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: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11142 Oct 7, 2013
*yawn*

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11143 Oct 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, she is my legal WIFE, not partner(she passed in 2002)
Secondly......we are NOT required to make future voters or taxpayers.......and again, you try to apply this standard to ONLY Gay and Lesbian couples........why NOT to all those infertile/sterile/past the childbearing year opposite-sex couples? Can they make future voters or taxpayers? No, they can.....so, you want to hold my wife and I to a higher standard than those opposite-sex couples......why? That's DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
No higher, just different. It has long been understood that not all opposite sex couples can, or will procreate. It's a given, and the connection between marriage and procreation has been understood. Why? Because marriage has been for all but 9 years of our nations history legally recognized as a union of husband and and wife. Sex between men and women makes babies. A same sex union is just that, nothing is produced.
So, you're saying that the government has an interest in infertile/sterile/past childbearing heterosexual couples, but NOT Gay and Lesbian Couples.......really? I seriously doubt that!!!
It always had. Remember it's "opposite sex couple",, not "heterosexual" , OSCs can be of mixed orientation. Allowing infertile/sterile/past childbearing opposite sex couples to marry doesn't change the state's interest in marriage, nor its intrinsic link to procreation. It's not new.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11144 Oct 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they really NEEDED to because one day this issue was going to arise......
The idea of a "same sex" marriage is relatively new in American jurisprudence. So how can you say Supreme Court decisions on marriage could see the need for it was going to arise? Besides for most of American history certain types of sexual activity were criminal.
just like the issue over interracial marriage arose!!!
No....not just like the issue over interracial marriage! Interracial marriages occurred in various parts of the country at various times over the course of American history. The objection was not that a mixed race couple's union didn't constitute marriage, but that they should be legally allowed to marry. The idea of a same sex marriage didn't even exist until just a few decades ago.
You quoted something from the California Constitution regarding marriage.......did you know that in 1972, California changed it's marriage requirements to a specific age, but left out the gender requirements.......and guess what happened? Gay and Lesbian couples started asking for a marriage license in which the County Clerks did not issue any and demanded the State clear up their error.......and they did put the gender requirement back in the marriage requirements......so you see.......without it being clearly defined.....how do you or anyone else know for sure that SCOTUS NEVER meant to include Same-Sex Couples?
That's a big big big stretch.....nice try though Nor! A for effort.
They might have or they might not have.......either way depending on which side you are on.......it needs to be clearly defined and a compelling State reason MUST be clear as to why Same-Sex Couples CAN NOT have that right to marry.......and your procreation/conjugal reasoning is NOT sufficient enough to make your argument in court and win!!!
Then what's the point? If marriage can mean ANY consenting adult relationship, why have the state involved at all? No reason to prohibit any consenting adult pairing, or grouping for that matter. The state can't tell a person who they can love, even if its more than one, right?

At some point, it becomes pointless.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11145 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The idea of a "same sex" marriage is relatively new in American jurisprudence. So how can you say
The concept of equal protection of the law for all is not, nor is the concept of legal marriage.

Try again.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11147 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No higher, just different.
Sorry, but I disagree with ya......if one tries to tie marriage and procreation together and NOT all opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate together, then your argument FAILS.....and it has in the Courts!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11149 Oct 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's a big big big stretch.....nice try though Nor! A for effort.
Actually, you either NEED to study California's history better or you NEED to know that I was born and raised in this State and I might know it's history a tad better than you!!!

Here's an interesting article about marriage in California in 1919:
There are, according to the express provision of the Code,17 only three kinds of marriage that are absolutely void from the beginning, viz.: incestuous marriages, marriages between persons of different races, and bigamous marriages. All others are valid or voidable.18
http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgoe49....

You should read this.....I'm sure you'll find something that you'll say proves your point......lol!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11150 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Here's an interesting article about marriage in California in 1919:
There are, according to the express provision of the Code,17 only three kinds of marriage that are absolutely void from the beginning, viz.: incestuous marriages, marriages between persons of different races, and bigamous marriages. All others are valid or voidable.18
Same sex marriage was left out because it was unthinkable. In 1919 homosexuality was widely believed to be a mental illness. Many people still believe it is. The APA was manipulated into removing it from the DSM. Only a fraction, I believe it was less than 1/3, of the eligible APA membership voted.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11152 Oct 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage was left out because it was unthinkable. In 1919 homosexuality was widely believed to be a mental illness. Many people still believe it is. The APA was manipulated into removing it from the DSM. Only a fraction, I believe it was less than 1/3, of the eligible APA membership voted.
Back then slavery was COOL and women were property and second class citizens...Oh and it was legal and very common 100 years ago or more for a 40 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl...Also the APA at one time said that people could be posssed by demons......so yea the APA has been known in the past to be wrong. Most ideas and treatments and thoughts the APA had before the late 1960,s have been proven wrong...

BUT WE FOUND OUT THE ABOVE THINSG WERE WRONG AND WE CHANGED THEM...just like the bans on SSM are wrong and will be changed.....YEA FOR FREEDOM AND PROGRESS MOVING FORWARD..
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11153 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Back then slavery was COOL and women were property and second class citizens...Oh and it was legal and very common 100 years ago or more for a 40 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl...Also the APA at one time said that people could be posssed by demons......so yea the APA has been known in the past to be wrong. Most ideas and treatments and thoughts the APA had before the late 1960,s have been proven wrong...
BUT WE FOUND OUT THE ABOVE THINSG WERE WRONG AND WE CHANGED THEM...just like the bans on SSM are wrong and will be changed.....YEA FOR FREEDOM AND PROGRESS MOVING FORWARD..
You didn't change anything. Where was slavery "cool" in 1919?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11154 Oct 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't change anything. Where was slavery "cool" in 1919?
I did mean way before that. Showing a time line of how things change and we leave behind bad ideas and bad thinking patterns. The APA has left behind most of its WRONG thinking. Now do run along for months I and many others have beat you down into the dirt. You have lost and will keep losing if you stick around. YOUR WORNG WRONG WRONG WRONG.....You can not win when trying to beat facts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11155 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I disagree with ya......if one tries to tie marriage and procreation together and NOT all opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate together, then your argument FAILS.....and it has in the Courts!!!
Not in all courts

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11156 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you either NEED to study California's history better or you NEED to know that I was born and raised in this State and I might know it's history a tad better than you!!!
Here's an interesting article about marriage in California in 1919:
There are, according to the express provision of the Code,17 only three kinds of marriage that are absolutely void from the beginning, viz.: incestuous marriages, marriages between persons of different races, and bigamous marriages. All others are valid or voidable.18
http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgoe49....
You should read this.....I'm sure you'll find something that you'll say proves your point......lol!!!
(Smiling) if nothing else Nor, you are fun to debate with, and informative!:)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11157 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not in all courts
Pietro, face it, the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry utterly disprove your notion that legal marriage and procreation are linked.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11158 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but I disagree with ya......if one tries to tie marriage and procreation together and NOT all opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate together, then your argument FAILS.....and it has in the Courts!!!
1.) it hasn't failed in all courts

2.) Non procreative opposites sex couples aren't new. We've know about it for some time now. Including during the time if these two court cases. Notice the dates, and state.

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

3.) Not a single same sex couple can naturally procreate, and men can't get pregnant.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11159 Oct 8, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, face it, the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry utterly disprove your notion that legal marriage and procreation are linked.
1.) it's opposite sex couples.

2.) Non procreative opposite sex couples have ALWAYS been allowed to marry without severing the link. Sorry Liddie, but its nothing new. Notice the dates of these two cases, used as an example.. Do you think the courts were aware not all opposite sec couples could, or would, procreate?

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11160 Oct 8, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Back then slavery was COOL
"COOL"? Seriously......did you just use "cool" and "slavery" in the same sentence? More proof you're a pimply faced twenty something living in grandma's basement.
and women were property and second class citizens...Oh and it was legal and very common 100 years ago or more for a 40 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl...Also the APA at one time said that people could be posssed by demons......so yea the APA has been known in the past to be wrong. Most ideas and treatments and thoughts the APA had before the late 1960,s have been proven wrong...
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_state...

Applicants who has reached the age of 18 can marry without parental consent.

A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver (See Waiver).

A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions.

The above regulations on age apply to New Hampshire residents or to a non-resident who desires to marry a resident. If both parties are non-residents and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in N.H. under any conditions.

Waivers: When "good and special cause" is shown waivers may be obtained which can alter certain requirements.
BUT WE FOUND OUT THE ABOVE THINSG WERE WRONG AND WE CHANGED THEM...just like the bans on SSM are wrong and will be changed.....YEA FOR FREEDOM AND PROGRESS MOVING FORWARD..
Okay little Huh....grandma is calling you, she just washed your Batman PJs.....it's time for bed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11161 Oct 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you either NEED to study California's history better or you NEED to know that I was born and raised in this State and I might know it's history a tad better than you!!!
Here's an interesting article about marriage in California in 1919:
There are, according to the express provision of the Code,17 only three kinds of marriage that are absolutely void from the beginning, viz.: incestuous marriages, marriages between persons of different races, and bigamous marriages. All others are valid or voidable.18
http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgoe49....
You should read this.....I'm sure you'll find something that you'll say proves your point......lol!!!
Thanks Nor....you're the best!
Huh

Faribault, MN

#11162 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"COOL"? Seriously......did you just use "cool" and "slavery" in the same sentence? More proof you're a pimply faced twenty something living in grandma's basement.
<quoted text>
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_state...
Applicants who has reached the age of 18 can marry without parental consent.
A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver (See Waiver).
A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions.
The above regulations on age apply to New Hampshire residents or to a non-resident who desires to marry a resident. If both parties are non-residents and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in N.H. under any conditions.
Waivers: When "good and special cause" is shown waivers may be obtained which can alter certain requirements.
<quoted text>
Okay little Huh....grandma is calling you, she just washed your Batman PJs.....it's time for bed.
You nazi far righters sure did love slavery when it was legal...

You do need history lesson moron...Yes those rules you posted stand today...NOTICE HOW I SAID YEARS AGO.......You sure have trouble reading.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11163 Oct 8, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage was left out because it was unthinkable. In 1919 homosexuality was widely believed to be a mental illness. Many people still believe it is. The APA was manipulated into removing it from the DSM. Only a fraction, I believe it was less than 1/3, of the eligible APA membership voted.
Yea, yea.....we know......idiots like you believe that Gays and Lesbians have SO much political power that we were able to manipulate the APA to force them to remove HOMOSEXUALITY from the mental illness list......what a crock!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11164 Oct 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly...the joining of one male human, and one female human.
<quoted text>
Thirty plus U.S. states say other wise, with the Supreme Court letting them.
<quoted text>
Thirty plus U.S. states say other wise, here's a sampling.
Alaska 1998 To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.[14]
Mississippi 2004 86%[16] Mississippi Amendment 1[16] Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.[17]
Missouri 2004 72%[18] Constitutional Amendment 2[19] To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.[20]
Montana 2004 67%[16] Montana Initiative 96[16] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[21]
Oregon 2004 57%[16] Oregon Ballot Measure 36[22] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.[23]
Colorado 2006 56%[24] Colorado Amendment 43[25] Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.[25]
Tennessee 2006 81%[24] Tennessee Amendment 1[26] The historical institution and legal contract solemnizing the relationship of one man and one woman shall be the only legally recognized marital contract in this state.[26]
Popular opinion does not override the equal protections requirements of the constitution.

Again, fundamental rights come from being human. You desire to restrict fundamental rights based on gender, restricts that right for no legitimate reason, and is therefore unconstitutional deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

"Congress... cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
...the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution..
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from the Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved."

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) 3 min Frankie Rizzo 14,616
News Scouts steady after easing gay-leader rules 6 min Marco R s Secret ... 3
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 9 min Fa-Foxy 78
News Clooney's restraining order 10 min stoned luck aka ... 24
News Lifestyle: 9 ugly lessons about sex from Big Data 18 min Marco R s Secret ... 2
News 'We want other gay couples like us to step forw... 50 min Marco R s Secret ... 3
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... 54 min Rose_NoHo 213
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 38,406
Is Little Robbie safe and sound? 3 hr Sherman 37
Little Robbie's Happy Place 3 hr Huey 39
More from around the web