Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2727 Feb 21, 2013
Attempts to dismiss the documents detailed by Boswell by demonizing him don't make the documents go away, and still fails to address the evidence of other authors, times, and places around the globe. Asia, Africa, India, and the Americas also have specific ceremonies at various times and places honoring same sex unions.

Gay people have always existed and have always formed bonds. No legitimate governmental interest is served by denial of equal treatment under the law.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2728 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What....that's not logic. Either it's "marriage equality" for all, or for none.
That's not logical. You seem to be stuck in black&white thinking.... all or none. There's no law or rule that supports that. The Constitutional guarantee is equal protection. If poygamists feel they are being denied equal protection, they can take their case to court. It is a seperate issue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2729 Feb 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> That's not logical. You seem to be stuck in black&white thinking.... all or none. There's no law or rule that supports that. The Constitutional guarantee is equal protection. If poygamists feel they are being denied equal protection, they can take their case to court. It is a seperate issue.
What exactly does equal protection mean? Do we treat one man the same as the next? One woman the same as the next? Can gender based distinctions be made? After all we don't put urinals in the women's locker room, or tampon dispensing machines in the men's room. Just a couple of examples.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2730 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly does equal protection mean? Do we treat one man the same as the next? One woman the same as the next? Can gender based distinctions be made? After all we don't put urinals in the women's locker room, or tampon dispensing machines in the men's room. Just a couple of examples.
I can't believe you actually think urinals makes your point.

The government can DENY equal protection if they have a legitimate State interest to do so. And no, just because a specific group is denied one right, it doesn't mean they lose all their rights.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2731 Feb 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe you actually think urinals makes your point.
You're right.... makes no sense to put urinals in the women's locker room. No need to treat them like men ALL the time.
The government can DENY equal protection if they have a legitimate State interest to do so. And no, just because a specific group is denied one right, it doesn't mean they lose all their rights.
Group right huh? So are there men's rights, and women's rights? I suppose in order to deny equal protection if first must be defined, and second the reason for denial must be explained and legitimate.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2732 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Different situation, different treatment, very simple. If a man marries a woman, and vice versa, their union is treated like any other marriage. If a man wishes to have his intimate relationship with another man, or a woman with another woman, designated "marriage", that's a different situation, thus different treatment.
I hope you'll keep this argument in mind the next time you want to advocate for the Brown family, and for polygamists everywhere (although I'm still not sure if you're advocating FOR them, or just trying to use them as a monkey wrench to throw into the gears of same-sex marriage equality).

Different situation, different treatment, yes? Having multiple spouses is different from having just one. Most people fall in love with just one other person, who falls back, to the exclusion of all others. Adding more partners to the mix has the potential to introduce feelings of jealousy and inadequacy. It also complicates the current legal arrangements of marriage, which are geared to suit only two people.

The government should not be so intrusive into the lives of individuals or families, but since it HAS chosen to be the arbiter of marriage, it has built up a set of procedures which govern the matter. These procedures would require zero changes to accomodate same-sex couples, but would need a drastic overhaul for multiple-party marriages.

You've already found one person, myself, who holds no sense of exclusion for polyamorous marriages, but I recognize that theirs is a different situation calling for different considerations, and a different legal structure. It would seem to me that if you like using the "different situation, different treatment" argument, then you should abandon holding up polygamy as an EQUAL situation requiring EQUAL consideration. This is not a consistent argument.

Everyone falls in love. Marrying that person is a profound and vital step toward building a life with that person, and planning a mutual future with them (whether they have children or not). Gay people do not fall in love any LESS than straight people. But denying someone the right to ANY spouse AT ALL, is in a completely different category from allowing them to have one, and then another, and then another...

Different situations, but some things are the same. You don't yet seem to be at the point where you recognize this basic need in gay people, even while it exists in yourself. There is something fundamentally wrong with blocking the right to even BEGIN this lifelong committment from those who seek it. This is a deep lack of recognition of their humanity.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2733 Feb 21, 2013
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2734 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the US Constitution.
THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY....FOR ALL..Which means there nazi puke that all people get equal rights and equal access to civil contracts.....GOT IT HITLER BOY....
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2735 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right.... makes no sense to put urinals in the women's locker room. No need to treat them like men ALL the time.
Where is the law that says the placement of urinals is a fundamental right? You're using a completely bogus example.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#2736 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Group right huh? So are there men's rights, and women's rights? I suppose in order to deny equal protection if first must be defined, and second the reason for denial must be explained and legitimate.
Now you're catching on.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2737 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly does equal protection mean? Do we treat one man the same as the next? One woman the same as the next? Can gender based distinctions be made? After all we don't put urinals in the women's locker room, or tampon dispensing machines in the men's room. Just a couple of examples.
The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

We are not talking about equal abilities or restroom facilities.

Equal treatment under the law is simply that. That all persons are treated as if they were the same, even though we realize every individual is different in physical and mental abilities.(When restrooms are required, a basic unisex toilet will do. Gender specific facilities are a courtesy, not a constitutional requirement.)

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling governmental interest can be demonstrated, such as the reasonable delay of certain rights due to age, and ability to demonstrate informed consent.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2739 Feb 21, 2013
Yes, OK, there is "THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY...." but no such thing as gender equality in the US Constitution. The ERA failed ratification.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#2740 Feb 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Attempts to dismiss the documents detailed by Boswell by demonizing him don't make the documents go away, and still fails to address the evidence of other authors, times, and places around the globe. Asia, Africa, India, and the Americas also have specific ceremonies at various times and places honoring same sex unions.
Gay people have always existed and have always formed bonds. No legitimate governmental interest is served by denial of equal treatment under the law.
Dismiss him because he's a leftist professor from an Ivy League University with a political agenda to advocate gay rights? Or because of his bad scholarship?
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2741 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Yes, OK, there is "THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY...." but no such thing as gender equality in the US Constitution. The ERA failed ratification.
MAN OR WOMEN BOTH ARE EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN CIVIL MATTERS......If you nazi pigs would just get educated and not take your info from KKK website....

No a man and women are not equal in physical body. BUT IN CIVIL RIGHTS THEY ARE..........Got it hitler?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2743 Feb 21, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY....FOR ALL..Which means there nazi puke that all people get equal rights and equal access to civil contracts.....GOT IT HITLER BOY....
Atta boy.....you tell 'em comrade .....we're all just individual androgynous colorless beings equal one and all....no differences...all citizens of the commune Utopia.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2744 Feb 21, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
MAN OR WOMEN BOTH ARE EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN CIVIL MATTERS......If you nazi pigs would just get educated and not take your info from KKK website....
No a man and women are not equal in physical body. BUT IN CIVIL RIGHTS THEY ARE..........Got it hitler?
MAN OR WOMAN BOTH EQUAL TO EACH OTHER NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL.....isn't right Comrade Sick-Who-Throws-A-Hissy-Fit of the commune Utopia? Physical differences are irrelevant when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. No differences at all.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2745 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Yes, OK, there is "THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY...." but no such thing as gender equality in the US Constitution. The ERA failed ratification.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." SCOTUS

5th amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The ERA wasn't required as equal treatment for all persons is already protected by the 5th and 14th amendments.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2746 Feb 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Now you're catching on.
See....we have found common ground. All men have the same equal right to marry, to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women have the right to to the same.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2747 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Atta boy.....you tell 'em comrade .....we're all just individual androgynous colorless beings equal one and all....no differences...all citizens of the commune Utopia.
I HATE NAZIS AND COMMIES..........Dont call me comrade hitler boy.......You better read what the Constitution says about it MORON........
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

#2748 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
MAN OR WOMAN BOTH EQUAL TO EACH OTHER NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL.....isn't right Comrade Sick-Who-Throws-A-Hissy-Fit of the commune Utopia? Physical differences are irrelevant when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. No differences at all.
Yes physical diff. has no bearing on CIVIL RIGHTS.....Got it?

Do you think a man should have more rights then a women??????

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Realtime 1,460,477
What music are you listening to right now? (Sep '08) 5 min MICHA 35,534
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 23 min Snap 50,895
Are people p*ssng and sh*tting in procesed foods? 36 min Moses 5
News California will soon provide ethnic studies cla... 41 min Redefined 47
Caught the wife with a white boy 1 hr Who 44
I've been thinking. 2 hr Redefined 6
According to the one drop rule, white "people" ... 2 hr KIP 134
News White rage and racist thought: How history puts... 4 hr Prosperity Fundie... 99
More from around the web