Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
10,241 - 10,260 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11133
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they really need too? Were they basing their decisions on a different understanding of marriage other than one man and one woman as husband and wife? Did any of those cases deal with a same sex married couple? Seriously Nor .
Yes, they really NEEDED to because one day this issue was going to arise......just like the issue over interracial marriage arose!!!

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? 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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11134
Oct 7, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't have to. Marriage was always between one man and one woman.
Gender is a factor. A same sex couple can never be equal to a man and a woman. Ask Elton John.
Gender is ONLY a factor IF the couple is having children between themselves......otherwise, gender is NOT a requirement to getting married or having a marriage last!!!

Now, don't get me wrong......there are differences between men and women.....but that doesn't mean they have to ALWAYS go together nor that going together will make them stronger or more compatible with each other!!!

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, so is Elton John and so am I and my opinion differs from yours!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11135
Oct 7, 2013
 
Mr_oH wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/wor ld/TRR579BKSIAJKCS5R/post315
...smh...
This is the best you can do?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11136
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1.'Legal' fundamental rights, ok? A lot of them are influenced by gender. You want no part of gender distinction.
2. Not one of those 14 times involved 2 men or 2 women.
Yet you demonstrate no gender distinction. What fundamental rights depend on gender?

Again, several of those 14 showed ability to have sex or reproduce was a separate right from marriage and not a valid reason to restrict the fundamental right of marriage. Again, as procreation and even sex aren't considerations worthy of denial, gender is an irrational restriction.

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11137
Oct 7, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Gender is ONLY a factor IF the couple is having children between themselves......otherwise, gender is NOT a requirement to getting married or having a marriage last!!!
Now, don't get me wrong......there are differences between men and women.....but that doesn't mean they have to ALWAYS go together nor that going together will make them stronger or more compatible with each other!!!
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, so is Elton John and so am I and my opinion differs from yours!!!
I believe Sir Elton has evolved and now understands the importance of equal treatment under the same laws for everyone. At one time he thought "separate but equal" was close enough, but he now understands the stigmatizing effects of similar but somehow worth less.

“Proud White Woman for life!”

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11138
Oct 7, 2013
 
This is a Black cause?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11139
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
yes a civil right was voted away.
No.....nada....niente....nyet.
Two men who love each other can not get married in those states..
They can get married anywhere....it just won't be legally recognized. What about three men who love each other? Or one man and two women?

A
.CIVIL RIGHTS LOST........How dumb are you Nazi/
Nope...the same civil right existed before the vote as after, nice try comrade.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11140
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
IF that were to happen then of course there would be new consequences to consider. I'll not hold my breath if I were you.
I think we both can agree the odds on that happening are an extreme long shot. Any additional amendment to the constitution is a long shot.
But, let's say a federal ban on same-sex marriage were placed in the constitution.
Or we could say:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Or

The 2004 version of the Federal Marriage Amendment stated:[15][16][17]
Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
It would not overturn the Massachusetts Goodridge (2003) ruling.
Hmmmmm....never thought about that....I suppose it would leave that ruling in place.
People never talk about the alternative way to satisfy equal treatment demanded by the ruling -- removing marriage rights for straight (opposite-sex for you Peter) couples.
Did you just use "opposite sex" in front of "couples".....by golly we're making progress! If you remove marriage rights for OSCs, you remove marriage. It thus be considered a same sex union only then, at least legally.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11141
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, and still.
Fundamental rights are based on being human.
Exactly...the joining of one male human, and one female human.
Marriage is a fundamental right of all persons, as affirmed on 14 occasions by the Supreme Court.
You must show a compelling governmental interest if you want to restrict fundamental rights. Gender fails that test, as recognized by many courts including the Supreme Court.
Thirty plus U.S. states say other wise, with the Supreme Court letting them.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." SCOTUS
"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."
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]

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11142
Oct 7, 2013
 
*yawn*

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11143
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11144
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11145
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11147
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11149
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11150
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11152
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11155
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••