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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#11951 Oct 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
...ahhaahahah
ahhahahaahahah
ahhahahahahaha
ahhahaahhahaha...
That's disgusting! Now zip up and wash your hands.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11952 Oct 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm saying if folks want to put the right to marry on the ballot for Same-Sex Couples......LET'S put it on the ballot for ALL couples, opposite-sex and Same-Sex.........I mean if you get the right to vote on my right to marry.....then I should get the right to vote on your right to marry.......how do you think that vote will go?
The "right to marry for same sex couples" was not put on the ballot. What was put there was the definition of marriage, and whether or not that definition, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, which has existed since before the founding of the Republic, would be the sole legal definition. Remember, that definition also bars any recognition of plural marriage as well.

Your right to marry is the same as ANY OTHER WOMAN. Simply because you profess a same sex sexual attraction, does not change that.
And what is "BIG"? or did you mean "BI"?
D'oh! Spell checker.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11953 Oct 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Brian, but there was Same-Sex marriages that also pre-date the Constitution......
Not in this country, not among the colonists, nor Mother England, France, or Spain. Certainly not officially sanctioned or recognized.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11954 Oct 29, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry for calling you Brian. I got distracted by your lack of reasoning and language.
Apology accepted. I was unaware that English is not your native language, that would it explain your lack of comprehension.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11955 Oct 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm saying if folks want to put the right to marry on the ballot for Same-Sex Couples......LET'S put it on the ballot for ALL couples, opposite-sex and Same-Sex.........I mean if you get the right to vote on my right to marry.....then I should get the right to vote on your right to marry.......
2. how do you think that vote will go?
1. I'm all for it.
2. Not in your favor.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11956 Oct 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The "holy estate of matrimony"? Does that sound like it's referring to secular civil marriage? No. The issue at hand isn't religious marriage and subsequent SCOTUS rulings on separation of church and state demonstrate why marriage as a fundamental right isn't discussed in a religious context.
The Court was quite clear on how marriage was defined, and it's significance "in our civilization". Here it is again.

"...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; ".
Further, it's hardly "foundationally definitive" when i doesn't encompass all the legally allowed marriages throughout the world since marriage is a fundamental right of humans, not just of US citizens.
Which came first in this country, "the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; ", or same sex marriage?
Do you have any concept of relevance?
Tremendously significant! It illustrates how marriage was viewed by the Court, and virtually all subsequent rulings are clearly based on this concept of marriage. The Supreme Court didn't invent marriage.
This latest quote with which you're infatuated is originally from a case regarding voting qualifications. It was cited in another voting qualification case and a case regarding the legality of importing women for concubinage.Do those cases sound remotely related to the issue of marriage?
"...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; ".

Is the word, "matrimony" confusing you?
No. So the musings of SCOTUS justices on topics unrelated to the case being decided have no value as precedent in other cases.
Try again, small Peter.
Now now Little Terry, clearly on this you are bested. By all means find a Supreme Court case prior to DOMA, that even remotely indicates marriage was viewed as a union of two persons regardless of gender composition. Go for it mi amico, I have faith in you. Hmmmmmmm.......considering that same sex sexual behavior was criminal for most of American history, and SMS is a recent invention in American marital jurisprudence, it might be an impossible task, but give it the ole college try.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#11957 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The "right to marry for same sex couples" was not put on the ballot. What was put there was the definition of marriage, and whether or not that definition, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, which has existed since before the founding of the Republic, would be the sole legal definition. Remember, that definition also bars any recognition of plural marriage as well.
Your right to marry is the same as ANY OTHER WOMAN. Simply because you profess a same sex sexual attraction, does not change that.
<quoted text>
D'oh! Spell checker.
well, it would certainly be a statement of fact when we say that there are now 15 states (an additional one where it is recognized in several counties), Washington DC that do recognize same sex marriage. it would also be a statement of fact when we say that the US Federal government recognizes same sex marriage.

and more in the works, based on what i'm reading about the debates and discussions in other state legislatures and what's going on in several court cases (even in my home state of Texas).

whether or not you agree with those states and the US Federal government in irrelevant. whether or not you say or recognize same sex couples can get married or are married is irrelevant since you do not have the government's standing to validate those marriage licences.

just stating facts.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11958 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your right to marry is the same as ANY OTHER WOMAN. Simply because you profess a same sex sexual attraction, does not change that.
I'm NOT professing a Same-Sex attraction.....the fact that I am legally married to a woman who I love in every aspect clearing shows who I am and frankly what you want is for med to live a lie and marry a man who I am NEITHER attracted to or love......sorry, but again....regardless of what you believe or want is not going to change what is happening!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11959 Oct 29, 2013
Oop, my last post should read CLEARLY instead of clearing......lol!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11960 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I'm all for it.
2. Not in your favor.
Good and it will go in my favor because if the right to marry is tied together for both opposite-sex and Same-Sex couples on the ballot.......then Marriage and Marriage Equality will survive.......I mean this Country is NOT ready or willing to do away with Marriage Licenses:-)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11961 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in this country, not among the colonists, nor Mother England, France, or Spain. Certainly not officially sanctioned or recognized.
Maybe NOT in this Country.......but nevertheless Same-Sex marriage existed before our Constitution and that was what was being discussed!!!
Raviana

Lincoln City, OR

#11962 Oct 29, 2013
Marriage requires a bond that two people of the same gender can never have.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11963 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The "right to marry for same sex couples" was not put on the ballot.
Actually Prop 8 was NOT about the definition of marriage only, it was about ELIMINATING a right to marry for ONLY one group of individuals that the proponents didn't agree with who they are or who they wanted to marry!!!

And by specifically defining marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman is in FACT putting the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples on the ballot to be voted on!!!

Tell me something Pete......why do I have the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry a man whom I have just met with NO QUESTIONS asked or people like you even being concerned......YET, believe I gave up that FUNDAMENTAL right and question me when the person I choose to marry is my wife?

Either one has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry the person of THEIR choosing or they don't.......but you nor others GET to decide who has that right to marry!!!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11964 Oct 29, 2013
Raviana wrote:
Marriage requires a bond that two people of the same gender can never have.
Then how do more than a dozen U.S. states, and more than a dozen world nations, manage to administer marriage to same sex couples? If marriage REQUIRES this bond, then it would seem that it would not be possible for these states and nations to have done so, yet they have.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11965 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The Court was quite clear on how marriage was defined, and it's significance "in our civilization". Here it is again.
"...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; ".
<quoted text>
Which came first in this country, "the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; ", or same sex marriage?
<quoted text>
Tremendously significant! It illustrates how marriage was viewed by the Court, and virtually all subsequent rulings are clearly based on this concept of marriage. The Supreme Court didn't invent marriage.
<quoted text>
"...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; ".
Is the word, "matrimony" confusing you?
<quoted text>
Now now Little Terry, clearly on this you are bested. By all means find a Supreme Court case prior to DOMA, that even remotely indicates marriage was viewed as a union of two persons regardless of gender composition. Go for it mi amico, I have faith in you. Hmmmmmmm.......considering that same sex sexual behavior was criminal for most of American history, and SMS is a recent invention in American marital jurisprudence, it might be an impossible task, but give it the ole college try.
And just so everyone understands, the cases Pietro is currently citing (Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 and Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333) are from 1885 and 1890 which "illustrates how marriage was viewed by the Court" at that time. A time when the court also said separate but equal' was acceptable public policy.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11966 Oct 29, 2013
Raviana wrote:
Marriage requires a bond that two people of the same gender can never have.
And what specifically is there about this 'bond' that cannot be achieved by same-sex couples?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11967 Oct 29, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
And what specifically is there about this 'bond' that cannot be achieved by same-sex couples?
Coital....conjugal...consummat e....two go to bed but three get up....C'mon Dave men and women aren't androgynous beings, nor is human reproduction asexual.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#11968 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Coital....conjugal...consummat e....two go to bed but three get up....C'mon Dave men and women aren't androgynous beings, nor is human reproduction asexual.
But what makes that bond NECESSARY as a component of marriage? 14 states now disregard this "necessity" (proving it's NOT a necessity). How do they do it?

Obviously, this bond is only as necessary as a state has DECIDED it to be. That makes it an arbitrary requirement, one which can be disregarded at any time. It's already disregarded by infertile couples.

It also shows that addition of this "requirement" was done ONLY to prevent gay people from marrying. All states disregard it for infertile couples, demonstrating that this is a meaningless gesture of a "requirement", which is never used to block any couples, until a state decides to use it to block same-sex couples.

The "bond" argument fails.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11969 Oct 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm NOT professing a Same-Sex attraction....
So you're pronoun cements that you're a "lesbian" mean you're from the Greek isle of lesbos, or have a same sex attraction?
.the fact that I am legally married to a woman who I love in every aspect clearing shows who I am
So how does that statement prove my claim false?
and frankly what you want is for med to live a lie and marry a man who I am NEITHER attracted to or love......sorry, but again....regardless of what you believe or want is not going to change what is happening!!!
Huh? You claimed there's a "same sex couple's right to marry", I countered with the right to marry is based on a specific definition of marriage, and it's and individual right. Not once did I claim for you to "live a lie". That is the lie.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11970 Oct 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Coital....conjugal...consummat e....two go to bed but three get up....C'mon Dave men and women aren't androgynous beings, nor is human reproduction asexual.
And same-sex couples are conjugal and they consummate. Coital is only a specific form of being conjugal.

So again, how do these acts NOT bond the couple in a same-sex relationship that it does in an opposite-sex couple? Remember, the original post that I relied to asserted "Marriage requires a bond that two people of the same gender can never have." Raviana post 11962.

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) 3 min lides 42,812
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 6 min Frankie Rizzo 1,970
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 18 min lides 22,361
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 26 min Nasty Boi 30
News Scottish Secretary tells of concerns of homopho... 35 min TomInElPaso 2
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 42 min June VanDerMark 12,270
News Anti-gay Gambian president loses re-election bid 1 hr Rainbow Kid 1
More from around the web