Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7046 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are a group of citizens seeking equal protection of the law, which they are constitutionally guaranteed.
They seek that which they already possess.
They don't need the political power. As has been pointed out time and time again, fundamental rights may not be put to a vote. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
They can when there are those, who already possess the fundamental right, seek to fundamentally alter the very right they ALREADY POSSESS!!!!!
Why do you hate freedom?
Why do you hate the freedom to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
Probably, because they have never encountered anyone who is fervently anti-equality who isn't a closet case.
Or someone who is fervently anti conjugality who isn't a nut case.
Actually, it is you who advocate for a bad precedent. If we treat one minority group as second class citizens, what stops us from doing so with others. Would you like it if we classified dim-wits, such as yourself, as second class citizens who should not have free speech?
Again, you offer another subtle argument for plural marriage.....you are clever.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7047 Aug 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"And there’s the problem in a nutshell.
Oh, this should be good! You wrapping things up in a "nutshell"!! LOL!!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
If gay rights trumps religion,
Well, so much for that supposed nutshell. Like it or not Barry, this isn't about "gay rights", it's about civil liberties. And yes, no matter how much you don't like it, civil liberties ALWAYS trump in this country. We are founded on the Constitution that guarantees them, not your bible. If you don't like that, then move to a country founded on theocracy rather than one founded on democracy.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
then the two cannot co-exist.
They most certainly can co-exist. Within the confines of civil law. Just as religion has co-existed in the past. You and your florist can cry all week about the fact that she has to perform her job regardless of what she thinks about the customers. Just as bigots in the past have had to serve blacks, work for women and actually pay their labor force, despite their beliefs that the bible tells them they shouldn't have to do these things.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a clash between two religions.
Neither homosexuality, nor civil rights are a religion. Your statement is stupid.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity and Liberalism.
Neither is Liberalism a religion. Your statement is stupid.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a state church and it performs gay weddings and insists that everyone participate in them as well." copied.
Way to demonstrate the idiocy of your point. Did you also put your hands on your hips and stomp your feet when you typed this?

I notice you still haven't provided an example of an application for a gay wedding. Any reason you're avoiding doing that? I mean, even here in your childish "closing argument" you reference them. Hey, do me a favor, when you present a copy, please also present the paperwork issued by the state that informs you that that you must participate in a "gay wedding". Show us what extent of participation the state is requiring you to have in that event.

LOL! Now you run along cry baby. The adults need some time to talk.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7048 Aug 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and you have failed to show where a wedding is a protected event or somehow is covered by the law. as it clearly is not.
I'm not required to. The case isn't about the wedding, it's about the participants.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you also can not show that she declined this event simply and only because they were a homosexual couple.
She serviced wedding in the past, and she stated that she was not serving this one because the outcome would be that two gays would be married. She noted she "couldn't support that", as if she had been asked to support it. She wasn't. She was asked to make flower arrangements. Or, in your eyes, she was asked to make art. In either scenario, her support was neither requested or required. And her refusal to perform this particular job rests solely on the fact that the participants in the wedding were homosexual. Whether she had sold flowers to homosexuals in the past because she approved of how the flowers were going to be used in other scenarios is irrelevant.

She declined this event solely because the end result would be that two "homosexuals" would be married. Are you trying to pretend there were other reasons? Well Barry, since you seem to have such insight into her thoughts and reasoning, why don't you present them?!!! There is NOTHING funnier, than watching a bigot try to establish alternative reasons for why they need to discriminate against certain people!!! Please, have at it!!! Why did the florist refuse to service this wedding if it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants?

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting.....
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i am claiming that if they were two heterosexual men forming a union that the state would have to call a marriage that she would have declined to service that also.
I'm sure she would. In this case it would be because of the gender of the participants. That's still illegal in Washington State. She would still be breaking the law. She would still be discriminating. But outside of your make believe scenario, the fact still remains that she refused that ACTUAL job, because of the sexual orientation of the patrons.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so once again, it was about the event and not about who they were.
Once again, that's utter bullshyt. And you know it. The fact that you deny it only demonstrates how desperate you are to justify her discrimination. It paints you as quite ugly.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7049 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor prohibit the free exercise there of. Don't worry The President will still light the national Christmas tree this year.
Shhhhhh! Don't let the evangelical Obama-haters hear that. It will destroy their narrative about the White House war on Christmas.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7050 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.
Hey there Brian_G! Glad to see you up and at 'em this morning!!

So, will you be responding, or cowardly avoiding following up on your past claims?

EXPOSING THE COWARDICE OF BRIAN_G

1) Brian_G stated that NOM wasn't against homosexuals, just concerned with marriage laws. I pointed out that NOM made public condemnations to the Boy Scouts when they lifted their ban on having gay scouts. I asked Brian_G to explain what the Boy Scouts has to do with marriage laws. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...

2)Brian_G has stated numerous times that gays being married will change laws for everyone that marries. I've asked him to supply a law that is not applied differently to straight married couples then it was applied to them prior to gays getting married. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...

3)Brian_G claims that gays want to redefine marriages for everyone else. I've asked how his or any other straight person's marriages has been redefined. Specifically to list 5 ways their marriage is now defined differently. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...

Brian_G = Coward_Village_Idiot

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7051 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
They seek that which they already possess.
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?
Pietro Armando wrote:
They can when there are those, who already possess the fundamental right, seek to fundamentally alter the very right they ALREADY POSSESS!!!!!
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.

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, in addition to inadvertently endorsing sham marriages, isn't playing with a full deck.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the freedom to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
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.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or someone who is fervently anti conjugality who isn't a nut case.
No, just fervently equal protection of the laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, you offer another subtle argument for plural marriage.....you are clever.
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. 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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7052 Aug 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I would argue Baker became irrelevant when the governor signed the law, but a minor detail. Either way, it is now a shameful relic of history.
Baker may be moot in Minnesota, but the ghost is still hanging over many other states.

Minnesota's choice to allow same-sex couple to marry didn't really affect Baker. But the Windsor decision affected the legal landscape like a 9.0 earthquake.

Remember, the only comment SCOTUS made in Baker was that it lacked a federal question. That means that the US Constitution did not confer a right to marriage to same-sex couples, so Minnesota was free to decide for itself.

The obvious change in the landscape since Baker is that a quarter of the states now allow same-sex couples to marry. And Baker was completely irrelevant to Windsor since the entire question was about federal recognition of marriages by those states. The court found the federal government must recognize the decisions of the states.

On its surface, that leaves Baker in tact. But the problems that will be caused by married couples moving to other states, having residency in multiple states, and having business interests around the country will soon create substantial federal questions.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7053 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage supporters are a mascot victim group for the left. Have you noticed the way they continually sue their neighbors and state? They don't have the political power to push their radical changes on marriage so they act offended and sue.
Oh Brian, you do crack me up! Have you never noticed how the right-wingers clog up the court system with nonsense that they can't get through even their puppet red-giant legislatures?

But please, your jokes are funny only the first time. They are really boring when you repeat and repeat and repeat.

“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

“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?

“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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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.

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
Michele Bachmann: Obama Won Because He's Black ... (Feb '14) 1 min emperorjohn 338
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Patrick 1,110,925
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 4 min Beautiful Child O... 6,334
I bet God looks at the people of all colors and... 12 min Northern Lights 4
Even Rapper Drake, Called East African Women, "... 12 min ethiopiangirl1 263
Nobody cares how much you hate black people 12 min lootapalooza 27
Somali Women: You Are Wrong About Bad Features ... 13 min Be_Real_Fool 356
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 25 min iamcuriousnow 121,089
White Power is finally ending, Blacks will righ... 1 hr Gmoney AKA Big G 829
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 3 hr Citizen 1986 24,714
•••

African-American People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••