Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Read more

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15283 Jan 7, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The same legal protections as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
It is.
<quoted text>
The same advantages as a husband and wife raising their own children, products of their union? How is that possible?
<quoted text>
There ya go again, speaking out for plural marriage families. What a guy!
Family tax, inheritance, and child care etc. At least 1,800 legal consequences which put same-sex families at a disadvantage.

Biological relationships are irrelevant. Would you deprive adopted children and children raised by step parents the advantages of marriage?

Plural marriage is equally irrelevant.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#15284 Jan 7, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Biological relationships are irrelevant. Would you deprive adopted children and children raised by step parents the advantages of marriage?
And seeing that once a couple adopts, that adoptive child is then considered just as much a "REAL" child as are ANY biological children.......in fact the couple might as well have given birth to that adoptive child because that is how the courts will view that child....plain and simple!!!

This is just one of many reasons that marriage is so much considered a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and that ALL families deserve the same legal protection under the law and another reason why Same-Sex couples seek the right to marry!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15285 Jan 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
YOU don't consent, there's a difference.
And the majority in Utah, California, Iowa and where it began, Massachusetts; all these states had marriage redefined by activist courts. They ignored law, precedent and the consent of the governed to impose their morality by court decree, not legislation or referendum.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

“Electronic graffiti”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#15286 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>And the majority in Utah, California, Iowa and where it began, Massachusetts; all these states had marriage redefined by activist courts. They ignored law, precedent and the consent of the governed to impose their morality by court decree, not legislation or referendum.
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
The Mormons redefined marriage back in the 19C in Utah. Then they had to make it monogamous again in 1890, in order to become a state.

“Electronic graffiti”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Camp Cove

#15287 Jan 8, 2014
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and the word fa@@ot means “a bundle of sticks and branches bound together” but idiots like this goon have no issue with using it as a derogatory term for Gay Men.
Yeah, that's sad but true.

The reason it came to mean that, was that it was firewood used to burn homosexual men and others @ the stake. Glad those days are gone.
:-(((

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15288 Jan 8, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
The Mormons redefined marriage back in the 19C in Utah. Then they had to make it monogamous again in 1890, in order to become a state.
Exactly, we have the right to define marriage equality in law, we won in 1890 and we'll win again today.

Marriage is one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic and sex segregationist.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15289 Jan 8, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
Yeah, that's sad but true. The reason it came to mean that, was that it was firewood used to burn homosexual men and others @ the stake. Glad those days are gone.:-(((
Me too, but believe it or not, the left is working to bring that back. Focusing on same sex marriage instead of fundamental human rights to exist as a homosexual in many nations' laws is a moral wrong. I'm for human rights and tolerance, condemning nations that criminalize consensual same sex behavior. I defend one man and one woman marriage because that's the civilized and humane position. Redefining marriage, especially by court decree or criminalizing same sex behavior are the extreme positions. I'm a moderate.

“"Boss Of Bosses"”

Level 1

Since: Dec 11

New York New York

#15290 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, we have the right to define marriage equality in law, we won in 1890 and we'll win again today.
Marriage is one man and one woman. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic and sex segregationist.
You've already lost moron ! Yet another BIG D-U-H for you bumper sticker boy ! How many states now ? 17 ? By the end of the decade it will be 50 ! You're simply to delusional to realize this !

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15291 Jan 8, 2014
I'm more interested in the states where the voters never consented to changing marriage, by electing the legislature that enacted the law or by referendum. We won the election but an activist court decreed its own morality over law, precedent and common sense.

How many states now? Utah, California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico; all with sex segregated marriage imposed by activist court decree. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Im Still Here

Livermore, CA

#15292 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I'm more interested in the states where the voters never consented to changing marriage, by electing the legislature that enacted the law or by referendum. We won the election but an activist court decreed its own morality over law, precedent and common sense.
How many states now? Utah, California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico; all with sex segregated marriage imposed by activist court decree. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Yeah,don't you hate it when that pesky OL Constitution gets in your way Bri ? LoL

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#15293 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I'm more interested in the states where the voters never consented to changing marriage, by electing the legislature that enacted the law or by referendum. We won the election but an activist court decreed its own morality over law, precedent and common sense.
How many states now? Utah, California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico; all with sex segregated marriage imposed by activist court decree. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Look Brian, when voters enact UNCONSTITUTIONAL bans like denying someone the right to marry, those individual citizens have the right to seek justice by filing lawsuits and having their day in court.

This is part of that democratic process you claim is important........and Judges decide based on the arguments presented and the laws that are in place by our Constitution to rule......some side wins and the other side loses. There is NO activist Judge imposing their will..........and it's funny how it's ONLY activism if the Judge DOESN'T rule the way you want him or her to!!!

What's truly anti-democratic is to put to a vote a minorities groups right to marry simply because you DON'T agree with WHO they are or WHO they want to marry!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15294 Jan 8, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
The Mormons redefined marriage back in the 19C in Utah.
They simply practiced a form of marriage common throughout human history.
Then they had to make it monogamous again in 1890, in order to become a state.
Yes they did, but in each form of marriage, they still retained the two basic elements, male and female.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15295 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I'm more interested in the states where the voters never consented to changing marriage, by electing the legislature that enacted the law or by referendum. We won the election but an activist court decreed its own morality over law, precedent and common sense.
How many states now? Utah, California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico; all with sex segregated marriage imposed by activist court decree. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
You are about to witness states' voters reconsidering and reversing their bans. Maybe it's time you got with the program.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15296 Jan 8, 2014
There's no gender equality right in our Constitution; keeping marriage one man and one woman is perfectly constitutional. Criminalizing same sex behavior or redefining marriage to license sex segregated marriage are the extremist, radical positions. Keeping marriage as is, that's the centrist solution.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15297 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There's no gender equality right in our Constitution; keeping marriage one man and one woman is perfectly constitutional. Criminalizing same sex behavior or redefining marriage to license sex segregated marriage are the extremist, radical positions. Keeping marriage as is, that's the centrist solution.
Brian, are women people?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15298 Jan 8, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Family tax, inheritance, and child care etc.
Which can also effect any number of relationship situations.
At least 1,800 legal consequences which put same-sex families at a disadvantage.
"Same sex families"? Two sisters raising one or both of their biological daughters,or even adopted daughters, would be also be an example of a same sex family, should they be allowed to marry, and not be put at a disadvantage?
Biological relationships are irrelevant.
Their the ties that bind, and the reason marriage is a recognized union. Human reproduction is sexual, and the state has a vested interest in men and women creating and raising their children together in a stable marital home.
Would you deprive adopted children and children raised by step parents the advantages of marriage?
No, even adoptive children benefit when their adoptive mother and father are married.
Plural marriage is equally irrelevant.
So much for your objection to not treating all families equally, or treating some different than others. Nice....real nice. I guess they don't make the cut.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15299 Jan 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhh....huh. So now "limiting" marriage to a union of one man and one woman as 'husband and wife' is suddenly not constitutional?
Pietro, wake up. I have been saying this for some time. If the restriction keeps citizens from a protection of the law, and the restriction serves no compelling governmental interest, then it is absolutely unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And it does. The state has a vested interest in privileging that union, male female, which can and does produce the next generation.
Sorry, Pietro, that argument doesn't pass muster. Procreation and legal marriage are not intrinsically linked. Infertile couples are regularly allowed to marry, and unmarried couple regularly procreate. Your argument fails on every level.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage serves to bind men and women to each other and provide a publicly recognized union for them and their children. It is vital for societal stability. By contrast, a sane sex union produces nothing.
No, Pietro, you are wrong. People may legally marry with no intention, or ability, to have or raise children. Procreation is utterly irrelevant to legal marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes. Again....a same sex union is just that. There has never been a societal need for a "same sex" marriage, a contradiction in terms, for such a union produces nothing generating a state interest.
Sorry, Pietro, you still haven't offered a compelling state interest served by excluding same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage. You have proven that you are dumber than a rock.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15300 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I'm more interested in the states where the voters never consented to changing marriage, by electing the legislature that enacted the law or by referendum. We won the election but an activist court decreed its own morality over law, precedent and common sense.
How many states now? Utah, California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico; all with sex segregated marriage imposed by activist court decree. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Brian, are you an idiot?
Is marriage a fundamental right? Here's a hint, the Supreme Court says that it is.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

When you continue to spout this garbage after someone has explained to your the error of your logic, repeatedly, you start to look like a complete and total imbecile.

Should I be able to vote on your free speech, freedom of religion, or right to keep and bear arms?

My guess is that, as usual, you will be too cowardly to respond.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15301 Jan 8, 2014
lides wrote:
Brian, are women people?
Yes and they are not men. The 14th Amendment explicitly acknowledge male/female inequality just as it acknowledges the inequality between citizen and noncitizen or adult and minor. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution so when Obama and the left push women into combat units, the deaths and injury by combat or training accident rests on them alone.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15302 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Yes and they are not men. The 14th Amendment explicitly acknowledge male/female inequality just as it acknowledges the inequality between citizen and noncitizen or adult and minor. There is no gender equality right in the Constitution so when Obama and the left push women into combat units, the deaths and injury by combat or training accident rests on them alone.
Brian, is the second section of the 14th Amendment, which you reference here by implication, still in effect?

So long as women are "people" they are entitled to equal protection of the laws because of the 14th Amendment, Section 1.

You look like an idiot when you make the gender equality argument. Then again, you look like an idiot most every time you post.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min PolakPotrafi 1,207,897
Are white women attracted to black men? (Aug '06) 3 min Gargantos 122,892
The myth of the big black penis is ruining blac... (Oct '11) 7 min marcodascarperia 276
Focusing on the big picture 7 min MFM2912 7
Poll Are mexicans and native americans the same? (Nov '07) 10 min RealGirl10 299
Where's the most dangerous place on earth? Arou... 10 min Dangerous 1
News Skinny House recommended for historic designation 13 min Oh No You Di-nt 1
Why Whites can use the "N" word 14 min Oh No You Di-nt 71
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 49 min Big Knob 112,764
What the hell is going on with black men? 1 hr RealGirl10 46
Biracial IS NOT black 3 hr AmeliaSkunks 544
More from around the web