Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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!

#11928 Oct 28, 2013
Chip Westhoven wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because they undermine the majority vote, as in Proposition 8. The voters in Cali did their civic duty, and the Supine Court cut them off at the knees by caving in to a special interest group.
The voters in California voted on a Proposition that had already been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the name of Prop 22 by the CSSC and a judge would NOT have had to toss Prop 8 had it been reviewed before it was placed on the ballot!!!

The MAJORITY can NOT vote to remove a right once it has been granted!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11929 Oct 28, 2013
Chip Westhoven wrote:
and the Supine Court cut them off at the knees by caving in to a special interest group.
By the way....SCOTUS DIDN'T cave to any special interest group.......they ruled against the proponents of Prop 8 as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should have ruled against them.....they DIDN'T have Article 3 standing under federal law!!!

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11930 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you........holding hands is comforting:-)
On our wedding day, Mrs-Whitewater was so nervous that I had to help hold the card that her special wedding vows were on so she could read them:-)
The difference, of course, is that Mia knows exactly what I'm capable of doing. She watches me practice every day.

She's not holding my hand to comfort me. She's holding it down so that the people there don't know that we're lesbians. It's important to her so I go along with it.

Eventually, it's going to be a problem, isn't it?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11931 Oct 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference, of course, is that Mia knows exactly what I'm capable of doing. She watches me practice every day.
She's not holding my hand to comfort me. She's holding it down so that the people there don't know that we're lesbians. It's important to her so I go along with it.
Eventually, it's going to be a problem, isn't it?
It might......I know of a person who is bisexual and was involved with a woman for awhile......but the woman couldn't find a way to resolve the conflict with regards to her religious beliefs with who she was as a Lesbian......eventually they broke it off, but remain friends to some degree......it's hard for some because what they have been taught for so long with regards to their religious beliefs truly conflict them with who they are........I wish you both luck and hopefully your girlfriend understands that God loves her just the way He created her.......we'll send positive energy your direction!!!

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11933 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It might......I know of a person who is bisexual and was involved with a woman for awhile......but the woman couldn't find a way to resolve the conflict with regards to her religious beliefs with who she was as a Lesbian......eventually they broke it off, but remain friends to some degree......it's hard for some because what they have been taught for so long with regards to their religious beliefs truly conflict them with who they are........I wish you both luck and hopefully your girlfriend understands that God loves her just the way He created her.......we'll send positive energy your direction!!!


My girlfriend understands that I don't believe in gods. She understands that I love her just the way she was created.

Thanks for the positive energy, Norcal. Tell Mrs. Whitwater that River says Hi.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11934 Oct 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
Who voted on YOUR marriage, Brian?
X makes a good point: male/female integrated marriage predates our Constitution, same sex marriage doesn't. Therefor, same sex marriage would be an ex post facto law and a violation of our Constitution.

Keep marriage one man and one woman because same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11935 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then lets vote for the right to marry for heterosexuals, okay?
Are you proposing the state require a sworn statement of "sexual orientation" prior to issuance of a marriage license? After all how will the state know who is homo, hetero, or big?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11936 Oct 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>X makes a good point: male/female integrated marriage predates our Constitution, same sex marriage doesn't. Therefor, same sex marriage would be an ex post facto law and a violation of our Constitution.
......
So, since slavery predated our Constitution, stopping it was unconstitutional? Since child labor laws were enacted AFTER the Constitution was written, those laws are unconstitutional?

Geesh. At least TRY to make sense.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11937 Oct 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you proposing the state require a sworn statement of "sexual orientation" prior to issuance of a marriage license? After all how will the state know who is homo, hetero, or big?
No need for anything as silly and intrusive as that, as long as there are no gender requirements to obtaining a marriage license.

In many states, and with the federal government, that is already the case.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11938 Oct 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Brian?
What is the basis, or foundation of marriage if not the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
You've been told multiple times the legal accomplishment (or "foundation" as you wish to call it) is creating kinship between previously unrelated parties. Your "foundation" doesn't encompass all the existing marriages that are legally allowed throughout the world so obviously (at least to rational, educated adults) can't be the true "foundation".
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if that were made "illegal", marriage would have no purpose and those no need to recognize it at all.
On the contrary, it would simply be substituting one gender restriction for another. That you feel it would serve no purpose if it didn't include how you would want to exercise the right is irrelevant, not to mention hypocritical based on your advocacy of denying access to marriage for gays.

Further, since marriage is a fundamental right, it needs no justification to be recognized by the state; it's a constitutional requirement that the exercise of fundamental rights by citizens be recognized and protected. And for the record, such a gender restriction would be no more constitutional than the current one you defend.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11939 Oct 28, 2013
Chip Westhoven wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably because they undermine the majority vote, as in Proposition 8. The voters in Cali did their civic duty, and the Supine Court cut them off at the knees by caving in to a special interest group.
The Founders never intended the fundamental rights of minority groups to be subject to the whims and prejudices of the majority. That's why our system of government is a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. Sorry you too seemingly hate it when the judicial branch of government exercises its constitutionally appointed duty, but you'll just have to suck it and live with it or change the constitution.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11940 Oct 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
X makes a good point: male/female integrated marriage predates our Constitution, same sex marriage doesn't.
You're merely repeating your same old disproven lie, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Therefore, same sex marriage would be an ex post facto law and a violation of our Constitution.
No it wouldn't. And your laughable assertion proves you don't even understand what an ex post facto law is.
Brian_G wrote:
Keep marriage one man and one woman because same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
On the contrary, banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. You simply have no understanding of the constitution, Brian.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11941 Oct 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you proposing the state require a sworn statement of "sexual orientation" prior to issuance of a marriage license? After all how will the state know who is homo, hetero, or big?
The same way it knows that opposite sex people are capable of or intend to procreate without inquiring when you assert that as a justification for restricting marriage to opposite sex couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11942 Oct 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You've been told multiple times the legal accomplishment (or "foundation" as you wish to call it) is creating kinship between previously unrelated parties. Your "foundation" doesn't encompass all the existing marriages that are legally allowed throughout the world so obviously (at least to rational, educated adults) can't be the true "foundation".
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it would simply be substituting one gender restriction for another. That you feel it would serve no purpose if it didn't include how you would want to exercise the right is irrelevant, not to mention hypocritical based on your advocacy of denying access to marriage for gays.
Further, since marriage is a fundamental right, it needs no justification to be recognized by the state; it's a constitutional requirement that the exercise of fundamental rights by citizens be recognized and protected. And for the record, such a gender restriction would be no more constitutional than the current one you defend.
From the Supreme Court. Notice the use of "...one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony;..." . Simple, yet foundationally definitive.

“For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15.(cited in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, and United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393)

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11943 Oct 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>X makes a good point: male/female integrated marriage predates our Constitution, same sex marriage doesn't. Therefor, same sex marriage would be an ex post facto law and a violation of our Constitution.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Please buy a dictionary. It's obvious from your post that you do not know what the word "therefor"[sic] means, nor do you know how to spell it or employ it properly.

Brian_G remains the village idiot.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11944 Oct 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =dUG2nS_J8cMXX
My girlfriend understands that I don't believe in gods. She understands that I love her just the way she was created.
Thanks for the positive energy, Norcal. Tell Mrs. Whitwater that River says Hi.
Will do and stay strong.......anything is possible
:-)

Thanks for the tune as well:-)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11945 Oct 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you proposing the state require a sworn statement of "sexual orientation" prior to issuance of a marriage license? After all how will the state know who is homo, hetero, or big?
I'm saying if folks want to put the right to marry on the ballot for Same-Sex Couples......LET'S put it on the ballot for ALL couples, opposite-sex and Same-Sex.........I mean if you get the right to vote on my right to marry.....then I should get the right to vote on your right to marry.......how do you think that vote will go?

And what is "BIG"? or did you mean "BI"?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11946 Oct 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>X makes a good point: male/female integrated marriage predates our Constitution, same sex marriage doesn't. Therefor, same sex marriage would be an ex post facto law and a violation of our Constitution.
Keep marriage one man and one woman because same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Sorry Brian, but there was Same-Sex marriages that also pre-date the Constitution.......even if you don't agree or like it......so, then it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny that right today, at least according to your post, right?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11947 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying if folks want to put the right to marry on the ballot for Same-Sex Couples......LET'S put it on the ballot for ALL couples, opposite-sex and Same-Sex.........I mean if you get the right to vote on my right to marry.....then I should get the right to vote on your right to marry.......how do you think that vote will go?
And what is "BIG"? or did you mean "BI"?
Exactly.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11948 Oct 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
:-)

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
News The Chicago Law Firm Run by a Trio of Black Women 2 min Oh No You Di-nt 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Incognito4Ever 1,406,080
News Cummings: Protesters during DNC speech were 'di... 3 min Oh No You Di-nt 1
BM Thwarts White Rapist & Robber. 5 min Oh No You Di-nt 32
BW starts biz, mugged 3 times, kept going 6 min Bimini Road 1
News Racism in US casts 'dark shadow' over rights to... 9 min Oh No You Di-nt 1
CROOKED HILLARY : A violent erratic psychopath 9 min RMG El Rey de Tra... 3
Poll Will Donald Trump be the next President of the ... (Aug '15) 17 min NotSoDivineMsM 1,584
RNC Day 4 ratings TROUNCE DNC by MILLIONS 44 min Hillary 2016 16
Trump BUSTED .....PUTIN 56 min Hillary 2016 23
More from around the web