Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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

#11864 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female.
That's just another of your lies, Brian. Ignoring history doesn't make it go away.
Brian_G wrote:
The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
And thereby also wrote discrimination into their constitutions, which is decidedly anti-american. That will, however, be corrected in due time.
Brian_G wrote:
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts.
Whether some citizens are given civil rights is not for the majority to decide, Brian. SCOTUS has ruled otherwise in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:

"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."
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
It came initially by court decision because the restriction on gender violated the fundamental rights of gays and was deemed unconstitutional. Of the 14 states and District of Columbia now giving legal recognition to same sex marriage, over half have been the result of legislative action by the people's elected representatives in removing the unconstitutional restriction on exercising the fundamental right to marry.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Far more Americans of every political stripe support same sex marriage because it removes discrimination based on bigotry and animus towards gays.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11865 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Not germane to the questions you posed.

Could Mildred Loving marry? Yes, to a man of the appropriate race.

Could Richard Loving marry? Yes, to a woman of the appropriate race.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies.
No, interracial marriages were NOT viewed as 'marriage' throughout American history.

The issue was not whether a same-sex union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember same-sex marriage does exist in various parts of the country.

Yes, not everyone agrees a same sex union is 'marriage', but 14 states sanction such as marriages and several more states (Oregon just this month) and the federal government recognize such unions as valid, legal marriages.

Bans on same-sex marriage are about keeping the privileges of marriage as a SPECIAL RIGHT for heterosexuals only.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM is about keeping the sexes apart...
What an inane statement.
Pietro Armando wrote:
...and no babies.
Then why do so many same-sex families have and are raising children? The fact that they do was one of the reasons the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated marriage equality for same-sex families. Goodridge 2003

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11866 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Why do you keep asking the same questions for which you already received answers, small Peter? Are you truly uneducable or just desperate for attention?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife.
They weren't viewed as marriages in the states in which they forbidden, small Peter. It's irrelevant what other states did or didn't recognize. And unlike most differences in state marriage laws such as whether first cousins could marry, Virginia's law didn't extend recognition to interracial marriages performed in other states. It was an absolute ban, period.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
That interracial discrimination wasn't universal like that against gays isn't the reason why the interracial ban was struck down, small Peter. You still can't grasp the concept of constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law in that tiny, withered, uneducable brain of yours.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
The flaw in your stupid theory, small Peter, is mandatory sex "integration" is just as unconstitutional as mandatory racial segregation. Both are an infringement on an individual's ability to freely select a marriage partner with which to exercise their fundamental right of marriage. That's why the government doesn't care if most people still marry within their race because now it's a free choice of the individuals rather than a government mandated requirement.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11867 Oct 26, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/cropcircles/
History of Interracial Marriages

In history of interracial marriages there was no support to those couples that choose to date or marry someone of a different race. The biggest problem our country faced with this issue arose in the era of slavery. The White race wanted to maintain the race superiority and thus used laws against interracial, especially Black and White unions of any kind. Our early history is an indicator that Black and White interracial unions have always faced the most social pressures. During the slavery era, the White race was concerned that marriages between Blacks and Whites carried implications of social equalities. Social equalities were exactly what the White race was trying to avoid, so these unions were not to their benefit.

It has been said that there is no better place to examine prohibitions on interracial relationships as in the state of Virginia, because this state possessed a vast amount of leadership in the concept of slavery, and it was also the first state to legally define race. Virginia has an extensive background for its opposition to interracial marriages.

In the late 1600's Virginia enacted laws against marriages of different races. The laws were specifically targeting the union between Whites and Blacks. Their justifications for banning interracial marriages were: White supremacy, protection of White womanhood, and prevention of mixed children. The law creators believed marriages between Whites and Blacks reduced White supremacy because social equality was slowly emerging as these marriages occurred. Protection of White womanhood refers to White woman remaining pure, away from the hands of any Blacks. Lawmakers wanted to prevent mixed children because mixed children were considered mentally and physically inferior to pure White race children, although there was no scientific proof for any of these inferiorities. The lawmakers also disapproved the idea of mixed races because the physical characteristics of a person defined their place and benefits in society. If the person was White then they received privileges, if they were not White then they were rejected by society and did not receive any privileges. This became a problem when interracial couples had biracial children who looked White; the burden was on the state to try to prove that the person was something other than what they looked. To avoid these situations, the states simply made laws to try to avoid them from arising.

The issues got so out of hand that the Whites created ways of identifying how much Black heritage a person carried within them. This system has been labeled "passing" for the simple reason that it allowed some people with Black heritage to pass and be accepted as a White person. The categories Blacks could be placed in were as follows: Sacatra, Griffe, Marabon, Mulatto, Quadroon, Metif, Meamelouc, Quarteron, and Sang-mele.

A Sacatra was half Griffe and half Black. A Griffe was half Black and half Mulatto. A Marabon was half Mulatto and half Griffe. A Mulatto was half White and half Black. A Quadroon was half White and half Mulatto. A Metif was half White and half Quadroon. A Meamelouc was half White and half Metif. A Quarteron was half White and half Meamelouc. A Sang-mele was half White and half Quarteron.

The penalties for any person of the White race who chose to marry someone of the Black race, was banishment from the colony. Black men who married or had sexual relations with a White woman were convicted of rape and were put to death, yet White men were never charged with rape much less put to death for having sexual relations with a Black woman.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11868 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did ya ever wonder why the Supreme Court never said same sex marriage is a fundamental right?
Because SCOTUS has yet to have a case before them that required them to make such a determination. As you've been told countless times previously but refuse to learn, courts in general and SCOTUS in particular rule narrowly on the actual merits of the case at hand rather than broadly on questions not before them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why even they, five justices actually, didn't go so far as to impose same sex marriage nationwide?
Because the issue in Windsor v. United States was whether the federal government had to recognize the legal marriage status of a citizen granted by the state, not whether all states must recognize or allow same sex marriages.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now what are you going to do when a plural marriage family win the right to have their marriage(a) legally recognized, citing SSM as a precedent?
There has to be a lawsuit challenging anti-bigamy laws first, small Peter. And to date, none of the polygamists you use as examples for argument but don't really support anyway have yet to file such a lawsuit. If and when they do, their case will be decided on its own merits, just like the cases brought by gays. After all, Loving v. Virginia didn't automatically make same sex marriage legally recognized.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://supreme.justia.com/case s/federal/us/114/15/case.html
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
That SCOTUS ruling is about eligibility to register to vote in Utah if one is involved in a polygamous marriage or co-habitating with multiple adults of mixed gender., small Peter. It's not an affirmation of the constitutionality of anti-bigamy laws

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11869 Oct 26, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Different race marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why different race marriage is antidemocratic.
Many black conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.

Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11870 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.
Actually, neither of you is correct. Most states banned interracial marriage at one time or another but not all as fa-foxy incorrectly asserted nor only one as you erroneously assert, Brian. Further, most slaves were prohibited from marrying even other slaves, so in the south at one point in history blacks generally weren't allowed to marry at all.
Brian_G wrote:
Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.
If integration and diversity was what Americans preferred, then interracial and interfaith marriages would be required. The fact they aren't and citizens can freely choose to self segregate on various characteristics like race or religion when marrying merely proves how stupid you are, Brian. Not to mention being a world class liar.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11871 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, it applies to only one state, not the whole country. Interracial marriage has always been legal in America, not so for same sex marriage.
Because same sex marriage is sex segregation marriage and Americans prefer integration and diversity of one man and one woman marriage.
Actually it was TRUE.......only 19 states had removed their laws forbidding interracial marriages, but most still had them when the ruling in Loving came down!!!

Do the research!!!

Sorry, but marriage had occurred between folks of the Same-Sex long before the 21st Century......even if you don't agree with it or like it!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11872 Oct 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was TRUE.......only 19 states had removed their laws forbidding interracial marriages, but most still had them when the ruling in Loving came down!!!
Do the research!!!
Sorry, but marriage had occurred between folks of the Same-Sex long before the 21st Century......even if you don't agree with it or like it!!!
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11873 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?
Following the same logic, as it were, why have we had to consistently redefine equality to include those of other races, women, interracial marriage, etc? the mere existence of a law or restriction, doesn't make it constitutional, much less infallible.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11874 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?
Sustained prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Duh.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11875 Oct 26, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sustained prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Duh.
Oh silly me....of course....it had to wait until "homosexual" was invented, followed by "heterosexual", and now the nice way of saying the former, "gay", a term that used to refer to various hedonistic opposite sex behavior! After all in order to be a "minority", one must first invent it.

Perhaps there's other reasons.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11876 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh silly me....of course....it had to wait until "homosexual" was invented, followed by "heterosexual", and now the nice way of saying the former, "gay", a term that used to refer to various hedonistic opposite sex behavior! After all in order to be a "minority", one must first invent it.
On the contrary, one must only recognize that a minority group doesn't comprise a majority of the total population. Apparently fractions is another in your long list a failings in life.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps there's other reasons.
Do regale us with more of your circular reasoning; I'm sure the readers of the thread could use a good laugh.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11877 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female. The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
You seem to think that the United States of America is a democracy.

It's not. It never has been. Majority does not rule here.

The rights of the minority are just as important as the rights of the majority. Equal rights for all citizens.

If you don't like that you can always leave, right?

“"The 14th Amendment Works"”

Since: Jul 13

Livermore California

#11878 Oct 26, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that the United States of America is a democracy.
It's not. It never has been. Majority does not rule here.
The rights of the minority are just as important as the rights of the majority. Equal rights for all citizens.
If you don't like that you can always leave, right?
He has already left Ms. Tam! He lives in Germany and has for a very,very long time! Maybe that explains a whole lot about him? Seig Hiel! LOL

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11879 Oct 26, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
He has already left Ms. Tam! He lives in Germany and has for a very,very long time! Maybe that explains a whole lot about him? Seig Hiel! LOL
It really doesn't matter where he lives. Equal rights for all people is not just achievable, it's inevitable.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11880 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?
Who knows why? I'm certain you have your theories as to why, just like others have their's and I have mine.........and besides, who says it didn't sustain over time? Gays and Lesbians have been trying to marry for generations and for some, they were happy with their lives without that recognition.....but things change over time and today's Gay and Lesbian couples want that same dream of growing up, getting married and raising a family.......and they should have that right and ability to make that decision with the person they love and have chosen to spend a life with!!!

Hopefully one day you'll get the terminology right.......I'm just married, just like you are just married.......my marriage license DOESN'T say "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage on it and yours DOESN'T say "HETEROSEXUAL" or "OPPOSITE-SEX" or "STRAIGHT" Marriage license........there both just standard State issued Marriage licenses!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11881 Oct 27, 2013
River Tam wrote:
You seem to think that the United States of America is a democracy. It's not. It never has been. Majority does not rule here. The rights of the minority are just as important as the rights of the majority. Equal rights for all citizens. If you don't like that you can always leave, right?
Slavery ended, citizenship for freed slaves and women's vote were all won by votes; not so for same sex marriage. There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex; that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11882 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Slavery ended, citizenship for freed slaves and women's vote were all won by votes; not so for same sex marriage. There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex; that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
You don't get to vote for my rights, Brian.

California tried that. How's that working out for the voters there now?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11883 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Slavery ended, citizenship for freed slaves and women's vote were all won by votes; not so for same sex marriage. There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex; that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Then why was the SUPREME COURT needed to make a ruling in Brown? Loving?

There has never been a federal vote defining marriage as opposite-sex; ergo opposite-sex marriage must be antidemocratic.

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) 34 min Just Think 22,559
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 40 min petrol 4,741
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 2 hr Sorry Hill 54
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 hr Sorry Hill 2,193
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr guest 534
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr River Tam 43,078
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 4 hr Dalton 20
More from around the web