Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8592 Aug 24, 2013
The left uses name calling now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8593 Aug 24, 2013
See the pattern?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8595 Aug 24, 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.
Marriage, fundamental as the legally recognized union of husband and wife. An interracial couple's ethnicity does not interfere with accepting each other as husband and wife. BTW interracial did exist in various parts of the cou try at various times.

http://international.vlex.com/vid/colored-sco...
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.
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?
Contradictory question. How can a "same sex couple" have a fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? As individual men and women, they have the same right as any other man or woman, to marry.
Uh huh

Schenectady, NY

#8596 Aug 24, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I see a pattern. You and your kind remind me so much of Hitler.
You and your kind remind me so much of communists.....everyone is the same, everyone is "comrade", no distinctions at all. Just one big, bland, androgynous crowd, all dressed the same.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8597 Aug 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
See the pattern?
What pattern? What name calling?

Paranoid much?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8598 Aug 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Contradictory question. How can a "same sex couple" have a fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? As individual men and women, they have the same right as any other man or woman, to marry.
Because legally married couples DO NOT HAVE TO BE 'HUSBAND' AND 'WIFE'!!!!!!!!!

That is the legal reality. The notion that the terms 'husband' and 'wife' bear any special legal fundamental quality that would always and forever preclude the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage is inane.

Are there states that currently only allow 'husband and wife' marriages? Yes.

Is that requirement (husband and wife) outside of the bounds of constitutional review by the Supreme Court? NO! The court could rule that 'husband and wife' marriages as the only option unconstitutional.

What is the chances that that the SCOTUS will get such a case within the next 5-10 years? Very high.

What is the chance that that ruling will strike down 'husband and wife' only marriages and allow 'husband and husband' and 'wife and wife' marriages? Very high, considering the wording of the DOMA ruling. And those odds increase as more and more states strike down their own 'husband and wife' only marriage laws.

If the terms 'husband' and 'wife' are so important, then please indicate which legal Rights, Benefits, or Obligations are granted solely to either the husband or wife that is not granted jointly as SPOUSES.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8599 Aug 24, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Because legally married couples DO NOT HAVE TO BE 'HUSBAND' AND 'WIFE'!!!!!!!!!
That is the legal reality. The notion that the terms 'husband' and 'wife' bear any special legal fundamental quality that would always and forever preclude the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage is inane.
Are there states that currently only allow 'husband and wife' marriages? Yes.
Is that requirement (husband and wife) outside of the bounds of constitutional review by the Supreme Court? NO! The court could rule that 'husband and wife' marriages as the only option unconstitutional.
What is the chances that that the SCOTUS will get such a case within the next 5-10 years? Very high.
What is the chance that that ruling will strike down 'husband and wife' only marriages and allow 'husband and husband' and 'wife and wife' marriages? Very high, considering the wording of the DOMA ruling. And those odds increase as more and more states strike down their own 'husband and wife' only marriage laws.
If the terms 'husband' and 'wife' are so important, then please indicate which legal Rights, Benefits, or Obligations are granted solely to either the husband or wife that is not granted jointly as SPOUSES.
Exactly.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8600 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was.
Then STOP using it as an excuse to bash gay couples.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8601 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
JOANIE! Is that you?! Does this mean we're conversing again, or is this a momentary lapse of sanity on your part? Might as well play along. Why else would it matter to the state who married who, or even to recognize marriage at all, if not for the obvious fact that sex between men and women makes little Joanie's? Marriage served as a societal mean of regulating sexual relations between the sexes, and the products of those relations, children. As far as same sex sexual behavior, it was considered criminal, and/or a sign of mental illness for much of American history, so it wouldn't even have factored in to marriage law, prior to relatively recently.
Historical context, the argument of idiots.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8602 Aug 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Rewriting marriage laws for everyone isn't a fundamental right. Else, Muslims would have polygamy. Keeping marriage as is prevents the segregation of marriage where we've now got perfect affirmative action and diversity of one man/one woman marriage.
If you love integration over segregation; keep marriage one man and one woman.
What marriage laws are being re-written Brian_G? Why do you cowardly avoid answering this question?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8603 Aug 25, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Junior high? No, they start much earlier, kindergarten. They use bullying as a reason to justify promoting homosexuality. Normal people can see right through that.
2. It does present major problems. If gays shower with straights of the same sex then equality demands that opposite sex straights should shower together.
Equality demands? You're such a moron. Are you related to Brian_G?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8604 Aug 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Normal people are the folks getting sued for their belief, marriage is male/female.
Who's getting sued for their beliefs? Bet you cowardly avoid answering this one too. Bet you've been a sissy your whole life.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8606 Aug 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The left uses media and liberal courts to bypass law and consideration.
See the florist in Washington, the baker in Oregon and the photographer in New Mexico for examples of the left persecuting religious Christians.
They aren't being persecuted, they are being sued because they discriminated. That's illegal. If they hadn't decided that their religious beliefs placed them above the law, which they don't, they wouldn't be in the messes they are in. Has nothing to do with the left or the media. It has to do with them breaking the law.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8608 Aug 25, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>The ones that currently say same sex marriage is illegal,....you really didn't know that?
First off......there is NO such thing as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage!!!

Secondly.......NO STATE STATES that a Same-Sex Couple getting married is ILLEGAL......it's just NOT recognized by the state and NO STATE ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSE is being issued, but a Same-Sex Couple can have a wedding ceremony, classify themselves as being married and the State CAN'T do anything about it.

Thirdly.......ILLEGAL implies that a crime has been committed and the couple could face prosecution for their actions........personally, I'd love to see a State try this one, we'd have Loving vs Virginia ALL OVER AGAIN!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8609 Aug 25, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>Like when gays point out how inter-racial marriage used to be illegal, too...???...
That kind of "idiots"?
That's a comparative, not an argument.

You must be related to Pedro.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8610 Aug 25, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>The ones that currently say same sex marriage is illegal,....you really didn't know that?
There is no law that says that. You really didn't know that? Feel free to present a law that discusses a same sex marriage! For that matter, feel free to show a law the demonstrates the illegality you discuss!! I'd love an example of anyone that has been arrested for doing this "illegal" act!!!!!

Putz.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8611 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
First off......there is NO such thing as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage!!!
Secondly.......NO STATE STATES that a Same-Sex Couple getting married is ILLEGAL......it's just NOT recognized by the state and NO STATE ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSE is being issued, but a Same-Sex Couple can have a wedding ceremony, classify themselves as being married and the State CAN'T do anything about it.
Thirdly.......ILLEGAL implies that a crime has been committed and the couple could face prosecution for their actions........personally, I'd love to see a State try this one, we'd have Loving vs Virginia ALL OVER AGAIN!!!
LOL!! I love it when these whackadoos jump in thinking they know something!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#8612 Aug 25, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!! I love it when these whackadoos jump in thinking they know something!!!
Or that we don't regarding this and many others issues concerning the GLBTQI Community!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8614 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Or that we don't regarding this and many others issues concerning the GLBTQI Community!!!
Why aren't those letters in alphabetical order? Are two seperate letters, "G", and "L", necessary when an "H", would suffice?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8615 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't those letters in alphabetical order? Are two seperate letters, "G", and "L", necessary when an "H", would suffice?
And what the heck is Q? isn't that from Star Trek TNG? weren't they eternal beings

man, that is gonna be one long and dreadful 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
News Oregon issues final order in gay wedding cake case 33 min Mitts Gold Plated... 54
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 56 min BIBLE DARK AGES 6,727
News GOP hopefuls take on illegal immigration in deb... 1 hr discocrisco 1
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr Lucy 34,572
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 3 hr Frank A 5,904
News How is it that cake became a favourite platform... 5 hr WeTheSheeple 19
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr Adolph Dawetter 52,071
More from around the web