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.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#15525 Jan 14, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
#19
Oklahoma's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage struck down!
http://www.edgeboston.com/news/national/News/...
I love it!

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern described Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15526 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there was a federal judge in Utah who ruled in favor of a plural marriage family.......do you mean him?
Oh dear. Pietro repeats one of his favorite falsehoods again. It doesn't matter how many times he is corrected. He just keeps misrepresenting the truth.

The judge ruled that Utah cannot forbid adults to cohabitate, bringing it into line with 49 other states and all of our territories and protectorates. Marriage is still a reciprocal relationship between two people.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#15527 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh....Kay
<quoted text>
That's just it! The individual right to marry, has been replaced, as you indicate with a couple's right. So if there's a couple's right, specifically a "same sex couple's right", does that mean any one can create a relationship and have the state designate it "marriage"?
<quoted text>
Nothing has been replaced small Peter, it's been expanded to include same sex marriage. Doesn't affect my preexisting marriage at all. I am still married to the same man, nothing has been added or subtracted (you with me so far?).

Now a new group of people can also enjoy the same benefits that I have. You seem to think something has to go, no nothing. Try lighting a candle, now use that candle to light another candle. No both candles are burning, is the first candle changed in any way? Don't think so. The only change is that there is twice as much light. Get it?(probably not)

What is it about "same sex couple's right" that you don't understand. Does it mean plural marriage? No. Does it mean incestuous? No. Does it mean you love your dog maybe a little too much? No. It's just "same sex couples". Any lights coming on in your brain yet?

Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light for the rest of us.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15528 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So what union.....what definition of marriage, is at the heart of the fundamental right to marry? Can anyone define marriage and it still remain a fundamental right?
The right to marry the person you love and to have a family with that person.

Here let me help you.

Fundamental Right

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...

Due Process and equal protection mean a great deal. Many fundamental rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15529 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I have no desire to punish anyone for their sexual orientation or any other trait; that's not how I roll.
Advocating discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights isn't rewarding gays, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I defend marriage as one man and one woman because it benefits gays, whether they realize it or not.
Gays are the judges of what benefits them, not you, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Reason One for keeping marriage one man and one woman: posterity. Every gay was born of heterosexual union; if that's unfair, that's life. Tough love, marriage's not for everybody.
Since procreation isn't requirement of marriage and marriage isn't required to procreate, the survival of the human race isn't dependent on marriage remaining opposite sex. That's the stance and reasoning of a bigot.
Brian_G wrote:
T.F., I don't insult and demean people who support same sex marriage
You insult and demean gays when you advocate discrimination against them and infringement of their fundamental rights.
Brian_G wrote:
I just note they prefer sex segregation to perfectly sex integrated marriage - my sole objection here.
Since one's choice of marriage partner is a constitutionally guaranteed liberty interest subject only to restrictions based on legitimate compelling government interests, whether two gays, two heterosexuals, two men, two women, two whites or two blacks voluntarily choose to marry isn't subject to your approval.
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always existed, in the West they've never had so much freedom but ignoring the life and death plight of homosexuals in Tehran because of a same sex marriage agenda is evil and anti-life.
US gays aren't responsible for the government policies in Iran and have limited to no means at their disposal to change such policies. On the other hand, gay US citizens have a constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances such as discrimination and infringement of their fundamental rights.

Why do you begrudge gays exercising that constitutional right, Brian? Isn't it enough that you advocate infringement of their fundamental right to marry? Are you now going to target all of their constitutional rights?
Brian_G wrote:
Human rights should be universal; let's fight for what we agree, not bicker over redefining marriage.
Feel free to go to Iran and make a stand for recognition of the human rights of gays, Brian. Or is the extent of your willingness "to fight" for their rights limited to occasionally posting about the plight of gays in Russia and Iran?
Brian_G wrote:
For the sake of gays, lesbians and transsexuals punished by their governments for victim less 'crimes'.
Then you should be really ticked of when gays are the victims of law breakers in the US. Yet you constantly advocate that Christians who illegally discriminate against gays shouldn't be punished and effectively should be above the law.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman, some don't.
It would be more accurate to state a few gays defend opposite sex only marriage while most gays favor the ability of same sex couples to marry. Regardless, a majority of ALL people in national polls now favor legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Everyone's free to defend their views.
No one's stopping you from expressing your views here in Topix. On the contrary, you're the one who's bragged about having the posts of your opponents deleted by Topix. However, like many bigots, you mistakenly think you have a constitutional right to be free from criticism and public commentary That's simply a delusion on your part, Brian.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15530 Jan 14, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear. Pietro repeats one of his favorite falsehoods again. It doesn't matter how many times he is corrected. He just keeps misrepresenting the truth.
What truth did I misrepresent Jeffy?
The judge ruled that Utah cannot forbid adults to cohabitate, bringing it into line with 49 other states and all of our territories and protectorates. Marriage is still a reciprocal relationship between two people.
A plural marriage family brings a lawsuit against the state of Utah criminalizing their marital relationship, and the judge rules in their favor.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15531 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry the person you love and to have a family with that person.
Nice...but it didn't answer the question. By your reasoning, any person one chooses to love and have a family with, one can marry. Man oh man Wastey, for someone who is a polyaphobe, you sure do continue to provide more reasons for legal plural marriage. Kody Brown loves the Missus Browns, and he has a family with them.

Here's what I originally wrote:

Pietro Armando wrote:
Really? So what union.....what definition of marriage, is at the heart of the fundamental right to marry? Can anyone define marriage and it still remain a fundamental right?
Fundamental Right
Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...
Due Process and equal protection mean a great deal. Many fundamental rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution.
Ya still haven't answer the questions I posed.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15532 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What truth did I misrepresent Jeffy?
<quoted text>
A plural marriage family brings a lawsuit against the state of Utah criminalizing their marital relationship, and the judge rules in their favor.
The problem is that their lawsuit wasn't about getting the right to marry more than one person, it was about having the right to COHABITANT with whom ever one pleased to!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15533 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but NO it hasn't.......marrying is still the right of individuals who opt to marry each other!!!
Based on how the state defines legal marriage.
Well, you've basically lost 2 States in the last few weeks......so, now you are down to 30....how many will your side lose this year?
Not quite yet.....SCOTUS hasn't chimed in yet.
Where did SCOTUS say that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT just in the case regarding a man and a woman? See, they DIDN'T!!!
Oh by all means find the cases that even remotely indicate marriage is a fundamental right based on the female same sex union, or the right to marry one's same sex consenting person of one's choosing.

I betcha there are more cases indicating marriage as right based on the male female union as husband and wife, than there are cases based on the lesbian union of wife and wife. But you are the researcher........

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15534 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same sex attraction and/or same sex sexual behavior, I agree is it new. Attaching an identity to it, is. So yes, one does adopt such an identity. One chooses to call him/herself "gay", "bi", etc.
Saying one is gay or bi or straight is merely stating one's sexual orientation. Perhaps YOUR identity is defined solely in terms of your sexual orientation; if so, that explains a lot about you, and not much of it good.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both an "orientation" and a sexual identity label.
And which one is intended is determined by the speaker, not the listener.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How is it not an "innate sexual orientation"?
Because sexual orientation defines which sex (or sexes) one is attracted to, not how many people with whom you want to have intimate emotional or sexual relationships simultaneously.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The U.S. Army helped too.
God works in mysterious ways.
Pietro Armando wrote:
And are subject to interpretation.
Yes, the very thing you sometimes whine about judges actually doing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They were likely just as miffed at any effort by he federal government to undermine white supremacy with in their state.
That describes the entire South.
Pietro Armando wrote:
After all who were they to forbid white black interracial marriage in an effort to prevent miscegenation of the race, yet turn a blind eye to white black.....white male black female...specifically....sexua l intermixing.....which of course does lead to "miscegenation" of the race....mixed race babies. Sally Hennings?
If you disagree with the definitions of miscegenation within Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, I suggest you take it up with Virginia's legislature.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's a brave new world, thanks to legal SSM!
Each issue is decided on its own merits in a court of law, small Peter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15535 Jan 14, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing has been replaced small Peter,
Easy there day dream, Little Terry calls me Little Peter, you and I haven't debated long enough.
it's been expanded to include same sex marriage.
Now you're borrowing a line from Nor Calli. Nice line though. "...expanded to include same sex couples"...... imagine the expansion possibilities.....polygyny.... polyandry....polyamory.....
Doesn't affect my preexisting marriage at all. I am still married to the same man, nothing has been added or subtracted (you with me so far?).
Ditto once marriage is expanded to include plural marriage relationships as well.
Now a new group of people can also enjoy the same benefits that I have. You seem to think something has to go, no nothing. Try lighting a candle, now use that candle to light another candle. No both candles are burning, is the first candle changed in any way? Don't think so. The only change is that there is twice as much light. Get it?(probably not)
You're on a roll....you go girl! Plural marriage practitioners can be the next group to enjoy the same benefits you have.
What is it about "same sex couple's right" that you don't understand. Does it mean plural marriage? No. Does it mean incestuous? No. Does it mean you love your dog maybe a little too much? No. It's just "same sex couples". Any lights coming on in your brain yet?
Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light for the rest of us.
What is it about the legally recognized union of husband and wife as the sole legal basis for marriage? Does it mean same sex couples? No. Does it mean plural marriage? No. Does it mean incestuous? No. Ohhhhhhhhhhh......but wait...you're one of those same sex marriage advocates that think plural marriage, or any other form of marriage is somehow not worthy to be in the same consideration as the secular sacred cow know as 'same sex marriage'. In time you too will see the light. That a plural marriage family of one man and four women as husband and wives, and their children of course, has no effect on your marriage, or those of same sex couples.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15536 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I DON'T have to do the research because we both know that was NEVER stated....just like it was NEVER stated that the Fundamental Right applied ONLY to a man and a woman......so, either marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for all regardless of the specific couple make-up or it's NOT a Fundamental right just for a specific gender type couple!!!

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15537 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If the compelling government interest in marriage upon which conjugality is based is removed, then it's reasonable to foresee the possibility of monogamy, and/of consanguinity, also being removed.
If it were a constitutional requirement to have a compelling state interest to recognize the fundamental right of marriage, perhaps. But as you've been told numerous times, that's NOT the constitutional requirement. The constitutional requirement is the state must allow citizens to freely exercise their fundamental rights subject only to restrictions based on a legitimate compelling government interest.

When you refuse to learn, you're condemned to repeat this mistake over and over, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
At that point, legal marriage may become pointless, if it means everything and anything.
Then you're under no obligation to exercise your fundamental right of marriage if you think that right is meaningless. Or perhaps you intend to divorce your wife when you deem marriage reaches that point.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Conjugality" as in male female, husband and wife, OPPOSITE SEX.

con·ju·gal
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
2. pertaining to the relation between marriage partners.

conjugal

— adj
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife

link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjug...

~~~~~~~~~~

Conjugality isn't about "male" and "female", it's something that's characteristic of marriage or about the relationship resulting from marriage, whether that be "spouses" or your preferred "husband and wife". So again, it plies equally to anyone that is married and not limited by your inadequate definition of it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes, several states have done away with it, as the sole basis for legal marriage.
Nope; all marriages still confer conjugality, regardless of the sex of the marriage partners.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhhh...huh.....down is now up.
No, stupid (you) is still stupid.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15538 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I DON'T have to do the research because we both know that was NEVER stated....just like it was NEVER stated that the Fundamental Right applied ONLY to a man and a woman...
Sigh.....really Nor Cal.....considering that the ONLY definition of marriage that existed for all but ten years of American history is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as HUSBAND AND WIFE, is there really any confusion.....plus add to that fact that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" to refer to men and women who engaged in same sex sexual behavior and expressed a same sex sexual attraction.,
...so, either marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for all regardless of the specific couple make-up or it's NOT a Fundamental right just for a specific gender type couple!!!
Ahhhhhhh but the problem with that mi amica, is that once one starts to claim a fundamental right to marriage based on how one defines marriage, not on how marriage has been historically understood and defined, one runs the risk of it becoming meaningless....expanded beyond it's originally intent. So you claim it's based on the couple regardless of gender make up, another could claim it includes the right to more than one wife, or husband, still another to group marriage......

Utah is an interesting situation because within its constitution is a prohibition against polygamy. How can a federal judge tell the state they cannot constitutionally define marriage within the state as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, without in essence declaring the polygamy constitutional prohibition null and void...or whatever the proper legal term would be.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15539 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sigh.....really Nor Cal.....considering that the ONLY definition of marriage that existed for all but ten years of American history is the union of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN as HUSBAND AND WIFE, is there really any confusion....
Again, it is IRRELEVANT what SCOTUS meant or implied in the 14 rulings regarding the right to marry in the PAST.........what MATTERS is will SCOTUS STILL continue to rule that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT knowing that 18-20 States have granted the right to marry to Same-Sex Couples? Or will SCOTUS rule that marriage was ALWAYS and ONLY a Fundamental right for a man and a woman? How do you think your side will fair when that VERY specific question is asked of SCOTUS?

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15540 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well there was a federal judge in Utah who ruled in favor of a plural marriage family.......do you mean him?
Except that federal judge didn't rule in favor of plural marriage, did he intellectually dishonest Peter? Court rulings are based on the issues challenged, not characteristics of the plaintiffs.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15541 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
What truth did I misrepresent Jeffy?
A full listing would likely exceed Topix' 4000 character limit.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A plural marriage family brings a lawsuit against the state of Utah criminalizing their marital relationship, and the judge rules in their favor.
The state of Utah didn't criminalize their marital relationship, lying Peter; it criminalized their living arrangement and their assertion that some of the family members had been joined in a religious marriage even though there was only one civil marriage license amongst the lot of them and no one had entered into more than one civil marriage with another person.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15542 Jan 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ahhhhhhh but the problem with that mi amica, is that once one starts to claim a fundamental right to marriage based on how one defines marriage, not on how marriage has been historically understood and defined, one runs the risk of it becoming meaningless....expanded beyond it's originally intent.
Says who? Is your marriage meaningless? Since when is YOUR marriage based on other marriages? Where do you people get this stuff?!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15543 Jan 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
A plural marriage family brings a lawsuit against the state of Utah criminalizing their marital relationship, and the judge rules in their favor.
Only if you didn't bother to read the ruling, moron. He overturned the laws criminalizing their SEXUAL relationship, the laws prohibiting their 'spiritual' marriages from being legally recognized weren't even challenged. Do you get it now?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15544 Jan 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:

Utah is an interesting situation because within its constitution is a prohibition against polygamy. How can a federal judge tell the state they cannot constitutionally define marriage within the state as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, without in essence declaring the polygamy constitutional prohibition null and void...or whatever the proper legal term would be.
Because your "in essence" theory is completely made up by you. You are talking about two separate cases. Neither was about legalizing polygamy.

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
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 3 min Trollslayer 52,366
Melania get yourself a Black Man!!! 11 min Back Whipping Master 349
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 12 min Jamiela James 39,942
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min Jacques Ottawa 1,746,764
Black sow hoards hundreds of rats in her house 17 min Back Whipping Master 78
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 20 min TRUETRUTH 138,767
deport whites from south africa and america 27 min BillyDbigballer 12
James Shaw, the 29-year-old hero from Waffle Ho... 40 min BillyDbigballer 192
A PhD & A 1.5 Million Dollar Home? 57 min El Rey del Mundo 23
Trump has Melania and black men don't 1 hr highlynutsyournuts 86
Bust of ROMAN Emperor found in Egypt. 4 hr Whites have no hi... 79