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 713)

Showing posts 14,241 - 14,260 of17,538
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15447
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If NorCal Native is right and "people should have the right to marry the person they want", that allows marriage to somebody already married, someone below the age of consent or a very close family member.

If you think polygamy, pederast marriage or incest marriage are wrong; keep marriage one man and one woman.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15448
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
If NorCal Native is right and "people should have the right to marry the person they want", that allows marriage to somebody already married, someone below the age of consent or a very close family member.
If you think polygamy, pederast marriage or incest marriage are wrong; keep marriage one man and one woman.
I know you are going to refuse to get this, but the state does have a compelling interest served by limiting the individual's right to marry based on the number of people allowed in a marriage contract and how many contracts you can enter into at a time, the fact you are already legally related by blood and/or law, or the age one can enter a contract. The only interest being served by prohibiting same sex marriages is bigotry and that is something the state shouldn't be engaging in.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15449
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
If NorCal Native is right and "people should have the right to marry the person they want", that allows marriage to somebody already married, someone below the age of consent or a very close family member.
If you think polygamy, pederast marriage or incest marriage are wrong; keep marriage one man and one woman.
That's NOT what I said, but idiots like yourself want to believe that by marrying the person of one's choosing regardless of gender....it also MUST mean that they can be married to someone else(which is illegal and called being a bigamist), marry a child(again illegal) or marrying a sibling or family member(which is incest, also illegal)........but then every post Brian makes, seriously shows how asinine and pathetic he really is!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15450
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Justice Sotomayor stayed the lower court order for review; are you calling her a coward?
And? This implies nothing save for the fact that the case is under appeal, and the High Court feels that the opinion should be stayed until a final decision is reached.
Brian_G wrote:
Why does our Brilliant Constitutional Scholar President obey the edicts of the very same Justice he nominated to the Supreme Court?
Edicts? Brian, you are an imbecile.
Brian_G wrote:
Can you say, "imperial presidency"?
Can you say, "I am an idiot."? Because you are.

Brian, what will you do with your time when gay marriage is legal coast to coast and is having no impact upon your life? Will you continue to troll against what has already happened, or will you grow up and get a life?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15451
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
If NorCal Native is right and "people should have the right to marry the person they want", that allows marriage to somebody already married, someone below the age of consent or a very close family member.
If you think polygamy, pederast marriage or incest marriage are wrong; keep marriage one man and one woman.
By making this comment, "people should have the right to marry the person they want to regardless of the gender". I meant it with regards to meeting ALL other requirements that the State has set......to the best of my knowledge, the State says one must NOT be married to another, MUST meet the legal age of consent and CAN'T marry a close BLOOD relative.......now do ya get it? I seriously doubt it!!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15452
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
The Federal Government is ignoring Utah's laws to promote their same sex marriage agenda.
If you believe in state's rights, keep marriage one man and one woman.
since you bring up "ignoring"...how about you STOP IGNORING these questions, brian?

Iíve been asking you the below now for about 5 years in this and every thread I come across that youíre posting in. And you have YET to answer it!
what does the word "all" mean when used in the context of the 14th amendment?
all men? all women? all people? all american residents? what does it mean?

when YOU understand the meaning, a light might turn on inside your noggin, there, brian, and you might be able to grasp that all of us living here in these united states are equally subject to the same laws of the united states constitution. not one gender over the other. not any one race over the other. not one person is over another.
Then thereís this following question you also avoid or dodge or skip now since the beginning of 2014 :

"....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states? "

why is it that you cannot EVER supply hard data or facts supported by real, provable data? is it just because you prefer to rely upon bumpersticker-like comments? is it that you're just inherently lazy? or are you afraid that the true facts will slap you in the head and make you see where you're wrong?

Iíll continue to post these questions so that someday, you can answer them. It will also serve as a reminder to the rest of us to see the repetitive fallacy and folly of your bumperstickeresque postings, Brian. As long as you post in these threads, Brian, youíll continue to be dogged with these nagging questions so that everyone can see your inability to face hard facts and to provide any facts.
Just simply answer the questions.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15453
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
If you like common sense and human biology; keep marriage one man and one woman.
What does marriage have to do with biology? Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing. But then, you are the same poster that supported Michelle Bachmann and even sent money to her campaign! Brian_G = the Village Idiot of Topix.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15454
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
"I am an idiot."
Finally, something we agree upon.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15455
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
The Federal Government is ignoring Utah's laws to promote their same sex marriage agenda.
And what would be the GOAL of the Federal government's "same sex marriage agenda"? If you don't think that they're aiming for greater equality for all citizens, then why DO you think they're promoting this "agenda"? What do they have to gain from it?
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe in state's rights, keep marriage one man and one woman.
States can't just do ANYTHING they want. What if Utah decided that only Utahans were allowed to marry within the state's borders? Can they do that? You must think they can.

Every state must still follow some basic constitutional principles. They aren't free to enact whatever discriminatory laws they feel like. "State's rights" does NOT mean that we are a nation of 50 free-for-alls.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15456
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And what would be the GOAL of the Federal government's "same sex marriage agenda"? If you don't think that they're aiming for greater equality for all citizens, then why DO you think they're promoting this "agenda"? What do they have to gain from it?
Power, the issue is the Federal government ignoring the rule of the US Supreme Court, to invalidate legislation and referendum. Hubris, they do it because they can.

.
EdmondWA wrote:
States can't just do ANYTHING they want. What if Utah decided that only Utahans were allowed to marry within the state's borders? Can they do that? You must think they can.
The US Supreme Court has never indicated states can't define marriage as one man and one woman; they've had opportunity. States can do anything they want with marriage, 13 have same sex marriage. The first and last by court ruling instead of democratic process.

I prefer the people write law instead of an unelected and unaccountable elite imposing their morality on the vast majority without their consent.

.
EdmondWA wrote:
Every state must still follow some basic constitutional principles.
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is a basic constitutional principle. So is your right to lobby for legislation; I stand by freedom and self rule. I dispute imposing same sex marriage by court decree; that's antidemocratic.

.
EdmondWA wrote:
They aren't free to enact whatever discriminatory laws they feel like. "State's rights" does NOT mean that we are a nation of 50 free-for-alls.
There is no discrimination in one man and one woman that's any greater than against Utah's polygamists or brother/sister partners. States have the right to regulate marriage under the 10th and 14th Amendments.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15457
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What does marriage have to do with biology? Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing. But then, you are the same poster that supported Michelle Bachmann and even sent money to her campaign! Brian_G = the Village Idiot of Topix.
I don't call my political opponents names; Jon does so often. Human biology helps form culture, one man and one woman marriage is an aspect of human sexuality that culture has kept over millennium. Same sex marriage; sex segregating marriage is the radical social change, never seen in written law before Y2K. Male/female relationships are fertile but male/male and female/female relationships are not. These are the facts of nature, reflected in culture and law.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15458
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't call my political opponents names; Jon does so often. Human biology helps form culture, one man and one woman marriage is an aspect of human sexuality that culture has kept over millennium. Same sex marriage; sex segregating marriage is the radical social change, never seen in written law before Y2K. Male/female relationships are fertile but male/male and female/female relationships are not. These are the facts of nature, reflected in culture and law.
since you continue to post, one wonders WHY you ignore these questions :

Iíve been asking you the below now for about 5 years in this and every thread I come across that youíre posting in. And you have YET to answer it!

what does the word "all" mean when used in the context of the 14th amendment?

Then thereís this following question you also avoid or dodge or skip now since the beginning of 2014 :

"....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states? "

Iíll continue to post these questions so that someday, you can answer them. It will also serve as a reminder to the rest of us to see the repetitive fallacy and folly of your bumperstickeresque postings, Brian. As long as you post in these threads, Brian, youíll continue to be dogged with these nagging questions so that everyone can see your inability to face hard facts and to provide any facts.

Just simply answer the questions.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15459
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Power, the issue is the Federal government ignoring the rule of the US Supreme Court, to invalidate legislation and referendum. Hubris, they do it because they can.
The federal government didn't ignore any SCOTUS ruling, Brian. The stay issued by SCOTUS said noting about about voiding the same sex marriage that were legally contracted in Utah. In fact, the Federal government is following the order issued by SCOTUS in Windsor v. United States to given federal legal recognition to legally contracted same sex marriage.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Supreme Court has never indicated states can't define marriage as one man and one woman
Nor has SCOTUS indicated it's constitutional to do so.
Brian_G wrote:
they've had opportunity.
No they haven't, Brian. SCOTUS has yet to hear a case involving whether states can constitutionality prohibit same sex marriage. They didn't rule on the merits in the Prop 8 case and the state definition of marriage wasn't being litigated in Windsor v. United States.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
States can do anything they want with marriage
No, they can't. They can only restrict the exercise of a fundamental right like marriage if they provide a legitimate compelling government interest to do so.

Why do you lie, Brian?.
Brian_G wrote:
13 have same sex marriage.
Actually, 17 state plus the District of Columbia allow same sex marriage.

Why do you lie, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
The first and last by court ruling instead of democratic process.
I prefer the people write law instead of an unelected and unaccountable elite imposing their morality on the vast majority without their consent.
The constitution itself provides for appointed life tenure of federal judges subject to "good behavior" while in office (i.e., compliance with applicable laws and professional codes of conduct). The Founders specifically made them "unaccountable" so they could serve and perform their duties impartially without being subjected pressures to act impartially in order to secure nomination or get elected.

Why do you constantly denigrate the Founders and the design of government they gave us via the constitution, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is a basic constitutional principle.
No, that's simply a principle of bigots like you.
Brian_G wrote:
So is your right to lobby for legislation; I stand by freedom and self rule. I dispute imposing same sex marriage by court decree; that's antidemocratic.
If you want democracy, Brian, I suggest you move to one. The US was purposely designed by the Founders as a constitutional republic that includes a judicial branch of government in part to ensure the rights of minorities are not infringed by the majority as you constantly advocate.

If you so hate the constitution and the design of government the Founders gave us, Brian, why do you insist on staying in the US?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no discrimination in one man and one woman that's any greater than against Utah's polygamists or brother/sister partners.
Except for the fact the former has no compelling government interest to justify it while the latter two examples have previously had compelling government interests recognized by the judiciary.
Brian_G wrote:
States have the right to regulate marriage under the 10th and 14th Amendments.
But the states must still comply with the other aspects of the constitution, including the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15460
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Power, the issue is the Federal government ignoring the rule of the US Supreme Court, to invalidate legislation and referendum. Hubris, they do it because they can.
If they do it because they can, then it's within their power to do it. You have just stated that the federal government is enacting policies that are within its authority to enact.

But what specific "power" will the federal government gain, by granting marriage rights to same-sex couples? How will any member of the government have more power, after I marry my partner?

I don't see the government interfering in issues like euthanasia or capital punishment. Why would the government neglect to seek power from these issues as well?
Brian_G wrote:
The US Supreme Court has never indicated states can't define marriage as one man and one woman; they've had opportunity.
They haven't said that states cannot deny marriages to out-of-state residents, either. Does that mean states CAN do that?
Brian_G wrote:
States can do anything they want with marriage, 13 have same sex marriage.
17, not 13.

If states can do anything they want, then can any state prohibit marriage for out-of-state residents? Would you support a state if they tried to do this? How about if they also decided to invalidate any such existing marriages?
Brian_G wrote:
The first and last by court ruling instead of democratic process.
Allowing the majority to strip a minority of rights is ABUSE of the democratic process.
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer the people write law instead of an unelected and unaccountable elite imposing their morality on the vast majority without their consent.
I have no problem with allowing a well-educated "elite" to impose fairness and equality onto a citizenry that may be poorly educated, and which cannot always be counted on to do the right thing.
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is a basic constitutional principle.[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]

So, did Washington State abandon a constitutional principle, by recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples? Which one?

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]So is your right to lobby for legislation; I stand by freedom and self rule.[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]

Oh, very good. Then I rule that my self has the right to marry my partner.

Oh, maybe that's not what you meant by "self rule". Maybe you meant that the majority itself gets to rule the minority itself.

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]I dispute imposing same sex marriage by court decree; that's antidemocratic.
Not everything in a Republic will be democratic. I dispute allowing a majority to trample a minority.

If everything is just going to happen by majority rule, then what use is a Constitution? Why would we need guidelines on which kinds of laws would be unlawful, if the people can just DECIDE what's lawful?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no discrimination in one man and one woman that's any greater than against Utah's polygamists or brother/sister partners.
Sure there is. There is no "class" of people who are polygamist or incestuous. Those are not representations of divisions of humanity in the same way that homosexuality is. Anyone can be polygamist or incestuous. You just have to get multiple people, or a relative, to agree to join you in a relationship. But a gay person is gay, with or without outside help.

I don't remember seeing an ongoing history of discrimination against polygamists or the incestuous, to keep them out of the military, to make firing them or evicting them legal, or to keep them from being school teachers.
Brian_G wrote:
States have the right to regulate marriage under the 10th and 14th Amendments.
Neither one says anything about marriage. In fact, since states choose to delegate this to the COUNTIES, then maybe the counties should have final say. Counties' rights! How about cities' rights? Why is the state level the right level?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15461
Jan 13, 2014
 
ah, bloody hell. Hey Topix, how about an Edit feature?

Sorry Brian, use the next one....

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15462
Jan 13, 2014
 
Brian_G wrote:
Power, the issue is the Federal government ignoring the rule of the US Supreme Court, to invalidate legislation and referendum. Hubris, they do it because they can.
If they do it because they can, then it's within their power to do it. You have just stated that the federal government is enacting policies that are within its authority to enact.

But what specific "power" will the federal government gain, by granting marriage rights to same-sex couples? How will any member of the government have more power, after I marry my partner?

I don't see the government interfering in issues like euthanasia or capital punishment. Why would the government neglect to seek power from these issues as well?
Brian_G wrote:
The US Supreme Court has never indicated states can't define marriage as one man and one woman; they've had opportunity.
They haven't said that states cannot deny marriages to out-of-state residents, either. Does that mean states CAN do that?
Brian_G wrote:
States can do anything they want with marriage, 13 have same sex marriage.
17, not 13.

If states can do anything they want, then can any state prohibit marriage for out-of-state residents? Would you support a state if they tried to do this? How about if they also decided to invalidate any such existing marriages?
Brian_G wrote:
The first and last by court ruling instead of democratic process.
Allowing the majority to strip a minority of rights is ABUSE of the democratic process.
Brian_G wrote:
I prefer the people write law instead of an unelected and unaccountable elite imposing their morality on the vast majority without their consent.
I have no problem with allowing a well-educated "elite" to impose fairness and equality onto a citizenry that may be poorly educated, and which cannot always be counted on to do the right thing.
Brian_G wrote:
Keeping marriage one man and one woman is a basic constitutional principle.
So, did Washington State abandon a constitutional principle, by recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples? Which one?
Brian_G wrote:
So is your right to lobby for legislation; I stand by freedom and self rule.
Oh, very good. Then I rule that my self has the right to marry my partner.

Oh, maybe that's not what you meant by "self rule". Maybe you meant that the majority itself gets to rule the minority itself.
Brian_G wrote:
I dispute imposing same sex marriage by court decree; that's antidemocratic.
Not everything in a Republic will be democratic. I dispute allowing a majority to trample a minority.

If everything is just going to happen by majority rule, then what use is a Constitution? Why would we need guidelines on which kinds of laws would be unlawful, if the people can just DECIDE what's lawful?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no discrimination in one man and one woman that's any greater than against Utah's polygamists or brother/sister partners.
Sure there is. There is no "class" of people who are polygamist or incestuous. Those are not representations of divisions of humanity in the same way that homosexuality is. Anyone can be polygamist or incestuous. You just have to get multiple people, or a relative, to agree to join you in a relationship. But a gay person is gay, with or without outside help.

I don't remember seeing an ongoing history of discrimination against polygamists or the incestuous, to keep them out of the military, to make firing them or evicting them legal, or to keep them from being school teachers.
Brian_G wrote:
States have the right to regulate marriage under the 10th and 14th Amendments.
Neither one says anything about marriage. In fact, since states choose to delegate this to the COUNTIES, then maybe the counties should have final say. Counties' rights! How about cities' rights? Why is the state level the right level?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15464
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there is. There is no "class" of people who are polygamist or incestuous. Those are not representations of divisions of humanity in the same way that homosexuality is. Anyone can be polygamist or incestuous. You just have to get multiple people, or a relative, to agree to join you in a relationship. But a gay person is gay, with or without outside help.
"Gay" is a sexual identity term, and a modern one at that, which one chooses to adopt. As is "bisexual", which implies a form of polygamy. So why can't one adopt "polygamist" as a sexual identity label?
I don't remember seeing an ongoing history of discrimination against polygamists or the incestuous, to keep them out of the military, to make firing them or evicting them legal, or to keep them from being school teachers.
Think Utah, mid to late 19th century.
Neither one says anything about marriage. In fact, since states choose to delegate this to the COUNTIES, then maybe the counties should have final say. Counties' rights! How about cities' rights? Why is the state level the right level?
Why is it suddenly an issue now? Marriage, and it's definition within a particular state, is determined by that particular state. Now all of a sudden a federal Judge, tells the state of Utah of all states, ironically, it can no longer maintain the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, within its own borders. Perhaps the Feds should rescind its demand that polygamy be abolished as a condition of statehood, or continued state hood.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15465
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
By making this comment, "people should have the right to marry the person they want to regardless of the gender". I meant it with regards to meeting ALL other requirements that the State has set......to the best of my knowledge, the State says one must NOT be married to another, MUST meet the legal age of consent and CAN'T marry a close BLOOD relative.......now do ya get it? I seriously doubt it!!!
Why aren't monogamy, and/or consanguinity expendable? Several states have rejected conjugality as the sole legal basis for marriage, so why not reject monogamy and/or consanguinity, as well?
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15466
Jan 13, 2014
 
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
<quoted text>
Sexual orientation has a medical definition. That you're ignorant of it doesn't negate its existence. That you think the other protected classes are all so cut and dried also demonstrates your ignorance.
<quoted text>
Race is NOT genetic per se; there is no "race" gene. Race plays no part in how human are classified by species or sub-species. Rather it is more of a social construct based on various physical (and sometimes behavioral) human characteristics that considered together define racial types. I do agree these physical characteristics can't be changed but the history of anti-miscegenation laws amply demonstrates there was no consensus of how much non-white ancestry made one "colored".
<quoted text>
But classes apply to people, not creeds and people far more frequently change their creeds than they do their stated sexual orientation, yet you whine only about the latter and not the former as it applies to anti-discrimination law.
<quoted text>
If defined solely as one's birth country, generally not. But then there's the issue of children born to refugees taking refuge in countries other than their own and the parents of such children would likely debate the national origin of their children is their birth country.
<quoted text>
Actually, there a several military discharge statuses. Is someone dishonorably discharged still considered a military veteran for anti-discrmination purposes? I would presume so but have never actually researched it.
<quoted text>
What is a Christian? Where is the legal definition of this term? What are its parameters? Who can prove any of that idea?
After all, you yourself are on record as differentiating between "real" Christians and those you consider not to really be Christians regardless of how those people self-identity. You've also made your disdain of certain denominations of Christianity known. And the same issue exists for most any mainstream religion.
i agree with your view as presented here.it is well presented. except i noticed that there was no explanation for "sexual orientation".
yet you make this statement;
"people far more frequently change their creeds than they do their stated sexual orientation, yet you whine only about the latter and not the former as it applies to anti-discrimination law."
and that is the point exactly. sexual orientation is a choice no matter how you look at it.
and i agree that "Christianity" is a choice also however i do believe that once that choice is made it is sealed by God and does not change. those who change were only playing a game of convenience.
so if we are to accommodate all these choices [race being the possible exception from choice as it is a label given based on physical characteristics, that would be genetics, but also able to be hidden by choices of life style] why are not those who have a moral objection to the choice not also accommodated? why must it be a one way street?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15468
Jan 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
These cases had better show where marriage was denied by the state due to an inability to procreate.
These cases show......

[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.‚ÄĚ Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859). The 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)( 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 ...Ě); 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), 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race);
Can you explain why marriage still exists here in the United States, if some of those very states are recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples?
Apparently those states changed the rules.....more kids get trophies now.
I mean, if you're going to acknowldege that marriage is different in different nations, then you must acknowledge that marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement regulated by laws that can be altered at the will of the nation. It is NOT some "universal definition" that can never be changed or challenged or amended.
It can also be delegalized....states, nations, can cease to legally recognize it too.
I'm grateful you made attempts to address each of my points, however you were easily debunked.
"Debunked"? Is that what happens when one falls out of a bunk bed?
I still do not see why we cannot recognize same-sex couples joined in marriage, especially when so many places are doing so.
We can recognize __________ marriage. Just fill it in.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 14,241 - 14,260 of17,538
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••