Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

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

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Comments
10,121 - 10,140 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11001 Oct 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, demanding the SAME right to marry an adult, consenting, unrelated single person that straight people already have, is something more than equal protection?
How does that work, in your mind?
What the hell are you BABBLING about? How do you come up with "more" when the comment was about equality for ALL?
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11002 Oct 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Individual have the constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances. Exercising that right in no way requires an individual or groups of similarly situated individuals to address the grievances of any or every other person or groups with a different grievance. Such people can and should undertake to petition government themselves.
Further, restrictions placed on exercising a fundamental right like marriage must have a compelling government interest to be deemed constitutional. Each such restriction is evaluated individually, not on an "all or nothing" basis. What gay people assert or don't assert regarding marital restrictions other than the one requiring partners to be of opposite sex doesn't prevent others from filing a lawsuit challenging a different marital restriction nor stop others from asking legislators to change existing laws.
Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11004 Oct 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a hypocrite, small Peter, but you certainly are and a liar as well. I've never said others can't petition government to have various other restrictions placed upon marriage removed. in fact, I've repeatedly stated individuals are free to exercise that right to petition. However, no other minority group has ever been required to address grievances other than their own; it's simply not a requirement to exercise the right to petition. And gays will not be an exception simply to satisfy your fake concern for groups of people you don't want to permit to marry anyway since they no more conform to YOUR view of traditional marriage in the US than same sex marriages.
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving. Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"? Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard? Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
If you feel so strongly about polygamists having their marriages legally recognized or for any siblings to be allowed to marry, then file a lawsuit to challenge existing laws like gays did. But that would require you to actually get off your ass and do something other than whining and sniveling about it, wouldn't it? Even your reality TV polygamists have yet to take that step themselves. If they're unwilling to help themselves and you're unwilling to help them, why do you expect gays to help them?
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized. Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor? It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11005 Oct 5, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you avoided a direct question.
You already answered the question that the Supreme Court had the right to overturn bans on interracial marriages even when the states held such bans as essential public policy. I agree.
The new question was:
What language in the Constitution do you believe would prevent the Supreme Court from making a similar ruling for same-sex marriage that it made in the Loving (1967) case?
Race and gender are two different characteristics, and marriage is a union of both genders....it's in there...ya just have to look.
This is not asking you what language in the constitution SUPPORTS a decision fully legalizing nation-wide same-sex marriage. I know you do not support such an action. So I want you to tell us what language in the constitution would PREVENT THE COURT from coming to a Loving-type ruling striking down all the state laws and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Don't rely on past rulings by the court. As you yourself said those are interpretations.
All rulings are interpretations.
Rulings can be overturned. Bowers (1986) once allowed the criminalization of sodomy. Lawrence (2003) said that was not constitutional and the constitution did not change in the intervening years, only the conclusion of the court.
Only the conclusion of some justices.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11006 Oct 5, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>You asked where we got the "idea" of "male lesbians". We showed you.
If you have some kind of problem with it,
write to Doctor Gilmartin.
Thanks Mr. oh......Terry apparently didn't like the answer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11007 Oct 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Real news flash.
The constitution mandates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Homosexuals are people.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
It doesn't mandate distinctions regarding gender, or other characteristics Must be discarded.

Homosexuals are still men and women.

Marriage is defined by the state.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11008 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving.
I don't speak for all gays nor have I ever claimed to. I've told you my position and yet you lied about it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"?
It's marketing 101; you've also been told there's an implicit "for gays" that follows "marriage equality". But you conveniently ignore that so you can whine about the "plight" of other groups you really care nothing about.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard?
Same sex marriages fall within that standard, you're ignorance of the English language notwithstanding.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
If they can make convincing arguments to courts or legislatures, more power to them. However, will you then whine they're marriages aren't real just as you currently do for same sex marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized.
And yet he pleadings in the Brown suit don't ask the court to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. How do polygamists intend to get polygamy decriminalized if they don't challenge the actual law that criminalizes it? You really need to pay closer attention to what the "victims" you're championing are actually litigating, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor?
I'm not advocating against polygamy. But neither is there any organized group of any significance asking for support. If it's something they really want, they need to do the heavy lifting themselves. And that starts with organizing support and actually challenging the relevant laws, neither of which is happening.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.
Then complain to an actual GLBT group, not me.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11009 Oct 5, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
You asked where we got the "idea" of "male lesbians". We showed you.
No, I asked Pietro:

"What dictionary includes males in the definition of "lesbian"?"

You really should focus more on comprehending what others write if you intend to respond to them.
Mr_oH wrote:
If you have some kind of problem with it,
write to Doctor Gilmartin.
His writing isn't about sexual orientation in general or lesbians in particular but rather "love shyness". His book is 30 years old and out of print. The top Google search link for the term "male lesbian" is urbandictionary.com which focuses on slang rather than formal English. That pretty much sums up the relevance of his work to the topic of marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11010 Oct 5, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....
>> I << have never said you were a"bigot and a hater" for not supporting same sex marriage. You must be confusing me with another poster. Or have you posted to me using a different registered or unregistered ID than "No Comment"?

Since: Oct 13

San Francisco, CA

#11011 Oct 5, 2013
Just like choir gown, different sizes and colors of grad gowns, master graduation dresses, graduation accessory, high school cap and gown are easily available in various land based and online stores. You can also choose from an array of choir stoles, clergy robes and cap gown to suit your requirements. The products available on the reliable sites are simply excellent, made up of best quality material and available at an affordable price.[www.ivyrobes.com]

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11012 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Race and gender are two different characteristics, and marriage is a union of both genders....it's in there...ya just have to look.
IF marriage can ONLY be the union of both genders, then the court would have upheld Congress's DOMA definition of marriage. The court did not. By mandating legal standing of valid state same-sex marriages, the court has clearly made your position outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
But you have already stated (post 10973) that the court was justified and right to invalidate state marriage laws found to be unconstitutional. So the 10th cannot then now be used to prevent similar court action.

Marriage laws belong to the states, and not the federal government. But those marriage laws cannot run afoul of constitutional scrutiny. So no, the 10th would NOT be enough to prevent a Loving-type ruling by the court regarding same-sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All rulings are interpretations.
True. Lawrence negated Bowers. Just as all those cases you cite implying male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriages through the court's DOMA ruling.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only the conclusion of some justices.
Yes, but the majority in any ruling carries the day and establishes case law. Dissenting opinions, while interesting, carry no legal authority.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11013 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Mr. oh......Terry apparently didn't like the answer.
It didn't actually answer my question since I inquired what dictionary defined lesbians using the word male. But then you have a habit of not answering questions as asked but instead answering questions you apparently make up yourself and attribute to others. If you even bother to respond at all since avoidance of facts seems to be one of your coping mechanisms.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11014 Oct 5, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....
Nobody cares what you support. Basic human rights are not something you get to vote for or against. Judges keep driving that point home.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11015 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving. Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"? Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard? Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized. Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor? It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.
I support polygamous marriages.

What do you have against it? Will it harm your children? Will your Bible burst into flames?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11018 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution doesn't regulate marriage, states do. The laws in each state apply to everyone in that state and therefore are applied equally.
There are only two genders, male and female. You are one or the other without restriction.
The constitution protects fundamental rights of all persons, and marriage is one of those fundamental rights.

When a woman can marry a man but not a woman, that is a restriction on gender. It is absurd to pretend there is no restriction on gender in the states that still restrict it.

Many people travel or move to other states. States that refuse to treat the lawful marriages of ss couples equally to the marriages of os couples from the same jurisdiction are in violation of the 14th.

14th: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11019 Oct 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I asked Pietro:
"What dictionary includes males in the definition of "lesbian"?"
You really should focus more on comprehending what others write if you intend to respond to them.
<quoted text>
His writing isn't about sexual orientation in general or lesbians in particular but rather "love shyness". His book is 30 years old and out of print. The top Google search link for the term "male lesbian" is urbandictionary.com which focuses on slang rather than formal English. That pretty much sums up the relevance of his work to the topic of marriage.
Thank you for that background. I was curious but dismissed it as irrelevant, so hadn't bothered with digging it up, but nice to know and affirm it is irrelevant.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11021 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>...except polygamists and consenting adult relatives...
Constitutional rights may be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. I don't understand why those half-wits that advance this argument invariably can't count.) and incest.

Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11022 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11023 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??

RUN OFF TO CHURCH NAZI.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11025 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
Name one.
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
Mr_oH wrote:
No, each individual in those groups are seeking their own person equal protection of law.
Sorry charlie, the union they seek is greater by definition.
Mr_oH wrote:
That's because counting has noting to do with it.
Is three greater than two? If so, counting has everything to do with it, because they seek greater, not equal, protection of the law.
Mr_oH wrote:
Consenting adult incest, by related individuals.
Incest has a demonstrably higher instance of mental illness and birth defects. There is a compelling governmental interest in discouraging such unions.
Mr_oH wrote:
What are you, a parrot?
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments that have long been settled as a matter of law and have no bering upon the topic at hand.

Do you have a relevant argument applicable to same sex marriage, or are you admitting that you are, in fact, a parrot.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
I don't want to marry a BLACK MAN 5 min Good Vibes 3,467
Why Do BM Value Any Race of Woman Above BW? 5 min Carly HI YAH 19
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,101,071
why do black men hate seeing black women and wh... 8 min Just the facts 2
Notorious B.I.G.ís Son Proposes to Longtime Boy... 8 min Big R 20
Why are AA still religous? 8 min Jubilant Sleep 11
Game Of 2 Words Only,... 9 min Crazy Jae 10
There's A War On The Black Male 17 min GrapeApe 608
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 18 min Gargantos 120,528
Michael Brown .. STRONG ARM ROBBERY ??? 38 min Just the facts 2,333
Why do blacks claim to be the true Israelites? ... (May '11) 1 hr reality-check 4,877
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

African-American People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••