Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

This And That

Dublin, 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!

“LOL Really?”

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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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

Location hidden

#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

Faribault, 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

Faribault, 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???

lides

“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.

lides

“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?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#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!!!
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11072 Oct 7, 2013
The Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey [email protected], get back on your meds before you hurt yourself.
Shut your mouth before a PATRIOTIC true American shuts it for you.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11073 Oct 7, 2013
Huh wrote:
Shut your mouth before a PATRIOTIC true American shuts it for you.
Why shut their mouth? They do ever more damage to their argument every time they open it.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11075 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why shut their mouth? They do ever more damage to their argument every time they open it.
I know. The GOP far right Nazi party is falling apart and people see there hate bigotry and racism for what it is.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11077 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!!!!
WRONG!!!!!!
Prop 8 attempted to take from gay and lesbian couples the right to marry in California. And that is why it was overturned: It targeted an unpopular minority's rights.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11078 Oct 7, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG!!!!!!
Prop 8 attempted to take from gay and lesbian couples the right to marry in California. And that is why it was overturned: It targeted an unpopular minority's rights.
C'mon, everyone likes gays, they're in hit TV shows.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11079 Oct 7, 2013
The Shadow wrote:
You d!ck and asshoIe Iickers are pathetic. Just saying.
Awww. It's so adorable to watch you make a fool of yourself because you can't offer a rational argument. What are you, twelve?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11080 Oct 7, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Awww. It's so adorable to watch you make a fool of yourself because you can't offer a rational argument. What are you, twelve?
Greater protection, BWAHAHAHA! You're a moron.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11081 Oct 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon, everyone likes gays, they're in hit TV shows.
You really are an idiot........how pathetic is that......how do you manage to stay in a state that has been allowing Gay and Lesbian Couples to marry for over 9 1/2 years with your obvious animosity towards them?

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 Indonesia court rejects bid to outlaw extramari... 57 min Francis 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr positronium 15,001
News Same-sex parents navigate ups and downs of maki... 4 hr Europhobia 2
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 4 hr Marcavage s Trick 100
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 4 hr Tre H 41
News Kentucky Baptists issue threat regarding hiring... 9 hr white n blue 7
News First gay marriages take place in Australia 11 hr Chris 1
More from around the web