Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

Huh

Faribault, MN

#9124 Sep 2, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Florida has.
Yes they did. In Florida I could follow a couple out for walk...call the women names make nasty comments, if the guy turns and throws punch at me I can pull out gun shoot him and it is legal.....
Kareen Noboa

Ashburn, VA

#9125 Sep 2, 2013
the best free on line dating website ever!! send and receive messages, flirts, and video chat all for free!! check this one out. http://tinyurl.com/ksdya7p

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9126 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so they, SCOTUS, didn't force every single state to recognize to recognize SMS, is that correct?
how could they? that case has not been brought before their bench. you do know how the Supreme court of your own nations works, don't you? they do not make laws. they do not rule on laws not before their bench.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9127 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Brian, that's not exactly true. You make it sound as though those evil homosexuals are just indiscriminately suing Christians without justification.
Of course, if you weren't a dullard, you would realize that even that would not be any particular threat, because if the cases were not justified, the evil homosexuals would not win, and the court would order them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification.
Of course, that scenario is far from the truth. The lawsuits in question have arisen in cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws.
The reality of the matter is that it does not violate a business owner's free exercise of religion simply to provide services to a person who holds differing religious moral beliefs.
If you weren't an idiot, you would understand this. Keep making yourself look like a fool Brian. You are making great strides for marriage equality by making the opposition look like buffoonish cartoons.
first of all there is no general principle of the courts ordering "them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification."
second of all it is clear that not all cases are "cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws."
however it probably could be said that all cases are the result of their feelings being hurt when people exercised their right to free speech and told them that their moral convictions [another constitutional right] would prevent them from participating in their activities.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9128 Sep 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I did. it is the state, as long as they do so without violating the US constitution.
one SCOTUS case away from nationwide, legal SSM.
So one state with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman is in violation of the federal constitution, but another state with the same is not?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9129 Sep 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how could they? that case has not been brought before their bench. you do know how the Supreme court of your own nations works, don't you? they do not make laws. they do not rule on laws not before their bench.
But they could have done so, it was well within their authority to do it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9130 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS will soon,and should. Bigotry and hate cant be law.
My question is the point. NO STATE LAW CAN OVER RIDE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Yes states issue marriage certs. States use to be able to say if slavery as legal or not...THAT GOT CHANGED. So will this.
Seriously sickofit, toomanylaws, and now "huh", why didn't SCOTUS, five Justices specifically, rule that SSM is the law of the land and every state must recognize it?

The comparison to slavery is bizarre, no one chooses to become a slave, or at least no one sane. People are not forced to marry, or even marry with state sanction.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9131 Sep 2, 2013
barry wrote:
first of all there is no general principle of the courts ordering "them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification."
http://www.novackmacey.com/wp-content/uploads...
It is long established that legal fees can be recovered if the lawsuit is frivolous. In many cases the dismissal will summarily include the legal fees of the defendant if the claim against them lacks merit.
barry wrote:
second of all it is clear that not all cases are "cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws."
Actually, so far, the three major suits Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico all involve states with anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.
https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-...
barry wrote:
however it probably could be said that all cases are the result of their feelings being hurt when people exercised their right to free speech and told them that their moral convictions [another constitutional right] would prevent them from participating in their activities.
The state does not bring cases because someone's feelings have been hurt. Although that may be the basis of the civil cases, the state criminal cases are brought because the proprietors broke the laws of the state.

Take a moment to know what you are talking about before you spout drivel.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9132 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The state.
Your question has been answered simply and directly.
Quid pro quo, answer this question please. What compelling governmental interest is served by a state limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex marriage, which renders such a restriction constitutional?
Rather simple actually, the state has a compelling interest in the relationship itself, the male female union. All men, and all women, regardless of self professed same sex attraction are still men and women, and thus they can choose to enter that relationship, form that union, male female, which establishes the compelling state interest. The state has no interest in a same sex relationship, if it had such an interest would have manifested itself long before now, quite possibly it would already exist before now, rendering this debate moot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9133 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they did. In Florida I could follow a couple out for walk...call the women names make nasty comments, if the guy turns and throws punch at me I can pull out gun shoot him and it is legal.....
I don't think it's that simple. He would be in the wrong for attempting to assault you for simply calling him nasty names. You could be in the wrong depending on a number of factors, motivation, did he actually hit you, miss and swing again, did you fight back, etc.....many variables.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9134 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But they could have done so, it was well within their authority to do it.
no, they could not have as that was not the case in front of their bench. i guess you do not understand how the Supreme court works...
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9135 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously sickofit, toomanylaws, and now "huh", why didn't SCOTUS, five Justices specifically, rule that SSM is the law of the land and every state must recognize it?
The comparison to slavery is bizarre, no one chooses to become a slave, or at least no one sane. People are not forced to marry, or even marry with state sanction.
That was not up for a vote. It will be soon.

You still miss the point.....or wont admit the point because it will show your just a bigot.

Again the point is this. NO STATE CAN VOTE AWAY OR TAKE AWAY RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL GOV.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9136 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So one state with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman is in violation of the federal constitution, but another state with the same is not?
where the heck did that come from, it makes absolutely no sense at all nor has any relevance to this discussion.

but since now the Federal gov't recognizes SSM for some of its citizens, but not all, the next case on this issue before SCOTUS will most likely be ruled as this is not equal protection under the Constitution.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9137 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's that simple. He would be in the wrong for attempting to assault you for simply calling him nasty names. You could be in the wrong depending on a number of factors, motivation, did he actually hit you, miss and swing again, did you fight back, etc.....many variables.
Point is Trayvon defended himself and got killed and his killer got off.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9138 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather simple actually, the state has a compelling interest in the relationship itself, the male female union. All men, and all women, regardless of self professed same sex attraction are still men and women, and thus they can choose to enter that relationship, form that union, male female, which establishes the compelling state interest. The state has no interest in a same sex relationship, if it had such an interest would have manifested itself long before now, quite possibly it would already exist before now, rendering this debate moot.
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
(In re marriage cases)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9139 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
why didn't SCOTUS, five Justices specifically, rule that SSM is the law of the land and every state must recognize it?
Mainly because that was not the question before the court.

The court cannot rule on questions that are not before them. Doing so would be judicial activism. They are confined to addressing the legal questions that are put before them.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9140 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Rather simple actually, the state has a compelling interest in the relationship itself, the male female union.
You really are a clueless twit. I see you still don't understand the law, or the applicability of a compelling governmental interest. All you accomplish when you post this gibberish to to make yourself seem to be a blithering imbecile.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men, and all women, regardless of self professed same sex attraction are still men and women, and thus they can choose to enter that relationship, form that union, male female, which establishes the compelling state interest.
How is this a state interest? Be specific.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state has no interest in a same sex relationship, if it had such an interest would have manifested itself long before now, quite possibly it would already exist before now, rendering this debate moot.
Nor need there be. As has been explained to you, time and time again, a compelling governmental interest is necessary to infringe upon, not to extend, rights.

I have difficulty believing that you could actually be as stupid as you are presenting yourself to be.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9141 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Who issues the marriage license, the state or the federal government?
You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

My original post.#9086
DaveinMass wrote:
But the feds will now recognize any legally married same-sex couple regardless of the state where they reside. Same-sex couple from Texas goes to Massachusetts, gets legally married, returns to Texas... the feds will still recognize the couple as married regardless of Texas law. Legally married same-sex couples popping up all over the country.
In the scenario that I posited, the Texas couple gets a state issued Certificate of Marriage from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Was this not clear to you?

Is it also not clear to you that the federal government will recognize that Texan couple as legally married wherever they may choose to reside. Massachusetts, Texas, Florida, etc?

I never said that Texas was being forced to recognize that couple that came home from Massachusetts with their legal Certificate of Marriage as being married. Not yet at least. That constitutional question has not yet been addressed by the courts. Rest assured the courts will be asked to address that issue.

Now, which facts from my original post do you take issue?

I'll give you a possible problem. Not all departments of the federal government have made it clear how they will handle married same-sex couples in states that do not recognize them as such. However, the IRS has made their position clear and I wager that all other departments will follow their lead.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9142 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Eliminate one, and you eliminate marriage, the formula is no longer the same.
Sorry, but you'd be wrong......marriage still EXISTS even if the couple is 2 men or 2 women......because a marriage takes 2 consenting adults to make it a marriage, plain and simple.

Now, if you are discussing procreation......then yes, remove one or the other and no procreation can take place without the sperm or the egg........but that is NOT the same as for the marriage part of this discussion!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9143 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather simple actually, the state has a compelling interest in the relationship itself, the male female union. All men, and all women, regardless of self professed same sex attraction are still men and women, and thus they can choose to enter that relationship, form that union, male female, which establishes the compelling state interest. The state has no interest in a same sex relationship, if it had such an interest would have manifested itself long before now, quite possibly it would already exist before now, rendering this debate moot.
You are still operating under the false premise that rights must provide a compelling interest to the state.

Again, you have it backwards. The state must demonstrate a compelling state interest if and when it seeks to restrict fundamental rights of the individual. Fundamental rights do not need to provide any benefit to the government.

Again, What is the basis of the freedom of speech? Freedom of religious choice? Association? Life? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness? What is the basis for these and other fundamental rights?

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 34 min Just Think 22,559
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 40 min petrol 4,741
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 2 hr Sorry Hill 54
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 hr Sorry Hill 2,193
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr guest 534
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr River Tam 43,078
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 4 hr Dalton 20
More from around the web