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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9491 Sep 6, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As defined by whom? Marriage as the historic, cultural, social, legal, and/or union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? As in all of the Supreme Court cases, excluding the most recent decision, based their ruling on monogamous conjugal marriage?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. From the dissent to your favorite Maryland marriage case ruling:

“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."

“[i]t is no answer that same-sex couples can be excluded from marriage because ‘marriage,’ by definition, does not include them."
Pietro Armando wrote:
No need for qualifiers of that which is understood, marriage as amnion one one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The is based on what is written, not what is "understood". Hence the rush to pass constitutional amendments prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriages when it was realized existing laws did not include the necessary qualifiers to exclude them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sure it can change.
Then why the incessantly whining that it is?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or your understanding of history.
My understanding of history and constitutional law are quite fine. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it does.
Nope.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor do your attempts to put a square peg in a round hole.
Non sequitar.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If it weren't for a male female obsessed with each other, if only for a moment, you wouldn't be here.
The topic is neither my parents nor procreation, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only if one chooses to marry legally.
That kind of goes with he territory of exercising one's fundamental right of civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite, as long as the parties meet the basic requirements set forth by the state they get the license.
I was talking about the state refusing to issue a marriage license, not issuing one. Pay attention.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Sister Wives" lawsuit.
That lawsuit is not challenging the statute prohibiting legal recognition of more than one civil marriage simultaneously. Rather, it's challenging the Utah law that makes claiming to be "spiritually" married to more than one person even in the absence of more than one civil marriage license a crime.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9492 Sep 6, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet the law didn't require them to marry only within their self professed orientation.
The law actually prohibits gays from marrying within their sexual orientation. It's meaningless to a
assert the law doesn't "require" that when in fact it forbids it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Soooooo......what?
Just knocking down your straw man argument that members of a discriminated against class that abide by a discriminatory law doesn't make it any less a discriminatory law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Most people usually marry within their ethnic/racial/religious/demogr aphic grouping anyway. Even today, black women, and Asian men are least likely to marry outside of their ethno racial group.
And yet gays are prohibited from marrying within their sexual orientation. They have no choice - unlike all the examples you just gave who do have a choice to marry within or outside their class.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I would have told Mildred to find herself a nice Italian boy. No law prohibiting blacks and Italians from marrying.
Italians were considered white, stupid Peter. Essentially non-whites were comprised of anyone of European ancestry. So in fact Mildred Loving couldn't have married an Italian or any other white. You really need to learn the difference between a race and an ethnicity.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides, Italy is just across the pond from Africa, little Terry.]/QUOTE]
Which still makes it part of Europe, stupid Peter.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
You're the one claiming marriage rights based on sexual orientation.
No, I'm claiming neither sexual orientation nor sex (which acts as a surrogate class for sexual orientation) provides a compelling government interest on which to prohibit marriage.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9493 Sep 6, 2013
[
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, the fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
No, the right to establish kinship between unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Same sex people" can Marry, just like everyone else.
So could blacks under anti-miscegenation laws. And yet anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional. Equal application of a law is not the same thing as equal protection of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That line was for ,the adultery example you asked for,I think.
Yes, it was. Sorry. I obviously missed your posting of a state that had enforced it's adultery law within your life time. Can you provide the post number in which you provided the information?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not necessarily, the presumption of paternity is still a guiding principle for the courts. Besides it could be detrimental to the children. Think about it. A man finds out ten years after the fact that their was another roster in the hen house. The chick he thought was his, is not, and the only father the child had was him.
DNA testing at birth. Problem solved.

Just think, we could have a national database of everyone's DNA available at a moment's notice for testing. No child ever need worry whether their parent is really their biological parent again. Who could possibly oppose something that's such a compelling government interest: to ensure every child knows and is raised by their biological parents, eh small Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Next you're going to tell me the world isn't flat.
You're the one living in the past, not me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you mean the one preventing a same sex relationship from being designated marriage?
No, I meant it as I wrote it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did I mention religion? One not need to invoke a deity, or deities, in order to marry without the state. Two men can stand in front of tree, and say to each other, "I marry thee".
So that would be sufficient and satisfying to you and your wife? If not, why do you think gays should settle for it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps....time will tell.
It's a demographic certainty.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if the state, or any state ceases to legally recognize marriage, doe it still exist as a fundamental right?
Yes.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a tree falls in a Forrest.....
You're probably standing under it. That would help explain the brain addled nature of so many of your responses.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly! Why do you think marriage exists, and developed throughout time and place as a virtually exclusive male female union?
Animus against gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's a means of regulating the union of the sexes, and what that union produces, little Terry's!
Denying gays the right to marry is not rationally related to regulating procreation among heterosexuals and thus fails the compelling state interest test.

From the dissent to your favorite Maryland marriage ruling:

“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9494 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore the Supreme Court both dismissed the appeal and directed the Ninth Circuit to vacate (withdraw) its decision, which had upheld the district court ruling. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.
Do you follow so far?
In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it purported to re-remove rights from a disfavored class only, with no rational basis.
This is the ruling left intact.
Do you get it now? NO RATIONAL BASIS. Do you understand what that means? It means your silly arguments aren't considered rational. Go figure...
Gee a gay man said "no rational basis".....what a surprise there. So when other judges have said,there is a rational basis, are they offering "silly arguments"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9495 Sep 6, 2013
Edmond

You had responded to a post of mine some time ago, I actually started to back track to find it, until I saw this.
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny, it sounds like you want some say in the matter. If she wanted to marry a woman, certainly you'd demand to supercede her authority in planning her own life.
Don't all fathers want, or have, think they have anyway, a say in their daughter's choice of husband? At least an opinion?
If your son were gay, wouldn't you want him to marry the person that he fell in love with? The person who would make him happiest, who he intends to spend his life with?
You assume I would want him to marry. I would want him to realize only he can "make" him happy. If he chose to partner, thenI would support him on that.
Or would you prefer he found someone that DIDN'T suit him (but suited you better)? Would you prefer that he have a loveless, sexless marriage, one which made him (and his neglected wife) more miserable with each passing day?
Josh Weed's marriage is neither loveless, nor sexless.
If he were gay, and wanted to share his life and all his property with the man he fell in love with, how would it benefit them by committing his property and inheritance rights with someone else?
I don't know, how would it?
Some unrelated third party? If it's so important to you that your daughter be committed to her husband, why do you think gay couples would happily waive that component, in favor of some stranger they have no investment in?
What "stranger" are you talking about?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9496 Sep 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. From the dissent to your favorite Maryland marriage case ruling:
“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."
“[i]t is no answer that same-sex couples can be excluded from marriage because ‘marriage,’ by definition, does not include them."
You continue to ignore the obvious. The fundamental right to marry, must have a foundational definition of marriage. If it it's subject to,the whims of the individual.
The is based on what is written, not what is "understood". Hence the rush to pass constitutional amendments prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriages when it was realized existing laws did not include the necessary qualifiers to exclude them.
Or fear that judges would usurp the role of the legislature, and/or will of the people.
Then why the incessantly whining that it is?
Just because it can change doesn't mean it should.
My understanding of history and constitutional law are quite fine. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about yours.
Then you should realize the American legal understanding of marriage is derived from English common law, and it is intrinsically linked to the procreative aspects of the male female union. You should also understand that modern sexual identity labels are just that, they are not based in a deep seated understanding of "orientation" in western civilization.
Non sequitar.
Wrong hole perhaps
The topic is neither my parents nor procreation, small Peter.
Ahhhhhh.....so you do acknowledge you are a product of the male female union.....sounds like you we're made the old fashioned way.
That kind of goes with he territory of exercising one's fundamental right of civil marriage.
I suppose it does
I was talking about the state refusing to issue a marriage license, not issuing one. Pay attention.
They will only refuse to issue a marriage license if the parties applying for one don't meet the requirements. Simple enough.
That lawsuit is not challenging the statute prohibiting legal recognition of more than one civil marriage simultaneously. Rather, it's challenging the Utah law that makes claiming to be "spiritually" married to more than one person even in the absence of more than one civil marriage license a crime.
Exactly....didn't u say that wasn't a crime? Perhaps I misread one of your posts. This is fun though. There's still a few of your posts from the 2nd that I haven't responded to yet. Don't worry Terry...I'll get to 'em.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9497 Sep 6, 2013
Waitaminit......is this part 3.
Terra Firma wrote:
[<quoted text>
No, the right to establish kinship between unrelated parties.
<quoted text>
So could blacks under anti-miscegenation laws. And yet anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional. Equal application of a law is not the same thing as equal protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Yes, it was. Sorry. I obviously missed your posting of a state that had enforced it's adultery law within your life time. Can you provide the post number in which you provided the information?
<quoted text>
DNA testing at birth. Problem solved.
Just think, we could have a national database of everyone's DNA available at a moment's notice for testing. No child ever need worry whether their parent is really their biological parent again. Who could possibly oppose something that's such a compelling government interest: to ensure every child knows and is raised by their biological parents, eh small Peter?
<quoted text>
You're the one living in the past, not me.
<quoted text>
No, I meant it as I wrote it.
<quoted text>
So that would be sufficient and satisfying to you and your wife? If not, why do you think gays should settle for it?
<quoted text>
It's a demographic certainty.
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
You're probably standing under it. That would help explain the brain addled nature of so many of your responses.
<quoted text>
Animus against gays.
<quoted text>
Denying gays the right to marry is not rationally related to regulating procreation among heterosexuals and thus fails the compelling state interest test.
From the dissent to your favorite Maryland marriage ruling:
“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9498 Sep 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
The law actually prohibits gays from marrying within their sexual orientation. It's meaningless to a
assert the law doesn't "require" that when in fact it forbids it.
Again a contradiction. In order for "gays to marry within their orientation" , the state must redefine marriage, and in doing so, eliminates any compelling interest in the relationship.
Just knocking down your straw man argument that members of a discriminated against class that abide by a discriminatory law doesn't make it any less a discriminatory law.
So by not marrying one's sibling is one abiding by a "discriminatory law"? Or only marrying one wife?
And yet gays are prohibited from marrying within their sexual orientation. They have no choice - unlike all the examples you just gave who do have a choice to marry within or outside their class.
They still have a choice, besides, no one is forced to legally marry. If one chooses to legally marry, one must do so,according to the requirements set forth by the state. The state is under no obligation to recognize any personal intimate human relationship,or recognize them in the same way.
Italians were considered white, stupid Peter. Essentially non-whites were comprised of anyone of European ancestry. So in fact Mildred Loving couldn't have married an Italian or any other white. You really need to learn the difference between a race and an ethnicity.
Italians didn't become "white" until the mid 20th century, post WWII.

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations...
No, I'm claiming neither sexual orientation nor sex (which acts as a surrogate class for sexual orientation) provides a compelling government interest on which to prohibit marriage.
If sex doesn't provide a compelling government interest to prohibit marriage, or recognize it, then what is the point? Why then does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry? Why should the government involve itself in people's personal relationships?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9500 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the obvious. The fundamental right to marry, must have a foundational definition of marriage. If it it's subject to,the whims of the individual.
Establishing kinship between unrelated parties perfectly sums up what marriage does. And also encompasses all types of marriages around the world as well. Unlike your definition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or fear that judges would usurp the role of the legislature, and/or will of the people.
Judges perform their constitutionally appointed duty of adjudicating cases within our legal system. Some are also charged with judicial review of laws for constitutionality. The will of the people cannot contravene the constitution either. Even state constitutional amendments can be found to violate the federal constitution and thus be struck down.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Just because it can change doesn't mean it should.
People who aren't being discriminated against generally don't have complaints about the status quo.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Then you should realize the American legal understanding of marriage is derived from English common law, and it is intrinsically linked to the procreative aspects of the male female union.
Unlike you, I also know that US law has moved away from and abandoned many aspects of common law as our country has developed its own legal identity. Further, I also know throughout much of English history, marriage, particularly within the ruling class, was a means of establishing political alliances among families and a means of generating revenue for the crown as the king/queen often had control over the marriage rights of numerous noble women and many noble men were willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of gaining control over land and other wealth that came along with the bride. Having children in such marriages was certainly a help, but the primary gains were accomplished by the marriage itself, regardless of whether children came about.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You should also understand that modern sexual identity labels are just that, they are not based in a deep seated understanding of "orientation" in western civilization.
The relative newness of medical and scientific understanding doesn't negate the knowledge. The earth always revolved around the sun despite the longstanding "knowledge" of the pre-eminent thinkers of the day to the contrary. Just because some things take longer to learn or comprehend doesn't mean they haven't aways existed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Wrong hole perhaps
Do you frequently have difficulty finding the "right" hole?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ahhhhhh.....so you do acknowledge you are a product of the male female union.....sounds like you we're made the old fashioned way.
You're still confusing sex with marriage. The former doesn't require the latter and the latter isn't dependent on the former. Children result from sex, not marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I suppose it does
They will only refuse to issue a marriage license if the parties applying for one don't meet the requirements. Simple enough.
Not if the refusal is based on a restriction that isn't based on a compelling state interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly....didn't u say that wasn't a crime? Perhaps I misread one of your posts.
If I recall correctly, in 49 states it isn't a crime. Utah is unique in having that language as part of its anti-bigamy law. Personally, I agree it should be held unconstitutional as otherwise you're essentially criminalizing speech.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This is fun though. There's still a few of your posts from the 2nd that I haven't responded to yet. Don't worry Terry...I'll get to 'em.
You have a mixed track record of responding so I'm never sure if you will reply to a particular post or not.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9501 Sep 6, 2013
Our Sister of Mercy wrote:
No gay marriage. Ever. Queers are diseased maggots, and abominations.
yes, gay marriage right now. your own federal gov't recognizes it as totally and wholly equal to any other marriage...

welcome to the real world and the 21st century. well...Tulsa...perhaps step out to the state line and then we'll talk...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9502 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Josh Weed's marriage is neither loveless, nor sexless.
Do we actually know that for a fact? or do you believe what they both claim?

See, Josh wants EVERYONE to somehow believe he is an out Gay man, married to his best friend, and fathered 3 children all at the same time as saying he is NOT interested or attracted to other women and he's NEVER been with a man.......frankly, JMPO......I think he's Bisexual with a preference to men, whom he has NEVER been involved with and I believe remaining true to his religious beliefs is what drives him......not his sexual orientation.

Again, Josh Weed is NOT your poster boy for stating that Gays and Lesbians should be like him......I don't buy his story......but then, that's my right!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9503 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Again a contradiction. In order for "gays to marry within their orientation" , the state must redefine marriage, and in doing so, eliminates any compelling interest in the relationship.
Again, the constitutional standard is all citizens are entitled to exercise their fundamental rights. The state must show a compelling interest to create a restriction that infringes upon this right. The restriction must also have a rational relationship in furthering the asserted compelling interest.
Allowing same sex couples to marry doesn't prevent opposite sex couples from doing so as well. However, preventing same sex couples from marrying harms them and does nothing to encourage opposite sex couples to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So by not marrying one's sibling is one abiding by a "discriminatory law"? Or only marrying one wife?
Yes, it can be viewed as discriminatory by those affected but it's not illegal discrimination if a compelling state interest exists for those restrictions. Which those restrictions have been ruled such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They still have a choice, besides, no one is forced to legally marry.
People are constitutionally entitled to exercise their fundamental rights like marriage. If they are prevented from doing so with out a compelling state interest, it's not a constitutionally valid restriction. It's irrelevant that citizens aren't "forced" to marry. The choice to exercise a right belongs to citizens, not the state.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If one chooses to legally marry, one must do so,according to the requirements set forth by the state.
Those requirements must have compelling state interests to be constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state is under no obligation to recognize any personal intimate human relationship,or recognize them in the same way.
On the contrary, the state is constitutionally compelled to recognize the personal autonomy choices of citizens. The only exceptions are restrictions based on a compelling government interest
Pietro Armando wrote:
Italians didn't become "white" until the mid 20th century, post WWII.
http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/populations...
The link you provided does not confirm your assertion and in fact makes no mention of Italians at all. A Google search of racial classifications used for the census also showed Italians were never mentioned, didn't fit any of the other racial classifications available ad so by default would have been classified as white.

And even if your assertion is true, Italians would still have been classified as white when Mildred Loving married and thus would not have ben an option for her to consider marrying.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If sex doesn't provide a compelling government interest to prohibit marriage, or recognize it, then what is the point?
The point is the fundamental right of marriage is an aspect of personal autonomy over which an individual has almost exclusive control, save for restrictions based on compelling government interests. Marriage doesn't exist to serve the state or its interests.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why then does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry?
It shouldn't matter to the state. The state should only be concerned with regulating compliance with constitutionally valid restrictions based on a compelling government interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why should the government involve itself in people's personal relationships?
The state is only supposed to be involved to the extent it has articulated valid restrictions on marriage based upon compelling government interests. The state then monitors compliance with said constitutionally valid restrictions by issuing marriage licenses.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9504 Sep 7, 2013
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman:

Dolce & Gabbana: drama that could only be fashioned in Italy
Cristina Odone talks to Dolce and Gabbana on tax evasion, why they love the Duchess of Cambridge and why they don’t believe in gay marriage...

The two men so cherish the idea of the family, had they ever thought of getting married.“What?! Never!” they answer in chorus,“I don’t believe in gay marriage.” Dolce laughs. In Catholic Italy, has their sexuality proved a problem?“No, never,” says Dolce.“The fashion industry is full of gays.”....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/1029...

“I BUST MAD DOG BLOGGERS”

Since: Sep 13

WHO HAVE NO CONTROL

#9505 Sep 7, 2013
disaster in the making wrote:
Pass of fail will the gay community in Chicago follow through with forcing the government to remove there tax exempts for violations in the separation of church and state
Fair trade, IGLA loss of tax credits for $1.00 tacos at Taco Bell.

“I BUST MAD DOG BLOGGERS”

Since: Sep 13

WHO HAVE NO CONTROL

#9506 Sep 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman:
Dolce & Gabbana: drama that could only be fashioned in Italy
Cristina Odone talks to Dolce and Gabbana on tax evasion, why they love the Duchess of Cambridge and why they don’t believe in gay marriage...
The two men so cherish the idea of the family, had they ever thought of getting married.“What?! Never!” they answer in chorus,“I don’t believe in gay marriage.” Dolce laughs. In Catholic Italy, has their sexuality proved a problem?“No, never,” says Dolce.“The fashion industry is full of gays.”....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/1029...
Most gays with money do not support gay marriage. Al Rentel, gay, radio talk show host is one. The idea of a one voice gay is a lie.

“I BUST MAD DOG BLOGGERS”

Since: Sep 13

WHO HAVE NO CONTROL

#9507 Sep 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we actually know that for a fact? or do you believe what they both claim?
See, Josh wants EVERYONE to somehow believe he is an out Gay man, married to his best friend, and fathered 3 children all at the same time as saying he is NOT interested or attracted to other women and he's NEVER been with a man.......frankly, JMPO......I think he's Bisexual with a preference to men, whom he has NEVER been involved with and I believe remaining true to his religious beliefs is what drives him......not his sexual orientation.
Again, Josh Weed is NOT your poster boy for stating that Gays and Lesbians should be like him......I don't buy his story......but then, that's my right!!!
Glad you admit that religious beliefs can and often do trump homosexual orientation, which makes it a choice.

It is also the rights of all to see homosexuality anyway they wish, including Westboro. Your statement makes you no better than the members of the WBC. You think he is Bisexual and I think all gays are horny straights who have a mental block towards straight sex and got tired of hand jobs. My right!!!!

“I BUST MAD DOG BLOGGERS”

Since: Sep 13

WHO HAVE NO CONTROL

#9508 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, gay marriage right now. your own federal gov't recognizes it as totally and wholly equal to any other marriage...
welcome to the real world and the 21st century. well...Tulsa...perhaps step out to the state line and then we'll talk...
The truth is the federal government does not recognize SSM at all. The federal government subjugated marriage rights to the states. Welcome to Kansas toto....perhaps step out of the closet and we will talk. In case you missed it, I support marriage equality.

“I BUST MAD DOG BLOGGERS”

Since: Sep 13

WHO HAVE NO CONTROL

#9509 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the constitutional standard is all citizens are entitled to exercise their fundamental rights. The state must show a compelling interest to create a restriction that infringes upon this right.
Again, the constitutional standard for a fundamental right to marriage has nothing to do with your choice outside the fundamental definition of marriage. The state must show a compelling interest in gays marrying the same sex in order to change marriage and insert themselves into it. Basically, you have it wrong, the state does not have to show a compelling interest in something that has nothing to do with same sex marriages.

For instance, what compelling interest do states have in restricting humans from marrying Martians.
No Comment

Port Richey, FL

#9510 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Then polygamists are free to exercise their right to petition government to redress their grievance of being discriminated against.
They've found a way to be happy without making a public nuisance of themselves, like gays do.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9511 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, gay marriage right now. your own federal gov't recognizes it as totally and wholly equal to any other marriage...
False on two counts.
1. The vote was 5 - 4.
2. Gay couples can't produce children. Until you can, you can't be equal.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 min RiccardoFire 9,886
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 6 min Space ace 62
News Postal survey: gay Muslims shake off conservati... 22 min An infidude 28
News Roger Hines: Clarity and controversy from the B... 45 min yep 96
News Arizona Supreme Court says gays get equal paren... 1 hr Rigby 23
News In post about marriage equality, Elton John ope... 1 hr Clark 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr TomInElPaso 56,045
News Worker fired for same sex 'No' vote hits out 3 hr Wondering 18
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 4 hr Pat Robertson s F... 18
More from around the web