Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17560 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

#6533 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>now there you go again, twisting what was said.
first of all i don't use the word "gay"
second, this is what i responded to;
"there's no such thing as a same sex wedding. Weddings are an institution, they don't have a sexual orientation."
my response was that he beter go back and edit the court rulings then.
And my response was for you to supply a court ruling where a same sex wedding is addressed.

Will you be doing that anytime soon? I'm not aware of any court rulings dealing with weddings, only marriage.

Prove me wrong. Please demonstrate the court rulings where the government is concerned and ruling on weddings.

I'll wait patiently.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and then you go a prove that the courts and the laws distinguish between heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages.
Yes I did. I did it by pointing out that the institution is the same one and that the laws were based solely on the participants. The marriage is still the same legal entity for both.

Will you be spinning semantic roulette all week, or just today?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6534 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The ones you disagree with of course. They're only "bigoted, discriminatory" because they contrary to your opinion.
"DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government," Justice Kennedy said.

You lost this argument a LONG time ago.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6535 Jul 25, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
She was being paid for her services. Go sell that "slave" schtick somewhere else. Imaginary persecution doesn't impress me or anyone else.
ol' brainless bria-bri is trying to discuss this same case over the oklahoma city thread regarding same sex marriage.

he's as dense there as he is here, maybe more so. LOL. maybe everyone scared him away from here & that's why he doesn't post his silly thoughts here any longer. or maybe he just ignores our posts and prefers just to blather on with his bumper sticker posts just like he has for the last 5 years.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6536 Jul 25, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
"DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the federal government," Justice Kennedy said.
You lost this argument a LONG time ago.
So why didn't the Honorable Justice Kennedy, and the other members of the gang of five, impose SSM nationwide? Seems contradictory to their belief to allow all those state constitutional amendments stand.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6537 Jul 25, 2013
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#6538 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
So, if you want a polygamist marriage go fight for it Pete!!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6539 Jul 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if you want a polygamist marriage go fight for it Pete!!!!
If you don't want it, stop fighting for it NorCal!!!!.

Perhaps you'd like to answer the question.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6540 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before...
... before finding in favor of the plaintiffs.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6541 Jul 25, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
... before finding in favor of the plaintiffs.
And the answer to the question, in your humble opinion, isssssssss?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6542 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage doesn't exist simply as a benefits package, if it did, there's no reason not to declare any number of consenting adult relationships, "marriage". Why exclude plural marriage practitioners, and their children, from legal marriage. Don't those children deserve to have the state legally recognize the marriage of their mother AND father?
Civil marriage has 1,400 laws and statutes impacting couples and families. The operative word is couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6543 Jul 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil marriage has 1,400 laws and statutes impacting couples and families.
Do they all "impact" couples and families? Would presumption of paternity be legally impactful?
The operative word is couples.
As in husband and wife. Wastey, you have yet to offer a reason why children whose bio mom and dad are plural marriage practitioners, should get the same protections you seek for children "of" SSCs. No matter how much you try, no matter how long you hold your breath, you can't keep the "marriage equality" train from going off on a different track. Movements don't always proceed along the path the founders intended.

“THE JOURNEY OF A 1000 MILES”

Since: Aug 08

BEGINS WITH JUST ONE STEP:-)

#6544 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't want it, stop fighting for it NorCal!!!!.
Perhaps you'd like to answer the question.
I am NEITHER fighting for or against polygamy......NOT MY PERSONAL FIGHT......it has no bearing on my marriage.........and it is an issue that is mostly brought up by folks like you!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#6545 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They won't argue the consequences; they prefer to defame opponents and call them homophobes. They don't have rational arguments, they have name-calling.
Brian you and I have went round and round about this issue and I have been respectful of your stance and I have disagreed vigorously with you. I have a real issue with how those that represent the LGBT do this with name calling and such anger because we both know you cannot fight hate with hate. I prefer the human side of the LGBT because each lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is a human being just like you and I.

I hope all is well with you are yours.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6546 Jul 26, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
ol' brainless bria-bri is trying to discuss this same case over the oklahoma city thread regarding same sex marriage.
he's as dense there as he is here, maybe more so. LOL. maybe everyone scared him away from here & that's why he doesn't post his silly thoughts here any longer. or maybe he just ignores our posts and prefers just to blather on with his bumper sticker posts just like he has for the last 5 years.
He's an idiot. He does the same nonsense on pretty much every thread he attaches himself to....which are a lot. He's obsessed with the gays. He's been posting the same mindless blathering for years. He's one of those people that in the south we always follow his name with, "bless his heart", because you know he's mentally disadvantaged.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6547 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they all "impact" couples and families? Would presumption of paternity be legally impactful?
<quoted text>
As in husband and wife. Wastey, you have yet to offer a reason why children whose bio mom and dad are plural marriage practitioners, should get the same protections you seek for children "of" SSCs. No matter how much you try, no matter how long you hold your breath, you can't keep the "marriage equality" train from going off on a different track. Movements don't always proceed along the path the founders intended.
Any political movement to repeal the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act?

Bigamy, a strictly paternal construct, leads to over-population and family strife. Mormons agree and abandoned this practice in the 19th century. There is no state or public interest to repeal the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6548 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they all "impact" couples and families? Would presumption of paternity be legally impactful?
<quoted text>
As in husband and wife. Wastey, you have yet to offer a reason why children whose bio mom and dad are plural marriage practitioners, should get the same protections you seek for children "of" SSCs. No matter how much you try, no matter how long you hold your breath, you can't keep the "marriage equality" train from going off on a different track. Movements don't always proceed along the path the founders intended.
The founders didn't write the 14th amendment either. What is your point here?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6549 Jul 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Any political movement to repeal the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act?
Bigamy, a strictly paternal construct, leads to over-population and family strife. Mormons agree and abandoned this practice in the 19th century. There is no state or public interest to repeal the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act.
(Smiling, chucking, and shaking head). Ya know Wastey...you seem all right...you advocate for what u believe in, and although I disagree, I can respect that. However, we both know, the poly people are still there, they ain't going away.

http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-po...

It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.

You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.

The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.

What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.

The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6550 Jul 26, 2013
In private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement, I often hear two responses. The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect,“don’t quote me on that.” The first of these responses, of course, is a political response but not a legal one. The second is to concede the point, with hopes that they won't have to come out of the closet on the concession until more same-sex victories are won in political and legal arenas.

Can we do better? What are the possible distinctions?

Ickiness.

This argument goes something like this:“Well, gay marriage is one thing. But incest and polygamy are icky.” I understand this visceral response. But of course this is the same kind of repulsion that has been standing in the way of LGBTQ rights for decades, and which motivated anti-miscegenation statutes before that. This kind of argument makes us sound dangerously close to those who oppose same-sex marriage by claiming it is “unnatural.”

There's more if you wish to read it. Just follow the link above.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6551 Jul 26, 2013
Wastey

Honestly, why do u, or any other SSMers care if polygamy or incest is legalized? After all if the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife is discarded, does it really matter to the alphabet soup crowd if poly is legal? We're told there's no harm for other people's marriages if we allow SSM, so why wouldn't the same hold true for a consensual polygamous marriage?

Sometimes I wonder if its just a matter of not wanting to share the marriage equality line light. That only SSM is worthy of fundamentally altering the American legal concept of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, not closely related by blood, of age to consent, and not currently married.

Seriously, say if the state of Utah enacted a "plural marriage equality act", allowing plural marriage to have legal recognition and structure, would the rainbow flag wavers march in protest......or support?

It must burn your britches every time Kody and the girls give an interview expressing support for SSM.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6552 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
And the answer to the question, in your humble opinion, isssssssss?
If Olson's answer was inadequate, one wonders why the case was won.

But in MY humble opinion, marriage is the legal recognition of the mutually-protective bond formed by two unrelated adults who have chosen each other as life partners. We restrict it to two, because any more dilutes the bond that one person can have for another, complicating the nature of the relationship so severly that the benefits of marriage cannot be consistently, or even properly, applied. We restrict it from family, as marriage CREATES a familial bond, and ascribes many rights which family members already have.

Hopefully I don't need to explain why we restrict it to adults, or humans, or the living, or whatever other bizarro "slippery slope" relationships that some people fear.

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... 5 min too lazy to log in 3,656
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 7 min Mitt s Airtight D... 259
News Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on ga... 16 min too lazy to log in 122
News Mike Huckabee says Hillary Clinton should go to... 16 min Frankie Rizzo 61
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 20 min Fa-Foxy 720
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min Respect71 26,026
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 22 min too lazy to log in 1,307
More from around the web