Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9248 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental right must have a basis, which establishes the state interest. Marriage exists as a recognized union for the simple fact there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
Again, your claim fundamental rights need to provide a benefit to the government to be a fundamental right, is simply false. Fundamental rights come from being human. The government can't restrict them without demonstrating a compelling, legitimate reason. You have none.

What are the governmental benefits that establish the basis for the fundamental rights specified in the Bill of Rights?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9249 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a basis for the right to exist in the first place. That's what you fail to understand.
The basis is the right of two people to come together to form a familial structure.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does the right exist in the first place?
Because it belongs to the people and was not ceded to the government. See Amendment 9 of the Constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right to marry, requires a definition of marriage, upon which to base that right. If there's no foundation basis, some compelling state interest, it matters not if the state recognizes it at all.
No, no definition is needed to create the right. The right already exists.

The government must prove they have a 'compelling state interest' to restrict the right, to impose a definition on the right.

In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of a lower age limit. The participant needs to be able to consent. A compelling state interest.

In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of consanguinity (incest). There is a justifiable concern for the genetics involved when producing children. A compelling state interest.

In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of one couple at a time. Inheritance flows to the surviving spouse. Who inherits (tax free) if there is more than one spouse? If one is in the hospital, who has the presumptive power to make medical decisions. The other spouse. Who makes the decisions if there is more than one spouse if they cannot agree? Note what happens to the 'extra' boys in the fundamentalist LDS compounds. Not good for the society. A compelling state interest.

Everyone has a right to free speech. It exists for everyone. The only 'definition' or 'condition' of that right is when the government seeks to restrict that right. To do so they need... you guessed it... a compelling state interest. A state interest not to create a right, but to restrict a right.

Now, you constantly harp on the issue that the male-female pair bond is a compelling state interest, How? Why?

It cannot be procreation because even you have admitted that not every couple that marries is able, or willing to procreate. NOT a compelling state interest.

It cannot be the raising of children. Children are raised out of wedlock. Children are raised absent one or more of their biological parents. Children ARE being raised within same-sex headed families (you've read Goodridge by now, right?). So raising of the children... NOT a compelling state interest.

I particularly love your reason, that the husband and wife will recognize themselves as such, as a compelling state interest. But what are husbands and wives if not spouses. All the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage revolve around 'Spouses'. None of those rights, benefits and obligations of marriage are reserved exclusively to either the 'husband' or the 'wife'. And two men can be spouses for each other and two women and be spouses for each other (as is happening in the 14 states and feds today). So the restriction that only male-female or husband and wife can be spouses... NOT a compelling state interest.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9250 Sep 3, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Before you embarrass yourself any further, why don't you take a little time to actually read the Massachusetts Goodridge ruling. It will answer all of your questions.
I've posted a link to the ruling in the past, but here it is again:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gayma...
But knowing you wont bother to educate yourself, what the court found was not an 'parent equality' but an equality of the children's parents to be married. I know you'll have a hard time understanding the nuance of what that means. Read the ruling. It's a good read.
Quite a good read, especially the dissenting opinions. A great deal of information there.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9251 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There has to be a basis for the right to exist in the first place. That's what you fail to understand.
<quoted text>
Why does the right exist in the first place?
<quoted text>
The right to marry, requires a definition of marriage, upon which to base that right. If there's no foundation basis, some compelling state interest, it matters not if the state recognizes it at all.
Under our system of government, our basic, fundamental rights come from the fact we are human.

The concept, is that we are born with human rights, and the government may not take them away. They are unalienable.

We know the government and others in search of power will try to take those rights away, and keep them only for themselves. This is why our government was designed to protect these rights. They even spelled out several in the Bill of Rights, including the 9th which reaffirms the concept that all rights are rights of all people people. They are not the rights of the government to give, but only to limit, restrict, or try to take away.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9252 Sep 3, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
The basis is the right of two people to come together to form a familial structure.
Yes a man and woman as husband and wife.
Because it belongs to the people and was not ceded to the government. See Amendment 9 of the Constitution.
Why is the state involved?
No, no definition is needed to create the right. The right already exists.
So if no definition is needed....any relationship can constitute marriage.
The government must prove they have a 'compelling state interest' to restrict the right, to impose a definition on the right.
Which is it, no definition is needed, the gov't must have a compelling state interest to impose a definition?
In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of a lower age limit. The participant needs to be able to consent. A compelling state interest.
Agreed
In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of consanguinity (incest). There is a justifiable concern for the genetics involved when producing children. A compelling state interest.
Non existent with same sex relatives.
In Marriage, governments restrict on the basis of one couple at a time. Inheritance flows to the surviving spouse. Who inherits (tax free) if there is more than one spouse? If one is in the hospital, who has the presumptive power to make medical decisions. The other spouse. Who makes the decisions if there is more than one spouse if they cannot agree? Note what happens to the 'extra' boys in the fundamentalist LDS compounds. Not good for the society. A compelling state interest.
Discriminatory. Children of plural marriage deserve the same support the state extends to children "of" same sex couples.
Everyone has a right to free speech. It exists for everyone. The only 'definition' or 'condition' of that right is when the government seeks to restrict that right. To do so they need... you guessed it... a compelling state interest. A state interest not to create a right, but to restrict a right.
The right to marriage is it restricted, it applies to all men and all women, regardless of self proclaimed sexual orientation.
Now, you constantly harp on the issue that the male-female pair bond is a compelling state interest, How? Why?
It cannot be procreation because even you have admitted that not every couple that marries is able, or willing to procreate. NOT a compelling state interest.
Is this something new? Men and women have always married regardless of intent, or ability to have children, and yet the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation was understood.
It cannot be the raising of children. Children are raised out of wedlock. Children are raised absent one or more of their biological parents. Children ARE being raised within same-sex headed families (you've read Goodridge by now, right?). So raising of the children... NOT a compelling state interest.
Children are raised in a variety of family structures including plural marriage.
I particularly love your reason, that the husband and wife will recognize themselves as such, as a compelling state interest. But what are husbands and wives if not spouses. All the rights, benefits and obligations of marriage revolve around 'Spouses'. None of those rights, benefits and obligations of marriage are reserved exclusively to either the 'husband' or the 'wife'. And two men can be spouses for each other and two women and be spouses for each other (as is happening in the 14 states and feds today). So the restriction that only male-female or husband and wife can be spouses... NOT a compelling state interest.
Those right and benefits are granted based on the relationship, not because "two people can be spouses to each other". Siblings can be spouses too. That restriction...NOT a compelling interest, based on your logic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9253 Sep 3, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Under our system of government, our basic, fundamental rights come from the fact we are human.
The concept, is that we are born with human rights, and the government may not take them away. They are unalienable.
We know the government and others in search of power will try to take those rights away, and keep them only for themselves. This is why our government was designed to protect these rights. They even spelled out several in the Bill of Rights, including the 9th which reaffirms the concept that all rights are rights of all people people. They are not the rights of the government to give, but only to limit, restrict, or try to take away.
You don't need the state to marry. You can marry the consenting person, or persons, of your choice, all without the state. You can marry on a train, on a plane, with a mouse, in a house, while eating green eggs and ham with Sam I Am.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9254 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The state would, as would the children, prefer the biological parents raise their own children if at all possible, hence the state interest in marriage.
And guess what? Biological parents don't have to marry each other or at all to raise their children. Hence the reason divorce is allowed and procreating out of wedlock isn't a crime. The state can't compel individuals to exercise their fundamental rights nor can they restrict an individuals ability to exercise them without a compelling interest to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This is not new, not some radical idea just thought up. There enough court case over the past 100 years to confirm this
Yes, family law is quite extensive and is applied whether the parents of children are married or not. Even the legitimacy of children is no longer a government interest since birth legitimacy is now a quasi-suspect class under equal protection constitutional law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
plus the fact SSM, at least in American marital jurisprudence is a recent invention.
Again, from the dissent to your favorite Maryland legal ruling:

"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it"

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9255 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental right must have a basis, which establishes the state interest.
In American jurisprudence, fundamental rights are deemed an intrinsic part of an individual's existence and are neither a construct of government nor dependent on the existence of government nor granted by the state nor dependent on a state interest in allowing their exercise. They simply are.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage exists as a recognized union for the simple fact there are two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
Nope, the fundamental right of marriage recognizes the personal autonomy of individuals to make decisions regarding selection of a mate.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9256 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundament right to do what?
The right to personal autonomy to select a mate and establish kinship.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does the right exist in the first place?

It's an element of personal liberty.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ah but it is a purpose as numerous courts have stated.....
Procreation is not the sole purpose or even the primary purpose of marriage. If it were, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Which is also why procreation doesn't exist as a constitutionally compelling government interest on which to base restrictions on the ability of individuals to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
why wouldn't they? SSM is less than 10 year, old the overwhelming body of American marital jurisprudence deals with marriage as a male female union, so why wouldn't procreation be considered part of that?
Why would you expect an extensive body of law dealing with same sex marriage when gays have historically been discriminated against and not given legal recognition of their relationships?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously, use that lump of clay three feet above your arse.
Seriously, take your head out of your ass and give your brain some oxygen. Surely you weren't born this intellectually retarded; it must have an environmental cause.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your sexual identity labels are irrelevant to marriage
You wish they were but based on recent case law, they're obviously not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a woman with a self professed same sex sexual attraction, or bisexual attraction marries a man, her marriage is just as valid, and relevant to the state as a woman with a self professed opposite sex sexual attraction.
But restricting her ability to select a compatible mate congruent with her same sex sexual orientation is an unconstitutional infringement of her personal autonomy and lacks a compelling government interest to justify it.

Again, making someone else marry according to YOUR desires is not what a fundamental right entails, small Peter.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9257 Sep 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a man and woman as husband and wife.
No, it merely requires unrelated parties so that kinship can be established.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why is the state involved?
The state monitors compliance with the constitutional restrictions that have been placed on marriage when issuing a marriage license. However, in the past the state didn't have to be involved as in the case of common law marriages (which are actually still validly formed in a handful of jurisdictions).
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if no definition is needed....any relationship can constitute marriage.
No, only those relationships that comply with constitutionally valid restrictions representing compelling government interests.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Which is it, no definition is needed, the gov't must have a compelling state interest to impose a definition?
Compelling government interests must exist in order to impose restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right of marriage. Restrictions don't define marriage what marriage is; they merely determine ow the right may be exercised.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Agreed
Non existent with same sex relatives.
Not all restrictions are applicable to all individuals.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Discriminatory. Children of plural marriage deserve the same support the state extends to children "of" same sex couples.
The law already addresses the needs of children resulting from opposite sex procreation and does so whether the biological parents are married to each other or not. If polygamists don't like the restriction that one may only be legally married to one other individual at a time, then they're free to exercise their right to petition government to address their grievance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right to marriage is it restricted, it applies to all men and all women, regardless of self proclaimed sexual orientation.
And anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to all blacks and all whites too. Until you learn the difference between equal application of the law as distinguished from equal protection of the law, you'll never appear anything other than stupid.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is this something new? Men and women have always married regardless of intent, or ability to have children, and yet the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation was understood.
And it's always been understood not all people are capable of having children nor want children. Yet those individuals weren't prohibited from marrying. Unless they were of the same sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Children are raised in a variety of family structures including plural marriage.
Which doesn't refute the fact individuals aren't restricted from marrying due to lack of raising children or refusing to have children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those right and benefits are granted based on the relationship, not because "two people can be spouses to each other".
Many benefits are granted after a spouse is dead so it can't be because of the existence of a relationship that no longer exists.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Siblings can be spouses too. That restriction...NOT a compelling interest, based on your logic.
Siblings are already related by blood so violate the consanguinity restriction, which has already been established as a compelling government interest related to public health.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9258 Sep 4, 2013
Huh wrote:
Don't discriminate and don't hate and don't be a bigot and you have no problem...THIS IS 2013 NOT 1913......YOU OLD FARTS NAZI FASCISM IS NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE HITLER.
Now, fascism is called Political Correctness and the persecutors are the left. They sue Christians for honest dissent.

If you don't want your Christian neighbors sued and fined, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else, you will normalize Huh's defamation and further flush religion from the public square.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9259 Sep 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Now, fascism is called Political Correctness and the persecutors are the left. They sue Christians for honest dissent.
If you don't want your Christian neighbors sued and fined, keep marriage one man and one woman. Else, you will normalize Huh's defamation and further flush religion from the public square.
You twist everything backward. If you don't want to be sued and jailed DONT SPEW HATE AND BIGOTRY AND DONT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY LOVE....GOT IT HITLER TRASH??????????

You f-ing far righter Nazi pigs are dying out and that is good for this nation...Bye old fart enjoy hell.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9260 Sep 4, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
If states were concerned with children being born out of wedlock.......they'd have done something about it.......they care not!!!
They have done something about it, many things.
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dcf...
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/ciscig/s/s4s9....

Only a fool would think they don't care.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9261 Sep 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Pietro dear, it's not my fault that this was the only response you could come up with. There's no need to get snippy. The point remains the same, if the state has an interest that procreation only occur in wedlock as you claim, how is that interest served by denying some of those procreating marriage? You are the one who brought it up, don't try to weenie out now.
You seem to be confused, actually, that appears to be a normal state for you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9262 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need the state to marry. You can marry the consenting person, or persons, of your choice, all without the state. You can marry on a train, on a plane, with a mouse, in a house, while eating green eggs and ham with Sam I Am.
If you want the more than 1,138 legal rights and protections that automatically accompany marriage, you need the state agreement (license) your marriage complies with the few legitimate restrictions.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9263 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it merely requires unrelated parties so that kinship can be established.
<quoted text>
The state monitors compliance with the constitutional restrictions that have been placed on marriage when issuing a marriage license. However, in the past the state didn't have to be involved as in the case of common law marriages (which are actually still validly formed in a handful of jurisdictions).
<quoted text>
No, only those relationships that comply with constitutionally valid restrictions representing compelling government interests.
<quoted text>
Compelling government interests must exist in order to impose restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right of marriage. Restrictions don't define marriage what marriage is; they merely determine ow the right may be exercised.
<quoted text>
Not all restrictions are applicable to all individuals.
<quoted text>
The law already addresses the needs of children resulting from opposite sex procreation and does so whether the biological parents are married to each other or not. If polygamists don't like the restriction that one may only be legally married to one other individual at a time, then they're free to exercise their right to petition government to address their grievance.
<quoted text>
And anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to all blacks and all whites too. Until you learn the difference between equal application of the law as distinguished from equal protection of the law, you'll never appear anything other than stupid.
<quoted text>
And it's always been understood not all people are capable of having children nor want children. Yet those individuals weren't prohibited from marrying. Unless they were of the same sex.
<quoted text>
Which doesn't refute the fact individuals aren't restricted from marrying due to lack of raising children or refusing to have children.
<quoted text>
Many benefits are granted after a spouse is dead so it can't be because of the existence of a relationship that no longer exists.
<quoted text>
Siblings are already related by blood so violate the consanguinity restriction, which has already been established as a compelling government interest related to public health.
I would add, the incest restriction goes far beyond the genetic concerns with inbreeding. The public health concerns include the well documented history of abuse which often accompanies incest. The inherently abusive nature of such relationships have led some states to specify the incest prohibition remains when one or both partners have been rendered sterile, through surgery, accident, or age. When Minn. changed their marriage to gender neutral terms, they included the changes which prohibit incest to include those gender neutral terms.

But of course, P. knows this as we repeat it frequently, just like we keep repeating the fact marriage is a fundamental right of all persons, and can only be restricted when a compelling interest for any restriction can be demonstrated and withstand constitutional challenges.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9264 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want the more than 1,138 legal rights and protections that automatically accompany marriage, you need the state agreement (license) your marriage complies with the few legitimate restrictions.
So marry then, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9265 Sep 4, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They have done something about it, many things.
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dcf...
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/ciscig/s/s4s9....
Only a fool would think they don't care.
Every State has services for children and families......BUT it has NOTHING to do with being born out of wedlock..........nice try!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9266 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to personal autonomy to select a mate and establish kinship.
One cannot obligate, the state, to sanction one's mate, unless its based on the foundation to propagate. Hey whaddya know w that rhymes. Personal autonomy is the opposite of seeking state intervention in one's personal intimate relationship.
It's an element of personal liberty.
Uhhhh....no.....the concept of marriage, at least within American jurisprudence would not exist if not for the male female relationship.
Procreation is not the sole purpose or even the primary purpose of marriage. If it were, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Which is also why procreation doesn't exist as a constitutionally compelling government interest on which to base restrictions on the ability of individuals to marry.
I've listed a number of state case law citations contradicting your claim.
Why would you expect an extensive body of law dealing with same sex marriage when gays have historically been discriminated against and not given legal recognition of their relationships?
Or the concept of a same sex marriage is alien to the American legal understanding, of marriage, derived from English common law, as a union of husband/man and wife.
Seriously, take your head out of your ass and give your brain some oxygen. Surely you weren't born this intellectually retarded; it must have an environmental cause.
Put down the spiked rainbow punch, you've had enough already.
You wish they were but based on recent case law, they're obviously not.
Still irrelevant, if they were the state would prohibit a person from marrying outside their stated orientation.
But restricting her ability to select a compatible mate congruent with her same sex sexual orientation is an unconstitutional infringement of her personal autonomy and lacks a compelling government interest to justify it.
Again, making someone else marry according to YOUR desires is not what a fundamental right entails, small Peter.
First, one can choose a mate, as many have done, without the state. Second, there is no obligation of the part of the state to legally recognize said mate , Third, personal autonomy isn't just that, not state involvement by choice. Fourth, no one is forced to marry, or prohibited from marrying outside their self proclaimed sexual orientation. Lastly, it is it my desire, it is the historic, cultural, social, legal, and or religious understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9267 Sep 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.novackmacey.com/wp-content/uploads...
It is long established that legal fees can be recovered if the lawsuit is frivolous. In many cases the dismissal will summarily include the legal fees of the defendant if the claim against them lacks merit.
<quoted text>
Actually, so far, the three major suits Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico all involve states with anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.
https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-...
<quoted text>
The state does not bring cases because someone's feelings have been hurt. Although that may be the basis of the civil cases, the state criminal cases are brought because the proprietors broke the laws of the state.
Take a moment to know what you are talking about before you spout drivel.
you made this claim:
" if the cases were not justified, the evil homosexuals would not win, and the court would order them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification."
i simply said that there is no general rule that says that the looser must pay the attorney's fees.
you posted an opinion that applies only to the state of illinois.
some states do have a rule as you claim however many do not. therefore there is no general rule as you claim.

while there are three major suits in states that have laws that protect "sexual orientation" they do not have laws that protect the activities and events that these people choose to participate in.
in the washington florist case the florist in question had an established business relationship with the homosexual person involved. therefore it can not be shown that she discriminated against the person but rather simply chose not to have any part in the event that they wanted her to service.

if you read the comments of the plaintiff you will plainly see that he eventually brought the law suit because he was offended and upset. basically he didn't feel that anyone should have the audacity yo disagree with what he was doing. he was not harmed in any way. no one prevented him from getting "married". she made no effort to prevent him from getting "married". she just politely told him that she could not have any part in the event.

now if you can post and quote the part of the law that she is in violation of then you have a valid point. otherwise keep your childish insults to yourself.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr RiccardoFire 8,391
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 9 hr TimeToAct 32,013
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding 21 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate 21 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
News ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr to actively camp... Thu Wallace 3
News Church leaders debate support for same sex marr... Thu The Bible Student 2
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas Aug 16 Dead down Under 1
More from around the web