognized in all fifty states, provided the couple is of the opposite sex.
But, what if they don't CONSUMMATE such a marriage? Then what?

Previously, you've made it sound like this is the most important requirement to make a marriage valid. Now it sounds like, as long as gay people are willing to contort their happiness and live a completely unsuitable life, you don't CARE if they don't consummate their marriages.

Make up your mind.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4167 May 15, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You *really* don't think your positions through very far, do you??
Sigh....honestly Johnnie.....
Answer what pre-existing relationship structure opposite-sex marriage is based on and you'll have your answer.
See there?? If you thought your comment through before you posted them, you'd already have your answer.
Johnnie....Johnnie....eJohn. Marriage developed as a monogamous union of man and wife, or a polygamous union of man and wives....why? Polyandry....practiced,but rare. SSM is virtually a modern western invention. It never developed across time and place, and sustained itself. It it did, there'd be no need for this debate.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4168 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage developed as a monogamous union of man and wife, or a polygamous union of man and wives....why?
Because human beings fall in love and want to spend their lives together, and they want that bond to be legally protected so that no outside forces may infringe on it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is virtually a modern western invention.
But same-sex partners falling in love and wanting to spend their lives together is NOT a modern western invention. Same-sex couples have been doing this throughout history.

Recognizing those relationships as "marriage" is relatively new, but so is allowing gay people to serve in the military, or to be open in any employment situation, or simply to walk down the street holding hands.

When a society realizes it's been treating a minority badly, MANY things change to correct that. There is no reason NOT to have legal protection for same-sex relationships, and there is no reason to have a SEPARATE arrangement for that other than the one which already exists to do the very same job.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#4169 May 15, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
History, culture and religion are forces for change. Expect them to do just that.
As I do.
Historically, culturally and religiously, it has always been acceptable to exclude and denigrate gay people, even physically assault them. That has changed. Other things will change with it.
Wait a moment here. Various cultures during various times have tolerated, recognized, and/or even celebrated same sex sexual behavior/relationships. "Gay" is a relatively modern political sexual identity label to refer to homosexuality/homosexuals. At one time "gay" referred to hedonistic opposite sex sexual practices. A "gay man" was a womanizer, a "gay woman" a prostitute. I sense you know this already. Never the less, it is not justification for physical assault.
How many marriages really rely on all that? I know marriages that have dropped each of those "references". You use the references you like for your marriage, and I'll use the ones I like for mine. Deal?
They are legal terms referencing the sexual union of husband and wife. We both know that.
Let me know when they do.
Don't worry, it'll be in all the papers.
In what specific way is this changed? Please describe.
As I stated, it's no longer "husband and wife", in a few states anyway, but rather "Party A and Party B". If the sex of the participants does not matter, why should the number matter? Why does the state have an interest in two people of the same sex marrying? Why does that suddenly matter now? Why should it matter to the state that "Party A and Party B" marry at all? Or that "Party A and Party B" are not blood relatives, excluding first cousins?
As I see it, marriage is (and always has been) a contract between two people. The state upholds such contracts, always has, always will. No change.
In this country, at least prior to 2004, a contract of husband and wife. Why does the state need to contract a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage. Or in any other way, as a civil union, for example?
Nor yours. But if it will happen, it will be polygamists who do it. It needs at least THEIR stamp of approval, and neither of us can provide that.
Fair enough.
I see no reason that the definition of marriage should be "Gays need not apply". That seems to be your only goal.
That's just it! Gays can apply, and have applied, and married, someone of the opposite sex, fathered children with their wife, or given birth to children fathered by their husband, loved and in turn were loved by their opposite sex spouse, etc....All the things that husbands and wives do. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, I know that most gay people don't want to marry to the opposite sex, and state it would not be, in most cases, desired by either party. I'm simply saying "gays" can marry.

Actually my "goal" is that marriage as an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife be the sole legal standard. It's best for society as a whole. As for SSCs, I believe that civil unions are the answer. Different situation, different solution. The radical thing about that is there are gay people who feel the same way.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-21...

Letís face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships. We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society. Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4170 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Wait a moment here. Various cultures during various times have tolerated, recognized, and/or even celebrated same sex sexual behavior/relationships. "Gay" is a relatively modern political sexual identity label to refer to homosexuality/homosexuals. At one time "gay" referred to hedonistic opposite sex sexual practices. A "gay man" was a womanizer, a "gay woman" a prostitute. I sense you know this already. Never the less, it is not justification for physical assault.
Yet it happened (and happens). It doesn't matter what labels you put on people. The fact is that it has long been acceptable, in decades past, to treat homosexual people (under whatever label of the day) with scorn and exclusion.

That has changed. Many things will change with it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They are legal terms referencing the sexual union of husband and wife. We both know that.
No, we most certainly do NOT. "Legal terms"? They may have legal DEFINITIONS, but they have no legal connection to "man and wife". There's no reason they can't be applied to same-sex couples, or even unmarried couples. They're just "terms". They are not legal pre-requisites for marriage, and a marriage that chooses not to use them (or a marriage where they don't apply) is no less valid than any other marriage.

And no one will be forced to drop them. If you like them, then use them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't worry, it'll be in all the papers.
Wake me when it happens. Excuse me if I don't get excited when it's only ANOTHER conservative building a polygamist strawman.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As I stated, it's no longer "husband and wife", in a few states anyway, but rather "Party A and Party B".
No one will prosecute you if you choose to use the words "husband" and "wife".
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the sex of the participants does not matter, why should the number matter?
I'm not going over this YET AGAIN for you. See my post #4152, paragraph 2.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does the state have an interest in two people of the same sex marrying? Why does that suddenly matter now?
"Now"? I think the issue of polygamy was settled about 150 years ago. Still, see my previous post.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why should it matter to the state that "Party A and Party B" marry at all?
Because if the people INVOLVED don't choose to undertake any contract, then what does the state have to enforce?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or that "Party A and Party B" are not blood relatives, excluding first cousins?
The reason people NEED marriage is that it makes them into family when they were not. Blood relatives don't need that. Besides, go Google current incest laws in this country.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In this country, at least prior to 2004, a contract of husband and wife. Why does the state need to contract a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage. Or in any other way, as a civil union, for example?
I don't know that the state DOES "need" to. The people involved DO need to, and the state enforces such contracts.

If anyone breaks any contract with you, who do you turn to? Bartenders? Veterinarians? Or do you go to your state judiciary for them to enforce a solution?

This is why the state is involved. Two people contract together to be each other's permanent and only represenatives. If any outside party tries to intervene, or if one of the spouses does not live up to their obligations, then the state is needed to enforce the contract.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#4171 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gays can apply, and have applied, and married, someone of the opposite sex, fathered children with their wife, or given birth to children fathered by their husband, loved and in turn were loved by their opposite sex spouse, etc....All the things that husbands and wives do. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, I know that most gay people don't want to marry to the opposite sex, and state it would not be, in most cases, desired by either party.
Then why bring it up? What solution does it provide? Many of those marriages end in divorce, too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually my "goal" is that marriage as an exclusive monogamous union of husband and wife be the sole legal standard.
Why?
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's best for society as a whole.
WHY?? Can you offer some specifics?
Pietro Armando wrote:
As for SSCs, I believe that civil unions are the answer. Different situation, different solution.
Yet they're identical! Explain in SPECIFICS how civil unions would differ from marriage. You have never done this (you are remarkably reticent whenever asked for ANY specifics). If the two are not different, then there is no point in HAVING two.

Name a scenario, ANY scenario, in which a "marriage" does not provide a "solution" for a same-sex couple, while a civil union does. Explain to me how this works, through a cogent example.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The radical thing about that is there are gay people who feel the same way.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-21...
So?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Letís face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships.
You could say the same thing about dating, or roller-skating, or holding hands. "Exclusion" is the "old construct".
Pietro Armando wrote:
We should welcome the opportunity to christen a new tradition, beginning a new chapter in the history of gays and lesbians within American society.
We are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.
Define "need".

From my point of view, it seems that all we "need" to do is keep fighting the good fight, because it's working.

The traditions I start with my partner will differ from those that you celebrate with yours. But "traditions" won't get me in to see him in the hospital. "Traditions" won't ensure that his Social Security is transfered to me when he dies. "Traditions" aren't legally binding. Marriage is.

I'd consider your argument if you could give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE as to how a civil union would differ from a marriage, but you have yet to do that. If these two institutions are functionally identical in every way, then I see no reason not to just use the one in place.

What will marriage do for you that it won't do for me? What will civil unions do for me, that they won't do for you? EXPLAIN yourself.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4172 May 16, 2013
Quest wrote:
Same sex marriage opponents in the Bush Administration lied about the presence of WMD in Iraq.
That's your excuse, two wrongs make a right?

.
Quest wrote:
And neither problem has anything to do with gay folks marrying.
It's all about same sex marriage; The National Organization for Marriage was targeted and Obama's IRS leaked donor information to same sex marriage supporters. This scandal is about targeting political opponents for illegal harassment by the Obama administration.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 min Wisdom of Ages 14,769
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 1 hr EdmondWA 67
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 11 hr Wondering 26
News Gay man denied marriage license hopes to unseat... 12 hr Voter 78
News 'Selma and Stonewall': Gay rights issues divide... (Jan '13) Tue Balls At Work 117
News Will Donald Trump be invited to the royal wedding? Tue Trump is a joke 99
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Tue servermarkazi 282
More from around the web