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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12093 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh.....huh...but only if it's the class of people you like...right XBox?
Still can't gasp the constitutional concept of equal protection, eh small Peter? The state can indeed restrict or infringe the fundamental rights of a class of people if it can articulate a compelling government interest for doing so.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12094 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I think your picture should be on every package of condoms. Underneath your photo are the words, "DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!"
As usual, you deflect when unable to answer even simple "yes" or "no" questions. Did your parents pay your wife to take you off their hands?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12095 Oct 31, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
NorCal is simply using YOUR definition of marriage as consisting of ONE man and ONE woman united as HUSBAND and WIFE, small Peter. Are you saying your own definition is hostile and by using it you're aren't being very nice?
Exactly.....and to even think I would have some connection with women I don't even know......what a sap he is!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12096 Oct 31, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
NorCal is simply using YOUR definition of marriage as consisting of ONE man and ONE woman united as HUSBAND and WIFE, small Peter. Are you saying your own definition is hostile and by using it you're aren't being very nice?
Let's use this one.

In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony".

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12097 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's use this one.
In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony".
1885, a case regarding polygamist and voter registration........I'm wondering if there is a way you could get into the 21st century........the cases you speak of have NO bearing on marriage as we understand it today!!!

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12098 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's use this one.
In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony".
Editorial comments from a voter registration case have no relevance to the fundamental right of marriage.

Try again.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12099 Oct 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
1885, a case regarding polygamist and voter registration........I'm wondering if there is a way you could get into the 21st century........the cases you speak of have NO bearing on marriage as we understand it today!!!
How is it, "The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony". any different "...on marriage as we understand it today"? That sums up the understanding of marriage throughout the history of the Republic. The beauty of it, it was before the political sexual identity labels became all the rage. Just men and women.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#12100 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Awwwwww....Joanie is talking to me again. I love it when the Glibtees play the vocabulary game. Word origins are fun. Don't forget this one:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.
urbandictionary - no comment required choad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12101 Oct 31, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Editorial comments from a voter registration case have no relevance to the fundamental right of marriage.
Try again.
"The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony". That sums up the understanding of marriage throughout the history of the Republic.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#12102 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony". That sums up the understanding of marriage throughout the history of the Republic.
..and change scares the bejesus out of you.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12103 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony". That sums up the understanding of marriage throughout the history of the Republic.
From the dissent in Conaway v. Deane quoting in part Lawrence v. Texas

“the result in Lawrence was not affected by the fact, acknowledged by the Court, that there had been no long history of tolerance for homosexuality. &#8194; Rather, in holding that ‘[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for the [&#8201;] purpose [of making intimate and personal choices], just as heterosexual persons do.’ &#8194;Lawrence rejected the notion that fundamental rights it had already identified could be restricted based on traditional assumptions about who should be permitted their protection. &#8194; As the Court noted,‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper only served to oppress.’

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12104 Oct 31, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
..and change scares the bejesus out of you.
Considering the "Hope and Change" sloganeering of the current C in C.......

Some things just don't change.....even when some things appear to change, that "change" doesn't always last.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12106 Oct 31, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
From the dissent in Conaway v. Deane quoting in part Lawrence v. Texas
“the result in Lawrence was not affected by the fact, acknowledged by the Court, that there had been no long history of tolerance for homosexuality. &#8194; Rather, in holding that ‘[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for the [&#8201;] purpose [of making intimate and personal choices], just as heterosexual persons do.’ &#8194;Lawrence rejected the notion that fundamental rights it had already identified could be restricted based on traditional assumptions about who should be permitted their protection. &#8194; As the Court noted,‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper only served to oppress.’
"Homosexuals" didn't exist until the late 19th century.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12107 Oct 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, no hostility......NO NEED TO......Kody only has one LEGAL wife.......the rest are "SUPPOSED" wives per their statements, but there is NOTHING registered to back up their claim!!!
[/QUOTE[

"Sister Wives", or spiritual wives.

[QUOTE]
Why would I personally feel ANY connection to women I DON'T even know?
[/QUOTE[

Ohhhhhh....of course, it that "outie" mixed with the "innies".:)

[QUOTE]
You are really reaching on that one......and besides, I ONLY have one legal wife and that's enough for me:-)
Who knows once marriage equality encompasses polygamy, it might open up a whole new world.

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#12108 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhhhhh........what? "Gay" as in "homosexual" ain't that old. So who was "beaten the crap out of" before then?
You don’t HONESTLY think that there was NO violence against gay people in the past, simply because the word “gay” wasn’t yet in use, do you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh of course it will...after all what percentage of legally married couples are same sex female, and same sex male?
Who cares?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Who knows, if history is any guide, SSM might not last that long.
And what does history tell you about how long this will last?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The constitution is open to interpretation. One judge, can reach a decision 180 degrees from another's. "Rights" that the founding father's would have found alien, or did not address, can be read into the constitution. "Sexual orientation" is a case in point. Words such as "homosexual", or "heterosexual", didn't even exist in 1787, nor would exist until a hundred years later.
The word “feminism” didn’t exist in 1787, either. Should we take back the vote from women, because the founders would have found it alien?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Silly me, but same sex sexual bonds are so vital to societal stability, that all human societies, cross time and place, have acknowledged them, couldn't function without them.
No, they AREN’T vital to societal stability. I’ve never said they are. But they ARE vital to a society which values fairness and equality, and which wants to allow everyone to establish their OWN stability.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why is conjugality, opposite sex expendable, but not monogamy, or cosanguinity? They can't be that vital or NECESSARY? Can they?
No, probably not. Again, I’ve never claimed they are. Quit strawmanning.

If we wanted to recognize incest or polygamy, we could. But marriage is currently arranged for 2 and only 2 people, making it nonfunctional for more than 2. And it establishes family, making it redundant (and bizarrely entangling) for people who are already family.

Why do I feel like I'm talking with a different person EVERY TIME? Why do I have to repeat these 2 points over and over?
Pietro Armando wrote:
What did the nice gay folks do before the invention of political sexual identity labels? After all, "homosexual" didn't appear until the late 1800s, "gay" to refer to "homosexual" a few decades after that. Maybe, just maybe, someone was looking for a way, other than Lucky Charms, to market the rainbow!
Right, we decided to stop hiding and demand equality, NOT for the sake of equality and happy lives, but because rainbows needed a PR boost. Sure.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please enlighten me. Same sex sexual behavior, SSSB, ain't new, yet, no cross time, cross place SSM? Why haven't human societies organized themselves around the "two person regardless of gender composition" marriage model?
LEVITICUS.

Or how about Matthew Shepard. Too recent? King Edward II, maybe? Astonishingly, statistics are not kept on violence against the LGBT community before 1970. BECAUSE NOBODY GAVE A CRAP WHAT HAPPENED TO US. YOU try building a social model, never mind a MARRIAGE model, in that hostile climate.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Irony? As in a "gay man" was a womanizer in decades past, to a "gay man" who isn't sexually attracted to women! That kind of irony?
Where the hell are you going? Our discussion is over HERE.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why stop there? Same sex trios? Polygamy? Polyamory? Include every ADULT HUMAN combo, yes?
Deflection. If you can’t argue against my point, just say so. Those others need an arrangement which takes multiple partners into consideration.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12109 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Homosexuals" didn't exist until the late 19th century.
Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of time....the word didn't exist until roughly 1890!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#12110 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who knows once marriage equality encompasses polygamy, it might open up a whole new world.
It might, but like I stated earlier.....polygamist aren't fighting for their right to marry multiple people.......and only the Browns are fighting to remove an aspect of the bigamy laws.....which the Browns haven't been charged with!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12111 Oct 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of time....the word didn't exist until roughly 1890!!!
Same sex sexual behavior has existed since the beginning of time. The concept of a "homosexual", or "heterosexual" identity is new.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#12112 Oct 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Homosexuals" didn't exist until the late 19th century.
Sure they did. They were just given a different label in different eras. You really struggle with the concept of language evolution don't you, small Peter?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12113 Oct 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
How am I wrong? Can a business owner who holds a business license refuse to serve any group he/she dislikes?
Prove those vendors disliked the customers and not the religious ceremony. I claim a business owner may decline to participate in a same sex wedding, a polygamous wedding or a Christian wedding, if they choose. I'm against PC bureaucrats and pro freedom.

.
Quest wrote:
What groups are included in that? Jews? Catholics? Blacks? Women? Muslims?
No, although gay marriage is against women, since male/male marriage is the only form of marriage that excludes females. If a photographer refused to attend a bris, I don't see the problem. I'm sure its happened before and it will happen again. Tolerance is different from celebration.

.
Quest wrote:
Or is it only gay couples?
Not even that, I'm sure they'd be delighted to do the wedding for a gay marrying a lesbian; the issue is the sacred marriage rite, not homosexuality.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to radically rewrite marriage laws for everybody. The issue is government's relationship to marriage and seeing husbands or wives disposable, not the right of same sex couples' freedom. Same sex religious marriage is legal in every state but its wrong to force Christian's to participate in religious ceremonies they find profane.

.
Quest wrote:
You might as well say that we need to keep interracial marriage illegal,
There's nothing in common between race and gender. Racial differences are unimportant and shallow but gender differences are critical to humanity's survival and pervade all of society. By the way, most of the US always recognized interracial and nobody defends anti-miscegenation laws.

They only continue this line of argument because they want to compare us to racists, for the emotional appeal.

.
Quest wrote:
to protect the religious rights of business owners to discriminate against those couples.
There are biblical arguments for interracial marriage. Nobody is discriminating against homosexuals or blacks; they're discriminating against supporting a same sex wedding rite because they believe marriage is one man and one woman. Let's argue the issues, not fantasy.

.
Quest wrote:
We don't harm a group of hardworking law-abiding Americans, simply to protect those who would illegally discriminate against them based on religion.
We have freedom to associate as you please, that works both ways. Tolerance means putting up with other peoples discrimination. We'res the harm? Couldn't they easily book another photographer, florist or baker? I've heard some supporters calling them fools for not lying and claiming another date or cancelling for a family emergency; they frankly disclosed their objections to same sex wedding rituals.

.
Quest wrote:
If you are unhappy with that, I suggest moving to a country that is government by religious law.
You first.

.
Quest wrote:
But I can tell you that many places under religious law aren't that friendly to Christians, either.
Many aren't friendly to gays, some are vicious. We should be fighting together against the real harm, not some imaginary harm from a baker that won't do your wedding gig.

Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor; its that bad.

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
Latest sow brawl brought to you from burger king 2 min Ugly monkeys 4
Hahaha! Bug-eyed Bill found guilty on all count! 4 min White Pride Patriot 6
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min sonicfilter 1,747,001
Bill Cosby Found Guilty! 6 min THX White Overlord 4
A PhD & A 1.5 Million Dollar Home? 7 min Jax 39
Forget starvation! Now they can't even get the... 11 min OPOP 9
Negroes need to be taken out with the garbage! 21 min Jake 10
James Shaw, the 29-year-old hero from Waffle Ho... 36 min Jake 200
Why is the media pushing interracial relationsh... (Sep '14) 1 hr thefucko 993
Black sow hoards hundreds of rats in her house 1 hr Master I M White 90
Bust of ROMAN Emperor found in Egypt. 2 hr Master I M White 83