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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9450 Sep 6, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
Nothing matters more to Christians than spreading hate. There is a Christian pastor who advocates breaking the bones of young boys if they "act girly", another two who say the government should kill gay people. The Romans had the right idea, just too few lions. Imagine how much more advanced civilization would be if the plague that is Christianity had been wiped out at the start...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/201...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9451 Sep 6, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Here's the difference between civil rights and same sex marriage;
This ought to be good.
Brian_G wrote:
mixed race couples sued the state to change the law but now same sex couples are suing Christian wedding service providers like bakers, photographers and florists.
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor.
Brian, you are a twit.

If the business owners did not break the law, they wouldn't be sued, and the courts would not decide against them.

If one breaks the law, they shouldn't be surprised when they get sued. Bigotry is not a right.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9452 Sep 6, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This ought to be good.
<quoted text>
Brian, you are a twit.
If the business owners did not break the law, they wouldn't be sued, and the courts would not decide against them.
If one breaks the law, they shouldn't be surprised when they get sued. Bigotry is not a right.
Normal people would just take their business elsewhere.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9453 Sep 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Normal people would just take their business elsewhere.
I wonder if you would feel same way if it was you getting discriminated everyday if you would smile and take it or fight...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9454 Sep 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if you would feel same way if it was you getting discriminated everyday if you would smile and take it or fight...
You're lying again. You need a brain to wonder.
I wouldn't sue someone because they didn't want my business, I'd bring it to someone that did.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9455 Sep 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying again. You need a brain to wonder.
I wouldn't sue someone because they didn't want my business, I'd bring it to someone that did.
Right....What if most businesses would not serve you.....What if daily you were called names and had your rights trampled on????

I know you will twist and turn the issue. You know in your mind your just a hate filled bigot....But please continue your rant and vile evil.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9456 Sep 6, 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. 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.
Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9457 Sep 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>really? i can't find the word "sell" anywhere in the washington law. in fact i can't find anything that even uses another word that could be construed as "sell" or has anything to do with selling. selling is not covered.
i think that you are wrong and you just made that up because it is your wishful thinking.
perhaps you can quote the part that you are referring to.
Seriously?

<shakes head>

The law covers public accomodations.
What are public accommodations?
A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9458 Sep 6, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man?
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. 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.

So are you asking me if she should exercise her fundamental right to marry?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9459 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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. 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.
So are you asking me if she should exercise her fundamental right to marry?
I'm asking you if you would want your daughter to marry a gay man.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9461 Sep 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
And yet same sex marriages are still given legal recognition in 14 states and growing as marriages despite the fact they don't meet your relationship criterion. So your criterion is not universal and therefore can't defines our universal fundamental right of marriage.
Legal recognition which can include civili unions, does not mean SSM is a fundamental right. Also it's not "your criterion", that was established long before you and I were born.
Equal application of the law is not the same as equal protection of the law. Loving v. Virginia: read it and learn something.
White supremacy, bad, very bad
Under our constitution, the state is charged with guaranteeing the civil rights of citizens. So if the state unconstitutionally infringes a fundamental right it's also involved in correcting it.
That depends on what constitutes a "civil right", and/or a "fundamental right".
It is if the restriction is not based on a compelling government interest.
It is.
The fact a group has historically been discriminated against and prevented from exercising a fundamental right doesn't justify continuing such discrimination to sooth the delicate sensibilities of present day bigots.
This unnamed group of yours is comprised of men, and women, who historically, HAVE EXERCISED their fundamental right to marry, even before it was declared a fundamental right in this country.
The absence of requiring someone to do something isn't the problem. The fact a state prevents anyone from marrying congruent with their sexual orientation without a compelling government interest for doing so infringes their ability to exercise their fundamental right of marriage.
One does not need the state to marry. Thus no prevention on the part of the state, unless you're referring to anti cohabitation laws in certain states, which prohibit, primarily polygamists, from claiming more than one spouse.
But all men and women aren't the same. They have different sexual orientations, some pairings of which are incongruent.
Yet despite same sex orientations, individuals who claim such, still have chosen to marry someone of the opposite sex. By your reasoning, bisexuals should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose.
The legal understanding of marriage has changed throughout American history. Women who married at the founding and through much of the 19th century legally became little more than the property of their husband. That changed.
The foundation, male female, composition, male female, potentially procreative sexual union, male female, hasn't changed. Elevating the wife within the marital relationship, doesn't translate to she is expendable.
At the founding, salves weren't deemed citizens and therefore had no constitutionally guaranteed rights. Mosts slaves were not permitted to marry since they were considered property and it was not unusual for children to be separated from their parents and sold to someone else. That changed.
The morality, and/or legitimacy of slavery was questioned at the time. Not all accepted it as legitimate. How many people with same sex sexual attraction/orientation were slaves in this country?
Even after slavery was abolished, many states ad anti-miscegenation laws preventing whites from marrying blacks. They were eventually ruled unconstitutional even though they existed for most of the history of the country. That changed.
Existed yes, but it in every state, nor always enforced. Mid 19th century NYC, black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Google it.
The law isn't static and marriage law is no exception. Longstanding practice cannot save unconstitutional laws.
It's only "unconstitutional" if a court, or courts says it is. Not every court agrees with you.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9462 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Legal recognition which can include civili unions, does not mean SSM is a fundamental right.
You've been utterly incapable of articulating a state interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#9463 Sep 6, 2013
barry wrote:
at least you understand part of it. the law does not protect the event. it protects the group.
More accurately, it protects individuals.
barry wrote:
therefore she is not under any obligation to provide flowers for any ssw if she does not provide flowers for any ssws.
This occurred in Washington State. Here, it's just called "marriage". There is no legal distinction between "same-sex" or "opposite-sex". They're all just recognized the same.

So, if she provides for SOME marriages, then she needs to provide for all of them.

Your argument could be equally applied to interracial marriages. I presume you would not defend her if she were refusing these. Correct me if I presume wrong.
barry wrote:
now you think that it is funny that two heterosexual men or ladies would form a union and call it a marriage. whether or not it seems ridiculous to you does not mean that it won't and can't happen.
Pretty much, yes it does. I've never seen nor heard of such a thing.

But it wouldn't matter. These are all just "marriages". The law does not recognize them differently, so she doesn't get to either.
barry wrote:
apparently there are over 1,000 advantages to being married. why would deny any of those advantages to anyone? the supreme court seems to have opened the door so let's see what happens.
If two straight guys want to get married, I wouldn't oppose it. It would be no different from a man and a woman who were not in love, but only interested in taking advantage of the benefits. Getting a green card, for instance, or shielding assets.
barry wrote:
already we have had a man marry his step daughter. i think that was to protect his wealth in a criminal proceeding. so why couldn't an older man marry a younger man for the purpose of protecting his wealth from inheritance taxes. two criminals could marry so that in the future one would not have to testify against the other. or an older guy could marry a younger guy so that when he dies the younger guy could get widow's benefits from social security. certainly you are not going to limit ssm to only homosexuals. that would be discrimination based on sexual orientation.
No, I am not trying to limit it only to homosexuals. In my opinion, marriage should be open to any two unrelated adults. If they're doing it to “game the system” in some way, and the state doesn’t want that to happen, then it’s up to the state to patch whatever loopholes allow it.

“Gaming the system” is perfectly possible with a straight couple right now, so that’s really no different. I suspect such cases are extremely rare anyway, so it's better to allow it so the legitimate couples may marry.
barry wrote:
you know when money is at stake it stops being funny. by what logical reason could you be against it?
I hope you understand now that I'm not.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#9464 Sep 6, 2013
barry wrote:
really? i can't find the word "sell" anywhere in the washington law. in fact i can't find anything that even uses another word that could be construed as "sell" or has anything to do with selling. selling is not covered.
i think that you are wrong and you just made that up because it is your wishful thinking.
perhaps you can quote the part that you are referring to.
I didn't make anything up, it came from an article about the issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/gay-...

Or, you can visit the Washington law website, at:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx...

But the relevant part of the law is here:

Washington State Legislature
RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

(1)...(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices;

You're right, it doesn't use the word "sell". Instead, it uses the phrase "engage in commerce". Same thing. That's just how they talk in legalese.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#9465 Sep 6, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you're too lazy. others have posted the law and i have posted the law. there is nothing there that protects events even if the vast majority or the common association of those events is related to a specific group of people who are protected. sexual orientation is protected but you can not show that a ssw must and only can involve homosexuals. therefore there is no discrimination based on the orientation of the couple. that will be the ultimate ruling.
you're wrong & you fail, repeatedly to see how you're wrong.

try your little "loop" in a state that has laws on the books similar to what we're talking about here, and you'll find yourself in court. i'd love to see you conduct such an experiment - please, prove us all wrong. make your point.

(in other words, her services were requested for an event - and it was her services she refused to offer - and it was the services that were in question and pertaining to the verbiage to the law. i'm no lazy, you're just dense.)

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#9466 Sep 6, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
Well, the law discriminates against polygamists,...so...
There's not really such a thing as "polygamists", not in a context to be discriminated against. Polygamists are simply straight people or gay people, like the rest of us. They just want MORE than you or I have. You or I could become a polygamist by choice. We simply need to decide that committment is no longer an important part of our relationships, and that "forsaking all others" is not of paramount importance.

But the law doesn't "discriminate" against polygamists. Marriage is designed for only two people. Every right, responsibility and benefit is arranged for one person to apply them all to a single other person, and for that person to apply them all right back to the first person, reflexively. To accomodate polygamy, every single one of these rights would need to be retooled and rewritten so that they can be applied limitlessly to as many people as desired. This would effect a deep, structural change to marriage, in ways that same-sex couples do not.

I wouldn't truly oppose polygamists marriages, the government shouldn't really be in the business of dictating human relationships. But, before marriage could be applied fairly and evenly to relationships of unlimited numbers of people, each of these rights (there are up to 1,138 of them in some states) would need to be revisited, reviewed and reworked in order to fit this new dynamic. Maybe it could be done, by the right people with the right training in the right legal fields, but it would be frighteningly complex and might take years.

Changing the QUANTITY of people in a marriage is VASTLY different than simply lifting restrictions on gender. It would require huge investments in time and effort, and a restructuring of marriage law to the point where it may no longer be recognizable. How would a marriage of 2 compare to a marriage of 12, or 20, or 200?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9467 Sep 6, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal recognition which can include civili unions, does not mean SSM is a fundamental right.
The fundamental right is "marriage". Period. SCOTUS has not included qualifiers of sexual orientation, sex or any other human characteristics in their rulings that marriage is a fundamental right. Further, they ruled in Lawrence v. texas that framing a fundamental right in the manner you have is demeans the liberty interest at stake.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Also it's not "your criterion", that was established long before you and I were born.
And the criteria can and have changed. And still are today.
Pietro Armando wrote:
White supremacy, bad, very bad
Just like your reading and critical thinking skills.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That depends on what constitutes a "civil right", and/or a "fundamental right".
No it doesn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is.
You've yet to name one. Your circular logic doesn't count.
Pietro Armando wrote:
This unnamed group of yours is comprised of men, and women, who historically, HAVE EXERCISED their fundamental right to marry, even before it was declared a fundamental right in this country.
Thee are other classes of people besides "sex", small Peter. All equal protection nor all due process cases revolve around your obsession with males and females.
Pietro Armando wrote:
One does not need the state to marry.
One does need the state to obtain a civil marriage license, rufus.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus no prevention on the part of the state,
If the state refuses to issue a marriage license, it prevents one from exercising their fundamental right of marriage,
Pietro Armando wrote:
unless you're referring to anti cohabitation laws in certain states, which prohibit, primarily polygamists, from claiming more than one spouse.
Co-habitation laws don't prohibit polygamists from having more than one wife; anti-bigamy laws do. Polygamists can and do claim to have more than one "spiritual" wife. The state doesn't care about such religious based claims.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet despite same sex orientations, individuals who claim such, still have chosen to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That some have made the choice live within the confines of discriminatory laws doesn't require all to do so. Most blacks and whites abided by anti-miscegenation laws as well. I suppose that means you would have told Mildred Loving to suck it up and marry a black man like the law told you to, eh small Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
By your reasoning, bisexuals should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose.
Actually, that stupid assertion is NOT an example of my reasoning; its an example of yours. Or more specifically, the lack of reasoning.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9468 Sep 6, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
The foundation, male female, composition, male female, potentially procreative sexual union, male female, hasn't changed.
It has in 13 states. Have you been asleep, Vip Van Winkle?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Elevating the wife within the marital relationship, doesn't translate to she is expendable.
Change is change.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The morality, and/or legitimacy of slavery was questioned at the time. Not all accepted it as legitimate.
The presence or lack of dissension regarding discriminatory practices has no bearing on the legitimacy of the discriminatory practice.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How many people with same sex sexual attraction/orientation were slaves in this country?
Probably about the same percentage of blacks that are gay today.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Existed yes, but it in every state, nor always enforced. Mid 19th century NYC, black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Google it.
The fact a discriminatory practice isn't universal has no bearing on the legitimacy of the discriminatory practice.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's only "unconstitutional" if a court, or courts says it is. Not every court agrees with you.
BUt the recent track record of decisions favors my position, not yours.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9469 Sep 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal recognition which can include civili unions, does not mean SSM is a fundamental right. Also it's not "your criterion", that was established long before you and I were born.
<quoted text>
White supremacy, bad, very bad
<quoted text>
That depends on what constitutes a "civil right", and/or a "fundamental right".
<quoted text>
It is.
<quoted text>
This unnamed group of yours is comprised of men, and women, who historically, HAVE EXERCISED their fundamental right to marry, even before it was declared a fundamental right in this country.
<quoted text>
One does not need the state to marry. Thus no prevention on the part of the state, unless you're referring to anti cohabitation laws in certain states, which prohibit, primarily polygamists, from claiming more than one spouse.
<quoted text>
Yet despite same sex orientations, individuals who claim such, still have chosen to marry someone of the opposite sex. By your reasoning, bisexuals should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose.
<quoted text>
The foundation, male female, composition, male female, potentially procreative sexual union, male female, hasn't changed. Elevating the wife within the marital relationship, doesn't translate to she is expendable.
<quoted text>
The morality, and/or legitimacy of slavery was questioned at the time. Not all accepted it as legitimate. How many people with same sex sexual attraction/orientation were slaves in this country?
<quoted text>
Existed yes, but it in every state, nor always enforced. Mid 19th century NYC, black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Google it.
<quoted text>
It's only "unconstitutional" if a court, or courts says it is. Not every court agrees with you.
Now learn about equal protection and due process.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9470 Sep 6, 2013
Looks like P. is still pushing the false belief fundamental rights must provide a benefit to the government, and that they come from the government.

Again, P, fundamental rights come from being human. Marriage is a fundamental right of "all persons."

Fundamental rights can only be restricted when a compelling, legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated, and the excuses you offer fail that test.

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 a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 7 min Hudson 101
News Trump appointee resigns after racist, sexist an... 8 min Hudson 52
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 10 min Frankie Rizzo 915
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 12 min GodSmacked 27,296
NE Jade Weekend Wrapup 13 min GodSmacked 2
News The Internet is mad at Chelsea Handler for "ant... 14 min Hudson 43
News Melissa Etheridge and Gay Men's Chorus Rock Wom... 42 min Dennis 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Lawrence Wolf 17,568
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 607
More from around the web