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

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8637 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what's this thread about?
This thread is about the RIGHT to marry for Same-Sex Couples and more specifically how Church leaders vow to do something.......lol!!!

The fact that the media keeps referring to it as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage doesn't mean that's what it is actually called......BECAUSE IT ISN'T.....not one single "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" marriage license has been issued!!!

My wife and I do NOT have a Same-Sex marriage.....we just have a marriage that involves 2 consenting adults of the Same-Sex!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8638 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a legit question
It's the question of a child who simply wants to post for the sake of posting when he has absolutely nothing to say.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8639 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!
I'm sure it will tie into polygamy and procreation. Doesn't everything?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8640 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what's this thread about?
Demonstrating what vacuous morons Pedro and you are.

Any other stupid questions we can clear up for you?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8641 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>No they didn't. No stop deflecting and lying, copy cat.
LOL.

there there sweetheart. you'll wake up from your nap soon.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8642 Aug 26, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you have it backward.
Fundamental human rights belong to everyone.
[/QUOTE[

Exactly, all men and all women

[QUOTE]
They can only be restricted when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Age, informed consent, number, and incest restrictions, have been shown to provide legitimate restrictions.
That they do and they apply to all men and women who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
Your gender restriction provides no such interest.
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state. Therefore, your continued attempts to make it a requirement now are irrational.
Nor have I claimed it was, and your continued attempts to claim I did are irrational.
This personal requirement of yours only fulfills the needs of your personal prejudice.
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8643 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That they do and they apply to all men and women who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
<quoted text>
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
<quoted text>
Nor have I claimed it was, and your continued attempts to claim I did are irrational.
<quoted text>
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.
Again, you fail to provide any compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for your gender requirement. As procreation is not a requirement, nor is "conjugal" a requirement, your requirement (or restriction) of one of each gender is irrational, and serves no purpose beyond fulfilling your personal prejudice.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8644 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
<quoted text>
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.
If any of that were even remotely true, then SCOTUS would have upheld DOMA and maintained your definition of marriage. THE COURT DID NOT DO SO!!!! The court told the federal government that those male-male, and female-female couples legally married in their states were legally married according to federal law and entitled to the same Rights, Benefits, and Obligations given and expected of those male-female couples that you say say can be the only 'true''real' marriages. So, maintaining male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' marriages ARE NOT a compelling state interest. If it were, Sec 3 of DOMA would still be the law of the land. It is not as of Jun 26, 2013.

Repeating something over and over again does not make your personal preferences true.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8645 Aug 26, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you fail to provide any compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for your gender requirement.
Again you fail to acknowledge it is not "my" gender requirement, but that which provides the definitional foundation to the marital relationship, and the reason the state has a compelling interest therein, the union if one man and one woman as husband and wife.
. As procreation is not a requirement,
That we agree,
nor is "conjugal" a requirement
as in "husband and wife", is a requirement in 30 plus states.
, your requirement (or restriction) of one of each gender is irrational, and serves no purpose beyond fulfilling your personal prejudice.
Again, your personal prejudice against the continued maintenance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the state interest therein only serves to highlight your irrationality, and inability to grasp the notion of "compelling state interest", one that does not exist in a same sex relationship, male or female.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8646 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you fail to acknowledge it is not "my" gender requirement, but that which provides the definitional foundation to the marital relationship, and the reason the state has a compelling interest therein, the union if one man and one woman as husband and wife.
<quoted text>
That we agree,
<quoted text>
as in "husband and wife", is a requirement in 30 plus states.
<quoted text>
Again, your personal prejudice against the continued maintenance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the state interest therein only serves to highlight your irrationality, and inability to grasp the notion of "compelling state interest", one that does not exist in a same sex relationship, male or female.
Denial of reality only changes it in your own mind. The "definitional foundation to the marital relationship" contains no need for one of each gender. This gender requirement is your personal definition foundation, not a legitimate definition of the law. The law makes it clear, there is no legitimate reason one of each would be required, as neither procreation nor even ability to have sex are part of the definition of marriage. The fact 30 states still discriminate, fails as an excuse for that discrimination. They must be able to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest for these laws to withstand legal challenges, and they have nothing beyond a history of prejudice, which fails as a valid excuse.

I have no objection to continuing the institution of marriage for one man and one woman, as long as gender is not a requirement. Treating same sex couples equally won't stop opposite sex couples from getting married. Straight people can and will continue to marry, just as they have and can today.

Again, no one need demonstrate a compelling governmental interest to qualify for fundamental rights. One starts with all human rights, and restrictions on those rights may only be made when a legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. You provide no such interest.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8647 Aug 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
What marriage laws are being re-written Brian_G? Why do you cowardly avoid answering this question?
The marriage laws that have always referred to husband and wife; like all written marriage law before the 21st Century. The laws Obama supported in 2008, marriage as one man and one woman. The laws Jimmy Carter used to support; marriage law before same sex marriage. The perfect integration and diversity where same sex marriage brings segregation and separatism.

When civil rights laws were debated in the House and Senate; the issue wasn't same sex marriage. Now, everybody's black. You can be offended by anything, sue your neighbor or just have your friends on the court rewrite marriage law. In California, the people voted to define marriage as one man and one woman. Twice, it won both times.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8648 Aug 26, 2013
Again, no one need demonstrate a compelling governmental interest to qualify for fundamental rights. One starts with all human rights, and restrictions on those rights may only be made when a legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated.

A history of harmful discrimination, no matter how popular, fails as a legitimate governmental interest for continuation of that harmful history.

This is why we are a constitutional republic which requires equal treatment under the law for all persons, not a direct democracy nor theocracy.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8649 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That they do and they apply to all men and women who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
<quoted text>
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
<quoted text>
Nor have I claimed it was, and your continued attempts to claim I did are irrational.
<quoted text>
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.
You are incorrect. Marriage has many benefits. Married people live longer, are happier, and are generally better off financially. The State is interested in having a stable, content society. If their only interest was procreation, they would have made it a requirement. They didn't.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8650 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, your personal prejudice against the continued maintenance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and the state interest therein only serves to highlight your irrationality, and inability to grasp the notion of "compelling state interest", one that does not exist in a same sex relationship, male or female.
So you think there is no compelling State interest in a same sex coupling? Really? Why would you say something THAT incorrect?

ĽOver 30% of the U.S. population lives in a state that either has the freedom to marry or honors out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.
ĽOver 41% of the U.S. population lives in a state with either marriage or a broad legal status such as civil union or domestic partnership.
ĽOver 43% of the U.S. population lives in a state that provides some form of protections for gay couples.

Equal protection of the law is ALWAYS in the State's best interest, because it is REQUIRED by the Constitution.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8651 Aug 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The marriage laws that have always referred to husband and wife; like all written marriage law before the 21st Century.
Then why did so many states rush to amend their marriage laws and constitutions to explicitly include 'one man and one woman' if that language was already there?

If you cannot get even the most basic of facts correct, why would anyone believe anything else you have to say?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8652 Aug 26, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think there is no compelling State interest in a same sex coupling? Really? Why would you say something THAT incorrect?
Because its true.
ĽOver 30% of the U.S. population lives in a state that either has the freedom to marry or honors out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples.
Or 30% of the U.S. population lives in a state that has rejected conjugality, husband and wife, as the basis for marriage.
ĽOver 41% of the U.S. population lives in a state with either marriage or a broad legal status such as civil union or domestic partnership.
ĽOver 43% of the U.S. population lives in a state that provides some form of protections for gay couples.
That doesn't demonstrate or explain a compelling state interest in a as relationship.
Equal protection of the law is ALWAYS in the State's best interest, because it is REQUIRED by the Constitution.
Both men and women are granted equal protection when they exercise their right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Equal protection as REQUIRED by the constitution. All men, and all women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8653 Aug 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did so many states rush to amend their marriage laws and constitutions to explicitly include 'one man and one woman' if that language was already there?
It was necessary due to a misunderstanding of marriage that had developed among members of the judiciary and/or legislative bodies of some states. There were those that had adopted the erroneous brief that marriage was simply a union of two people regardless of gender composition, instead of the common cultural, social, historical legal, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

If you cannot get even the most basic of facts correct, why would anyone believe anything else you have to say?

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#8654 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both men and women are granted equal protection when they exercise their right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
So, as long as a Gay man marries a Lesbian and follow the rules as you seem to think they should be, then and ONLY then are the granted equal protection, right?

Sorry, Pete.....but you are losing this discussion because you keep insisting that your way is still the ONLY way to go and that's not the way it works!!!

No one is stopping opposite-sex couples from entering into your version of marriage......however, Same-Sex Couples have the right to decide for themselves and exercise that right to marry who they love and desire........and you just can't handle that!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8655 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
That doesn't demonstrate or explain a compelling state interest in a as relationship.
<quoted text>
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual.

No one need demonstrate any compelling governmental interest in their fundamental right.

The government however, must show a compelling governmental interest if it seeks to limit the fundamental rights of the individual. You continue to demonstrate no such interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right. You gender restrictions provide no such interest.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8656 Aug 27, 2013
We're not advocating new laws; we don't need to demonstrate anything. Why don't you prove homosexuals haven't always married under the same laws as everyone else? Because you can't?

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 Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 37 min NorCal Native 1,419
News Indiana Gov. Pence set to sign religious object... 37 min Lawrence Wolf 13
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 39 min Gary 32
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Tre H 30,737
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr No Surprise 1,461
News Top Ten Rappers Balls Deep in the Porn Industry... 1 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News David v Goliath analogy drawn in gay cake case ... 2 hr nhjeff 3
More from around the web