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.

Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#18493 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It is if the husband and wife are segregated into two separate gender duplicated relationships.
<quoted text>
People can "marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing" without the state involved. People can marry a stranger, a sibling, two strangers, a man, a woman, or any combination they so choose. However the state is not obligated to designate any and all relationships "marriage".
<quoted text>
Tsk...tsk....not very tolerant.
You like muddying the waters from what I've seen.

Simplicity is my best friend.

If two consenting adults want to marry they should be able to in a free country such as ours.

I'm a man and in no way can understand the attraction some men have to other men. But then again it's none of my business.

If 2 men or 2 women want to marry each other for that matter they should have an open door.

I think it a waste of time people try to bar gays from marrying. Worry about real things. Real threats. Gays never posed a threat to anyone. As far as I'm concerned we shouldn't even label them. Everyone has their taste in a partner.

I love small boobs. I married a woman with big boobs. But I married her personality and not her body. I've learned a lot from gays in that they too are intelligent and find partners in their own ways.

People like you and me need to stand down and let others live their lives friend. It's a simple fact.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18494 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
<quoted text>
If that's the case, the state has no business issuing marriage licenses.
<quoted text>
Oh happy day!
<quoted text>
It will.....great...so any consenting adult combination is allowed and "the law will read accordingly".
<quoted text>
It's just getting interesting......where will "marriage equality" go next.....will it include plural marriage....or even incest......tune in tomorrow.
Will do - and none of it makes me any less in favor of granting the rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples.

Next...

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18495 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.
True, marriage is not mentioned. It is one of those pesky unenumerated rights.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18496 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is if the husband and wife are segregated into two separate gender duplicated relationships.
Isn't it too bad for you, stupid Peter, that voluntary segregation is neither illegal nor is how an individual exercises their constitutionally protected personal liberty interest in selecting a marriage partner any of your business.
Pietro Armando wrote:
People can "marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing" without the state involved.
Not if they want a civil marriage and the legal benefits, privileges and responsibilities that come with that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
People can marry a stranger, a sibling, two strangers, a man, a woman, or any combination they so choose. However the state is not obligated to designate any and all relationships "marriage".
The state is obligated to give legal recognition to an individual's exercise of their fundamental right of marriage unless the state has a legitimate compelling interest not to. Such a compelling interest exists to prohibit sibling marriage despite your continued fascination with it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Tsk...tsk....not very tolerant.
No, you aren't.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18497 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
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).
Still can't understand that editorial comments within a voter registration case sets no precedent regarding marriage law or the fundamental right of marriage, eh, lying *swwipe Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If that's the case, the state has no business issuing marriage licenses.
Sure they do; there is far more to marriage than procreative and childrearing decisions (which is a separate fundamental right anyway). That you're too stupid to understand the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh happy day!
Indeed; you can be as bigoted as you want towards yourself and no one will care.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It will.....great...so any consenting adult combination is allowed and "the law will read accordingly".
With your intellectual dishonesty and early onset Alzheimer's it does get rather tiring to have to always qualify every statement to correct your stupidity even though you've been schooled on this subject dozens of times. Once more for mentally disabled Peter: with regards to fundamental rights like marriage, the state may restrict their exercise if it can articulate a legitimate compelling interest to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's just getting interesting......where will "marriage equality" go next.....will it include plural marriage....or even incest......tune in tomorrow.
Will stupid Peter get a clue or a brain? Tune in tomorrow...

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18498 Mar 30, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>That's hilarious, coming from a morally bankrupt radical prog.
Your opinion of me means nothing.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#18500 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Sure....anything can be acknowledged as "normal" if we change the meaning of normal.
a. No it isn't, but the rights of citizens are.

b. IOW, we should go back to living in caves because that's really the good ole' days.

c. Perceptions of normality change over time and differ from place to place.....errr....how many camels/ponies exactly did you give for your wife? Did you have to fork over to her father any actual land or cash? Perhaps it was she who brought her dowry with her?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18501 Mar 30, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
a. No it isn't, but the rights of citizens are.
b. IOW, we should go back to living in caves because that's really the good ole' days.
c. Perceptions of normality change over time and differ from place to place.....errr....how many camels/ponies exactly did you give for your wife? Did you have to fork over to her father any actual land or cash? Perhaps it was she who brought her dowry with her?
You'd have better luck getting through to a wall than good Ole Pete......lol!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18502 Mar 30, 2014
So many Glibtees, so little time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18503 Mar 30, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, this has been your issue because 2 women or 2 men can enter into a social contract known as "MARRIAGE" which is about accepting each other, taking responsibility for the care of another and to interact as either husband and husband or wife and wife or husband and wife......
Really...how does "Wife and wife", or "husband and husband" interact?
...and the State ONLY legally recognizes the relationship IF the couple have applied for a marriage application/license, executed that license by getting married and then having that license recorded with the Country Recorder's office and THEN the State grants that marriage the rights, benefits and privileges that being married is entitled to......thus the Federal Government will ALSO recognize that marriage and provide the 1138 rights, benefits and privileges that are bestowed upon a married couple!!!
What consenting adult non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships should the state designate "marriage"?
Marriage is NOT about the sexes
Sure it is, hence ".....now pronounce you husband AND wife". The couple consulates their relationship, engages in "marital relations", and if conception should occur, the husband is presumed to be the father.
, nor sexual intimacy nor what is produces because NOT all legal marriages produce children
True not all legal conjugal marriages will bear children, but 100% of same sex marriages will not.
and ALL legal marriages regardless of gender make-up MUST be treated EQUALLY under the laws of this Country.....Period!!!
That is an impossibility. How can all marriages be treated equally under the law, if they're not equally composed of husband and wife?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18504 Mar 30, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>And your word salad above is supposed to convince me of what?
Hmmmmmm....maybe you need more veggie in your diet?
It certainly doesn't offer evidence of the State's interest in reserving marriage to heterosexual couples.
It doesn't reserve marriage to "heterosexual couples", it recognizes opposite sex couples as marriage, those who so desire it, and go through the process. Sexual identity labels are irrelevant. As long as the couple is of the opposite sex, what sexual identity they chose to adopt, whether it's gay, lesbian, bi, tri, quad, poly, pan, hetero, straight, or even asexual, is their business.

What else ya got?
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#18505 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really...how does "Wife and wife", or "husband and husband" interact?
<quoted text>
What consenting adult non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships should the state designate "marriage"?
<quoted text>
Sure it is, hence ".....now pronounce you husband AND wife". The couple consulates their relationship, engages in "marital relations", and if conception should occur, the husband is presumed to be the father.
<quoted text>
True not all legal conjugal marriages will bear children, but 100% of same sex marriages will not.
<quoted text>
That is an impossibility. How can all marriages be treated equally under the law, if they're not equally composed of husband and wife?
C'mon genius.

Same sexed couples 'interact' the same way we all do.

As far as children we need adoptive families in this country. I've a few friends who spent their lives in foster homes and would have welcomed a family, gay or not.

You need to grow the F up little man.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18506 Mar 30, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
a. No it isn't, but the rights of citizens are.
Yes they are, and marriage isn't mentioned as right, nor an obligation of government to acknowledge.
b. IOW, we should go back to living in caves because that's really the good ole' days.
Ahhhhh....the good ole days...when men were men and sheep were nervous! Not quite sure what you mean by that.....are you linking the advent of sexual identity politics to living in caves?
c. Perceptions of normality change over time and differ from place to place...
That they do.
..errr....how many camels/ponies exactly did you give for your wife?
Italians give camels?
Did you have to fork over to her father any actual land or cash?
No we just spoke to the Godfather, he made the arrangements.
Perhaps it was she who brought her dowry with her?
Hmmmmmm.....people did give envelopes with cash at the wedding....does that count?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18507 Mar 30, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon genius.
Same sexed couples 'interact' the same way we all do.
They do.......hmmmmmm....that might explain all the pregnant gay men out there.

See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...

It seems like every time I see certain family members—my niece and father, for instance— they ask me when I’m going to marry Sam, the man I’ve been with for five and a half years. Sam’s father is one of the worst offenders. He and I are literally never together alone without him saying (as if there were a direct correlation between the two),“Jonathan, when are you and Sam going to get married? I think you two should have children.” I put a temporary kibosh on this one day at lunch, when I answered,“Paul, I’ve been trying to impregnate your son on a regular basis for a couple of years now, and you know what? So far, nothing!” This silenced him for about six months.-

See more at: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...
As far as children we need adoptive families in this country. I've a few friends who spent their lives in foster homes and would have welcomed a family, gay or not.
Yes they would....so that means what exactly?
You need to grow the F up little man.
Thank you Denver Dan, you are most wise.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18508 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really...how does "Wife and wife", or "husband and husband" interact?
<quoted text>
What consenting adult non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships should the state designate "marriage"?
<quoted text>
Sure it is, hence ".....now pronounce you husband AND wife". The couple consulates their relationship, engages in "marital relations",
How can all marriages be treated equally under the law, if they're not equally composed of husband and wife?
Pretty much the same way a husband and wife interact, you dumbazz!!!

Ugh, again.......A RELATIONSHIP IS DESIGNATED A MARRIAGE IF AND ONLY IF THE STATE HAS ISSUED A MARRIAGE LICENSE TO THE COUPLE!!!

Again Pete, the PRONOUNCEMENT is WHATEVER the couple chooses at the end of THEIR wedding ceremony and it DOESN'T have to be husband and wife or man and wife.....IT CAN BE WHATEVER THE COUPLE WANTS IT TO BE.....after all it is THEIR wedding ceremony!!!

And the State DOESN'T give a crap what the couple does on their wedding night........we AREN'T discussing procreation because it is IRRELEVANT to one's right to marry!!

Because they are EQUALLY composed of 2 INDIVIDUALS......either a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women and if they are ALL married under the State.....than the FEDERAL government recognizes them as ALL EQUALLY the same and apply the same rights, benefits and privileges of marriage to them!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18509 Mar 30, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
True, marriage is not mentioned. It is one of those pesky unenumerated rights.
Amendment 9
Hey didn't the founding fathers see fit to clearly spell it out.....marriage, a union of two people regardless of gender composition?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Such as the right of the people within a state to define marriage within their state. Hmmmmm.....apparently some federal judges don't care much for the people.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#18510 Mar 30, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, and marriage isn't mentioned as right, nor an obligation of government to acknowledge.
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh....the good ole days...when men were men and sheep were nervous! Not quite sure what you mean by that.....are you linking the advent of sexual identity politics to living in caves?
<quoted text>
That they do.
<quoted text>
Italians give camels?
<quoted text>
No we just spoke to the Godfather, he made the arrangements.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm.....people did give envelopes with cash at the wedding....does that count?
My best friend was Italian. Died of cancer but never in his life was he as stupid as you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18512 Mar 30, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
My best friend was Italian.
How cliche. My best friend is Irish.
Died of cancer
Sorry to hear that, my friend's still around.
but never in his life was he as stupid as you.
Nor is mine as closed minded as you, and he is willing, and has engaged me in various discussions over the years, sometimes we agree other times we don't, sometimes it's just a matter of degrees.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18513 Mar 30, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much the same way a husband and wife interact, you dumbazz!!!
"Pretty much...."? Meaning not in everyday.
Ugh, again.......A RELATIONSHIP IS DESIGNATED A MARRIAGE IF AND ONLY IF THE STATE HAS ISSUED A MARRIAGE LICENSE TO THE COUPLE!!!
Oh Madone! Give it a rest.
Again Pete, the PRONOUNCEMENT is WHATEVER the couple chooses at the end of THEIR wedding ceremony and it DOESN'T have to be husband and wife or man and wife.....IT CAN BE WHATEVER THE COUPLE WANTS IT TO BE.....after all it is THEIR wedding ceremony!!!
We both know the state won't declare two women, or two men, "husband and wife", because they're not.
And the State DOESN'T give a crap what the couple does on their wedding night........we AREN'T discussing procreation because it is IRRELEVANT to one's right to marry!!
It's relevant to the right to marry, and why marriage is a right to begin with!!!! We both know that.
Because they are EQUALLY composed of 2 INDIVIDUALS......either a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women and if they are ALL married under the State.....than the FEDERAL government recognizes them as ALL EQUALLY the same and apply the same rights, benefits and privileges of marriage to them!!!
In other words, a benefits package. Which can be applied of ANY two people, or more doe that matter....in time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18514 Mar 30, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text>Will do - and none of it makes me any less in favor of granting the rights and benefits of marriage to same sex couples.
Next...
Why just couples?

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 Aquarius-WY 1,567,189
Can Blacks Be Impartial And Trusted Enough To ... 6 min Ooga booga 157
Why do Blacks have to act so different? (Oct '12) 6 min NEGROE COPS R DL 282
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 10 min Ooga booga 1,554
Are there any Black cuckolds? (Feb '16) 20 min Ra The God 44
If you post racist comments on this site, pleas... 23 min NEGROE COPS R DL 5
Year of the Horse(2014) 39 min Keeping it Real 3
News Anti-racist author Tim Wise: White America desp... 1 hr KIP 912
New evidence of non human DNA found in black Af... 8 hr Yep 62
Microchips In Employees Become Reality 8 hr Prince 75
More from around the web