Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5764 Jul 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex marriage becomes law, your church will become a hate group and you'll be ostracized for attending any religious group that defines marriage as man and wife. For your own self protection, keep marriage one man and one wife.
If you doubt, look at the way they've leaked the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 donor list. You've been warned.
Brian_G = Still the village idiot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5765 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Neither is sex. A marriage is legally consummated through cohabitation.
Wastey my friend. Yessssss....we all know procreation is not a requirement of marriage, not is sex. However as to the latter, a marriage can be annulled for failure to consummated it. Annulled at the request of one of the parties of course.

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206489/print/

People were shocked – shocked, I tell you – when I raised the issue of “consummation” for the first time in the debate over so-called “same-sex marriage.”

Some said they had never heard of the idea that a marriage is null and void without the act of consummation. It shows you how much Americans have been dumbed down over the years about a concept so foundational to the idea of marriage.

Marriage has always been an institution centered around procreation and the raising of children. If a marriage could not be consummated, legally it has been grounds for annulment. This is quite apart from the physical problems that might pose barriers to conception and childbirth.

The legal record is clear on this: Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse, including erection and penetration between a man and a woman, regardless of whether the husband might be sterile or the woman might be barren, according to Dr. Stephen Lushington, a 19th century attorney, judge, member of Parliament and an opponent of slavery and capital punishment, in a famous court precedent in 1845.

Is there any way to suggest that the sexual activity between two men or two women could be described as “ordinary and complete”?

There were similar rulings more recently in America.

In 1987, in Ford v Ford, a couple married while the husband was in prison. He refused to consummate the marriage, either while in prison or later. The petition for annulment was granted.

Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.

That’s not to say other states won’t grant annulments of marriages in which consummation failed. It is the most compelling and common reason for them to be granted by civil authorities.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5766 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What if a man and woman get married but don't have sex. Then what. It happens all the time.
That it does. Hmmmm...let's see....nothing perhaps....one of the parties seeks an annulment for failure to consummate the marriage....the husband (or wife) seeks physical affection outside the marriage, etc.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5767 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Pietro? You brought up the subject of case law. What case established the compelling state interest doctrine?
Sigh.....it's amazing what lengths SSMers will go to to try and argue that procreation and marriage, and the state's compelling interest therein, have nothing to do with each other. Yet they can't see to articulate a compelling reason as to why, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen. the state has to declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship "marriage". Why do we suddenly need men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women? To avoid the stigma of "living in sin"? In case one of them gets pregnant?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5768 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wastey my friend. Yessssss....we all know procreation is not a requirement of marriage, not is sex. However as to the latter....
TRANSLATION: Yes, we all know procreation is not a requirement, not[sic] is sex, but I'd like to still talk about it as if it were.

**rolls eyes at your desperation**

OH, and Pedro, quoting from the World Nut Daily doesn't elevate your "argument" in any way.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5769 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.....it's amazing what lengths SSMers will go to to try and argue that procreation and marriage, and the state's compelling interest therein, have nothing to do with each other. Yet they can't see to articulate a compelling reason as to why, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen. the state has to declare a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship "marriage". Why do we suddenly need men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women? To avoid the stigma of "living in sin"? In case one of them gets pregnant?
You using the word "articulate" is hilarious.

The state isn't declaring sexual relationships to be marriage.

Sin is a ridiculous religious concept that is completely irrelevant to most people's marriages.

Why do men suddenly need to marry men? So that their assets and children are taken care of should one of them become ill or die. While the well being of these spouses and children doesn't concern you, it does concern others who have empathy and compassion. You wouldn't understand these concepts because they are completely foreign to the fundamentalist Christian agenda.

Any other stupid questions?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5770 Jul 16, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
TRANSLATION: Yes, we all know procreation is not a requirement, not[sic] is sex, but I'd like to still talk about it as if it were.
TRANSLATION:Yes we all know sex and procreation are part of the understanding of marriage, but because we have to find a way to rationalize SSM, we'll ignore that and point out there's no legal requirement.

**rolls eyes at your desperation**
OH, and Joh-née, rejecting the information from World News Daily doesn't elevate your "argument" in any way.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5771 Jul 16, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The state isn't declaring sexual relationships to be marriage.
Oh that's right, in order to have sex, both sexes must be involved.
Sin is a ridiculous religious concept that is completely irrelevant to most people's marriages.
Why do men suddenly need to marry men? So that their assets and children are taken care of should one of them become ill or die.
So why wouldn't their assets and children be taken care of anyway? If a single man w/children dies, who takes care of his children and assets?
While the well being of these spouses and children doesn't concern you, it does concern others who have empathy and compassion.
Sounds like u just made another argument for plural marriage. If we have empathy and compassion for a man's male spouse, by the same reasoning, we should have empathy for a man's female spouses. After all they need protection too.
You wouldn't understand these concepts because they are completely foreign to the fundamentalist Christian agenda.
Any other stupid questions?
No, your answer, was stupid enough.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5772 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh that's right, in order to have sex, both sexes must be involved.
<quoted text>
If you would learn to properly use the word gender people might know what the heck you are feebly attempting to say. I can only surmise from this clap trap that you are stating that sex doesn't occur unless a male and female are involved. This of course would be a ridiculously stupid thing to say, but then, it is you Pedro.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why wouldn't their assets and children be taken care of anyway? If a single man w/children dies, who takes care of his children and assets?
Seriously, are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on Topix?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like u just made another argument for plural marriage. If we have empathy and compassion for a man's male spouse, by the same reasoning, we should have empathy for a man's female spouses. After all they need protection too.
<quoted text>
No, your answer, was stupid enough.
The only person who found an imaginary connection to polygamy was you. You've reminded me why I stopped wasting time reading your posts and responding to you. Thank you for that.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5773 Jul 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex marriage becomes law, your church will become a hate group and you'll be ostracized for attending any religious group that defines marriage as man and wife.
Brian, you are an idiot. The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the US cosntitution. There is no condition that the religion one chooses to worship be reasonable, even devil worship is protected. H***, even Westboro Baptist Church's infantile picketing of military funerals has been upheld by the US Supreme Court as free speech. So your right to worship the sky fairy of your choosing is in no way in danger.
If that religious groups does discriminate against homosexuals actively, they may well be labeled as a hate group, and at that point, you might want to contemplate that the truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Brian_G wrote:
For your own self protection, keep marriage one man and one wife.
What a stupid thing to say.
Brian_G wrote:
If you doubt, look at the way they've leaked the National Organization for Marriage's 2008 donor list. You've been warned.
Brian, you've never proven that this form was not "leaked" by NOM, nor have you proven that NOM is not a political group, in which case, their form 990 Schedule B must be made public by law.
"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file
Form 990, including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information."
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...

Each time you present this argument, you reaffirm that you are an imbecile.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5774 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm wondering why you would want anyone to know that you consider the WND as a source for factual information presented without any bias?

Anyways, when it comes to the consummation requirement, courts now generally take people at their word as to whether they did it or not, it's rare there is going to be any sort of disagreement as to whether it actually took place. A leap most folk should be thankful for, traditionally, the witnesses duty didn't end when they stood up for you at the ceremony, they had to attest you and your bride had shaken hands on your agreement, so to speak.

Another historical tidbit. Until the Western Christian/Catholic church required the sacrament of marriage by all couples with the Council of Trent, in order to have the Church bless your marriage without special dispensation, you had to prove your betrothal (essentially a blessing to fornicate for strictly reproductive purposes and not to be enjoyed too much for your own salvation), which had been blessed by required rite of the church, had been consummated by carrying it in with you. Everybody got a civil marriage, just because the Church was making you have a spiritual b*stard in order to marry in the eyes of God, didn't mean the civil law had to play along, church blessings, if needed, before you could get your proof baptized. These were folk who took Paul's message of it's better to marry than to burn, literally. In order to be married, you had to have done something you were going to burn for if you didn't. Your highest calling was to keep your legs crossed, not even thinking about making future little Christians of your own should be crossing your mind, reprobate. You're waiting for Jesus to return, He doesn't need for you to do that any more and certainly doesn't want to have to see it on His way back. But since you've already otherwise booked your trip to h-e-double hockey sticks, Jesus will forgive you and the Church will sanctify what you did, for a small financial contribution to the furtherance of the Church.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5775 Jul 16, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'm wondering why you would want anyone to know that you consider the WND as a source for factual information presented without any bias?
"Bias" is in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily viewed as bias by all who read the information. There's bias among anti conjugal marriage sites too.
Anyways, when it comes to the consummation requirement, courts now generally take people at their word as to whether they did it or not, it's rare there is going to be any sort of disagreement as to whether it actually took place. A leap most folk should be thankful for, traditionally, the witnesses duty didn't end when they stood up for you at the ceremony, they had to attest you and your bride had shaken hands on your agreement, so to speak.
Another historical tidbit. Until the Western Christian/Catholic church required the sacrament of marriage by all couples with the Council of Trent, in order to have the Church bless your marriage without special dispensation, you had to prove your betrothal (essentially a blessing to fornicate for strictly reproductive purposes and not to be enjoyed too much for your own salvation), which had been blessed by required rite of the church, had been consummated by carrying it in with you. Everybody got a civil marriage, just because the Church was making you have a spiritual b*stard in order to marry in the eyes of God, didn't mean the civil law had to play along, church blessings, if needed, before you could get your proof baptized. These were folk who took Paul's message of it's better to marry than to burn, literally. In order to be married, you had to have done something you were going to burn for if you didn't. Your highest calling was to keep your legs crossed, not even thinking about making future little Christians of your own should be crossing your mind, reprobate. You're waiting for Jesus to return, He doesn't need for you to do that any more and certainly doesn't want to have to see it on His way back. But since you've already otherwise booked your trip to h-e-double hockey sticks, Jesus will forgive you and the Church will sanctify what you did, for a small financial contribution to the furtherance of the Church.
Thanks for the information. ".....small financial contribution to the furtherance of the Church".... Seems like financial contributions on both sides are furthering the debate on SSM.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#5776 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sorry, I don't read anything from World Nut Daily because it is EXTREMELY anti-gay and biased as hell!!!

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#5777 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh that's right, in order to have sex, both sexes must be involved.
Gee Pete.......WTF? Gay and Lesbian couples have sex just like you have sex or do you just do it in the mission position?

Sometimes, I wonder if you really think before you post asinine comments.......have a great day!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5778 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Bias" is in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily viewed as bias by all who read the information.
Always question claims of authority dear. If the facts are wrong, the validity of the opinion based upon it, dubious at best.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's bias among anti conjugal marriage sites too.
I don't know of anyone actually opposed to what you call "conjugal marriage", just folk who know that just isn't the conjugation for them. If somebody were to require you to marry someone of the same sex in order to qualify for the right of marriage, I would oppose that as strenuously as I do the silly opposite sex only requirement. It would serve you right, but no, too far over the line.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks for the information. ".....small financial contribution to the furtherance of the Church".... Seems like financial contributions on both sides are furthering the debate on SSM.
And the well runs dry.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5779 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That it does. Hmmmm...let's see....nothing perhaps....one of the parties seeks an annulment for failure to consummate the marriage....the husband (or wife) seeks physical affection outside the marriage, etc.
Many assumptions. Sounds like your head is in your pants again. Legal consummation can be as simple as cohabitation. People get married and have open relationships as well. Why do you believe people should function only as you see fit? I say live and let live. To each his own. What's wrong with that?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5780 Jul 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Many assumptions. Sounds like your head is in your pants again. Legal consummation can be as simple as cohabitation. People get married and have open relationships as well. Why do you believe people should function only as you see fit? I say live and let live. To each his own. What's wrong with that?
the difficulty for many is the separation of the legalities from everything else.

they expect their definition of marriage to be applicable to everyone that wishes to enter into a marriage contract - and that's just not possible. personal feelings don't enter into secular laws.

i see they continue to attempt to include the idea of polygamy (or some form thereof) into the discussion, when clearly, it's a completely different topic, as the court did not rule on either prop 8 or doma as inclusive of poly-marriage situations. it's their perogative to file a suit in court regarding polygamy and pursue that form of marriage using the proper channels. those proper channels were followed by a handful of same sex couples, and they won their cases, eventually, if the polygamy crowd has arguments that have merit before the court, let them be heard and considered, based upon laws. that's not for us, or them, to decide the legality of polygamy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5781 Jul 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't read anything from World Nut Daily because it is EXTREMELY anti-gay and biased as hell!!!
So u only read articles/opinion pieces/news from sources that are EXTREMELY pro-gay and gay biased?

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#5782 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u only read articles/opinion pieces/news from sources that are EXTREMELY pro-gay and gay biased?
No, that's not true......I'll read many things, just not sources I already know are biased against me and my rights.

One day, you'll stop trying to think you know me and stop making asinine comments regarding me.....thanks!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5783 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bias" is in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily viewed as bias by all who read the information. There's bias among anti conjugal marriage sites too.
There is a difference between bias and making-it-up. WND is way over the on the making-it-up side. Serious people--whether liberal or conservative--agree on that.

Yes, there are plenty of pro-gay sites that are just as unreliable as WND. But we aren't citing them as our sources.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 7 min The Rulings In 3,088
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 12 min tongangodz 7,234
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 16 min NorCal Native 27
News Antigay Kentucky Clerk Inadvertently Married Th... 28 min Old Kentuckin 16
News Few gay, bisexual teen males being tested for HIV 34 min Christsharia Law 48
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 34 min Belle Sexton 34,834
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 1 hr woodtick57 297
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 hr WasteWater 1,168
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 1 hr WasteWater 370
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr NoahLovesU 25,785
More from around the web