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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5238 Jul 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you indicate a compelling state interest in designating a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship "marriage", when the right to marry is based on the historical, social, cultural, and long standing concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife?
<quoted text>
What will you do with your copious amount of free time when marriage equality is extended to ALL including polygamists union, and the state no longer has an interest in marriage at all?
a) the state interest is following our constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.

B) only an intensely stupid person would not understand that 3 (or more) is greater than two, and therefore polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law. Polygamy was not legalized after bans on interracial marriage were struck, and only an idiot would think that allowing same sex marriage would automatically lead to polygamy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5239 Jul 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They're both a blessing and a curse.
So true my friend. lol

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5240 Jul 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about it Wastey, if Americans as a whole took marriage, the union of husband and wife, far more seriously today, as they did 40-50 years ago, would the idea of a same sex "marriage", be anything more than a fringe idea? Americans "shack up" with greater frequency, bear children out of wedlock at higher rates than even twenty years ago, divorce, and remarry, or not even marry at all, engage in "serial monogamy", and have "baby's mamas" or "baby's daddy". This began long before SSM.
So now we've arrived at the point where SSM is legal in a few states, the Feds will now recognize it, and polygamists are thanking their lesbian sisters, and gay brothers for "blazing the trail". Did anyone even imagine there'd be, not one, but two, reality shows featuring polygamous families on TV, 15-20 years ago?
There are several driving factors.

1. Women can and do have their own income. They are no longer dependent upon a man for support.

2. Birth control allows people to have sex without having children.

3. Marriage is consensual rather than pre-determined. It is now a contract between two consenting adults.

4. Polygamy contributes substantially to over population. Therefore it is in the State's interest to outlaw polygamy as a practical matter.

5. Not one country or state where SSM has become legal changed any law regarding polygamy or other non-consensual marriage arrangements.

6. Same sex marriage is considered valid by over half the population and that number is growing every day. Same sex marriage is hardly a fringe idea.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5241 Jul 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
There are several driving factors.
1. Women can and do have their own income. They are no longer dependent upon a man for support.
True, however, for some female demographic groups, Uncle Sam, is the man.
2. Birth control allows people to have sex without having children.
[/QUOTE[

True, however its not fool proof, and the fool(s) must use it consistently.

[QUOTE]
3. Marriage is consensual rather than pre-determined. It is now a contract between two consenting adults.
True, however, polygamy is practiced in this country without legal recognition. Also Americans seem to be serial monogamists. Even among the gay population.
4. Polygamy contributes substantially to over population. Therefore it is in the State's interest to outlaw polygamy as a practical matter.
True, however, the state does subsidize, "baby's mama", and "daddy", thus making Uncle Sam a polygamist.
5. Not one country or state where SSM has become legal changed any law regarding polygamy or other non-consensual marriage arrangements.
True, as of yet. However the UK will recognize foreign polygamous marriages for welfare purposes.
6. Same sex marriage is considered valid by over half the population and that number is growing every day. Same sex marriage is hardly a fringe idea.
today that is true, however, several decades ago, it was a fringe idea.

Ciao mi amico

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5242 Jul 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
a) the state interest is following our constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
And you have the same access to equal protection, as it relates to the legally recognized union of husband and wife, as other man. No more, no less.
B) only an intensely stupid person would not understand that 3 (or more) is greater than two, and therefore polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law.
So a polygamist should have the same protection as a gay person, in that they each have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized, monogamous union, of husband and wife, yes? Equality for all then.
Polygamy was not legalized after bans on interracial marriage were struck, and only an idiot would think that allowing same sex marriage would automatically lead to polygamy.
That's because marriage was viewed as both a conjugal, husband and wife, relationship, and monogamous. Remember interracial marriage was legal in various parts of country, at various times in our nation's history. For example, mid 19th century NYC, white Scottish and Irish immigrant women married black men. A hundred years or so, prior to Virginia's ban.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5243 Jul 5, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
I don't follow you? Disposable in marriage? "Unisex society"?
Exactly, same sex marriage means either a husband or wife is disposable when it comes to marriage. You follow, a same sex marriage would necessarily have either no husband or no wife. Do you understand now?

Same sex marriage forces government to see marriage partners as if gender is invisible or unimportant where previously our society encouraged masculine and feminine virtues. In this way, government is forced to treat marriage as if husbands and wives are unisex.

Male/female differences are real, else homosexuals would be bisexuals. Do you want to live aboard a ship where its everyone for themselves instead of women and children to the lifeboats first?

.
TrueAtheist wrote:
Do you think legalizing same sex marriage somehow outlaws marriage between a man and a woman?
No, I've never thought or written "legalizing same sex marriage somehow outlaws marriage between a man and a woman" or anything of the sort. Licensing same sex marriage creates a new standard of gender segregation marriage as a political overture to a minority group. It creates a new type of gender apartheid marriage where previously all marriage was gender integrated and perfectly diverse.

.
TrueAtheist wrote:
I live in CA. Same sex marriage resumed in the state last Friday. It will be 1 week tomorrow and CA is not a state with a "unisex society".
Give it time, do you know a child can decide which gender's bathroom to use based on claims of identification instead of the student's gender?

.
TrueAtheist wrote:
I've woken up every single morning this week next to the same man I've been married to for 10 years. Somehow the legalization of same sex marriage didn't magically transform my marriage into a "unisex" marriage, or into anything other than what it has been all along.
Have you noticed how children are now forced to learn about the 'contributions' of gay, lesbian and transgender in public school? I'm not writing about "magic", I'm writing about culture and society rules and courtesies.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5244 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
And you have the same access to equal protection, as it relates to the legally recognized union of husband and wife, as other man. No more, no less.
Pietro, unless you have managed to find a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex couples the right to legally marry, then such a restriction is not constitutional, and equal protection is not satisfied.

I still waiting to see if you have the brains to back up your position.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So a polygamist should have the same protection as a gay person, in that they each have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized, monogamous union, of husband and wife, yes? Equality for all then.
Learn to count Pietro. Is 3 (or more) equal to, lesser than, or greater than two?

Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people, and no state in the union has such an arrangement. Same sex marriage seeks equal protection for two people, which is already available in every state in the union.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's because marriage was viewed as both a conjugal, husband and wife, relationship, and monogamous. Remember interracial marriage was legal in various parts of country, at various times in our nation's history. For example, mid 19th century NYC, white Scottish and Irish immigrant women married black men. A hundred years or so, prior to Virginia's ban.
And it has been put to bed as a matter of law for over 100 years.

Only a fool would think arguing polygamy is relevant. It is a separate issue, which has already specifically been addressed, and currently is illegal everywhere.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5245 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, however, for some female demographic groups, Uncle Sam, is the man.
<quoted text>
True, however, polygamy is practiced in this country without legal recognition. Also Americans seem to be serial monogamists. Even among the gay population.
<quoted text>
True, however, the state does subsidize, "baby's mama", and "daddy", thus making Uncle Sam a polygamist.
<quoted text>
True, as of yet. However the UK will recognize foreign polygamous marriages for welfare purposes.
<quoted text>
today that is true, however, several decades ago, it was a fringe idea.
Ciao mi amico
Thanks for your agreement. Looks like times have changed.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5246 Jul 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, that's the HRC's webpage, it reflects there political strategy.
.
<quoted text>And lides is a shill willing to overlook IRS scandal, so she sees that. Blame the victim, social justice.
Speaking of actual political strategy, Darrell Issa has had to roll back his rhetoric in the complete absence of proof of his allegations.

Way to back a losing horse, Brian.
“I’ve never said it came out of the office of the President or his campaign. What I’ve said is, it comes out of Washington.” Darrell Issa
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line...

"As late as last week the administration's still trying to say there's a few rogue agents in Cincinnati when in fact the indication is they were directly being ordered from Washington," Issa told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union."
and
"Their paid liar, their spokesperson -- picture behind -- he’s still making up things about what happens and calling this a local rogue,” Issa said while gesturing to an image of Carney behind Crowley.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/02/darr...

Gee, Brian, maybe it would pay to wait for some facts to come in before you go off half cocked and start calling for witch hunts? It appears this one would have been as effective as a snipe hunt.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5247 Jul 5, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no you idiot, polygamy is marriageS, not a form of marriage. The wives are not married to each other you moron. Each pairing of husband and wives is an INDEPENDENT marriage. MULTIPLE marriages is not marriage. 1 does not equal greater than one.
Forget it. You're a moron. Carry on with your blathering. It's the same on this string as all your other strings. Pure idiocy.
apparently they could be.why couldn't a guy join an established relationship between two women?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#5248 Jul 5, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Wedding flowers are arranged at the shop and delivered to the wedding facility. Typically, someone else places the arrangements around the facility.
Creating bouquets for a same-sex wedding is not more approving of the marriage than delivering flowers to a funeral is approving of the decedent.
but many florists are assumed to be the decorator. our wedding went as you described. but people of means and of an upper level in society hire their florist and their artistic eye includes decoration as part of their services to the wedding. she did not want to participate in that part of their wedding.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5249 Jul 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, unless you have managed to find a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex couples the right to legally marry, then such a restriction is not constitutional, and equal protection is not satisfied.
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/publications...

The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. In one of the earliest opinions, arising from a challenge to Washington’s marriage law, the court asserted,“The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”5 The court also said that the state’s failure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples “is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.”6 The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese ... are exceptional situations.”7 It went on to say,
Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus, the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriage results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination “on account of sex.” Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants... because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se.8

3. See Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-87 (Minn. 1972), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1973)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Ky. 1973)(female same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
4. See Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993)(three same-sex couples challenged the state’s definition of marriage); Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743, at *6 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1998)(male same-sex couple sought to compel the issuance of a marriage license to them).
5. Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
Learn to count Pietro. Is 3 (or more) equal to, lesser than, or greater than two?
Polygamy seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people, and no state in the union has such an arrangement. Same sex marriage seeks equal protection for two people, which is already available in every state in the union.
Logically, SSM and polygamy are linked in that they each seek a fundamental change in the American legal concept of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. SSM seeks to change the nature, opposite sex, polygamy seeks to change the monogamous aspect. All men and women can only marry, and be married to, a person of the opposite sex, at any one time. The law applies to all.
Only a fool would think arguing polygamy is relevant. It is a separate issue, which has already specifically been addressed, and currently is illegal everywhere.
Only a fool would deny the link between the two, or is arrogant enough to advocate that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand" as it relates to the legal definition of marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5250 Jul 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for your agreement. Looks like times have changed.
That they have. We may reach a point where the state no longer has an interest in who marries who. When marriage will be delegalized, assuming that's a word. Or even a multiple choice marriage license option. Hypothetically speaking, if a state were to offer more than one type of marriage license, in much the same when it issues, for example, different types of driver's licenses, do you think there would be significant opposition, if OSCs were issued a "conjugal" marriage license, SSCs were issued a "same sex" marriage license, and even a plural marriage license? Everyone gets the label "marriage", tailored to their particular situation.

Food for thought.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5251 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/publications...
The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. In one of the earliest opinions, arising from a challenge to Washington’s marriage law, the court asserted,“The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”5 The court also said that the state’s failure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples “is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.”6 The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese ... are exceptional situations.”7 It went on to say,
Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus, the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriage results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination “on account of sex.” Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants... because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se.8
3. See Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-87 (Minn. 1972), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1973)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Ky. 1973)(female same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
4. See Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993)(three same-sex couples challenged the state’s definition of marriage); Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743, at *6 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1998)(male same-sex couple sought to compel the issuance of a marriage license to them).
5. Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
<quoted text>
Logically, SSM and polygamy are linked in that they each seek a fundamental change in the American legal concept of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. SSM seeks to change the nature, opposite sex, polygamy seeks to change the monogamous aspect. All men and women can only marry, and be married to, a person of the opposite sex, at any one time. The law applies to all.
<quoted text>
Only a fool would deny the link between the two, or is arrogant enough to advocate that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand" as it relates to the legal definition of marriage.
The court no longer accepts that drivel.

Sorry bro.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5252 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
" Marital status is a factor in....." So, not everything is a "right"?
The Government Accountability Office doesn't establish rights. But yes, some are identified as "benefits" or "privileges". This is just a summation of adjectives that describe those 1,138 ACTIONS granted by marriage. It's perfectly valid to just CALL them all "rights" for clarity's sake. But both benefits and privileges can be categorized as rights.

Your question was asking for verification that the number is actually 1,138. Now you're on about semantic differences which only specify more detailed information about these rights. You're drifting from your own point. These are all "rights" in every sense of the term, and there are 1,138 of them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
To use your reasoning there's no reason why a "two person" marriage model regardless of gender composition, could not be applied to ANY two consenting adults. If its simply a benefits package, there's no need to exclude siblings, at least not same sex ones.
Then siblings must be able to get married. That must be reality.

Even though these are not strangers who have met and found in each other the desire to become family. Even though they have no need of a contract agreement to make them into family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your peeps have blazed the trail, and the poly people thank you.
It's one thing to have a hypothetical conversation about whether polygamy should be legal, without any actual input from polygamists. But it's really something else to put yourself in their place and give thanks on their behalf. I'll wait to say "you're welcome" until I'm saying it to a real polygamist who has actually acheived anything legally. Otherwise, you're inventing people to thank me, just as much as you're inventing the people fighting for polygamist rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy is just as relevant, to the question, as is SSM. The question which is at the heart of the issue. How do we as a society, define marriage, at least legally? Ultimately, that is what is issue is.
And the law is coming out on our side in this. Challenges brought by gay couples are being won. Society, and the law, seems to be heading toward defining it as a legal joining of two unrelated adult humans.
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, unlimited is not possible, there's only so many hours in a day.
So, what limits would you impose? Infinitely unlimited may not be possible, but they could certainly go on for a while. How many spouses is too many? 10? 50? 500? Where would you tell them to put on the brakes? Will polygamous marriages be only 1 man with multiple women, or 1 woman with multiple men? Can they be 4 men and 6 women? Can a 10 person marriage join with another 10 person marriage, making a new big 20 person group? Can some of them marry into other groups? Could there be one, giant polygamous MASS across the country, all inter-married to each other?

Just because there are so many hours in a day doesn't mean that polygamists will voluntarily impose their own self-limits. Do you have ANY ideas for what the limits should be? Can you see why this complexity makes the idea almost too unwieldy to implement, and why it can't simply be tackled at the same time as same-sex marriage?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5253 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Second the current marriage law, limits them, as it limits you.
Wrong. We are FAR more hamstrung in our efforts to join with a loved one or form a family.

Polygamists can at least choose ONE person, which is one more than we are allowed (excepting many recent and ongoing changes in many states). They are allowed to marry, as you are. And then they want to marry again. And again. And again. Why, exactly? Because they can't decide on who they love? Because they want another person to enjoy the benefits of their protection? And another? And another? At what point does this progression become unreasonable? You haven't suggested any limits. ARE there any?

Is it unfair to deny them this limitless spouse-stacking? Are they ONLY able to feel love, when it is with multiple people? If they stop at one person, does the love disappear? I doubt it.

And what about the points that Olson made? He rose issues "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody..." EACH of these is important to consider, and all are unique to polygamy.

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are not the same thing. They are not similar. They are not related. Neither is a stepping stone for the other. If opening a national debate about one ALSO opens debate on the other, that is as close as they come. You cannot FORCE the two together, and you cannot anchor same-sex marriage progress with the untenable weight of polygamy.

If you are going to insist that polygamy is part of this conversation, then I expect you to SOLVE all of polygamy's problems FIRST. Go through all 1,138 marriage rights and show how they can be restructured so that they serve any number of people rather than just two. Address polygamy's reputation for oppression to women. Bring that to the table, and THEN we'll discuss it. Otherwise, these two issues are apples and red herrings. If you have no solutions, then you're not serious about this discussion.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM seeks to change the nature, conjugal as in husband and wife,,while polygamy, seeks to change the number, two.
So? I see no problem with this. As more than a dozen US states and a dozen world nations have shown, this functions perfectly.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Third, your "orientation" does not physically prevent you from marrying, entering into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Do you have short-term memory loss, or are your eyes simply unable to point upwards, so you can look at our previous conversation? Aren't you done with this pointless, insulting "argument" yet?

I understand that you don't CARE whether gay people are able to marry the person they love, of the gender that suits them. Why should you? If we live with this obstacle, it doesn't affect YOU, right?

But it affects us, and we see through this sham of "reasoning". Such a requirement is a SPIT IN THE FACE of gay people (a shade of the animus that has always motivated such laws). It's really disrespectful of marriage, too. Marriage is not a rote duty to be fulfilled by emotionless robots. People have REASONS for marrying. But just because YOU could care less about OUR reasons for marrying, doesn't mean we're going to abandon them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No state in the union requires a "statement of sexual orientation" prior to issuing a marriage license. Should that be required? If so should the state prevent people from marrying outside their declared orientation?
Let me know when you're done being completely ridiculous.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If one's marriage choice, as recognized by law, is based on one's orientation, where do bisexuals fit it? Is that not a call for polygamy?
You must really be amusing yourself.

Bisexuals would still only marry one person. But they'll be just as free to choose the gender of that person as you or I. Give me a break.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5254 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://marriagelawfoundation.org/publications...
The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. In one of the earliest opinions, arising from a challenge to Washington’s marriage law, the court asserted,“The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”5 The court also said that the state’s failure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples “is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.”6 The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese ... are exceptional situations.”7 It went on to say,
Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus, the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriage results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination “on account of sex.” Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants... because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se.8
3. See Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186-87 (Minn. 1972), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1973)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588, 589-90 (Ky. 1973)(female same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
4. See Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 67 (Haw. 1993)(three same-sex couples challenged the state’s definition of marriage); Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743, at *6 (Alaska Super. Ct. Feb. 27, 1998)(male same-sex couple sought to compel the issuance of a marriage license to them).
5. Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974)(male same-sex couple challenged state’s refusal to issue them a marriage license).
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
<quoted text>
Logically, SSM and polygamy are linked in that they each seek a fundamental change in the American legal concept of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. SSM seeks to change the nature, opposite sex, polygamy seeks to change the monogamous aspect. All men and women can only marry, and be married to, a person of the opposite sex, at any one time. The law applies to all.
<quoted text>
Only a fool would deny the link between the two, or is arrogant enough to advocate that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand" as it relates to the legal definition of marriage.
I can't help but notice the fact that numerous federal and appeals courts have rejected these legal theories.

It is also worthy of note that the state regularly allows infertile couples the right to marry, which further disproves the notion that there is a procreative requirement relative to the legal protections of marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5255 Jul 5, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The court no longer accepts that drivel.
Sorry bro.
Ahhhh....our moment has passed I see. It's only "drivel" to those hardcore, rainbow flag waving, homosexist, protest march veterans.....I sure there's a few more...they'll come to me later.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5256 Jul 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help but notice the fact that numerous federal and appeals courts have rejected these legal theories.
It is also worthy of note that the state regularly allows infertile couples the right to marry, which further disproves the notion that there is a procreative requirement relative to the legal protections of marriage.
You ask for the compelling state interest, and I provided it. Not that you would've agreed with it anyway, for you there is no compelling state interest in not calling a personal same sex intimate sexual relationship marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5257 Jul 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh....our moment has passed I see. It's only "drivel" to those hardcore, rainbow flag waving, homosexist, protest march veterans.....I sure there's a few more...they'll come to me later.
Times have changed my friend. It is time for all of us to accept each other lovingly rather than make such shameful distinctions which lead to animosity, distrust, and hatred.

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) 5 hr old_moose 13,219
News Australians embarrassed to be shown up by NZ on... 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 3
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 7 hr Abrahammock Relig... 359
News 15 weird wedding rituals from all across the gl... 11 hr Parden Pard 4
News Tanzania suspends NGO for 'promotion' of gay ma... Sat Newt G s Next Rel... 3
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Sat paully 32,030
News From Jamaica to Knees Sat Team Kelly 1
More from around the web