Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#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?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#18515 Mar 31, 2014
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism; sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.

Keep marriage one man and one woman for diversity, integration and perfect affirmative action.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18516 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism; sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for diversity, integration and perfect affirmative action.
Brian, you are an idiot. If an African American decides to marry and African American, is that segregation?

Segregation is when the choice is taken away by authority, not when people are allowed to exercise free will.

Stop being a moron.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18517 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why just couples?
Is the resident idiot is still having difficulty understanding what equal means?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18518 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.
Why don't you just get a big neon sign that says "I've got nothing". It would save you a lot of time.

Brian_G = Village Idiot

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Easy Eed 1,125,374
I Keep Telling Black Women 7 min Mindless 15
17 yr old Black kid lynched for dating white woman 9 min Lori-usa 156
Halloween Costume Suggestions 9 min The White Race 9
Blacks and crime 11 min GetReal 24
Mayor denies racial charge (Oct '13) 12 min Former buckwheat 33
Are/were Your Grandparents Racist? 22 min The White Race 4
The Erasure of 'Gay' From Black History & the B... 1 hr Zombie Corpse Rental 84
Sassyntrashy said slavery was not all that bad. 3 hr MsNewNew 84
Why do blacks claim to be the true Israelites? ... (May '11) 4 hr Carly HI YAH 7,300

African-American People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE