Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3341 Mar 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay so the religious was used against interracial marriage, and gay marriage..... but ya left one out.......that's right Rosie...polygamy too. I guess that makes the Supreme Court of 1879 were Fundies too.....that's rich. Well done Rosie! Bravo.
Stupid, I didn't say that.
Again, I just said that fundies used the "God's against it" argument against inter-racial marriage, and now they are using it against gay marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3342 Mar 4, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid, I didn't say that.
Again, I just said that fundies used the "God's against it" argument against inter-racial marriage, and now they are using it against gay marriage.
God is, for, and against, all sorts of things., and that argument has been used to oppose interacial marriage, ssm, and polygamy as well. So ya see, God hates all three.....I just made a rhyme.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3343 Mar 4, 2013
According to the Bible, God doesn't hate anything seeing as how he is love.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3344 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
According to the Bible, God doesn't hate anything seeing as how he is love.
Does he love hate?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3345 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they?
http://international.vlex.com/vid/colored-sco...
'A superior colored man ... and a Scotch woman': interracial marriages in New York City, 1850-1870.
When interviewed by a pension official in 1893, Ellen Davis stated that she was fifty-nine years old, employed as a washerwoman, and that she was born in Scotland. The widow spoke affectionately of her husband John Davis, a veteran of Company G of the 26th United States Colored Infantry who had passed away in 1887 at the age of seventy. The two had married at their home in Brooklyn in 1879 and settled down to raise Ellen's three children from her previous marriage. She recalled, "I had three children by my first husband [.H]is name was James Ronald [and] he was a Scotsman. I married him in Chanden, Scotland in 1859. We went to Australia within two weeks after we were married.... and lived on a sheep farm.... I lived there two years when his health began to fail and we moved back to Scotland." Her husband died soon thereafter and Ellen Davis moved to New York City in 1874 to stay with her cousin. Three years later, she met John Davis who worked as a sawyer in a mill. The Davis couple was well-liked in their neighborhood. According to a local official, "He was a superior colored man, a sawyer by trade, and was considered an honest and truthful man....[she] is a Scotch woman [who] speaks with a strong Scotch accent [and] appears to [be] honest and truthful." (1)
The marriage of John and Ellen Davis was one between a white woman and an African-American man, a Scottish immigrant and a native New Yorker, and two working class laborers. While one might assume that such relationships were rare in the nineteenth century, a close examination of United States Manuscript Census Records in New York City for 1850, 1860, and 1870 indicates that such interracial, cross-cultural marriages constituted five to seven percent of married couples living in predominantly black neighborhoods. The number of interracial marriages varied over the twenty year period under investigation but skyrocketed following the Civil War. Census records indicate that there were 29 interracial marriages in 1850, 19 in 1860, and 116 in 1870. The vast majority of such relationships occurred between black men and white women often between an African-American male born in the United States and a woman who had immigrated from Europe, most of whom were Irish, Scottish, or English.(2) While mixed-race couples in different regions and in different eras faced tremendous resistance, such couples were not uncommon in mid-nineteenth-century New York City. Interracial couples often married in black churches in New York, worked in the city, sent their children to local African schools, and successfully interacted with government institutions, including pension officials, local court representatives, and census takers.
IN THE SOUTH, ding dong. Geez..........

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3346 Mar 5, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
IN THE SOUTH, ding dong. Geez..........
It illustrates that anti micengenation laws were not present in every state in the Union. The concept of a "same sex marriage" was, pun intended, inconceivable, for most of American history.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3347 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It illustrates that anti micengenation laws were not present in every state in the Union. The concept of a "same sex marriage" was, pun intended, inconceivable, for most of American history.
So was interracial marriage... even where it was not outlawed it was frowned upon... point is things changed... as they are with peoples feelings toward ssm...now if polls are to be believed, almost half of americans are ok with ssm.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3348 Mar 5, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
So was interracial marriage... even where it was not outlawed it was frowned upon... point is things changed... as they are with peoples feelings toward ssm...now if polls are to be believed, almost half of americans are ok with ssm.
One significant difference. Opponents of Interracial marriages didn't deny they were marriage, just that the different races shouldn't be allowed to legally. Not everyobe agrees that an intimate personal sexual same sex relationship constitutes marriage.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#3349 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One significant difference. Opponents of Interracial marriages didn't deny they were marriage, just that the different races shouldn't be allowed to legally. Not everyobe agrees that an intimate personal sexual same sex relationship constitutes marriage.
Thing here is marriage is a legal terminology... has nothing to do with what may or may not go on behind closed doors. Now legally speaking tell me why two u.s. citizens should be denied the right to enter into the contract of marriage.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3350 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Does he love hate?
God loves those who hate in spite of their hatred because He is God. He is love.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3351 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
God loves those who hate in spite of their hatred because He is God. He is love.
But does he love hate itself, or does he hate, hate?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3352 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>But does he love hate itself, or does he hate, hate?
Lol God is incapable of hate because he is love. Hate itself is evil and as far from God as possible. You are being silly.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3353 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And here I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.....awwwwwww
You need to bone up on your reading comprehension. I never said I wasn't going to continue to point out your many foolish and unsupportable claims, I just said I was no longer going to play your favorite game, "Polygamy--Exactly the same as same-sex marriage--Completely unrelated to opposite-sex marriage."
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3354 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It illustrates that anti micengenation laws were not present in every state in the Union. The concept of a "same sex marriage" was, pun intended, inconceivable, for most of American history.
So?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#3355 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It illustrates that anti micengenation laws were not present in every state in the Union. The concept of a "same sex marriage" was, pun intended, inconceivable, for most of American history.
The concept of black people having a legal marriage was inconceivable for some of American history.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#3356 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again I agree polygamy would complex, and obviously require some rewriting of various marriage laws.
I think it would require a MAJOR rewrite of virtually EVERY marriage law. Current laws simply designate "the other person" as the beneficiary. But "other people" would require an inspection of EACH law, to determine WHICH other person (or people) would be the beneficiary in each situation, or if it would be MORE than one person (and if more, then in what distribution?). And no person's choices would guarantee that they would be chosen BACK in each case. Frankly, it would be a MESS.
Pietro Armando wrote:
polygamy differs in number, it still preserves the opposite sex composition of monogamous opposite sex marriage.
Only if you limit the spouses to opposite genders (requiring, ironically, the legalization of polygamy while retaining a ban on same-sex marriages). If a man marries 3 women, and some of the women marry some different men, then there are same-sex combinations in this polygamous arrangement.

This is the over-all problem with "multi-party" marriages: the permutations possible. They are endless. Three or four, ten, forty, a hundred, a thousand? Is there any end? Each time a new number is added, the above marriage laws must be reviewed AGAIN.

As I say, I have no problem with polygamy "in principle". But "in practice" polygamy is an exercise in infinity. It requires steps and rewrites that same-sex marriage simply does not, at any level. The very process of even CONSIDERING polygamy would be an entity unto itself, entirely unlike considering same-sex marriage in every way.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I disagree marriage is defined by "couple hood". Historically, in most of the planet today, marriage is defined as union of male female, either monogamous, or polygamous.
Well, in the US, marriage is only a "couplehood" arrangment. I don't know where you live. But "historically" is not a strong argument to make. I could say that "historically", it has been accepted to shun and revile gay people, and even put them to death. "Historically", polygamy HAD its day in court, and failed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How that is to be created is the job of legislatures, attorneys, and judges, not you or I.
At the urging (and with the help) of polygamists. Since I am not a polygamist, I don't see that I should even attempt to CONTRIBUTE to such a discussion. It's strange that you push for conversation on polygamy with people who don't seek to participate in polygamy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If you're going to advocate for MARRIAGE EQUALITY, then polygamy has to be included
Why would you say it HAS to be? Many placese have shown that these issues can be tackled separately. I see no reason why any intelligent person couldn't easily separate these issues, and address them one at a time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The discussion still boils down to how, we as a society, define marriage. You view it as a union of two people regardless of gender composition, whereas polygamists view it as a union of persons of the opposite sex. Both polygamists and gay people can marry ONE person of the opposite sex. However, obviously, gay people want to marry someone of the same sex, whereas polygamists want to marry more than one person of the opposite sex. Number vs nature.
This is like arguing that one person might like a chocolate chip cookie, while another might prefer an Oreo, but someone who wants TEN cookies is being discriminated against. "Number" is a very important concept in marriage, as it complicates the issue endlessly. I see a FAR more urgent need to address the injustice of the people who must settle for ZERO, than for any need to address the people for whom one spouse isn't enough.

This all begins to look like you personally have some objection to same-sex marriage, beyond not including polygamy in the discussion.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#3357 Mar 5, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of black people having a legal marriage was inconceivable for some of American history.
and like polygamy is now...
gays are somewhere in the middle, I'd say more towards polygamy than interracial marriage given the unique family structure of ssm...

BTW, how's Mona?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#3358 Mar 5, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The concept of black people having a legal marriage was inconceivable for some of American history.
The concept of people of African descent in America held as slaves was conceivable for a considerable part of American history. Some slave owners did allow slave marriages.

Were gay people ever slaves in this country? When did "gay" become a political sexual identity label in this country?

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3359 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
According to the Bible, God doesn't hate anything seeing as how he is love.
The god of the buy-bull is full of hate.
""I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel. "I hate the person who covers himself with violence," says the LORD of Armies. "Be careful not to be unfaithful." Malachi 2:16

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#3360 Mar 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One significant difference. Opponents of Interracial marriages didn't deny they were marriage,
Just not true!
Pietro Armando wrote:
just that the different races shouldn't be allowed to legally. Not everyobe agrees that an intimate personal sexual same sex relationship constitutes marriage.
So what? Not everyone agrees a second marriage constitutes marriage.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr WasteWater 26,904
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr KiMare 51,283
Zen Buddhist Temple in Japan Offers Symbolic Sa... 3 hr DRUGDAEGUTHAIDEBD... 41
After 16 years, Tony and Tina calling it quits? (Jul '09) 8 hr Sublime1 40
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 14 hr Rotten to the Core 31,555
Moroccoa s transgender dancer courts acceptance 16 hr sarahomo 1
Poll: Support for gay marriage drops in Mich. (May '14) Wed scs2011 61
More from around the web