Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17560 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.

“"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

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!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

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.

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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11884 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.
Legislative votes, NOT plebiscite.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11885 Oct 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did ya ever wonder why the Supreme Court never said same sex marriage is a fundamental right? Why even they, five justices actually, didn't go so far as to impose same sex marriage nationwide?
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?
Um.... what precedent, retardo?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11886 Oct 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So why hasn't ssm sustained it self, cross time, cross cultural, throughout history?
So why do you ask irrelevant questions?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11887 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>..... There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex; that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
So, as long as something has never been put to a federal vote, it is "anti-democratic"?

You are opening a can of worms with this one, Brian.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11888 Oct 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, as long as something has never been put to a federal vote, it is "anti-democratic"?
You are opening a can of worms with this one, Brian.
Yes. Let's vote a Brian's civil rights and see how he howls.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11889 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex; that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Marriage is a fundamental right. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the US Supreme Court.
http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-cou...

"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."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Simply put, what you propose is undemocratic, because you are saying that citizens should be able to vote on the rights of fellow citizens. Would you be comfortable with me voting on whether or not you have free speech? Should I have a say in what religion you may worship, whether you can carry a gun, or whether the police really need to obtain a warrant before searching your house ans seizing your property? Of course not. The very suggestion is absurd.

Quit acting like a child.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11891 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
Marriage is an act of religion and government has no jurisdiction on who can and can't get married. For them to get involved violates the separation of church and state.
For the purposes of taxation, government should only recognize a civil union that's accompanied by a contract signed by all participants in said contract.
Anything else violates the civil rights of all citizens.
No religion is required for a marriage to exist. And that contract you are talking about already exists. It's called a marriage LICENSE.

People are free to accompany the signing of that contract with any religious ceremony they choose, or none at all.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11892 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
Marriage is an act of religion and government has no jurisdiction on who can and can't get married. For them to get involved violates the separation of church and state.
For the purposes of taxation, government should only recognize a civil union that's accompanied by a contract signed by all participants in said contract.
Anything else violates the civil rights of all citizens.
Marriage 101, so pay attention.

There are TWO (2) types of marriage, that while similar and often overlapping, are very different.

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage.

Religious Marriages are sacred.

Civil Marriages are legal.

Religions will perform their particular Rite of Marriage and then by signing the State's Civil Marriage License, join the couple in civil marriage. Two marriages. No state requires any religion to marry anyone. And any religion can choose to religiously marry anyone they choose. Many religions have been marrying same-sex couples religiously for years. They have, until recently and in only a few states, been unable to marry same-sex couples civilly.

There are some couples that do not take part in any religions' Rite of Marriage but go before a Justice of the Peace, court judge, or other state official that marries the couples civilly. No religious marriage.

Religious marriages grant zero state rights, benefits and responsibilities.

Only with a civil marriage does a couple get access to the 1000-plus state and federal rights, benefits and yes, responsibilities.

All those state constitutional laws and amendments that have been enacted have only stopped civil marriages from occurring. When California passed Prop 8 that denied marriage to same-sex couples, that only stopped the civil marriage as described above. I am sure that there were same-sex religious marriages (see above) entered into in California after Prop 8 was passed.

When Massachusetts, and now 13 other states and D.C., granted same-sex marriage equality, it only allowed the same-sex couples to marry civilly. In the almost 9 1/2 years of marriage equality in Massachusetts (May 17 is the anniversary) the Roman Catholic Church, and every other religion, has been required to marry ZERO (0) same-sex couples. But some religions have chosen as part of their dogma to extend their religious Rite of Marriage to same-sex couples.

While some gays and lesbians, and their supporters, battle within their religious faith for inclusion in their Rite of Marriage, they do so as coreligionists. The public fights are over the civil, state, definition of marriage.

Two separate institutions of marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11894 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
Marriage is an act of religion and government has no jurisdiction on who can and can't get married. For them to get involved violates the separation of church and state.
For the purposes of taxation, government should only recognize a civil union that's accompanied by a contract signed by all participants in said contract.
Anything else violates the civil rights of all citizens.
WRONG.

Marriage is a civil contract that has NOTHING to do with religion.

You can have 500 church weddings, and if you don't have a license from the State, you are NOT legally married.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11895 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is simple. The government violates the separation of church and state by getting involved in who can and can't join in a union. All the government should recognize is a civil union, regardless of what two or more humans choose to be involved in that union.
If anyone wishes to be "married", that should be between them and their clergy.
Too bad your point isn't the way it works in the good ol' USA. No license from the State, NOT legally married.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11896 Oct 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG.
Marriage is a civil contract that has NOTHING to do with religion.
You can have 500 church weddings, and if you don't have a license from the State, you are NOT legally married.
Wrong. Legal marriage is a civil union. Marriage in a church is a sacrament.

The Sacrament of Marriage:
Marriage, a lifelong union between a man and a woman for procreation and mutual support, is a natural institution, but it is also one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. It reflects the union of Jesus Christ and His Church.

A little research before you type might have you looking a little smarter than a shoe.
Bwana

Dallas, TX

#11898 Oct 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Too bad your point isn't the way it works in the good ol' USA. No license from the State, NOT legally married.
I know HOW it currently works. It just violates the separation of church and state as marriage was originally an act of religion.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11899 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Wrong. Legal marriage is a civil union....
No, a civil union is a civil union, marriage is more.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.

http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/08/17/ful...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11900 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
<quoted text>
I know HOW it currently works. It just violates the separation of church and state as marriage was originally an act of religion.
It MIGHT have been a religious ceremony at one time, but it hasn't been for at least the last 100 years......as soon as the State started issuing Marriage licenses....it STOPPED being strictly a religious act!!!

Even the Clergy must represent the State and County when making their pronouncement!!!

And IF you know how it currently works.....then you KNOW that NO violation of Church and State exists!!!

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
Choose not to be gay 18 min Jonah1 309
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 31 min Cesarean 68,607
News Cruz embraces supporters on fringe of GOP 37 min DisgusTED 2
News New research says sex education ignores gay and... 38 min Prep-for-Dep 1,169
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... 44 min WasteWater 291
News Mormon leader: Policy against gay marriage was ... 46 min WasteWater 578
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... 1 hr WasteWater 9,048
More from around the web