Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11632 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they actually use those words?
Yes, basically that is what the CSSC said in the reMarriage case in May of 2008!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11633 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?
Yes, it's called being BISEXUAL!!!

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#11634 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As are yours Marramie.
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh......huh.....and you're just sitiing up on the mountain top dispensing pearls of wisdom to the "ignorant" masses. It must be such a burden.
It is a burden, thanks for acknowledging that. If you ignorant haters would just crack a book every once in a while you would lessen the burden and not be such an embarrassment to the United States. Really, when is the last time read anything other than the TV?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11635 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, basically that is what the CSSC said in the reMarriage case in May of 2008!!!
Did they use those actual words?

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11636 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they use those actual words?
What difference does it make?

Same sex couples are getting married in California and the Federal government grants them the same rights as opposite sex married couples.

What a great country, right?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11637 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did they actually use those words?
Yes. From In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757:

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gee, that could allow a number of options.
Possibly.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"The legal accomplishment of marriage"? Ohhhhhh........joining one man and one woman together as legally recognized husband and wife.
Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly how we're they applied "equally"? How does one apply a law equally to a person of mixed ethnicity/race?
The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It must drive you crazy knowing there are self described gay men, and lesbians, who actually choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even engage in coitus! And what can coitus result in? Conception!
On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If ya can't, just say so.
I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?
They're called bisexuals.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11638 Oct 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in religious freedom, those Christian vendors have the right not to participate in religious rituals they view as profane.
Same sex marriage is bad because it's taboo.
No it isn't.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11639 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they use those actual words?
Go look......you want the information.....go read the ruling.

You just might learn something!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11640 Oct 19, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. From In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757:
"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
<quoted text>
Possibly.
<quoted text>
Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.
<quoted text>
The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.
<quoted text>
I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.
<quoted text>
They're called bisexuals.
Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11642 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.
Pietro is too lazy to do that. Even when you spoon feed him, he often just ignores it.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11643 Oct 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, you may thinks it's taboo, but it's not......and it's growing and we now have 14 States and DC:-)
Note how it grows by court order instead of legislation; same sex marriage started by court order, without the consent of the governed.

That's why they sue Christian's who don't consent to attend their religious same sex marriage celebrations. They don't want tolerance, they want celebration.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic elitism.

“Expecting!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Royally Inked

#11644 Oct 20, 2013
So...I'm a gluten free vegetarian and I was at Subway yesterday and the guy behind me didn't order a Veggie Delight with gluten free bread! I was SO upset! He shouldn't be allowed to dine at Subway!

See how ridiculous it sounds?

Yeah.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11645 Oct 20, 2013
GothicRose wrote:
So...I'm a gluten free vegetarian and I was at Subway yesterday and the guy behind me didn't order a Veggie Delight with gluten free bread! I was SO upset! He shouldn't be allowed to dine at Subway!
See how ridiculous it sounds?
Yeah.
Did you sue? They sued Christian wedding vendors in Washington, New Mexico and Oregon. The issue isn't tolerance, they want celebration and stopping debate.

Keep marriage one man and one woman or they may sue you next.

“Expecting!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Royally Inked

#11646 Oct 20, 2013
I think love is love and love between two consenting adults should not have limitations.

That being said, you cannot force a religion to accept you. If Christianity says no, you cannot marry in our church, they must accept it graciously.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11647 Oct 20, 2013
GothicRose wrote:
I think love is love and love between two consenting adults should not have limitations.
So, adult brother/sister, brother/brother and sister/sister marriage is perfectly OK? And if one of the lovers is already married, why should that limit?

I think most arguments for same sex marriage are based on emotion; it isn't fair to a small minority because they don't meet the qualifications. Any qualification creates inequality; people are different. Marriage isn't for everyone.

.
GothicRose wrote:
That being said, you cannot force a religion to accept you.
They can sue, they do. If you legalize same sex marriage, you make it worse for everyone who declines to attend a same sex wedding ritual.

.
GothicRose wrote:
If Christianity says no, you cannot marry in our church, they must accept it graciously.
But they don't, they sue and call the Church bigoted haters. Defamation isn't grace.

“Expecting!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Royally Inked

#11648 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, adult brother/sister, brother/brother and sister/sister marriage is perfectly OK? And if one of the lovers is already married, why should that limit?
I think most arguments for same sex marriage are based on emotion; it isn't fair to a small minority because they don't meet the qualifications. Any qualification creates inequality; people are different. Marriage isn't for everyone.
.
<quoted text>They can sue, they do. If you legalize same sex marriage, you make it worse for everyone who declines to attend a same sex wedding ritual.
.
<quoted text>But they don't, they sue and call the Church bigoted haters. Defamation isn't grace.
Incest is sick. And polygamy is in the christian bible. Personally, I think if everyone involves agrees, it shouldn't be an issue.

Yeah tolerance is one thing, but you can't force anyone to like you. End of story.
This And That

Dublin, CA

#11649 Oct 20, 2013
GothicRose wrote:
I think love is love and love between two consenting adults should not have limitations.
That being said, you cannot force a religion to accept you. If Christianity says no, you cannot marry in our church, they must accept it graciously.
Yes but there are plenty of religions that do accept gay ministers and they also bless same sex unions so there is no need to force same sex weddings on anybody! Why would you want to when there are many other options that gays can take! And the religions that condemn gays should also learn to "accept" their legal weddings graciously at the religions that do accept and marry gays!

“Expecting!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Royally Inked

#11650 Oct 20, 2013
Wel religion and issues of law are completely separate in this country, so I don't know if I'm understanding you.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11651 Oct 20, 2013
GothicRose wrote:
Wel religion and issues of law are completely separate in this country, so I don't know if I'm understanding you.
Brian is an utterly irrational person, who will reject reality and substitute his own. Feel free to spar with them, but don't think for a moment that they are intelligent enough to understand what you say.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11652 Oct 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's called being BISEXUAL!!!
No a bisexual is a man, usually married, conjugally speaking, who has sex twice a year, once on his birthday, and once at Christmas!:)

Couldn't resist.

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
What happened to Kellyanne Conway 7 min JRT 16
News Trump: African-American history museum is 'fant... 11 min Lawrence Wolf 62
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Injudgement 1,496,892
Everyone hates black men (May '12) 13 min A Perm For BM 104
DARKYS! the WHITE RACE IS THE MASTER RACE! (May '16) 17 min JoeM 6
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 1 hr Pharaohisrealite 34,440
Black women are jealous that white women can gr... (Jul '14) 1 hr sandi27 21
What Exactly Is a "Good" Black Man? 1 hr AAM2000 37
This good ol' boy never meant no harm! 1 hr Drilling for the ... 971
Difficulties Blacks in America Are Facing 2 hr Paul 15
Would Beyonce have sex with Trump? 3 hr Lori899 44
More from around the web