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!

#18465 Mar 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
But of course, and men and women are guaranteed equal protection when they enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
We are also GUARANTEED equal protection when we enter into legally recognized unions as husband and husband as well as wife and wife whether you like it or NOT!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18466 Mar 29, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong.
Yes, you are.
You see again your side has lost every battle for freedom and equality since civil war..
This has nothing to do with freedom or equality.
I am saying your idea,s and thinking is just like Hitler and the Nazi demons. Your control people and discriminate people and force people to your ways is very Nazi....
Where do u get this stuff from?

http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/b...
Likes I said your side(meaning your way of thinking) has always lost. ALWAYS WILL .
Do tell....which "side" is that?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18467 Mar 29, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
We are also GUARANTEED equal protection when we enter into legally recognized unions as husband and husband as well as wife and wife whether you like it or NOT!!
That's not equal protection, but redundant protection.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18470 Mar 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not equal protection, but redundant protection.
That's where you're wrong Pete........it's EQUAL PROTECTION under the Constitution and again just because you CAN'T see that.....is why you have trouble with this discussion!!!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18471 Mar 29, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>When I have to fend off your liberal spawn, it is.
That's a fallacious excuse for your horrible behavior. Using stupid labels is trite and childish. When are you going to grow up?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18472 Mar 29, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That's where you're wrong Pete........it's EQUAL PROTECTION under the Constitution and again just because you CAN'T see that.....is why you have trouble with this discussion!!!
Exactly. Let's just call it wishful thinking on his part.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18473 Mar 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not equal protection, but redundant protection.
You have yet to produce evidence that the State has an interest in marriage, as a reproductive necessity, or has an interest in keeping the union of one man and one woman, as the only union which is legal.

Because there isn't any.

Prejudice is allowed, dear - you are free to think whatever you like about the definition of marriage, and define it FOR YOURSELF accordingly. Discrimination against those who believe otherwise from you, however, is not allowed. Those other folks are ALSO FREE to define marriage for themselves, and the law will read accordingly.

Get the hell over it, and move on, man.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18474 Mar 29, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why not? The man and woman can exchange vows in front of family and friends, accept each other as husband and wife, and live as husband and wife.
What you describe is a common law marriage which used to be universally recognized but is now legally recognized as marriage in approximately 10 states. However, if such a marriage occurs within one of those states legally recognizing it, then all other states will also give it legal recognition under the full faith and credit clause even though they would not recognize such a claim originally made within their borders.

That doesn't change that every state, including those recognizing common law marriages, still criminalizes bigamy. So if someone claimed multiple common law marriages within a common law marriage state they would violate anti-bigamy laws even in the absence of multiple civil marriage licenses if they in fact they met the requirements for having a common law marriage legally recognized as such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True.
True.
True. However the state can create a plural marriage license. As to the bigamy, it could still be an issue, if someone fraudulently obtains more than one marriage license.
A plural marriage license inherently violates anti-bigamy laws since the criminal violation is having more than one spouse, not more than one marriage license. Such laws would need to be rescinded prior to establishing plural marriage laws and licensing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another difference is that plural marriage/polygamy is a valid form of marriage thou gouge tout time and place, whereas SSM, other than a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, it's virtually a modern western invention.
And another difference is federal courts are recognizing at an increasing rate prohibitions against civil same sex marriage violate the federal constitution while no federal court has made such a ruling regarding plural civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As could you.
I'm not the one who's bigoted with respect to marriage. That would be YOU. You oppose both same sex and plural marriage while I oppose neither.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like the laws banning incest cannot be sustained then.
Except legitimate compelling state interests against incest marriage other than "tradition" or acceptance have already been articulated and accepted by the judiciary.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So what sexual behavior, if any could be "discriminated" against?
Acts involving underage children (who can't legally give informed consent), acts with a non consenting adult and public sexual acts come immediately to mind.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#18475 Mar 29, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>When I have to fend off your liberal spawn, it is.
LMAO! My kids can beat up your kids any day of the week;0)

Silly little person......

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18477 Mar 30, 2014
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18478 Mar 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.
Same sex marriage is all about marriage, Brian. It's about two people, entering into a social contract, which provides them with legally recognized benefits. It's about equality of TREATMENT under the law, with regard to those benefits. And it's about the butt stuff.....don't forget the butt stuff.

Have you bought your corn-hole cork today, Brian? You know, the one to replace the one those hordes of gay men ripped out, in pursuit of your nether regions, yesterday?

Get over yourself, and quit thinking about other people's sex lives. It's none of your business.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18480 Mar 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.
Brian, equal protection of the law is not bigoted, nor is it unequal. It certainly isn't segregation. Keeping people from being able to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing is segregation.

You are an idiot and a liar, Brian. Quit being a troll, you pathetic and stupid person.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18481 Mar 30, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.
Is this your new approach? It's as ridiculous as your other approaches!!!

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18482 Mar 30, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare equal rights for homosexuals. No matter how hard you stomp your dainty feet and bay at the moon, there's no provision for rump rangers in our founding documents. In fact, in those days, perverts like you would be imprisoned.
Perhaps YOU should "grow up" and investigate your mental condition, then reach out for help. The desire to be sodomized by another man isn't sane.
Nowhere in the Constitution, is the right of consenting adults to be married to the adult they love, prohibited, LRD. No matter how hard you stomp your dung-clotted feet, and cry into your beer, there's no provision for heterosexuals to own the legal term of 'marriage' in our founding documents. In fact, in those days, homosexuality was just as prevalent - but since the 1960's or so, there have been more, and better argued, attempts to acknowledge the folks who practice it, as 'normal'. Perhaps you should learn to read.

The DSM III removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders nearly 50 years ago, hon.

Next....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18483 Mar 30, 2014
The purpose of so-called 'socially conservative' legislation, is to remove, restrict, or redefine, the rights of SOME citizens. Therefore it is always wrong, and Unconstitutional.

The United States Constitution is not in the business of removing, restricting, or redefining, the rights it recognizes. It is in the business of RECOGNIZING them, and others not yet recognized when it was written.

However, socially 'conservative' legislation serves a dual purpose, in today's political discourse: It also distracts us from paying attention to other things which are the legitimate concerns of everyone, including 'social conservatives'.

Things such as
The environment of the only habitable planet of which we humans are aware, and how much damage we're willing to do to it in the name of 'profit'.

The economies which fuel all human activity, and the driving forces behind them....and whether or not the economy is fueled by greed, and manipulated by the few, to the detriment of the many.

And the scarcity of domestic opportunity, as a result of having shipped so much of the US Economy overseas.

This is what we SHOULD be obsessed with - but instead of paying attention to all the nefarious actions regarding our ECONOMIC liberties, the 'social conservatives' are waving red flags about who's screwing who in the wrong hole, in an effort to take away our attention from the fact that our economic liberties are in terrible peril. We're going off a cliff alright, but it ain't because "god". It's because we've allowed ourselves to be distracted by the guy fishing in the surf, and refused to face the oncoming tidal wave.

We're looking at a time when corporate shareholders can cite their faith as reason to hire, or offer services to, only certain otherwise qualified persons. When one's employer can legally dictate to us what we can and cannot use our wages to purchase. When the law allows an employer's religious views to be the arbiter of an employee's right to marry the person they love, or plan one's family.

Really people? Gay marriage is what keeps you awake at night?

How pathetic.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18484 Mar 30, 2014
What we're REALLY looking at (those of us who are awake, that is)
is the right of corporations to claim public lands for exclusive corporate use, pollute indiscriminately, get rid of public safety and health regulations, gut the public education treasury, promote and install the legislators of their choice, illegalize unions, and continue to print money as if it were toilet paper.

Which at this point, it nearly is.

There is a lot more at stake here than whether or not two consenting adults of whatever gender can marry...but we seem to be quite happy arguing about that, rather than rising up in a cohesive body, and demanding our economy back. As it stands, we might as well call this country The Western States of China.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18485 Mar 30, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Nowhere in the Constitution, is the right of consenting adults to be married to the adult they love, prohibited, LRD.
Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.
No matter how hard you stomp your dung-clotted feet, and cry into your beer, there's no provision for heterosexuals to own the legal term of 'marriage' in our founding documents.
The word "heterosexual" didn't exist then, nor did "homosexual" which wasn't coined until the late 19th century, in Germany. As for ownership of the word "marriage", considering it's virtually a male female union throughout time and place, not to mention its concept as such within our collective cultural, social, and/or religious consciousness as such, it's fair to say, men AND women own the word.
In fact, in those days, homosexuality was just as prevalent - but since the 1960's or so, there have been more, and better argued, attempts to acknowledge the folks who practice it, as 'normal'. Perhaps you should learn to read.
Sure....anything can be acknowledged as "normal" if we change the meaning of normal.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18486 Mar 30, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is all about marriage, Brian.
Uhhhhhhh.....how is "same sex marriage" all about marriage, the institution of husband and wife?
It's about two people, entering into a social contract, which provides them with legally recognized benefits. It's about equality of TREATMENT under the law, with regard to those benefits.
Or to put it another way. It's about a man and a woman entering into a social contract known as "marriage", to accept each other, live, and interact, as husband and wife. The state provides legally recognized benefits because it has a vested interest in their union. It's about the sexes, including what they do, have sex aka coitus, and what that produces, children. Equality of treatment under law doesn't mean equivalency.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18487 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhhh.....how is "same sex marriage" all about marriage, the institution of husband and wife?
This has been your issue for almost 2 years now........marriage ISN'T just the INSTITUTION of husband and wife ANY longer, it also includes the union of husband and husband as well as wife and wife:-)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18488 Mar 30, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>You have yet to produce evidence that the State has an interest in marriage, as a reproductive necessity, or has an interest in keeping the union of one man and one woman, as the only union which is legal.
Sure it does, even the Supreme Court recognized that.

In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:

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 guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).
Because there isn't any.
If that's the case, the state has no business issuing marriage licenses.
Prejudice is allowed, dear - you are free to think whatever you like about the definition of marriage, and define it FOR YOURSELF accordingly.
Oh happy day!
Discrimination against those who believe otherwise from you, however, is not allowed. Those other folks are ALSO FREE to define marriage for themselves, and the law will read accordingly.
It will.....great...so any consenting adult combination is allowed and "the law will read accordingly".
Get the hell over it, and move on, man.
It's just getting interesting......where will "marriage equality" go next.....will it include plural marriage....or even incest......tune in tomorrow.

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
Beauty of Nigerian brides, Why I will marry my own 4 min Absimil 22
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min FYVM 1,383,698
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 8 min yisarel 134,413
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 11 min Don Barros Serrano 44,937
black men need to go away and accept that white... (Nov '15) 13 min rebel soldier 27
The "cunning" Caucasian and its tricks. 13 min Absimil 5
Why did Mexico send an Olmec head to Ethiopia? (Oct '13) 15 min Don Barros Serrano 323
How black people lost Egypt. ------------------... 2 hr Redefined 50
Hookers say "Sorry no black men" I think that's... (Oct '09) 4 hr dreamhunk 462
New Racist Chinese Ad 10 hr Redefined 49
More from around the web