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.

Im Still Here

Dublin, 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

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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.

lides

“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.

lides

“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.

lides

“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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

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.

lides

“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.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15303 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.
what does the word "all" mean when used in the context of the 14th amendment?
all men? all women? all people? all american residents? what does it mean?

when YOU understand the meaning, a light might turn on inside your noggin, there, brian, and you might be able to grasp that all of us living here in these united states are equally subject to the same laws of the united states constitution. not one gender over the other. not any one race over the other. not one person is over another.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15304 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.
since you, again, ignored the question, i'll post it for you now the 4th time :

we see where you skipped this question and request for some hard data :

"....and that "will" of the voters? how about you try to show us from ALL the eligible voters that were registered with those states, just how many voted against same sex marriage? how big was that percentile of the entire voting base in each of those states? "

why is it that you cannot EVER supply hard data or facts supported by real, provable data? is it just because you prefer to rely upon bumpersticker-like comments? is it that you're just inherently lazy? or are you afraid that the true facts will slap you in the head and make you see where you're wrong?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15305 Jan 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Which can also effect any number of relationship situations.
<quoted text>
"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?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
No, even adoptive children benefit when their adoptive mother and father are married.
<quoted text>
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.
Sisters already have a specific legal blood relationship.

Gays and lesbians already reproduce incase you didn't notice. Should divorced couples be disallowed marriage?

Adoptive children in same sex families benefit also. Should they benefit less?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15306 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
There are more women than men. Since you are committed to a reproductive model, you should be excited by the idea that the playing field could be leveled by killing more women in combat.

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15307 Jan 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The same legal protections as husband and wife?
Yes, the very same ones. Go find one, JUST ONE, legal protection afforded by marriage, that can ONLY function when the married parties are of the opposite sex.

Don't dodge, don't answer with another question, don't insist that I'm not getting to YOUR favorite "heart of the issue".

Go find a list of the legal protections that are put in place by marriage, and find A SINGLE ONE that must be changed in order to be applied to a same-sex couple.

Remember, there are 1,138 of them, and I'm only asking for ONE.

If you cannot do it, then YES, these are the EXACT same legal protections as a husband and wife have.

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15308 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution...
The rights listed in the Constitution are not exhaustive or all-inclusive. The 9th Amendment makes this clear. Many "rights" that we enjoy and take for granted are not in the Constitution. Martial law, the right to privacy, a jury of ones peers, no taxation without representation, the list goes on and on. Just because something is not listed in the Constitution, does not mean that it is barred or illegal.

“A long time ago”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#15309 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
when Obama and the left push women into combat units, the deaths and injury by combat or training accident rests on them alone.
WOMEN are the ones pushing for this. Many of them WANT to be included in combat. They WANT to have the opportunity to serve their country to the fullest of their ability, which can include dying for it in combat against an enemy. You make it sound like they are being FORCED into combat, unwillingly. Women WANTED this. They SUED for it.

Who do the deaths and injuries by combat or training accident rest on NOW? Men may enlist just as willingly as women.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15310 Jan 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
And the majority in Utah, California, Iowa and where it began, Massachusetts; all these states had marriage redefined by activist courts.
Actually, the courts performed their constitutionally appointed duty of judicial review which found the laws/state amendments unconstitutional.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
They ignored law, precedent and the consent of the governed to impose their morality by court decree,
All of the decisions about which you whine are well reasoned, following existing legal precedents and mandated constitutional tests and are well documented with case citations.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
not legislation or referendum.
SCOTUS ruled in Wet Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that fundamental rights like marriage :...may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Why do you hate the judicial branch of government, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
It only seems that way to lying, whiny bigots.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15311 Jan 8, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No was denied the right to marry, as marriage, and the associated right have been understood and defined.
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
Ya think so.....uhhhhhh...huh....and all of a sudden there's a "couple's right" to not only marry, but redefine marriage in the process! In this situation, activist judges do indeed exist.
.......and it's funny how it's ONLY activism if the Judge DOESN'T rule the way you want him or her to!!!
No, it's activism when a judge discovers, and/or invents a right, as in this case, a "couple's right", that never before existed.
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!!!
"Minorities groups right to marry"?! So now it's not only a "couple's right", but a "minorities group right". Where will it end? The disagreement is over the redefinition of marriage.

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
Whos the weirdest troll - T-bos or SadButTrue ? (Jun '17) 6 min Hmm 20
Bust of ROMAN Emperor found in Egypt. 7 min Barros 63
James Shaw, the 29-year-old hero from Waffle Ho... 9 min The Patriot 165
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 11 min Barros 39,938
News A teen made a promposal with a joke about black... 12 min Paul 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min My New Alias RULES 1,746,430
Zoo keeper caught sexing bear cub at the zoo;GU... 16 min Ugly monkeys 9
Trump has Melania and black men don't 23 min Roofis tells da t... 67
the origin of the pink species 2 hr new black panther... 19
Black sow hoards hundreds of rats in her house 4 hr yep 56