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.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10046 Sep 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> What do you mean for me? I did not write the Declaration of Independence.
<quoted text> An appeal to mother nature for human rights is moronic since in Nature only the fit and the strong dominate and kill off the weak. There is no equality in Nature.
<quoted text> There is no fundamental right to SSM at the Federal level according to the Supreme Court. They ruled the way they did to stay out of it all and lets either the States or the legislature decide the process. 35 States ban SSM. 27 by Constitutional Amendment and State Law. 3 by Constitutional Amendment only. 5 by States Law only.
Have you read the declaration lately? It says rights come "their creator", nature, and "nature's God". It doesn't say they come from the Christian "God". They were saying all are born with equal rights simply because they are part of nature, and you don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't.

The court did not say there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage. That wasn't the question before them. They question they had to decide was; does the gender restriction on the fundamental right of marriage provide any compelling governmental interest, or does it violate the 5th amendment requirement of equal protection for all persons.

They found it provides no compelling interest, and violates the 5th amendment.

Simply because states have passed laws does not mean those laws are legal if they violate the constitution. Just like DOMA, and many other laws throughout our history have violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection for all persons. So far the courts have said the federal government cannot violate the constitution. They have not yet ruled on the state bans, as that question has not yet properly come before them.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10047 Sep 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I defend our Christian neighbors and the states that defend marriage as male/female; you sue them. This is where we differ.
Brian, how does allowing same sex marriage in any way adversely impact someone who wishes to marry a member of the opposite sex?

Does it impact their religious freedom, or free expression? Saying that a business may not impose their religious morality onto their customers is merely upholding the value of free expression and free exercise of religion. If the business owners could deny service on the basis of religion, then they, not the customers, would be violating free exercise.

Can you prove that you are not an imbecile?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10048 Sep 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It does not have to be based on a theocracy. If rights are derived from a document,(the constitution) then they are subject to change and interpretation. If they derived from God then they are universal and apply to all persons at all times. The founders did not wish a Theocracy. Their appeal was directly to God as the King of England abused authority over the Colonies. If rights derive from men or documents there is no objective basis for Revolution. You must believe your rights derive from men and not God. You must believe the Declaration of Independence is false when it appeals to God over Earthly rulers or Despots. You must believe King is law. A giant step backwards.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document and it says Creator NOT God.......remember that our founding father's were Desists NOT Christians........and therefore they NEVER intended this Country have a National Religion, nor is God mentioned in the Constitution!!!

Your belief in God is again IRRELEVANT because NOT all believe in God, and they still have the same rights you do!!!

Again, you ASSume a whole lot about me that is just that......making an AZZ outta of yourself!!!

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10049 Sep 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
If rights are derived from a document,(the constitution) then they are subject to change and interpretation. If they derived from God then they are universal and apply to all persons at all times.... If rights derive from men or documents there is no objective basis for Revolution. You must believe your rights derive from men and not God.
If rights derive from God, and NOT from men or from governments or from documents, then why does God allow men and their governments to intercept these rights? Why are these governments allowed to withhold rights from the people they govern? Why can't God deliver these rights DIRECTLY to the people, rather than THROUGH the hands of governments that might (and often do) restrict those rights?

It seems very strange that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein can actually stand in the way of God delivering his rights to the people, and stop those people from receiving or acting upon their rights.

Does God WANT world leaders (who are sometimes dictators and despots) to interfere with people receiving their rights? Is God UNABLE to stop that interference? Is there a different form of government that God is hoping humans will implement across the globe, so that current governments can no longer interfere this way?

It seems to me that the BEST way to ensure the rights of the people is for the people to draw up documents which guarantee those rights. We cannot rely on God (or any gods) to ensure these rights, as he appears content to allow the worst kinds of power-hungry tyrants to block those rights from getting to the people who need them. We cannot rely on the Bible to guide these rights, as it is frequently self-contradictory, it often suggests actions which are anathema to the rights we recognize today, and its message cannot be agreed upon consistently by even the most pious and devoted worshippers.

We humans are the only ones that we humans can rely on for administering rights. Our processes may not be perfect, but they're a far sight better than relying on invisible, ineffectual beings that appoint other humans to speak for them, or to dole out "divine" rights as they see fit.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10051 Sep 18, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document and it says Creator NOT God.......remember that our founding father's were Desists NOT Christians........and therefore they NEVER intended this Country have a National Religion, nor is God mentioned in the Constitution!!!
Your belief in God is again IRRELEVANT because NOT all believe in God, and they still have the same rights you do!!!
Again, you ASSume a whole lot about me that is just that......making an AZZ outta of yourself!!!
It is really a philosophical argument, and the Declaration is a philosophical statement. The idea is that fundamental rights exist no matter what any person or piece of paper says. They come from a higher source, above the whims of man. Light is on the right track but is being vague about whether she understands there is a difference between "their Creator" and her beliefs about her God.

Religious believers often misinterpret "Creator" or "Nature's God" in the declaration, to mean their understanding of God. They then try to use their religious beliefs to deny to others the rights they grant to themselves, contradicting the intention that rights come from a higher source and are not theirs to mess with. This also requires ignoring the requirement of equal treatment for all persons found in the Constitution.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10052 Sep 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If rights derive from God, and NOT from men or from governments or from documents, then why does God allow men and their governments to intercept these rights? Why are these governments allowed to withhold rights from the people they govern? Why can't God deliver these rights DIRECTLY to the people, rather than THROUGH the hands of governments that might (and often do) restrict those rights?
It seems very strange that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein can actually stand in the way of God delivering his rights to the people, and stop those people from receiving or acting upon their rights.
Does God WANT world leaders (who are sometimes dictators and despots) to interfere with people receiving their rights? Is God UNABLE to stop that interference? Is there a different form of government that God is hoping humans will implement across the globe, so that current governments can no longer interfere this way?
It seems to me that the BEST way to ensure the rights of the people is for the people to draw up documents which guarantee those rights. We cannot rely on God (or any gods) to ensure these rights, as he appears content to allow the worst kinds of power-hungry tyrants to block those rights from getting to the people who need them. We cannot rely on the Bible to guide these rights, as it is frequently self-contradictory, it often suggests actions which are anathema to the rights we recognize today, and its message cannot be agreed upon consistently by even the most pious and devoted worshippers.
We humans are the only ones that we humans can rely on for administering rights. Our processes may not be perfect, but they're a far sight better than relying on invisible, ineffectual beings that appoint other humans to speak for them, or to dole out "divine" rights as they see fit.
At risk of repetition, the Declaration is a philosophical statement about the way the rule of law should work, not a statement about the way the real world works.

Of course it is hard to claim there is a right to free speech or anything else when the government, police, military dictator, gang leader, or anyone else refuses to recognize it, or restricts it and regulates it.
But when establishing a social order based on the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle, philosophical statements are intended to help lawmakers understand what is allowed and what is not. The intent was to place fundamental rights above the reach of governments and lawmakers, as much as humanly possible, by declaring they do not come from humans, but from "their Creator", and are therefore off limits.

While it hasn't worked as well as many would like, the idea of equal, fundamental, unalienable rights, is a cornerstone of our government.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10053 Sep 18, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the fact that "consenting adult relatives" are already related escapes you. Marriage would be redundant.
First cousins are relatives too....but are allowed to marry in several states. So if two same sex first cousins can marry, why not two same sex siblings?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10054 Sep 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First cousins are relatives too....but are allowed to marry in several states. So if two same sex first cousins can marry, why not two same sex siblings?
Pietro, do you want to marry your cousin, or do you simply have no valid argument against same sex marriage.

You seem to be the only idiot arguing for same sex marriage of close relatives.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10055 Sep 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
First cousins are relatives too....but are allowed to marry in several states. So if two same sex first cousins can marry, why not two same sex siblings?
Cousins often BECOME cousins because of someone ELSE's marriage, rather than any kind of blood connection. Why should their marriage be forbidden, simply because of another unrelated person's marriage?

CLOSE family, like siblings, have no such excuse. They were not MADE into family by someone else's connection. Marriage will not make them into closer family members. No divorce could end their family connection. Their pre-existing family relationship precludes any need for marriage.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10056 Sep 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, do you want to marry your cousin, or do you simply have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
You seem to be the only idiot arguing for same sex marriage of close relatives.
He is arguing for incest, ignoring child abuse is the reason it is prohibited.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10057 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
He is arguing for incest, ignoring child abuse is the reason it is prohibited.
Every time he offers such an off topic rationalization, he admits that he has no on topic argument.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10058 Sep 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, do you want to marry your cousin, or do you simply have no valid argument against same sex marriage.
You seem to be the only idiot arguing for same sex marriage of close relatives.
My cousin is already married. But thanks for asking.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10059 Sep 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
My cousin is already married. But thanks for asking.
So, you are just making an utterly irrelevant argument in order to prove that you aren't so bright, and that you have no valid argument against gay marriage.

Well played.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10060 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Have you read the declaration lately? It says rights come "their creator", nature, and "nature's God".
Right.
It doesn't say they come from the Christian "God".
It does not say it is Muslim God. Rights derived from God are universal and apply to all people everywhere. Right derived from men are subject to change based on who is ruling. The men had a Christian upbringing and were part of Christian culture even if they were not specifically Chrisitan.
They were saying all are born with equal rights simply because they are part of nature, and you don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't.
Either do you. You do not get to call wrong right. You do not get to redefine the meaning of marriage. There is no fundamental right to SSM. There is a right to marriage but that does not include SSM. It does not include pederasty, bestiality, incest, or any other perversion.
The court did not say there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/104...

The Court refused to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The Court refused to "discover" a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
That wasn't the question before them. They question they had to decide was; does the gender restriction on the fundamental right of marriage provide any compelling governmental interest, or does it violate the 5th amendment requirement of equal protection for all persons.
They found it provides no compelling interest, and violates the 5th amendment.
Simply because states have passed laws does not mean those laws are legal if they violate the constitution. Just like DOMA, and many other laws throughout our history have violated the constitutional requirement of equal protection for all persons. So far the courts have said the federal government cannot violate the constitution. They have not yet ruled on the state bans, as that question has not yet properly come before them.
DOMA was passed under Clinton.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/high-st...

One case concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Congress passed DOMA to make explicitly clear what was known at the time of our country’s founding—that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10061 Sep 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
One case concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Congress passed DOMA to make explicitly clear what was known at the time of our country’s founding—that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Again, irrelevant because Section 3 of DOMA was officially tossed out on June 26th, 2013!!!

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10062 Sep 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
If rights derive from God, and NOT from men or from governments or from documents, then why does God allow men and their governments to intercept these rights?
Evil and its consequences are allowed for a time. Generally prosperity and blessings come from adhering to the Laws of God and curses are the result of abandoning the Laws of God. "Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, He has also forsaken you."
Why are these governments allowed to withhold rights from the people they govern? Why can't God deliver these rights DIRECTLY to the people, rather than THROUGH the hands of governments that might (and often do) restrict those rights?
I don't know why you ask questions in which you really desire no answers. I just finished Esther. The Jews are in captivity and Esther is married to a Pagan King. The Jews are in danger of being wiped out. In my Catholic Bible there is a prayer of Mordecai and a prayer of Esther. Esther prays to God who knows all things. God knows she hates the pomp of the lawless and abhors the bed of the uncircumcised or of any foreigner. "YOU know that I am under constraint, that I abhor the sign of grandeur that rests on my head when i appear in public. I abhor it like a rag and do not wear it in private..." God works within the evil of man to bring about results. That is the repeated theme..
It seems very strange that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein can actually stand in the way of God delivering his rights to the people, and stop those people from receiving or acting upon their rights.
The rights remain, even under oppression. Leaders and everyone else is brought to justice or mercy. Seems non believers are content to blame a God they do not believe exists for problems man brings on himself and others.
No Comment

Port Richey, FL

#10063 Sep 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

You seem to be the only idiot arguing for same sex marriage of close relatives.
Yet, you're NOT the only idiot that can't give a "compelling state interest" in denying THOSE people THEIR "equal protection under the law"...
No Comment

Port Richey, FL

#10064 Sep 18, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
He is arguing for incest, ignoring child abuse is the reason it is prohibited.
As if no "gay" ever abused a child......

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#10065 Sep 18, 2013
Prayer of Esther

http://www.usccb.org/bible/esther/estherc.htm

Prayer of Esther. 12b Queen Esther, seized with mortal anguish, fled to the Lord for refuge. 13Taking off her splendid garments, she put on garments of distress and mourning. In place of her precious ointments she covered her head with dung and ashes. She afflicted her body severely and in place of her festive adornments, her tangled hair covered her.

14Then she prayed to the Lord, the God of Israel, saying:“My Lord, you alone are our King. Help me, who am alone and have no help but you, 15for I am taking my life in my hand.c 16From birth, I have heard among my people that you, Lord, chose Israel from among all nations, and our ancestors from among all their forebears, as a lasting inheritance, and that you fulfilled all your promises to them.d 17But now we have sinned in your sight, and you have delivered us into the hands of our enemies, 18because we worshiped their gods. You are just, O Lord. 19But now they are not satisfied with our bitter servitude, but have sworn an oath to their idols 20to do away with the decree you have pronounced, to destroy your inheritance, to close the mouths of those who praise you, to extinguish the glory of your house and your altar, 21to open the mouths of the nations to acclaim their worthless gods, and to extol a mortal king forever.

22“Lord, do not relinquish your scepter to those who are nothing. Do not let our foes gloat over our ruin, but turn their own counsel against them and make an example of the one who began this against us. 23Be mindful of us, Lord. Make yourself known in the time of our distress and give me courage, King of gods and Ruler of every power. 24Put in my mouth persuasive words in the presence of the lion, and turn his heart to hatred for our enemy, so that he and his co-conspirators may perish. 25Save us by your power, and help me, who am alone and have no one but you, Lord.

26“You know all things. You know that I hate the pomp of the lawless, and abhor the bed of the uncircumcised or of any foreigner. 27You know that I am under constraint, that I abhor the sign of grandeur that rests on my head when I appear in public. I abhor it like a polluted rag, and do not wear it in private. 28I, your servant, have never eaten at the table of Haman, nor have I graced the banquet of the king or drunk the wine of libations.* 29From the day I was brought here till now, your servant has had no joy except in you, Lord, God of Abraham. 30O God, whose power is over all, hear the voice of those in despair. Save us from the power of the wicked, and deliver me from my fear.”

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10066 Sep 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Right. <quoted text> It does not say it is Muslim God. Rights derived from God are universal and apply to all people everywhere. Right derived from men are subject to change based on who is ruling. The men had a Christian upbringing and were part of Christian culture even if they were not specifically Chrisitan. <quoted text> Either do you. You do not get to call wrong right. You do not get to redefine the meaning of marriage. There is no fundamental right to SSM. There is a right to marriage but that does not include SSM. It does not include pederasty, bestiality, incest, or any other perversion.
<quoted text>
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/104...
The Court refused to redefine marriage for the entire nation. The Court refused to "discover" a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
<quoted text> DOMA was passed under Clinton.
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/high-st...
One case concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for the purposes of federal law. Passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress in 1996, DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Congress passed DOMA to make explicitly clear what was known at the time of our country’s founding—that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
You were doing fine when you said: "Rights derived from God are universal and apply to all people everywhere." Marriage is one of those rights that apply to everyone. It is not up to you to take it away.

But then, you turn to taking that right away. There is no SSM. There is marriage. Same sex couples are married under the same laws. OSM did not change. Nothing was taken away by removing a restriction. The question was not about a different kind of marriage, but about a restriction on marrage. Again, the restriction serves no legitimate government puroplse.

Marriage has nothing to do with incest, beastiality, pederast, or other perversions. Those restrictions provide legitimate protections for citizens, but are separate restrictions from gender. And yet people who commit those crimes can still get married under the same laws that apply to everyone else.

And you are correct the court refused to redefine marriage. They left marriage in place under the more than 1,138 laws that determine what marriage is. They simply said the gender restriction is not needed, and is a violation of the contribution. Again, the only challenge before them was the federal law. They found DOMA violated the 5th amendment requirements of equal protection.

It doesn't matter who supported DOMA, or how popular it was at the time. It restricted the fundamental right of marriage for no legitimate reason.

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

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
Reasons why good black women don't want good bl... 6 min PROUD ARYAN WARRIOR 5
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min bob53h 1,563,920
Why are black girls physically superior to whit... (Mar '16) 17 min PROUD ARYAN WARRIOR 9
Black women have upped their Oral Sex game 18 min Ugly Cavies Wish ... 19
The Majority Of White Males Are Pedophiles And ... (Jun '14) 29 min dumbdumb 97
Forums for bi white men to meet gay/bi black men? (Aug '11) 29 min amanda17 70
KKK Membership for blacks 30 min PROUD ARYAN WARRIOR 3
News Anti-racist author Tim Wise: White America desp... 52 min Lawrence Wolf 791
RAW VIDEO: Teens Heckle Drowning Man 52 min Fun Facts 41
News Racism still prevalent 50 years after riots 30 ... 1 hr Fun Facts 38
America and pro Americans are the enemy of blac... 1 hr justsaying 36
More from around the web