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.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#11549 Oct 16, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>oh yes i can. the problem is i work in a business that someday may be effected by this. if a boy can play on a girl's team simply because he thinks he is and acts like a girl then you explain to me how they can say that a boy could not possible claim he is a lesbian and have a girl friend.
Um, so what? Who cares if a boy claims he is a lesbian and has a girl friend?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11550 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the Court, five justices actually, it wasn't a unanimous decision, were reluctant to destroy state sovereignty over marriage completely.
The constitutionality of DOMA section 2 wasn't before SCOTUS to rule. In the challenge to DOMA section 3 in Windsor v Unite States, the issue before SCOTUS was whether the federal government could deny recognition to same sex marriages legally contracted in states allowing them. There was no question before the court regarding whether same sex marriages are included within the fundamental right to marry or not, so there was no basis for making a broad ruling to require all states to allow and recognize same sex marriages.

SCOTUS could have potentially ruled on the question in the Prop 8 case but ruled instead the Prop 8 proponents had no federal standing to appeal the federal District court's decision. So by deciding not to rule on the merits of the case, SCOTUS left the District court's ruling stand that struck down Prop 8 as unconditional.

You've been told numerous times courts in general and SCOTUS in particular don't rule on questions or issues not presented to them by the actual case. Your characterization of the the court's ruling as being "reluctant to destroy state sovereignty over marriage completely" is just flat out wrong as that wasn't the issue presented to them. BUt we know you don't let facts stand in the way, much less inform, your opinions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11551 Oct 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That they really are just like a heterosexual couple.
Why, are they of opposite sex? Seems odd to go to all that trouble, and get divorced. Maybe they're just trend setters.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11552 Oct 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, so what? Who cares if a boy claims he is a lesbian and has a girl friend?
So Rosie, would that make them a lesbian couple? Welcome back.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11553 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Fingers in my ears"? With my tongue sticking out, saying 'Nyah....Nyah'?
Is that what you did as a good little "pokee" in prison?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Like someone claiming "coitus", a specific form of sexual intercourse, includes SSCs?
It's not a claim; it's documented in a dictionary, which is proof that the English language is evolving, whether you choose to evolve or not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It willlllllll?
Yes, just click your heels three times...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11554 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks, but the Feds don't marry people.
But that wasn't the question you asked.

Here it is to refresh your memory.
Pietro Armando Post 11518 wrote:
Why isn't ssm recognized in every state?
to which I replied:
DaveinMass Post 11521 wrote:
At the state level, the Supreme Court has not yet been asked to rule on the issue.
You'll be glad to know that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in every state.
Obviously you could not refute my reply and resorted to the 'change the question' dodge.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11555 Oct 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender requirements restrict the choice that's an inherent part of the fundamental right of marriage to select someone congruent with one's innate sexual orientation
The fundamental right of marriage is based on the male female union, remove one, remove the "fundamental". There is no right to select someone "congruent with one's innate sexual orientation", which does not prevent them from exercising their fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
. From a legal standpoint, it's no different than the restrictions placed on race under anti-miscegenation laws.
Not even close. A mixed race/ethnic race opposite sex couple still form the marital union, male female, upon which the fundamental right is based. Restriction is not the same.
After all, those laws applied equally to blacks and whites and yet were ruled unconstitutional nonetheless.
But therein lies the flaw. The prohibition on interracial marriage varied in different states as to what what racial combinations were barred from marrying. Not all were. Thus black and white cannot marry, but black and Asian could marry. Also the racial classification process varied as well. A person could have a great grandparent who was black, and be considered all black. Not exactly an equal process, but thanks for trying.
You can keep repeat ad nauseam that you don't expect gays to marry opposite sex people but your continual citation of Josh proves you a liar.
No, it proves YOU the liar. One's "innate characteristic" is not a bar to one exercising one's fundamental right to marry as any other man, or woman.
So what? Unless you can publish a similar story for every gay man and lesbian currently alive, it means absolutely squat. You have a long way to go to match the number of stories of men and women who lived a heterosexual life, married, had kids and then finally stopped lying to themselves and came out as gay or lesbian. But as usual, you ignore the facts that don't fit your uninformed and erroneous opinions.
Ahhhhhhh......but I need match story for story in order to illustrate "one innate sexual orientation characteristic" is not set in stone, at least for some women. How do you explain the women who once identified as lesbians, no longer do, or women who never identified as such, or even expressed an interest in other women, after years of marriage, are now lesbians. Go figure. Your turn Terry.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11556 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why, are they of opposite sex? Seems odd to go to all that trouble, and get divorced. Maybe they're just trend setters.
There's that fingers-in-the-ears style again.

The only thing that'll get you, is ringside seats to our victory. If you can't see a same-sex couple with the same compassion, the same humanity, or the same respect as you do opposite-sex couples, then there's no way you'll be able to succeed in making an argument against us.

If someone tells you one thing, and you pretend that they said or meant something completely different, then you're not really participating in the discussion, and it will leave you behind.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11557 Oct 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you did as a good little "pokee" in prison?
Sounds like Terry is fantasizing.
It's not a claim; it's documented in a dictionary, which is proof that the English language is evolving, whether you choose to evolve or not.
Oh pullleeze....sound like you're a heterosexual man trapped inside a homosexual man's body. You want to be sooooooo "heteronormative", that you'll continue to claim same sex couples can engage in "Coitus", which has a specific meaning. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...
Sexual intercourse, as coitus or copulation, is the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex

Coitus is the technical term for sexual conjunction or copulation. It is derived from the Latin ‘co’, meaning together, and ‘ire’, a verb form meaning to come or to go. Tracing the etymology of the term, the Oxford English Dictionary indicates that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ‘coitus’ could mean any going or coming together, or a mutual tendency of bodies toward one another. These more general meanings, however, have disappeared from usage. In its narrow medical-anatomical sense, coitus means a specific kind of sexual intercourse: the insertion of the erect penis into the vagina

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/coitus#ixzz2hvml...

http://www.dictionary30.com/meaning/Coitus
Coitus Meaning and Definition from WordNet (r) 2.0
coitus n : the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur [syn: sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coition, sexual congress, congress, sexual relation, relation, carnal knowledge]
Yes, just click your heels three times...
Let me guess, you were Dorothy in the prison play.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11558 Oct 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There's that fingers-in-the-ears style again.
The only thing that'll get you, is ringside seats to our victory.
Popcorn too?
If you can't see a same-sex couple with the same compassion, the same humanity, or the same respect as you do opposite-sex couples, then there's no way you'll be able to succeed in making an argument against us.
Why do such sentiments have to be limited to couples, or require a fundamental legal change in the definition of marriage?
If someone tells you one thing, and you pretend that they said or meant something completely different, then you're not really participating in the discussion, and it will leave you behind.
I see, like Terry does when he tries to make "coitus" a same sex act? But I get your point.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11559 Oct 16, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But that wasn't the question you asked.
Here it is to refresh your memory.
<quoted text>
to which I replied:
<quoted text>
Obviously you could not refute my reply and resorted to the 'change the question' dodge.
What is there to refute? The Feds don't marry people, but they do recognize as marriage, what individual states do, including those that define marriage in gender neutral composition terms.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11560 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fundamental right of marriage is based on the male female union, remove one, remove the "fundamental".
Thirteen states and counting prove you wrong, small Peter. And the Supreme Court of California ruled gays had the fundamental right of marriage in that state before voters sought to permanently infringe that right via Prop 8.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is no right to select someone "congruent with one's innate sexual orientation", which does not prevent them from exercising their fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
It's inherent in the liberty to choose one's mate with which to exercise their fundamental right of marriage.

From Bowers v. Texas:

“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not even close. A mixed race/ethnic race opposite sex couple still form the marital union, male female, upon which the fundamental right is based. Restriction is not the same.
It only seems different to stupid people like you since you're unable to distinguish between the actual legal accomplishment of marriage and the various restrictions placed on exercising that right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But therein lies the flaw. The prohibition on interracial marriage varied in different states as to what what racial combinations were barred from marrying. Not all were. Thus black and white cannot marry, but black and Asian could marry. Also the racial classification process varied as well. A person could have a great grandparent who was black, and be considered all black.
Not exactly an equal process, but thanks for trying.
On the contrary, the laws were equally applied within the state in which they were enacted. It's irrelevant whether the laws varied between states or whether all states even had anti-miscegenation laws. The race restriction served no compelling government interest and was thus unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, it proves YOU the liar. One's "innate characteristic" is not a bar to one exercising one's fundamental right to marry as any other man, or woman.
Gays don't have to conform to YOUR unconstitutional expectations to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of bigoted *sswipes like you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ahhhhhhh......but I need match story for story in order to illustrate "one innate sexual orientation characteristic" is not set in stone, at least for some women. How do you explain the women who once identified as lesbians, no longer do, or women who never identified as such, or even expressed an interest in other women, after years of marriage, are now lesbians. Go figure. Your turn Terry.
I don't have to explain them. How they self identify doesn't refute the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is innate. Nor does it refute the fact sexual orientation meets the criteria SCOTUS has set for determining suspect classes for equal protection cases. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has always bent over backwards to use rational basis scrutiny to rule in favor of gays and thus avoid the need to declare sexual orientation a suspect class. Probably because they know if they do, they'd be forced to declare all state laws withholding legal recognition of same sex marriages unconstitutional.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11561 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like Terry is fantasizing.
No, I fantasize about real men, not the likes of you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh pullleeze....sound like you're a heterosexual man trapped inside a homosexual man's body. You want to be sooooooo "heteronormative", that you'll continue to claim same sex couples can engage in "Coitus", which has a specific meaning. See below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercour...
Sexual intercourse, as coitus or copulation, is the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex
Coitus is the technical term for sexual conjunction or copulation. It is derived from the Latin ‘co’, meaning together, and ‘ire’, a verb form meaning to come or to go. Tracing the etymology of the term, the Oxford English Dictionary indicates that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ‘coitus’ could mean any going or coming together, or a mutual tendency of bodies toward one another. These more general meanings, however, have disappeared from usage. In its narrow medical-anatomical sense, coitus means a specific kind of sexual intercourse: the insertion of the erect penis into the vagina
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/coitus#ixzz2hvml...
http://www.dictionary30.com/meaning/Coitus
Coitus Meaning and Definition from WordNet (r) 2.0
coitus n : the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur [syn: sexual intercourse, intercourse, sex act, copulation, coition, sexual congress, congress, sexual relation, relation, carnal knowledge]
Let's see what you left out from our Wikipedia citation:

"A variety of views concern what constitutes sexual intercourse or other sexual activity.[11][12][13] The term sexual intercourse, particularly the variant coitus, most commonly denotes penile-vaginal penetration and the possibility of creating offspring (the fertilization process known as reproduction),[3][5][14][15] but oral sex (especially when penetrative) and particularly penile-anal sex are also commonly considered sexual intercourse."

"Behaviors termed sexual intercourse may be described or defined by different words, including coitus, copulation, coition or intercourse; the term coitus is derived from the Latin word coitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together"; it describes a variety of sexual activities under ancient Latin terms, but usually refers exclusively to penile-vaginal penetration,[5][8][15][34] which is often termed vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex.[35][36] Vaginal sex, and less often vaginal intercourse, may also refer to any vaginal sexual activity (particularly if penetrative), such as vaginal sexual activity between lesbian couples".

"Sexual intercourse, or sex, denoted as penile-vaginal penetration is prevalent in common discourse,[11][12][13][43] but sex and the phrase "have sex" frequently mean any sexual activity (penetrative and non-penetrative) between two or more people."

Like I said, the English language is evolving. Which means the transformation is in process rather than complete. Unlike you, I recognize that it's both started and not yet complete; you merely cherry pick citations to support your view and ignore those that don't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let me guess, you were Dorothy in the prison play.
Nope. Never been in prison and have never performed in the Wizard of Oz.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11562 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Popcorn too?
Oh, I recommend it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do such sentiments have to be limited to couples, or require a fundamental legal change in the definition of marriage?
It's limited to couples because marriage is directly related to couplehood. The exclusivity of marriage is what makes it a functioning system of protection. By investing all of your protective rights with only one other person, you assure and affirm your commitment. Their direct and complete reciprocation fully ensures your bond together.

If you allow people to apply these rights to multiple spouses, all simultaneously, then marriage will quickly become a numbers racket. It will be a "for-profit" business, and spouses will be like employees who can come and go.

For the bond of marriage to be vital and relevant, it must tie ALL of its rights to one other person at once (and divorce must sever all those bonds in one fell swoop). To be handed out piecemeal in multiple directions makes it unregulatable.

As for "fundamental" changes, that's bunk. It won't fly with me. There's nothing "fundamental" about saying same-sex couples may participate alongside opposite-sex couples. Marriage is still a joining of two adults for the purposes of becoming their own family, apart from the families they came from, with their own joined legal rights. That's the fundamental part. That hasn't changed.

People keep saying that "family" is the basic unit of society, and that we shouldn't alter how we define that. Bullcrap, I say. What that does is tell gay people that we CAN'T build the families we want, we're not allowed. Well, that's where you get into unconstitutional territory, and it's why we'll ultimately win this battle.

When ANYONE marries, they make a family. A person who would be a polygamist is someone who would do that AGAIN (and then again and again, perhaps), right on top of the family which already exists. There are countless obvious reasons why this is a bad idea. You simply cannot say the same about a same-sex couple.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I see, like Terry does when he tries to make "coitus" a same sex act? But I get your point.
No, more like when I say once that straight sex and gay sex are both "sex" and therefore close enough to whatever definition of "coitus" you prefer for the purposes of discussion, and then you completely ignore that I said this and make the exact same misguided comparison again anyway. Like that. I'm not sure you DO get my point.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11563 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I understand you have no desire to marry more than one, but employing your reasoning anyone can change the fundamental right to suit their needs/desires. How then does it remain a "fundamental" ?
Citizens have the right to petition the government for redress of their grievances. You don't like that, do ya?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11564 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Popcorn too?
<quoted text>
Why do such sentiments have to be limited to couples, or require a fundamental legal change in the definition of marriage?
<quoted text>
I see, like Terry does when he tries to make "coitus" a same sex act? But I get your point.
Coitus is the technical term for sexual conjunction or copulation. It is derived from the Latin ‘co’, meaning together, and ‘ire’, a verb form meaning to come or to go. Tracing the etymology of the term, the Oxford English Dictionary indicates that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries ‘coitus’ could mean any going or coming together, or a mutual tendency of bodies toward one another. These more general meanings, however, have disappeared from usage.

Oh no..... did I just read that the word coitus USED to mean something else????????

its meaning has been extended to include, for example, axillary coitus, or intercourse with the penis inserted into an armpit; femoral coitus, or intercourse with the penis inserted between the thighs; mammary coitus, or intercourse with the penis inserted between the woman's breasts; and coitus a tergo, or sexual intercourse in which the male enters the woman's vagina from behind.

OMG! You heteros are perverts! Screwing armpits?????

“"The 14th Amendment Works"”

Since: Jul 13

Livermore California

#11565 Oct 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about out of context. How about this one?
21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
Now why did you leave out this important passage? Clearly the Leviticus writer was talking about Canaanite practices and how it didn't go well for them.
Better luck next time.
Try again.
And here is a link that backs up what you're inferring about Leviticus and what it really means! Hint,it has nothing to do with condemning homosexuality! Take a look,it makes perfect sense! ;)

What Leviticus really means!

livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/leviticus-homosex...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11566 Oct 17, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is a link that backs up what you're inferring about Leviticus and what it really means! Hint,it has nothing to do with condemning homosexuality! Take a look,it makes perfect sense! ;)
What Leviticus really means!
livelonger.hubpages.com/hub/leviticus-homosex...
You post under the name Bill Of Rights, but cite Leviticus. Which do you really mean to serve, because you can't serve both?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11567 Oct 17, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You post under the name Bill Of Rights, but cite Leviticus. Which do you really mean to serve, because you can't serve both?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
The bill of rights prevents us from discussing literature?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11568 Oct 17, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizens have the right to petition the government for redress of their grievances. You don't like that, do ya?
Citizens also have the right to put proposals on the ballot, including constitutional amendments.

If anyone can change the fundamental right to suit their needs/desires, how then does it remain a "fundamental" right?

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 The Latest: Trump says canceling Chicago rally ... 7 hr OfficialTrumpCard 1,729
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... 15 hr Anne Russell 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 17 hr Levy Hater 31,925
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 18 hr Imprtnrd 38
News Bollywood in Taipei 22 hr TW_sugar_daddio 6
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Tue jorvajor 128
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Mon toabhah 36,047
More from around the web