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
10,941 - 10,960 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11873
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11874
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11875
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

8

7

7

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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11876
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11877
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11878
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11879
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

3

-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.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11880
Oct 26, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11881
Oct 27, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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.

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11882
Oct 27, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11887
Oct 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11891
Oct 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

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.

60 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 min Subliminal 52,938
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 2 min truth 295
State Attorneys General Defy Public Support for... 5 min Ted Haggard s Gospel Rub 88
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 7 min Frankie Rizzo 2,763
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 9 min Rose_NoHo 408
Lubbock man says he was fired for being gay; la... 12 min Ted Haggard s Gospel Rub 197
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children 17 min Otter in the Ozarks 86
Biggest Gay Lies 58 min Sergeant at Arms 1,231
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr DNF 2,628
•••
•••