Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 427)

Showing posts 8,521 - 8,540 of17,498
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9258
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9259
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9264
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9266
Sep 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 8,521 - 8,540 of17,498
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••