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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9268 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So marry then, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
Sorry Pete, but my marriage is entitled to the 1138 federal rights, benefits and privileges just like any legally married opposite-sex couple receives.....and my marriage now has federal recognition in ALL 50 States, even though it might not be recognized at the individual state level!!!
barry

Henagar, AL

#9269 Sep 4, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Point is Trayvon defended himself and got killed and his killer got off.
if tray defended himself, just what were the defensive wounds that were found on his body.
it was george the had defensive wounds on his body, bloody nose, scalp etc. tray only had a gunshot and bloody knuckles.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9270 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not all who advocate for conjugal marriage are heterosexual, homosexuals do too
Feel free to substantiate that statement. I don't think you can.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh gee that's brilliant. Here's a news flash for ya, infertile couples HAVE ALWAYS married, and the link between marriage and procreation still existed, still understood, and still formed the state's interest in marriage.
Actually, Pietro, you have just disproven your own assertion by admitting that infertile couples may legally marry. Your assertion is BS.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You've yet to offer a state interest served by preventing you from marrying the opposite sex person of your choosing which would maintain your constitutional right to marry.
Were you attempting to articulate a thought.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Once again, your ignorance of history is illuminating. The state has ALWAYS allowed infertile opposite sex couples to marry because marriage is a male female union intrinsically linked to procreation. An infertile couple does change the form, male female, that forms the basis for the compelling state interest.
Just how dumb would you like me to believe you are.
If they have ALWAYS allowed infertile heterosexual couples to marry, then the institution is not "intrinsically linked to procreation." Thank you, for disproving your own assertion. Nicely done.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM advocates seek if not greater protection, clearly a different foundation upon which to base the equal protection of law, as it relates to marriage. That quest seeks to remove the very basis upon which the equal protection is applied.
Different is not greater. They seek equal protection of the law for two people, and you seem utterly incapable of articulating a state interest served by denying such protection that would render doing so constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No Ma'am it is you who cannot use basic logic.
Funny, I am not the one saying that marriage is "intrinsically linked to procreation" in the same sentence where I concede that infertile heterosexual couples have ALWAYS been allowed to marry.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9271 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
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.
It is a long standing legal precedent to assess the legal fees of the defendant to the plaintiff in cases of frivolous litigation.
barry wrote:
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.
Uhm, you do understand what anti-discrimination laws do, right?
barry wrote:
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.
"The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage."
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/202074...
She doesn't have the right to use her business to project her religious or political views onto others. Had she prudently said that she was overbooked and couldn't provide the service, she wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, she choose to use her business to make a political statement, and she is reaping the reward for that decision.
barry wrote:
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.
Of course, I was referring to the lawsuit brought by the state, which is in defense of Washington state law.
barry wrote:
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.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
Refusing service for a same sex wedding is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

Could she deny service to a black couple, interracial couple, or Jewish couple's wedding? Of course not.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9272 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Abuse within any relationship can be dealt with by the various legal mechanism already in place. That fact that same sex siblings, who for all practical purposes, are spouses, should not bar them bar them from civil marriage.
There is no compelling state interest in prohibiting such marriages.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9273 Sep 4, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
They were never asked to participate in the activities. They were employed to provide services offered by their public businesses. There moral convictions were irrelevant. Just like the moral convictions of a KKK member are irrelevant if they operate a public business and are employed by a Jew.
Go peddle your imaginary persecution somewhere else. No one here is buying that shyt.
thankfully we have a Bill of Rights that clearly says that moral convictions are relevant.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9274 Sep 4, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why do you continue to state this fallacy? No one is forced to marry. It is in the best interest of state, and society for children to be raised by their own biological mother and father, if at all possible.
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.
There is enough case law stating the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation.
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"
That fact remains, marriage is a fundamental right due to the male female relationship.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9275 Sep 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a long standing legal precedent to assess the legal fees of the defendant to the plaintiff in cases of frivolous litigation.
<quoted text>
Uhm, you do understand what anti-discrimination laws do, right?
<quoted text>
"The state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage."
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/202074...
She doesn't have the right to use her business to project her religious or political views onto others. Had she prudently said that she was overbooked and couldn't provide the service, she wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, she choose to use her business to make a political statement, and she is reaping the reward for that decision.
<quoted text>
Of course, I was referring to the lawsuit brought by the state, which is in defense of Washington state law.
<quoted text>
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
Refusing service for a same sex wedding is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
Could she deny service to a black couple, interracial couple, or Jewish couple's wedding? Of course not.
you have not shown two things.
#1 that it is a general long standing rule across our great land to compensate the defendants of frivolous law suits.
and
#2 that anything involving ssm litigation would be considered frivolous.

now to your attorney general;
attorney generals are always right and always prevail in court...not.

i did notice that you have not quoted the section of the law that you claim she has violated. i also noticed the the attorney general also did not quote any applicable law that is on their books.
what has been stated is nothing more than wishful thinking and not what is the facts.

now if two black homosexual men wanted her to provide flowers for their wedding would the claim be that she refused because they were black? your example is not quite on topic. so let me bring it back on topic. if two heterosexual men wanted to form a legal union for economic purposes that the state of washington would call a marriage, would she not also decide not to provide flowers for that event?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9276 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Abuse within any relationship can be dealt with by the various legal mechanism already in place. That fact that same sex siblings, who for all practical purposes, are spouses, should not bar them bar them from civil marriage.
There is no compelling state interest in prohibiting such marriages.
Congratulations, you have crafted a valid case for same sex incest!

You have made no valid argument in opposition to same sex marriage.

Is this what you intended to do?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9277 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.[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]
Just another of your many lies, Brian. The Christians in question broke the law and caused their own legal issues. Only bigots like you twist the facts and call lawbreakers "victims" and the actual victims "persecutors". I guess we're lucky Christians don't believe they should put non-believers to death or you'd be here trying to justify why murderers are victims of "persecution" for acting according to their religious beliefs.

And you seem to forget Christians are commanded in the new testament to obey civil authorities and civil law, not to ignore them or break them. So the people you're defending are either ignorant of the rules of their professed faith or just lousy adherents (or more likely both).

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]If you don't want your Christian neighbors sued and fined, keep marriage one man and one woman.
The general public has an expectation that law breakers will be dealt with in accordance with the law regardless of their religious beliefs. But you want special privileges and immunities for Christians to be above the law or immune from from the legal consequences of their actions.
Brian_G wrote:
Else, you will normalize Huh's defamation and further flush religion from the public square.
A private business isn't the "public square", Brian. Were you born this stupid or did it take years of practice?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9278 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you continue to state this fallacy?
Actually, nothing Terra Firma said was fallacious, or without basis in fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No one is forced to marry.
They never claimed anyone was.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is in the best interest of state, and society for children to be raised by their own biological mother and father, if at all possible.
Actually, there is no such state interest, a fact that TF also addressed by pointing out that the state allows divorce, and does not intervene in the case of out of wedlock births. As per your own statement "No one is forced to marry."

Isn't it funny when you claim someone else is making a fallacious argument, when in fact the fallacious argument is your own?
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is enough case law stating the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation.
No, there isn't. Infertile heterosexual couples, or couples with no intention of procreating regularly marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That fact remains, marriage is a fundamental right due to the male female relationship.
The fact remains that you can't offer a single state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9279 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you have not shown two things.
#1 that it is a general long standing rule across our great land to compensate the defendants of frivolous law suits.
and
#2 that anything involving ssm litigation would be considered frivolous.
now to your attorney general;
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/titl...
barry wrote:
attorney generals are always right and always prevail in court...not.
I never claimed they were.
barry wrote:
i did notice that you have not quoted the section of the law that you claim she has violated. i also noticed the the attorney general also did not quote any applicable law that is on their books.
I see you are unwilling to read a short distance into a link, so here you are, your laziness.

Specifically 1b
"(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;
(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;"
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...
barry wrote:
what has been stated is nothing more than wishful thinking and not what is the facts.
now if two black homosexual men wanted her to provide flowers for their wedding would the claim be that she refused because they were black? your example is not quite on topic. so let me bring it back on topic. if two heterosexual men wanted to form a legal union for economic purposes that the state of washington would call a marriage, would she not also decide not to provide flowers for that event?
In Washington state, they could pursue their claim based upon sexuality. Unless, of course, she said she denied service on the basis of race, at which point they could proceed with two legal theories. Baronelle refused service on the basis that it was a same sex wedding. Were she smarter, and simply had claimed she was booked for the time in question, she would not be in her current predicament. Instead, she decided to make a political statement.

Denying service for a same sex wedding is a denial of service on the basis of sexuality, which is illegal in the state of Washington. Baroneele will not prevail in court, because she has no valid defense.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9280 Sep 4, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, you have crafted a valid case for same sex incest!
You have made no valid argument in opposition to same sex marriage.
Is this what you intended to do?
He continues to ignore that 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.

If procreation was the only legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting incest, a sterilization operation would nullify that interest. Clearly, the abusive nature is an even more important interest for the government.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9281 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you continue to state this fallacy? No one is forced to marry. It is in the best interest of state, and society for children to be raised by their own biological mother and father, if at all possible.
<quoted text>
There is enough case law stating the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation.
<quoted text>
That fact remains, marriage is a fundamental right due to the male female relationship.
And still, you ignore the fact fundamental rights do not need to provide any benefit to the government.

You still ignore the fact fundamental rights come from being human.

You still ignore the Supreme Court case law which makes it clear that marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation is impossible or declined, and even when sex is impossible. Children benefit from marriage, but are not a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9282 Sep 4, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
He continues to ignore that 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.
If procreation was the only legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting incest, a sterilization operation would nullify that interest. Clearly, the abusive nature is an even more important interest for the government.
Every time he brings up incest or polygamy, he merely reaffirms that he has no valid, on topic, argument.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9283 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot obligate, the state, to sanction one's mate, unless its based on the foundation to propagate.
Sure they can; infertile opposite sex couples do it all the time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hey whaddya know w that rhymes.
Don't worry; no one will be asking you to become poet laureate any time soon.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Personal autonomy is the opposite of seeking state intervention in one's personal intimate relationship.
The only state intervention into gays' exercising of their fundamental right of marriage is the unconstitutional restriction without a compelling government interest that prevents them from marrying a same sex partner.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhh....no.....the concept of marriage, at least within American jurisprudence would not exist if not for the male female relationship.
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"
Pietro Armando wrote:
I've listed a number of state case law citations contradicting your claim.
Too bad none of them have any relevance to US constitutional law and, in fact, are all moot within their own states since all the ones you've cited now give legal recognition to same sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
No fault divorce and personal autonomy by the wife independent of her husband are also alien to "American legal understanding, of marriage, derived from English common law, as a union of husband/man and wife". And yet they now exist as American jurisprudence. It seems you'd have been left behind by history no matter what century you lived in, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Put down the spiked rainbow punch, you've had enough already.
Apparently you've yet to take your head out of your ass because the drivel you continue posting stills sounds as though your brain is suffering oxygen deprivation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Still irrelevant, if they were the state would prohibit a person from marrying outside their stated orientation.
I doubt you can provide a compelling state interest to justify such a restriction. Just as there's no compelling state interest to prohibit citizens from marrying others of like sexual orientation which 30+ states do any way when it comes to gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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
The constitutional right of equal protection of the law demands it, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Third, personal autonomy isn't just that, not state involvement by choice.
The state exists to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Fourth, no one is forced to marry, or prohibited from marrying outside their self proclaimed sexual orientation.
But gays alone are prohibited from marrying within their sexual orientation. Heterosexuals have a choice that gays are denied and that restriction serves no compelling government interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
History, culture, society, the law and religion have all moved on. Best you do as well or be left behind.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9284 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Abuse within any relationship can be dealt with by the various legal mechanism already in place. That fact that same sex siblings, who for all practical purposes, are spouses, should not bar them bar them from civil marriage.
There is no compelling state interest in prohibiting such marriages.
The fact marriage confers kinship on previously unrelated people serves as such a compelling interest since the parties you cite are already related by blood.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9285 Sep 4, 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.
A fundamental rights defined.

"To prevent abuses that threaten the entire civilization, to create happiness for all people, and to prevent great unjustified suffering, all fundamental rights are granted to all people in every civilized society. The italicized statement is also the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The amendment grants all fundamental rights not already granted in other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, each right is a liberty since it prevents certain restrictions on one's state of body or environment; liberty cannot be denied without "due process of law" (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); and there is no due (proper) process of law to deny fundamental rights since denying such rights is inherently improper since fundamental rights are those rights whose protection is essential for the society. Liberty is the ability to do whatever one wants; thus, all restrictions are deprivations of liberty; however, some restrictions are proper and thus with due process of law. Freedom to control other people is a liberty since the right to achieve what one wants (or even merely freedom from bodily restraint) is meaningless without some control over other people. This document describes, explains, and justifies human rights and their protection by the United States Constitution."

http://web.mit.edu/dmytro/www/FundamentalRigh...

There must be a compelling state interest to deny an individual's fundamental rights and due process of the law. There is no such compelling state interest with regard to reproduction. People are free to reproduce with or without marriage.

GIANT FAIL bro.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9286 Sep 4, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>thankfully we have a Bill of Rights that clearly says that moral convictions are relevant.
"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”

Concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor in Lawrence v. Texas.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9287 Sep 4, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... your moral convictions do not give you the right to ignore the law. Sorry.
two things;

when you can post and quote a law that was ignored in this case then you may have a point.
and what do we do when a law or its interpretation ignores existing laws and constitutional rights?

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 When is it really time for couples therapy? 1 hr Crazy Jae 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr No Surprise 7,036
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 13 hr john parise 32,000
News Documentary explores drag scene in city of the ... Tue snowpale 2
News Alabama chief justice tells judges: Refuse gay ... (Feb '15) Mon ThomasA 40
News Anti-Gay Church Protests Brookfield 'Mega Church' (Jul '12) Jul 24 fuuny 21
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Jul 23 Tex- 18
More from around the web