Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story

“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

Owatonna, 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 By mandating legal standing of valid state same-sex marriages, the court has clearly made your position outdated.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
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11056 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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
All that from long time ago...This is 2013 moron.

Oh and I hate commies as much as you nazi fascist..

AGAIN YOUR RELIGION DOES NOT RULE THIS NATION....THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW HERE..

Don't like it get out.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11057 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
All that from long time ago...This is 2013 moron.
Exactly, people can vote.
Oh and I hate commies as much as you nazi fascist..
AGAIN YOUR RELIGION DOES NOT RULE THIS NATION....THE CONSTITUTION IS LAW HERE..
Don't like it get out.
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS AMERICANS TO VOTE.....don't like it.....move BACK to North Korea.
This And That

Livermore, CA

#11058 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, people can vote.
<quoted text>
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS AMERICANS TO VOTE.....don't like it.....move BACK to North Korea.
Unless of course what the people vote on is Unconstitutional as in Prop 8 in California! it seems you're the one who likes to vote on others rights so how about you go to North Korea,you'd fit in rather nicely there! In this great nation Constitution trumps bible and we are not allowed to vote away the rights of minority's!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11060 Oct 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible supports polygamy in no uncertain terms.
Good for the Bible.

I don't really care what the Bible supports. I think it also supports slavery and dashing kids heads against rocks.

I'm not a fan.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11061 Oct 7, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>Then define what an "ILLEGITIMATE" child is.
You are aware that we NO longer define children as being "ILLEGITIMATE" or "BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK" anymore, right?

This is the 21st century......2013 almost 2014.......for the majority of folks.......but you seem stuck in the past......lol!!!

Marriage might have been at one time by having children......but please show me where at ANY time in our history that it was MANDATED that in order to get married, the couple MUST have children......thanks!!!

Since: Mar 07

Rhoadesville, VA

#11062 Oct 7, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>Then define what an "ILLEGITIMATE" child is.
I haven't heard that term in ages, possibly because so many straight women are unmarried when they have children, these days.

I don't think they liked the term, and I don't think society wanted to stigmatize those children.

But what does this have to do with marriage? It's not like ANY couple is required to have or raise children in order to obtain a marriage license, and the vast numbers of kids born to unwed parents certainly proved that married is not required for procreation.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11063 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, people can vote.
<quoted text>
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS AMERICANS TO VOTE.....don't like it.....move BACK to North Korea.
BUT YOU CANT VOTE TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS...What part of that don't you get./..Just like I could not vote to take away your rights...WHY CANT YOU GET THAT IDIOT.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11064 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Yes.
You still don't get it.

What specific language in the Constitution would PREVENT a Loving-type ruling regarding same-sex marriage?

Sure, race and gender are different. But asserting that fact does not mean the court could not make a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage equality. Racial discrimination and gender discrimination is still discrimination.

And with the court's DOMA ruling, Gender did not fundamentally alter the definition of marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11065 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
BUT YOU CANT VOTE TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS.
NO ONE voted to take away your right to marry....they VOTED TO CONFIRM the understanding of marriage as a union of HUSBAND AND WIFE!!!!
..What part of that don't you get
..Just like I could not vote to take away your rights...WHY CANT YOU GET THAT IDIOT.
What part DON'T YOU GET?????!!!!! People in some states have the right to put proposals on the ballot to BE VOTED ON!!!! If the vote had been in favor of SSM you wouldn't be screaming what you do.!!!!
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11066 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ONE voted to take away your right to marry....they VOTED TO CONFIRM the understanding of marriage as a union of HUSBAND AND WIFE!!!!
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What part DON'T YOU GET?????!!!!! People in some states have the right to put proposals on the ballot to BE VOTED ON!!!! If the vote had been in favor of SSM you wouldn't be screaming what you do.!!!!
OK MORON ONCE AGAIN.....YOU CANT VOTE AWAY RIGHT YOU CANT VOTE AWAY RIGHTS YOU CANT VOTE AWAY RIGHTS...

I know your Nazi training makes you want to BUT YOU CANT HITLER BOY.

Can we put a vote out to ban all religion in one state??????? Your saying if the people vote for it we could even make murder legal huh???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11067 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
NO ONE voted to take away your right to marry....they VOTED TO CONFIRM the understanding of marriage as a union of HUSBAND AND WIFE!!!!
Of course, until you are able to come up with a compelling state interest served by limiting marriage in such a fashion, it is still unconstitutional, and you are still and imbecile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11068 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, until you are able to come up with a compelling state interest served by limiting marriage in such a fashion, it is still unconstitutional, and you are still and imbecile.
Awwwww.....Liddie.....you say the sweetest things.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11069 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Awwwww.....Liddie.....you say the sweetest things.
And you ay the dumbest things. I notice that you have once again commented without answering a simple and direct question. Were your argument not lacking in a solid foundation in reason, perhaps you would not need to dodge the issue?

Can you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#11070 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NO ONE voted to take away your right to marry....they VOTED TO CONFIRM the understanding of marriage as a union of HUSBAND AND WIFE!!!!
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
What part DON'T YOU GET?????!!!!! People in some states have the right to put proposals on the ballot to BE VOTED ON!!!! If the vote had been in favor of SSM you wouldn't be screaming what you do.!!!!
Don't you get it that NOT all want to marry someone of the opposite-sex and seeing as marriage is such a major decision in one's life......THEY alone should be able to decide WHAT person they want to marry or who wants to marry them REGARDLESS of specific gender restrictions!!!

Oh and by the way.......we won 3 states at the ballot box in November of 2012.......and 1 state decided NOT to add specific gender restrictions to their State Constitution!!!

I have a wife......NOT a husband.........don't like it.....TO DAMN BAD....it's legal and it has both state and federal recognition.......and it will be recognized in all 50 states....for now, we are happy to have it be recognized in both OUR state and OUR federal government!!!

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
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr Snorkel 395
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 3 hr DebraE 277
GOP hopefuls weigh in on gay marriage 3 hr NorCal Native 45
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 4 hr Willothewisp 935
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr Chris Toal 29,069
Holocaust survivors return to Auschwitz 4 hr boncho 3
Is glorifying God a hate crime now? 5 hr NoahLovesU 65
More from around the web