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

#7232 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, no, no...
you again do not understand the words you are using. spouse is not restricted ot husband and wife, nor is conjugality.
Every single state, prior to 2004, defined marriage as a conjugal union, a joining of a man and woman, as husband and wife. Since that time several states have rejected conjugality, as the basis for marriage in that particular state. Change in meaning
your argument is based on a false understanding of the words you are using, thus your conclusions from it are incorrect.
end of story, conjugality is not being rejected or jettisoned in any way.
Sigh.....Woody.....false understanding of "conjugal" as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? Ooooooooh.....you're trying do hard to stretch the meaning of words to make every thing the same, as if there's no difference at all between a union of husband and wife, and that of same sex spouses for life. Even among the latter, there's different dynamics between the sexes.

Have those states rejected the conjugal, husband and wife, model of marriage as the SOLE legal understanding of marriage? Yes or no?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7233 Aug 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, no it isn't at all, or in any way...
you seem to be off your game, Petey. you're tossing out patently false statements left and right.
Woody my friend, I think you've been eating some funky mushrooms you found in the Forrest. It is a legal fact that thirty states have constitutionally defined marriage as a conjugal union of one woman, and one man, as husband and wife. No other forms of marriage, either same sex, or plural, is legally recognized in that state.

"Conjugal" as in husband and wife, or pertaining to matters between husband and wife. Now if SSM were legal nationwide, ya might.....just might...have an argument.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7234 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Every single state, prior to 2004, defined marriage as a conjugal union, a joining of a man and woman, as husband and wife. Since that time several states have rejected conjugality, as the basis for marriage in that particular state. Change in meaning
<quoted text>
Sigh.....Woody.....false understanding of "conjugal" as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? Ooooooooh.....you're trying do hard to stretch the meaning of words to make every thing the same, as if there's no difference at all between a union of husband and wife, and that of same sex spouses for life. Even among the latter, there's different dynamics between the sexes.
Have those states rejected the conjugal, husband and wife, model of marriage as the SOLE legal understanding of marriage? Yes or no?
what you are failing to understand is that Same sex marriages are also conjugal.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7235 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is a legal fact that thirty states have constitutionally defined marriage as a conjugal union of one woman, and one man, as husband and wife. No other forms of marriage, either same sex, or plural, is legally recognized in that state.
"Conjugal" as in husband and wife, or pertaining to matters between husband and wife. Now if SSM were legal nationwide, ya might.....just might...have an argument.
Pietro, have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, and excluding same sex couples from marriage?

If you haven't, then you've merely pointed out that 30 states have amended their constitutions with language that is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Feel free to offer such an interest is you are able.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7236 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As in individual marriages, not marriage as a whole?
<quoted text>
Correct. Never the less it still is legal grounds, although it does not apply in all cases.
<quoted text>
True, but the state does recognize marriage in general as a sexual union.
<quoted text>
What definition of marriage, is that fundamental right based on? The individual's, the state, common consensus, etc.?
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, as thirty plus states have constitutionally defined marriage as a conjugal union.
All marriages may be challenged by either of the parties involved when either party fails to hold up their end of the contract. Sex may or may not be one of many other expectations of that contract. That applies to marriage as a whole. Ability or intent to have sex is not a requirement of the state.

Again, you fail to show any law that uses the word "conjugal".

Not all definitions of "conjugal" require one of each sex. Your selective use of the word fulfills your purpose, but does not satisfy the requirements of the law. Again, if you seek to deny equal rights, you must provide a compelling and legitimate governmental interest to justify it. One definition of a word provides no such interest.

The state recognizes sex may or may not take place in a marriage. The state does not require the intent or even ability to have sex.

The fundamental right of marriage is based on the 1,138 federal and additional state laws that determine what makes a marriage. All marriages include all of those laws. Denial of that right must serve a compelling and legitimate state interest. Upholding one selective definition of the word "conjugal" provides no state interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right to all persons.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7237 Aug 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Conjugal" as in "husband and wife". Any state that defines marriage as a conjugal union, defines it as a union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
What definition of marriage is that fundamental right based on?
Again, you fail to show any marriage law that uses the word "conjugal".

Again, you ignore the word "conjugal" has many definitions and can refer to same sex spouses as well as opposite sex spouses. You wish to impose your definition and ignore all others.

Marriage is defined by 1,138 federal and additional state laws. It is a fundamental right that can only be denied when a legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7241 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>
The was written before any of us were alive. Now that you've decided you don't like it, the whole country is supposed to conform to your will?
What if you decide next week you don't like the way beastiality laws are written?
Beastiality is an entirely different subject, and applies equally to everyone. It is not promoted for the majority and excluded from a minority. Compelling and legitimate state interests can be and have been demonstrated for prohibiting beastiality.

Marriage laws were changed to exclude gay people. Again, marriage is a fundamental right of all persons. You must provide a legitimate governmental interest if you wish to exclude some from the rights enjoyed by others.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7242 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>
The was written before any of us were alive. Now that you've decided you don't like it, the whole country is supposed to conform to your will?
What if you decide next week you don't like the way beastiality laws are written?
marriage is a social construct, its laws and regulation are constantly changing as the society that constructed it changes, lest it become irrelevant to that society.

look at all the changes to marriage and marriage laws in the brief history of the US...

there is no 'traditional marriage' as some people would like to believe...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7243 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
* "The law was written"...
Most of the laws that limit marriage to opposite sex spouses are relatively recent, and were written for the sole purpose of disadvantaging gay people.

But no matter when written or why, the results are the same. They exclude an entire class of persons from equal protection of the law without any valid reason for doing so. That is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court has finally recognized and affirmed.
barry

Henagar, AL

#7246 Aug 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There are differences between legal marriage, and the various common beliefs and understanding about marriage reflected in various popular dictionaries. You need to look a the laws of the various states and countries if you hope to understand legal marriage at this point in time. 14 states, 14 countries, and other jurisdictions recognize marriage as including two people of the same sex as well as those of opposite sex couples.
#1 what does that have to do with my reply about jonah's source?
#2 so you agree that perhaps the definition of marriage is changing?
and #3 so then what will the definition of marriage be say, 20 years from now?
you seem to think that definitions somehow should be subject to popular opinion.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7247 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
Not to mention the illegality of extra-marital sex in some states...
It's still illegal in 22 states, a felony in 7, in Michigan you can receive up to life in prison for it. As many as 16 states have criminalized fornication at one point or another, most of those laws have been repealed, Virginia's law didn't get struck down until '05 and is still on the books. Most of the states where "sodomy" laws are still on the books, they prohibit both heterosexual and homosexual acts.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7248 Aug 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>#1 what does that have to do with my reply about jonah's source?
#2 so you agree that perhaps the definition of marriage is changing?
and #3 so then what will the definition of marriage be say, 20 years from now?
you seem to think that definitions somehow should be subject to popular opinion.
see my edification of what marriage is above...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7249 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>
OK....
Have another drink, maybe there'll be no such thing as a hate crime, next...lol!
if you could back you position up with facts, as i did, you wouldn't look quite the fool...

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7252 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
The was written before any of us were alive.
And?
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
Now that you've decided you don't like it, the whole country is supposed to conform to your will?
No, those who don't wish to marry someone of the same sex need do nothing at all, and allowing same sex couples to marry will have no impact upon their life or their rights.
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
What if you decide next week you don't like the way beastiality laws are written?
Well, one could make that argument, but the laws on bestiality are extremely unlikely to change, because animals are incapable of granting legal consent, and I don't know of even one legislator so stupid as to say that they ever could, or to change the law granting animals the ability to consent that they are unable to communicate.

One making such an absurd argument must truly have no valid argument whatsoever relative to the actual topic at hand.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7255 Aug 4, 2013
Troll Stopper wrote:
Did you say something about 37 states and 187 countries?
Reading comprehension problems sweetie? Go find an adult who can explain to you in little words what you have read.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7256 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a Disney character in my avatar, dopey. You really think I care about "looking" like a fool in YOUR meaningless little opinion?
Get real...you take yourself way too seriously.
And your "facts" weren't any more convincing to me than mine are to you. Of course, being a liberal, this concept is foreign to you. In your (again, meaningless) opinion, "Everyone is entitled,
...to MY opinion".
You're the one that "looks quite the fool",
from MY point of view.
yet i am not a liberal in any way, shape or form. you really seem to have issues in dealing with facts.

you gave no facts in your previous statement, i did. clear, verifiable facts that you could not counter..

you look the fool to rational people that decide issues based on reality, not what they wish the facts to be, as you clearly do...

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7257 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
You know, for someone trying so hard to seem intelligent, you're painfully unaware of a gay rights icon by the name of proposition 8.
That's where people opposed to the end of civility and morals had to go and VOTE for their convictions,
...only to have their victory at the polls defecated on by some limp wristed liberal "judge"....
When last I checked, Prop 8 Was overturned by a Federal Judge, upheld upon appeal and then retroactively dismissed for lack of standing (because the state wouldn't defend the law feeling it was unconstitutional), which means that the federal judge's ruling stands. http://www.oyez.org/ssm/documents/prop8_trial...

Ironically, you seem to blissfuly unawre of a different case which dispatches with your notion that all rights are derived through the will of the majority. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) Justice Robert Jackson held that:
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. "One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Separately the US Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right on 14 separate occasions. http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

You see, if you speak about something you are not really familiar with, you usually make yourself look like a fool.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#7258 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, for someone trying so hard to seem intelligent, you're painfully unaware of a gay rights icon by the name of proposition 8.
That's where people opposed to the end of civility and morals had to go and VOTE for their convictions,
...only to have their victory at the polls defecated on by some limp wristed liberal "judge"....
people can vote for all the laws they wish to but if those laws are unconstitutional, they will be struck down by the system of governance we have set up for our nation.

it does not surprise me that you have no concept of the nation you live in and how we work, legally.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7259 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
<quoted text>Not the one that states marriage is a union between one man and one woman...
"In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage
So again, I'll ask,...what if next week you decide you like your dog better than your boyfriend?
You continue to overlook the fact many states have changed their constitutions in the recent past to deny recognition to same sex couples. Even the courts and legislators who wrote them, recognize these laws were written to exclude.

And again, I'll point out the laws that limit me to humans, apply to everyone, gay or straight, and have been shown to provide a legitimate state interest. The laws that promote marriage for a majority while restricting it from a minority, provide no legitimate state interest, as affirmed by the courts.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#7260 Aug 4, 2013
oh-re-a-ll-y wrote:
You know, for someone trying so hard to seem intelligent, you're painfully unaware of a gay rights icon by the name of proposition 8.
That's where people opposed to the end of civility and morals had to go and VOTE for their convictions,
...only to have their victory at the polls defecated on by some limp wristed liberal "judge"....
Snicker. Sweetie, when people who believe themselves to be opposed to the end of civility and morality go out and do something decidedly uncivil and of seriously dubious morality such as they did, their convictions are screaming out to be defecated upon, by the Constitution. You have heard of it, haven't you? It really doesn't matter how large of a majority you can round up at the ballot box. If what they are doing is in violation of their own rights or those perceived as belonging to someone else, the Constitution has given the Courts the power and the authority to just say no to it. You should be thankful that the Supremes dodged the question of the amendment's actual constitutionality, if they have to overturn any one of them, they have to overturn them all.

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
TRUMP did in 1 year what Obama couldn't in 8! 4 min Barros 18
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Rattlesnake Pete 1,747,141
News Suit: Mississippi flag's rebel symbol 'racially... 10 min Ms Mack 6
i dont trust halfbreeds 10 min Tamale 8
My Issues with The Blacks 15 min KIP 104
Bill Cosby Found Guilty! 15 min Ms Mack 29
all crackers should be hung and skinned alive b... 15 min Dan Snow 5
Why is the media pushing interracial relationsh... (Sep '14) 36 min Tamale 994
A PhD & A 1.5 Million Dollar Home? 1 hr KIP 70
Black sow hoards hundreds of rats in her house 4 hr BillyDbigballer 94
James Shaw, the 29-year-old hero from Waffle Ho... 5 hr Jake 200