Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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: Jun 11

AOL

#10301 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That defies logic and reason. The composition is different, and the foundation upon which the relationship rests is not the same. Even the very pronouncement by the officiating agent indicates the difference.
<quoted text>
Then why the different genders comprising them?
<quoted text>
No, even legally they are not exactly the same.
<quoted text>
Marriage requires both recognition by the state, and a definitional foundation, in order for it to be a fundamental right.
<quoted text>
As does removing the conjugal requirement.
<quoted text>
A contradiction in that the laws were changed to allow the appearance of "equal treatment" under the same laws in effect. Otherwise there would have been no need, nor reason to change the law.
<quoted text>
As does removing the conjugal requirement .
<quoted text>
If the former is removed but not the latter, the nature, male female, of the marital relationship is maintained. If the latter is removed but not the former, the number, two is retained. Each restriction significantly forms the core understanding of marriage within American marital jurisprudence.
<quoted text>
Removal of the gender "restriction" fundamentally alters the very foundation, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, upon which the marital relationships rests. It raises the question, "if conjugal it's is expendable, why not monogamy, or consanguinity?".
I think Terra has covered this. All of the laws that determine what marriage is, apply equally regardless of gender. Marriage is the same on paper, where the legal rights are all that matter. You can imagine your marriage anyway you choose, but procreation, conjugal, and other restrictions you would like to imagine, are your restrictions. They have no valid legal purpose.

You continue to push the false meme that fundamental rights must be given by the grace of the government, and provide something to the government. In our government, rights come first, and the government then gets to try to restrict them if it can. But our system also requires a darn good reason for doing so. Gender fails the test of reason and law.

Again, the other restrictions provide their own challenges, and have been able to withstand the test of reason and law. Incest encourages and facilitates child abuse. The abuse inherent is sufficient alone for the restriction, though other reasons have been accepted as well. The number restriction changes everything in a way still unknown and unexplained, and clearly is a different restriction.

There are logical, rational reasons for monogamy. Disease prevention is a significant benefit. Yet, we don't require monogamy for straight couples by law, except to the extent that is an expectation of both parties. The government does not require monogamy for marriage to remain a fundamental right of the individual. Gender has nothing to do with monogamy, though removing the number restriction does.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10302 Sep 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in a small town. I have to go elsewhere for almost anything. I have a camera. If you don't want to take our photos then I will have a friend do it or I'll hire someone from another town to do so. If you don't want to take our photos, it's ok.
What would you say if the photographer said: "We don't do business with retarded white people... get out of my store, you abomination!"

Would you just say, "ok" and leave?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10303 Sep 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in a small town. I have to go elsewhere for almost anything. I have a camera. If you don't want to take our photos then I will have a friend do it or I'll hire someone from another town to do so. If you don't want to take our photos, it's ok.
Oh please. You live in metropolitan Boston's exurbs. You don't even know what a small town is. You live in a bedroom community, which is appropriate since you've been asleep for at least a decade.

Why don't you change your name to Rip Van Winkle?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10304 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hopefully, the show will demonstrate some of the many reasons removing the number restriction results in an entirely different set of rules and social order, and would require a different, as yet unexplained set of laws for everyone.

One father of 24 children from 5 wives, including 2 cousins. Again, different from 5 husbands and 5 wives, with 4 or 5 children per couple. Legally, socially, and genetically.

Warren Jeffs?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10305 Sep 23, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Equal protection? Three does not equal two. Polygamy creates serious problems for society therefore, the State has a rational reason for denying equal protection to polygamists. Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant.
What "serious problems" does it create? As to the rationality, states have rational reasons to maintain the conjugal definition of marriage.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10306 Sep 23, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
While I understand your feelings, in this case I agree with the previous poster that no harm came to the same sex couple by a photographer refusing to take pictures anymore than would the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake or a minister who refused to perform a service. The simple fact is that there will always be someone else who will and they should be contacted and engaged.
Laws that say a person must do something that is against their religious or personal beliefs are infringing on that persons right to live as they choose.[/QUOTE
People who go into to business to sell goods and services to the general public are considered public accommodations and willingly subject themselves to government regulation and all applicable laws. If you think an exception should be made for religious beliefs, there's nothing to stop anyone from claiming any law they dislike is a violation of their personal beliefs. Further, in smaller communities there aren't always multiple sellers of all goods and services readily available.

[QUOTE who="Janitor"]Then, the person who sees themselves as a victim becomes the assailant.
The difference being the law defined not being discriminated against by businesses as a civil right and sexual orientation was one of the protected classes. There was no exemption in the anti-discrimination law for religious beliefs refusing to sell goods and services to a customer. These are the same anti-discrimination laws that protect people from being discriminated against by businesses on the basis of race, sex and religion too, among other protected classes. Freedom of religion, on the other hand has been ruled by SCOTUS multiple times to include belief but not any or all actions an individual feels are required by their beliefs. So the law disagrees with your view and, quite frankly, so do many others who profess a Christian or other faith or whose moral values are informed by other sources.

The bottom line is, one can not claim to be above the law based on their religious beliefs and case law doesn't support the position asserted by you or the Christians who ran afoul of the anti-dsicrimination laws.
Janitor wrote:
There will always be someone who will willingly perform services for same sex couples and they should be utilized. Trying to force someone to do something against their will and against their morals is as bad as aggressive actions actions against or denying rights to a minority simply for being what they are. Passing laws to force someone to do something that is wrong in their eyes is no different than discrimination against gays for being gay, or any other minority for being a member of that respected minority.
That argument didn't work to justify segregation and Jim Crow laws against blacks and it equally fails here. There were many people who cited their Christian religious beliefs as the basis for treating blacks as second class citizens and slaves. Conducting business is not religious worship or belief. If people are unable to separate the two then they then need to choose a different business model for making their artistic endeavors available to the public that doesn't require the direct contact with the public which subjects them anti-discrimination laws.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10307 Sep 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully, the show will demonstrate some of the many reasons removing the number restriction results in an entirely different set of rules and social order, and would require a different, as yet unexplained set of laws for everyone.
Removing the conjugal requirement changes the law for everyone as well, but because that is the requirement YOU WANT removed, you have no issue with it. So why does it matter to you or any other SSM advocate, if monogamy is removed?
One father of 24 children from 5 wives, including 2 cousins. Again, different from 5 husbands and 5 wives, with 4 or 5 children per couple. Legally, socially, and genetically.
So would it matter if it were one father/husband and one current wife/mother, and four ex wives, with 24 children total?
Warren Jeffs?
Kody Brown?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10308 Sep 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
What if it's a holiday and I need emergency medicine from the only drug store that's open?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10309 Sep 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Insults don't change the facts you can't seem to comprehend. Couple marriage is the same for all couples.
"Couple marriage"? That's a new one. No its not the same, the mere fact the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, is different, "husband and wife", not "spouses for life", indicates a significant difference. Different foundation, different union, different presumptions and expectations. No one is going confuse a husband and wife with two men, or two women, except you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10310 Sep 23, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
You still wish you could string up a few colors I bet huh Buford...
Sure....like red,white, and blue, on the flag pole. Those colors.
HATE AND BIGOTRY CANT BE SUED TO DISCRIMINATE....SORRY HITLER.
Relax comrade.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10311 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Couple marriage"? That's a new one. No its not the same, the mere fact the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, is different, "husband and wife", not "spouses for life", indicates a significant difference.
Not from a legal standpoint.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Different foundation, different union, different presumptions and expectations. No one is going confuse a husband and wife with two men, or two women, except you.
But the same marriage law. So legally, no different. The state doesn't care how you choose to view someone else's marriage and nor does your opinion of it change its legality.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10312 Sep 23, 2013
A Strange Man Is Following You
Shouting about mind-control assassins, the 9/11 conspiracy, and the Bilderberg Group, radio host Alex Jones has cornered the bi-partisan paranoia market.

http://nymag.com/news/media/alex-jones-2011-4...

Jones has been the center of many controversies, including his statements about gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[7] He has accused the U.S. government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing,[8] the September 11 attacks,[9] and the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology[10] and the killing of "thousands of astronauts".[11] Rolling Stone covers his belief that government and big business have colluded to create a New World Order through "manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and—above all—inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria".[12] Jones describes himself as a libertarian and a conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

Do people really take this nut case seriously?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10313 Sep 23, 2013
Sorry about that.
Wrong thread. The guy is still a raving lunatic.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10314 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What "serious problems" does it create? As to the rationality, states have rational reasons to maintain the conjugal definition of marriage.
I LOVE it when someone innocently asks, "what serious problems does it create."

It's not like they are being kept secret. Canada just went through this.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/...
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10315 Sep 23, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears you have never lived in a small town. Many can't support more than one photographer, baker, florist, grocery store, hotel, and a few restaurants. If all share an anti-gay religious belief, gay people have no access to services.
This is why we have laws against discrimination in public services and accommodations. Segregation, based on religious beliefs, denied food, clothing, shelter, and all access to services. While easy to overlook a baker or photographer, laws that allow discrimination also allow the grocery store, gas station, hotel, restaurant, and all business open to the public, to exclude any unpopular group from the public square.
Freedom to believe as you choose should not be an excuse to deny equal protections and rights to others in the public square.
Discrimination in homes, churches, and private clubs are not affected by public accommodations laws.
I live in a small town now. I grew up in a small town and we always had more than one photographer and baker. In fact, most small towns are near larger ones and it isn't that big a deal for someone to go from a small town to a large one. Portland has an entire phone book of businesses operated by gay and lesbian business men and women for the their own community and anyone else who wishes to utilize them. I am sure there must be cities like you speak of far off the beaten path but the situations that have been recorded certainly didn't take place in them. These things have happened here in Washington which has made gay marriage legal and I can understand the outrage some must feel. But, is it really worth it to aggravate people who's religious principals are violated? Who is forcing themselves on someone else in that instance?

I've always believed gay marriage should be allowed, or single sex or whatever you want to call it. But, I don't believe a church that is apposed to single sex marriage should be forced to hold services and I don't believe merchants who are apposed to the idea should be forced to serve customers when it goes against their very sacred beliefs. We may be at odds on this, but I still say it wouldn't be that hard to find someone who wasn't protesting being forced to do something they found offensive to their religion.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10316 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing the conjugal requirement changes the law for everyone as well, but because that is the requirement YOU WANT removed, you have no issue with it. So why does it matter to you or any other SSM advocate, if monogamy is removed?
<quoted text>
So would it matter if it were one father/husband and one current wife/mother, and four ex wives, with 24 children total?
<quoted text>
Kody Brown?
Yes, it matters. This information is NOT a secret. RESEARCH IT.

Would it matter if we changed the age requirement?

WHERE do you folks get the idea that there is some kind of "throw out the baby with the bath water" rule? The Court may only review what is in front of it. If you want polygamy to be considered, file suit.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10317 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Couple marriage"? That's a new one. No its not the same, the mere fact the pronouncement by the marriage officiating agent, is different, "husband and wife", not "spouses for life", indicates a significant difference. Different foundation, different union, different presumptions and expectations. No one is going confuse a husband and wife with two men, or two women, except you.
There is only one difference. Evidently, you think it's the end of western civilization. Bigots said the exact same thing about inter-racial marriage.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10318 Sep 23, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in a small town. I have to go elsewhere for almost anything. I have a camera. If you don't want to take our photos then I will have a friend do it or I'll hire someone from another town to do so. If you don't want to take our photos, it's ok.
My sentiments exactly. In fact, I see this as a business opportunity for anyone who wanted to service a wedding someone else wouldn't. It would be the basis, in fact, for a nationwide service or several for that matter. It might in fact build an entire cottage industry. I simply find it hard to believe that, in this country of entrepreneurs, a person would have a hard time with something like photos or a cake at a wedding.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10319 Sep 23, 2013
Bottom line

This argument is OVER. Any gay couple can travel to NYC for vacation and get married. The federal government will recognize your marriage and extend them the same benefits as all other legally married couples. It doesn't matter what backward State you live in.

This is not a phase or fad. It is not going away. If you don't like gays being granted equal protection, then move away. You will quickly discover that nobody wants Americans because the Republicans and their supporters have given the USA the reputation of being mean-spirited and stupid. If you want to stay in the USA, shut the fuck up and learn to get along. DAMN! Didn't your parents teach you anything?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10320 Sep 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing the conjugal requirement changes the law for everyone as well, but because that is the requirement YOU WANT removed, you have no issue with it. So why does it matter to you or any other SSM advocate, if monogamy is removed?
<quoted text>
So would it matter if it were one father/husband and one current wife/mother, and four ex wives, with 24 children total?
<quoted text>
Kody Brown?
There never was a conjugal requirement for marriage in the US, except in your personal belief system.

The courts have made this clear. Fundamental right of all persons. Restrictions must be compelling.... the damn good reason rule. Conjugal, fails the test.

Monogamous, committed relationships prevent disease transmission. Encouraging such relationships helps protect us all. Marriage helps strengthen such commitments.

One father for 24 children narrows the gene pool, rather than expanding it as 5 couples with 5 children each would. This is a common pattern observed in societies that have embraced polygamy, demonstrating another of the many ways polygamy is a different social as well as legal structure.

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) 4 min antipolicticalcor... 12,973
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 min Siam 36,033
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Respect71 37,251
News Britain, EU at odds over timing of divorce talks 12 min Salem 2
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 19 min Houston 12
News Anti-gay parents compare LGBT student group at ... 19 min Howie 26
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 25 min kittyboi 381
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 1 hr Nopal 593
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 1 hr OK Barry 899
More from around the web