Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
4,061 - 4,080 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4263
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread what I wrote. What specifically was not true?
You said everyone has equal rights with respect to marriage. That statement is untrue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4264
May 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You said everyone has equal rights with respect to marriage. That statement is untrue.
Waitaminit here Wastey. All men have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women. As long as they meet the other basic requirements, of age, consent, not currently married, etc.

Gay folks want to change that definition of marriage, and argue for a right based on that redefinition. It is what it is.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4265
May 27, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit here Wastey. All men have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women. As long as they meet the other basic requirements, of age, consent, not currently married, etc.
Gay folks want to change that definition of marriage, and argue for a right based on that redefinition. It is what it is.
They want the same rights and protections of the law for their spouse and families. The definition of marriage is irrelevant when people make the same kind of legal commitment to one another. It simply extends those legal protections which are already enjoyed by opposite-sex households.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4266
May 31, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Please note, same sex marriage supporters aren't just trying to redefine 'marriage', they want to redefine 'family' too.
So what, stupid? There is nothing wrong with redefining terms.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4267
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit here Wastey. All men have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women. As long as they meet the other basic requirements, of age, consent, not currently married, etc.
Gay folks want to change that definition of marriage, and argue for a right based on that redefinition. It is what it is.
No.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4268
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Jerald wrote:
The operative right is the right to Equal Protection, which applies to ALL PERSONS. That's in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the burden is on the proponent of the discrimination to establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for sex-based classification to be valid. The policy in question must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...
I'll take their word for it.
Denying civil marriage to same-sex couples has no legitimate, let alone "exceedingly persuasive", justification. The procreation argument fails because such a denial isn't related to the claimed objective -- there is absolutely no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage will affect rates of procreation.
I'm not the one advocating a new standard of gender segregation in marriage. I liked marriage law as is, until Jerry and his friends started filed suit against our state and laws. I don't need an "exceedingly persuasive justification", I say leave marriage gender diverse and integrated. We already have the perfect affirmative action ratio of one to one; federal law defines marriage as one man and one woman.

We all have equal protection before the law but we are not one equal to the other. If you want gender equality and all that schmalz, try amending the Constitution or visit a nation that has it.

Our law recognizes men and women, adults and children as well as citizens and non-citizens. It's all there in the second section of the 14th Amendment. There's no gender equality right in our Constitution.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4269
Jun 1, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
No........?

" All men have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as do all women. As long as they meet the other basic requirements, of age, consent, not currently married, etc.
Gay folks want to change that definition of marriage, and argue for a right based on that redefinition. It is what it is."

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4270
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
So what, stupid? There is nothing wrong with redefining terms.
Rose is honest about this, that's why I like her posts. Rose understands, the institutions of marriage and family are broke and we need new laws to fix them. That's why she justifies redefining the terms marriage and family. She can't understand how anyone who opposes new laws to redefine marriage and family isn't stupid.

This is the same government who's tax collectors harassed political opponents and leaked confidential taxpayer information to their friends pro-same sex marriage political organizations. If you like the IRS scandal, you'll love it when it's up to the government to define marriage and family, not left up to the couple. This is rich.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4271
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not the one advocating a new standard of gender segregation in marriage. I liked marriage law as is, until Jerry and his friends started filed suit against our state and laws. I don't need an "exceedingly persuasive justification", I say leave marriage gender diverse and integrated. We already have the perfect affirmative action ratio of one to one; federal law defines marriage as one man and one woman.
We all have equal protection before the law but we are not one equal to the other. If you want gender equality and all that schmalz, try amending the Constitution or visit a nation that has it.
Our law recognizes men and women, adults and children as well as citizens and non-citizens. It's all there in the second section of the 14th Amendment. There's no gender equality right in our Constitution.
What's missing from Brian's posts -- among other things -- is a coherent argument.

"Affirmative action", "gender segregation", "gender diversity."

Brian uses words, but doesn't use them in meaningful and coherent ways. They become non sequiturs in his usage.

Sorry Brian. Let's talk after the Supreme Court strikes down the federal definition of marriage as "one man and one woman." DOMA is clearly unconstitutional.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4272
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DOMA is law, male/female marriage has precedent. Why argue? I'm not going to justify gender segregation marriage, I can't. There are many good reasons for keeping marriage one man and one woman:

Reason 32, the IRS.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4273
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
DOMA is law, male/female marriage has precedent. Why argue? I'm not going to justify gender segregation marriage, I can't. There are many good reasons for keeping marriage one man and one woman:
Reason 32, the IRS.
Recognizing same-sex couples in civil marriage doesn't "segregate" anyone. It eliminates an unnecessary barrier to marriage. Feel free to provide evidence of anyone who suffers from "segregation" by allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, with a link.

Federal tax law is precisely the issue in the DOMA case before the Supreme Court. And it's why DOMA will fall.

When Edith Windsor's legal spouse, Thea Spyer, died, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife's estate.

If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as opposite-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.

Why is the sex of their spouses a compelling legal justification for the IRS to absolve one widow from having to pay estate tax and require another to pay it?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4274
Jun 1, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Recognizing same-sex couples in civil marriage doesn't "segregate" anyone. It eliminates an unnecessary barrier to marriage.
To what "marriage"? Certainly not conjugal, as in husband and wife, the structure of which, SSM is based on. So what "marriage" is it a barrier to?
Feel free to provide evidence of anyone who suffers from "segregation" by allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, with a link.
Translation: to have a same sex relationship called marriage, not obtain one.
Federal tax law is precisely the issue in the DOMA case before the Supreme Court. And it's why DOMA will fall.
When Edith Windsor's legal spouse, Thea Spyer, died, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife's estate.
So it's all about taxes?
If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as opposite-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.
If federal law recognized all sorts of relationships as marriage, the participants wouldn't have to pay taxes.
Why is the sex of their spouses a compelling legal justification for the IRS to absolve one widow from having to pay estate tax and require another to pay it?
Why should the relationship of the spouses matter either? For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wi...

Sisters lose European tax battle
Two British sisters have lost their final battle to avoid paying inheritance tax when one of them dies.

Joyce and Sybil Burden, aged 90 and 82 respectively, have lived together in Wiltshire all their lives.

They appealed to the European Court to gain the same tax rights as married couples and civil partners, which do not apply to cohabiting siblings.

In a 15-2 vote, Human Rights judges in Strasbourg ruled they did not face unfair discrimination.

The sisters, whose campaign has been part-funded from public donations, vowed to continue lobbying Parliament despite their "bitter disappointment".

It is not an exaggeration that we feel as if we have been personally persecuted
Burden sisters
"We are struggling to understand why two single sisters in their old age, whose only crime was to choose to stay single and look after their parents and aunts, should find themselves in such a position in the UK in the 21st Century," they said.

"Having always paid our taxes and cared for our relatives and each other when necessary without any help from the state, we are now in the worrying and unsettling position of being unable to secure each other in our last few years.

"It is not an exaggeration that we feel as if we have been personally persecuted. This is a day we hoped, as British citizens, we would never see."

The Grand Chamber of the European Court did, however, uphold an earlier ruling that national governments were entitled to some discretion when deciding taxation arrangements.

The sisters said the decision means that when one of them dies the other may have to sell their four-bedroom property in Marlborough.

This was valued in 2006 at 550,000, with its adjoining land, according to court papers.

The sisters also jointly own two other properties, worth 325,000 in total.

The surviving sister would have to pay inheritance tax of 40% on the value of the inherited half of the properties, once the 312,000 threshold had been deducted.

Since 1976, the sisters have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the day before every Budget, pleading for recognition under the tax rules as a cohabiting couple.

When the UK Civil Partnership Act of 2004 first recognised gay and lesbian couples for inheritance tax purposes, the sisters turned to the European Court of Human Rights.

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4275
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
To what "marriage"? Certainly not conjugal, as in husband and wife, the structure of which, SSM is based on. So what "marriage" is it a barrier to?
Civil marriage.

You keep repeating the same circular argument. It's boring.

There's no such legal construction called "conjugal marriage." It's called "civil marriage." That's only kind at issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Translation: to have a same sex relationship called marriage, not obtain one.
Feel free to provide evidence of a "same-sex marriage certificate" anywhere in the states and DC that recognizes civil marriage for same-sex couples.

You'll find it right next to the state-issued "interracial marriage certificates" and the "interfaith marriage certificates."

They don't exist.

In all the states and DC that include same-sex couples, all unions are called "civil marriages." Period.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So it's all about taxes?
Don't put words in my mouth; you're already inadequate in articulating a coherent and rational argument for yourself.

I never said "it's all about taxes". I responded to Brian's random claim about the IRS.

The tax code discriminates against one legally married couple and not others solely on the basis of the sex of the partners. That's the current law under DOMA, a discrimination you apparently support but without any legitimate legal justification. Just saying that they're not married because they're not opposite-sex partners is not only a tautology, it's simply untrue in 12 states and the DC.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If federal law recognized all sorts of relationships as marriage, the participants wouldn't have to pay taxes.
Or the tax code could be changed. Or senior siblings -- who are already closely-related -- can obtain a domestic partnerships, like they can in California.

It doesn't change the fact that right now under DOMA, legally married couples are not protected equally under federal law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why should the relationship of the spouses matter either?


But you don't believe in consanguineous, incestuous, or polygamous marriage. So why even bring up this nonsense from the UK?

You think I have to defend all manner of relationships as marriage because I support same-sex couples in civil marriage?

I don't.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4276
Jun 1, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil marriage.
You keep repeating the same circular argument. It's boring.
As do you. I know u like outies not innies, and that is the foundation of your argument.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wi... 's no such legal construction called "conjugal marriage." It's called "civil marriage." That's only kind at issue.
"Conjugal" as in " husband AND wife". Now that's part of civil marriage, as in "....pronounce you husband AND wife".
Feel free to provide evidence of a "same-sex marriage certificate" anywhere in the states and DC that recognizes civil marriage for same-sex couples.
Any marriage certificate that lists the names of two persons of the same sex.
You'll find it right next to the state-issued "interracial marriage certificates" and the "interfaith marriage certificates."
They don't exist.
Is there a box for "race", or "faith" on the certificate?
In all the states and DC that include same-sex couples, all unions are called "civil marriages." Period.
And a veggie party is called a "burger" too. So a same sex couple can accept each other as husband and wife, and consummate their marriage through the first act of coital sexual intercourse?
Don't put words in my mouth; you're already inadequate in articulating a coherent and rational argument for yourself.
I never said "it's all about taxes". I responded to Brian's random claim about the IRS.
The tax code discriminates against one legally married couple and not others solely on the basis of the sex of the partners. That's the current law under DOMA, a discrimination you apparently support but without any legitimate legal justification. Just saying that they're not married because they're not opposite-sex partners is not only a tautology, it's simply untrue in 12 states and the DC.
But it is true in 32 states.
Or the tax code could be changed. Or senior siblings -- who are already closely-related -- can obtain a domestic partnerships, like they can in California.
Or a Civil Union.
It doesn't change the fact that right now under DOMA, legally married couples are not protected equally under federal law.
That's the point of of DOMA...isn't it? To define marriage at the federal level?
But you don't believe in consanguineous, incestuous, or polygamous marriage. So why even bring up this nonsense from the UK?
To point out the flaws in your argument.
You think I have to defend all manner of relationships as marriage because I support same-sex couples in civil marriage?
I don't.
Exactly! You, and other SSM supporters can continue to advocate legal marriage be fundamental altered for them, but no one else. So I ask u Jerald,where is the line drawn? Is there a line? Are we, as a society, going to redefine marriage out of the need for legal recognition?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4277
Jun 1, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As do you. I know u like outies not innies, and that is the foundation of your argument.
<quoted text>
"Conjugal" as in " husband AND wife". Now that's part of civil marriage, as in "....pronounce you husband AND wife".
<quoted text>
Any marriage certificate that lists the names of two persons of the same sex.
<quoted text>
Is there a box for "race", or "faith" on the certificate?
<quoted text>
And a veggie party is called a "burger" too. So a same sex couple can accept each other as husband and wife, and consummate their marriage through the first act of coital sexual intercourse?
<quoted text>
But it is true in 32 states.
<quoted text>
Or a Civil Union.
<quoted text>
That's the point of of DOMA...isn't it? To define marriage at the federal level?
<quoted text>
To point out the flaws in your argument.
<quoted text>
Exactly! You, and other SSM supporters can continue to advocate legal marriage be fundamental altered for them, but no one else. So I ask u Jerald,where is the line drawn? Is there a line? Are we, as a society, going to redefine marriage out of the need for legal recognition?
marriage is a social construct ,s o yes, it is the society that defines what marriage is. it has never been a stable definition, nor is it meant to be. why would you think ti should be, there is no reason or precedent for such an idea.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4278
Jun 1, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>marriage is a social construct ,s o yes, it is the society that defines what marriage is. it has never been a stable definition, nor is it meant to be. why would you think ti should be, there is no reason or precedent for such an idea.
Woody....what's hap pen Ning? The state, and/or society can construct marriage anyway it wants. Why is SSM the only non monogamous conjugal, husband and wife, option?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4279
Jun 1, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Woody....what's hap pen Ning? The state, and/or society can construct marriage anyway it wants. Why is SSM the only non monogamous conjugal, husband and wife, option?
hey Petey1 busy busy busy over here. my short work season has kicked in full gear after a very late start.(I'm starting to re-think this semi-retirement and maybe go to full retirement...probably end up starting a new company as a "hobby" then...)

Same sex marriage IS conjugal and often not monogamous, just like OSM...what other option would there be? how many genders do we have?

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4280
Jun 1, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Conjugal" as in " husband AND wife". Now that's part of civil marriage, as in "....pronounce you husband AND wife".
Where exactly? Feel free to link to a state that issues a "conjugal marriage certificate".

You don't do it, because YOU CAN'T.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any marriage certificate that lists the names of two persons of the same sex.
Which state has a certificate that reads "Same-sex marriage certificate"? Feel free to link to it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is there a box for "race", or "faith" on the certificate?
Of course not. Those certificates are as non-existent as your "conjugal marriage" certificate.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And a veggie party is called a "burger" too. So a same sex couple can accept each other as husband and wife, and consummate their marriage through the first act of coital sexual intercourse?
To make it a legal civil marriage they aren't required to. It's neither necessary nor sufficient for the establishment of a legal civil marriage. Most states don't even refer to it.

It's an unnecessary holdover from ancient religious beliefs. You hold onto it because it's apparently the best argument you've got.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But it is true in 32 states.
Which of those states issues a "conjugal marriage certificate", again?
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's the point of of DOMA...isn't it? To define marriage at the federal level?
That's what it does. And by discriminating against some legally established civil marriages and not others is why it will be overturned.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly! You, and other SSM supporters can continue to advocate legal marriage be fundamental altered for them, but no one else. So I ask u Jerald,where is the line drawn? Is there a line? Are we, as a society, going to redefine marriage out of the need for legal recognition?
The "line" is drawn where there is a legitimate reason for drawing it.

Here's a line:

There is no legitimate reason for denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

You certainly haven't provided one.

All you continue to do is spout tautologies. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4281
Jun 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly? Feel free to link to a state that issues a "conjugal marriage certificate".
You don't do it, because YOU CAN'T.
<quoted text>
Which state has a certificate that reads "Same-sex marriage certificate"? Feel free to link to it.
<quoted text>
Of course not. Those certificates are as non-existent as your "conjugal marriage" certificate.
<quoted text>
To make it a legal civil marriage they aren't required to. It's neither necessary nor sufficient for the establishment of a legal civil marriage. Most states don't even refer to it.
It's an unnecessary holdover from ancient religious beliefs. You hold onto it because it's apparently the best argument you've got.
<quoted text>
Which of those states issues a "conjugal marriage certificate", again?
<quoted text>
That's what it does. And by discriminating against some legally established civil marriages and not others is why it will be overturned.
<quoted text>
The "line" is drawn where there is a legitimate reason for drawing it.
Here's a line:
There is no legitimate reason for denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.
You certainly haven't provided one.
All you continue to do is spout tautologies. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.
SSMs are also conjugal. Petey is using words he doesn't quite understand...

“Post-religious”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4282
Jun 1, 2013
 
But you don't believe in consanguineous, incestuous, or polygamous marriage. So why even bring up this nonsense from the UK?
Pietro Armando wrote:
To point out the flaws in your argument.
I'm not making an argument based on consanguinity or number. My argument is based solely on the sex of the partners.

You can't offer a legitimate argument against civil marriage for same-sex couples based solely on the sex of the partners that isn't a tautology, so you bring in arguments about OTHER restrictions that I'm not making and you don't even support.

And you're either too obtuse, obstinate, or ignorant to understand the basic flaws in your reasoning.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••