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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11490 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Except for that teeny tiny detail, that.......
“[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
“[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
Let's see: two cases from from California, each of which is at least 125 years old. And California now allows same sex marriage, rendering those cases moot (the the extent they ever had any precedent value regarding the requirements of marriage). Kind of blows your procreation argument out of the water when the case law you cite is outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The purposes of matrimony have nothing to do with two men, or two women, calling each other "spouses for life".....actually the idea of a "same sex" marriage is a virtual recent modern western invention. Kinda makes you look ignorant of history.
And discrimination against gays has ancient and widespread roots, making it a wonder examples of historical gay marriages exist at all.

Kinda makes you look ignorant of history when you thump your chest and crow about the paucity of historical gay marriages like it has some significance other than demonstrating the concurrent historical discrimination that also existed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Same sex" marriage.....what will they think of next....before ya know it men will be lesbians too. Up is now down, and left is now right.
Maybe they'll even perfect brain transplants so you can join the ranks of thinking and educated humans.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11491 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Terry, and Liddie
Both of you have the same fundamental right to marry as I, as does Josh Weed, as does Chirlane McCray. The government no more restricts your right to marry someone of the opposite sex, than it does mine, or Josh's, or Chirlane's. Every man, and woman, is treated equally in this regard. Equal treatment for all.
Gender requirements restrict the choice that's an inherent part of the fundamental right of marriage to select someone congruent with one's innate sexual orientation. From a legal standpoint, it's no different than the restrictions placed on race under anti-miscegenation laws. After all, those laws applied equally to blacks and whites and yet were ruled unconstitutional nonetheless. You can keep repeat ad nauseam that you don't expect gays to marry opposite sex people but your continual citation of Josh proves you a liar.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bill de Blasio’s wife opened up about falling in love with a man after years of identifying as a lesbian and their life as a “very conventional, unconventional couple” in a candid interview released Thursday.
Chirlane McCray, 58, said her relationship with de Blasio was made possible “by putting aside the assumptions I had about the form and package my love would come in.”
The interview, with Essence magazine, comes 34 years after McCray penned a groundbreaking 1979 essay for Essence entitled,“I Am a Lesbian,” about coming out as a gay black woman.
A dozen years later, in 1991, McCray met de Blasio while she worked for the New York Commission on Human Rights and he was an aide to then-Mayor David Dinkins.
“I was wearing West African-inspired clothing and a nose ring, and Bill says he had the love-at-first-sight experience,” she said.“I did note what a good-looking guy he was and that he was funny and smart and made other people laugh.”
McCray said the fact that he was a man, and white, was not her biggest concern.
“All I could think about was,‘He's six years younger than me!’” she said.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/de-b...
So what? Unless you can publish a similar story for every gay man and lesbian currently alive, it means absolutely squat. You have a long way to go to match the number of stories of men and women who lived a heterosexual life, married, had kids and then finally stopped lying to themselves and came out as gay or lesbian. But as usual, you ignore the facts that don't fit your uninformed and erroneous opinions.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11492 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have forgotten that the discriminatory treatment of Africans brought to this county was questioned long before the 14th amendment. It took a great deal of blood shed as Americans fought Americans before the 14th amendment could be enacted.
As if the Civil War actually started because of slavery; it didn't, stupid Peter. Regardless, whether anyone recognized the historical discrimination against gays prior to the mid 20th century is irrelevant. Discrimination is wrong and infringing the fundamental rights of a class of citizens that have historically been discriminated against is wrong.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Still lame....think up your own material.
As are your posts in general.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It might be just a bit funny, if ya didn't use "coitus", which is penis in vagina sexual intercourse!
I've already demonstrated the English language is evolving for the word "coitus" to include any sexual intercourse. So your prison experiences count as such regardless of how much you wish they didn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No wonder you wore the mop head as a wig, and had the moniker, Terri Firma, in prison.
I've never been in prison, small Peter. But you regaling us with your personal knowledge of how men act sexually in prison has been most enlightening. I bet you made a good little "pokee" once you had a gag stuffed in your mouth so you didn't wake the dead.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11493 Oct 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
One can do that without the state. If its so "INCLUSIVE" now, why are certain consenting adult relationships still EXCLUDED?
Because neither the incest practitioners nor the polygamists for which you gush with fake concern have bothered to challenge the restrictions that affect them in court. Well, at least not for over 125 years in the case of polygamists.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state doesn't need to be involved with "2 people deciding to make a life together". No, it not strictly defined by the male female anatomy, but by both sexes, anatomy included.
Marriage is defined by its legal accomplishment: creating kinship between previously unrelated parties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Love" is it legally required now, nor is it legally defined.
Neither is procreation or actually engaging in sex a requirement of marriage law in ANY state.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That explains why marriage requires a license by the state? It matters not the motivation TO MARRY, but WHY marriage is privileged by the state to begin with.
The state is constitutionally required to recognize the exercise of fundamental rights of citizens. The state has a limited power to regulate the exercise of fundamental rights and requires a compelling interest in order to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There was in order for you, and her, to exist. Inside every woman, is a man.:)
With the exception of your wife.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11494 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
There was in order for you, and her, to exist. Inside every woman, is a man.:)
Sorry, men and women have both sets of hormones.....but there is definitely NOT a man inside my wife nor me.......we have NO use for them in an intimate manner........and we both get a long fine with men as friends.......the rest of your post is just more garbage repeated and I'm tired of explaining things to you!!!

If I have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry ANY man I want to(which I don't)......why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry the woman of my choosing? By the way, I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and exercised it!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11495 Oct 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
If I have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry ANY man I want to(which I don't)......why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry the woman of my choosing? By the way, I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and exercised it!!!
Because it serves no purpose. Marriage is not required for love or commitment.

"why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"
"I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"

So what's your problem?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11496 Oct 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it serves no purpose. Marriage is not required for love or commitment.
"why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"
"I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"
So what's your problem?
Sorry, but that's simply your opinion......and seeing that I am past my childbearing years......my marriage serves the same purpose as the marriages of my aunt and uncle(38 years, no children from this marriage), my sister and brother-in-law(also no children from this marriage) as well as friends who are married to someone of the opposite-sex and have no children!!!

I have NO problem......just here stating my opinions regarding why Same-Sex Couples should have the right to marry the person of their choosing without regards to their gender....which you can't seem to grasp.........you also keep saying that neither love or commitment is required to marry....well, guess what.....NEITHER is having children......but being in love and committed to the person one wants to marry.....helps make the marriage stronger:-)

Out of curiosity.......why did you marry your wife? A)Because you loved her, B)Because you saw her as just a baby machine or C)Because she was the only woman to say yes......be honest now!!!
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11497 Oct 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

I have NO problem......just here stating my opinions regarding why Same-Sex Couples should have the right to marry the person of their choosing without regards to their gender....
Uhh, Clemm?
<quoted text>

Hate to inform you but MARRIAGE already includes Gay and Lesbian couples
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...

Get down off the cross, already,
You're just here sharpening your claws, just like everyone else.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11498 Oct 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, men and women have both sets of hormones.....but there is definitely NOT a man inside my wife nor me.......we have NO use for them in an intimate manner........and we both get a long fine with men as friends.......the rest of your post is just more garbage repeated and I'm tired of explaining things to you!!!
Oh Madone!.....(chuckling)...I thought you would have picked up on the obvious....but you're so fixated on looking for sleights to that secular sacred cow, same sex marriage that you can't lighten up once in a while. The word "woman" has the word "man" in it. That's what I was referring to, tongue in cheek, of course.
If I have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry ANY man I want to(which I don't)......why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry the woman of my choosing?
By that reasoning why not two women of your choosing? If you can modify the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT anyway you choose, it no longer has any meaning. The fundamental right to marry is based on, SURPRISE, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. The very union that created you, and I.
By the way, I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and exercised it!!!
So if it the fundamental right to marry as you claim, based on the two person, regardless of gender composition, spouses for life model, why didn't SCOTUS declare it to be a fundamental right based on that? Why isn't your version of the fundamental right valid in all fifty states?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11499 Oct 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
That's easy, ask the Christian Baker, Photographer and Florist if "allowing same sex couples adversly impacts" their right to not participate and support a same sex wedding ritual. They have no legal protection from being compelled to attend a religious ceremony they consider profane.
Down with the left and celebrating differences; up with the right and tolerance for all.
No, Brian, it doesn't affect their free exercise. They are not allowed to project their religious views onto their customers, doing so violates the free exercise of the customer.

Anyone who isn't an idiot can see that the business owners may still believe as they wish, worship where they wish, and behave as they wish. If they think they are being Christlike by denying service, they are sorely mistaken.

Matthew 25:35-40

You see Brian, these people are not attempting to follow their religion, they are bigoted hypocrites, just like you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11501 Oct 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
you also keep saying that neither love or commitment is required to marry
No I didn't. Can't you read?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11502 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are happy......okay.....and your point is?
<quoted text>
Not in every court.
<quoted text>
Oh you mean the pro conjugal marriage amendments.....the one's you're hoping to overturn? So put it back on the ballot, and vote on it.
No need. The Courts will overturn it. You are the perfect example of why we need judicial oversight in this country: a woefully uneducated public.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11503 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why hasn't same sex marriage existed cross time, cross culture, and sustained itself throughout history? While there some scattered historical examples of recognized same sex union, although not equally representative of both male and female unions, nor were they all considered "marriage" in the same way opposite sex unions were, there is no sustained deep rooted same sex marriage culture in Western Civilization, nor anywhere else for that matter.
It's funny that you think a logical fallacy makes your point.

You keep making that silly point and we keep reminding you it is fallacious. When does learning occur with you?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11504 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Madone!.....(chuckling)...I thought you would have picked up on the obvious....but you're so fixated on looking for sleights to that secular sacred cow, same sex marriage that you can't lighten up once in a while. The word "woman" has the word "man" in it. That's what I was referring to, tongue in cheek, of course.
<quoted text>
By that reasoning why not two women of your choosing? If you can modify the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT anyway you choose, it no longer has any meaning. The fundamental right to marry is based on, SURPRISE, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. The very union that created you, and I.
<quoted text>
So if it the fundamental right to marry as you claim, based on the two person, regardless of gender composition, spouses for life model, why didn't SCOTUS declare it to be a fundamental right based on that? Why isn't your version of the fundamental right valid in all fifty states?
Why are your silly arguments rejected by the Court?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11505 Oct 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a problem for the whole world.
Don't you read the Bible?
Leviticus 18:25
Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
The land is defiled by the effects of overpopulation.
talk about taking a verse completely out of context...

but i guess it is the nature of those who oppose the Word of God to show their dishonesty by trying to use the Word of God to make their point.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11506 Oct 16, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>talk about taking a verse completely out of context...
but i guess it is the nature of those who oppose the Word of God to show their dishonesty by trying to use the Word of God to make their point.
Who says it's 'the word of god?' How about YOU get honest.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#11507 Oct 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
...y.
"Same sex" marriage.....what will they think of next....before ya know it men will be lesbians too. Up is now down, and left is now right.
well, according to recent california law, men can be lesbians.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-02/cali...
"California would have the first state law permitting elementary and high school students to use bathrooms and join sports teams based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex, under a bill going before Governor Jerry Brown."
"Federal law also guarantees transgendered students access to programs and facilities that fit their gender identity, Ilona Turner, legal director for the Transgender Law Center, said in an e-mailed response to questions."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11508 Oct 16, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it serves no purpose. Marriage is not required for love or commitment.
"why don't I have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"
"I did have that same FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT"
So what's your problem?
Excuse me. Marriage is a contractual obligation. Commitment is one of those obligations.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11509 Oct 16, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>talk about taking a verse completely out of context...
but i guess it is the nature of those who oppose the Word of God to show their dishonesty by trying to use the Word of God to make their point.
There is nothing in the Bible which can be taken out of context. The context is what ever the Holy Spirit moves one to see. It is you who opposes the word of God. For example. The Bible says, "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels."

See what I'm saying?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11510 Oct 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me. Marriage is a contractual obligation. Commitment is one of those obligations.
Tell that to Jane Lynch and Julie and Hillary Goodridge .
http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/articles/soc...

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Agents of Corruption 10,233
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 4 hr Tea Bag Residue C... 56
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 4 hr EdmondWA 182
News Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 4 hr Facts Matter 29
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 hr cpeter1313 56,145
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 5 hr Eddie 18
News Judge Dismisses Minnesota Couple's Request To R... 5 hr Tea Bag Residue C... 3
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 20 hr Chilli J 31
More from around the web