Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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

North Hollywood, CA

#2769 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Yes, OK, there is "THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY...." but no such thing as gender equality in the US Constitution. The ERA failed ratification.
The ERA would have been redundant. As you say, THERE IS CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY. And that includes CIVIL RIGHTS EQUALITY for men and women.
Oh, when will prison rape become legal?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2770 Feb 21, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
he knows he is cornered and caught with facts..So he will twist and turn and change words and spew BS till the cows come home.....It is what hate filled nazi bigots do.
I agree.

This is one reason he focuses on the way you deliver your message, rather than the message itself. As you note, the facts and the legal principal of equal treatment for all persons under the law, are on our side, and he has no legitimate excuse for discrimination.

I fully appreciate your passion and the prejudice you despise. I feel the same way. Your feelings are entirely justified. But I fear they overshadow the message you want to convey. We have the science, law, reason, and logic on our side. For some, the goal is to get you angry, so you won't destroy their logical fallacies with reason.

But of course you are entirely free to be yourself as well. One friend suggested MLK needed a Malcolm X to make people think.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." (MLK)

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2771 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
MAN OR WOMAN BOTH EQUAL TO EACH OTHER NO DIFFERENCES AT ALL.....isn't right Comrade Sick-Who-Throws-A-Hissy-Fit of the commune Utopia? Physical differences are irrelevant when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. No differences at all.
There are physical differences between every two people on earth, even identical twins. Should there be a different set of rights written up for each person? Yeah, physical differences are irrelevant when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. Why are you against the 14th Amendment?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2772 Feb 21, 2013
AzAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You are absolutely right, but only on this one point. I would also add that a change in gender requirements and a change in number requirements can be discussed separately as easily as together.
If you believe that, then you clearly don't understand the law or how it works with regards to marriage.

Gender is completely irrelevant with it comes to civil marriage law. There is not requirement involved in civil marriage contracts that would in any way require gender specificity.

Numbers a HUGE when it comes to civil marriage because the law is charged with treating people equally. Our current system of family law only accommodates one spouse at a time. Adding additional, concurrent spouses exponentially complicates the legal equity issues involved in recognizing and regulating the marriage.

You CAN talk about the two in the same discussion, but it's pointless and confusing if you do. They're very much not the same issues at all.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2773 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think a woman should be treated like a man? Or vice versa? Did you tell your Mom, "I wish you were a man".
Bet your kids told you that.

Any way, stick with the subject, equal protection under the law. You con dumbs don't have real arguments, so you try to confuse issues.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2774 Feb 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your requirement denies the reality of gay people and treats them as if they were straight.
Not at all. Yes, gay people exist, and some have actually married someone of the opposite sex, who were fully aware of their same sex attraction. However just because gay people exist, does not mean we have to fundamentally alter the concept of marriage.
The same argument was used to deny inter-racial marriage by claiming each person was free to marry someone of the same race.
You make a false assumption that the opponents of interracial marraige beleived there were only two races, they did not. The prohibition was only for certain racial combinations, not all combinations. Additionally it was based on the notion that the races shouldn't mix, are you suggesting the sexes shouldn't mix? If so then you would be consistent.
10 states and DC have determined the gender restriction serves no legitimate governmental interest, and now recognize same sex married couples as equal under the law to opposite sex married couples.
Ten states have redefined marriage, thirty two states have confirmed the defnintion of a union of one man and one woman, because they beleive it does serve a legitimate governmental interest. Under the revisionist concept of marriage, conjugality no longer forms the basis for marriage. Thus its logical to see the prohibitions based on that, marriage between siblings, or at least same sex siblings, should no longer be maintained.
The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction by some states and the federal government.
This is discrimination under the law, in violation of the equal protections clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.
Ultimately that will be up to the Supreme Court to decide...technically, although its an astronomical long shot, that might not be the end, a federal marriage ammendment would be the end...but that's quite the long shot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2775 Feb 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There are physical differences between every two people on earth, even identical twins. Should there be a different set of rights written up for each person? Yeah, physical differences are irrelevant when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL. Why are you against the 14th Amendment?
Hey leg lamp. how ya doing? Perhaps we should have different bathrooms for every single person? Different medical tests for each gender...wait we already have that. CIVIL RIGHT FOR ALL MEN, AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL WOMEN. Agreed.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2776 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Yes, gay people exist, and some have actually married someone of the opposite sex, who were fully aware of their same sex attraction. However just because gay people exist, does not mean we have to fundamentally alter the concept of marriage.
But since current laws in most states violate the 14th Amendment, they should be changed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You make a false assumption that the opponents of interracial marraige beleived there were only two races, they did not. The prohibition was only for certain racial combinations, not all combinations. Additionally it was based on the notion that the races shouldn't mix, are you suggesting the sexes shouldn't mix? If so then you would be consistent.
It was based on the fundie belief that light and dark should be separate. Genesis 1:4.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ten states have redefined marriage, thirty two states have confirmed the defnintion of a union of one man and one woman, because they beleive it does serve a legitimate governmental interest. Under the revisionist concept of marriage, conjugality no longer forms the basis for marriage.
So what?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus its logical to see the prohibitions based on that, marriage between siblings, or at least same sex siblings, should no longer be maintained.
The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction by some states and the federal government.
<quoted text>
Ultimately that will be up to the Supreme Court to decide...technically, although its an astronomical long shot, that might not be the end, a federal marriage ammendment would be the end...but that's quite the long shot.
Zzzz...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2777 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey leg lamp. how ya doing? Perhaps we should have different bathrooms for every single person? Different medical tests for each gender...wait we already have that. CIVIL RIGHT FOR ALL MEN, AND CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL WOMEN. Agreed.
Why do you think I find being told I have a body like an idealized female form is insulting? Guess you have to be a fundie to understand that kind of "logic"!

Again, stupid, the subject is equal protection under the law. EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS MEN AND WOMEN. Not types of medical tests, or urinals.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2778 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. Yes, gay people exist, and some have actually married someone of the opposite sex, who were fully aware of their same sex attraction. However just because gay people exist, does not mean we have to fundamentally alter the concept of marriage.
<quoted text>
You make a false assumption that the opponents of interracial marraige beleived there were only two races, they did not. The prohibition was only for certain racial combinations, not all combinations. Additionally it was based on the notion that the races shouldn't mix, are you suggesting the sexes shouldn't mix? If so then you would be consistent.
<quoted text>
Ten states have redefined marriage, thirty two states have confirmed the defnintion of a union of one man and one woman, because they beleive it does serve a legitimate governmental interest. Under the revisionist concept of marriage, conjugality no longer forms the basis for marriage. Thus its logical to see the prohibitions based on that, marriage between siblings, or at least same sex siblings, should no longer be maintained.
The legal marriages of same sex couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of opposite sex couples from the same jurisdiction by some states and the federal government.
<quoted text>
Ultimately that will be up to the Supreme Court to decide...technically, although its an astronomical long shot, that might not be the end, a federal marriage ammendment would be the end...but that's quite the long shot.
Again, you are free to view marriage anyway you choose. The law does not. Procreation is not a requirement.

You fail to show how allow equal treatment for same sex couples will stop procreation among those who so choose. It does not alter their marriages in any legal way. It does not encourage them be to be better parents. Whether they procreate or not remains their choice, protected equally under the law. Denial only harms same sex couples needlessly, while providing no benefit to the government.

But allowing same sex couples equal treatment under the current laws does not fundamentally alter marriage.

There is no fundamental change to the laws that determine what marriage is. The marriages of straight couples is not changed. Polygamy would change their relationships on a fundamental level and require a fundamental overhaul of the laws currently in effect, but equal treatment for same sex couples makes no such change in the laws. It also does not alter society for straight couples, while polygamy results in a very different social order.

Nor does removal of the gender restriction require removal of any other restrictions.

Incest is problematic and harmful for many reasons beyond genetic procreation problems associated with incest and polygamy. Problems with abusive, inequitable relationships are varied and widely documented. This prohibition is well established in science and law. Kinship provides some protections, but changing it to marriage is a different argument.

No matter how you view racial segregation laws, they were unconstitutional because they treated people differently, based on personal beliefs. I merely point out the excuse you offer for discrimination were used at that time as well. The same old excuses continue to be dusted off to justify prejudice and discrimination. They no more apply now than they did then.

This chart compares the arguments against inter-racial marriage to the arguments against same sex couple marriage equality. You will see, they are essentially the same arguments.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2780 Feb 21, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know any of that. You're just making up rules based on your own personal prejudice.
Are ye daft laddie? Plural marriages already exist, they simply don't have government recognition. The wives are married to the husband, not to each other. Each marriage could be considered as seperate. Granted allowances would have to made regarding assets, medical decisions, etc, but not impossible to create. If a woman were to have two husbands, they would be married to her, not to each other.
You have no idea what the laws regarding such relationships would be, but all those situations would have to be considered and codified into law before polygamist marriages can be legally recognized.
Was every law considered before SSM was legalized? No, we both know that. The courts are left to sort them out, particularly divorce.
No such extra considerations have to be considered or adopted into law to legally recognize same-sex marriage because there's still only two people involved, just like with opposite-sex marriages.
That appears to be the only significant similarity, or at least the one that gets offered the most by SSM advocates.
But, by all means, don't let simple reality stop you from continuing to try and convince us that polygamy is directly connected to same-sex marriage. Go for it. You keep setting them up and we'll keep knocking them down.
Ahhhh yes simple reality...that same reality that has people asking, "if gay marriage is legal, why not polygamy?" That same reality that the Brown family states in various interviews offering their suppport for SSM....that same that has plural marriage practitioners coming "out of the closet", citing legal ssm giving them the courage to do so.

Why does it bother you so to have polygamy and ssm linked? Are you afraid they're going to crash the wedding? Besides, Americans are polygamous to a degree. We marry have kids, divorce, remarry, and have more kids. Men father children with several different women, some women will give birth to children fathered by different men, although I sense the former is more common. So is the idea of a plural marriage, or polygamous marriage, that far removed from the current social reality?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2781 Feb 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet your kids told you that.
Silly leg Lamp girl, of course they didn't, they like the fact that Dad is a guy, gives them balance. One Mom, and One Dad.
Any way, stick with the subject, equal protection under the law. You con dumbs don't have real arguments, so you try to confuse issues.
You Dumb cons are trying to con everyone into thinking all we have to do is render marriage gender neutral and rainbows will fill the skies, everyone will be happy. One of the biggest cons is just change marriage laws for those nice gay folks down the street, but not for those evil plural marriage people, you know the ones, with their own realty shows, children produced the old fashion way.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2782 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Wastey, there are married Roman Catholic priests. The Eastern rite Catholic Church allows married priests. Would a female priest be a "priestess"? Would she be addressed as "Mother"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-...
Most Americans, perhaps most American Catholics, do not know that the church allows married priests. But there have always been married priests in the non-Latin rites, like Ukrainian Catholicism or Maronite Catholicism. These churches are fully Catholic, obedient to the pope, but they ordain married men, although they do not allow unmarried priests to get married.
There were always some married priests in Roman Catholicism, too, until the First Lateran Council, in 1123, banned the practice. And there have been married Roman Catholic priests again since 1980, when the church said that Protestant clergymen who became Catholic priests could stay married to their wives.
There are about 80 such Catholic priests in America, says the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, a sociologist at Catholic University in Washington. Once an Episcopal priest himself, now a married Catholic priest, Father Sullins has interviewed over 70 married priests, and many of their wives, for a book he is writing. A vast majority are former Episcopalians, he says, though some came from other Protestant denominations.
That's quite true. I know one personally. The Father/Mother thing is problematic but really just a matter of semantics.

From what I understand, the Middle Ages church was losing too much property to inheritance so they decided to forbid the priests marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2783 Feb 21, 2013
They could do like other religions and use the word Pastor instead. Many Catholics would prefer that. I really object to calling Priests Father. I have one Father who is earthly. I'm not sold on the Paternal deity.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#2784 Feb 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
They could do like other religions and use the word Pastor instead. Many Catholics would prefer that. I really object to calling Priests Father. I have one Father who is earthly. I'm not sold on the Paternal deity.
actually the CC has a priest in every parish that holds the title of pastor. even the Pope has a pastor who preaches to him.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2785 Feb 21, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>actually the CC has a priest in every parish that holds the title of pastor. even the Pope has a pastor who preaches to him.
True. The Father thing should be dropped. It serves no useful purpose does it.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#2786 Feb 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
True. The Father thing should be dropped. It serves no useful purpose does it.
not really, but there is another thread for that conversation.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2787 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Additionally it was based on the notion that the races shouldn't mix, are you suggesting the sexes shouldn't mix? If so then you would be consistent.
I see you are following Brian down the path toward imbecility. The Loving decision ALLOWED mixed race couples to marry, but it provided absolutely no requirement that marrying couples be of mixed race. I think any research you do into the matter will demonstrate that, even today, the vast majority or marriages are between people of the same race.

Same-sex marriage will provide no prescription that marrying couples be of the same sex, and I am sure a similar majority of couples will always be opposite-sex.

Your desperation to make an argument, no matter how stupid, has been underscored.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2788 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Noooooo....its really the sole reason why marriage is recognized in the first place.
Procreation IS NOT the sole reason why marriage is recognized by the state.

Civil marriage provides benefits for the partners, any children they MAY have, and society as a whole.

Take away the children, or even the possibility of children, and there is STILL LEGAL CIVIL MARRIAGE.
Pietro Armando wrote:
...does anyone not think of "grandma and grandpa" when they see an elderly couple getting married.
Not when my 73-year-old aunt got married last summer. Her second marriage. She had no children in her first.

According to your way of thinking, her marriage is worthless.

I dare you to tell her that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Good question, it does seem strange to me as well to allow this [marriage for death row or lifers without conjugal rights].
Because the Supreme Court ruled that civil marriage is a civil right. The state has no legitimate interest in denying it. If that's true for these individuals, who have been stripped of other civil rights, clearly same-sex couples should be recognized in civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The nonsense that marriage is a conjugal union of husband and wife, orientated around the sexual aspect of that union, and what it produces, children? Of course silly me. Why would any intelligent person think that?
No.

The nonsense that marriage IS ONLY a conjugal union of husband and wife, orientated around the sexual aspect of that union, and what it produces, children.

Why would any intelligent person think that?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's use some logic here.


OK, please join me, finally.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage through out American history has been...
Appeal to history. A logical fallacy that assumes simply because something has always been done or recognized in a particular way, it should always continue to be that way.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you really think there'd be a need to require something that naturally occurs when men and women have sex? There was a time when people expected, although we all know it didn;t always happen that way, sex to take place withing marriage. Notions such as, "living in sin", a man was wxpected to "make an honest woman our of her", "shotgun marriages", need I go on?
Well, I guess you decided against the logic tactic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you honestly think, that as marriage, developed in this country there'd be a need to legally require sex and procreation, that somehow if it wasn't, married folks wouldn't have sex and make babies?


Did I ever argue this? You've created so many strawman arguments that I think you're trying to write examples for a textbook on logical fallacies.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or maybe it needed to be required, to prevent folks in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen from claiming marriage, wasn't about that so they could advocate for same sex "marriage"? After all, sex (as in coital sexual intercourse), and procreation, were never established as a legal requiremt, so thus, it can't be about that. Oh Madone! E' pazzo!
You've failed to support the claim that the SOLE purpose of marriage is "a union centered around the sexual union of a man and a woman, and what that union produces, children."

You've failed because your argument demonstrates circular reasoning, a logical fallacy where you begin with what you are trying to end up with; your conclusion is actually part of your unsupported premise, and therefore logically fallacious.

You've failed because you are actually begging the question ("petitio principii", assuming the initial point); in that the question isn't WHETHER same-sex couples HAVEN'T BEEN included in civil marriage in the past. The question at hand is what legitimate reason exists to deny their ability to obtain a marriage NOW.

You've failed to provide one.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#2789 Feb 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly leg Lamp girl, of course they didn't, they like the fact that Dad is a guy, gives them balance. One Mom, and One Dad.
New-agey crap.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You Dumb cons are trying to con everyone into thinking all we have to do is render marriage gender neutral and rainbows will fill the skies, everyone will be happy. One of the biggest cons is just change marriage laws for those nice gay folks down the street, but not for those evil plural marriage people, you know the ones, with their own realty shows, children produced the old fashion way.
You don't have an argument against gay marriage so you flood the forum with the polygamy red herring.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 53 min NorCal Native 5,616
News Sweden wins Eurovision Song Contest while Russi... 2 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 2
News Ireland gives resounding 62.1 percent 'yes' to ... 2 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 4
News Anti-Gay Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Was A Violation... 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 101
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 hr Dana Robertson 3,684
News Ted Cruz goes off the rails: 'ISIS is executing... 3 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 68
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 33,029
News SoCal Rep Wants to Outlaw Gay-to-Straight "Conv... 3 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 122
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 3 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 131
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr GayleWood 21,500
News Josh Duggar apology not enough? Fallout from mo... 12 hr Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web