Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 478)

Showing posts 9,541 - 9,560 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10335
Sep 23, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hellllooooooo.....McFly.... "conjugal" as in "husband and wife", and yes that is the requirement, and the foundation upon which legal recognition of marriage rests,
<quoted text>
"Conjugality" has passed the test in numerous courts, and at the ballot box.
<quoted text>
So does encouraging, and protecting conjugality, as in "husband and wife".
<quoted text>
And eliminating the father does not help children either.
<quoted text>
Consensual polygamy is practiced in this country, albeit on a small scale, and without legal recognition. It is discriminatory your you not to advocate for marriage equality for plural marriage families. Apparently it's acceptable for those families, children to be stigmatized, but not those headed by SSCs. Rather odd coming from one who believes in diversity, and protecting families.
Circular reasoning again. You provide no legitimate governmental purpose served by restricting gender. Tradition alone fails the test of reason and law.

Removing the number restriction is still not equality. Again, you are promoting a change in the body of law and social structue, without explaining what those changes would look like or how they overcome historical problems with concentration of wealth and power. You are advocating a change in law and social structure for everyone.

Or is there some special requirement for polygamy? Guilt trips don't provide any explanation of what the new laws and social structure would look like, nor do they overcome the well documented distinctions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10336
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I was reading an article about the Browns today.
All right Nor! Way to go! Curious about your fellow co marriage equality-ists are?
.....and the ONLY reason why the Browns are NOT being prosecuted is manly because there are no resources to do so and in reality Kody Brown is legally only married to his first wife Meri.......the other women are NOT legally married to Kody and if he was to die......only his first and LEGAL spouse would receive state and federal benefits!!!
In some states, namely Utah, it is illegal to even cohabitate in a polygamous marital arrangement. Times are a changing though.
The family is also NOT as happy as you made them out to be
I never made them out to be gay....uh happy....wait....both words mean the same thing....at least not all the time.
and in fact have more issues than a typical normal married couple happen to have!!!
More people, greater risk of conflict, and greater need for cooperation.
The family in the article that you posted about is similar to the Browns.......Williams is ONLY legally married to one woman.........interesting!!!!
Of course only one legal wife at this time.....marriage equality hasn't progressed yet to included plural marriage families.
Oh and the Williams are being asked to leave the area in which they live!!!
Maybe they should move to Massachusetts? Start the ball rolling on legal recognition of plural marriages...after all they were the first state to have "marriage equality".....seems like the appropriate place to start.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10337
Sep 23, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Couple marriage"? That's a new one. No its not the same, the mere fact the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, is different, "husband and wife", not "spouses for life", indicates a significant difference. Different foundation, different union, different presumptions and expectations. No one is going confuse a husband and wife with two men, or two women, except you.
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!!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10338
Sep 23, 2013
 
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither would polygamists.
What compelling state interest is there in denying consenting adult relatives equal protection under the law?
Only 2=2. Polygamy is entirely different, legally and socially.

You need to show how 1,000 equals 2, to call it equality. You are proposing changing the body of law as well as social structure for everyone. That is not equal, but something different.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10339
Sep 23, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but of course, atheists are all such good upstanding people. Uhhhhhhh....HUH....sorry to burst your faithless bubble, but even atheists can be hate filled violent bigots.
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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10340
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning again. You provide no legitimate governmental purpose served by restricting gender. Tradition alone fails the test of reason and law.
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.
Removing the number restriction is still not equality.
Nor is removing the conjugality requirement.
Again, you are promoting a change in the body of law and social structue, without explaining what those changes would look like or how they overcome historical problems with concentration of wealth and power. You are advocating a change in law and social structure for everyone.
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!
Or is there some special requirement for polygamy?
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.
Guilt trips don't provide any explanation of what the new laws and social structure would look like, nor do they overcome the well documented distinctions.
That was GREAT! I couldn't have said it any better myself. Nye, you just advocated for both SSM, and polygamy!
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10341
Sep 23, 2013
 
Silly me Nazi and Christian is same thing...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10342
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!!!!
Even a Dr Seussian "Thing 1 and Thing 2"?:)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10343
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All right Nor! Way to go! Curious about your fellow co marriage equality-ists are?
<quoted text>
In some states, namely Utah, it is illegal to even cohabitate in a polygamous marital arrangement. Times are a changing though.
<quoted text>
I never made them out to be gay....uh happy....wait....both words mean the same thing....at least not all the time.
<quoted text>
More people, greater risk of conflict, and greater need for cooperation.
<quoted text>
Of course only one legal wife at this time.....marriage equality hasn't progressed yet to included plural marriage families.
<quoted text>
Maybe they should move to Massachusetts? Start the ball rolling on legal recognition of plural marriages...after all they were the first state to have "marriage equality".....seems like the appropriate place to start.
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!!!

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!!!

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!!!

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!!!

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.......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!!!

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!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10344
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10345
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10346
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10347
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10350
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10352
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10353
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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)

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10356
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10357
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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)

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10358
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10359
Sep 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 9,541 - 9,560 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••