Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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

#7054 Aug 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So you claim... again and again and again.
Noooooo....so I state. Different form.
Yet the only difference you point out is the gender of the participants. Marriages are otherwise identical.
Jeff

"Identical" as in what? Remove the sexual and/or procreation all aspect, and what is left? What distinguishes marriage from other human relationships and/or friendships? Think about it.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#7055 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Identical" as in what? Remove the sexual and/or procreation all aspect, and what is left? What distinguishes marriage from other human relationships and/or friendships? Think about it.
Plenty of heterosexuals have no aspect of procreation in their marriage. This doesn't invalidate their marriages, or magically turn them into "friendships".

What distinguishes marriage from other relationships is the exclusivity. You can have MANY friendships, but only one person whom you devote yourself, your life, your future, and all your possessions to. Forsaking all others.

Perhaps, because you aren't gay, you can't fathom that gay people are capable of devoting themselves to another person in the same way that you do, but I assure you, we can. With or without procreation, we can bond ourselves and our lives to another person who likewise bonds back to us, just as you can with or without procreation.

Stop confusing marriage with parenting. They are separate. Separate words, separate issues, separate connotations, separate effects on human lives, separate legal support systems, entirely separate. Married people might not ever be parents. Parents might not ever be married. Gay people, married or not, might be parents. You have no reason, no justification, for insisting that these two separate issues be so tied together as to preclude gay couples from marrying.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7056 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, in most jurisdictions in the US they do not have equal protection, which is why they continue to work towards it. What is the point of making such a plainly false statement as the one you made here?
AS INDIVIDUALS they are entitled to the same equal protection if they marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, as anyone else. The distinction is some states have chosen to reject conjugal, husband and wife, marriage in favor of a two person regardless of gender composition, model.
Every state can decide which relationships it wishes to recognize, and in what manner. Therein lies the distinction.
Once again, Pietro, you have yet to offer even so little as a rational basis to laws that restrict marriage to being between opposite sex partners.
Nor can I offer a rational basis as to the state designating a personal intimate same sex sexual relationship as marriage.
Personally, I don't think you are up to the task. Anyone dim enough to claim that a homosexual has equal protection to marry someone of the opposite sex,
Yes, because marriage is defined as an opposite sex monogamous union. A man/woman with a same sex sexual attraction is still a man or woman, no different than any other man or woman.
in addition to inadvertently endorsing sham marriages, isn't playing with a full deck.
So of course it would have to be a sham marriage....why would a homosexual choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.....news flash....but some do....Josh Weed. Let's discuss this shall we. If homosexuality is a not a choice, and thus no homosexual can marry someone of the oppsoite sex, should those SSM states require a statement of sexual orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Bar those from marrying outside their declared orientation?
I don't, and tradition marriage is in no way altered or harmed by the inclusion of same sex couples being able to marry. Feel free to illustrate that allowing same sex marriage does harm traditional marriage. Be specific. The reality is that you cannot, because there is no harm.
[QUOTE]

If you're going to use the "what harm would it cause" question, understand that it can be, and should be applied to other marital forms, including polygamy.

[QUOTE]
No, just fervently equal protection of the laws.
Individuals equal protection
No, Pietro. I can still count, and understand that three or more is greater than two. One wonders why you don't understand this simple fact.
Yet you have difficulty with biology and anatomy. WHY IS CONJUGALITY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, EXPENDABLE, BUT NOT MONOGAMY!!!!?????

See ya made me shout...didn't want to do that...but I have faith in you.....I know you can offer a plausibly reasonable answer.
Maybe you could sit in at the local Kindergarten and take some brush up counting lessons. I'm sure the kids would be able to tutor you.
Maybe you could ask your Mom or dad to explain the difference between boys and girls.

Ciao mi amico

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7057 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
AS INDIVIDUALS they are entitled to the same equal protection if they marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, as anyone else. The distinction is some states have chosen to reject conjugal, husband and wife, marriage in favor of a two person regardless of gender composition, model.
Every state can decide which relationships it wishes to recognize, and in what manner. Therein lies the distinction.
Pietro, have you the ability to articulate a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to opposite sex couples, expressly denying equal protection to marry to homosexuals seeking to marry a same sex partner?

Without such an interest, limiting the legal protections of marriage to opposites ex couples is unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor can I offer a rational basis as to the state designating a personal intimate same sex sexual relationship as marriage.
As has been explained to you before, no state interest is required.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, because marriage is defined as an opposite sex monogamous union. A man/woman with a same sex sexual attraction is still a man or woman, no different than any other man or woman.
You have yet to offer the state interest in the limitation of marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional. When you return to this argument, and you can't rationally defend it, it doesn't make you look very good.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So of course it would have to be a sham marriage....why would a homosexual choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.....news flash....but some do....Josh Weed. Let's discuss this shall we. If homosexuality is a not a choice, and thus no homosexual can marry someone of the oppsoite sex, should those SSM states require a statement of sexual orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Bar those from marrying outside their declared orientation?
OK, so you are an advocate of sham marriages. You do realize that doesn't exactly strengthen your defense of the institution, and quite frankly must makes you look like a bigoted hypocrite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Individuals equal protection
Wow you are dumb.
Still waiting for that state interest.
Personally, I don't think you have the intellect to even offer an attempt at it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet you have difficulty with biology and anatomy. WHY IS CONJUGALITY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, EXPENDABLE, BUT NOT MONOGAMY!!!!?????
See ya made me shout...didn't want to do that...but I have faith in you.....I know you can offer a plausibly reasonable answer.
Wow, could you ask an easier question? Because the limitation to a husband and wife furthers no state interest, and therefore excluding same sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional.
Polygamy, on the other hand seeks extraordinary (greater) protection of the law for three or more people.

If you think that you've made a valid argument, you clearly aren't very good at counting.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Maybe you could ask your Mom or dad to explain the difference between boys and girls.
Ciao mi amico
I am well aware of the difference. Perhaps you could speak to your parents about the whole counting thing?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7058 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remove the sexual and/or procreation all aspect, and what is left?
A set of civil protections of the law, distinct from religious marriage that exist to secure certain legal rights and protections.

That's what we are talking about here, legal equality. Period. End of story.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7059 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
A set of civil protections of the law, distinct from religious marriage that exist to secure certain legal rights and protections.
That's what we are talking about here, legal equality. Period. End of story.
Then if that's all it is, there's no reason not to include a number of consenting adult relationships is there?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7060 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He does, see below.
<quoted text>
The fundamental right to marry is based on marriage as the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. By your reasoning, anyone can create their own definition of marriage and still have that fundamental right based on how they define it. If SSM is a fundamental right, why not sibling marriage, or plural marriage?
<quoted text>
The legal right of marriage is to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. Please show me the court cases which allow individual definitions of marriage within that fundamental right.
The only "ability" is to accept the other party as one's respective (opposite sex) husband or wife!
<quoted text>
That is asinine. You argue for removal of one half of the marital relationship, replace it with a same gendered duplicate, and insist the relationship is not fundamentally altered, even though its compositionally a different union!!
<quoted text>
It serves no legitimate government interest to call an apple an orange, to fundamentally alter the very nature of the legally recognized union.
Again, husband and wife is an artificial, irrational imposition, not required by all states. Again, tradition alone is not sufficient for continuing a tradition that harms citizens. You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal legal treatment of the marriages of same sex couples:. "as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class..." (Gill)

No one is arguing for "removal of one half of the marital relationship". Two people are still required, and opposite sex couples can still get married. All of the 1,138 federal rights and obligations of marriage remain in effect for same sex couples and opposite sex couples as well. While those laws determine what a marriage is to the government, couples impose their own beliefs about their own marriage on their own marriage. Your desire to impose your own beliefs on all others is not supported by law.

As long as they meet the legal requirements of age, informed consent, and restrictions on number and incest, they can define their own marriage for themselves as they see fit. Again; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7061 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if that's all it is, there's no reason not to include a number of consenting adult relationships is there?
Legitimate governmental interests can be and have been demonstrated for requiring the ability of informed consent, prohibiting incest, and not recognizing polygamy. We've covered this many times. You still fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of legal equality for same sex couples.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7062 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooo....so I state. Different form.
<quoted text>
Claim? State? Posit? Assert? Stipulate?

I really don't care what verb you use. You can't back up your claim. Nor your statement.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7063 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if that's all it is, there's no reason not to include a number of consenting adult relationships is there?
Apparently, there is. Otherwise, you would have offered us the set of rule changes that would support those multi-partnered relationships by now.

But you haven't. For the same reason that Republicans opposed to Obamacare have never offered to explain what they want to "replace" the law: You know that your solution won't work.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#7064 Aug 2, 2013
Church leaders pray gays aren't imprisoned or beaten by the police in Russia; not to change marriage laws for everyone.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#7065 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian is truly a detractor of true freedom
If you had a clue as to what 'true freedom' actually meant you would have never made that statement.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7066 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Church leaders pray gays aren't imprisoned or beaten by the police in Russia; not to change marriage laws for everyone.
What marriage laws coward?
barry

Henagar, AL

#7067 Aug 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is the job of the office, not the particular judge. As long as the office is providing marriages, everything is good. Similarly, had your florist used an assistant to make the arrangements, her shop would have fulfilled IT'S obligation.
<quoted text>
If your florist has a problem with fulfilling your job then she should not have opened up a public business.
<quoted text>
Nor will they, because the judge is obligated to perform weddings. The COURT is. She's not the only judge.
But please, do keep harping as if you actually have a point.
<quoted text>
Present proof that she is legally obligated to perform marriages. Put up or shut up.
Oh, and just to let you know, if there WERE actually straight people that felt they were being discriminated against because they were straight, I would hope that they WOULD take a stand. I hope that they would publically call out the person that was discriminating against them. I would hope that they do this so they would send a message to all the other people thinking they too can discriminate. Just as how your beloved bigot florist is being called out and shown as an example to all the other religious bigots out there. The message is clear. Religious convictions don't supersede the law.
"It is the job of the office, not the particular judge. As long as the office is providing marriages, everything is good. Similarly, had your florist used an assistant to make the arrangements, her shop would have fulfilled IT'S obligation."

you must have been a gymnast. you really had to go through some contortions to come up with that one.

"If your florist has a problem with fulfilling your job then she should not have opened up a public business."

now that's the difference. the judge holds a public office; elected by the people. she can be un-elected. the florist has a private business owned privately by her. she has no monopoly and no one is forced to do business with her. you on the other hand want her to do by forced to participate in an event that she does not want to have any part of.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7068 Aug 2, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Claim? State? Posit? Assert? Stipulate?
I really don't care what verb you use. You can't back up your claim. Nor your statement.
I can't back up my claim that a male female union is a different form than a same sex one??!!!! Have you gone mad lad?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7069 Aug 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"It is the job of the office, not the particular judge. As long as the office is providing marriages, everything is good. Similarly, had your florist used an assistant to make the arrangements, her shop would have fulfilled IT'S obligation."
you must have been a gymnast. you really had to go through some contortions to come up with that one.
No contorting was required. Truth is simple. Your dodging of addressing its accuracy, and instead issuing a character attack, speaks for itself.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"
"If your florist has a problem with fulfilling your job then she should not have opened up a public business."
now that's the difference. the judge holds a public office; elected by the people. she can be un-elected. the florist has a private business owned privately by her. she has no monopoly and no one is forced to do business with her.
Was there a point in there? Is her business open to the public, yes or no? If your answer is yes, then she is bound by the same laws as everyone else. She is not allowed to discriminate. Period.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"
you on the other hand want her to do by forced to participate in an event that she does not want to have any part of.
She was never asked to be part of or participate in the event. She was asked to make flower arrangements, or "art" as you like to call it.
barry

Henagar, AL

#7070 Aug 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn....
Baronelle Stutzman violated the law, because she refused to make arrangements for a wedding whose participants were homosexual. In the past she had made arrangements for weddings whose participants were heterosexual. Under Washington state law, it's illegal for businesses to refuse to sell goods, merchandise and services to any person because of their sexual orientation. And that's exactly what she did.
And by the way, there was NOTHING indiscriminate about what she did. The moment she decided to offer her unsolicited opinion and refused to offer her services she discriminated.
a statement from her lawyer as related by Dori Monson, KIRO Radio Talk Show Host:
"The complaint alleges that Arlene's did not sell flowers to this couple because they are gay. The attorney says that is absolutely not true. They have been long-time clients of Arlene's and she has never had an issue with their sexual orientation. But to force the florist to spend her time and artistic talent to participate in a civil ceremony that she doesn't believe in - is the state overstepping its authority.

If a heterosexual couple came in and asked her to do flowers for their gay son's wedding and she refused, would that be discrimination against a straight couple?

She is not discriminating against homosexuality. She is following her conscience regarding a ceremony that she believes violates her faith.

(Her) attorney cited a comment in the Stranger where a web designer said if he was approached by Mars Hill Church to work for them, he would refuse. Do you think the attorney general would file a lawsuit and issue a press release to announce he was going after that web designer?

Of course not.

If Westboro Baptist orders flowers for their picketing of a child's funeral, will the AG file suit against that florist who refuses?

The lawsuit is looking more and more like nothing but political grandstanding."

his defense will be this phrase from Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution.
"Religious Freedom.
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion;..."

she will win the case. the customer was not harmed. the "wedding" was not molested or slandered. in fact there is a law up for consideration right now that would specifically recognize religious exemptions.
barry

Henagar, AL

#7071 Aug 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you drinking? No oblation was asked of your florist. Sheesh.
<quoted text>
Yes they do. Your florist chose to break the law. Now she's being affected by it.
<quoted text>
I, and the participants of the wedding, don't give a rat's patoot about her convictions. And NOTHING was being imposed on her. She was asked to make arrangements for a wedding, just as she had been asked in the past.
<quoted text>
No, what she did was refuse to offer her public services to them because they were gay. That's illegal. Her convictions don't place her above the law.
And now she is being made an example of for all the other bigots who think they will be able to cloak their discrimination in the veil of religious convictions.
<quoted text>
Their choice was that her shop make the arrangements, so your statement would be false.
<quoted text>
Nothing is being imposed on your bigot florist. But don't let that stop you from pretending that she is being persecuted. Nothing is funnier then watching you fundies try and play that tired routine.
however she was asked to have a part in the celebration of their "wedding".

we understand completely that you don't give a "rat's patoot" about her convictions. we also understand that you are very disrespectful of her convictions and that you also don't care about religious freedom in our great country.
barry

Henagar, AL

#7072 Aug 2, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If making flower arrangements is an imposition, then she's in the wrong business.
why? apparently she gets by. business is good.
barry

Henagar, AL

#7073 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If you weren't lazy, you could do your own research.
RCW 49.60.030
Specifically:
"(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists."
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
lids, i've posted and re-posted the law. since you were so kind to post this section of the law, please explain how there is any kind of a boycott or blacklist involved here. this is her personal decision based on her personal religious convictions. she is not part of any organized boycotts real or imagined. nor is there any blacklist involved.

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 RoxLo 1,619,391
Negro Failure Month: No “Kangs”, no “Kweens”, n... 3 min THX Son of Bavaria 3
Negro Failure Month: Negro Poverty 9 min Paul 2
WM raping their daughters WTF!!! 10 min THX Son of Bavaria 3
News At Mississippi school: Goodbye, Confederacy. He... 10 min el rey de los cam... 12
Poll Why Do Outlaw Biker Gangs Allow Hispanics To Jo... (Feb '11) 14 min Jah doo 242
2017 iq stats are in. Blacks finally above 90. 16 min Paul 7
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 36 min el rey de los cam... 35,279
Can America Become 80% White Again? 43 min Fucisil 126
Somebody explain the Volvo car commercial to me 44 min Zero 23
Breaking News: Las Vegas Mass Shooting 6 hr el rey de los cam... 468
More from around the web