Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 comments on the Jan 7, 2013, NBC Chicago story 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10792 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The Orwellian newspeak is that removing a restriction, restricts anyone from having a husband or wife.
No restriction was in place to begin with. No man is restricted from having a wife, nor woman a husband, provided they meet all the other requirements set by the state.
Removing the gender restriction does not exclude a husband or wife.
No need to remove it, both genders are included, and form the foundation of the marital relationship.
It simply allows the individual to mutually choose according to what works best for them.
Hmmmmm....yet you advocate maintaining other "restrictions" thus discriminating against those who want what works for them.
While ss couples are included under all of the same laws in effect for os couples,
The laws in effect were changed, not do they incorporate every aspect of marital jurisprudence.
removing the number restriction is not inclusion under the laws currently in effect for couples, but rather a legal change to all of the laws that affect couples, as well as a change in the structure of society.
A very poor attempt at justifying removal of the conjugal requirement, but maintaining monogamy. How does changing monogamy not change marriage for everybody, but removing the number does?
Legally, os and ss marriage are the same form and function.
Not true. OSM serve to join a man and woman together as husband and wife, and provide the necessary components for procreation, which as many a court as ruled over the past,100 plus years, is a primary function of marriage.
All of the more than 1,138 laws remain in effect for all couples equally. Your claim of a different form and function is not supported by any law.
Please clarify these "1,138 laws in effect". If your argument is they can be applied regard less of gender, then they can also be applies regardless of pre existing relationship. Thus two, at least same sex siblings, could be eligible.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10793 Oct 2, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you are incapable of comprehending what you read. Instead you choose to wrap yourself in righteous indignation and continue to whine.
I said: The problem with polygamy is it results in large numbers of men with no wives. That leads to increased violence and crime.
Please explain what "increased violence and crime", other than the anti cohabitation laws, the Brown family, or the Dargers, or any other consenting plural marriage family, have engaged in?
NOBODY thinks increased violence and crime are a good thing. That's why polygamy will remain illegal.
You must have been a REAL challenge for your teachers in school.
You assume it would automatically result in "increased violence and crime", with out explaining why consenting adult cannot be allowed to form their families as they see fit, with government recognition, the very objective you seek for same sex unions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10794 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep forgetting marriage is only for Catholics and those who agree with them. Wait....What? Pagans are also allowed to get married?
Not at all marriage is available for men and women with no religious beliefs what so ever. Nice try though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10795 Oct 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
So you need to mount a recruiting drive to find polygamists that actually want multiple civil marriages?
So if there are, you'll support legalized polygamy?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10796 Oct 2, 2013
If you have no argument, just keep repeating your mantra. If you believe with all your heart, perhaps someone else will too. Keep repeating in the misplaced belief that someday someone will.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10797 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps more importantly, those recent court cases have shown why previous conclusions supporting restrictions based on procreation were wrong, and based on prejudice rather than logic, reason, and the equal protection requirements of the constitution.
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
They have shown os couples neither lose or gain anything by treating ss couples equally under all of the same laws.
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
, while ss couples are harmed by denial of equality.
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
The Supreme Court cases that make it clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation and even ability to have sex are clearly impossible, also make it clear the procreation argument is irrelevant and irrational.
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right. Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.

The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10798 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No restriction was in place to begin with. No man is restricted from having a wife, nor woman a husband, provided they meet all the other requirements set by the state.
<quoted text>
No need to remove it, both genders are included, and form the foundation of the marital relationship.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....yet you advocate maintaining other "restrictions" thus discriminating against those who want what works for them.
<quoted text>
The laws in effect were changed, not do they incorporate every aspect of marital jurisprudence.
<quoted text>
A very poor attempt at justifying removal of the conjugal requirement, but maintaining monogamy. How does changing monogamy not change marriage for everybody, but removing the number does?
<quoted text>
Not true. OSM serve to join a man and woman together as husband and wife, and provide the necessary components for procreation, which as many a court as ruled over the past,100 plus years, is a primary function of marriage.
<quoted text>
Please clarify these "1,138 laws in effect". If your argument is they can be applied regard less of gender, then they can also be applies regardless of pre existing relationship. Thus two, at least same sex siblings, could be eligible.
What? No gender restriction was in place? What about all of those recent laws restricting marriage based on gender? Prop 8? Requiring one of each restricts choice of a partner on the basis of gender. It is an irrational restriction, but still a restriction on gender.

Other restrictions are other restrictions. Gender is not a consideration in those other restrictions. Removing the gender restriction does not affect the other restrictions.

Recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means. Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."

Again, neither conjugality nor monogamy are removed by removing the gender restriction.(unless you use your personal, restrictive, circular definition). But again, neither is a requirement of law. A church can add those requirements if they wish, but they are not legal requirements.

"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.

The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.

Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10799 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there are, you'll support legalized polygamy?
It doesn't affect me personally so I wouldn't advocate against them. However, the reality is, unlike the case with same sex marriage, there will need to be adjustments made in existing laws that presume marriage is comprised of only to people. That's in addition to rescinding existing laws that criminalize bigamy.

As I've stated several times previously, no one is preventing them from exercising their right to petition government to address their grievances except their own reluctance to do so. Even you don't really care about their "plight" since they don't conform to your views of traditional marriage in the US. You merely employ false concern for them as one of your many logical fallacies in arguing against same sex marriage. You create a false dichotomy by asserting if the law is changed to address the concerns of one minority group then it must be changed to address the concerns of all minority groups. This ignores the fact the constitution permits restrictions on fundamental rights but mandates such restrictions must be evaluated on a case by case basis, not an all or nothing basis.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10800 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
<quoted text>
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
<quoted text>
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right. Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a legal requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.

The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.

Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.

Glad to see you finally admitting marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.

The Supremes have not yet addressed the constitutionality of state laws that restrict gender. The prop 8 folks tried, but the court said they didn't have a case, and left the lower ruling in place. Prop 8 violates the equal protections requirements of the 14th amendment.

Again, recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means. Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed and none of the effects are changed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."

And again, removing the gender restriction has nothing to do with the other restrictions. If someone wants to change those restrictions, they must overcome the reasons for the restrictions. Same sex couples have shown their marriages are the same legal form and function as os couples, and all of the same laws apply equally.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10801 Oct 2, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What ever type of sex two men or two women have, it's serves no purpose other than, for lack of a better word, pleasure.
And pleasure is a bad thing, eh? You only had sex for reproduction, did you? No wonder you are crazy.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10802 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all marriage is available for men and women with no religious beliefs what so ever. Nice try though.
WHAT??????

Religious belief is NOT a requirement for marriage.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10803 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
hahahahahaha
hahahahahaha

You are one clueless fool. The State can deny ANYONE ANYTHING AT ANY TIMER if they can show a legitimate State interest in doing so. Polygamy increases violence and crime. This is an historical FACT. Increased violence and crime are NOT in the interests of the State.

The only 'flaw' is your obvious lack of education.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10805 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
That's because in the past homosexuality was synonymous with acts or behavior and those acts/behavior were against the law. Contrast that with our current understanding of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and an innate human characteristic combined with the fact the acts/behaviors previously associated with homosexuality are no longer illegal. Legal cases are adjudicated based on current knowledge and understanding, not knowledge or understanding that has yet to be learned. After all, in 1875 one wouldn't expect a case involving regulation of modes of transportation to include either cars or airplanes since neither had yet been invented.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
The changing of marriage law to allow gays to exercise their fundamental right did not require changing the myriad other laws that define and regulate the benefits and privileges conferred by marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
Having an identical "form and function" isn't a criterion for determining whether a restriction on a fundamental right is constitutional.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right.
On the contrary, SCOTUS has simply ruled "marriage" is a fundamental right; they've placed no descriptors or limitations on who may exercise that right. You conflate judicial commentary and context within the opinion with the actual legal ruling itself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.
Nor have they ruled "opposite sex" marriage a fundamental right. SCOTUS has only ruled on "marriage". Further, SCOTUS only rules on question before them; no case to date has actually asked whether same sex marriage is a fundamental right or is encompassed in the marriage being a fundamental right. However, the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas is instructive in that in overruling Bowers v. Hardwick as precedent, the majority opinion specifically cited as an error the mischaracterization of the liberty interest presented:

" The Court began its substantive discussion in Bowers as follows:
"The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done so for a very long time.” Id., at 190. That statement, we now conclude, discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake. To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
On the contrary, it is YOU that has repeatedly mischaracterized what SCOTUS has actually ruled regarding marriage as a fundamental rights because you're unable to discern between the actual legal ruling and the judicial commentary and context contained within the opinion.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#10806 Oct 2, 2013
Who really cares if gays get married?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#10807 Oct 2, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
Who really cares if gays get married?
The partners in the marriage.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10808 Oct 2, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
Who really cares if gays get married?
Too many people.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10809 Oct 2, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they tell you about all the young Mormon boys that get dumped in Arizona? When one man has five wives, FOUR MEN have no wives. They aren't telling that part of the story, are they?
Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil.

What boys did this family dump?

Why is it you seem to have no problem with women sharing a "baby's daddy", but object to them sharing a husband? So it's okay for men to shoot and scoot, but not okay for them to stick around and help raise the children with their mothers?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10810 Oct 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
What? No gender restriction was in place? What about all of those recent laws restricting marriage based on gender?
Do you mean all those laws confirming the conjugal definition of marriage? As a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? Those laws?
Prop 8? Requiring one of each restricts choice of a partner on the basis of gender. It is an irrational restriction, but still a restriction on gender.
No, you still have plenty of choice.
Other restrictions are other restrictions. Gender is not a consideration in those other restrictions. Removing the gender restriction does not affect the other restrictions.
If conjugality is expendable, there's no reason to presume the other "restrictions" aren't expendable as well.
Recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means.
YES IT DOES!!!!! It is extremely disingenuous to argue otherwise. Recognition of marriage does indeed change what legal marriage means. All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Remove that foundation, and he's legal marriage does change.
Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."
What you are unable, or unwilling to admit, is those laws exist because of a particular union. If marriage is reduced to simply a consenting adult two person union, regardless of gender composition, then there's no reason ANY two consenting adults could be included.
Again, neither conjugality nor monogamy are removed by removing the gender restriction.(unless you use your personal, restrictive, circular definition).
Conjugality is in fact removed, when the basis for the relationship, conjugal AS IN HUSBAND AND WIFE, is removed. Which is what SSM does.
. But again, neither is a requirement of law. A church can add those requirements if they wish, but they are not legal requirements.
Conjugal IS a requirement of law in over thirty states.
"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.
The Windsor decision did to declare SSM to be a fundamental right, if it had, it'd be a done deal.
The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.
Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.
Two same sex siblings can just as easily be spouses to each other as two same sex first cousins, and there's o risk of sexual procreation.. Sorry, but your claim, "They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling, can also include, someone of the same sex.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10811 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Mrs. Blowme's little boy Neil.
What boys did this family dump?
Why is it you seem to have no problem with women sharing a "baby's daddy", but object to them sharing a husband? So it's okay for men to shoot and scoot, but not okay for them to stick around and help raise the children with their mothers?
You aren't paying attention. How many times do I have to tell you that I have no problem with polygamists? Are you dull or stupid? I've told you at least three times. The problem is the increase in violence and crime that comes with polygamy.

I realize that you cannot admit I am correct without making yourself look uneducated AND stupid, but honestly, how many times before it sinks into your brain?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#10812 Oct 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean all those laws confirming the conjugal definition of marriage? As a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? Those laws?
The fact they were passed at all indicates the original language of the marriage laws wasn't specific enough to exclude same sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, you still have plenty of choice.
If conjugality is expendable, there's no reason to presume the other "restrictions" aren't expendable as well.
If there is a compelling government interest for those other restrictions that has already been confirmed by judicial review, the constitutionality of them doesn't disappear merely because a different restriction was found to have no compelling government interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
YES IT DOES!!!!! It is extremely disingenuous to argue otherwise. Recognition of marriage does indeed change what legal marriage means.
Because you're obsessed with defining marriage by who it excludes instead of what it legally accomplishes: creating kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All those "1,138 federal laws", which you have yet to list
They've been listed many times in other threads (and for all I know in this thread before my arrival). You have access to Google and Bing; you can find them yourself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
what they are, exist because of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Remove that foundation, and he's legal marriage does change.
Not according to the federal government. They're extending federal marriage benefits and privileges to any couple legally married under the laws of ay state. That includes same sex couples where allowed. And the federal government is doing so because of the SCOTUS ruling in Windsor v. United States declaring section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What you are unable, or unwilling to admit, is those laws exist because of a particular union. If marriage is reduced to simply a consenting adult two person union, regardless of gender composition, then there's no reason ANY two consenting adults could be included.
Only willfully stupid people like you think that because you're apparently uneducable in matters of constitutional law. God knows how many different people in this thread alone have tried to correct your ignorance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugality is in fact removed, when the basis for the relationship, conjugal AS IN HUSBAND AND WIFE, is removed. Which is what SSM does.
Conjugal just refers to the relations between spouses in a marriage. The definition is not limited to only opposite sex spouses. This is just more of your circular reasoning.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal IS a requirement of law in over thirty states.
Conjugality isn't a requirement in ANY state. To the extent conjugality is referring to marital relations of spouses, that does;t exist until AFTER the participants are married. To the extent you're referring to sexual relations between souses, again, that is neither a requirement of marriage nor does it exclude same sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Windsor decision did to declare SSM to be a fundamental right, if it had, it'd be a done deal.
Nor did it declare it wasn't. But that's because that wasn't the question before court. Courts in general and SCOTUS in particular rule on the legal issues actually before them, not on issues extraneous to the case.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Two same sex siblings can just as easily be spouses to each other as two same sex first cousins, and there's o risk of sexual procreation.. Sorry, but your claim, "They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling, can also include, someone of the same sex.
Same sex sibling are already related by blood; marriage would create conflicting kinship relationships.

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 Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 6 min Mikey 1,235
News Gay NYC businessmen who hosted Ted Cruz try to ... 11 min Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 14 min Terra Firma 19,992
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 16 min NoMo 2,839
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 18 min Kent 32,062
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 32 min Gov Corbutt of th... 186
News Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - Hawaii News (Feb '09) 38 min Joe Balls 199
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 2 hr Elijah 2,145
Are the mods fair and balanced? 4 hr Elijah 669
News Top U.S. court appears on cusp of declaring rig... 7 hr Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web