Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Read more

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8336 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No "group of people" were excluded to begin with. Both men and women have always been included in the recognition of marriage, it's their union which forms the definitional foundation of marriage. To remove one sex from that definition, would be to redefine marriage.
.
<quoted text>
There is also a church that performs plural marriage ceremonies too...are they being denied the right to marry couples too?
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you're absolutely wrong and you know it. it's been explained to you since your first flurry of posts on this topic, so i won't bother repeating the same information again. there's no point in being redundent because it just doesn't sink in with you and bi.
What specifically am I wrong about?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8337 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement doesn't even make sense. Denying Americans equality under the law is much more of a big brother issue than allowing equality for same sex couples to marry.
Nor does yours. No American man, or woman is denied equal protection under the law as it relates to marriage.
How does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights if you choose not to enter into such a union?
By that reasoning, how does allowing ssm, plural marriage, or even incestuous marriage impact anyone's right?

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#8338 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No "group of people" were excluded to begin with. Both men and women have always been included in the recognition of marriage, it's their union which forms the definitional foundation of marriage. To remove one sex from that definition, would be to redefine marriage.
.
<quoted text>
There is also a church that performs plural marriage ceremonies too...are they being denied the right to marry couples too?
<quoted text>
What specifically am I wrong about?
Everyting you dolt. See the Merriam-Webster defintion below.
There's no need for a re-definition, it's clearly defined already.
Now go roll your fat wife in flour and have a good time and quit trolling for, well we all know what you really want. ;)

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#8339 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please answer the question....I did ask nicely.
Which definition of marriage is the fundamental right to marry based on?
it is not based on the definition at all, as that is not static.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#8340 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor does yours. No American man, or woman is denied equal protection under the law as it relates to marriage.
<quoted text>
By that reasoning, how does allowing ssm, plural marriage, or even incestuous marriage impact anyone's right?
again...and again...that is what people arguing against inter=racial marriages said. they were wrong. very wrong, in fact, as it was exactly that equal protection amendment which they based their ruling on.

The US gov't now recognizes SSM for some of its citizens, ti will not take long for that ruling to lead to that recognitions for all its citizens, under the same concept.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8341 Aug 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it is not based on the definition at all, as that is not static.
The fundamental right to marry is based on marriage as the legally recognized union of husband and wife. Really that that difficult to understand.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8342 Aug 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>again...and again...that is what people arguing against inter=racial marriages said
That interracial marriage would lead to the micengenation of the race? That mixed raced babies could result from interracial marriage? That only certain racial combinations, were prohibited in certain states at various times? That black men married white immigrant Scottish and Irish women in New York City in the mid 19th century, over one hundred years before the Loving case?

All that relates to same sex marriage how? Let's see.......we could argue against racial segregation within marriage to argue for gender segregation within marriage.....no, that seems odd.....we could argue for mixed race babies produced by an interracial union of husband and wife to argue for no babies produced by a union of husband and husband, or wife and wife.....no, still not quite right...

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8343 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental right to marry is based on marriage as the legally recognized union of husband and wife. Really that that difficult to understand.
Sorry Pietro.......but that's NOT true in ALL states and eventually it won't be that way in ALL 50 states!!!

Have a great weekend!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8344 Aug 16, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyting you dolt. See the Merriam-Webster defintion below.
There's no need for a re-definition, it's clearly defined already.
It was, nationwide, prior to 2004, clearly defined, solely, as a legally recognized union of husband and wife. Now that sole definition applies in thirty plus states. A few other states have eliminated the "husband AND wife" part. Although, that union is still valid nationwide, ALL fifty states.
Now go roll your fat wife in flour and have a good time and quit trolling for, well we all know what you really want. ;)
Now put down the spiked rainbow punch, it's time for you to return to the asylum now.
(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
"....like that of a traditional marriage"? In other words, not the same.
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
All that reflects the understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife. Thanks for playing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8345 Aug 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pietro.......but that's NOT true in ALL states and eventually it won't be that way in ALL 50 states!!!
Have a great weekend!!!
Sure it is, when the Supreme Court ruled marriage is a fundamental right, it was referring to marriage as it was understood. The union of one man and one woman joined together as husband and wife. Plus it's valid in all fifty states!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8346 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, can you indicate a compelling state interest served by preventing a homosexual from marrying someone that they love who happens to be of the same sex that would render your position remotely valid, and hint that you have even an iota of intelligence?
Bravo! Thank you lides. That posting seems sincere and heartfelt on your part. The problem with that reasoning, as I see it, is that it can be applied to other adult relationships. You could have just as written:

"Pietro, can you indicate a compelling state interest served by preventing a bisexual from marrying someone of each sex, that they love that would render your position remotely valid, and hint that you have even an iota of intelligence?"

Or apply it to a polygamous relationship. If there's no state interest in preventing two homosexuals from marrying based on how they define "love" for each other, that same reasoning applies to polygamists, and how they define "love" for each other.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#8347 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it is, when the Supreme Court ruled marriage is a fundamental right, it was referring to marriage as it was understood. The union of one man and one woman joined together as husband and wife. Plus it's valid in all fifty states!
as will SSM be soon. the federal gov't cannot recognize marriages for only some ss couples and maintian that equal protection mandate. the DOMA ruling opened the door wide for the suit that will make it legal nationwide...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8349 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've certainly failed to prove that it is based upon procreation. That notion went out the window the moment the state allowed any infertile heterosexual couple the right to legally marry.
Okay laddie, let's try and break this down. First, it's based in he male female relationship as husband and wife. Second, sex between men and women is potentially procreation all. Third, infertile OPPOSITE SEX couples have always been allowed to marry without anyone thinking, at least in this country, marriage and procreation aren't linked. Lastly, "heterosexual" as with "homosexual", are relatively recent terms. The couple is either of the opposite sex, or same sex.
You've similarly proven incapable of offering a state interest served by denying a homosexual the right to marry someone of the same sex who they love.
They can marry whomever they want, as can polygamists who enter into spiritual marriages without state recognition. Legally, however, they have to marry, just LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE! Quite simple.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#8350 Aug 16, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
But right now it's ONLY 13 states NOT 50
but the federal gov't recognizes same sex marriages as totally equal, as it is.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8351 Aug 16, 2013
Lides

Look at the dates of those cases. Do you think, maybe, just maybe, the courts were aware that not every married couple could, or would procreate? Yes they did, and the state still allowed infertile couples, or couples past their child bearing years, to marry,. It in no way negated the link between marriage and procreation, nor the state's compelling interest in that regard.

“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541

“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.

Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.

“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8352 Aug 16, 2013
bob lewis wrote:
<quoted text>
Forcing Catholic Hospitals to preform Late Term Abortions and Sex Change Operations as it must under PelosiCare might paint a very different picture than the one you are putting forward.
What's wrong with sex change operations?

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8353 Aug 16, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
But right now it's ONLY 13 states NOT 50
Your point? I'm not worried....but you must be!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8354 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Lides

“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
Looks like many things have changed in the last sixty years huh Petey?

Hint: People can procreate just fine without marriage.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8355 Aug 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bravo! Thank you lides. That posting seems sincere and heartfelt on your part. The problem with that reasoning, as I see it, is that it can be applied to other adult relationships. You could have just as written:
Or apply it to a polygamous relationship. If there's no state interest in preventing two homosexuals from marrying based on how they define "love" for each other, that same reasoning applies to polygamists, and how they define "love" for each other.
Don't parse my comments, or attempt to speak for me, twit.

Oh, and learn to count. Polygamists seek greater, not equal protection of the law. Were you able to count you would understand this simple fact.

Do you understand what equal means? Apparently not.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8356 Aug 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Lides
Look at the dates of those cases. Do you think, maybe, just maybe, the courts were aware that not every married couple could, or would procreate? Yes they did, and the state still allowed infertile couples, or couples past their child bearing years, to marry,. It in no way negated the link between marriage and procreation, nor the state's compelling interest in that regard.
“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 (quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra 316 U.S. At p. 541 and citing Maynard v Hill, supra, 125 U.S. 190)
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
You, of course, can provide a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such restrictions constitutional, right?

If not, you are simply reaffirming that you are a twit.

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 Kentucky argues gay marriage ban not biased 21 min Fa-Foxy 10
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 28 min Respect71 1,632
News Father found guilty of marrying off his 12-year... 36 min Makbara e Islam 10
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 54 min CDC 51,890
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 55 min Chris Toal 30,960
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr MarcelB 922
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Pietro Armando 1,954
More from around the web