Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18954 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You're on the wrong side, I'm against changing marriage law to license sex segregation.
That's a village idiot's way of stating he doesn't want gays to be able to marry. And continually harping about non existent changes to marriage laws demonstrates how desperate you are to justify your prejudices.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>You can't love an innocent child, pet or more than one person at a time? Should that love define marriage? Why not use good sense, compromise, law and courtesy instead of basing everything on emotion driven irrationality?
This statement brought to you by the same idiot that has stated that marriages of gays affects the order in which people abandon a sinking ship!!!!

You, Brian_G, trying to use the word "courtesy" is beyond hilarious. I guess you think lying about how if gays marry that mankind will be adversely affected is what you consider "courteous"!!!

Brian_G = village idiot

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18955 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Rewriting marriage law to license sex segregation marriage isn't a "basic civil or human right"
It is if it removes an unconstitutional restriction on a fundamental right.
Brian_G wrote:
The UN defines marriage as between men and women in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16.
No it doesn't. It says:

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

It doesn't require that men and women must marry each other.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Sex segregation marriage is undemocratic.
Prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18956 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Rewriting marriage law to license sex segregation marriage isn't a "basic civil or human right". The UN defines marriage as between men and women in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16. Sex segregation marriage is undemocratic.
Are you suggesting that the US yield its sovereignty to the UN? That doesn't seem very smart.
The UN is also increasingly involved in gay rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/un-g...

Just when I think you couldn't make yourself look dumber, you offer up a post like this.

Brian, does the US Constitution mandate states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws? It's a simple yes or no question. I wonder if you have the guts to answer it?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18957 Apr 16, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
...Absolutely no state has legislated sex segregated marriage because no such thing exists. And no state licenses same sex marriage. There is only marriage. Period....
Here are examples of state legislated same sex marriage law:

Connecticut: Public Act No. 09-13 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/act/Pa/pdf/2009PA-...

Or same sex marriage law in Maine:
Sec. 3. 19-A MRSA §650-B is enacted to read:§ 650-B. Recognition of marriage licensed and certified in another jurisdiction A marriage of a same-sex couple that is validly licensed and certified in another jurisdiction is recognized for all purposes under the laws of this State.
http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills...

Do your own research; every state with same sex marriage has new written regulation around marriage, changing marriage for same sex couples change it for everyone.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#18958 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
The UN defines marriage as between men and women in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Brian, you have to kind of read that in, as written, the only restrictions are 'full age' and 'full consent.'
Most reasonable people would take what is said here to mean a man and a woman but we aren't always dealing with reasonable people.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18959 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Here are examples of state legislated same sex marriage law:
Connecticut: Public Act No. 09-13 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/act/Pa/pdf/2009PA-...
Or same sex marriage law in Maine:
Sec. 3. 19-A MRSA §650-B is enacted to read:§ 650-B. Recognition of marriage licensed and certified in another jurisdiction A marriage of a same-sex couple that is validly licensed and certified in another jurisdiction is recognized for all purposes under the laws of this State.
http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills...
Do your own research; every state with same sex marriage has new written regulation around marriage, changing marriage for same sex couples change it for everyone.
I see nothing wrong with equal protection of the laws.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18960 Apr 16, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
<quoted text> Quite.
Well said.
Thanks......here it is again, just case you want to reread it.

Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a union of the sexes, both of them. It's a commitment by a man and woman to accept each other as husband and wife, to honor, cherish, and provide for each other, for the rest of their lives, and to love and care for any children their union produces.

That's it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18961 Apr 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks......here it is again, just case you want to reread it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage is a union of the sexes, both of them. It's a commitment by a man and woman to accept each other as husband and wife, a man and a man to accept each other as husband and husband or a woman and a a woman to accept each other as wife and wife to honor, cherish, and provide for each other, for the rest of their lives, and to love and care for any children they may have through whatever process they decide
That's it.
Good for you Pete......we are making progress:-)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18962 Apr 16, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again Pete, the State DOESN'T care if 2 men walk in and request a marriage license, nor if 2 women walk in and request a marriage license
Depending on the state, that is correct.
nor if a man and a woman walk in and request a marriage license.....
Correct.
.as long as they meet the martial requirements that the State has, a marriage license will be paid for and issued..........and the Clerk will NEVER ask them about their sexual orientation as that is also IRRELEVANT.....
Correct......so,why change the laws based on self professed sexual identity labels?
.....however, UNTIL some polygamist group feels unjust because they were denied a multiple marriage license and file the appropriate lawsuit challenging the State's limit on "2" individuals getting married and get Reynolds overturned....
Agreed.....Reynolds really holds no weight anymore after the Lawrence ruling, and Windsor.
...and maybe one day it will, but until that time........it is IRRELEVANT to this discussion nor does my opinion regarding whether it should be allowed matter as well BECAUSE it HASN'T happened yet and until it does in this Country, well let's just say that when it happens.....well go from there!!!
It is relevant to the issue at hand. It's all part of how marriage is legally defined, and why it's defined as such.
Again Pete.....The State DOESN'T care if it is a man and a woman, 2 men or 2 women....all the State cares about is that they meet the marital requirements.....plain and simple!!!
Exactly....so why change the requirements?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18963 Apr 16, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Pete will NOT think that's funny.......but it is:-)
Actually it did bring a smile to my face, Nor Callie.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18964 Apr 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Depending on the state, that is correct.
<quoted text>
Correct.
<quoted text>
Correct......so,why change the laws based on self professed sexual identity labels?
<quoted text>
Agreed.....Reynolds really holds no weight anymore after the Lawrence ruling, and Windsor.
<quoted text>
It is relevant to the issue at hand. It's all part of how marriage is legally defined, and why it's defined as such.
<quoted text>
Exactly....so why change the requirements?
Won't matter soon regardless of the State:-)

No one is changing ANY laws based on self-proclaimed labels........the laws are just NOT being so restrictive on the gender requirement!!!

Actually Reynolds still HOLDS a helluva a lot of weight with regard to granting the right to marry MULTIPLE individuals otherwise it would have been overturned already......all the Lawrence ruling did was NOT make cohabitating a crime in states that still opted to use it like Utah did and Windsor has had NO affect on the Reynolds ruling!!!

Nope, NOT relevant and again the requirements are being changed because an adult has the RIGHT to decide for themselves who they want to marry.......and it SHOULDN'T be based on gender just like it SHOULDN'T have been based on race!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18965 Apr 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. And equal protection of the law also applies to an individual's characteristics like race and sexual orientation.
"Race", like "sexual identity" are modern inventions, and whose definitions are not set in stone.
Why would anyone advocate for a restriction that's unconstitutional? "Husband and wife" or "one man and one woman" are restrictions on who may exercise the fundamental right of marriage, not the definition of marriage itself.
It's not a restriction in that it joins both sexes, and treats all men, and all women equally, each may marry the other.
Your definition doesn't even describe all marriages in the US today, much less in the rest of the world or marriage across time and cultures.
It does describe the foundational definition in not only American history, English common law from where the our definition originates, and virtually all of Western Civilization.
Did Italians go to court over restrictions on whom they may marry? If not, then it's not relevant to the current discussion. Regardless, ethnicities are recognized as a protected class now under anti-discrimination laws and constitutional equal protection.
They were considered a separate race at one time, thus it is relevant to the discussion. "Race" is a modern invention whose definition is arbitrary.
If you're too stupid to understand federalism, constitutional law and our system of government in general, why not renounce your citizenship and leave the country so someone more deserving than you can benefit from US citizenship?
If a state is going to have the federal government dictate to them they cannot define marriage, as they always defined it, and it was understood to be since the birth of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, why should they recognize marriage at all? Let the Feds issue the license.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18966 Apr 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
If a state is going to have the federal government dictate to them they cannot define marriage, as they always defined it, and it was understood to be since the birth of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, why should they recognize marriage at all? Let the Feds issue the license.
What's wrong with eliminating discrimination? The 14th amendment protects fundamental rights of citizens. What can me more fundamental than the right to marry the person of your choice. What can be more fundamental than marring an appropriate person?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18967 Apr 16, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is changing ANY laws based on self-proclaimed labels........the laws are just NOT being so restrictive on the gender requirement!!!
The lawsuits are being filed by individuals who self identify as "gay" and "lesbian", and the judges are ruling based on such sexual identity labels.
Actually Reynolds still HOLDS a helluva a lot of weight with regard to granting the right to marry MULTIPLE individuals otherwise it would have been overturned already....
The time wasn't right, nor the moral sexual climate hadn't changed.
..all the Lawrence ruling did was NOT make cohabitating a crime in states that still opted to use it like Utah did and Windsor has had NO affect on the Reynolds ruling!!!
The Lawrence ruling decriminalized certain consensual sexual behaviors, the ruling in Utah decriminalized polygamy, and the Windsor ruling basically authorized federal,recognition of what the state defined as marriage.
Nope, NOT relevant and again the requirements are being changed because an adult has the RIGHT to decide for themselves who they want to marry....
An adult can, however the state is not obligated to recognize any and all consenting adult relationships as "marriage" simply because the adults in such relationships want it.
...and it SHOULDN'T be based on gender just like it SHOULDN'T have been based on race!!!
"Race" is a modern invention. Male and female are the two sexes that comprise the human species.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18968 Apr 16, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
I see nothing wrong with equal protection of the laws.
That's as may be, but by self definition make Jo's words false:

"Absolutely no state has legislated sex segregated marriage because no such thing exists. And no state licenses same sex marriage. There is only marriage. Period...."

Those laws W.W. likes so much, legislated sex segregation marriage under the name same sex. Read the laws yourself, I've cited above.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18969 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's as may be, but by self definition make Jo's words false:
Hardly.
Brian_G wrote:
<
"Absolutely no state has legislated sex segregated marriage because no such thing exists. And no state licenses same sex marriage. There is only marriage. Period...."
And yet, being an idiot, I guess you didn't realize that NEITHER of the two links you provided ever mentioned a "same sex marriage". NOT ONCE. Know why? Cause no such institution exists. Moron. But please, do present the links again and show us exactly where a "same sex marriage" is mentioned.

They also didn't mention "sex segregated marriage". Know why? Because that's a made up phrase that only a total shit for brains would use.
Brian_G wrote:
<
Those laws W.W. likes so much, legislated sex segregation marriage under the name same sex. Read the laws yourself, I've cited above.
You cited them, but neither ever mentions a "same sex marriage". Because no such institution exists. Thanks for continually coming back to demonstrate what a complete moron you are.

Brian_G = Village Idiot

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18970 Apr 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Race", like "sexual identity" are modern inventions, and whose definitions are not set in stone.
Which doesn't change the fact both are human characteristics subject to constitutional equal protection requirements. The fact is, the courts don't care whether you think these characteristics are "modern inventions"; they only care that those characteristics have been used as a basis for unlawful discrimination against citizens.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's not a restriction in that it joins both sexes, and treats all men, and all women equally, each may marry the other.
It is a restriction because it's been dispensed with in a number of states already and both opposite sex and same sex couples who marry there are legally married. If it were fundamental to the definition of marriage like you erroneously assert, then no state could dispense with the restriction and SCOTUS would have upheld federal DOMA.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It does describe the foundational definition in not only American history, English common law from where the our definition originates, and virtually all of Western Civilization.
The fact same sex behavior and people we now label as gay have been historically discriminated against by the "one man, one woman" isn't a constitutionally permissible reason to continue such discrimination.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They were considered a separate race at one time, thus it is relevant to the discussion. "Race" is a modern invention whose definition is arbitrary.
Were Italians prevented from marrying the person of their choice because they were Italian? If so, did they file lawsuits to challenge the laws that imposed such a restriction? Regardless, it's a moot issue since Italians are now considered an ethnicity and ethnicity is a protected class.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a state is going to have the federal government dictate to them they cannot define marriage, as they always defined it, and it was understood to be since the birth of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, why should they recognize marriage at all? Let the Feds issue the license.
If you're too stupid to understand federalism, constitutional law and our system of government in general, why not renounce your citizenship and leave the country so someone more deserving than you can benefit from US citizenship?

I can copy and paste this as many times as you do, stupid Peter. You apparently think I didn't answer your question when in reality I did: federalism and constitutional law and our system of government all combine to put limits on what states may do even if it's something that is recognized as being the province of the states. At the end of the day, state law must still comply with the federal constitution.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18971 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Here are examples of state legislated same sex marriage law:
Connecticut: Public Act No. 09-13 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/act/Pa/pdf/2009PA-...
Or same sex marriage law in Maine:
Sec. 3. 19-A MRSA §650-B is enacted to read:§ 650-B. Recognition of marriage licensed and certified in another jurisdiction A marriage of a same-sex couple that is validly licensed and certified in another jurisdiction is recognized for all purposes under the laws of this State.
http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills...
Do your own research; every state with same sex marriage has new written regulation around marriage,
I've already done my research, that's why it's so easy to demonstrate what a moron you are.

What NEW regulation around marriage? What regulation wasn't there previously that is there now? The items you present merely confirm that existing regulations have to be extended to gays and straights equally. But there are absolutely no new regulations.
Brian_G wrote:
<
changing marriage for same sex couples change it for everyone.
Really? Then you won't mind providing specifics. Demonstrate for the room how the marriages of straight people have been changed. Using specific examples, please show us how the marriage of Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson has been changed because of my marriage.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Brian_G = Village Idiot

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18972 Apr 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The lawsuits are being filed by individuals who self identify as "gay" and "lesbian", and the judges are ruling based on such sexual identity labels.
<quoted text>
The time wasn't right, nor the moral sexual climate hadn't changed.
<quoted text>
The Lawrence ruling decriminalized certain consensual sexual behaviors, the ruling in Utah decriminalized polygamy, and the Windsor ruling basically authorized federal,recognition of what the state defined as marriage.
<quoted text>
An adult can, however the state is not obligated to recognize any and all consenting adult relationships as "marriage" simply because the adults in such relationships want it.
<quoted text>
"Race" is a modern invention. Male and female are the two sexes that comprise the human species.
Again, all the ruling from Utah did was DECRIMINALIZE cohabitation, NOT polygamy!!

Yes, the lawsuits are being filed by individuals and couples who identify as Gay and Lesbian........that however has NOTHING to do with the reason the lawsuits are being successful as the Judge stated in the Ohio ruling!!!

Again, polygamy is still NOT legal and the Federal Government will NOT recognize it UNTIL such time as Reynolds has been tossed!!!

That is true.....NO relationship can be RECOGNIZED as a LEGAL MARRIAGE unless the couple has applied and been issued a State issue Marriage License........for example the State of California would NOT designate my relationship as a legal marriage WITHOUT a State issued Marriage license, which we have.......THAT IS THE ONLY REASON OUR RELATIONSHIP IS DESIGNATED A MARRIAGE!!!

Race is NOT a modern invention......it's been around a lot longer than just the last 100 years!!!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18974 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's as may be, but by self definition make Jo's words false:
"Absolutely no state has legislated sex segregated marriage because no such thing exists. And no state licenses same sex marriage. There is only marriage. Period...."
Those laws W.W. likes so much, legislated sex segregation marriage under the name same sex. Read the laws yourself, I've cited above.
Nonsense.

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
Calling all..... 1 min MeSo 4
Poll Is half Italian and half Black a hot mix? (Jun '10) 10 min Jay 406
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Peppy 1,457,470
Under Trump NYC could Lose its Statuses as Glob... 33 min RMG El Rey de Tra... 9
Pres. Trump likes Jews counting his money (not ... 38 min Israelite Suprema... 6
Honk Dismembers Parents, Dissolves Them in Acid. 41 min RMG El Rey de Tra... 2
Deport barros 2017 46 min RMG El Rey de Tra... 27
News The real reasons the U.S. became less racist to... 2 hr Chief Red Cloud 110
Thanksgiving is a WHITES ONLY holiday! 3 hr dcool 245
3 White Teens Arrested in Gang Rape of 13 yo 6 hr facts 31
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 6 hr Powertoafrica 50,526
More from around the web