Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#10510 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You've vowed to redefine the legal definition of marriage......to have same sex relationships designated "marriage" by the state.
<quoted text>
So you do support civil unions, or domestic partnerships.
That's NOT what that poster said.......they stated they support marriage for for Same-Sex Couples......Civil Unions and DP's are NOT anything but allowing Same-Sex Couples to be treated differently under State law and NOT recognized by the Federal Government!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10511 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You've vowed to redefine the legal definition of marriage......to have same sex relationships designated "marriage" by the state.
There was never any reason to deny designating them as such. I've vowed to right a wrong.

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.

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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you do support civil unions, or domestic partnerships.
Why do you play games? You know how I feel about that. I certainly don't support "separate but equal".

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.

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:_________

Or this one... States which recognize same-sex unions as "marriage" will encounter the following troubles:_________

Or this... Same-sex couples who choose a marriage rather than a civil union will find their relationship benefits disadvantaged because __________

You get away with too much vague dissembling. I'd love to hear something specific and concrete from you, for once.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10512 Sep 27, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In particular, I was referring to the claim that the presumption of parenthood does not apply to same-sex couples. In every jurisdiction, a legally married spouse is presumed to be the parent along with the biological parent.
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?
Thus they are both listed on the birth certificate, unless one of the spouses contests parenthood.
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.
And I know you are better than that. It just doesn't come through in your posts.
Grazie mi amico

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10513 Sep 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT what that poster said.......they stated they support marriage for for Same-Sex Couples......Civil Unions and DP's are NOT anything but allowing Same-Sex Couples to be treated differently under State law and NOT recognized by the Federal Government!!!
EdmondWA wrote:
. There's no reason they should be left with no legal support for their union.
Nothing in that statement preclude the possibility of support for a CU/DP, both would constitute legal support for their union. Thanks for responding to me though.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10514 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
What falsehood? That men and women are different? The foundations of the two relationships are different? Not every aspect of marital jurisprudence, including presumptions, understandings, and language apply to SSMs by virtue of the fact it is of the same sex? Really Jeff....is that your claim? There's no differences between the two? Sigh....
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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10515 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nothing in that statement preclude the possibility of support for a CU/DP, both would constitute legal support for their union.
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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks for responding to me though.
You're welcome. I'll look forward to your filling in those blanks.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10516 Sep 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's presumption of PATERNITY, the HUSBAND Iis presumed to be the FATHER of any children born to the WIFE within the marital relationship.
Such presumption would be misplaced and incorrect in cases of adoptive, foster and step families
Pietro Armando wrote:
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?
Happens all the time to opposite-sex couples, if the woman steps out. Maybe it suggests that such presumption is not a good idea.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#10517 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
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.......remember Stem Cell research......a Lesbian couple can both be biologically related to the child.........when that happens, what will Pete do next?

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......where was your outrage and protest over that? My guess is you didn't have one, right?

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........but I highly doubt that unless they had an open aka swingers attitude......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!!!

“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!

“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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#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.

“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.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 2 min Le Duped 219
Boehnera s invitation to Netanyahu backfires on... 3 min Le Jimbo 89
Obama's choice as ambassador to Mexico withdraw... 4 min Le Duped 2
Crossing the border to attend US schools 5 min huey goins 10
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Le Duped 168,508
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min dirtclod 143,187
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min positronium 305,870
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min positronium 1,174,713
More from around the web