Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15842 Jan 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Fairly as defined by who?
By as many citizens as possibly, ideally.

But why even question this? Do you feel YOU'RE being treated unfairly, by the allowance of same-sex marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
It was just as fair to treat all men and women the same as it relates to marriage
Please explain why on EARTH we need to care about fair treatment as it relates to marriage.

Marriage doesn’t care about receiving fair treatment. PEOPLE care about that. There you go again, putting “Dictionary’s Rights” ahead of human rights. We don’t make laws to establish fair treatment toward words or concepts.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It the legally recognized union of husband and wife, in 1950, as it was in 1970, as it was in 2000. The constitution didn't change, nor did men and women.
But a huge change in the understanding of many men and many women has taken place. You don’t just leave the old rules in place when you learn new facts.

With society coming to a new realization about gay people, the game has changed. It needs NEW rules.

You continue to simply argue for tradition for tradition's sake, without presenting an actual REASON that same-sex couples can't be recognized alongside their opposite-sex citizens. "We've always done it that way" is not a reason. It's an empty rationalization. Wow me with a good REASON.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did all the state governments believe that way, or did a few judges?
Neither the states nor the judges are authorized to legislate according to what they believe, other than the belief that the Constitution must be upheld. How individual politicians or judges personally feel is irrelevant. Voters too. They don't get to supercede the constutional mandate that all citizens must be treated fairly and equally.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What of the people who voted, to treat all men and all women the same in regards to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, which said voters voted to constitutionally maintain?
How does the saying go? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. No one voted to treat all men and women the same. This was never anyone's motivation. They voted to curtail the rights of gay people, ONCE AGAIN. They do this a lot, and they just wind up getting the UNconstitutionality of their vote thrown back in their faces.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's still consistent, you still possess such a right, and if you chose to exercise it, the marriage you entered into, of husband and wife, would be legally valid in all fifty states.
How can it be consistent if my state grants me a right that other states are free to disregard, and that other citizens do not have? I have the right to enter into a marriage with the partner of my choice, regardless of gender. In some places in the nation, some people have the right to a civil union or a domestic partnership, which does not exist in many other states. How do you call this patchwork “consistent”, without simply IGNORING these glaring inconsistencies? That’s some world class cognitive dissonance, right there.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You should act fast too, before that right changes yet again.
Changes in what way? Changes BACK? Is that what you’re saying? Could you calculate me some odds on that happening?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15843 Jan 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It has to do with strict scrutiny, which can be applicable in cases of suspect classification or constitutional rights requiring a higher degree of scrutiny that a mere rational basis.
I think it was first introduced in concept in United States v. Carolene Products Co.(1938), Footnote 4
True. I believe the Slaughter-House Cases established the concept of "significant state interest." This decision went against the rights established in the 14th amendment. The privileges and immunities clause was set aside in the interest of public health. This decision also defanged the 14th for years to come. It is obscure but comes up with a great explanation in J. Thomas' opinion in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15844 Jan 22, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And it just so happens, sex between men and women, makes babies, including ones who grow up to post on Internet forums, as "WasteWater". Even the Supreme Court opined on this way back in 1885:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885)
<quoted text>
It has no interest in redefining marriage to include other relationships besides that of one am and one woman as husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Please expand upon this "same sex couples" right? Is it limited to marriage? Can same sex couples vote as one, serve on juries as one, etc.?
Fallacy due to the following facts.

1. Same sex couples can and do have families with children.

2. Many people marry and opt out of having children.

3. Many people cannot have children of their own for various reasons.

4. Same-sex marriage has zero impact on opposite sex marriage.

5. It is discriminatory and harmful to same sex families.

6. Redefining marriage is irrelevant to the central legal issues involved.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15845 Jan 22, 2014
For more on privileges and immunities going to the Slaughterhouse case, check out p.48 of the brief.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08...

The better view, in light of the States and Federal Government’s shared history of recognizing certain inalienable rights in their citizens, is that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship overlap. This is not to say that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship are the same. At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, States performed many more functions than the Federal Government, and it is unlikely that, simply by referring to “privileges or immunities,” the Framers of §1 meant to transfer every right mentioned in Corfield to congressional oversight. As discussed,“privileges” and “immunities” were understood only as syno-nyms for “rights.”

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15846 Jan 22, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
It sure seems to exist here in Washington state, as well as 16 other states, the District of Columbia, and a handful of Native American tribes.

Perhaps you are trying to redefine the word "exist"?
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad.
Get it?
Since marriage is administered by the government, and not by you, it is up to the government to define what fundamental aspects it has. My partner and I aren't going to be shorted on our marriage benefits simply because YOU don't feel like providing them. You never DID provide them. I hope you don't think that your opinion of same-sex marriage will have any bearing on the administration of those marriages.

The state will still recognize our marriage, even if you don't. I won't ever be required to abide by your opinion of what marriage is. You don't have that power, you don't administer marriage records or benefits. I can rely on the state for that.

And this is in Washington state, where same-sex marriage was implemented with the will of the people. Don't you support the will of the people, Brian? Isn't that how you see democracy? Do you STILL think that same-sex marriage should not be recognized, even when the majority citizenry votes for it?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15847 Jan 22, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fallacy due to the following facts.
1. Same sex couples can and do have families with children.
More often than not from a previous, conjugal, marriage. Said children were part of an intact married biological parent family.
2. Many people marry and opt out of having children.
Yes.
3. Many people cannot have children of their own for various reasons.
True, however not new. Old as marriage itself.
4. Same-sex marriage has zero impact on opposite sex marriage.
That remains to be seen, maybe it doesn't or won't, or maybe it does, or will.
5. It is discriminatory and harmful to same sex families.
How so? What specific harms are there to "same sex families", caused by not designating the same sex relationship of the adults, "marriage"? Is there a similar harm to other types of families, for example, plural marriage families?
6. Redefining marriage is irrelevant to the central legal issues involved.
What "central issues"? Redefining marriage, or how marriage is defined is the gist of the issue.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15848 Jan 22, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
By as many citizens as possibly, ideally.
So is it up to a vote?
But why even question this? Do you feel YOU'RE being treated unfairly, by the allowance of same-sex marriages?
"Fairly" is subjective.
Actually I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but the answer is no, but that would also apply to any number of relationships the state chooses to designate "marriage"
Please explain why on EARTH we need to care about fair treatment as it relates to marriage.
Why not? Equal treatment, right? So it's fair to say, both men and women are treated "fairly" as it relates to marriage.
Marriage doesn’t care about receiving fair treatment. PEOPLE care about that. There you go again, putting “Dictionary’s Rights” ahead of human rights. We don’t make laws to establish fair treatment toward words or concepts.
"Dictionary rights"? That's a new one.
But a huge change in the understanding of many men and many women has taken place. You don’t just leave the old rules in place when you learn new facts.
What new facts, pray tell, have been learns? Is same sex sexual behavior new? How about people who engage in such?
With society coming to a new realization about gay people, the game has changed. It needs NEW rules.
Ahhhhh...yes "gay" people. Is this a new species recently discovered? Are they physiologically different from "non gay" people?
You continue to simply argue for tradition for tradition's sake, without presenting an actual REASON that same-sex couples can't be recognized alongside their opposite-sex citizens.
I argue for biology, the simple fact that two sexes exist, and sex between them produces the next generation. Marriage serves as a means of bringing the sexes together, and recognizing what happens when they do get together. Designating other relationships "marriage" just because the participants want to establishes a dangerous precedent, and weakens the meaning of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
Why stop with same sex couples? After all they're not the only "other" marriage in town.
"We've always done it that way" is not a reason. It's an empty rationalization. Wow me with a good REASON.
Honesty Edmond, has anything really changed since Ramsey vs Murphy, or Baker vs Nelson, or any other case which either deals with marriage, or mentions it? Has anything really changed in regards to marriage, other than the elevation of the wife's status with in the marital relationship? No. Marriage is still about the sexes, what they do, have sex, and what that results in, children.
Neither the states nor the judges are authorized to legislate according to what they believe, other than the belief that the Constitution must be upheld. How individual politicians or judges personally feel is irrelevant. Voters too. They don't get to supercede the constutional mandate that all citizens must be treated fairly and equally.
Equal does not mean distinctions cannot be made.
How does the saying go? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. No one voted to treat all men and women the same. This was never anyone's motivation. They voted to curtail the rights of gay people, ONCE AGAIN. They do this a lot, and they just wind up getting the UNconstitutionality of their vote thrown back in their faces.
They voteDon a definition of marriage, the same definition which has existed throughout American history, long before "homosexual" was coined by a German psychiatrist, and "gay" went from a reference to various hedonistic opposite sex practices and practitioners, to a virtual exclusive reference to people who engage in SSSB, and profess, SSA.
The definition also prohibited any possible legalization of polygamy as well. So I guess they had their "rights" curtailed, too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15849 Jan 22, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
By as many citizens as possibly, ideally.
So is it up to a vote?
But why even question this? Do you feel YOU'RE being treated unfairly, by the allowance of same-sex marriages?
"Fairly" is subjective.
Actually I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but the answer is no, but that would also apply to any number of relationships the state chooses to designate "marriage"
Please explain why on EARTH we need to care about fair treatment as it relates to marriage.
Why not? Equal treatment, right? So it's fair to say, both men and women are treated "fairly" as it relates to marriage.
Marriage doesn’t care about receiving fair treatment. PEOPLE care about that. There you go again, putting “Dictionary’s Rights” ahead of human rights. We don’t make laws to establish fair treatment toward words or concepts.
"Dictionary rights"? That's a new one.
But a huge change in the understanding of many men and many women has taken place. You don’t just leave the old rules in place when you learn new facts.
What new facts, pray tell, have been learns? Is same sex sexual behavior new? How about people who engage in such?
With society coming to a new realization about gay people, the game has changed. It needs NEW rules.
Ahhhhh...yes "gay" people. Is this a new species recently discovered? Are they physiologically different from "non gay" people?
You continue to simply argue for tradition for tradition's sake, without presenting an actual REASON that same-sex couples can't be recognized alongside their opposite-sex citizens.
I argue for biology, the simple fact that two sexes exist, and sex between them produces the next generation. Marriage serves as a means of bringing the sexes together, and recognizing what happens when they do get together. Designating other relationships "marriage" just because the participants want to establishes a dangerous precedent, and weakens the meaning of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
Why stop with same sex couples? After all they're not the only "other" marriage in town.
"We've always done it that way" is not a reason. It's an empty rationalization. Wow me with a good REASON.
Honesty Edmond, has anything really changed since Ramsey vs Murphy, or Baker vs Nelson, or any other case which either deals with marriage, or mentions it? Has anything really changed in regards to marriage, other than the elevation of the wife's status with in the marital relationship, in the history of a Western Civilization? No. Marriage is still about the sexes, what they do, have sex, and what that results in, children.
Neither the states nor the judges are authorized to legislate according to what they believe, other than the belief that the Constitution must be upheld. How individual politicians or judges personally feel is irrelevant. Voters too. They don't get to supercede the constutional mandate that all citizens must be treated fairly and equally.
Equal does not mean distinctions cannot be made.
How does the saying go? Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. No one voted to treat all men and women the same. This was never anyone's motivation. They voted to curtail the rights of gay people, ONCE AGAIN. They do this a lot, and they just wind up getting the UNconstitutionality of their vote thrown back in their faces.
They voted a definition of marriage, the same definition which has existed throughout American history, long before "homosexual" was coined by a German psychiatrist, and "gay" went from a reference to various hedonistic opposite sex practices and practitioners, to a virtual exclusive reference to people who engage in SSSB, and profess, SSA.

The definition also prohibited any possible legalization of polygamy as well. So I guess they had their "rights" curtailed, too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15850 Jan 22, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
How can it be consistent if my state grants me a right that other states are free to disregard, and that other citizens do not have?
By that reasoning how can one state dictate the laws of another state that the second state does not wish? Do all states have to grant their citizens the right to possess marijuana now that Colorado has legalized it?
I have the right to enter into a marriage with the partner of my choice, regardless of gender.
That depends on the state that grants such.
In some places in the nation, some people have the right to a civil union or a domestic partnership, which does not exist in many other states. How do you call this patchwork “consistent”, without simply IGNORING these glaring inconsistencies? That’s some world class cognitive dissonance, right there.
That's the American way. Each state is allowed to designate which relationships it wishes to legally recognize, and how.

Are you arguing against the right of each state to do that?
Changes in what way? Changes BACK? Is that what you’re saying? Could you calculate me some odds on that happening?
More changes, more citizens treated "fairly" , more citizens having the choice to choose their partner, or partners.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15851 Jan 22, 2014
Hey, just in case anyone's interested in the subject of this thread, when does the backlash--err, election season--begin in Illinois?

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#15852 Jan 22, 2014
Yet courts have ruled in the past, certain classifications are suspect and are not necessarily hindered by such classifications. Even those deemed, or self professed to be, "homosexual" are still able to, and have, exercised their constitutional right to marry, enter into the legally recognized union of husband and wife.

I'm sure you're an example of this.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15853 Jan 22, 2014
Marram wrote:
Yet courts have ruled in the past, certain classifications are suspect and are not necessarily hindered by such classifications. Even those deemed, or self professed to be, "homosexual" are still able to, and have, exercised their constitutional right to marry, enter into the legally recognized union of husband and wife.
I'm sure you're an example of this.
No, but Josh Weed, a self describe gay man, is,....so is Chirlane McCray, wife of Mayor DeBlasio of NYC, who, in her younger years, publicly identified as a lesbian. There are others.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#15854 Jan 23, 2014
According to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe marriage should be between man and woman. That explains how they ignore the murder of gays and lesbians overseas because they use all their political capital for power to rewrite marriage laws here.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15855 Jan 23, 2014
Brian, you are an idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad.
Get it?
Brian, gay marriage does exist in almost half the states, it will soon exist in all of them, at which point your sole reason for existence will be extinguished. I hope you find a means to cope.

Your idiotic notion that marriage and procreation are intrinsically linked is set aside even by your hero Justice Scalia.
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with an- other person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Scalia dissenting, Lawrence v Texas
Brian_G wrote:
According to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe marriage should be between man and woman. That explains how they ignore the murder of gays and lesbians overseas because they use all their political capital for power to rewrite marriage laws here.
Brian, the depth of your stupidity seems to know no bounds. One could argue that you are a monster because you spend every waking hour on topics while there are children starving in Africa. Clearly, you are a malevolent and evil human being.

Your idiotic and childish reasoning has more place on the playground that here, moron.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15856 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
Marriage has a fundamental male/female aspect, for procreation. Marriage is husband and wife so children may be raised by mom and dad.
Get it?
It must suck to be the village idiot!!

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Never has been, never will be.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15857 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
According to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe marriage should be between man and woman. That explains how they ignore the murder of gays and lesbians overseas because they use all their political capital for power to rewrite marriage laws here.
No hon, according to the PC left, anti-gay means you believe that marriage should be denied to some people, but not to others.

Don't you ever get tired of being so stupid?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#15858 Jan 23, 2014
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15859 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Liddie, until you can offer a compelling governmental interest served by expanding the definition of legal marriage beyond that of one man and one woman as husband and wife, individual men and women, will still possess the same constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Is it just me, or are you becoming progressively dumber as this discussion progresses?
hellooooooooooooo.......... it's a done deal. There is no 'until.'
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15860 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
I never wrote procreation was a requirement for marriage, that was Jon. I wrote procreation is a benefit from marriage. That's why we want to keep marriage one man and one woman.
You lost that fight 10 years ago. Grow up.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15861 Jan 23, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with one thing, same sex marriage DOESN'T exist.
But it does exist Brian. Denying reality makes you appear less than sane.

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
Gay marriage set to make grand US... 7 min Professor Jumper 43
'We feel extremely blessed': Two women get marr... 1 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 102
I think my wife wants to Spank me ! Should I pu... 1 hr spanky42 17
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Lolocaust 49,750
New Zealand: Gay Activists Angry As Straight Me... 9 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 16
Couples, firms take sides in gay marriage debate Sat Professor Jumper 2
Buddies' wedding horrifies gay groups Sat nhjeff 14
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••