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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11036 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments
Everything you say is irrelevant.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11037 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, states regulate marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
Could a state ban religion????

Nope...Know why??? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.....You Nazi pigs hate that right?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11038 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Could a state ban religion????
Nope...Know why??? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.....You Nazi pigs hate that right?
I bet you and lides went to the same schools.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11039 Oct 6, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I support polygamous marriages.
What do you have against it? Will it harm your children? Will your Bible burst into flames?
The Bible supports polygamy in no uncertain terms.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11040 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you and lides went to the same schools.
So you know you cant answer it honestly for it will show your lying and wrong..

I AM RIGHT 100%..
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11041 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
We've covered the number restriction, but again, it requires changing the laws to an entirely different set of laws which no one has attempted to explain, as they know doing so would show it is something entirely different, not the same as the laws currently in effect for couples.
Marriage laws in Massachusetts were changed to allow same sex marriage. It didn't seem like a difficult process. Just words on paper. Forms were changed as well.

Only a gay person would claim gender doesn't matter. If it wasn't for the gender difference between your mother and father, you wouldn't be here today.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11042 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know you cant answer it honestly for it will show your lying and wrong..
I AM RIGHT 100%..
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?

Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.

Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11043 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?
Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.
Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
And marriage is a civil contract being as such it should be equal for all...14TH AMENDMENT AND ALL..

Now tell me how SSM affects you personally or anyone who is nto involved.

What reason do you have to stop SSM.....OTHER THEN YOUR HATE AND BIGOTRY AND RELIGOUS BELIEF..

Real reasons.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11044 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage laws in Massachusetts were changed to allow same sex marriage. It didn't seem like a difficult process. Just words on paper. Forms were changed as well.
Only a gay person would claim gender doesn't matter. If it wasn't for the gender difference between your mother and father, you wouldn't be here today.
And the marriage laws wouldn't have had anything to do with that. Do you really think heterosexual men will stop mating with heterosexual people if gay people are allowed to get married? Again, with or without marriage, many people will procreate if they want to,(and even some who don't.)

DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem,...but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11045 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?
Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.
Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
Yes, the constitution prevents the state from recognizing one religious belief over another, which is one of the reasons that the bans on marriage are failing. One person's strongly held religious belief ends at the next person's door.

The rest of your post doesn't sake sense. Are you saying that marriage is not governed by laws? And that gay people can be denied equal protection under those laws, with no valid or rational governmental interest?

Can you show us the part of the constitution that allows unequal protection of law based on either gender or sexual orientation?

I can't seem to find it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11046 Oct 6, 2013
Supreme Court:

"Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."
Windsor

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11047 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
And marriage is a civil contract being as such it should be equal for all...14TH AMENDMENT AND ALL..
It is, all men, and all women, provided of course they meet the basic requirements, age, consent, not currently married, etc.
Now tell me how SSM affects you personally or anyone who is nto involved.
Now tell me how does_______( polygamy, polyamory, incest, etc., or any other issue for that matter) affect you personally or anyone who is it involved?
What reason do you have to stop SSM.....
.....what reason do you have for it?
OTHER THEN YOUR HATE AND BIGOTRY AND RELIGOUS BELIEF..
Real reasons.
Reason you agree with, or disagree with?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11048 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It is, all men, and all women, provided of course they meet the basic requirements, age, consent, not currently married, etc.
<quoted text>
Now tell me how does_______( polygamy, polyamory, incest, etc., or any other issue for that matter) affect you personally or anyone who is it involved?
<quoted text>
.....what reason do you have for it?
<quoted text>
Reason you agree with, or disagree with?
Does not affect me at all....No need for a reason..JUST FACT

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11049 Oct 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And the marriage laws wouldn't have had anything to do with that. Do you really think heterosexual men will stop mating with heterosexual people if gay people are allowed to get married?
Men will continue to mate with women, regardless of political sexual identity labels, and those with self professed same sex sexual attraction/orientation can still marry in any state in the union.
Again, with or without marriage, many people will procreate if they want to,(and even some who don't.)
They will also love without marriage, live together without marriage, and have sex without marriage. So is your point marriage is not needed?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11050 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?
Now....that....was funny!
Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.
Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
Huh is actually a Commie.....who wishes he could take away people's right to put measures on the ballot and vote for them.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11051 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Male lesbians...... hahahahahahahaha
You religitards will believe any ol' thing.
Same sex marriage......hahahahahahahaha hah
You atheistotards will believe any ol' thing.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11052 Oct 6, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot be THAT stupid. The children aren't part of the marriage contract, you dolt.
You cannot not be THAT stupid to think that children, as in the creation of, are not one of the primary reasons of marriage, you chooch!
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11053 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot not be THAT stupid to think that children, as in the creation of, are not one of the primary reasons of marriage, you chooch!
there not...Children have nothing to do with marriage...Marriage is for adults...PERV.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11054 Oct 6, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
IF marriage can ONLY be the union of both genders, then the court would have upheld Congress's DOMA definition of marriage. The court did not. By mandating legal standing of valid state same-sex marriages, the court has clearly made your position outdated.
Marriage can be what ever, legally, the state defines it to be. A state could legally allow polygamy, polyamory, siblings, etc. The court, five justices, wonder why it was a unanimous decision like in Loving, basically said the federal government will recognize what a state defines as marriage.
But you have already stated (post 10973) that the court was justified and right to invalidate state marriage laws found to be unconstitutional.
Yes provided it has legitimate justification to do so, as it did in Loving which dealt with the issue of racial discrimination. It did not create a new definition of marriage.
So the 10th cannot then now be used to prevent similar court action.
Sure it can. You're still attempting to equate race and gender as it relates to marriage. Race does it fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.
Marriage laws belong to the states, and not the federal government. But those marriage laws cannot run afoul of constitutional scrutiny. So no, the 10th would NOT be enough to prevent a Loving-type ruling by the court regarding same-sex marriage.
Again, it could. Loving dealt with racial discrimination. The Court UNANIMOUSLY rejected the ban on interracial marriage because it was an effort to maintain white supremacy.
True. Lawrence negated Bowers. Just as all those cases you cite implying male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriages through the court's DOMA ruling.
The DOMA ruling basically stated the Feds will recognize what a state defines as marriage, which will be interesting should a system decide to further redefine marriage.
Yes, but the majority in any ruling carries the day and establishes case law. Dissenting opinions, while interesting, carry no legal authority.
Yes.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11055 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
there not...Children have nothing to do with marriage...Marriage is for adults...PERV.
So not only are you a North Korea loving commie, but a weirdo too.

“[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

“The family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.

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

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 Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min North Mountain 35,944
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 4 min woodtick57 950
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 58 min Fit2Serve 1,870
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 5 hr truth 55
News Wedding: Sandra and Tito Gutierrez 6 hr anon 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 16 hr WasteWater 4,199
News Tony Perkins claims churches will lose federal ... (May '15) Thu Tony Perkins Faith 8
More from around the web