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.

Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8544 Aug 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet they did not explicitly say ssm is a fundamental right.
<quoted text>
It was, and still is "had by all", all men and women provided they meet as any other basic requirements set forth by the state. Are you suggesting the individual has the right to define legal marriage as they so choose, and have the state simply grant it?
<quoted text>
Or they opened a Pandora's box. If the conjugality, as in opposite sex, is expendable, what other state requirements can be maintained if marriage is a "fundamental right"?
Next thing you know, they'll let you marry a potato. It would be an intellectual match. "...individuals define legal marriage..."????????? Are you smoking crack?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8545 Aug 22, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Next thing you know, they'll let you marry a potato.
That's reserved for the Irish.
It would be an intellectual match. "...individuals define legal marriage..."????????? Are you smoking crack?
Why not give everyone who wants a marriage certificate and a trophy, so no one's feelings are hurt.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8546 Aug 22, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, but it is. It's whatever the government says it is. Marriage is legal government recognition, and they are free to define it any damn way they choose.
Hallelujah!
Our Constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens, not only heterosexuals.
What's the matter? Are you afraid of change? It's the one thing you can depend on.
The constitution doesn't mention sexual identity labels. As far as marriage is concerned, MEN AND WOMEN are given equal protection in marriage, because they're both equally necessary for the marital relationship and the state's interest in it, thanks for playing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8549 Aug 22, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
monoogamy isn't just a "straight" thing sugar.

It's a marriage thing sweet 'ems. No need for sexually identity labels, and yes there are differences between the sexes even in same sex relationships.
my partner & i've been together now for 23+ yrs
I've been with my wife a tad longer. Plus I've a friend I've known since kindergarten. So your point issssss......?
and been monogamous.
kind of like our parents.
Ditto
but not all straight married couple stay together or are monogamous, either, are they?

Nor are all married couples "straight", some are both conjugal, and "mixed orientation". And yes, not all are sexual faithful, or still together.
gee, maybe it's a human thing and not an orientation thing, all things considered.
I'd say both human and gender influenced.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8551 Aug 22, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>So, if they're both men, or both women,
.....who takes care of whom?
See, THAT'S why "ssm" is not "equal" to a real marriage,
and therefore does NOT qualify for "equal protection under the law".
women don't really need to be 'taken care of' by their men, they are equally good at taking care of themselves, if not better...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8552 Aug 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>women don't really need to be 'taken care of' by their men, they are equally good at taking care of themselves, if not better...
We all need to be taken care of, at some point, even a big strong he woodsman like you Woody.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8553 Aug 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. It is a legal union of two people who are committed to one another sharing family duties, property, and other things associated with a family unit.

Oh like two brothers, sisters, or brother and sister. All two person family units recognized by law.

[QUOTE]
. Such legal relationships are bound by law and subject to protection of pertinent laws.
So two siblings would meet that definition.
To deny same-sex couples the right to establish such family units denies them due process of the law.
Ummmmm.....not quite....no one is stopping them from doing that, nor does the state need to be, or is obligated to, involved. Due process is not denied.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8554 Aug 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We all need to be taken care of, at some point, even a big strong he woodsman like you Woody.
but not because of my gender. that stone age thinking has no place in the real world...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#8556 Aug 22, 2013
Troth J Whitewater wrote:
<quoted text>Ditto...there is no state interest in people marrying the same sex.
There is no state interest in banning SSM.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

SCOTUS Majority opinion:

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943

ARTICLE VI U.S. Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ARTICLE IV SECTION 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. SECTION 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. AMENDMENT IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#8557 Aug 22, 2013
Say no to Theocracy

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8558 Aug 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>but not because of my gender. that stone age thinking has no place in the real world...
What world is that, planet Androgynous?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8559 Aug 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>There is no state interest in banning SSM.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
SCOTUS Majority opinion:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
ARTICLE VI U.S. Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ARTICLE IV SECTION 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. SECTION 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. AMENDMENT IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
All women, and all men, have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. "All" means just that, as long as they meet the other requirements as set forth by the state.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8568 Aug 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
All women, and all men, have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. "All" means just that, as long as they meet the other requirements as set forth by the state.
And prior to 1967, All women, and all men, had the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. "All" means just that, as long as they meet the other requirements as set forth by the state.

And yet, that standard was found to be unconstitutional, Loving (1967). The court found against those 'other requirements as set forth by the state'. The court found that marriage was fundamental and it was those pesky 'other requirements as set forth by the state' to be in question. The same will happen again, when the court wont be able to avoid the ultimate question: do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to civil marriage?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8570 Aug 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a marriage thing sweet 'ems. No need for sexually identity labels, and yes there are differences between the sexes even in same sex relationships.
<quoted text>
I've been with my wife a tad longer. Plus I've a friend I've known since kindergarten. So your point issssss......?
<quoted text>
Ditto
<quoted text>
Nor are all married couples "straight", some are both conjugal, and "mixed orientation". And yes, not all are sexual faithful, or still together.
<quoted text>
I'd say both human and gender influenced.
and it's the marriage we're talking about here, legally speaking. not your personal opinion as it carries no weight.

monogamy (or lack thereof) is not a sexual orientation choice - it is a human thing - in case you hadn't figured it out.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8571 Aug 23, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
AAAK!
AAAK!
vested state interest
vested state interest
AAAK!
You parrots have yet to show why the state NEEDS a "vested interest" in not granting special privileges to accommodate a minority's sexual preference.
they did. now go read the court documents, parrot-head

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8572 Aug 23, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>What are you telling ME for? Tell NHJeff,
...he's the one with the "fluid" definition of what "marriage" is.
You're the one who seems to be suggesting that taking care of the women-folk is a primary ingredient of a valid marriage. I know plenty of women-folk who take care of their husbands and the rest of the family.

It's not that my definition of marriage is fluid. Mine merely acknowledges the world as it actually exists. You have some strange view of marriage as something right out of a past that never existed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8573 Aug 23, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And prior to 1967, All women, and all men, had the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. "All" means just that, as long as they meet the other requirements as set forth by the state.
And yet, that standard was found to be unconstitutional, Loving (1967). The court found against those 'other requirements as set forth by the state'. The court found that marriage was fundamental and it was those pesky 'other requirements as set forth by the state' to be in question. The same will happen again, when the court wont be able to avoid the ultimate question: do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to civil marriage?
The court found that the couple's ethnicity/race in no way interfered with their ability to accept each other as husband and wife. Nor did the court change the definition of marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8574 Aug 23, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
and it's the marriage we're talking about here, legally speaking. not your personal opinion as it carries no weight.
Yes, marriage, the legally, not to mention, socially, culturally, historically, and/or religiously, recognised union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. NOT your personal opinion as IT carries no weight.
monogamy (or lack thereof) is not a sexual orientation choice - it is a human thing - in case you hadn't figured it out.
Monogamy as in sexual fidelity, or in the number two?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8575 Aug 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, marriage, the legally, not to mention, socially, culturally, historically, and/or religiously, recognised union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. NOT your personal opinion as IT carries no weight.
<quoted text>
Monogamy as in sexual fidelity, or in the number two?
the rest (as in the things besides the legalities) are all up to you and whoever else wants to think whatever they want to. opinions that have no legal baring don't really matter.

i have no issues being monogamous. never have. wonder why it's such an issue with you? doesn't really matter as monogamy isn't considered legally speaking. you don't go to jail here if you cheat on a spouse.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8576 Aug 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The court found that the couple's ethnicity/race in no way interfered with their ability to accept each other as husband and wife.
And the courts will, when the issue cannot be avoided, find that the couple's gender/sexual orientation in no way interfere with their ability to accept each other as spouses (which is what husbands and wives are).
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor did the court change the definition of marriage.
But the court DID change the definition of marriage. Virginia and other states maintained a definition of marriage that banned interracial marriage. That was their state's fundamental definition of marriage. Held just as strongly as you try to cling to the notion that only men and women can define a valid marriage. But the courts struck that fundamental definition down as unconstitutional thereby changing those states' definition of 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
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 2 hr amo 262
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Just Think 4,992
News Residents irritated by Journey guitarist's SF w... (Dec '13) Fri T Bone 3
News Designers can refuse to dress the Trumps. Other... Fri wouldbuy 1
News Trump's victory has unleashed a wave of same-se... Fri Holy Guacamole 10
News Rev. Long was at Cedar Springs Baptist Church i... (Sep '10) Fri sad 6
News 7 Weird But Real Jobs Jan 18 wichita-rick 9
More from around the web