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

#12973 Nov 11, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Fight for it. Where's the movement for legalized plural marriage?
I'll stand up. I'm all for it as long as everybody is an adult and agrees to the marriage. It should be legal.
What's the problem?
Thank u River Tam, River Phoenix would be proud.

Polygamists and polygamy activists celebrated the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA Wednesday, claiming the move to promote same-sex marriage in the U.S. promotes polygamy as well. While some gay marriage advocates claim that polygamy is a separate issue, some conservative Christians and traditional marriage advocates have long pointed out the link between the two through the redefinition of marriage.

The Supreme Court voted Wednesday to declare The Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and not hear further arguments regarding Proposition 8 in California, which sought to ban any redefinition of marriage. Many have suggested that the move heavily favors same-sex marriage prospects for the rest of the U.S., and now polygamy advocates have said the idea of traditional "family values" is dying.

"I was very glad (after the ruling) The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore," Anne Wilde, a vocal polygamy advocate, told Buzzfeed. "Now it's grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. It seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldn't be criticized quite so much."

"We're very happy with it," Joe Darger, a Utah polygamist, said. "I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something that's going to trickle down and impact us."

Traditional marriage advocates such as radio talk show host Bryan Fischer agree: "The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time," he tweeted.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew the same conclusion previously when discussing Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. She questioned attorney Theodore B. Olson's argument for gay marriage, saying it included no restrictions.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist," Sotomayor asked. "Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws mother and child. What's left?"

While some same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to distance themselves from polygamists by saying the "slippery slope" argument is a myth, others have abandoned all pretense. Slate writer Jillian Keenan argued in her article "Legalize Polygamy!" that the practice is "no better or worse than homosexual marriage."
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#12974 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooooo.....thats not it, Wastey can pretend the poly elephant's not in the rainbow clubhouse, its only a matter of time......why not embrace "marriage equality" for all?
How many wives can you financially support?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12975 Nov 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means suing Christian wedding service providers who don't want to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
If you care about religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
Brian, could a white supremacist cake maker refuse service to a black person?
Would the black person have the right to sue for discrimination in such an instance?
Do you believe that white supremacists free speech would be violated by making a cake for a black person?

You argument is ridiculous. First of all, the Christians in question are not practicing Christian values. They are judgmental, they don't treat others as they would be treated, and they do not love others as themselves. So from the word go, they are hypocrites. However they also are in violation of the laws within their states, which is the real reason why they were sued in the first place. If they have a problem providing services for people who hold differing views, then they should not open a business (which is a place of public accommodation), or they could move somewhere where religious freedom does not exist, so no one will hold views that differ from their own.

Why do you hate freedom and equality?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12976 Nov 11, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
How many wives can you financially support?
Wrong question. How many wives would it take to support me and my boyfriend in the style to which we'd like to be accustomed?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12977 Nov 11, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they said about SSM. And look at you now! I'm happy for you even though you are a hater and a hypocrite. I have gay friends and want them to be happy. I support SSM and think marriage is good for society.
Of course I add all the qualfiers so you don't get stupid with your response. Adults. Consenting. Sane, human, able to understand a contract etc. No babies so don't go there again as an argument.
Aha. So your 'equality' is only extended to groups you approve of. Hypocrite and bigot.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12978 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooooo.....thats not it, Wastey can pretend the poly elephant's not in the rainbow clubhouse, its only a matter of time......why not embrace "marriage equality" for all?
Because equal protection may be denied if the State can show a legitimate interest in doing so.

You can think poly's in the rainbow room all you like. If that were true, poly would be legal. It's not and never will be.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12979 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds very Orwellian, "some (marriages) are more equal than others". Or.....just gimmie mine, ssm, but not theirs, plural marriage, to them.
And you think there is no compelling government interest in denying equal protection to polygamists? Pick up a cultural anthropology textbook sometime and LEARN SOMETHING.

Trying to change the subject by conflating SSM with polygamy is only done by liars and simpletons. The powers that be in the right-wing looney toon universe KNOW that their followers are uneducated, superstitious and lazy. They believe whatever they are told, and throwing polygamy into the mix makes fundie heads explode with idiocy. Not wanting to be called bigots, they attempt to shift the conversation to polygamy and claim that WE are the bigots. Weak.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12980 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Traditional marriage advocates such as radio talk show host Bryan Fischer agree: "The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time," he tweeted.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew the same conclusion previously when discussing Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. She questioned attorney Theodore B. Olson's argument for gay marriage, saying it included no restrictions.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist," Sotomayor asked. "Meaning, what's the restriction with respect to the number of people that could get married, the incest laws mother and child. What's left?"
This is a perfect example of right-wing spin. Justice Sotomayor was asking a question. She did not draw ANY conclusions.

And Bryan Fischer is AFA..... a known hate group.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12981 Nov 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means suing Christian wedding service providers who don't want to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Being a fundamentalist Christian means having to lie constantly and intentionally in order to promote your agenda.
Brian_G wrote:
If you care about religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.
If you care about honesty and integrity, outlaw religion and it's followers.
Poof

Cambridge, IL

#12993 Nov 11, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I know the argument you've been trying (poorly and sarcastically) to make that there must be limits, so in that regard I am the same as you. But the thing is my limits are much more liberal than yours.
Now it's your turn. Tell me I can't read. Or I'm drug addled.
I support marriage equality FOR MORE PEOPLE than you do. Many more.
Butthurt Rizzo

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12994 Nov 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, by creating unconstitutional laws that illegally discriminate against certain families that you don't like, you protect the religious right to discriminate against people you don't like.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the best he can come up with.
This ridiculous argument is all the opposition has. That's why we are winning battle after battle.
Crazy isn't it? All those state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, discriminates against plural marriage families.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12996 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds very Orwellian, "some (marriages) are more equal than others". Or.....just gimmie mine, ssm, but not theirs, plural marriage, to them.
You just sound hyper hypocritical, small Peter, since you support neither same sex nor polygamous marriages. Like most bigots, you just lie and use whatever means are at hand to assert what you think are valid "arguments". In this case you use one group whose cause you don't support to try to counter another group whose cause you don't support. That's what passes as "logic" in your intellectually retarded and uneducable brain.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12997 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly.....stop discriminating against plural marriage families!
Sorry, small Peter, it was heterosexuals like you that passed anti-bigamy laws to discriminate against Mormons, deeming their religious belief less than yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thirty states still think otherwise.
And approximately 27 of them have current lawsuits challenging their marriage restrictions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides its not true "marriage equality", until other, including plural marriages, are allowed.
Since you supper neither same sex nor polygamous marriage, you're unqualified to make that assessment, small Peter.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12998 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooooo.....thats not it, Wastey can pretend the poly elephant's not in the rainbow clubhouse, its only a matter of time......why not embrace "marriage equality" for all?
You first. You wouldn't be a hypocrite if you actually practiced what you demand others do.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12999 Nov 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Crazy isn't it? All those state constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, discriminates against plural marriage families.
And yet if every single one of those amendments were repealed, polygamy would still be a crime in every state of the union as well as at the federal level. Which just demonstrates the purpose of those amendments was to place a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right, and an unconstitutional one at that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#13000 Nov 11, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
How will SCOTUS justify keeping it illegal? I can see no reason. Can you? Remember. There are perfectly good laws against all the crimes people associate with polygamy. Prosecute the criminal not a type of marriage he's in. And we're talking about consenting adults. There are happy poly families out there, what harm will legitimizing their marriages cause anyone and what justifies it?
SSM was an emotional argument too. So what? We're talking about real people who have emotions and love each other. Sure it's an emotional argument. Yours was too.
I see no reason to keep polygamy illegal.
Here let me help you with this.

1. Socially, we practice serial monogamy. Polygamy is socially unacceptable.

2. Immigration rights for spouses. Any citizen can use legal polygamy to evade immigration laws. The state has an interest in preventing this.

3. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is still in effect. Nobody has shown due cause to repeal this act.

4. People expecting spouses to be faithful within the confines of marriage would have no such protection.

5. Polygamy as practiced traditionally is a paternal construct putting women and children at a serious disadvantage. It also leads to over population and disorderly succession.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#13001 Nov 11, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Well what? Do you want to personally fuck everybody to find out for yourself whether they are gay or not? Are we supposed to take your at your word that you're straight?
If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, does that settle it? Do we as a society have to accept it? Or,should we as a society empathize with your struggle and offer help?
a doctor runs tests and reads the results of the test.
a blood test can tell if you have cancer. x-rays can indicate if you have cancer. a biopsy can show that you have cancer.
is there a blood test that shows us that you are a homosexual or supposed to be a different gender than the body that you have?
is there a physical test that all can see and agree that you are what you say you are?
in fact, i don't think there is. we have to basically take your word for it even if our eyes and hormone/chromosome tests tell us differently.
we have to take your word and the word of any doctor who wants to agree with you.

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

#13002 Nov 11, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a fundamentalist Christian means having to lie constantly and intentionally in order to promote your agenda.
<quoted text>
If you care about honesty and integrity, outlaw religion and it's followers.
Dammit...got one right, one DEAD wrong.

You did NOT in the first line say "being a Christian," you said being a FUNDAMENTALIST Christian. Religion and believers are NOT the problem, and there's nothing remotely dishonest or showing a lack of integrity in belief in one religion or another.

If there were no religion, these idiots would find something else to exploit to express their idiocy. You can't blame it on God or faith. Blame it on the idiots.

Of blame it on the Bossa Nova, I forget which...
Rizzo

Union City, CA

#13003 Nov 11, 2013
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Butthurt Rizzo
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TK0EA9RFQ...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13004 Nov 11, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, small Peter, it was heterosexuals like you that passed anti-bigamy laws to discriminate against Mormons, deeming their religious belief less than yours.
Sorry Little Terry, but "heterosexuals" didn't exist when those anti bigamy laws were passed against Mormons. Your precious political sexual identity label wasn't invented until the early 20th century. Thanks for trying though.
And approximately 27 of them have current lawsuits challenging their marriage restrictions.
All the more reason why polygamists and same sex advocates are on the same marriage equality team.
Since you supper neither same sex nor polygamous marriage, you're unqualified to make that assessment, small Peter.
Since you support the abandonment of the conjugal monogamist marital standard, you also support polygamy. So I guess you are qualified to make that assessment.

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 22 min RevKen 29,843
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 22 min Mother Superior 51,366
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 57 min Frankie Rizzo 222
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr The Real Karen 666
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr WeTheSheeple 1,138
Gay community celebrating judge's lift on same ... 7 hr dduttonnc 11
LaToya Jackson reveals she's no longer engaged ... 12 hr pliez 21
More from around the web