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.

Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15897 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nether sex is restricted, both are included.
<quoted text>
It need not be a requirement in order for the state to recognize it and privilege it. Procreation is one of the main reasons, if not the primary reason, marriage is recognized in first place. No a out of denial on your part can change this. Baker vs Nelson clearly indicates the state interest, and link between marriage and procreation.
http://scarinciattorney.com/baker-v-nelson-th...
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the decision. It ruled,“The institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, uniquely involving the procreation of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” The court further held that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia did not apply because “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” The two men subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case under mandatory review.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision was only one sentence:“The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” Oral arguments were not held, and the justices did not provide an explanation for their decision.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm...so why didn't marriage developed in American history, or English common law from which the American legal concept of marriage came from, as simply a union of two persons regardless of gender composition?
<quoted text>
Why does marriage exist in the first place? As to the "legal accomplishment", simply put, it joins one man and one woman as husband and wife. THAT IS the legal accomplishment!
<quoted text>
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
So yes, 59even OS couples who cannot, or will not procreate can still marry, without anyone thinking, or had thought, that marriage and procreation aren't linked.
Yet gay couples can marry in Minnesota today. Hmmmm.... what does that mean for all the out-dated legal mumbo-jumbo you posted?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15898 Jan 24, 2014
I'm going to hand you your a$$, but I need the plate back.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It need not be a requirement in order for the state to recognize it and privilege it. Procreation is one of the main reasons, if not the primary reason, marriage is recognized in first place. No a out of denial on your part can change this. Baker vs Nelson clearly indicates the state interest, and link between marriage and procreation.
http://scarinciattorney.com/baker-v-nelson-th...
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Scalia Dissenting, Lawrence v Texas
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102....

As for Baker, remember that it became precedent when the court refused to hear oral arguments in 1971. Scalia's comments were issued in 2004. Even in dissent, they mark a major shift in the rhetoric of the court.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15899 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, for starters, you are misusing the word, because you are an idiot. Conjugality is "a union representing a special kind of social and legal partnership between two people <the level of mutual affection and respect that comes only with decades of contented" (i.e. being married)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/conj...
However, even in the sense you ineptly intend, which is to say sexual congress and propagation, there has never been a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of procreation. Even your hero Scalia admitted as much in Lawrence v Texas, you moron.
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Scalia Dissenting in Lawrence v Texas
<quoted text>
Try again, moron. I am claiming that both men and women are people, and as such are entitled to equal protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Nope, I seek equal protection for two, adult, consenting people to marry. You seem to lack the intelligence to articulate a state interest served by denying them that right that would make such a denial constitutional.
<quoted text>
You lack the intelligence to offer a state interest served that would render such a restriction constitutional. This is not surprising, as you are a moron.
<quoted text>
I'm so sorry you have to live alone with 27 cats.
<quoted text>
I know the difference, however that difference does not negate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
Grow a brain.
Now that line about the cats was FUNNY!!!! Bravo Liddie!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15900 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet gay couples can marry in Minnesota today. Hmmmm.... what does that mean for all the out-dated legal mumbo-jumbo you posted?
The fact that they can marry doesn't negate the obvious, marriage and procreation are linked, and always have been linked. Maybe on planet XBox, where humans reproduce asexually, or via spontaneous connection, it has no connection, but here on earth it still does.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15901 Jan 24, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, conjugality still exists, it's just no longer based on your un-evolved definition of the word.
Ohhhhhhh...you mean like "lesbian" has "evolved" to include men in its definition?
Many laws are gender neutral, stupid Peter.
Yes they are Little Terry.
That doesn't mean the law doesn't recognize the existence of gender.
Exactly
Quote the opposite, in fact, since gender is a quasi-suspect class for equal protections constitutional law.
As it relates to marriage, it's relevant today, just as much as it was ten years ago, 20 years ago, thirty....forty...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15902 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now that line about the cats was FUNNY!!!! Bravo Liddie!
How tragic that it is also true.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact that they can marry doesn't negate the obvious, marriage and procreation are linked, and always have been linked. Maybe on planet XBox, where humans reproduce asexually, or via spontaneous connection, it has no connection, but here on earth it still does.
Dear twit,
"Civil marriage in Oklahoma does not have any procreative prerequisites. See supra Part VI(C); see also Gill , 699 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (“[T]he ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.”). Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriages of couples who cannot “naturally procreate” or do not ever wish to “naturally procreate.” Marriage is incentivized for naturally procreative couples to precisely the same extent regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included." http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-0...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15903 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, for starters, you are misusing the word, because you are an idiot. Conjugality is "a union representing a special kind of social and legal partnership between two people <the level of mutual affection and respect that comes only with decades of contented" (i.e. being married)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/conj...
Just a few. We both know both the historical, and contemporary widespread usage and understanding of that word references husband and wife.
http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/...
In defence of conjugality: the common-good case against same-sex marriage
March 17, 2012 by Fr Stephen Wang
http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjug...
World English Dictionary
conjugal (&#712;k&#594;nd&# 658;&#650;&#609; &#601; l)
— adj
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: conjugal rights
[C16: from Latin conjug&#257;lis, from conjunx wife or husband, from conjungere to unite; see conjoin ]
However, even in the sense you ineptly intend, which is to say sexual congress and propagation, there has never been a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of procreation. Even your hero Scalia admitted as much in Lawrence v Texas, you moron.
Exactly, no requirement, and you can spout that ad nauseum to dodge the obvious. Marriage is recognized do to procreative aspect of the male female union.
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
Scalia Dissenting in Lawrence v Texas
The sterile and infertile have always been allowed to marry with no disconnect between them and the state's interest in encouragement of procreation.
Try again, moron. I am claiming that both men and women are people, and as such are entitled to equal protection of the law.
They are, and they do.
Nope, I seek equal protection for two, adult, consenting people to marry. You seem to lack the intelligence to articulate a state interest served by denying them that right that would make such a denial constitutional.
Such equal protection already exists for those two people, a man AND a woman. So does the state interest, and it's constitutional.
You lack the intelligence to offer a state interest served that would render such a restriction constitutional. This is not surprising, as you are a moron.
Enough courts have already done that.
I'm so sorry you have to live alone with 27 cats.
Funny stuff!
I know the difference, however that difference does not negate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law for all.
The constitutional guarantee of protection for all ALREADY EXISTS as it relates to marriage.
Grow a brain.
Maybe I'll go see the Wizard of Oz, you can go too.....but you'll have to dress as Dorothy!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#15904 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
There is no same sex marriage.... there is only marriage.
There should be no same sex marriage, there should only be traditional marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15905 Jan 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us the statute.
Territorial laws for Nevada define marriage as a male female union in 1861....long before sexual identity labels were invented.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jan/22/s...

CARSON CITY — The Sandoval administration urged a federal appeals court to uphold the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing it serves the "legitimate purpose of preserving traditional marriage" and is entrenched in the state's history.

The brief filed by the attorney general's office late Tuesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as federal courts have struck down similar laws in other states. Gay couples in the case argue that Nevada's ban is unconstitutional and that a law allowing domestic partnerships made same-sex couples second-class citizens.

"Nevada law that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman is legitimate, whether measured under equal protection or due process standards," the brief said. "The interest of the state in defining marriage in this manner is motivated by the state's desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."

The governor in the brief filed by Solicitor General C. Wayne Howle also argued that Nevada's marriage laws are rooted in history that predates statehood.

"Even before statehood, the 1861 territorial laws defined marriage as existing between 'a male and a female,'" the document said. "The same limitation on marriage was codified in 1867 ... and is substantially the same today."

He added, "Nevada's statutes evince a strong encouragement of marriage in its traditional form. These laws are not based on policy whimsy; they are grounded in policy as deeply rooted as any that exists in Nevada law.

"They define Nevada society."

A federal judge upheld the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage in 2012. U.S District Judge Robert Jones rejected arguments raised by eight same-sex couples that an amendment passed by voters in 2002 defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the group that successfully pushed the amendment, said in its appellate brief that the traditional definition of marriage furthers Nevada's interest in "maximizing the number of children who are raised by their own biological parents."

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15906 Jan 24, 2014
lides wrote:
... Scalia's comments were issued in 2004. Even in dissent, they mark a major shift in the rhetoric of the court.
This is rich; lides quoting Scalia for his judicial wisdom.

Scalia dissented; he believes the state has an interest in moral behavior around marriage. I hope he leads when same sex marriage get's to the Supreme Court; he's already got them foxed.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15907 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhh...you mean like "lesbian" has "evolved" to include men in its definition?
No, I'm talking about actual dictionary definitions that recognize evolving language usage, not the contrived attention grabbing labels employed by a researcher for a paper not even related to human sexuality.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes they are Little Terry.
Exactly
<quoted text>As it relates to marriage, it's relevant today, just as much as it was ten years ago, 20 years ago, thirty....forty...
Gender still exists wether the marriage includes opposite sex or same sex couples, small Peter. Until you can provide a legitimate compelling government interest to limit the combination of genders within a marriage to only opposite sexes, such a restriction is unconstitutional. Historical discrimination isn't a constitutionally valid interest to perpetuate such discrimination.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15908 Jan 24, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be no same sex marriage, there should only be traditional marriage.
We all agree on that. And funny thing: So does every jurisdiction that has adopted marriage equality.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#15909 Jan 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>This is rich; lides quoting Scalia for his judicial wisdom.
Scalia dissented; he believes the state has an interest in moral behavior around marriage. I hope he leads when same sex marriage get's to the Supreme Court; he's already got them foxed.
Actually, Scalia believes in discrimination against gays. He believes in second-class citizenship, not just in marriage, but also in punishment as well as public accommodations. Citing his "wisdom" exposes your lie that you support equal treatment of gays. You support a man who'd rather have us all thrown in jail.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15910 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Just a few. We both know both the historical, and contemporary widespread usage and understanding of that word references husband and wife.
http://bridgesandtangents.wordpress.com/2012/...
In defence of conjugality: the common-good case against same-sex marriage
March 17, 2012 by Fr Stephen Wang
http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjug...
World English Dictionary
conjugal
— adj
of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: conjugal rights
[C16: from Latin conjug&#257;lis, from conjunx wife or husband, from conjungere to unite; see conjoin ]
Why would you expect the historical usage of the word "conjugal" to include same sex couples when historically same sex couples were discriminated against and not allowed to marry? And even your dictionary citation doesn't limit the definition to only husband and wife since it also gives as a definition "of or relating to marriage" which in the US now includes same sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, no requirement, and you can spout that ad nauseum to dodge the obvious. Marriage is recognized do to procreative aspect of the male female union.
The sterile and infertile have always been allowed to marry with no disconnect between them and the state's interest in encouragement of procreation.
If procreation isn't a requirement and sterile and infertile have always been allowed to marry, then procreation isn't a legitimate compelling state interest to prevent same sex couples from marrying. Even Justice Scalia recognizes this obvious legal fact that you're too stupid to understand.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They are, and they do.
Such equal protection already exists for those two people, a man AND a woman.
Equal protection doesn't universally exist based on the human characteristic of sexual orientation. That's what is being corrected.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does the state interest, and it's constitutional.
You've yet to provide a legitimate compelling state interest for your position, muchness proven it constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Enough courts have already done that.
Name one that has done so recently taking into account the SCOTUS gay rights rulings in Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. United States.

And here's a hint: your usual copy and paste job citing nothing but cases prior to 1980 doesn't qualify.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Funny stuff!
The constitutional guarantee of protection for all ALREADY EXISTS as it relates to marriage.
Not with regards to its application to sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Maybe I'll go see the Wizard of Oz, you can go too.....but you'll have to dress as Dorothy!
I doubt the Wizard could fix your myriad educational and intellectual deficiencies.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15911 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Territorial laws for Nevada define marriage as a male female union in 1861....long before sexual identity labels were invented.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jan/22/s...
CARSON CITY — The Sandoval administration urged a federal appeals court to uphold the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing it serves the "legitimate purpose of preserving traditional marriage" and is entrenched in the state's history.
The brief filed by the attorney general's office late Tuesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes as federal courts have struck down similar laws in other states. Gay couples in the case argue that Nevada's ban is unconstitutional and that a law allowing domestic partnerships made same-sex couples second-class citizens.
"Nevada law that defines marriage to be between a man and a woman is legitimate, whether measured under equal protection or due process standards," the brief said. "The interest of the state in defining marriage in this manner is motivated by the state's desire to protect and perpetuate traditional marriage."
The governor in the brief filed by Solicitor General C. Wayne Howle also argued that Nevada's marriage laws are rooted in history that predates statehood.
"Even before statehood, the 1861 territorial laws defined marriage as existing between 'a male and a female,'" the document said. "The same limitation on marriage was codified in 1867 ... and is substantially the same today."
He added, "Nevada's statutes evince a strong encouragement of marriage in its traditional form. These laws are not based on policy whimsy; they are grounded in policy as deeply rooted as any that exists in Nevada law.
"They define Nevada society."
A federal judge upheld the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage in 2012. U.S District Judge Robert Jones rejected arguments raised by eight same-sex couples that an amendment passed by voters in 2002 defining marriage as between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
On Tuesday, the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage, the group that successfully pushed the amendment, said in its appellate brief that the traditional definition of marriage furthers Nevada's interest in "maximizing the number of children who are raised by their own biological parents."
Given the ruling this week in a juror exclusion case by the 9th circuit Appellate court declaring sexual orientation a quasi-suspect class subject to heightened scrutiny for cases within the 9th circuit (which includes Nevada), Nevada's same sex marriage ban will almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional. That standard of judicial review shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the state and also requires analysis based on the actual reasons for the ban as communicated to voters when it was adopted and not the enumeration of any after the fact rationale that can be articulated as the state's brief does presuming rational basis will be the standard of judicial review.

So another unconstitutional same sex marriage ban will soon bite the dust.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15912 Jan 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
This is rich; lides quoting Scalia for his judicial wisdom.
Actually, Lides quoted Scalia's dissent to demonstrate even conservative SCOTUS Justices recognize that laws targeting gays are based on moral arguments and the Lawrence v. Texas ruling removes moral arguments as a constitutionally valid reason for discriminatory laws.
Brian_G wrote:
Scalia dissented; he believes the state has an interest in moral behavior around marriage.
Scalia was in the minority and his view didn't prevail. So the law of the land precludes using morality as justification for discriminatory laws in the US, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I hope he leads when same sex marriage get's to the Supreme Court; he's already got them foxed.
Scalia is just as bound by SCOTUS precedent as any other Justice, Brian. Of course precedent can be overruled but that's still an infrequent happening at the Supreme Court level.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15913 Jan 24, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
This is rich; lides quoting Scalia for his judicial wisdom.
Scalia dissented; he believes the state has an interest in moral behavior around marriage. I hope he leads when same sex marriage get's to the Supreme Court; he's already got them foxed.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The precedent he has already laid down leave him with little room to maneuver. Were you not an idiot, you might understand that.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#15914 Jan 24, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that they can marry doesn't negate the obvious, marriage and procreation are linked, and always have been linked. Maybe on planet XBox, where humans reproduce asexually, or via spontaneous connection, it has no connection, but here on earth it still does.
and just where is it a requirement to procreate? where is it a requirement that only married couple procreate? what is the legal punishment of the people that procreate without being married?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15915 Jan 24, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There should be no same sex marriage, there should only be traditional marriage.
Too late now!
http://makeitequal.org/

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15916 Jan 24, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Actually, Scalia believes in discrimination against gays. He believes in second-class citizenship, not just in marriage, but also in punishment as well as public accommodations. Citing his "wisdom" exposes your lie that you support equal treatment of gays. You support a man who'd rather have us all thrown in jail.
Take it up with T.F.; I didn't quote Scalia. Some people don't care about the welfare of homosexuals; they are interested in political power.

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 This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 10 min oh snap! 44
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 26 min WasteWater 15,823
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 31 min WasteWater 65
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 34 min June VanDerMark 11,293
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 44 min Frankie Rizzo 173
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 45 min Respect71 38,747
News Clooney's restraining order 1 hr Stoned luck aka l... 99
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... 2 hr okimar 19
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,957
More from around the web