Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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

#3503 Mar 7, 2013
"In fact, Denmark's long-term decline in marriage rates turned around in the early 1980s, and the upward trend in heterosexual marriage has continued since the 1989 passage of the registered partner law Today, Danish heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they have been since the early 1970s.

and
"From 1980 to 1989, before Denmark passed the registered partner law, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 70%. Between 1989 and 2000, the figure rose by only 28%, and between 2000 to 2003, the number increased by a barely perceptible 0.3%."
http://contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-part...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3504 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
How irrational are you?
If I have a music club, but I allow folks who don't like music to join, haven't I diminished it as a music club?
to any rational person the answer is yes, but I can see you will still say no...
but you will say anything, won't you Mona?
Well, at least you admit that you are trying to create an exclusive club and provide special privileges to yourself.

But you already allow people who don't procreate into your marriage club. You even allow people who can't procreate into your marriage club.

And I know someone who is deaf, yet would make a great member of your music club.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#3505 Mar 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Rosa Parks believed in male/female marriage. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedence for marriage as one man and one woman.
I presume you have a source for the Rosa Parks claim. I know you'd never make yourself look stupid by just sayin' stuff.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3506 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, it was a state deciding for itself what a marriage is defined as, a definition that has been the province of the state since we were a union...
you can disagree, that's what rational is, its that rational people disagree...so your disagreement does not defeat any rationality in saying gays are different...or that their addition to marriage will not help society and may in fact harm it...
and thus you are not similarly situated...
you need to stop assuming your claimed right to marry is like the right to vote..or racial civil rights...
it is NOWHERE CLOSE...
Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples. While the majority can make the laws, the constitution requires equal treatment under those laws for all persons.

That is your opinion, yet it fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution. Personal opinion fails to provide an excuse for discrimination.

Same sex marriages are similarly situated to opposite sex marriages in all ways except for one. They are raising children, both biologically related or adopted, just like many straight couples. Some choose not to have children, just like straight couples. The only difference is they can't have unplanned, unwanted babies.

Fortunately, the courts are agreeing there is no rational governmental interest served by refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the law. Failure to do so violates the equal protections clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3507 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
nah, your like white folks who get a harmonica and think they are playing the blues...
like you and your skinflute?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3508 Mar 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The sky didn't fall?
Well, it all depends on who you ask... It also causes floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and other natural disasters. I guess that meteor over Russia was because their new anti-gay laws.... oops.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3509 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
given we have a recent study showing ssm damages the institution of marriage by breaking the tie to procreation, I would say its a rational reason to not include you...
hahahahaha
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahah

Damages? Really? Well, well, well...... and how much were the damages and where are your receipts?

FYI.... "recent studies show" that neocons will grasp at ANYTHING to get validation.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3510 Mar 7, 2013
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3511 Mar 7, 2013
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

(Golinski)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3512 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples. While the majority can make the laws, the constitution requires equal treatment under those laws for all persons.
That is your opinion, yet it fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution. Personal opinion fails to provide an excuse for discrimination.
Same sex marriages are similarly situated to opposite sex marriages in all ways except for one. They are raising children, both biologically related or adopted, just like many straight couples. Some choose not to have children, just like straight couples. The only difference is they can't have unplanned, unwanted babies.
Fortunately, the courts are agreeing there is no rational governmental interest served by refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the law. Failure to do so violates the equal protections clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Excellent post! Why do they think marriage is ONLY about "...unplanned, unwanted babies?"

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3513 Mar 7, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3514 Mar 7, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The sky didn't fall?
Hmmmmm....folks said that about "no fault" divorce at one point too. A generation or two later.....

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3515 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent post! Why do they think marriage is ONLY about "...unplanned, unwanted babies?"
That is all they have left.

All of the other excuses have been destroyed. This one appears to make sense at first, until you realize procreation has never been required, and yet same sex couples are raising children who are biologically related or adopted, just like many straight couples.

They also like to forget we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The founders knew very well that majorities would deny equal rights to minorities if they could get away with it. That is why they promised equal treatment for all, and required it in the constitution. The fact we still have not gotten it right, only demonstrates the need and why they tried to establish equal treatment as a cornerstone of our government.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3516 Mar 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at least you admit that you are trying to create an exclusive club and provide special privileges to yourself.
It was created many many moons ago, across time and place, and people with same sex attraction, and/or who engaged in same sex sexual behavior, married, someone of the opposite sex. "Exclusive club"? No, both sexes included.
But you already allow people who don't procreate into your marriage club. You even allow people who can't procreate into your marriage club.
Sooooooo......this is new? They've always been allowed in the club, since the advent of marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3518 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent post! Why do they think marriage is ONLY about "...unplanned, unwanted babies?"
Your baby pictures?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3519 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
That is all they have left.
All of the other excuses have been destroyed. This one appears to make sense at first, until you realize procreation has never been required, and yet same sex couples are raising children who are biologically related or adopted, just like many straight couples.
They also like to forget we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The founders knew very well that majorities would deny equal rights to minorities if they could get away with it. That is why they promised equal treatment for all, and required it in the constitution. The fact we still have not gotten it right, only demonstrates the need and why they tried to establish equal treatment as a cornerstone of our government.
Testify!
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3520 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Your baby pictures?
Sorry. Those couldn't have been mine.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3521 Mar 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....folks said that about "no fault" divorce at one point too. A generation or two later.....
The sky fell? Dammit, I missed it.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3522 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
AHA!!
you already flew off into an irrational rage...
you lose DUDE.
period.(ha!)
Get a new scrying device, Mr. Copper Mines, was it?

"I, supported by this expert analysis of marriage trends in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Canada and some U.S. states were gay marriage has been legalised," disagree as is rational to do as well."

Expert analysis of marriage trends? ahahahahahahahahahh
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3523 Mar 7, 2013
Blacks Make No Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if HE "loses", then,
..... you're "winning"?
....on the internet??
smh...you need a life, "bro".
Didn't take you very long to spot his game.

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
im sick of seeing white men getting the best wo... 6 min Sir Magnificent 7
Memphis teen acceoted to all 8 ivy league schools 12 min Stupid Thread 15
How best could blacks contribute to accelerate ... 18 min Lbino 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 37 min Quirky 1,233,713
Blacks Are Biologically Superior To Whites (Sep '12) 41 min Non-biased observer 354
Why do white women throw themselves at black men? 43 min small white guy 1
Where’s OUR GOLD at!! 51 min Golden Knuckles 1
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 1 hr Uhhuuuuuu 120,860
Van Sertima debunked! Afronazis Drowning in Tears! 1 hr Uhhuuuuuu 478
why do white people hate other races so much 1 hr 2legit 487
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 3 hr Moorspeaks 6,898
More from around the web