Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11905 Oct 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who voted on YOUR marriage, Brian?
Why would anyone vote on something as important as the marriage of one man to one women?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11906 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone vote on something as important as the marriage of one man to one women?
Brian has been whining about gay marriage being anti-democratic. Get the connection? Voting... democracy... No, I didn't think you would.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11907 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would anyone vote on something as important as the marriage of one man to one women?
Because the institution of marriage is important and it is obvious that heterosexual have been messing it up with over a 50% divorce rate......so, if you and others can vote on the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples then Gay and Lesbian couples should be able to vote on the right to marry for heterosexuals as well!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11908 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Slavery ended, citizenship for freed slaves and women's vote were all won by votes
Actually, slavery was ended in the styes in rebellion by executive order of President Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Slavery was fully abolished everywhere in the US by ratification of the thirteenth amendment in 1865.

Citizenship was not formally extended to former slaves until passage of the fourteenth amendment in 1868. It also revised the constitutional language for apportioning representation in the House of Representatives among the states since the constitution as originally adopted only counted slaves as 3/5 of a person. It also penalized states that didn't extend the right to vote to black males 21 years of age by reducing their apportionment based on the umber of such blacks denied the right to vote.

The right of blacks to vote was guaranteed by the passage of the fifteenth amendment passed in 1870.

Voting in general is not a fundamental right in the US since it was never universally granted to all citizens from the founding. In the beginning, typically only white land owners were allowed to vote, States generally expanded the franchise to previously excluded groups over time in response to changing public opinion or constitutional mandates like the fifteenth amendment for blacks, the nineteenth amendment for women and the twenty-sixth amendment for citizens 18 years of age.

In all cases these constitutional amendments were ratified first by Congress and then by at least 3/4 of state legislatures. None of these rights were extended by popular vote and all were necessary because of existing constitutional impediments in the case of blacks or the fact setting voting qualifications was historically a state prerogative in absence of specific federal law or constitutional directives otherwise.
Brian_G wrote:
not so for same sex marriage.
You really should learn the facts before you lie, Brian. Of the 15 political entities (14 states plus the District of Columbia) that currently give legal recognition to same sex marriage, 9 were the result of votes by the peoples elected representatives in state or District legislatures and one was the result of statewide popular vote. Only five resulted from court mandate.
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been a federal vote defining marriage as same sex
Because regulation of marriage law is the province of states unless restrictions in marriage laws run afoul of the US constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
that's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Then you must also consider legal interracial marriage to be anti-democratic since it resulted from a decision of SCOTUS. Do you still pine for the "good old days" of legal anti-miscegenation laws and segregation, Brian?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11909 Oct 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Right, votes to end slavery, give women the vote and civil rights. Note, there's never been a federal vote for same sex marriage and it came to America through court decree, not legislation.
Same sex marriage came to nine states and the District of Columbia via votes of their elected representatives. That's the same way blacks were made citizens and blacks and women were given the right to vote.

And the five states where same sex marriage was legally recognized because not doing so was deemed contrary to state constitutions is no different than when SCOTUS ruled segregation and anti-miscegeneation laws were unconstitutional.

Why do you hate the judicial branch of government so much, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic
Thats just another of your lies.
Brian_G wrote:
as well as sex segregated.
Voluntary segregation when resulting from the free choice of the individuals exercising their fundamental right of marriage isn't unconstitutional, Brian. After all neither SCOTUS nor any state has prohibited people of the same race or religion from marrying; it was only mandatory government imposed restrictions that have been deemed unconstitutional. Which is why sex "integration" is also unconstitutional when it's a government requirement.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11910 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
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.
When you convince a majority to convert their civil marriage into a civil union, then the government can get out of the civil marriage business.

The point that you obviously missed is that churches perform religious marriages and civil marriages. Two very different things. Maybe your real beef is with the churches. Maybe they should get out of the civil marriage business and just perform their religious marriages. Maybe we should adopt Germany's system. You go to the city offices and get civilly married then a day or two latter get married within the rites of your particular faith. Interestingly, Mitt Romny and his wife did just that.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11911 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Your are correct about the distinct between civil and religious marriage. But the only marriage that bestows any of the rights and benefits is the civil marriage. A religious marriage alone absent the state civil marriage license can only warm your heart and keep you from living in sin. Want to not pay an inheritance tax when your spouse dies, you had better have the civil marriage license which can only come from the state.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11912 Oct 27, 2013
Bwana wrote:
I know HOW it currently works. It just violates the separation of church and state as marriage was originally an act of religion.
Interesting opposing fact. The Pilgrims that came over on the Mayflower, a pretty devout religious sect, only ever had civil marriages, never religious ones.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11914 Oct 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the institution of marriage is important and it is obvious that heterosexual have been messing it up with over a 50% divorce rate...
Or to put it another way, devoid of modern political sexual identity labels, men and women have not taken their commitments to each other as seriously as in previous generations.
...so, if you and others can vote on the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples then Gay and Lesbian couples should be able to vote on the right to marry for heterosexuals as well!!!
Actually, men and women can exercise their individual right to vote, for political candidates, and ballot proposals.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11916 Oct 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way, devoid of modern political sexual identity labels, men and women have not taken their commitments to each other as seriously as in previous generations.
<quoted text>
Actually, men and women can exercise their individual right to vote, for political candidates, and ballot proposals.
Well, then lets vote for the right to marry for heterosexuals, okay?

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11917 Oct 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way, devoid of modern political sexual identity labels, men and women have not taken their commitments to each other as seriously as in previous generations.
<quoted text>
Actually, men and women can exercise their individual right to vote, for political candidates, and ballot proposals.
So, if I get enough signatures in, let's say San Francisco, to put on the ballot that one man and one woman marriage should be deemed illegal and it passes into law, you will accept that?

I'm pretty sure that I can get the votes, Brian.

Do you really want to destroy marriage, Brian?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11918 Oct 27, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I get enough signatures in, let's say San Francisco, to put on the ballot that one man and one woman marriage should be deemed illegal and it passes into law, you will accept that?
I'm pretty sure that I can get the votes, Brian.
Do you really want to destroy marriage, Brian?
I think the legalization of divorce already destroyed marriage.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11919 Oct 27, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the legalization of divorce already destroyed marriage.
Christians destroyed marriage.

Christians destroy everything.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11920 Oct 27, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Christians destroyed marriage.
Christians destroy everything.
Hey Tam.....how are ya tonight? Good I hope......not ALL Christians are bad......just those who are more the Evangelistic Fundamentalist.

Take care and keep on posting:-)

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11921 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Tam.....how are ya tonight? Good I hope......not ALL Christians are bad......just those who are more the Evangelistic Fundamentalist.
Take care and keep on posting:-)
Sorry Norcal.

Sometimes I'm a little harsh.

I understand. My girlfriend is a Christian. We go to church every Sunday and every Sunday afternoon she asks me why my tongue is bleeding.l

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11922 Oct 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Norcal.
Sometimes I'm a little harsh.
I understand. My girlfriend is a Christian. We go to church every Sunday and every Sunday afternoon she asks me why my tongue is bleeding.l
No need to apologize.......it hard to tell them apart........don't bite on your tongue to hard......and try and keep a stiff upper lip:-)

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11923 Oct 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to apologize.......it hard to tell them apart........don't bite on your tongue to hard......and try and keep a stiff upper lip:-)
Usually my upper lip is bleeding too.

She's worth it. She holds my hand REALLY tight on the pew where nobody can see it.

I do my best for her.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11924 Oct 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if I get enough signatures in, let's say San Francisco, to put on the ballot that one man and one woman marriage should be deemed illegal and it passes into law, you will accept that?
I'm pretty sure that I can get the votes, Brian.
Do you really want to destroy marriage, Brian?
Brian?

What is the basis, or foundation of marriage if not the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? So if that were made "illegal", marriage would have no purpose and those no need to recognize it at all.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11926 Oct 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian?
What is the basis, or foundation of marriage if not the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife? So if that were made "illegal", marriage would have no purpose and those no need to recognize it at all.
I'm sorry for calling you Brian. I got distracted by your lack of reasoning and language.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So if that were made "illegal", marriage would have no purpose and those no need to recognize it at all.
See?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11927 Oct 28, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Usually my upper lip is bleeding too.
She's worth it. She holds my hand REALLY tight on the pew where nobody can see it.
I do my best for her.
Good for you........holding hands is comforting:-)

On our wedding day, Mrs-Whitewater was so nervous that I had to help hold the card that her special wedding vows were on so she could read them:-)

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 26 min Brian_G 38,525
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 14,765
News Actress who played TV psychic, Miss Cleo, dies ... 4 hr Fa-Foxy 2
News FDA Signals Relaxing Gay Blood Donation Policy 5 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 2
News All gay and bisexual men should get meningitis ... 5 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 3
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 158
News 7th District: Feminist, gay groups take opposit... 5 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 1
More from around the web