Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9798 Sep 12, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure thing. Want to join me?
I'll bring the beer and some vino. Maybe some cannoli.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9799 Sep 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bring the beer and some vino. Maybe some cannoli.
Cool.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9800 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Answering for "Not Yet Equal", are we?
No, that poster is perfectly capable of refuting your crap on his own.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps you should read what he wrote, so you can see how my answers correspond to his post.
No need; your posts always contain the same crap you repeat ad nauseam despite multiple people refuting it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Then try again.
I post on my terms, not yours. Deal with it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9801 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NYE likes to repeatedly claim I have said procreation is a requirement of marriage. I have pointed out, citing court cases, that show procreation and marriage are intrinsically linked. Do I need to repost them?
Having a connection by no means makes one the purpose of the other. And if you repeatedly cite cases asserting they're linked you're implicitly stating you agree. So what's the matter, are you just too much of a coward to outright say you think it's requirement? If it's not in your mind, then why keep citing cases and calling procreation and marriage "intrinsically linked"?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So yes, he did lie. Thanks for defending the lying. Good job!
The way you blather on about procreation and marriage implicitly asserts you think the former is the purpose of the latter. Just like you keep pointing out gays don't "naturally" procreate. Why the obsession with procreation if your don't think it's the purpose or an unwritten requirement of marriage? After all, you've previously asserted other aspects of marriage such as the opposite sex requirement didn't need to be written down either.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh what the heck....
I deleted your citations for space and relevance, since all of the cases were at least 30 years old and preceded the advent of landmark gay rights cases that began to acknowledge the historical discrimination inflicted upon gays. Once again, from the dissent in your favorite Maryland marriage case:

"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."

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9802 Sep 13, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, if this is true, then why are most of the cases in jurisdictions that don't allow same sex marriage? Could you just stipulate to the fact that you are an imbecile?
All those jurisdictions have anti-hate PC speech codes; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9803 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can the state treat both relationships "equal" when the foundation is different for both of them, and there is no compelling state interest in a same sex union? The very pronouncement by the officiating agent of the state, indicates a different treatment, "husband and wife", compared to "spouses for life".
And yet states that allow same-sex marriages ARE treating the marriages equally.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The foundation of the marital relationship, husband and wife, has a deep seated, historical, cultural, legal, and/or religious, basis in not only the United States, but around the world. A same sex union, male or female, does not. Not every single marital, aspect, presumption, or law, will, or can apply to s same sex union due to its composition. To claim otherwise is to ignore reality.
Name even one way that the state cares that there are 'husbands' or 'wives' in any marriage.

States care about the spouses.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9804 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that poster is perfectly capable of refuting your crap on his own.
Yet he continues to make false claims.
No need; your posts always contain the same crap you repeat ad nauseam despite multiple people refuting it.
As do yours, and his.
I post on my terms, not yours. Deal with it.
Very good then, let Nye address my answers to him.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9805 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Having a connection by no means makes one the purpose of the other. And if you repeatedly cite cases asserting they're linked you're implicitly stating you agree. So what's the matter, are you just too much of a coward to outright say you think it's requirement? If it's not in your mind, then why keep citing cases and calling procreation and marriage "intrinsically linked"?
Did u actually read those? What confused you? Try these.

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.

“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.

“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
The way you blather on about procreation and marriage implicitly asserts you think the former is the purpose of the latter. Just like you keep pointing out gays don't "naturally" procreate.
"Gays", or those with self professed same sex attraction/orientation can naturally procreate, and in pairs, provide the pair of "gays" are of the opposite sex.
Why the obsession with procreation if your don't think it's the purpose or an unwritten requirement of marriage? After all, you've previously asserted other aspects of marriage such as the opposite sex requirement didn't need to be written down either.
Nice try McFly.....purpose, yes.....requirement, no. Big difference. Do you really think "marriage" would exist if not for two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual?
I deleted your citations for space and relevance, since all of the cases were at least 30 years old and preceded the advent of landmark gay rights cases that began to acknowledge the historical discrimination inflicted upon gays. Once again, from the dissent in your favorite Maryland marriage case:
"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."
You deleted them because you are unable, or unwilling to acknowledge that procreation is a purpose of marriage, and court case dating back over the past 100 years have stated this. Why wouldn't be? Maybe that's why you answer for Nye.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9806 Sep 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>All those jurisdictions have anti-hate PC speech codes; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law.
There are no hate speech laws; they would be violations of the US constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech. Anti-dscrimination and hate crime laws target behavior, not speech.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9807 Sep 13, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet states that allow same-sex marriages ARE treating the marriages equally.
If they were treated "equally" the pronouncement would be the same from the onset.
Name even one way that the state cares that there are 'husbands' or 'wives' in any marriage.
States care about the spouses.
Try consummation, presumption of paternity. So if all the state cares about is "spouses", no reason not to accept one's choice of spouse, or spouses, as long as they're consenting adults. Right?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9808 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet he continues to make false claims.
It's an understandable conclusion based on the content of your posts with your incessant harping about procreation and marriage being "linked".
Pietro Armando wrote:
As do yours, and his.
You don't refute; you either repeat or stop responding.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Very good then, let Nye address my answers to him.
Public forum. Deal with it, crybaby.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9809 Sep 13, 2013
Bill de Blasio’s wife opened up about falling in love with a man after years of identifying as a lesbian and their life as a “very conventional, unconventional couple” in a candid interview released Thursday.
Chirlane McCray, 58, said her relationship with de Blasio was made possible “by putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in.”
The interview, with Essence magazine, comes 34 years after McCray penned a groundbreaking 1979 essay for Essence entitled,“I Am a Lesbian,” about coming out as a gay black woman.
A dozen years later, in 1991, McCray met de Blasio while she worked for the New York Commission on Human Rights and he was an aide to then-Mayor David Dinkins.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/de-b...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9810 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an understandable conclusion based on the content of your posts with your incessant harping about procreation and marriage being "linked".
No......Nye claimed I had stated it was a requirement, which I repeatedly acknowledged it was not.
You don't refute; you either repeat or stop responding.
Ohhhhhhhhh......pull-ease..... .I'm responding right now as I type.....
Public forum. Deal with it, crybaby.
Don't be a liar liar pants on fire then.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9811 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did u actually read those? What confused you? Try these.
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.
“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
Again, you merely prove my point that you lack the ability to refute anything, only repeat it ad nauseam. Again, all the cases predate landmark gay civil rights cases. Citing cases from an era of discrimination against gays only proves my point about their lack of relevancy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gays", or those with self professed same sex attraction/orientation can naturally procreate, and in pairs, provide the pair of "gays" are of the opposite sex.
Same with "Italians". Do you have a point?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nice try McFly.....purpose, yes.....requirement, no. Big difference. Do you really think "marriage" would exist if not for two sexes, and human reproduction is sexual?
Yes. Because the historical constant of marriage is to establish kinship between previously unrelated parties. The historical political and economic advantages of that occur regardless of whether the marriage produces offspring.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]You deleted them because you are unable, or unwilling to acknowledge that procreation is a purpose of marriage, and court case dating back over the past 100 years have stated this. Why wouldn't be? Maybe that's why you answer for Nye.
And yet procreation occurs outside of marriage all the time so it can't be the purpose or even a primary purpose of marriage today. It's simply "a" propose for some people.

And I told you why in the post you chose to ignore my comments and whine about the fact I responded to your post to another person. Procreating within marriage was a greater concern in the past due to the social stigma and other negative consequences associated with illegitimacy. SCOTUS ruled legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for equal protection constitutional law and so it's not really an issue now.

Times change. Too bad your living in the past in your little fantasy world.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9812 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No......Nye claimed I had stated it was a requirement, which I repeatedly acknowledged it was not.
Fine. So procreation is a purpose of marriage for some people. What relevance does it have to the discussion of marriage as a fundamental right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhh......pull-ease..... .I'm responding right now as I type.....
Shall I go back and list all my previous posts to which you stopped responding?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't be a liar liar pants on fire then.
Stop being a crybaby.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9813 Sep 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
All those jurisdictions have anti-hate PC speech codes; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law.
Why do you back hateful and intolerant, lawbreakers?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9814 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
If they were treated "equally" the pronouncement would be the same from the onset.
But the words said during the ceremony has NO LEGAL WEIGHT. Anything can be said. Yet all the marriages ARE LEGALLY THE SAME!
Pietro Armando wrote:
Try consummation, presumption of paternity.
Consummation is not gender nor sexual orientation dependent.

And if paternity was so important, why is Virginia (not a gay-friendly state) actively fighting to ignore a father's natural paternity right in an adoption case? In this day and age of DNA testing and the notion of who makes a father, a pretty weak argument to deny two same-sex fathers or two lesbian mothers the right to legally marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if all the state cares about is "spouses", no reason not to accept one's choice of spouse, or spouses, as long as they're consenting adults. Right?
Yes, Spouses as a pair. I've dealt with the issue of more than two spouses in previous posts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9815 Sep 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="Daveinthe bright oted text>
But the words said during the ceremony has NO LEGAL WEIGHT. Anything can be said. Yet all the marriages ARE LEGALLY THE SAME!
[/QUOTE]

Then why not the same pronouncement if they're the same?
Consummation is not gender nor sexual orientation dependent.
It dependent on a certain sexual activity. How about coitus? Copulation?
And if paternity was so important, why is Virginia (not a gay-friendly state) actively fighting to ignore a father's natural paternity right in an adoption case?
Ask Virginia....but another example of the differences between the two relationships.
In this day and age of DNA testing and the notion of who makes a father, a pretty weak argument to deny two same-sex fathers or two lesbian mothers the right to legally marry.
How about denying the right of one straight father and to marry the straight mother of his other children?
Yes, Spouses as a pair. I've dealt with the issue of more than two spouses in previous posts.
And the two sisters who want each other as legal spouses?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9816 Sep 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NYE likes to repeatedly claim I have said procreation is a requirement of marriage. I have pointed out, citing court cases, that show procreation and marriage are intrinsically linked. Do I need to repost them?
<quoted text>
So yes, he did lie. Thanks for defending the lying. Good job!
Oh what the heck....
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1129571505.html
“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” Baker v. Baker, 13 Cal. 87, 103 (1859).“he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principal ends of marriage.” Sharon v. Sharon, 75 Cal. 1 (1888)(quoting Stewart on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 103.“Procreation, if not the sole, is at least an important, reason for the existence of the marriage relation.” Davis v. Davis, 106 A. 644, 645 (N.J. Ch. Div. 1919).“The great end of matrimony is ... the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father.” Laudo v. Laudo, 197 N.Y.S. 396, 397 (App. Div. 1919); Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F.2d 787, 796 (5th Cir. 1975)(“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage....”); Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 (Wash. App. 1974)(“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”); Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn. 1971), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)(“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”); Heup v. Heup, 172 N.W.2d 334, 336 (Wis. 1969)(“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”); Zoglio v. Zoglio, 157 A.2d 627, 628 (D.C. App. 1960)(“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”); Frost v. Frost, 181 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563 (Supr. Ct. New York Co. 1958)(discussing “one of the primary purposes of marriage, to wit, the procreation of the human species.”); Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 108 (Fam. Ct. Div. Richmond Co. 1942)(“The procreation of off-spring under the natural law being the object of marriage, its permanency is the foundation of the social order.”); Stegienko v. Stegienko, 295 N.W. 252, 254 (Mich. 1940)(stating that “procreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony”); Gard v. Gard, 169 N.W. 908, 912 (Mich. 1918)(“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”); Lyon v. Barney, 132 Ill. App. 45, 50 (1907)(“[T]he procreating of the human species is regarded, at least theoretically, as the primary purpose of marriage ...”); Grover v. Zook, 87 P.638, 639 (Wash. 1906)(“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”); Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982)(observing that a “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race”);
While procreation has been recognized as one of the primary purposes of marriage, it is not the only primary purpose, nor is it a necessary condition. Marriage remains a fundamental right independent of procreation, as subsequent court cases have made clear. Marriage remains a fundamental right of the individual even when procreation is impossible and even when sex is impossible. Again, your reliance on old court cases fails to change this fact of law, recognized even by anti-gay Justice Scalia.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9817 Sep 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that poster is perfectly capable of refuting your crap on his own.
<quoted text>
No need; your posts always contain the same crap you repeat ad nauseam despite multiple people refuting it.
<quoted text>
I post on my terms, not yours. Deal with it.
I appreciate your posts.

I'm also tired of repeating the same old argument and tolerating the abusive replies.

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) 1 hr patrol 4,677
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 18
News 'Sausage Party': Orgy Of Upset From French Cath... 4 hr Newt G s Next Wife 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 23 hr hatem 245
News Man who was shot dead by police after 'running ... Thu Ben Ghazi 1
News Utah denies it has anti-gay school laws Thu Toby Stoner 4
nose Thu nose 2
More from around the web