Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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!

#9984 Sep 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As many a court have stated.
<quoted text>
Then the child becomes a ward of the state.
You are aware
<quoted text>
I notice you're using "opposite sex", and "same sex", in place of sexual identity labels. Simple, and accurate. Anyway if marriage, the conjugal version still held the value today, as it did 40+ years ago, ssm would be non existent.
The Supreme Court has ruled that both marriage and procreation are FUNDAMENTAL rights.....NOT that they are hand in hand or are required in order to make them both Fundamental!!!

What sexual identity labels are you referring to? Only 2 types of couples get legally married.....opposite-sex aka one man and one woman or Same-Sex aka both of the same gender.......I thought you would have understood that!!!

You don't know that to be true......marriage has been changing and evolving for over 500 years, so it does go to show that marriage is important, not necessarily outdated as just between 2 people of the opposite-sex....but inclusive of anyone who wants to marry the person they decide to and who decides to marry them!!!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9985 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]
(wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

Of the 13 States which have SSM only three are by popular vote. The other nine were imposed either through the courts of Legislature. 35 States ban SSM through Constitutional Amendment and State Law.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.p...

You are going to have to slug it out state by state and it will never happen. Your only hope is through the courts or legislature and there will be a backlash if that happens. People are fed up on this issue and will fight back. Sick and tired of the imposition of moral stupidity under the guise of freedom. Sick and tired of pro SSM tactics who claim everyone is a bigot who opposes their agenda.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9986 Sep 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why recognize marriage to begin with?
Your question is irrelevant, as all 50 states do recognize marriage.

Are you trying to assemble a relevant argument to deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, or are you attempting to argue against marriage in its entirety? Sometimes it is difficult to tell.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You understand that removing the wife or the husband, from the legally recognized union of husband and wife, fundamentally alters the relationship, and the compelling state interest therein. No compelling state interest, no need for state recognition.
Of course, this is irrelevant. As has been explained to you, many times, unless there is a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, such a restriction is unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state has a vested interest in encouraging men and women to exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, for it is that relationship which is the union capable of brining forth new life, but is crucial for societal stability.
Sorry charlie, this rationalization is particularly weak, and is disproven by the fact that infertile couples may legally marry.
"Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.

Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”

“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can a same sex couple marry, when the right to marry is the right to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? What you asking is for the state to designate a same sex relationship, "marriage".
You've yet to offer a state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, and b) prove that you are moderately intelligent.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is there a state obligation to legally recognize marriage? If a state chose not to do so anymore, would the right to marry, still exist in that state?
No, and no.

The reality remains that marriage exists in every state in the union, and you are too dumb to defend your position with a rational argument.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9987 Sep 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the basis for this particular fundamental right?
What is the basis for all fundamental rights?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9988 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H istory_of_same-sex_unions
Of the 13 States which have SSM only three are by popular vote. The other nine were imposed either through the courts of Legislature. 35 States ban SSM through Constitutional Amendment and State Law.
Why is it that dullards always make their argument via wikipedia?

Here's a hint, 13, minus 3, equals 10, not 9.

Those ten instances where courts ruled to allow same sex marriage were decided upon the law and the US Constitution. The reality remains that unless you are able to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry, they will continue to win in court. Eventually, this issue will arrive before the US Supreme Court, and same sex marriage will become the law of the land. There is no rational reason to deny equal protection.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9989 Sep 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet such legalized relationships failed to established deep, sustainable, cross cultural, cross time, roots.
"A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed."

Again, John Adams: "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

Of course it has never become mainstream. Only a minority is affected. Again, it is this history of majorities usurping the equal rights of the minority that resulted in the promise of equality in the Declaration and the requirement of equality in the Constitution. The founders were able to learn from the past. How about you?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9990 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...
Of the 13 States which have SSM only three are by popular vote. The other nine were imposed either through the courts of Legislature. 35 States ban SSM through Constitutional Amendment and State Law.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.p...
You are going to have to slug it out state by state and it will never happen. Your only hope is through the courts or legislature and there will be a backlash if that happens. People are fed up on this issue and will fight back. Sick and tired of the imposition of moral stupidity under the guise of freedom. Sick and tired of pro SSM tactics who claim everyone is a bigot who opposes their agenda.
And yet, you offer no rational excuse for refusal to treat others as you would yourself under the law.

Prejudice is a better word than bigotry. Denial of equal legal rights fulfills the definition.

While we usually think of bigotry as including hate, hate is not necessary to fulfill the definition. Like prejudice, denial of legal equality alone is sufficient to fulfill the definition.

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." (Golinski)

"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill)
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9991 Sep 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that dullards always make their argument via wikipedia?
Here's a hint, 13, minus 3, equals 10, not 9.
Those ten instances where courts ruled to allow same sex marriage were decided upon the law and the US Constitution. The reality remains that unless you are able to articulate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to legally marry, they will continue to win in court. Eventually, this issue will arrive before the US Supreme Court, and same sex marriage will become the law of the land. There is no rational reason to deny equal protection.
It depends on the wording, today anyway... 14 states and DC recognize marriage equality. NM recognizes out of state ss couple marriage, while only 7 NM counties issue licenses. 13 states and DC issue licenses, 14 states and 14 other countries recognize them.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9992 Sep 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that dullards always make their argument via wikipedia?
Here's a hint, 13, minus 3, equals 10, not 9.
Go back and look at why i referenced the Wiki site. It was one of your group which referenced the wiki site. I just identified it. Besides the sources does not matter if the information is correct and that includes wiki. Pay attrention to detail before you go calling other dullards. Dullard.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9993 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, you offer no rational excuse for refusal to treat others as you would yourself under the law.
35 States ban SSM. Everybody a bigot except you? Can't make an argument? A bigot is anybody losing an argument which a liberal?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9994 Sep 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The resistance is over the redefinition of legal marriage, and its possible negative impact on society at large.
Pray tell, what possible negative impact would that be, and why have those types of arguments FAILED in court?
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9995 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...
Of the 13 States which have SSM only three are by popular vote. The other nine were imposed either through the courts of Legislature. 35 States ban SSM through Constitutional Amendment and State Law.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.p...
You are going to have to slug it out state by state and it will never happen. Your only hope is through the courts or legislature and there will be a backlash if that happens. People are fed up on this issue and will fight back. Sick and tired of the imposition of moral stupidity under the guise of freedom. Sick and tired of pro SSM tactics who claim everyone is a bigot who opposes their agenda.
... and y'all HATE IT when we prove that in court. You ARE bigots. Your 'reasons' to oppose SSM are irrational. Most of them are merely fear-mongering with lies and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

I have no doubt that there will be hold-out States on SSM. It matters not. Any gay couple can visit New York and get married. The federal government will recognize their marriage.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#9996 Sep 17, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, you claim Christian wedding vendors must be forced to participate in same sex weddings because objecting isn't free speech? How do you get there?
AGAIN, for the billionth time, bi, anyone can think, feel, believe or even SAY whatever they want.

it's the actions they take that are either in compliance with the law or they violate it. if the vendor chooses to discriminate against someone on the state list of groups (by not providing their professional services) then their ACTIONS violate the law of that state. their words do not. their thoughts do no. their beliefs do not. it is strictly restricted to their actions that are in violation of state law.

go that yet bi?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9997 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 35 States ban SSM. Everybody a bigot except you? Can't make an argument? A bigot is anybody losing an argument which a liberal?
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." (Golinski)

"As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#9998 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]
(wiki)
You left out this from your wiki article. Also incest marriages big in Egypt. If you are going to use the ancients to justisfy SSM then you must also approve of pederastry and incest. Not a good idea. They had some pretty weird ideas and practices.
In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.[citation needed] This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9999 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You left out this from your wiki article. Also incest marriages big in Egypt. If you are going to use the ancients to justisfy SSM then you must also approve of pederastry and incest. Not a good idea. They had some pretty weird ideas and practices.
<quoted text>
History shows same sex marriage is nothing new, just like opposite sex marriage.

The restrictions on incest and number, are different from the restriction on gender. Your attempt to conflate the two, demonstrates you have no valid argument on removing the restriction on gender.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10000 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what is the basis for all fundamental rights?
What is the definitional basis, for this particualr dundamental right, to marry? What does it mean "to marry" in the eyes of the law, as it relates to that fundamental right?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10001 Sep 17, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
History shows same sex marriage is nothing new, just like opposite sex marriage.
History shows scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions. What it does to show is a parallel development of SSM, alongside OSM, both monogamous, and polygamous, across cultures and time.
The restrictions on incest and number, are different from the restriction on gender. Your attempt to conflate the two, demonstrates you have no valid argument on removing the restriction on gender.
Explain why it is acceptable for two same sex first cousins to legally marry in an SSM/first cousin marriage state, but not same sex siblings? Both pairing are already related, nor is there a risk of sexual procreation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10002 Sep 17, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You left out this from your wiki article. Also incest marriages big in Egypt. If you are going to use the ancients to justisfy SSM then you must also approve of pederastry and incest. Not a good idea. They had some pretty weird ideas and practices.
<quoted text>
Good job LBR!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10003 Sep 17, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
What does it mean "to marry" in the eyes of the law, as it relates to that fundamental right?
The State sets the marital requirements, the State issues the marriage license once the couple presents themselves to the County Clerk and all of the requirements have been met, the County Clerk then issues the marriage license.

When the Count Clerk, Justice of the Peace or an official Clergy perform the wedding ceremony in front of witnesses, and they say the words, "By the power invested in me, by the State of_______ and County of________",and then make the pronouncement the couple is then married in the eyes of the law!!!

You keep trying to make marriage as a Fundamental right ONLY for a man and a woman.....when in reality.......SCOTUS NEVER actually ruled it gender specific!!!

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) 4 min Tre H 4,332
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 20 min giftstar 127
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 35 min toabhah 36,046
News Bollywood in Taipei 3 hr TW_sugar_daddio 4
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 4 hr longtime Boro res... 31,919
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) 7 hr True Christian w... 30
News At gay pride parades, large crowds and increase... 20 hr OUCH 4
More from around the web