Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9328 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why then do you advocate for "marriage equality", if you do not include all marriages?
Why do you erroneously presume I personally call advocacy of same sex marriage "marriage equality"?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9329 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing a specific fundamental right based on a specific relationship. Marriage exists as a fundamental right, because of the male female relationship, and the state's recognition of said relationship.
No, that's simply your personal opinion of what the fundamental right of marriage is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men and all women, regardless of self professed sexual orientation/attraction, have the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. All men are treated the same, in tis regard, as are all women.
And anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks and yet were still ruled unconstitutional. It appears you are totally uneducable on matters of constitutional law.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9330 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".
I don't have to.......you can't understand or simply want to remain ignorant regarding this issue seeing that roughly 14 states are issuing State sanction marriage licenses to both Same-Sex Couples and opposite-sex couples including DC, there are also marriage licenses being issued in Pennsylvania as well and we should hear shortly on the judge's ruling.

SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a Fundamental Right, just like procreation is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......the two are NOT mutually inclusive of each other and the cases you are going to copy and paste again WON'T change the reality of what is happening today.......Maryland and Washington both have granted Gays and Lesbians the right to marry, the court cases you will probably paste here have been made moot by the legislators of both states and their wins at the ballot box in 2012.

You can continue to answer questions with questions if ya like and others may enjoy poking you because of your rhetorical comments.....that is their right......but I for one am tired of your sarcasm, your rhetorical questions, your egotistical attitude about the marriage of others and you thinking that marriage is strictly about procreation and conjugal because NONE of those issues truly are what marriage is about and just because that may be what you want marriage to be about.......others have a right to make this decision for themselves and the person involved with them.......my wife and I are legally married and there is NOTHING you can say or do about that......and other legally married opposite-sex couples in my family view our marriage no different from their marriage.......and I know you will NEVER stop your rhetoric copying and pasting......so, others may continue to toy with you on this subject......but the fact of the matter is you are on the wrong side of this issue........and all most Gay and Lesbian couples with their families is to be treated like any other American married couples are and their families are!!!

Ciao

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9331 Sep 4, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".
SCOTUS has ruled "marriage" a fundamental right without qualifiers placed upon it. Fundamental rights inherently belong to all people and may only be infringed or restricted by the state when there is a compelling government interest to do so.

You really should look into the opinion for Lawrence v. Texas to understand why Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled and what the Court specifically said about the mischaracterization of the liberty interest involved when it was erroneously framed with a "homosexual" or same sex qualifier.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9332 Sep 5, 2013
Huh wrote:
You twist everything backward. If you don't want to be sued and jailed DONT SPEW HATE AND BIGOTRY AND DONT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY LOVE....GOT IT HITLER TRASH?????????? You f-ing far righter Nazi pigs are dying out and that is good for this nation...Bye old fart enjoy hell.
They don't just sue Christians. There's a county clerk in Pennsylvania who's issuing same sex marriage licenses despite Pennsylvania's marriage law defines it as one man and one woman.

If you don't want to be sued, keep marriage male/female. Most Americans don't want a new standard of segregation in marriage.

GrouchoMarxist

“These are a few.....”

Since: May 10

of my fav~o~rite things~~

#9333 Sep 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Please cite the Supreme Court case that clearly states same marriage is a "fundamental right".
Good luck with THAT.

They used to claim it was a "constitutional" right, until:

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...

It's hilarious how they think changing a misspoken word will "validate" their empty arguments....

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#9334 Sep 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has ruled "marriage" a fundamental right without qualifiers placed upon it. Fundamental rights inherently belong to all people and may only be infringed or restricted by the state when there is a compelling government interest to do so.
You really should look into the opinion for Lawrence v. Texas to understand why Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled and what the Court specifically said about the mischaracterization of the liberty interest involved when it was erroneously framed with a "homosexual" or same sex qualifier.
But there ARE qualifiers on marriage for heterosexual couples and always have been. There are all sorts of legal reasons that states have established to prevent the marriage of some people.

SCOTUS never said there were no qualifiers as far as marriage is concerned.

Since: Sep 13

Tipp City, OH

#9335 Sep 5, 2013
US Christianity will be down to 10% in just 40 Years

Maybe its time to embrace diversity and stop attacking those not like yourself?

That is, if you want members in your churches at all.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9336 Sep 5, 2013
barry wrote:
so where is an event such as a ssw covered in this law?
It doesn't need to be. When a business denies service for a same sex wedding, they do so on the basis of sexual orientation in Washington State.
barry wrote:
the first amendment of the US constitution:
""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..."
from the Washington State Constitution:
"Article I Section 11 SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute
freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment,
belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual,
and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace
and safety of the state..."
religious freedom and the free exercise thereof is a constitutional right at both levels. the washington constitution is very clear that "no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion".
And religious freedom is violated how, exactly, by providing services to a wedding for those who believe differently than the proprietor?

Your assertion would render business impossible. Should an employee be able to asser their religious faith and deny services, both to client and proprietor if the services are to be for a Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim wedding because they hold different beliefs?

Of course not. That's an insane assertion.

The reality remains that providing a service through one's business to someone who holds differing religious beliefs does not violate the free exercise of religion.

Don't like that, move to Iran.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9337 Sep 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They don't just sue Christians.
Just don't break the law, moron.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9338 Sep 5, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has ruled that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......where did it ever SPECIFICALLY state that it had to ONLY be a man and a woman?
Where did it indicate, or imply anything else? What definition of marriage didi it use to base their descisions on?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9339 Sep 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS has ruled "marriage" a fundamental right without qualifiers placed upon it. Fundamental rights inherently belong to all people and may only be infringed or restricted by the state when there is a compelling government interest to do so.
Yes, but definition of marriage? They must of had a foundation understanding of marriage to begin with. Let's think about this. Polygamy? No, illegal in some states. Same sex marriage? Inconceivable for most of American history, and only became legal in any state, in 2004. So must definition is left?
You really should look into the opinion for Lawrence v. Texas to understand why Bowers v. Hardwick was overruled and what the Court specifically said about the mischaracterization of the liberty interest involved when it was erroneously framed with a "homosexual" or same sex qualifier.
Did it rule that same sex marriage was a right?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9340 Sep 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you erroneously presume I personally call advocacy of same sex marriage "marriage equality"?
I'm simply using the Orwellian sounding language of the movement.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9341 Sep 5, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It's perfectly acceptable to the state if children are raised by adoptive parents, foster parents, step parents, or by their own biological UNMARRIED mother and father. NO state puts any restrictions on whether these people may marry, or on whether they may raise children.
Acceptable, yes, optimum situation, no.
How does this "fact remain"? It doesn't "remain" in 13 states. How are THEY managing to dole out this fundamental right to same-sex couples, if "the fact remains"?
The states issue marriage licenses, the Feds do not.
The states which don't currently recognize same-sex marriages are finding it harder and harder to defend their position legally, and some aspects of these marriages will be recognized federally, regardless of the state of residence of the couple.
Your "fact" does NOT remain.
According to 30 or so state constitutions they do. Which the Supreme Court did not interfere with.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9342 Sep 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy? No, illegal in some states.
Actually, it is illegal in all states, and you are illustrating that you have no valid on topic argument again. You are also illustrating that you cannot count to three, or understand the concept of equality. Congratulations, you're a dullard.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9343 Sep 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why? If same sex first cousins can marry, why can't same siblings? No risk of natural sexual procreation.
<quoted text>
Not so. The basis for opposite sex siblings is the risk of sexual procreative genetic birth defects. Not a risk with same sex siblings.
When you obtain even the most basic understanding of American jurisprudence then maybe you'll understand.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You fail to realize the foundation, the male female union, upon which the compelling state interest in marriage rests, is not present in a same sex relationship. Thus no need, nor obligation to designate a same sex emotional sexual relationship, "marriage".
Oh I understand your position that the male-female union is the foundation of marriage. I REJECT IT!

And so does the Supreme Court. Because IF what you say were true, the court WOULD have found that DOMA was constitutionally valid. THE COURT DID NOT! The court did not find that Congress' definition of recognizable marriage of one man and one woman constitutional. They may not have explicitly stated this, but that IS the effect of their ruling.

It is YOU that fails to recognize this.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9344 Sep 5, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
But there ARE qualifiers on marriage for heterosexual couples and always have been. There are all sorts of legal reasons that states have established to prevent the marriage of some people.
SCOTUS never said there were no qualifiers as far as marriage is concerned.
I never said marriage laws had no qualifiers; I stated SCOTUS had never included any in their rulings regarding marriage as a fundamental right. Qualifiers in marriage laws are restrictions and must have a compelling government interest to be constitutional.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9345 Sep 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your previous comment regarding "moral convictions" was in the context of the Bill of Rights. I merely cited an excerpt from a SCOTUS ruling stating morality alone is not sufficient constitutional justification for infringing another's right to equal protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Constitutional equal protection law is not the issue here. The state of Washington legislated a civil right of freedom from discrimination and enumerated specific entities/circumstances subject to the law and specific classes on which discrimination was prohibited. The florist was subject to the law by the fact she operated a business as a public accommodation selling goods/services. She committed discrimination by refusing to sell goods to a couple because of their sexual orientation. The law does not grant exceptions for business owners to only serve protected classes when it doesn't violate their personal moral convictions or for reasons the business owner deems acceptable.
It doesn't matter whether she previously served a customer prior to the refusal to do so or whether she has ever employed members of the protected class. A single refusal to serve a customer because of their membership in a protected class triggers a violation of the law and is deemed a discriminatory act.
so this is where your argument/position falls apart and will ultimately fail in the courts.
#1 she has clearly established over a long period of time that she does not discriminate against homosexual people.
#2 she is clearly refusing to service or have any part in an event that she is morally against. events are not what is protected by the law.
#3 since the event is a ssw and she is by moral conviction against ssw, she is protected by the Bill of Rights and Article 1 of the washington state constitution to the free exercise of her religion
and her "liberty of conscience" can not be "molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion".
the law can not over ride that.
#4 since the recent supreme court ruling seems to leave the door open to recognize any union regardless of the sex of the partners as a marriage there would appear to be no reason why two heterosexuals of the same sex could not also form a legal union that the state of washington would have to recognize as a "marriage". do you think that she would be willing to provide flowers for this event? i doubt it. so to claim that she is discriminating purely based on the sexual orientation of the customers is not a provable position.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9346 Sep 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but definition of marriage?
The legal accomplishment of marriage is conferring kinship on previously unrelated parties. Any other qualifiers you place upon that core accomplishment are simply restrictions that must have a compelling government interest to be constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They must of had a foundation understanding of marriage to begin with. Let's think about this. Polygamy? No, illegal in some states. Same sex marriage? Inconceivable for most of American history, and only became legal in any state, in 2004. So must definition is left?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did it rule that same sex marriage was a right?
SCOTUS has never been asked to rule on that question. SCOTUS can only render opinions on legal issues that are properly before them.

For someone who's been repeatedly school by a multitude of your more knowledgable fellow citizens, you still can't grasp basic legal and constitutional concepts.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9347 Sep 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm simply using the Orwellian sounding language of the movement.
It's amusing how you insist words have multiple or more expansive meanings when others use them but whine incessantly when that fact is pointed out regarding you own use of language.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 min Freedomofexpression 13,064
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 6 min Hilda 17
Corn Shuckers 9 min Milton 3
News America opposes gay marriage (Dec '09) 33 min Fhipog 1,788
News Trump reportedly joked that Pence wants to see ... 1 hr truth be told 18
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 1 hr Noe 36
News Stopping hate crimes against transgender Americans 1 hr Ronald 6
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 1 hr Wondering 341
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr NoahLovesU 57,591
More from around the web