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

#18228 Mar 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No Pete, the States that have granted the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian individuals have NOT converted marriages to Domestic Partnerships.....
Sigh......, "Gay and Lesbian individuals" had the right to marry, and still have the right to marry, as any other man or woman. Some states have dropped the opposite sex requirement, but none have specifically authorized only those who self identify as "gay" or "lesbian" to marry same sex, nor do they require a statement of sexual identity/orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license.
...they are legal marriages regardless of your specific gender restrictions......in other words, whether the couple is a Same-Sex couple or an opposite-sex couple......both relationships are designated a "MARRIAGE" if the couple went down applied for a marriage application/license, had a wedding ceremony performed by a representative of the State and then had their marriage license filed with the County Records office....
Correct, but each pairing, although legally designated "marriage", clearly are different, in function, purpose, and form. If they were the same in every aspect, there'd be no need to change the law. Thus a domestic partnership designated "marriage".
...and you can make all the BS claims you want to, but in the eyes of both the State and Federal Governments....it's a MARRIAGE and NOT anything else!!!
Great....so the state should legally pronounce every pairing, either same sex, or opposite sex, "husband and wife". The state should expect, as long as the couple is willing and not medically impaired, the couple consummate their relationship through the first act of coital sexual intercourse as husband and wife, and if conception occurs, the husband, regardless of gender, will be presumed to be the father.

After all "..it's a MARRIAGE and NOT anything else!!!"....right....so it's a marriage in EVERY sense of the word.
By the way....the Federal Government DOESN'T recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships......just LEGAL marriages!!!
It does now!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18229 Mar 21, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
All citizens have fundamental rights. There must be a compelling state interest to deny such rights. What can be more fundamental than the right to marry the person you love? What compelling state interest is there in denying same sex couples from doing so?
What can be more fundamental than the right to marry the ones you love, or the one you love regardless of consanguinity, or gender?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#18230 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh......, "Gay and Lesbian individuals" had the right to marry, and still have the right to marry, as any other man or woman. Some states have dropped the opposite sex requirement, but none have specifically authorized only those who self identify as "gay" or "lesbian" to marry same sex, nor do they require a statement of sexual identity/orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license.
<quoted text>
Correct, but each pairing, although legally designated "marriage", clearly are different, in function, purpose, and form. If they were the same in every aspect, there'd be no need to change the law. Thus a domestic partnership designated "marriage".
<quoted text>
Great....so the state should legally pronounce every pairing, either same sex, or opposite sex, "husband and wife". The state should expect, as long as the couple is willing and not medically impaired, the couple consummate their relationship through the first act of coital sexual intercourse as husband and wife, and if conception occurs, the husband, regardless of gender, will be presumed to be the father.
After all "..it's a MARRIAGE and NOT anything else!!!"....right....so it's a marriage in EVERY sense of the word.
<quoted text>
It does now!
Yep, my marriage is a marriage like ANY other legal marriage including yours according to the State and Federal Government........you just DON'T like that thought process........and that's really your problem........I'm surprised that you HAVEN'T filed any brief with regards to your position and inform the Judges that you believe they are wrong......I think they'd laugh you out of Court like Judge Friedman did with Regnerus’s study!!!

You DON'T get it Pete.......neither the State nor the Federal Government can MANDATE that a couple seeking the right to marry MUST prove that they consummated their marriage......that would be an invasion of their privacy....nor MUST a couple be declared husband and wife in their pronouncement if they are 2 men or 2 women.........but in the eyes of the State, yes, regardless of the couple's gender make-up.......if they are married, then they are the same regardless of whether you like it or not!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#18231 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
It does now!
No Pete, again the Federal Government ONLY recognizes a legal marriage, not a CU or DP.....and NO matter how much you stomp your feet and hold your breath.....they will NEVER be ANYTHING but legal marriages!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18232 Mar 21, 2014
Poor Pietro. After 800 pages, he still has nothing new to say. But he realizes he's losing, and he's in a corner. So he's saying what he said 2000 times before with ever more vehemence, as if repeating it louder will make it true.

In the words of Senorita Lolita Banana, "Give in."

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#18235 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh......, "Gay and Lesbian individuals" had the right to marry, and still have the right to marry, as any other man or woman. Some states have dropped the opposite sex requirement, but none have specifically authorized only those who self identify as "gay" or "lesbian" to marry same sex, nor do they require a statement of sexual identity/orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license.
<quoted text>
Correct, but each pairing, although legally designated "marriage", clearly are different, in function, purpose, and form. If they were the same in every aspect, there'd be no need to change the law. Thus a domestic partnership designated "marriage".
<quoted text>
Great....so the state should legally pronounce every pairing, either same sex, or opposite sex, "husband and wife". The state should expect, as long as the couple is willing and not medically impaired, the couple consummate their relationship through the first act of coital sexual intercourse as husband and wife, and if conception occurs, the husband, regardless of gender, will be presumed to be the father.
After all "..it's a MARRIAGE and NOT anything else!!!"....right....so it's a marriage in EVERY sense of the word.
<quoted text>
It does now!
Absurd fallacy.

Keep reaping it we need more laughs.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#18236 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What can be more fundamental than the right to marry the ones you love, or the one you love regardless of consanguinity, or gender?
Silly irrelevant rubbish.

Ever heard of the Morrill Act?

ROTFLMAO

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18237 Mar 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact of the matter is that whatever SCOTUS might have implied.....their rulings NEVER specifically mentioned that marriage was a Fundamental right ONLY for a man and a woman.....
What other definition could they possibly base it on, other than a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
...that is your specific take on it......
It's the one any reasonable person, including you, could make.
and we will have to wait and see if that is what they truly meant or if in fact marriage is a Fundamental right for all regardless of the gender make-up......my guess is you WON'T like that ruling when it comes down!!!
Or number, or consanguinity.
The rulings for Washington, Maryland, New York or any other State that has changed it's position on this issue from the Legislation has made these Court rulings NO LONGER VALIDATED!!!
At the very least it was done though either the legislative process, or voter referendum, not judicial fiat.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18238 Mar 21, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly irrelevant rubbish.
Ever heard of the Morrill Act?
ROTFLMAO
What happened to the "things change" mantra? Do you honestly think that's relevant in a SSM imposed by the judiciary world? There's two reality shows featuring plural marriage families, a federal judge has decriminalized polygamy in Utah, and a writer for slate has written an article advocating legally recognized polygamy. It's only a matter of time before another lawsuit is filed. So when a plural marriage family shows up at the court house seeking the same dignity judges have ruled should be bestowed upon same sex couples because they have adopted a child, or one of the two is the bio parent, will the rainbow crowd and their supporters protest? Or will they welcome them into the "marriage equality" clubhouse?

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#18239 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What other definition could they possibly base it on, other than a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
It's the one any reasonable person, including you, could make.
<quoted text>
Or number, or consanguinity.
<quoted text>
At the very least it was done though either the legislative process, or voter referendum, not judicial fiat.
You don't get to vote other people's rights away.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18240 Mar 21, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly irrelevant rubbish.
Ever heard of the Morrill Act?
ROTFLMAO
It's only a matter of time. Polygamy is the new gay.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2014/01...

LAS VEGAS — Kody Brown, his four wives and 17 children want to be the new face of polygamy, what some consider the next frontier after same-sex marriage.

That is why, the Browns say, they invited TLC television cameras into their homes for their reality show “Sister Wives,” why they have written a best-selling book about their lives, and why they challenged Utah’s polygamy ban in federal court.

Fear of prosecution under that law led them to flee to Nevada. Last month, a federal judge partly overturned the ban, ruling that prohibiting “cohabitation” violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.

In their first interview since the decision in that case, they presented a family whose polygamy is more “Father Knows Best” than fundamentalist patriarchy. It was also clear that going public opened a path toward wealth.

Their four new houses arranged on a Las Vegas cul-de-sac and their television handler are testament to the fact that the Browns, who once fought penury, have turned their cause into a minor industry.

They promote their family arrangement as part of a growing wave of individual lifestyle choices, managing to anger both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which abandoned polygamy in 1890, and to some extent their own Mormon fundamentalist offshoot, the Apostolic United Brethren.

Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for the mainstream church, said polygamists,“including those in reality television programs,” have “no affiliation whatsoever” with the church,“despite the fact that the term ‘Mormon’ is sometimes misleadingly applied to them.” Of the lawsuit, he said,“The current legal efforts will have no bearing on the doctrines or practices of the church.”

As for the Browns’ own church, it promotes polygamy but does not condone homosexuality, and its leaders have quietly suggested that they are uncomfortable with the way the decision in the Browns’ lawsuit has been held up by some same-sex marriage advocates as supporting the underlying issue of personal privacy.

Having attained a measure of celebrity, the Browns find that people seek out their homes and stop them on the street, expecting hugs. While the familiarity can be unsettling, Robyn, one of the wives, said, it means “they saw us as a family, and that’s huge.” Others, however, sharply criticize them in online forums for exposing their children to the prying cameras of reality television, among other perceived offenses.

They have also been put off by the avid interest in the specifics of their intimate lives and the questions they get. They do not “go weird” in the bedroom, as Meri, another wife, has put it; their sexual relations are separate.“These are wholesome, individual marriages,” Robyn said.“It’s actually pretty boring.”

A recent afternoon with the family here suggested that Mr. Brown is far from the domineering figure of past polygamy horror stories like Warren Jeffs, the leader of another fundamentalist group who is serving a life sentence for child sexual abuse. Mr. Brown comes off more as a beleaguered sitcom father facing the challenges of scheduling family time split 21 ways.

Children wandered among the homes, forming random groupings in a kind of Brownian motion, playing, talking and making a companionable racket. Truely, a girl born in 2010, padded around the living room with a toy cellphone to her ear, arguing earnestly with an imaginary friend on the other end of the line:“You’ve got to understand.”

Robyn, who brought three children from an earlier marriage into the family, was nursing her child Solomon, born in 2011. Sprawled nearby were older children, some now in college...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18241 Mar 21, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't get to vote other people's rights away.
Great....so you can't vote away the poly sexuals right to plural marriage. Fair is fair.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18242 Mar 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What can be more fundamental than the right to marry the ones you love, or the one you love regardless of consanguinity, or gender?
Your rights are not strengthened by denying others the same rights. One fine day, someone will legislate yours away.

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/10468/20...

If my gay marriage threatens your straight marriage, there's something wrong with YOURS...not mine.

"...Could it be that conservatives (subconsciously?) believe that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted and hence more common, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Could conservatives really (subconsciously?) believe that gay sex is so much better than straight sex, or that switching one’s sexual preference is, at least for most people, as easy as switching brands? It sounds silly, but you do often hear conservatives fantasizing about gay folks - especially teachers -“recruiting” children who would otherwise be straight, as if changing or determining someone’s sexual orientation - even a child’s - were as easy as giving them the right sales pitch!"

Maybe you should inform your wife of how easily you fear you could be swayed by the gay....just a thought.

Next...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#18243 Mar 22, 2014
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see the ruling from the federal courts for proof.
Jorja Fox

Waynesboro, VA

#18244 Mar 22, 2014
Discrimination is being beaten down time & time again.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/03/21/56704...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18246 Mar 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
One marvels at the posts you present. Have you read any of them? This one shows that polygamists, far from riding the coat tails of same-sex marriage, are antagonistic. I might very well have posted that article to prove your claims are misguided.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18247 Mar 22, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>So you have a happy sodomy based relationship? Good for you. Please remember to wash your fist after showing your "wife" how much you love him.
I'd rather you licked it clean for me baby....ya know ya wanna...come on, give it a big wet slurp.

Next....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18248 Mar 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see the ruling from the federal courts for proof.
Same-sex marriage is coming to a State near you. Better lay in a supply of corn-hole corks, Brian - hordes of gay men are scheming to invade your nether regions, as soon as it's legal in YOUR State.....

Next....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18250 Mar 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see the ruling from the federal courts for proof.
Brian, quit being an idiot.

"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18252 Mar 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The real harm of forcing Christians to attend or serve a same sex wedding ceremony is the loss of freedom of religion. If you can compel someone to attend a religious service, then you have no religious freedom.
She is free to believe in whatever fairy story she chooses. She is free to refuse to deliver flowers TO EVERYONE. She is free to practice her religion: ON HERSELF.

Just not on other people.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr Snorkel 395
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 3 hr DebraE 277
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage 4 hr NorCal Native 45
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 4 hr Willothewisp 935
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr Chris Toal 29,069
Holocaust survivors return to Auschwitz 5 hr boncho 3
Is glorifying God a hate crime now? 5 hr NoahLovesU 65
More from around the web