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

#9926 Sep 15, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Try telling that to the millions who have married for property throughout the ages. Goats, asses, and all kinds of animals, Dowry, land, and so on are listed, even for common folks. Kings, leaders, and others use it to consolidate property and power. Again, women and children were often less important than the property and power, though they were part of both the property and power.
But again, procreation ability has never been a requirement in the US. And did your biology class neglect to tell you sex doesn't always result in reproduction, especially for women as they get older? And some people have deformities and accidents that prevent them from reproducing? And, most importantly, there are many wayw to avoid it, and aviod disease transmission as well? Too bad they didn't tell you neither reproduction nor sex are required for marriage, nor is marriage required for reproduction.
Too bad no one told them there are two sexes, too bad no one told them sex makes babies......
Babies might sometimes happen for some couples, but not always. Failure to be fertile is not accepted as an excuse for annulment.(yet, do you oppose no fault divorce....)
failure to consummate is grounds for annulment in some states.
When sex was an expectation of the contract and is withheld, a contract violation can be shown. When there is no expectation, no violation.
Marriage IS A male female SEXUAL UNION.
And again, fundamental rights do not have to be earned, or demonstrate any interest to the government. They exist for all persons. You must show a good reason for taking them away if you want to restrict them.
The particular fundamental right, marriage, IS BASED on the male female relationship. No other basis exists for it.
Procreation isn't one of them, and therefore neither is gender. You still have nothing sufficient to deny a fundamental human right.
You fail to understand it only exists as fundamental right IF THE STATE LICENSES IT. No license, no legal recognition, no right.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9927 Sep 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What specific harm do you speak of? If the concern is not to "harm" children "of" same sex couples by declaring their relationship "marriage", by what reasoning to we not apply the same reasoning to the biological children of plural marriage families? Are they not worthy? Please list the specific harm.
Perhaps a court would make the same finding of harm to the children of polygamous parents. But we'll never know unless polygamists file a lawsuit and assert that claim. That you think you can cite similar examples in no way invalidates the finding with regards to same sex couples and their children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex marriage not legal in 1974, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states.
Indeed. Discrimination against gays has been rampant throughout history. Ant then you cite the lack of historical same sex marriages as proof gays don;t have a such a fundamental right when all you really do is prove the historicity of discrimination.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Since 13 states, the District of Columbia and a number of other nations legally recognize same sex marriage, you're nothing but a f-ing liar.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex marriage not legal in 1987, plus same sex sexual relations still criminal in many states. The right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.[QUOTE]
Historical discrimination against a minority isn't a constitutionally permissible justification for continued discrimination. Try again, bigot boy.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]SCOTUS did not declare SSM a fundamental right, nor plural marriage, nor sibling marriage.
Nor did they declare "opposite sex marriage" a fundamental right. They simply rued "marriage" as such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fundamental right is still the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
You're still an f-ing liar.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9928 Sep 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the specific harm to them, and whatever children they may have?
<quoted text>
Wrong, gender, or specifically the joining of both male and female is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT in 30 plus states.
<quoted text>
If one gender is removed, marriage as a distinct relationship of husband and wife, is fundamentally changed. In essence it is no longer marriage, as it has been understood legally, culturally, socially, historically, and/or religiously throughout American history.
Again, in Windsor, the clear, undisputable, and direct harm she suffered and could prove beyond any doubt, was the loss of over 350,000 worth of assets.

Look again. I stated: "They did not need to establish a fundamental right of same sex marriage as there is no such thing as same sex marriage when gender is not a requirement for marriage. It is just marriage. Gender was removed, not established."

The operative phrase you missed is; "when gender is not a requirement for marriage." 14 states, DC, 14 other countries and other jurisdictions that recognize the marriages of same sex couples, do so under the same laws in effect for opposite sex couples. It is the same marriage regardless of gender. The gender restriction was removed, not established. Removing that restriction does not change the marriages of opposite sex couples. All of the over 1,138 same laws still apply. Your desire to view it as a private club rather than a fundamental right of all persons, does not mean it is no longer marriage. It is also incorrect to assert marriage hasn't evolved throughout American history. More than 14 supreme court cases prove otherwise.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9929 Sep 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad no one told them there are two sexes, too bad no one told them sex makes babies......
<quoted text>
failure to consummate is grounds for annulment in some states.
<quoted text>
Marriage IS A male female SEXUAL UNION.
<quoted text>
The particular fundamental right, marriage, IS BASED on the male female relationship. No other basis exists for it.
<quoted text>
You fail to understand it only exists as fundamental right IF THE STATE LICENSES IT. No license, no legal recognition, no right.
You fail to understand, fundamental rights exist no matter what the government thinks about them.

A license is a restriction we have accepted. It helps pay the bills, and make sure protections on informed consent, age, incest, and not being married, are met. Some states still restrict gender, but without being able to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest for doing so.

Again, sex may or may not make babies. "Consummation" does not result in procreation for everyone, no matter how hard they might try. Failure to procreate is not the same as failure to try. And consummation is only an excuse for divorce when consummation was an expectation of the marriage. If it was not an expectation, it would not be grounds for divorce, nor would such an expectation be a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

Again, even when sex or procreation are impossible, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual. Gender is not a legitimate excuse.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9930 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, in Windsor, the clear, undisputable, and direct harm she suffered and could prove beyond any doubt, was the loss of over 350,000 worth of assets.
The bottom line is she didn't want to pay the taxes, not that I blame her. It wasn't for some higher moral cause.
Look again. I stated: "They did not need to establish a fundamental right of same sex marriage as there is no such thing as same sex marriage when gender is not a requirement for marriage. It is just marriage. Gender was removed, not established."
It still a requirement to establish marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states.
The operative phrase you missed is; "when gender is not a requirement for marriage." 14 states, DC, 14 other countries and other jurisdictions that recognize the marriages of same sex couples, do so under the same laws in effect for opposite sex couples. It is the same marriage regardless of gender.
It is it the same marriage regardless of gender., that contradictory.
The gender restriction was removed, not established. Removing that restriction does not change the marriages of opposite sex couples. All of the over 1,138 same laws still apply. Your desire to view it as a private club rather than a fundamental right of all persons, does not mean it is no longer marriage.
It is not a private club as it is open to all men, and all women, equally.
It is also incorrect to assert marriage hasn't evolved throughout American history.
To the contrary, the "evolution" of marriage, did not eliminate the basis of the relationship, male female.
More than 14 supreme court cases prove otherwise.
They confirmed my assertion. Each case dealt with marriage as it was understood throughout American history, a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife. To claim other wise is delusional.

“"The 14th Amendment Works"”

Since: Jul 13

Livermore California

#9931 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, in Windsor, the clear, undisputable, and direct harm she suffered and could prove beyond any doubt, was the loss of over 350,000 worth of assets.
Look again. I stated: "They did not need to establish a fundamental right of same sex marriage as there is no such thing as same sex marriage when gender is not a requirement for marriage. It is just marriage. Gender was removed, not established."
The operative phrase you missed is; "when gender is not a requirement for marriage." 14 states, DC, 14 other countries and other jurisdictions that recognize the marriages of same sex couples, do so under the same laws in effect for opposite sex couples. It is the same marriage regardless of gender. The gender restriction was removed, not established. Removing that restriction does not change the marriages of opposite sex couples. All of the over 1,138 same laws still apply. Your desire to view it as a private club rather than a fundamental right of all persons, does not mean it is no longer marriage. It is also incorrect to assert marriage hasn't evolved throughout American history. More than 14 supreme court cases prove otherwise.
Great post! But I'm sad to say that our friend Pietro isn't capable of understanding common logic or critical thought! He has drank the kool aid and his tin foil hat has blinded him to the negative attributes I just mentioned about him,devoid of common logic and not a semblance of critical though or for that matter common decency or compassion toward his fellow man/women!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9932 Sep 16, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to understand, fundamental rights exist no matter what the government thinks about them.
If the government does not issue a marriage license, nor chooses to legally recognize marriage at all, the right does not exist for individuals. They are free to marry as they see fit, by what ever format, whether it be religious, or secular.
A license is a restriction we have accepted. It helps pay the bills, and make sure protections on informed consent, age, incest, and not being married, are met.
If the license is no longer issued, it matters not if people marry, no legal recognition is maintained. Marriage then returns to the private, and/or religious realm.
Some states still restrict gender, but without being able to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest for doing so.
Some states have chosen not to succumb to contemporary efforts to fundamentally legally redefine a significant social institution.
Again, sex may or may not make babies. "
It does, as it created you and I, however, not every instance of colitis will result in conception.
Consummation" does not result in procreation for everyone, no matter how hard they might try.
Agreed.
Failure to procreate is not the same as failure to try. And consummation is only an excuse for divorce when consummation was an expectation of the marriage. If it was not an expectation, it would not be grounds for divorce, nor would such an expectation be a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right
It is grounds for annulment in certain states, and it illustrates the differences between the two relationships, opposite sex, and same sex. This not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence applies to SSMs..
Again, even when sex or procreation are impossible, marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual. Gender is not a legitimate excuse.
Marriage remains a fundamental right based on it definitional foundation, not what an individual chooses to call marriage. If that were so, any number of other consenting adult relationships could legally be designated marriage. Gender, as in the inclusion of both, in one legally recognized relationship, is the reason the state recognizes marriage. If one gender is removed, marriage as it has been legally, historically, socially, and/or religiously, it is no longer marriage, and thus does not require a compelling state interest in its recognition.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9933 Sep 16, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post! But I'm sad to say that our friend Pietro isn't capable of understanding common logic or critical thought!
Quite the contrary. Logic dictates the state interest in marriage is absent in a same sex relationship. It matters not if two men, or two women marry, for it is not necessary for societal stability. It's union does not produce anything necessitating a compelling state interest.
He has drank the kool aid and his tin foil hat has blinded him to the negative attributes I just mentioned about him,devoid of common logic and not a semblance of critical though
It is you Bill, that has drank from the spiked rainbow punch of sexual identity politics.
or for that matter common decency or compassion toward his fellow man/women!
Common decency does not require different situations be treated the same. If common decency is your goal as it relates to marriage, then there is no reason not to extend that common decency to those men and women who practice plural marriage, or other who have another view of marriage beyond yours.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9934 Sep 16, 2013
Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor. We used to have one marriage law for everybody, now we have sex segregation marriage legal in 13 states taking away perfect 1:1 affirmative action.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9935 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is she didn't want to pay the taxes, not that I blame her. It wasn't for some higher moral cause.
<quoted text>
It still a requirement to establish marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states.
<quoted text>
It is it the same marriage regardless of gender., that contradictory.
<quoted text>
It is not a private club as it is open to all men, and all women, equally.
She DIDN'T deserve to be treated like a 2nd class citizen because she was legally married to someone of the Same-Sex.......it had NOTHING to do with her NOT wanting to pay her taxes.....and if a heterosexual widow/widower whose legal opposite-sex spouse had died and they were assessed this OUTRAGEOUS inheritance tax......they'd have sued as well.......what a crock, Pete!!!

What excuse will you be using when there are NOT 30 states, but 10 or less......still gonna be using that "It still a requirement to establish marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in ## plus states"? or will you just accept that your side lost the battle?

Right, all men regardless of sexual orientation can marry all women regardless of sexual orientation the way Pete wants it to be.....lol!!!

Problem with your thought process is this.....NOT all MEN are interested in women, therefore they should be able to make that decision based on who they are, who they love and who they want to spend the rest of their lives with WITHOUT it coming down to the gender of the person they want to marry!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9936 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor. We used to have one marriage law for everybody, now we have sex segregation marriage legal in 13 states taking away perfect 1:1 affirmative action.
Are you sure your name isn't Pete? Because all you do is REPEAT your comments........over and over and over again!!!

We still do have ONE marriage law for everyone......if you are legally married, then you get the State and Federal rights, benefits and privileges offered to married couples......and if you are single.....then ya don't......however, there are still opposite-sex couples receiving a "SPECIAL" right at the moment......and that is that a legally OPPOSITE-SEX married couple has recognition is ALL 50 states......whereas legally married SAME-SEX COUPLES do not, but that will change in time as well!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9937 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary. Logic dictates the state interest in marriage is absent in a same sex relationship.
Why? How? and do you have some source that backs up your claim? Because there are several Court rulings that disagree with your position!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9938 Sep 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Because marriage is what MAKES them into family.
The state is of needed for that. Families can be, and have been, forms without state involvement.
Which “other requirements”?
Age of consent, ability to consent, not currently married, Eric.
Close, but you pack too much baggage into your explanation (in an effort to make it sound impossible for gay couples to meet, no doubt)
Not if the gay couple is of the opposite sex.
. Marriage is recognized because of the inheritance rights it accords onto the people who want to become family.
Marriage is recognized because of the male female relationship that forms the basis of it, and the products of that relationship. If human reproduction wasn't sexual, would there be a need for marriage?
Children BENEFIT from that (as would children raised by gay couples), but those who benefit the MOST are the SPOUSES who aren’t family to begin with. Children’s inheritance rights are generally guaranteed anyway.
Who or what determines what a "spouse" is?
I’ll give him a chance. On DVD. Hopefully his superhero-acting skills have improved since DD. If this is a sequel to the recent Superman flick, that sucked, so Ben’s got a low bar to hit.
Not overly keen of Aflect, but time will tell. Perhaps he'll surprise Batfans. The recent Suprman flick wasn't bad, aimthink he's a difficult character to bring to the big screen, at least in today's climate of successful superhero films like the Dark Knight, and Iron Man. It is going to be the sequel.
Can’t wait.
I'm sure you can't
Such as?
Such as intentionally severing the child's biological link.
If the two legal structures perform every function identically (and you've never listed any functions which differ), then they aren't going to have any differing effect. I don't know about marriage being on the decline, but birth rates could stand to come down A LOT. Still, gay people have no bearing on that.
The two structures are to going to perform every function identically. Marriage is the legal recognition of husband and wife, and all that it entails. A civil union is intended to provide a legal frame work for same sex relationships.
SSM may be a modern invention, but justice is not. Justice just takes a long time, thanks to the heel-draggers who prefer the status quo.
Truth, Justice, and the American way. Superman would be proud.
If slavery is such a bad idea in human history, why did it persist so long across time and culture etc etc?
I don't understand this fascination with comparing SSM and slavery, please explain.
Again, heel-draggers. Some people LIKE having a target minority around, and they will STRONGLY resist any efforts to elevate them to equal status.
I don't think it's that simple. There is also a reluctance to legally fundamentally alter a significant social institution. We seem the decline in marriage rates, rise in both divorce, and out of wedlock birth rates. So if there's a hesitation to legally define marriage, it to simply a matter of animus.
Ask blacks.
Theirs is a struggle since the first slave was brought to this continent from Africa. Any gay slaves in the group?
Ask women (not technically a minorty, of course). Ask Native Americans, Irish, Japanese, Muslims. Throw in the religious superiority complex of being a "chosen people" which is so prevalent in this country, and it just makes things that much worse.
I too find the "chosen people" mentality puzzling, and threatening at times. Why does God need a "chosen people"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9939 Sep 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
More than a 2-person relationship will have 1,138 rewrites to do first. A sister is already family.
But not impossible, nor shouldn't stand in the way of "dignity" for plural marriage families. If sisters wish to be legally declared "spouses", why should they be denied?
This is privileged thinking. Just because YOU didn't feel this need, doesn't mean NO ONE has.
Not at all. Why does it matter to society at large that two men, or two women marry? Will anyone notice if they don't? Is it vital to societal stability?
It's what you SHOULD have done, unless you secretly hate your wife. Most heterosexuals I've met describe their spouse as their best friend in life.
No....no secret hate. Best friend yes, but even a husband doesn't share everything with his wife, as he would win his guy friends, and vice versa.
]
Those others do not represent discrimination. A desire for multiple spouses, or incest, does not reflect a person's nature the way homosexuality does.
Not so fast, a man may be "orientated" that way. Or a woman, I suppose.
And I CAN marry while following the "same rules", where I live.
The rules were changed, we both know that.
Only as much as you want to marry someone like mom. We all admire our positive role models.
So that adage has no meaning then?
I'd be happy to support polygamy, after 1,138 rewrites.
Dignity, and marriage equality shouldn't' have to wait for those rewrites.
But siblings are already family. Marriage would only tangle their family relationships, not clarify them.
But not legally "spouses", therein lies the difference.
Everyone functions according to their nature.
A very Spock like response, the Vulcan, not the doctor.
It's not a "requirement". If it were a "requirement", then no other state would be able to disregard it, yet over a dozen do.
Yet over thirty retain it. So it must be a requirement in those states.
Real "requirements" can't just be shrugged off like that. If they're REQUIRED, then they must be present at ALL times. What those 30 states have is a BARRIER, not a requirement.
No a definitional, compositional, requirement.
That barrier is based on the same xenophobia that DADT was, the same as plenty of other barriers to LGBT equality which have existed and persisted over the years. They serve NO other purpose than to keep the icky gays away from the normal straights.
Those "icky gays", and "normal straights" interact all the time. Sometimes they even marry each other, and stay married....Josh Weed.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#9940 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Even some of those who self identify as lesbians have either had sex with men, still do on occasion, or have expressed the desire to do so again, depending on the attractiveness of a man.
Sources. Cite your sources.

Are you stupid?

If so, I'll understand.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9941 Sep 16, 2013
Unrehabilitated Bakers
SEP 16, 2013,

s the debate over gay marriage began heating up, supporters of the idea insisted that it was a matter of basic libertarianism.“Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one,” went the bumper-sticker-turned-rallying -cry. Of course, it was never going to be that simple with regard to something as foundational as marriage, and now we are starting to see there are real consequences to being publicly opposed to the practice. In last week’s issue, Mark Hemingway wrote of Christian businesses around the country that have rankled state authorities for the crime of refusing to participate in gay weddings (“The ‘Human Rights’ Juggernaut,” Sept. 9, 2013).

The most high-profile case involves the seven-year legal battle of a New Mexico wedding photography business that was fined in excess of $6,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. State and local authorities have also threatened or fined an inn in Vermont, a printer in Kentucky, a florist in Washington state, and a bakery in Oregon for declining to provide their services in gay weddings and commitment ceremonies. The legal issues involved are not a simple matter of public accommodation, as these businesses all willingly serve gay clients in every capacity other than matrimonial. They just don’t want to be compelled to participate in events of religious significance that run counter to their faith.

Well, in the week since Hemingway’s article appeared, we are sad to report, Sweet Cakes, the bakery in Gresham, Oregon, that was mentioned in the article, has closed its doors. Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian told the Oregonian that he hoped to “rehabilitate” Sweet Cakes as one outcome of the state investigation into the matter, but the family that owns the business had long been receiving threats, and activists were already pressuring local vendors not to do business with the bakery. After shuttering the premises, the owners hung a sign on the door that reads,“This fight is not over we will continue to stand strong. Your religious freedom is becoming not free anymore. This is ridiculous that we cannot practice our faith anymore. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve Him with all our heart.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/unreha...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9942 Sep 16, 2013
http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/column ...

Bi For Now
Call them hasbians. Women who came out of the closet only to end up in heterosexual relationships. Switching teams is never easy—no matter which side you're on.

By Amy Sohn
If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she’s been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men. Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again—as heterosexuals.

Some hasbians identify as bisexual, while others say they’re straight and describe their lesbianism as a meaningful but finite phase of their lives, like listening to a lot of Morrissey or campaigning for Dukakis. But all say they have had to pay a price, feeling a need to keep their past lives secret from new boyfriends while facing judgment from their closest friends. Patty, a 27-year-old stockbroker, came out during college but for the past six months has been seeing a guy. She says she was so consumed with coming out that she never gave men a fair shot. Sex with her boyfriend is “tender,” she says, if less adventurous than with her girlfriend. Then there are the obvious differences.“With a man, orgasm is the goal. With women, you’re not as focused on it and it’s less of a race to get there. If a man doesn’t come, his ego is deflated, whereas with a woman, that’s not a factor. It’s more mix and match.”[QUOTEwho="River Tam"]<quoted text>
Sources. Cite your sources.
Are you stupid?
If so, I'll understand.[/QUOTE]

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9943 Sep 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is neighbor suing neighbor. We used to have one marriage law for everybody, now we have sex segregation marriage legal in 13 states taking away perfect 1:1 affirmative action.
Brian, how dumb do you want people to think you are?

Why do you defend those who break the law?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9944 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is she didn't want to pay the taxes, not that I blame her. It wasn't for some higher moral cause.
<quoted text>
It still a requirement to establish marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states.
<quoted text>
It is it the same marriage regardless of gender., that contradictory.
<quoted text>
It is not a private club as it is open to all men, and all women, equally.
<quoted text>
To the contrary, the "evolution" of marriage, did not eliminate the basis of the relationship, male female.
<quoted text>
They confirmed my assertion. Each case dealt with marriage as it was understood throughout American history, a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife. To claim other wise is delusional.
You asked for an example of harm. Loss of 350,000 in assets is a clear example of undisputable harm. While I'm sure money wasn't the only motivation, "some higher moral cause" is harder to demonstrate in court. Trying to denigrate Mrs. Windsor fails to overcome the undisputable fact she was harmed by DOMA.

You fail to show marriage is legally any different for same sex couples than for opposite sex couples in the jurisdictions where it is recognized. And you can't, because there isn't any legal difference. There is only one form of marriage for same sex and opposite sex couples alike.

The Supreme Court contradicted your assertion when they ruled that procreation is not necessary for marriage to remain a fundamental right, and again when they ruled ability to have sex is not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right. They made it clear the restrictions you with to impose are not valid restrictions. Gender is not relevant as neither sex or procreation are needed for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9945 Sep 16, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post! But I'm sad to say that our friend Pietro isn't capable of understanding common logic or critical thought! He has drank the kool aid and his tin foil hat has blinded him to the negative attributes I just mentioned about him,devoid of common logic and not a semblance of critical though or for that matter common decency or compassion toward his fellow man/women!
Yes, I gave up hope on him a long time ago. Now it's just a matter of correcting the record, and practice in showing the excuses to be irrational.

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) 3 hr No Surprise 8,345
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Charles P 53,543
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 3 hr Christsharians on... 7
40 years ago today 4 hr NE Jade 3
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 4 hr No Surprise 546
News Church accused of offering to 'cure homosexuali... 4 hr Charles P 5
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding 5 hr Dunbar 1
News Gay Pride should be about protest, not just cor... Tue The Troll Stopper 76
More from around the web