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.

Full Story

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9810 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an understandable conclusion based on the content of your posts with your incessant harping about procreation and marriage being "linked".
No......Nye claimed I had stated it was a requirement, which I repeatedly acknowledged it was not.
You don't refute; you either repeat or stop responding.
Ohhhhhhhhh......pull-ease..... .I'm responding right now as I type.....
Public forum. Deal with it, crybaby.
Don't be a liar liar pants on fire then.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#9811 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did u actually read those? What confused you? Try these.
[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
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.
Again, you merely prove my point that you lack the ability to refute anything, only repeat it ad nauseam. Again, all the cases predate landmark gay civil rights cases. Citing cases from an era of discrimination against gays only proves my point about their lack of relevancy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gays", or those with self professed same sex attraction/orientation can naturally procreate, and in pairs, provide the pair of "gays" are of the opposite sex.
Same with "Italians". Do you have a point?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nice try McFly.....purpose, yes.....requirement, no. Big difference. Do you really think "marriage" would exist if not for two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual?
Yes. Because the historical constant of marriage is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties. The historical political and economic advantages of that occur regardless of whether the marriage produces offspring.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]You deleted them because you are unable, or unwilling to acknowledge that procreation is a purpose of marriage, and court case dating back over the past 100 years have stated this. Why wouldn't be? Maybe that's why you answer for Nye.
And yet procreation occurs outside of marriage all the time so it can't be the purpose or even a primary purpose of marriage today. It's simply "a" propose for some people.

And I told you why in the post you chose to ignore my comments and whine about the fact I responded to your post to another person. Procreating within marriage was a greater concern in the past due to the social stigma and other negative consequences associated with illegitimacy. SCOTUS ruled legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for equal protection constitutional law and so it's not really an issue now.

Times change. Too bad your living in the past in your little fantasy world.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#9812 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No......Nye claimed I had stated it was a requirement, which I repeatedly acknowledged it was not.
Fine. So procreation is a purpose of marriage for some people. What relevance does it have to the discussion of marriage as a fundamental right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhh......pull-ease..... .I'm responding right now as I type.....
Shall I go back and list all my previous posts to which you stopped responding?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't be a liar liar pants on fire then.
Stop being a crybaby.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9813 Sep 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
All those jurisdictions have anti-hate PC speech codes; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law.
Why do you back hateful and intolerant, lawbreakers?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9814 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
If they were treated "equally" the pronouncement would be the same from the onset.
But the words said during the ceremony has NO LEGAL WEIGHT. Anything can be said. Yet all the marriages ARE LEGALLY THE SAME!
Pietro Armando wrote:
Try consummation, presumption of paternity.
Consummation is not gender nor sexual orientation dependent.

And if paternity was so important, why is Virginia (not a gay-friendly state) actively fighting to ignore a father's natural paternity right in an adoption case? In this day and age of DNA testing and the notion of who makes a father, a pretty weak argument to deny two same-sex fathers or two lesbian mothers the right to legally marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if all the state cares about is "spouses", no reason not to accept one's choice of spouse, or spouses, as long as they're consenting adults. Right?
Yes, Spouses as a pair. I've dealt with the issue of more than two spouses in previous posts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9815 Sep 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="Daveinthe bright oted text>
But the words said during the ceremony has NO LEGAL WEIGHT. Anything can be said. Yet all the marriages ARE LEGALLY THE SAME!
[/QUOTE]

Then why not the same pronouncement if they're the same?
Consummation is not gender nor sexual orientation dependent.
It dependent on a certain sexual activity. How about coitus? Copulation?
And if paternity was so important, why is Virginia (not a gay-friendly state) actively fighting to ignore a father's natural paternity right in an adoption case?
Ask Virginia....but another example of the differences between the two relationships.
In this day and age of DNA testing and the notion of who makes a father, a pretty weak argument to deny two same-sex fathers or two lesbian mothers the right to legally marry.
How about denying the right of one straight father and to marry the straight mother of his other children?
Yes, Spouses as a pair. I've dealt with the issue of more than two spouses in previous posts.
And the two sisters who want each other as legal spouses?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9816 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NYE likes to repeatedly claim I have said procreation is a requirement of marriage. I have pointed out, citing court cases, that show procreation and marriage are intrinsically linked. Do I need to repost them?
<quoted text>
So yes, he did lie. Thanks for defending the lying. Good job!
Oh what the heck....
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1129571505.html
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“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.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
While procreation has been recognized as one of the primary purposes of marriage, it is not the only primary purpose, nor is it a necessary condition. Marriage remains a fundamental right independent of procreation, as subsequent court cases have made clear. Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when procreation is impossible and even when sex is impossible. Again, your reliance on old court cases fails to change this fact of law, recognized even by anti-gay Justice Scalia.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9817 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that poster is perfectly capable of refuting your crap on his own.
<quoted text>
No need; your posts always contain the same crap you repeat ad nauseam despite multiple people refuting it.
<quoted text>
I post on my terms, not yours. Deal with it.
I appreciate your posts.

I'm also tired of repeating the same old argument and tolerating the abusive replies.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9818 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet he continues to make false claims.
<quoted text>
As do yours, and his.
<quoted text>
Very good then, let Nye address my answers to him.
What false claims? It is true the supreme court has ruled marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation is not possible, and even when sex is not possible.

It is you who continues to offer procreation as an excuse to deny equal treatment to the marriages of same sex couples.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9819 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No......Nye claimed I had stated it was a requirement, which I repeatedly acknowledged it was not.
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhhhhh......pull-ease..... .I'm responding right now as I type.....
<quoted text>
Don't be a liar liar pants on fire then.
And yet you keep offering procreation as an excuse to deny equal treatment of same sex marriages.

If you understand it is not a requirement, why do you keep promoting it as if it were, complete with 100 year old court cases including some that have been rendered moot?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9820 Sep 13, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While procreation has been recognized as one of the primary purposes of marriage, it is not the only primary purpose,
Wha.....what did I just read? Nye did u just acknowledge procreation as one of the primary purposes of marriage???!!!! Hold the presses! We've got a new story for page one! That took alot.....I'm proud of ya. Good job trooper.
nor is it a necessary condition.
Hmmmmm......not a necessary condition? For individuals, or marriage as a state interest?
. Marriage remains a fundamental right independent of procreation, as subsequent court cases have made clear.
Marriage as defined by whom, or what? Legislatures, courts, and/or voters?
Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when procreation is impossible and even when sex is impossible.
That right is still dependent on both state recognition, and a definition, common understanding.
Again, your reliance on old court cases fails to change this fact of law, recognized even by anti-gay Justice Scalia.
They have served to bring you back to the standard of intellectual honesty which for a brief time you had rejected. I knew you'd find your way back.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9821 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Would Thomas Jefferson have supported SSM? Highly doubtful
Thomas Jefferson supported slavery.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9822 Sep 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Jefferson supported slavery.
Exactly.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9823 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why would there need to be a state requirement?
There doesnt need to be.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet we do to automatically designate the adult relationship in those alternative family structures, "marriage".
Because marriage is what MAKES them into family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no reason why a man and a woman should be denied the right to marry, provided they meet the other requirements.
Which other requirements?
Pietro Armando wrote:
However, children, the by products of the male female sexual union are the foundation, primary reason, why marriage is recognized in the first place.
Close, but you pack too much baggage into your explanation (in an effort to make it sound impossible for gay couples to meet, no doubt). Marriage is recognized because of the inheritance rights it accords onto the people who want to become family. Children BENEFIT from that (as would children raised by gay couples), but those who benefit the MOST are the SPOUSES who arent family to begin with. Childrens inheritance rights are generally guaranteed anyway.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Batman movies? Now yer talking...what do you think of Ben Afleck as the new Bruce Wayne/Batman?
Ill give him a chance. On DVD. Hopefully his superhero-acting skills have improved since DD. If this is a sequel to the recent Superman flick, that sucked, so Bens got a low bar to hit.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's up to SCOTUS to decide.
Cant wait.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agreed...in fairness...these conditions preceded ssm, not the fault of gay people. I do think, if marriage rates and in wedlock birth rates were at the same levels as they were 30-40 years ago, ssm wouldn't be legal.
Can't do much with that speculation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True....but I do see an ethical issue regarding the use of ART.
Such as?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Still waiting on California to do that.
Keep waiting.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's the foundation on which it rests. SSM is virtually a modern western invention. Marriage in the west is on the deline, as are birth rates. SSM changes the understanding of marriage as a male female relationship intrinsically linked to procreation, to one of simply a means of adult "happiness". A ss civil union legally acknowledges same sex relationships, while maintaining marriage as a legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
If the two legal structures perform every function identically (and you've never listed any functions which differ), then they aren't going to have any differing effect. I don't know about marriage being on the decline, but birth rates could stand to come down A LOT. Still, gay people have no bearing on that. SSM may be a modern invention, but justice is not. Justice just takes a long time, thanks to the heel-draggers who prefer the status quo.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If ssm is such a great idea in the history of human civilizations, why didn't it develop cross time, cross culture alongside osm, both mono, and poly? SSSB isn't new.
If slavery is such a bad idea in human history, why did it persist so long across time and culture etc etc?

Again, heel-draggers. Some people LIKE having a target minority around, and they will STRONGLY resist any efforts to elevate them to equal status. Ask blacks. Ask women (not technically a minorty, of course). Ask Native Americans, Irish, Japanese, Muslims. Throw in the religious superiority complex of being a "chosen people" which is so prevalent in this country, and it just makes things that much worse.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9824 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why stop there? Perhaps it's not one person best suited for her but two? Maybe it's her sister.
More than a 2-person relationship will have 1,138 rewrites to do first. A sister is already family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Them
1,138 rewrites first.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That depends too on what is considered an "injustice"? Why the sudden need for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women? Why hasn't such a need manifested itself before now?
This is privileged thinking. Just because YOU didn't feel this need, doesn't mean NO ONE has.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I.....did? Hmmmmmm....
It's what you SHOULD have done, unless you secretly hate your wife. Most heterosexuals I've met describe their spouse as their best friend in life.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gay people can marry whomever they want, however if they seek to legally marry, they have to follow the same rules. A man might fall in love with two women, but the laws says he can only legally marry one. Two sisters may consider themselves spouses to each other, bu the laws says they cannot legally marry. It's not just gay people.
Those others do not represent discrimination. A desire for multiple spouses, or incest, does not reflect a person's nature the way homosexuality does.

And I CAN marry while following the "same rules", where I live.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps you can clarify something. I get the impression that male sexuality is more "fixed" than female, which appears to be more "fluid". For example, a woman who has been married for years, decades perhaps to her husband, and with children, "comes out of the closet" without any indication she was in the closet. Contrast that with a woman who used to self identify as a lesbian, flannel shirts, rainbow bumper sticker, is now married to a man and has children with him. If a "straight" woman can "become a lesbian", and a "lesbian" can become a "straight woman".....is it really set in stone, at least for some?
Sorry, ask a female.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you want a man like "dear old Dad"?
Only as much as you want to marry someone like mom. We all admire our positive role models.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why stop there....lets go hog wild with "equality". Maybe one could marry two, or a sibling?
I'd be happy to support polygamy, after 1,138 rewrites. But siblings are already family. Marriage would only tangle their family relationships, not clarify them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The same as everyone else who works...I suppose.
Everyone functions according to their nature.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You seem certain marriage can't include poly arrangements, or siblings. Your "narrow" definition can be changed too.
1,138 rewrites. Already family.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's, male female, a requirement, is over thirty states. By your reasoning, any requirement, other than age of consent and ability to consent, could be no longer required, in order for marriage "to work".
It's not a "requirement". If it were a "requirement", then no other state would be able to disregard it, yet over a dozen do. Real "requirements" can't just be shrugged off like that. If they're REQUIRED, then they must be present at ALL times. What those 30 states have is a BARRIER, not a requirement. That barrier is based on the same xenophobia that DADT was, the same as plenty of other barriers to LGBT equality which have existed and persisted over the years. They serve NO other purpose than to keep the icky gays away from the normal straights. None of the barriers ever have.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9826 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wha.....what did I just read? Nye did u just acknowledge procreation as one of the primary purposes of marriage???!!!! Hold the presses! We've got a new story for page one! That took alot.....I'm proud of ya. Good job trooper.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm......not a necessary condition? For individuals, or marriage as a state interest?
<quoted text>
Marriage as defined by whom, or what? Legislatures, courts, and/or voters?
<quoted text>
That right is still dependent on both state recognition, and a definition, common understanding.
<quoted text>
They have served to bring you back to the standard of intellectual honesty which for a brief time you had rejected. I knew you'd find your way back.
I have always said children benefit from marriage.

They just aren't required for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual. They never have been, despite the attempts of many to make it so. The courts have made his explicit. Marriage remains a fundamental right, absent the ability to procreate, or even have sex.

Again, marriage need not provide any interest to the state for it to be a fundamental right. It was a right before the state existed, like free speech and other fundamental rights.

If you want to restrict a fundamental right, you need to... well, you know. And you still can't provide a good excuse because you don't have one.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9827 Sep 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Jefferson supported slavery.
That doesn't mean he did not realize he was setting up a system that would or at least could, eventually end it.

He was talking about the future, and included himself when he used the term "barbarous ancestors." While we can dismiss some words as irrational because they come from crazy people, I encourage you to look at the words and judge the content of the concepts on their merits, not dismiss them due to the flaws of the writer.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9828 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
I encourage you to look at the words and judge the content of the concepts on their merits, not dismiss them due to the flaws of the writer.

Care to refute the concepts?

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9830 Sep 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
There are no hate speech laws; they would be violations of the US constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. Anti-dscrimination and hate crime laws target behavior, not speech.
Why do you lie, Brian?
So, you claim Christian wedding vendors must be forced to participate in same sex weddings because objecting isn't free speech? How do you get there?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#9831 Sep 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, you claim Christian wedding vendors must be forced to participate in same sex weddings because objecting isn't free speech? How do you get there?
They MUST provide services if they are a PUBLIC business......no one is asking them to participate!!!

They can opt not to provide their services, that is their right, but they should be expected to get sued for discrimination if their state has an ANTI-DISCRIMINATION policy!!!

Would you be okay if a Black Muslim photographer refused to photograph the wedding of an Evangelistic Fundamentalist because it was against their religious beliefs? Would it be okay for a Gay photographer to refuse to photograph the Wedding of a Jewish heterosexual couple because he doesn't believe Jewish people should be allowed to marry? Would it be okay for a Gay or Lesbian business owner to refuse service to you based on your animosity towards Gays and Lesbians? See, if any of these actually happened......the same lawsuits would be filed and the outcomes would be what they will be for the florist in Washington and the photographer from New Mexico and anyone else who tries to use their religious beliefs as a way to excuse their discriminatory business practices!!!

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
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 46 min QUITTNER Jan 29 2015 418
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Brian_G 51,372
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 3 hr Michael Wookie DUHS 2
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Static Discharge 29,106
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 5 hr The Troll Stopper 536
First same-sex couple weds in Kansas at Johnson... 11 hr toto 6
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 12 hr One Voice Many C... 31,746
More from around the web