Black clergy air radio ads opposing g...

Black clergy air radio ads opposing gay marriage

There are 962 comments on the kfvs12.com story from Mar 19, 2013, titled Black clergy air radio ads opposing gay marriage. In it, kfvs12.com reports that:

Some Chicago-area clergy are getting vocal about same-sex marriage - including through radio ads opposing pending legislation to legalize the practice in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at kfvs12.com.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#697 Mar 31, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Marriage is not redefined, simply extended to same-sex couples and their families. FAIL
By getting rid of gender integration standards in marriage, marriage is redefined by gender segregation marriage. Extending marriage to unqualified parties changes standards for everyone, so gender diversity would no longer be required in marriage.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#698 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is no ban on same sex marriage in any state in the USA; a same sex couple may have a religious marriage in every state without threat of prosecution.
W are talking about CIVIL marriage, as you well know. As long as the religious groups who marry gay people can provide the SAME licence to them as they provide to straight couples, then it's good.

And you know that's not the case.

Why would you want the government to strip away those Church's freedom of religion? Isn't that one of the foundations of our country?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#699 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>......As long as the people approve those changes, that's not a problem. When courts start writing marriage laws, that's a problem.
You are saying that the courts should be completely stripped of the ability to judge if any law is constitutional? You want the Federal courts disbanded?

You would gut the third branch of our government, and deny Americans that protection?

Why do you even live in this country? You want to destroy the very system our founding fathers created.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#700 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By getting rid of gender integration standards in marriage, marriage is redefined by gender segregation marriage. Extending marriage to unqualified parties changes standards for everyone, so gender diversity would no longer be required in marriage.
Trying to create a clever way to say you don't like men or women marrying each other isn't working for you.

It's not about what you feel, or what you like, it's about providing a rational bases for denying gay couples the right to choose a spouse.

And you can't, so you resort to this double talk.

Why bother?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#701 Mar 31, 2013
The Federal Government has made regulations of marriage before:

From the DOMA oral arguments:
MR. CLEMENT: "A couple of responses, Justice Kagan. First of all, I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-State prerogatives. I mean, there's a reason that 4 State constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them. There is a reason that, in the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union.

In order to do it, it essentially had to create State law marriages because in the Confederacy, the slaves couldn't get married. So they developed their own State -- essentially, a Federal, sort of, condition to define who was married under those laws. So where there was the needs in the past to get involved, the Federal government has got involved.

The other point I would make -- but I also eventually want to get around to the animus point -- but the other point I would make is, when you look at Congress doing something that is unusual, that deviates from the way they -- they have proceeded in the past, you have to ask, well, was there good reason? And in a sense, you have to understand that, in 1996, something's happening that is, in a sense, forcing Congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the States and its historic practice of preferring uniformity.

Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways, every State has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every Federal law. So that's fine. We can defer...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#702 Mar 31, 2013
[continued]
Okay. 1996 -JUSTICE

KAGAN: Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House Report here -- is that "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality."

Is that what happened in 1996?

MR. CLEMENT: Does the House Report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting.

This Court, even when it's to find more heightened scrutiny, the O'Brien case we cite, it suggests, look, we are not going to strike down a statute just because a couple of legislators may have had an improper motive. We're going to look, and under rational basis, we look, is there any rational basis for the statute?

And so sure, the House Report says some things that we are not -- we've never invoked in trying to defend the statute.

But the House Report says other things, like Congress was trying to promote democratic self-governance. And in a situation where an unelected State judiciary in Hawaii is on the verge of deciding this highly contentious, highly divisive issue for everybody, for the States -- for the other States and for the Federal government by borrowing principle, it makes sense for Congress -

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#703 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By getting rid of gender integration standards in marriage, marriage is redefined by gender segregation marriage. Extending marriage to unqualified parties changes standards for everyone, so gender diversity would no longer be required in marriage.
Gender diversity is not required in the first place.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#704 Mar 31, 2013
DOMA will be tossed.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#705 Mar 31, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Gender diversity is not required in the first place.
It is for federal recognition under DOMA and in the Constitutions of 31 states and legislation from several more.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Level 1

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#706 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The Federal Government has made regulations of marriage before:
From the DOMA oral arguments:
MR. CLEMENT: "A couple of responses, Justice Kagan. First of all, I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-State prerogatives. I mean, there's a reason that 4 State constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them. There is a reason that, in the wake of the Civil War and in Reconstruction, Congress specifically wanted to provide benefits for spouses of freed slaves who fought for the Union.
In order to do it, it essentially had to create State law marriages because in the Confederacy, the slaves couldn't get married. So they developed their own State -- essentially, a Federal, sort of, condition to define who was married under those laws. So where there was the needs in the past to get involved, the Federal government has got involved.
The other point I would make -- but I also eventually want to get around to the animus point -- but the other point I would make is, when you look at Congress doing something that is unusual, that deviates from the way they -- they have proceeded in the past, you have to ask, well, was there good reason? And in a sense, you have to understand that, in 1996, something's happening that is, in a sense, forcing Congress to choose between its historic practice of deferring to the States and its historic practice of preferring uniformity.
Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways, every State has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every Federal law. So that's fine. We can defer...
Oh, SNORE!

AS if you aren't BORING enough, now resorting to endless cut and pastes? Thank the LORD I have plans all day and won't be subject to your dreary endless posts.

Why aren't you in church this morning, anyway?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#707 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>By getting rid of gender integration standards in marriage, marriage is redefined by gender segregation marriage. Extending marriage to unqualified parties changes standards for everyone, so gender diversity would no longer be required in marriage.
You never explain something in your "gender integration of marriage" conspiracy theory.

The "gender integration standards" you refer to are actually those laws less than 50 years old that made marriage "one man one woman" under the legal definition of several states.

Odd that you are fine with "re-defining marriage" under those laws and oppose the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Your rants are so all over the map that even using a GPS to navigate them doesn't help.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#708 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The Federal Government has made regulations of marriage before:
...
The "federal issue" of marriage goes back much farther. Research:
The 65-year battle over the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act
http://news.yahoo.com/65-battle-over-deceased...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#709 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It is for federal recognition under DOMA and in the Constitutions of 31 states and legislation from several more.
wow. just like anti-miscegenation laws.

Thought you said we can't compare the black civil rights movement and some of it's results to what gays and lesbians face today?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#712 Mar 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
The "federal issue" of marriage goes back much farther. Research: The 65-year battle over the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act [URL deleted]
Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#713 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.
Yet you yourself often point out that Same Sex marriage is actually banned and therefore punished in over 29 States.

Where's my GPS?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#714 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Further than that, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862. The act banned polygamy by making it punishable with up to five years imprisonment. Bigamy is banned but same sex marriage is punished nowhere in the fifty states.
We have had this discussion before, but I suppose you have forgotten. To ban something doesn't always make it CRIMINAL.

Let's look at the dictionary, once again. Not a think in there about prison time.

Definition of BAN

transitive verb
1
archaic : curse
2
: to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of
3
: bar

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#715 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The Federal Government has made regulations of marriage before:
From the DOMA oral arguments:
MR. CLEMENT: "A couple of resp.........
We've all read the transcripts, and Clements didn't do well at all.

Like the rest of us, you will just have to wait and see.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#716 Mar 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
Yet you yourself often point out that Same Sex marriage is actually banned and therefore punished in over 29 States.
Where's my GPS?
No state punishes same sex marriage, you may have a religious marriage or go to a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage in every state, without threat of prosecution.

Polygamy is a felony under federal law; that's a ban.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#717 Mar 31, 2013
Clement:...The last point I would simply make is in thinking about animus, think about the fact that Congress asked the Justice Department three times about the constitutionality of the statute. That's not what you do when you are motivated by animus. The first two times they got back the answer it was constitutional. The third time, they asked again in the wake of Romer, and they got the same answer, it's constitutional.

Now the Solicitor General wants to say, well, it was want of careful reflection? Well, where do we get careful reflection in our system? Generally, careful reflection comes in the democratic process. The democratic process requires people to persuade people.

The reason there has been a sea change is a combination of political power, as defined by this Court's cases as getting the attention of lawmakers, certainly they have that. But it's also persuasion. That's what the democratic process requires. You have to persuade somebody you're right. You don't label them a bigot. You don't label them as motivated by animus. You persuade them you are right.

That's going on across the country. Colorado, the State that brought you Amendment 2, has just recognized civil unions. Maine, that was pointed to in the record in this case as being evidence of the persistence of discrimination because they voted down a statewide referendum, the next election cycle it came out the other way....

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#718 Mar 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Clement:...The last point I would simply make is in thinking about animus, think about the fact that Congress asked the Justice Department three times about the constitutionality of the statute.......
So, he didn't answer the animus question at all, just deflected it.

He knew that Kagan was absolutely right. It's in the NAME of the document, and was placed in writing by the people that promoted it.

And the constitutionality of it is what is being ruled on NOW. It wasn't, back when it was enacted. If the current opinion of the Justice Department, and the President who signed were taken as law now, DOMA would already be dead.

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 3 min trollslayer 31,156
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min sonicfilter 1,264,041
Obama to issue an executive order to establish ... 7 min MroH 22
Why do Nigerian men target American women to ch... (Aug '12) 10 min freddie47 281
Senate CEO who set minimum wage at 70 grand has... 13 min Mills of the gods 2
News Al Sharpton blasts 'racist' Trump adviser for '... 14 min goonsquad 63
News Why the Confederate flag flies in SC 18 min goonsquad 2,952
Black dragged behind truck. 46 min PATRIOT DVC MOLON... 41
Africans did not sell their own 55 min rebel111 124
BW are evil, devious, vindictive and WM can hav... 1 hr Ms DP 46
All women prefer white men (Jan '15) 5 hr TranshumanX 5,428
Somalis and their shameless self promotion 5 hr selina london 295
More from around the web