Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“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...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

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

Lovingston, 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....

lides

“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.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18253 Mar 22, 2014
"Religious rights" ARE "special rights."

Not everyone is religious...only the 'religious' have 'religious rights'(especially Christians).

How about we eliminate religious rights across the board - now that would be fair........

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18254 Mar 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Great....so you can't vote away the poly sexuals right to plural marriage. Fair is fair.
Totally irrelevant.

Here, you might find this of interest.

I’m inspired, mostly by Ken’s recent post about his inability to perform with a supple ass staring him in the face. Unfortunately, I’m unable to write about these topics on my blog since my parents read it, and really – what parent wants to hear about how their daughter likes getting rammed in the ass by the men she dates? Therefore, Ken and Ariel have been gracious enough to let me guest post on their site so I can inform you (mostly Ken) about the joys of anal sex.

Did I say I love having a hard cock in my ass? Because I do. And it’s not just me – there’s plenty of women out there who enjoy it.(Also, millions of gay men can’t be wrong, right?)

http://kenandariel.com/in-through-the-out-doo...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18255 Mar 22, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>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.
How would someone's plural marriage threaten yours? Or someone's poly amorous marriage threaten yours? Etc.
"...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...
Could it be that liberals (subconsciously) believe that if plural marriage were to become more accepted and more common, that people would actually begin converting their binary orientation? That for men having more than one wife is so much better that one wife, for women having more than one husband so much better that having one husband? Gay men would want more than one partner......wait....that already happens....scratch that.

Maybe you should inform your partner how easily you fear you could be swayed by the poly......just a thought.
Next......

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18256 Mar 22, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally irrelevant.
Here, you might find this of interest.
I’m inspired, mostly by Ken’s recent post about his inability to perform with a supple ass staring him in the face. Unfortunately, I’m unable to write about these topics on my blog since my parents read it, and really – what parent wants to hear about how their daughter likes getting rammed in the ass by the men she dates? Therefore, Ken and Ariel have been gracious enough to let me guest post on their site so I can inform you (mostly Ken) about the joys of anal sex.
Did I say I love having a hard cock in my ass? Because I do. And it’s not just me – there’s plenty of women out there who enjoy it.(Also, millions of gay men can’t be wrong, right?)
http://kenandariel.com/in-through-the-out-doo...
Waitaminit! I thought bisexual are in the marquee? So you're in favor of denying bisexuals their rights? So much for rights. Apparently some are more equal than others.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18257 Mar 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How would someone's plural marriage threaten yours? Or someone's poly amorous marriage threaten yours? Etc.
<quoted text>
Could it be that liberals (subconsciously) believe that if plural marriage were to become more accepted and more common, that people would actually begin converting their binary orientation? That for men having more than one wife is so much better that one wife, for women having more than one husband so much better that having one husband? Gay men would want more than one partner......wait....that already happens....scratch that.
Maybe you should inform your partner how easily you fear you could be swayed by the poly......just a thought.
Next......
Could it be that you are too stupid to count to three, or to understand that three or more is greater than two, and are thereby incapable of understanding that polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage?

Pietro, a smart person would be able to offer a relevant argument.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18258 Mar 22, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<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....
Many same sex marriage supporters are irrational. See the post quoted above for proof.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18259 Mar 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
How would someone's plural marriage threaten yours? Or someone's poly amorous marriage threaten yours? Etc.
If this were a thread about the State of Illinois debating and enacting plural marriage laws YOU would be arguing AGAINST IT! Your repeated attempts to use plural marriage as if you support the notion while those supporting same-sex marriage are against it has never worked.

IF, those seeking legal plural marriage rights were to petition the courts or the legislature and were successful, many of us would welcome them as legally married fellow citizens. You would continue to rail against the notion of anything but one man/one woman marriage. You have never been gracious to those same-sex couples that ARE legally married by your continued demeaning statements that those marriages are somehow inferior.

It is NOT the job of those seeking same-sex marriage marriage rights to make the argument for plural marriage. That is the job of those seeking those rights.

NO ONE has yet to petition any legislature to make plural marriage a legal reality.

NO ONE has filed a law suit challenging any state or federal ban on plural marriage.

However, if plural marriage were to become the law of the land, almost all of existing marriage law would need to be examined and adapted to account for more than two in the marriage. Will all of the marriage rights, benefits and responsibilities currently affecting the two spouse marriage paradigm be there after tinkering by the legislatures and courts to account for three or more spouses? Probably not. There has been no adaptations needed when same-sex couples started marrying because marriage laws dealing with all the rights, benefits and responsibilities already dealt with two spouses that was unchanged when same-sex couples started marrying.

So YES! If plural marriage were to become legal, existing laws governing marriage would change and have an impact. To what extent? Unknown. Until the debate arguing for plural marriage begins, we'll never know. But THAT debate is NOT THIS debate. It is surely not YOUR debate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18260 Mar 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Could it be that you are too stupid to count to three, or to understand that three or more is greater than two, and are thereby incapable of understanding that polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage?
Pietro, a smart person would be able to offer a relevant argument.
Could it be that the rights of LGBT, lesbians, gays, BISEXUALS.....are equally important, or do you not believe that?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18261 Mar 22, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
If this were a thread about the State of Illinois debating and enacting plural marriage laws YOU would be arguing AGAINST IT! Your repeated attempts to use plural marriage as if you support the notion while those supporting same-sex marriage are against it has never worked.
This is a thread discussing marriage, including its definition. Any discussion on the definition of marriage, includes polygamy/plural marriage.
IF, those seeking legal plural marriage rights were to petition the courts or the legislature and were successful, many of us would welcome them as legally married fellow citizens.
Why not do that now? Albeit without legal recognition.
You would continue to rail against the notion of anything but one man/one woman marriage. You have never been gracious to those same-sex couples that ARE legally married by your continued demeaning statements that those marriages are somehow inferior.
SSM differs in function, form, and purpose. If you view that as inferior, that is your choice.
It is NOT the job of those seeking same-sex marriage marriage rights to make the argument for plural marriage. That is the job of those seeking those rights.
Yet you are to an extent when you advocate abolishing the sole legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
NO ONE has yet to petition any legislature to make plural marriage a legal reality.
NO ONE has filed a law suit challenging any state or federal ban on plural marriage.
Correct.
However, if plural marriage were to become the law of the land, almost all of existing marriage law would need to be examined and adapted to account for more than two in the marriage. Will all of the marriage rights, benefits and responsibilities currently affecting the two spouse marriage paradigm be there after tinkering by the legislatures and courts to account for three or more spouses? Probably not. There has been no adaptations needed when same-sex couples started marrying because marriage laws dealing with all the rights, benefits and responsibilities already dealt with two spouses that was unchanged when same-sex couples started marrying.
Soooooooooooo.......conjugalit y has been expended, so why is monogamy so vital?
So YES! If plural marriage were to become legal, existing laws governing marriage would change and have an impact. To what extent? Unknown. Until the debate arguing for plural marriage begins, we'll never know. But THAT debate is NOT THIS debate. It is surely not YOUR debate.
It is part of this debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/beli...

Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#18262 Mar 22, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>I'd rather you licked it clean for me baby....ya know ya wanna...come on, give it a big wet slurp.
Next....
He's aching to give (or get) a big wet slurp. His fascination with male/male sex practices, though slightly distorted come shining through with every post.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

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

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 23 min cpeter1313 9,968
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 2 hr Bernice 69
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 3 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 52
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 14 hr Wondering 24
News Postal survey: gay Muslims shake off conservati... 14 hr WB and hell bound 36
News Former Australian prime minister says he was he... Thu Pat Robertson s F... 1
News Roger Hines: Clarity and controversy from the B... Thu Pat Robertson s F... 98
More from around the web