Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10344 Sep 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
I live in a small town. I have to go elsewhere for almost anything. I have a camera. If you don't want to take our photos then I will have a friend do it or I'll hire someone from another town to do so. If you don't want to take our photos, it's ok.
Tyngsbough is hardly 'small town'. 15 minutes heading north you're in Nashua, NH (population 86,000) or 15 minutes south to Lowell, MA (population 106,000). And if Tyngsborough lacks the services you desire it is because it's a bedroom community where most people work in Nashua, Lowell and Boston.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10345 Sep 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The pronouncement CAN be ANYTHING the Couple wants it to be......man and wife, husband and wife, Husband and Husband, Wife and Wife, Spouses for Life or Just married........ANYTHING the couple wants.......seeing as it is THEIR wedding and the pronouncement is as unique to the couple as their wedding vows are!!!!
He continues to ignore couples are treated the same under all of the same laws. No protections were removed by removing the gender restriction. And of course, continues to ignore removing the number restriction would require changing the laws as well as social structure, for everyone. 1,000 still cannot be considered equal to 2.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10346 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's hypocritical for SSM advocates to deny polygamists the same right to redefine marriage, as they themselves seek, or already have in some states.
Polygamists are free to petition the courts and the legislatures to allow plural marriages.

Why do you believe gays and lesbians and our allies must also advocate for the polygamists?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10347 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In some states, namely Utah, it is illegal to even cohabitate in a polygamous marital arrangement. Times are a changing though.
Which is what the 'Sister Wives' family is fighting in court. Not the right to be legally married to all the females (he's only legally married to one) but Utah's extended definition to include families that have the appearance to be polygamist but legally are not.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10350 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
...just as you need to explain how AA or BB "equals" AB.
1000.....lol!
Who said a thousand? I'm talking about 3.
Why 3, not 5, 30, 300, or 1,000, like King Soloman? Not difficult for a billionaire.

Removing the gender restriction means 1+1=2. There is no A or B, just 1+1.
Removing the number restriction means 3, 10, 300, etc are allowed, and for everyone. It changes the current and future marriages of straight couples and same sex couples alike. While we have no idea what those laws would be, it is clear they would be different from couple law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10352 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hypocritical for SSM advocates to deny polygamists the same right to redefine marriage, as they themselves seek, or already have in some states.
No one is stopping polygamists from exercising their right to petition government to address their grievances. You've even posted about one such case filed in Federal court yourself. That some may disagree with their stated desires is not denying them the ability to pursue changes in marriage law via the courts or legislatures.

Why do you lie?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10353 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You provide no legitimate governmental purpose for changing the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one wife. ALL men, and ALL women, are covered under that definition.
<quoted text>
Nor is removing the conjugality requirement.
<quoted text>
AS ARE YOU!!!!!!! You are advocating a fundamental alteration of the legal, social, historical, cultural, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, by advocating, "gender is irrelevant"! But are unable, or unwilling to admit that!
<quoted text>
Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as you continuous like to claim, therefore, polygamists have the same right to exercise their fundamental right as you do.
<quoted text>
That was GREAT! I couldn't have said it any better myself. Nye, you just advocated for both SSM, and polygamy!
You still ignore all couples are married under the same laws currently in effect for all other couples. Removing the gender restriction does not change anything for os couples. Removing other restrictions changed marriage for os couples, and therefore is not equal, but very different.

"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."

"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10356 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does.
<quoted text>
Big difference. Different foundation, different expectations, presumptions, and understandings.
<quoted text>
The state can legally declare a duck, a chicken, but does that make it so?
Repeating your stupidity ad nauseam doesn't make it true. But feel free to list all the actual legal differences (and not your imaginary ones) between the marriage of an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple in jurisdictions where both are legally recognized. And here's a hint, clueless *sswipe: the pronouncement of a minister, judge or justice of the peace in referring to spouses during the wedding nuptials has no force of law or legal standing.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10357 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
man (A) plus 1 woman (B)= marriage as intended by law.
There is no AB....yet I've seen your side argue you're NOT removing or restricting or whatever was said....
One foot nailed to the floor.
Gay marriage will never be "equal" to a normal marriage, no matter what the supine court succumbs to.
Sorry. Circular reasoning. Gender is not a legitimate restriction, as procreation isn't required or changed. People will still procreate or not, just as they have throughout history. Tradition is no excuse for not treating the legally recognized marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples.

Again, removing the restriction on gender does not remove any of the over 1,138 rights and protections of marriage for couples. All of the laws for couples remain in full force and effect. Changing A and B to 1+1, still equals 2. More than 2 is not equal, but something entirely different.

"Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."
(Windsor)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10358 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You provide no legitimate governmental purpose for changing the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one wife.
Removing an unconstitutional restriction on a fundamental right IS a legitimate government purpose.
Pietro Armando wrote:
ALL men, and ALL women, are covered under that definition.
All blacks and all whites were covered under the definition of marriage in anti-miscegenation laws too. However, equal application of a law is not the same thing as equal protection of the law and those anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor is removing the conjugality requirement.
There is no "conjugality" requirement in any state marriage law. Conjugality results from marriage, it's a not a requirement to be eligible to marry.

Full Definition of CONJUGAL

of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations : connubial <conjugal happiness>

— con·ju·gal·i·ty noun

link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...
Pietro Armando wrote:
AS ARE YOU!!!!!!! You are advocating a fundamental alteration of the legal, social, historical, cultural, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, by advocating, "gender is irrelevant"! But are unable, or unwilling to admit that!
Removing the sex restriction doesn't require rewrites of laws that are based on marriage being comprised of two people. Family law, tax law, inheritance law, etc. all still work the same way for same sex couples as they do for opposite sex couples. That's wouldn't necessarily be true for polygamous marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as you continuous like to claim, therefore, polygamists have the same right to exercise their fundamental right as you do.
Subject to any restrictions that have been deemed compelling government interests. Currently, the number of participants being 2 has been deemed such. The historical case ruling that restriction constitutional generally is from an era of animus towards Mormons and their beliefs, however, so a legal challenge today might yield a different result. Of course, you won't know until someone actually challenges the numerical restriction on marriage, which not even your Brown case is doing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That was GREAT! I couldn't have said it any better myself. Nye, you just advocated for both SSM, and polygamy!
It's understandable why someone with your feeble intellect would think that.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10359 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>You're missing (or avoiding, rather) the point.
If anyone who is against "gay" marriage is a bigot and a hater, then so is anyone who is against polygamy,
...for the exact same reasons.
I'm not the one arguing against polygamy. Regardless, stating one's objections to it doesn't "deny polygamists the same right to redefine marriage", which is the lie Pietro actually asserted. Nothing is stopping polygamists from filing lawsuits to again challenge the constitutionality anti-bigamy laws other than their own reluctance to do so.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#10360 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
Probably for the same reason gays call straights who are against gay marriage bigots and haters.....and closetqueers...
Well, if you are against same-sex couples legally marrying, you are bigots, homophobes and haters. I've never alluded to anyone being in the closet.

But I don't question why you don't also advocate for something else just because you advocate against marriage equality, ie. "You advocate against same-sex marriage then why don't you advocate against interracial marriage because change is change and change is bad."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10361 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
...just as you need to explain how AA or BB "equals" AB.
1000.....lol!
Who said a thousand? I'm talking about 3.
Do two left shoes, or two right shoes, equal a pair of shoes?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10362 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we're having a serious discussion,
not an hysterical hissy fit..
Well,.....SOME of us, anyway...
And yet it is you who avoids the question, relying on demeaning the messanger rather than admitting you have no argument on the merits.

Are you advocating for removing the number restriction, or just moving it to 3, 4, 5, etc, and if so where do you draw the line and why, and how are those relationships legally defined?

Social Security is just one of the over 1,000 rights of couples that would have to be changed in some as yet unknown way.

Can you not see couples are treated equally to all other couples under the same laws, while changing the number changes those rights and protections in some as yet unknown but different way?

Removing one restriction doesn't require removing another unrelated restriction. You need another argument, as this one is irrational.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10363 Sep 23, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Your not a good person and your a Christian....Your a hate filled Nazi.
Thing is when an atheist is mean they don't try to pass laws to take away your rights though. LIKE YOU WANT AND DO.
No, you're not a good person and you're an atheist......You're a hate filled Commie.
Thing is when a Christian is mean, they aren't very Christian, but they do want you to have the same right to marry, become a husband to a wife, and vice versa, like anybody else. They want to preserve that right to marry.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10364 Sep 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet it is you who avoids the question, relying on demeaning the messanger rather than admitting you have no argument on the merits.
Are you advocating for removing the number restriction, or just moving it to 3, 4, 5, etc, and if so where do you draw the line and why, and how are those relationships legally defined?
Why is monogamy more important than conjugality?
Social Security is just one of the over 1,000 rights of couples that would have to be changed in some as yet unknown way.
Sooooooo.......
Can you not see couples are treated equally to all other couples under the same laws, while changing the number changes those rights and protections in some as yet unknown but different way?
Can you not see the law was changed in order to treat "other couples equally"?
Removing one restriction doesn't require removing another unrelated restriction. You need another argument, as this one is irrational.
Why maintain one definitional requirement, monogamy, if the other, conjugality, is expendable?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10365 Sep 23, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you are against same-sex couples legally marrying, you are bigots, homophobes and haters. I've never alluded to anyone being in the closet.
So that would make a gay person who opposes redefining marriage a "bigot, homophobe, and hater" too?
But I don't question why you don't also advocate for something else just because you advocate against marriage equality, ie. "You advocate against same-sex marriage then why don't you advocate against interracial marriage because change is change and change is bad."
It's not advocating against "marriage equality" which can include polygamy, but rather advocating for monogamous conjugality as the basis for legal marriage. The onus is on those who advocate dropping conjugality, but maintaining monogamy, to defend their position, and explain why it's to hypocritical.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#10366 Sep 23, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>You're missing (or avoiding, rather) the point.
If anyone who is against "gay" marriage is a bigot and a hater, then so is anyone who is against polygamy,
...for the exact same reasons.
That would be true, Groucho. I don't see a legal justification for banning either one.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10367 Sep 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Pete.......but it has nothing to do with my curiosity.....just flipping through the channels and came across it.......nothing special and lots of issues!!!
Don't worry the previous seasons are on DVD.:)
The Browns live in Las Vegas and are actually neighbors.......each wife and children living in separate houses and if Kody died.....they'd split faster the Moses did the river......not really a stable plural marriage!!!
They've managed so far.
Actually, I seriously doubt the Browns would use the word "GAY" to define them being happy.......or anyone else who has an issue with Gays and Lesbians!!!
Carefree and gay, gay Paree, gay tarantella,......
I seriously doubt that Plural marriages will EVER be legal because of the problems that come with dividing benefits between more than one legal spouse!!!
That was once said about SSM.
Moving to Massachusetts will NOT give them any more rights to marry more than one person regardless of what you claim, nor it make the state more liking to grant them any rights......
Hmmmmmm.....considering the first SSC to legally marry are now divorced...it could bad karma
.polygamy may not be as frowned upon today as in the past.....but being a bigamist is and that is illegal in ALL fifty states!!!
Bigamy is illegal if one has two LEGAL spouses, or attempt to legally marry while still married to another. But if its decriminalized......
Again, you made it sound as though this group was happy and healthy....when in reality, Meri is the only one legally married to Kody and he treats her like crap!!!
Every family has their challenges, conflicts, and issue, even lesbians. Simply because the relationship contains two women, does to mean it will be gay.....as in happy...all the time.:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10368 Sep 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
He continues to ignore couples are treated the same under all of the same laws.
Nye continues to ignore the fact the law WAS CHANGED, but not the foundation upon which it rests,
No protections were removed by removing the gender restriction.
No, just the conjugal requirement was removed, rejected.
And of course, continues to ignore removing the number restriction would require changing the laws as well as social structure, for everyone. 1,000 still cannot be considered equal to 2.
As did legalizing SSM. Two men, or two women, are not "equal" to a man and a woman. Changed the social structure for everyone. Nice try Nye, but your change is just as much a "change for everyone" as polygamy would be.

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 Bill Clinton tells a love story to make his cas... 10 hr Webb Hubbell meth... 2
News Community mourns the loss of Kent Tocher 10 hr Welly 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 11 hr lightweb 160
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... Thu Pietro Armando 216
News Kate Middleton Plots To Destroy Prince Harry an... (Feb '13) Thu victim 2
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Thu Belles Echoes 36,047
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Thu Pay your taxes 31,934
More from around the web