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

#10518 Sep 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You really make a lot of ASSumptions.......like only one can be the biological parent on the birth certificate if both are of the Same-Sex......
Did I miss something in high school biology class?
.remember Stem Cell research......a Lesbian couple can both be biologically related to the child.........when that happens, what will Pete do next?
Hmmmmmmm......it hasn't happened yet, ANNNNNNNNND......it's amazing the lengths some women will go to intentionally deny their child, his or her biological father. I know lesbians aren't attracted to men, but even they have fathers.
It's funny that you scream about the father and paternity.......there was a time a few years back where it was ASSumed that a bunch of children were being born outside of wedlock simply because the mothers OPTED to keep their maiden name..
But they weren't, were they? Uhhhhhh.....no...they weren't.
....where was your outrage and protest over that? My guess is you didn't have one, right?
Hmmmmmm.....never really thought about it....I suppose if the mother is Italian, and the father isn't keeping the maiden name adds more flavor.:)
If one woman in a Lesbian couple had an affair with a male co-worker and accidentally got pregnant.......guess what, that would be considered adultery, grounds for divorce(as you have claimed)or it might have been approved of by the other woman in the relationship..
Either way, the child would have one bio mom, and one bio dad.
......but I highly doubt that unless they had an open aka swingers attitude......
Strange things do happen in love and war.
either way......this in my opinion would be wrong as it would be wrong if it was a straight woman having an adulterous relationship with a male co-worker!!!
I was discussing the "presumption of paternity" and how it's not applicable to same sex couples. As to the adultery, if the female partner forgives the offending spouse, not unusual for a couple to stay together if the offender is remorseful, and is forgiven, and they decide to stay together, is that good or bad, in your humble opinion?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10519 Sep 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, and b) prove that you are not a half-wit.
Liddie,

Could you at least get a profile picture? Even a rainbow, it's like I'm posting with a guy in the witness protection program.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10520 Sep 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Such presumption would be misplaced and incorrect in cases of adoptive, foster and step families
True.
Happens all the time to opposite-sex couples, if the woman steps out. Maybe it suggests that such presumption is not a good idea.
It does happen, and even in cases where it is proven the husband is not the father, sometimes years later, the courts still view him as the legal father, and thus obligated to take care of the, his for all practical purposes, not to mention the emotional connection, child.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10521 Sep 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
And the existing arrangement of "marriage" will provide legal support for their union, WITHOUT the need to create a second, identical, redundant and segregated arrangement.
In a way, it's already been done. An alternative legal "marriage" has been created, one not based on the conjugal union of husband and wife, but one based on an emotion union of "spouses for life regardless of gender composition". A veggie patty is now a "burger", even has the color, and grill marks of a hamburger.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10522 Sep 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There was never any reason to deny designating them as such. I've vowed to right a wrong.
Were you wearing a rainbow cape, and rainbow underoos when your wrote that? Sounds very Supermanesque.
If WE'RE the ones changing the legal definition of marriage, then why do all these states need to ADD the "one man/one woman" rule to their constitutions? Sounds like THEY'RE changing the definition, and we're changing it BACK.
Apparently too many folks were confused about all those references within the law to "bride and groom", "husband and wife", etc......that somehow that meant marriage wasn't a conjugal union. So it had to be explicitly stated to clear up any misunderstanding a few people had.
Look at New Mexico. The state constitution didn't say marriage COULDN'T be between two people of the same gender, so it legally can be. No change there.
Any references within NM law to "bride and groom", "husband and wife", etc.
Why do you play games? You know how I feel about that. I certainly don't support "separate but equal".
That just the point, no matter how much you argue against "separate but equal" that is what you seek. A union of a man and a woman IS DIFFERENT than a union of two men, or two women. You've separated yourselves, but demand the law declare your relationship the same.
YOU go get a civil union. If you support them, and you feel they're "equal", then let's see the mad-dash for them from opposite-sex couples. Let's see how a civil union serves a couple DIFFERENTLY from a marriage.
Let's see how a conjugal union serves a same sex couple without the conjugal? It seems it simply a matter of the designation "marriage", but not that whole "husband and wife" aspect.
Try finishing this sentence... A man and a woman who get a civil union, will find that it serves them differently from a marriage in the following ways:_________
A man with same sex attraction/bisexual attraction who marries a woman. How will his marriage be viewed?

A.) Conjugally, as any other husband and wife, or

B.) "Spouses for life, regardless of gender composition"?

A woman with same sex attraction/bisexual attraction who marries a man. How will her marriage be viewed?

A.) Conjugally, as any other husband and wife, or

B.) "Spouses for life, regardless of gender composition"?
Or this one... States which recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" will encounter the following troubles:_________
State which recognized same sex unions as "marriage" have abandoned what previously understood basis for marriage?

A.) Conjugality?

Or

B.) Monogamy?
Or this... Same-sex couples who choose a marriage rather than a civil union will find their relationship benefits disadvantaged because __________
Opposite sex couples who marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, and based on the historic, cultural, social, legal, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a conjugal union will:

A.) Accept each other as husband and wife

B.) Consider each other spouses for life regardless of gender composition.

C.) Party A and Party B.
You get away with too much vague dissembling. I'd love to hear something specific and concrete from you, for once.
This is fun Edmond....you are a worthy opponent/ poster. Salad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10523 Sep 27, 2013
Sorry, that should if read "Salud" ....auto correct...D'Oh!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10524 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Liddie,
Could you at least get a profile picture? Even a rainbow, it's like I'm posting with a guy in the witness protection program.
I have one. I notice that you are once again quick to address anything but the topic. Do you really mean to tacitly admit that your argument is utterly without basis in reality, and that you lack the ability to offer a rational defense of your position?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10525 Sep 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, and b) prove that you are not a half-wit.
I wouldn't say half wit, I'm more like a three quarters wit. Thanks for asking though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10526 Sep 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
No state prohibits marriage for same sex couples. Some states still refuse to issue marriage licenses to ss couples, and refuse to treat their marriages equally under the laws in effect for os couples.
How can they treat them under the same laws, when not all the laws, or aspects of marital jurisprudence applies to same sex unions? Do we treat men and women the same in every way? Of course not, that be silly.....imagine sending a woman to a proctologist, and a man to a gynecologist.
Refusal to recognize a marriage is not the same as prohibiting a marriage.
True, some states do prohibit plural marriages.
The Federal government and States that have removed the gender restriction,
They rejected conjugality as the basis for marriage.
treat the marriages of all couples equally under the laws previously in effect for os couples.
They changed the law, besides not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence is applicable to same sex unions.
Only the states that refuse to recognize ss couples, treat some couples differently than others. This presents a clear challenge under the 14th amendment.
EVERY STATE treats same sex couples and opposite sex couples differently because, SURPRISE, they are different.
"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved." (Windsor)
Still no imposition of same sex marriage nationwide, on every state.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#10527 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In a way, it's already been done. An alternative legal "marriage" has been created, one not based on the conjugal union of husband and wife, but one based on an emotion union of "spouses for life regardless of gender composition".
As long as it's consistent, it works for me. The state (MY state, anyway) doesn't add any of your clumsy, mangled language. Now we just need to work on getting it consistent nationwide, so that these marriages are portable state-to-state.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A veggie patty is now a "burger", even has the color, and grill marks of a hamburger.
Shall we have the same discussion on the word "burger" that we did with "conjugal"?

A veggie patty has ALWAYS been a burger. "Burger" doesn't mean "meat", or even "beef". It's just a suffix created to refer to a round sandwich on a bun, derived from the name of a German city (as I'm sure you know). I call a veggie patty a "burger" all the time. I even use the word when the meat is chicken or turkey.

If the state assigned burgers for us all to eat, and denied vegetarians an appropriate option, simply because someone thought that "burger" specifically meant "beef" and nothing else, and therefore all state-issued burgers MUST be BEEF burgers, I think vegetarians would have some grounds (no pun intended) for complaint.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#10528 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Were you wearing a rainbow cape, and rainbow underoos when your wrote that? Sounds very Supermanesque.
I've always been a Robin fan, myself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Apparently too many folks were confused about all those references within the law to "bride and groom", "husband and wife", etc......that somehow that meant marriage wasn't a conjugal union. So it had to be explicitly stated to clear up any misunderstanding a few people had.
Oh, sure. THAT'S what happened.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any references within NM law to "bride and groom", "husband and wife", etc.
I don't know the details. According to Wiki: New Mexico state law does not explicitly permit or prohibit same-sex marriage; it is the only state lacking a state statute or constitutional provision explicitly addressing same-sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That just the point, no matter how much you argue against "separate but equal" that is what you seek. A union of a man and a woman IS DIFFERENT than a union of two men, or two women. You've separated yourselves, but demand the law declare your relationship the same.
These unions are as different as saying "The glass is on the shelf" or "The glass is on the ledge". These are just labels. It's still a union.

What "separate but equal" refers to is the DELIBERATE separation of two types of people, who don't NEED to be separated. If we demand that the law declare our relationships the same, AND THE LAW DOES IT, then it shows that there never was a need for the separation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's see how a conjugal union serves a same sex couple without the conjugal? It seems it simply a matter of the designation "marriage", but not that whole "husband and wife" aspect.
Who cares? Married men are husbands, married women are wives. A same-sex marriage doesn't DO anything different from an opposite-sex marriage. Labels, labels. You're obsessed. Labels aren't functions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man with same sex attraction/bisexual attraction who marries a woman. How will his marriage be viewed?
A.) Conjugally, as any other husband and wife, or
B.) "Spouses for life, regardless of gender composition"?
A) A marriage.
B) A marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A woman with same sex attraction/bisexual attraction who marries a man. How will her marriage be viewed?
A.) Conjugally, as any other husband and wife, or
B.) "Spouses for life, regardless of gender composition"?
A) A marriage.
B) A marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
State which recognized same sex unions as "marriage" have abandoned what previously understood basis for marriage?
A.) Conjugality?
Or
B.) Monogamy?
A) Conjugality simply means "marriage", so they didn't abandon that.
B) What? Monogamy means faithfulness to one spouse. I don't even know why you put that.

Is this how you fill in blanks? Your schoolteachers must've been very frustrated with you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Opposite sex couples who marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, and based on the historic, cultural, social, legal, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a conjugal union will:
A.) Accept each other as husband and wife
B.) Consider each other spouses for life regardless of gender composition.
C.) Party A and Party B.
D) All of the above, as they choose to apply them. No one else will care about their labels.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This is fun Edmond....you are a worthy opponent/ poster. Salad.
Wish I could say the same. You avoided answering EVERY question I asked, as usual. You confirm that there ARE no answers to my questions, and that there ARE no problems experienced by ANYONE, state or individual, when same-sex marriages are recognized. Your issues are all wrapped up in labels.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10529 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I wouldn't say half wit, I'm more like a three quarters wit. Thanks for asking though.
Half wit would be giving you too much credit by half. I see that you have once again failed to address the topic at hand. I guess this is just another admission that you don't really have much to say.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10530 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How can they treat them under the same laws, when not all the laws, or aspects of marital jurisprudence applies to same sex unions? Do we treat men and women the same in every way? Of course not, that be silly.....imagine sending a woman to a proctologist, and a man to a gynecologist.
<quoted text>
True, some states do prohibit plural marriages.
<quoted text>
They rejected conjugality as the basis for marriage.
<quoted text>
They changed the law, besides not every aspect of American marital jurisprudence is applicable to same sex unions.
<quoted text>
EVERY STATE treats same sex couples and opposite sex couples differently because, SURPRISE, they are different.
<quoted text>
Still no imposition of same sex marriage nationwide, on every state.
Despite your claims, you still show no law that treats couples differently based on gender in either federal law or state law where the gender restriction has been removed. All of the same laws apply equally to all couples.

(Marriage law has nothing to do with medical specialists. You still confuse abilities with equal protection of the law.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10531 Sep 27, 2013
And again, the Supreme court has not yet addressed the State constitutional amendment challenges under the 14th amendment. Prop 8 is still unconstitutional under the 14th, and same sex couples continue to get married in California under the same laws as opposite sex couples, who continue to get married as well.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10533 Sep 27, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
The same "supreme" court that says cop killers should go free if they're under age when they kill a cop?
They didn't say they go free.

Just that you can't kill children.

There has to be a line. A toddler shot and killed his dad recently. We can argue about where to draw the line, but age is an appropriate consideration. You can still isolate and treat them.

It is also a different argument, as it is about where to draw the line for everyone. Same line for everyone.

Marriage is about treating everyone equally under the laws already in effect for everyone else.

"The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved." (Windsor)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10534 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's presumption of PATERNITY, the HUSBAND Iis presumed to be the FATHER of any children born to the WIFE within the marital relationship. Unless I'm mistaken, men can't get pregnant, nor women produce sperm. So presumption of paternity does not apply. It would be an interesting case if one member of a female SSM, had a momentary intimate moment with say, a male coworker, and later,she found out she was pregnant. So how would that work, particularly if the father stepped forward to seek his parental rights?
<quoted text>
We both know only one can be the biological parent. The birth certificate can claim both same sex individuals are the parents, but biologically speaking, only one is.
Now stop pretending that you don't understand these quite simple things. You are only compounding your lying with foolishness. Sound advice, perhaps you should follow it as well.
<quoted text>
Grazie mi amico
As I am sure you are already aware, the parental presumption applies to straight couples where various forms of surrogacy are involved. So there is nothing novel about applying it to same-sex couples.

Nor is that question about a woman in a relationship becoming pregnant outside the relationship novel. Many women involved in straight marriages have become pregnant. And the real father sometimes claims his parentage.(Many times, however, everybody is happiest relying on the presumption of parentage. Even when everyone knows that the presumption is inaccurate.)

I do not understand why you insist on covering this ground over and over and over. The facts have been laid out for you. You may discount their import if you wish. But pretending that you don't understand these facts is disingenuous.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10535 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm......it hasn't happened yet, ANNNNNNNNND......it's amazing the lengths some women will go to intentionally deny their child, his or her biological father. I know lesbians aren't attracted to men, but even they have fathers.
There are plenty of kids without Fathers or Mothers......your point?
Pietro Armando

Enfield, CT

#10536 Sep 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of kids without Fathers or Mothers......your point?
Annnnnnnd so? We should intentionally make more without Mothers and Fathers?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10537 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Annnnnnnd so? We should intentionally make more without Mothers and Fathers?
I think they were merely pointing out that your argument is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Procreation and child rearing are neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of, legal marriage; and procreation is entirely possible outside the legal protections of marriage.

Grow up and put together a big boy argument.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10538 Sep 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of kids without Fathers or Mothers......your point?
... also

Is marriage a guarantee that children will be raised by biological parents?

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 Gay basher Kathryn Knott forced to fork over a ... 2 min Wondering 29
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 4 min Reggie 27,284
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 4 min cpeter1313 790
News Suit: Gay couple gets 'hateful' flyers, not wed... 6 min Reggie 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 min dollarsbill 17,260
News LGBT groups protest potential California textbooks 36 min Elmer 16
News Reading series teaches students about inclusion 53 min Frankie Rizzo 7
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 5 hr Wondering 564
More from around the web