Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17555 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.

Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#14094 Nov 27, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh... Yes?
http://thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14095 Nov 27, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like rapists, necrophiliacs, or zoophiles. I know they think they have a RIGHT to practice their proclivities, but I happen to disagree...
The difference is that their "partners" do not give their informed consent. Can't you see that?

Such acts are violations of the Freedom and Autonomy of another being.

Most crimes are.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14096 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Today's marriage laws don't make sense if conjugality, opposite sex, is rejected as the basis for legal marriage. So that's been dropped in some states, so why are you concerned with monogamy?
Then where is all of this confusion that must be taking place in all of states that have legalized same-sex marriage?

When those seeking marriage applications enter the town/city/county clerk's office, do they not know why they are there? Where they are? What they expect to get?

Do those clerk's not know what to do?

It must be those actually performing the marriage who are the ones confused.

When the couple tell others they just got married, who doesn't comprehend what they are saying? Their family and friends? People on the street? Their employers? The government?

FYI: That was sarcasm. I know those opposed to same-sex marriage often fail to recognize even the most overt sarcasm.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Marriage equality" for all.
Then why do you not actually support equality?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14097 Nov 27, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you're ASKING me now so that when I give you an answer you can just ignore it and ask something else, right?
[/QUOTE

Ye of little faith.

[QUOTE]
If ya must know what my particular belief is on this issue....here it is......if one is over the age of 18, they should be allowed to marry anyone over the age of 18 who is NOT related to them by blood which includes father, mother, brother, sister or even first cousins(because in my personal opinion a first cousin is still to close by blood relationship.....but that is my opinion) regardless of the other person's gender!!!
Thank you. See that wasn't so hard.
See, marriage means something to me and it's NOT all about just what the other person has between their legs or having children......
I understand how you feel on a personal level, but we're discussing the issue of marriage as it relates to society at large, and it's purpose as a matter of public policy.
it is MUCH more than that and I'm not going to try and explain it to the likes of you when you opted to use a private conversation against me.......
Again I understand your personal feelings, and if I've offended you in regards to a private conversation, I apologize. We've had so many exchanges, one loses track after a while.
sorry, that you don't understand my position......but you don't have to and no matter how much we go round about this issue......I feel you will NEVER truly understand why some feel the way they do!!!
I understand your position it's highly personal. Therein likes part of the conflict. I'm looking at from a different perspective, as an issue of public policy, and it's effect on future generations.
No matter what you continue to believe or wish to remain as it has "ALWAYS BEEN" in your opinion......marriage is and has always been involving.....today it does INCLUDE not only opposite-sex couples but Same-Sex couples as well......
Another point of disagreement. Yes, some state have designated same sex relationships, "marriage", but That doesn't mean marriage, as practiced by society at large, and has been practiced throughout virtually all of American history, a union of husband and wife, "includes" same sex couples.
.5, 10, or 20 years from now, it might include polygamist and even incest.......but I don't know that and with regards to people marrying their siblings.....I personally hope NOT ever......but that is NOT for me to decide or judge......and if it does happen.....it still has NO effect on me or my marriage!!!
Exactly, the state can designate any number of consenting adult relationships, "marriage" without it having any personal effect on anyone else's marriage. However the continued redefinition of marriage, may very well prove highly detrimental to marriage as a matter of public purpose, it's stabilizing societal effect, and it's communal collective value. History will be the ultimate judge.
Peace to you and yours.....please have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!
Live long and prosper.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14098 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another point of disagreement. Yes, some state have designated same sex relationships, "marriage", but That doesn't mean marriage, as practiced by society at large, and has been practiced throughout virtually all of American history, a union of husband and wife, "includes" same sex couples.
Relationships cannot be 'designated' marriage, or anything else. Those IN a relationship GET married under state law.

The argument is which reltionships qualify under state law to get married.

Marriage did not change in Massachusetts ten years ago, only who qualified under the law.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#14099 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The latter is not "SIMILARLY SITUATED". A woman is not a man, and vice verse. A man and woman, are similarly situated to a woman and a man.
You are pretending that "similar" means the same as "identical". This is a dishonest arguing tactic, to avoid his point.

A man and a woman in a committed relationship absolutely ARE "similar" to two men, or two women, in a committed relationship. There are MANY similarities in how they relate to one another. "Identical"? No. But to deny similarity is to feign a blindness too absurd to be believed.

If a same-sex couple is NOT "similarly situated" to an opposite-sex couple, then why do you keep promoting civil unions, without being able to list ANYTHING that is different about them from marriage beyond the title? If we are NOT so similar, then the list of differences between civil unions and marriage should be LONG.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Today's marriage laws don't make sense if conjugality, opposite sex, is rejected as the basis for legal marriage. So that's been dropped in some states
Define "don't make sense". What will be the result of this lack of sense? What legal confusions will these states have to contend with because they've dropped (your definition of) conjugality? How will my marriage suffer, due to the shortsightedness of my state? I never seem to get a clear answer to this. Recognizing two consenting adults as sharing a life-long bond of mutual love, family and legal protection makes perfect sense to me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
so why are you concerned with monogamy? "Marriage equality" for all.
It is for all. All will be able to marry the person of their choice, regardless of gender. Disregarding monogamy defeats the mutual nature of marriage. Marriage is a declaration of monogamy.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14100 Nov 27, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Relationships cannot be 'designated' marriage, or anything else. Those IN a relationship GET married under state law.
The argument is which reltionships qualify under state law to get married.
No,it's how marriage is defined, and what are the qualifications in accordance with that definition.
Marriage did not change in Massachusetts ten years ago, only who qualified under the law.
The foundation upon which marriage rests, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, did indeed change in Massachusetts.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14102 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No,it's how marriage is defined, and what are the qualifications in accordance with that definition.
<quoted text>
The foundation upon which marriage rests, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, did indeed change in Massachusetts.
What doesn't 'Marriage' do, accomplish, guarantee, grant, to the state or its participants today that it did pre May 17, 2004 when the first legal same-sex marriages occurred?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14103 Nov 27, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
What doesn't 'Marriage' do, accomplish, guarantee, grant, to the state or its participants today that it did pre May 17, 2004 when the first legal same-sex marriages occurred?
The sole legal understanding of it as a union of one man and one man as husband and wife.

Ya might want to change your tag line to "Androgynous for all".

“"Congratulations California"”

Since: Feb 12

Northern California

#14104 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The sole legal understanding of it as a union of one man and one man as husband and wife.
Ya might want to change your tag line to "Androgynous for all".
Not any more stupid! D-U-H! Not for the feds anymore and not in 15 states! Talk about being in denial! Are you going to jump up and down and go wah,wah,wah? You are pretty good at that you know,it seems that's all you do after having your azz handed to you repeatedly!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14105 Nov 27, 2013
Rules Of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
Not any more stupid! D-U-H! Not for the feds anymore and not in 15 states! Talk about being in denial! Are you going to jump up and down and go wah,wah,wah? You are pretty good at that you know,it seems that's all you do after having your azz handed to you repeatedly!
Why that was positively brilliant....your mom and dad must be so proud! Oh wait....no one ever told you that did they? All this time you thought the stork delivered you to the nice same sex couple down the street.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#14106 Nov 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The sole legal understanding of it as a union of one man and one man as husband and wife.
That has NEVER been the sole legal understanding of marriage through time and cultures. You're such a f-ing liar, and a pathetically stupid one at that, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ya might want to change your tag line to "Androgynous for all".
You might want to change yours to "brain dead *sswipe".
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#14108 Nov 28, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
"Informed consent"?
So this sort of thing is passed out at Gifting Parties and Glory Holes?
...and Truck Stops?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14110 Nov 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The sole legal understanding of it as a union of one man and one man as husband and wife.
Ya might want to change your tag line to "Androgynous for all".
If that were the case, then how could the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (or any court) reach a conclusion that does not uphold that principle?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#14111 Nov 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The sole legal understanding of it as a union of one man and one man as husband and wife.
So the only thing that changed was Marriage is no longer a special right for opposite-sex heterosuxual couples.
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#14112 Nov 28, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you insist that something you dislike is a perversion?
And yet my opinions are backed by some very strong evidence.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14113 Nov 28, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were the case, then how could the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (or any court) reach a conclusion that does not uphold that principle?
Gay legislators.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14114 Nov 28, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
So the only thing that changed was Marriage is no longer a special right for opposite-sex heterosuxual couples.
Marriage is everyone's right and state law is applied equally to every resident in a state. You have to qualify, no matter who you are.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14115 Nov 28, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
So the only thing that changed was Marriage is no longer a special right for opposite-sex heterosuxual couples.
It was never a "special right for opposite sex heterosexual couples", political sexual identity labels are irrelevant. It was a the recognized union of one MAN and one WOMAN as husband AND wife. You always had the right to marry.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14116 Nov 28, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were the case, then how could the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (or any court) reach a conclusion that does not uphold that principle?
How did those courts that ruled against same sex marriage reach that conclusion, like this one?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-...

A federal trial court ruled that Nevada can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples in a ruling made public hours before the Supreme Court is due to consider whether it will hear any of several cases addressing same-sex couples’ marriage rights.

Judge Robert C. Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws does not “[prohibit] the People of the State of Nevada from maintaining statutes that reserve the institution of civil marriage to one-man–one-woman relationships.”
Jones ruled that a prior Supreme Court precedent — a 1972 case, Baker v. Nelson, that denied a same-sex couple’s marriage claim as lacking any “substantial federal question”— controlled his decision. Even if not, he ruled that the “exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage” was constitutional “[b]ecause the maintenance of the traditional institution of civil marriage as between one man and one woman is a legitimate state interest.”

In reaching his decision, Jones found that a classification like Nevada’s marriage law, which distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual people (his analysis did not address bisexuality), should not be viewed with additional scrutiny, as are laws that distinguish based on sex or race. The analysis, made as part of challenges claiming a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees, asks whether the group claiming discrimination under the law has experienced a history of discrimination and continues to face levels of political powerlessness.

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) 22 min Poof1 18,348
News Transgender stories: when you are born in the w... 25 min Blink 25
News Man Convicted of Gang Assault that Left a Gay B... 37 min Trump s Birtherex... 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 39 min RerunDNC 40,319
News Priests and nuns hold bizarre ceremony to 'puri... 45 min black Death 18
Poll Should shock treatment b used for bigots? (May '08) 53 min Left of centre 23
News Labour councillor suspended after calling gay p... 1 hr Trump s Birtherex... 4
So whips the forum sniveler?.. 13 hr Left of centre 6
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 14 hr Left of centre 68,990
More from around the web