Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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

#10383 Sep 24, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU DON"T GET IT!!!
Marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it falls upon the state to justify any restrictions on that right.
What's it to get? Marriage as a fundamental right, is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Rather straight forward.
As an absolute right, marriage would allow anyone marrying anyone else anytime anywhere. Male-female, male-male, female-female, 1 male and multiple females, 1 female and multiple males, multiple males and multiple females, couples of any age. In short, any and all combinations that anyone could (and do) think of.
That's not necessarily true. There still must be a foundational definitional basis for the fundamental right of marriage. It is the union of one man and one woman, of age, able to consent, not currently married, and not closely related by blood, as husband and wife.
But we don't live in an absolute world. And since the state gives benefits and rights to those married the state places restrictions on those who can marry. Restrictions. But to place a restriction on a fundamental right the state needs... you guessed it...'a compelling state interest'.
Exactly, a compelling state interest which does to exist in a same sex relationship.
The state Restricts marriage by setting a lower age limit to marry. It is constitutional because the state has a compelling state interest to protect children.
And no, you cannot marry a non human because the other party cannot give consent... yes... a compelling state interest.
The state restricts those who can marry to two at a time. The state has a compelling state interest to ensure heredity rights. To affirmatively know who would be the presumptive care-giver if the other spouse is incapacitated, etc. We are not a war-faring society that loses a disproportionate number of males in the population, so plural marriage would not have a stabilizing influence on society. Quite the opposite in fact as witnessed by what happens to the unattached males in fundamentalist LDS communities.
Of age, yes. Non humans, that's silly. More than one wife, or husband at a time........
All societies have an incest taboo. Because married couples do tend to have sex and having sex often leads to children, the state has a compelling state interest to ensure the wellbeing of those potential children. So closely related individuals cannot marry as a compelling state interest. And now that the state has that restriction, the state cannot then allow same-sex relatives to marry (your personal red herring) because then the state would run afoul of the equal protection clause; either no close relatives can marry or all close relative can marry.
continued...
Many societies have had a same sex sexual behavior taboo as well. However now that SMS is legal in some state and countries, the rules have changed. What was once considered immoral is now acceptable. So why is "immoral" for two sisters, or two brothers to marry? No risk of sexual reproduction. They can just as easily, for all practical purposes be "spouses" to each other, as can a SSC, so why not a legal designation as spouses? As far as the equal protection clause, SSM has changed the rules. If two ss first cousins can marry, why not ss siblings?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10384 Sep 24, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
Continued...
That leaves the three combinations of adult couples. male-female, male-male and female-female.
The male-female couple is okay. No one is advocating restricting their right to marry.
If that we're to happen, marriage would no longer have meaning. The basis of marriage is the male female relationship.
But there is and has been a restriction on the male-male and female-female couples from marrying.
As individuals they have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as any other man or woman.
. The fundamental right says they HAVE the right to marry.
The SAME FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AS ANY OTHER MAN OR WOMAN. No more, no less. Equal treatment.
So the question we have been asking in the courts, and of you and the others... What is the Compelling State Interest to maintain the restriction against same-sex couples marrying?
Nice try. The question is, "What is marriage", and why is it recognized and privileged by the state. What is the compelling state interest in redefining marriage? Of designating non conjugal, and/or non monogamous consenting adult relationships, "marriage"?
One interest put fourth is children. But since no state requires the male-female couple to actually have children, or to naturally reproduce to have any children, or enforce any law that the couples must even have sex... these standards cannot then be forced upon the same-sex couples.
The standards apply to ALL men, and ALL women, equally.
But if children are a factor, then the restriction on same-sex couples marrying must be removed because same-sex couples do in fact have children. No, the issue of children is NOT a compelling state interest. It cannot be used to maintain the restriction.
Plural marriage families have children too. Besides children are raised in a variety of situations, and the state does not automatically designate the adults raising the children as "married".
One interest put forth is the historical nature of the restriction. The old ‘gays have never been allowed to marry so we cannot change now’ justification. The courts have ruled that a history of a restriction is not a justification to maintain that restriction. And the courts have ruled that animus is not a justification either.
"Gays" as a political sexual identity group/minority is a relatively new invention in American history. Besides men and women with same sex sexual attraction/orientation/ behaviors, have ALWAYS been allowed to marry like any other man or woman, and have done so throughout American history.
Your personal arguments that male and female, husband and wife, is the definition of marriage falls under the historical nature as a restriction which no reasonable court can uphold.
It the argument of a number of reasonable courts, we both no that.
You trot out the ‘I now pronounce you husband and wife’ as a justification to maintain the historical restriction against same-sex couples marrying as if saying those word is what defines a marriage.
In American marital jurisprudence, it does, sums it up. A man and woman are transformed into,, and recognized by the state as husband and wife.

To be continued.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10385 Sep 24, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
Continued...
. But if same-sex couples had always been allowed to exercise their right to marry those words never would have entered our vocabulary. They have never been required to make a marriage and those marriages that do not use those words are just as valid and legal.
C'mon Dave....you're smarter than that...think about what you just wrote. "Same sec couples" as in walking around and saying, "We're here, we're queer, we drink white wine not beer".......kinda catchy....is relatively new. For most of American history, same sex sexual behavior was taboo, criminal, and hidden. Besides the idea of a "same sex" marriage is, inconceivable, pun intended. Why would ANYONE prior to just a few decades ago, think in terms of same sex couples existing, let alone marrying, or that marriage was just a union of "two people regardless of gender composition"?
So no, it is not up to our side of the argument to justify same-sex couples marrying.
Yes it is.....it sounds like you can offer no compelling state interest in a same sex union, much less designating it as "marriage".
It is your side of the issue’s responsibility to articulate why the state should maintain the restriction on same-sex couples exercising their right to marry. So far, not one of you or any state has been able to articulate one.
There's not "couple's right" to marry, it is the right of the individual. A right to enter into a legally recognized relationship as defined by the state....the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. It is the conjugal monogamous union of husband and wife that is crucial to societal stability. The fact that several states have dropped the conjugal basis of marriage does to change that. If men, or women, don't marry the same sex, will any one notice in society at large?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10386 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They sue our Christian neighbors because they have bad values, they aren't bad people.
Not all "Christians" have bad values. You shouldn't paint them with such a broad brush.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10387 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So that would make a gay person who opposes redefining marriage a "bigot, homophobe, and hater" too?
Inward bigotry is rampant among gays. You've heard of Larry Craig and George Rekers, right? Ted Haggard is a good example of someone who covered his sexual desires with outrage toward a community he furtively and clandestinely courted.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10388 Sep 24, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Give up the faux argument. Polygamy is never going to be legal in the USA. Polygamy harms society. SSM does not. It's really THAT simple.
"No fault" divorce harms society, high number of out of wedlock births harm society. Fatherlessness harms society. Mrs. Blowme's son Neil's low I Q harms society.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10389 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Inward bigotry is rampant among gays. You've heard of Larry Craig and George Rekers, right? Ted Haggard is a good example of someone who covered his sexual desires with outrage toward a community he furtively and clandestinely courted.
How about gays and lesbians who advocate maintaining marriage as a legally defined union of husband and wife, while granting SSCs legal recognition and benefits under a different structure? Are they self hating too?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10390 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"No fault" divorce harms society, high number of out of wedlock births harm society. Fatherlessness harms society. Mrs. Blowme's son Neil's low I Q harms society.
What's the matter, can't stay on topic? You perpetually seem to offer utterly irrelevant arguments. I wonder why that is so?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10391 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
How about gays and lesbians who advocate maintaining marriage as a legally defined union of husband and wife, while granting SSCs legal recognition and benefits under a different structure? Are they self hating too?
How about offering a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional?

You seem to be running scared, and without a rational argument to back your position.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10392 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
you notice they won't answer the questions about restaurants. When one is accustomed to discrimination against a particular group, it seems completely reasonable. It's exactly the same attitude that many had about serving blacks fifty years ago. They were just so damned uppity...
Yes they like to focus on a cake or photographer and ignore public accomodations include food, clothing, and shelter.

And there are still some around today who would deny equal treatment to people of color on that basis alone, if it were not for public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination. Unfortunately, these cases show public accommodations laws need to be expanded, not removed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10393 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro. You still have nothing. Again, you continue to demonstrate a failure to understand fundamental rights. They are not granted at the grace of the government. They existed before the government, whether recognized or not.(9th amendment) They can be and have been restricted by the government. Gender is not a valid restriction, while other restrictions on age, number, and incest pass the test of protecting others. Child abuse is one of the compelling, legitimate reasons for restricting incest.

Polygamy changes the laws that determine what marriage is for couples. Removing the gender restriction does not alter the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples. You have not shown any right that has been removed from os couples by allowing ss couples to participate under the same laws in effect for os couples. Again, it is a separate argument which has nothing to do with the restriction on gender.

You continue to place restrictions on marriage that are fine for a church or you personally, but not required by the government. Gender is not a valid requirement. Monogamy, a good idea for disease prevention, is not a legal requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10394 Sep 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How about offering a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional?
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.

Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10395 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"No fault" divorce harms society, high number of out of wedlock births harm society. Fatherlessness harms society.
How so? Exactly. Please, outline these "harms", in concrete, recognizable ways.

Anyone who watched Sunday's Emmy's was at least slightly touched by Merritt Wever's brief, rushed acceptance speech for her role as Zoey on "Nurse Jackie". It was a sweet moment from a very surprised actress. If you watch the show, you know how much fun she is. She's very entertaining and extremely talented.

Her mother conceived her with a sperm donor, and raised her alone. I don't see the harm.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10396 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.
Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?
Please explain what compelling state interest Alabama has, which Washington state does not.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10397 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers.
Of course, this is a rather childish rationalization that is disproven by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry.

Sorry Pietro, it's time to grow up and offer a big boy argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.
Pietro, can you offer a factual and logic reason why such a restriction serves a compelling governmental interest? The procreation argument is disproven by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry, it allows divorce even in cases where children are present, and it does not intervene in the case of those born out of wedlock.
Simply put, your argument is utterly irrational.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?
Why would I defend an argument that I have never made, just because you ineptly try to put words in my mouth?
Why don't you grow up and offer that compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10401 Sep 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
What a LIAR you are........but then you just like to recycle your comments in the first place.......there are some Gays and Lesbians who don't believe in marriage for themselves, but they aren't supporting your crap either.......yet, you claim they are......interesting!!!
I make my argument without name-calling; I respect gays and lesbians who defend one man and one woman marriage. I don't use profanity either.

Same sex marriage is the worst idea of our time.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10402 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Not all "Christians" have bad values. You shouldn't paint them with such a broad brush.
I didn't, nhjeff misunderstands. All same sex marriage supporters have bad values and that's proven when they sue Christians who refuse to support same sex weddings.

All the hate and intolerance comes from the left.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10403 Sep 24, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Her mother conceived her with a sperm donor, and raised her alone. I don't see the harm.
In other words her mother used a freeze pop. You see no harm? Are you a father?

Not every donor conceived child/adult views it as harmless.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10404 Sep 24, 2013
EXCLUSIVE -- BROADCASTER FIRED FOR OPPOSING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BLASTS FOX SPORTS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

In exclusive comment to Breitbart News, former ESPN and CBS broadcaster and former Southern Methodist University and NFL star tailback Craig James criticized former employer Fox Sports Southwest for its firing of him two weeks ago over his public stance on same-sex marriage.

“I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at Fox Sports,” James told Breitbart News.“That is not right and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”

James continued,“I have worked in broadcasting for twenty-four years and have always treated my colleagues with respect and dignity regardless of their background or personal beliefs. I believe it is essential in our business to maintain professional relationships with people from a diverse background and have tolerance for those of different beliefs. I have never discussed my faith while broadcasting and it has never been an issue until now.” James’s attorneys at Liberty Institute have sent a demand letter, given exclusively to Breitbart News, to Fox Sports. The letter is embedded below.

...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/201...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10405 Sep 24, 2013
Media Almost Totally Ignore Book Claiming Matthew Shepard Murder Wasn't a Hate Crime
By Noel Sheppard | September 24, 2013

The 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard is considered one of the nation's most notorious hate crimes.

Yet when a new book comes out by a gay author contending that Shepard was not killed because of his sexual orientation, America's media appear disinterested in reporting the new revelations.

...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Turns out, he was killed for drugs, not because he was gay.

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 Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 29 min Brian_G 5,645
News Same-sex marriages go forward in south despite ... 36 min serfs up 7
News Since 1967, gay activists have piled up victori... 42 min jason norris 4
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr piratefighting 5,128
News Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide 1 hr IndyStevie 68
News Let Bristol Palin Have a Sex Life 1 hr devidas 1
News Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 2 hr Chantel 1,039
More from around the web