Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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

#6035 Jul 18, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
then show us in SCOTUS's decision where they ruled on polygamy. I'll wait eagerly to see the text.
It was raised, by a Justice, prior to the ruling.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...

Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

Perhaps YOU could answer the question.
and yes, it does matter. if it's worth fighting for, then step up to the plate and take that swing at it in court. put up or shut up. prove your points, or lack thereof, in a court of law before a seated judge. i'll be happy to read about either your success or failure. if not you per se, then someone from that side.
Nice dodge. Why does it matter to you, SSM advocates, and/or society at large if polygamy is legalized in some form? If the sole legal definition of marriage as monogamous union of husband and wife is discarded, as several states have done, why should it matter what further redefinitions take place? Are YOU going to argue that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6036 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does it matter to you, SSM advocates, and/or society at large if polygamy is legalized in some form?
The question that you are unwilling and unable to answer is "What form?" As we've pointed out ad nauseum, polygamy as it existed in your Holy Book treated women dismissively. And as societies practice polygamy today, women are treated dismissively.

Western society long ago decided that the forms of polygamy that have been common throughout history do not serve society well. We had them, and times changed, and we got rid of them.

Could a new form of polygamy emerge that treated each member of the marriage equally? Perhaps. Would all polygamous couples agree that is what they want? Perhaps. If you can first name the form of marriage that satisfies those two criteria, we'll have something to talk about. Of course, we'll have serious concerns about how benefits normally afforded spouses are distributed. It must be fair both to the spouses and the rest of society.

In the meantime, you're just like the House of Representatives with its promise to "Repeal and Replace." They only do the "Repeal." They never tell you what "Replace" means.

Always talking. Never saying anything.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6037 Jul 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to the dictionary, huh? You understand, it's only going to REFLECT usage, not dictate it.
Frame of reference.
But notice where it says "in a particular region". So, how do we define the region? "Society" could be all humans on Earth, or only those on a particular continent, or within one nation, or just in one state, or maybe a county or city, or even just your neighborhood. As you drift from one "region" to another, the shared customs, laws and organizations will change. Very close neighbors may have very different customs and laws. Very distant peoples might have very similar ones.
How about we just keep it to the U.S.
NONE of this gives anyone any justification for saying "this is how WE define so-and-so", and then insisiting that anyone else comply with that definition.
From a legal stand point, marriage has to be defined by the state.
But not the only one. And even with same-sex couples, we're still dealing with 2 and only 2 people who select each other (and no one else) for every and all benefits of marriage.
True, but there still must be a singular legal definition. Is it "husband and wife", or "spouses for life", regardless of gender composition?
And how does that help? California and Alabama have 2 different definitions of marriage. Are the the same society? Are the different societies? Does one of them not count?
It seems California opted for the "spouses for life not husband and wife" definition.
And watch them change.... That's what they do.
That they do.
Common consensus once kept gay people from serving in the military.
It was viewed as incompatible with military service, morale, readiness, etc, at one time.
Communal norms have led parents to disown their children when they find out they're gay.
Or an atheist, or marry the "wrong person", enter into the wrong profession, and a whole hose of reasons.
Broad cultural understanding and practices have not treated gay people very well in the past.
All sorts of folks were. It treated well in the past.
And then what? How do you apply pension benefits to 8 people? How do you allot Social Security benefits to 5 survivors? Who makes custody decisions, divorce decisions, end of life decisions? How many green cards or immigrant visas can be issued to spouses? How much medical care leave can a person take to care for a dozen spouses?
That's for Uncle Sam to sort out. As with SSM, details are still bring worked out. Why should the state, that has deviated from the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, not consider plural marriage, along with SSM, under the concept of "marriage equality"?
If you think that polygamists can just jump into marriage without considering these and many other points, then you haven't thought it through. Ten people can't ride a bicycle built for two.
It's not up to me to sort out, a judge or two orders it, and the state takes it from there.
"Couple" means two.
Marriage means husband and wife, at least in 30 plus states too.
Since conjugality can just mean "of marriage", it hasn't been expended.
In several states, it's common meaning as relating to husband and wife, has been jettisoned.
But, why monogamy? I gave a handful of scenarios that become untenable with polygamy. I'm sure you could continue to think up dozens of situations where the benefits of marriage become too convoluted to administer, when divided among multiple parties who may not want equal division. Even when they do, some benefits of marriage can only be administered to a single other person.
Again not insurmountable. Why should SSM stand as the only acceptable redefinition of marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6038 Jul 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
When your wife dies, I get your house. When you die, I get your car.
Oh wait, you mean you WANT an enforceable contract which says that outsiders cannot infringe on your shared estate? I think you need the government for that.
Here's a thought, try a will. If marriage is simply a legal contract between two people, any adult two person pairing would suffice.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6039 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was raised, by a Justice, prior to the ruling.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...
No where does your link address a US Supreme Court decision regarding polygamy. The court has made such decisions, but if you want to cite them, you'll have to find them yourself.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6040 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was raised, by a Justice, prior to the ruling.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...
Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?
It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
Perhaps YOU could answer the question.
<quoted text>
Nice dodge. Why does it matter to you, SSM advocates, and/or society at large if polygamy is legalized in some form? If the sole legal definition of marriage as monogamous union of husband and wife is discarded, as several states have done, why should it matter what further redefinitions take place? Are YOU going to argue that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand"?
it was asked about in the hearings, but, again NOTHING in their decision. so you fail.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6041 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Here's a thought, try a will. If marriage is simply a legal contract between two people, any adult two person pairing would suffice.
Here's a thought, without a legal marriage, all of that property can be subject to a tax. With a legal marriage, the spouses are kin, and a will can allow property to pass from one to the other without taxation.

You aren't making yourself look very good by raising poorly thought out arguments like this one.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6042 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It was raised, by a Justice, prior to the ruling.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...
Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?
It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
Perhaps YOU could answer the question.
<quoted text>
Nice dodge. Why does it matter to you, SSM advocates, and/or society at large if polygamy is legalized in some form? If the sole legal definition of marriage as monogamous union of husband and wife is discarded, as several states have done, why should it matter what further redefinitions take place? Are YOU going to argue that SSM is the proverbial "line in the sand"?
i'm not dodging anything. i think everyone should have equal access to legal redress of their questions before a seated judge. go knock yourself out. i don't have dog in the fight regarding polygamy. like i said, i'll enjoy reading about the legal battle in the papers. stuff like that fascinates me.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6043 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Here's a thought, try a will. If marriage is simply a legal contract between two people, any adult two person pairing would suffice.
Here's another thought, you could get a will just like I can. Then, neither one of us needs "marriage". Or more accurately, we still both need marriage the same amount. Your thought doesn't solve anything, it keeps us both in the same boat. Either we both can just use a will, or we both can just get married.

An article in the NYT, titled "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple", points out the financial hardships that gay couples face when prevented from getting married. It covers health insurance, social security, estate taxes, childbearing costs, pensions, spousal IRA's, income taxes, etc. The average same-sex couple spends anywhere from $28,000 to $211,000 more than the average married opposite-sex couple in trying to replicate the benefits of marriage through excessive steps like wills.

So no, "try a will" isn't going to cut it. Not unless the same idea appeals to you as a substitute for marriage.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6044 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Frame of reference.
Just don't rely on it too heavily to define LIFE. When life changes, the dictionary will lag.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How about we just keep it to the U.S.
Sure, for the simple purposes of a discussion like this. But eventually we'd need to consider what happens when a same-sex marriage couple comes here from Canada or England.
Pietro Armando wrote:
From a legal stand point, marriage has to be defined by the state.
And while that definition is in flux, there's no point in insisting that we all recognize YOUR favorite definition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, but there still must be a singular legal definition. Is it "husband and wife", or "spouses for life", regardless of gender composition?
I think we're going to see the 2nd one gain ground.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It seems California opted for the "spouses for life not husband and wife" definition.
More and more states are, not to mention 1st world developed nations. There's a good reason for that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It was viewed as incompatible with military service, morale, readiness, etc, at one time.
And would you AGREE with those assessments? Did the people who made those arguments have a point? Was it right and fair to label gay people this way?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or an atheist, or marry the "wrong person", enter into the wrong profession, and a whole hose of reasons.
A whole host of BAD reasons. Do ANY of those reasons, homosexuality included, actually represent a reasonable, rational, fair and intelligent reason for parents to disown their children?
Pietro Armando wrote:
All sorts of folks were. It treated well in the past.
A good motivation for reviewing discriminatory policies, and improving them. Polygamists, of course, have never faced such vicious opposition and stigma. I anticipated you trying to find some, so I Googled "violence against polygamists". I didn't find any, but I DID find plenty of pages calling for an end to polygamist violence against women. Polygamy has its own nefarious history, in which it's usually on the side of the abusers.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's for Uncle Sam to sort out. As with SSM, details are still bring worked out. Why should the state, that has deviated from the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, not consider plural marriage, along with SSM, under the concept of "marriage equality"?
SIGH. Plenty of reasons that have been given to you over and over and over. You get boring.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's not up to me to sort out, a judge or two orders it, and the state takes it from there.
If you want to argue for the concept so vigorously, and endlessly, then YES IT IS up to you to sort out. If you think it can be done, then DEMONSTRATE it.

I could assert that the courts could simply order that humans may marry their pets, but that doesn't mean that the states could make that work. There are OBSTACLES, and you're not bothering to address them. And you're IGNORING it when I address them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage means husband and wife, at least in 30 plus states too.
Yeah, and slavery was still on the books in Mississippi until about 5 minutes ago. Some states are a little slow with the "equality" concept. Always have been.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In several states, it's common meaning as relating to husband and wife, has been jettisoned.
Slight correction: "as relating to ONLY husband and wife". It's not as if men and women can no longer marry in those states. Nothing has been "jettisoned".
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again not insurmountable. Why should SSM stand as the only acceptable redefinition of marriage?
Boring. Already covered. See you at the altar.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6045 Jul 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a thought, without a legal marriage, all of that property can be subject to a tax.
Okay......annnnnnd?
With a legal marriage, the spouses are kin, and a will can allow property to pass from one to the other without taxation.
So, why shouldn't tax break be extended to ANY two person adult pairing if they so choose, such as long term cohabitating adult siblings?
You aren't making yourself look very good by raising poorly thought out arguments like this one.
Nor r u by arguing for marriage redefinition for tax purposes.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6046 Jul 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another thought, you could get a will just like I can.
Or u could marry like I can.
. Then, neither one of us needs "marriage". Or more accurately, we still both need marriage the same amount. Your thought doesn't solve anything, it keeps us both in the same boat. Either we both can just use a will, or we both can just get married.
True, neither one of us need marriage. Actually we both could use a will, or marry, the same way. But we both know, u don't want to marry the same way, u want the state to call your relationship "marriage".
An article in the NYT, titled "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple", points out the financial hardships that gay couples face when prevented from getting married. It covers health insurance, social security, estate taxes, childbearing costs, pensions, spousal IRA's, income taxes, etc. The average same-sex couple spends anywhere from $28,000 to $211,000 more than the average married opposite-sex couple in trying to replicate the benefits of marriage through excessive steps like wills.
Gee....not too slanted in favor of SSM is it? What the high cost of other relationships, for the participants? I wonder if a civil union could keep those costs down for SSCs
So no, "try a will" isn't going to cut it. Not unless the same idea appeals to you as a substitute for marriage.
".....substitute for marriage"? Did u type that with a straight face, pun intended. So u want to substitute the wife with another man? Isn't that a substitution for marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6047 Jul 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Just don't rely on it too heavily to define LIFE. When life changes, the dictionary will lag.
<quoted text>
Sure, for the simple purposes of a discussion like this. But eventually we'd need to consider what happens when a same-sex marriage couple comes here from Canada or England.
<quoted text>
And while that definition is in flux, there's no point in insisting that we all recognize YOUR favorite definition.
<quoted text>
I think we're going to see the 2nd one gain ground.
<quoted text>
More and more states are, not to mention 1st world developed nations. There's a good reason for that.
<quoted text>
And would you AGREE with those assessments? Did the people who made those arguments have a point? Was it right and fair to label gay people this way?
<quoted text>
A whole host of BAD reasons. Do ANY of those reasons, homosexuality included, actually represent a reasonable, rational, fair and intelligent reason for parents to disown their children?
<quoted text>
A good motivation for reviewing discriminatory policies, and improving them. Polygamists, of course, have never faced such vicious opposition and stigma. I anticipated you trying to find some, so I Googled "violence against polygamists". I didn't find any, but I DID find plenty of pages calling for an end to polygamist violence against women. Polygamy has its own nefarious history, in which it's usually on the side of the abusers.
<quoted text>
SIGH. Plenty of reasons that have been given to you over and over and over. You get boring.
<quoted text>
If you want to argue for the concept so vigorously, and endlessly, then YES IT IS up to you to sort out. If you think it can be done, then DEMONSTRATE it.
I could assert that the courts could simply order that humans may marry their pets, but that doesn't mean that the states could make that work. There are OBSTACLES, and you're not bothering to address them. And you're IGNORING it when I address them.
<quoted text>
Yeah, and slavery was still on the books in Mississippi until about 5 minutes ago. Some states are a little slow with the "equality" concept. Always have been.
<quoted text>
Slight correction: "as relating to ONLY husband and wife". It's not as if men and women can no longer marry in those states. Nothing has been "jettisoned".
<quoted text>
Boring. Already covered. See you at the altar.
Edmond

If nothing else, u make the discussion interesting and thoughtful. Thanks.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6048 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or u could marry like I can.
I will, next May. My fiance and I are very excited.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, neither one of us need marriage. Actually we both could use a will, or marry, the same way. But we both know, u don't want to marry the same way, u want the state to call your relationship "marriage".
My state already does.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gee....not too slanted in favor of SSM is it? What the high cost of other relationships, for the participants? I wonder if a civil union could keep those costs down for SSCs
I'm sure a civil union would bring the costs to exactly the same as marriage... making civil unions redundant.

Of course, those costs will change if the couple in question moves to a state that won't even recognize civil unions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
".....substitute for marriage"? Did u type that with a straight face, pun intended. So u want to substitute the wife with another man? Isn't that a substitution for marriage?
No, it's still marriage. The gender of the spouse you choose is simply driven by your sexual orientation, same as me. I'm not "substituting" a wife for a man, because I never HAD a wife TO substitute.

But since marriage is a legal contract, ALL those other contracts that you expect gay people to chase down and pay for are intended to subsititute for the contract of marriage. Skim milk is expensive.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6049 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Edmond
If nothing else, u make the discussion interesting and thoughtful. Thanks.
Well thanks. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this civilly, even if it's clear we won't agree.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6050 Jul 18, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it was asked about in the hearings, but, again NOTHING in their decision. so you fail.
Again u dodge the question. Give it a try.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6051 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is so, perhaps u can explain:
https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/L...
Marriages Are Annulled in Special Cases
6) Your marriage was never consummated. This means that you and your spouse failed to have physical relations at any time following the marriage ceremony. Such an annulment action also must be filed within two years of the date of the marriage.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6329364_conjugal-ri...
Non-Consummation of Marriage
The non-consummation, failure to have sexual intercourse, of marriage is in many states grounds for an annulment. In some states, it is also grounds for a divorce although the language used to describe the non-consummation of a marriage can vary. For example, Alaska law explicitly states that non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for divorce. In Illinois, on the other hand, "natural impotency" at the time of the marriage that has continued throughout the marriage is also grounds for divorce.
If the old in/out is part of the agreement or an expectation of such an agreement, then it can be cause for divorce as the contract is invalidated. OTOH, cohabitation counts as consummation according to Black's Law Dictionary. For example, some sweet young thing can marry some old impotent codger and never have sex. He kicks the bucket of a heart attack and dies. She gets the spoils because she cohabited for a respectable amount of time. The old in/out is not a requirement of marriage.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6052 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gee....not too slanted in favor of SSM is it? What the high cost of other relationships, for the participants? I wonder if a civil union could keep those costs down for SSCs
Well, wonder no more. All the benefits accrue only to married couples. And thanks to the Windsor case, that now includes same-sex couples. But it doesn't include civil whatchamacallits.

Oh, but we've pointed that out to you before, haven't we? Those rocks between your ears are impenetrable.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6053 Jul 19, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, wonder no more. All the benefits accrue only to married couples. And thanks to the Windsor case, that now includes same-sex couples. But it doesn't include civil whatchamacallits.
Ah yes, it's all about the bennies, taxes, and calling an apple an orange, a veggie patty a "burger", tofu, turkey....no wait that's tofurky.
Oh, but we've pointed that out to you before, haven't we? Those rocks between your ears are impenetrable.
The part I mentioned above wasn't pointed our....or perhaps acknowledged is a better word.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6054 Jul 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ah yes, it's all about the bennies, taxes, and calling an apple an orange, a veggie patty a "burger", tofu, turkey....no wait that's tofurky.
NO! It's about calling a marriage a marriage whether it is a male-female, male-male, or female-female couple. Legal Civil Marriage! Per the DOMA case, All Legal Civil Marriages performed in Massachusetts, are equal to the Legal Civil Marriages performed in Texas. The apples and oranges you allude to are analogous to Civil Marriages and Civil Unions. Now they are two different things. But what we fight for, and what this thread is about, are Legal Civil Marriages.

The financial benefits are just the most visible, easiest to grasp and understand benefits of Legal Civil Marriage. There are also Rights and Responsibilities that accrue to Legal Civil Marriage.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Blitzking 197,509
News Barrasso Expects Some 'Disagreements' with Trum... 5 min Three Psyche 2
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min NTRPRNR1 384,418
News West Virginia Mayor: The Clintons Are 'Simply N... 7 min Three Psyche 6
News Joe Biden's Columbus destination: Jeni's Ice Cream 8 min Three Psyche 12
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min John Galt 1,383,806
News Hardly a dog's life for Obama's pets Bo and Sunny 12 min davy 1
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 16 min Three Psyche 1,059
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 17 min Brian_G 1,073
News Donald Trump breaks with nation's only Latina g... 25 min woodtick57 123
More from around the web