Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15972 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The person writing "hate the constitution" is Terra Firma; not me. I just noticed same sex marriage law created by courts is antidemocratic.
No village idiot, you didn't "notice" it, you simply "pretended" it. There's a huge difference.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15973 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see Oklahoma, Utah, California, Iowa and Massachusetts for proof.
All you're saying is that you believe that the LEGAL PROCESS is antidemocratic. The way things were done in those states is not unique to same-sex marriage. Many laws are enforced by the courts.

What about Washington, Maine, and Maryland, Brian? What about those? What do THEY prove about same-sex marriage?

Neither group of states prove anything about same-sex marriage. They all only prove that the legal process is sometimes different from the democratic process. But both processes are important to our legal system.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15974 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitaminit.....who said anything about "equals"?
Did you wife adopt you as her child? It would seem so given your grade school level education and knowledge.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The mantra, as a few SSMers have chanted is seems to be about "establishing legal kinship between previously unrelated parties.. Adoption does that.
Marriage doesn't establish kinship as a parent-child relationship, stupid Peter. Really, must everything always be spelled out of you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage establishes a man and a woman as husband and wife.
And husband and husband as well as wife and wife. Got to account for all marriage in the US, stupid Peter, not just those you wish to recognize.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no valid reason to create "husband and husband", or "wife and wife".
There's just as valid a reason as there is for husband and wife. The establishment of kinship creates a new family unit as well as "in-law" relationships between the families of each of the marriage partners.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a rational basis to establish kinship.
Kinship is what results from exercising one's fundamental right of marriage. People don't need justify to you or anyone else why they wish to establish kinship. They need only meet any restrictions placed on the exercise of a fundamental right (which much be based on a legitimate compelling state interest that rationally relates the the restriction to said interest).

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15975 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does that mean ANY valid contract, regardless of its intention, and purpose, must be recognized by another state? So any state can dictate the marriage laws of any other state?
This has nothing to do with dictating laws, only with recognizing legal contracts. Given that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been ratified, states which do not recognize the marriages of other states are in conflict with the Constitution. Don’t pretend that this is a settled issue. Only section 2 of DOMA keeps this up in the air.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any one can "choose their spouse", assuming one desires a spouse, without state involvement
Of course state involvement is required. Who are you kidding?
Pietro Armando wrote:
even choose a relative to be their "spouse"
Only cousins, who are barely related anyway, and may not be by blood.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not nearly astounding as your belief that one state should be able to dictate another state's definition of marriage within their borders.
That happens ANYWAY. Are you not following? Did I fail to mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Nope, I mentioned it. What’s astounding is your short-term memory loss.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They still have the right to define marriage, as it's been defined for all but ten years of the history of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
LOL! They have the “right” to define marriage according to the definition you’ve laid out here? Do they have the right to define it any OTHER way besides the definition you’ve given? If they can’t change it to something else, then what “right” are they actually exercising?
Pietro Armando wrote:
No state should be able to force on another state such a fundamental redefinition of marriage on another state. If Utah were to recognize plural marriage, should every state be forced to, as well?
Can they do that? CAN Utah simply decide to recognize plural marriage? You JUST GOT DONE telling me that states have the right to define marriage. Doesn’t that mean that Utah can recognize whatever they want?

They can’t do whatever they want in contradiction to the US Constitution. Including disregarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You watch what happens to these laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, but it should be a license to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife which is consistent nation wide.
Well, now those laws are NOT consistent nationwide. My marriage won’t be recognized in Alabama. What do we do now?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another pro polygamy comment.
I’m certainly pro-polygamy, guilty as charged. I’m open to more changes in the name of fairness. Why aren't you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I did?
Yes. In my post #15828, I said that you’ll have to work fast to convince courts not to grant anymore same-sex marriage rights. In your reply #15838, you said that I should also act fast, before existing rights change again. Why? What worries should I have, if I don’t “act fast”? Plural marriages are no threat to mine. Even incestuous ones, should the state choose to recognize them, will have no bearing on my own marriage. What benefit will I gain if I “act fast”, that I might lose if I act slowly?
Pietro Armando wrote:
"More marriages"? Plural marriages? Who then determines what constitutes "marriage"? Can anyone declare there relationship "marriage" and expect the state to recognize it as such?
Sure. Two unmarried, unrelated adults who wish to become family. I think you’re going to find little resistance to this definition, and more and more states leaning that way. There's no reason to WANT to exclude same-sex couples.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15976 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Legal kinship can be established through adoption, as well.
Um, how is this an argument? Are you suggesting that gay people should ADOPT each other to establish kinship?

As if you need to be told, adoption establishes a very particular kind of kinship, that of parent and child. Please tell me you're not so obtuse that you don't see the difference between the kinship that a parent and child share, and the kinship that independant adults share (or at least seek).
Pietro Armando wrote:
There must be something more to marriage than just that.
There is. Marriage is nothing like adoption. You've been ridiculous before, but don't be THIS ridiculous.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That would be joining a man and woman as husband and wife.
And that unnecessarily narrow view leaves gay and lesbian couples with no legal recourse whatsoever for building a family, protecting their loved ones and fully sharing their futures. Which is FAR more "to the heart of the issue" of marriage than simply insisting on two genders. Two people of the same gender have the same hopes and needs in this respect.

People who are already family don't need legal recourse to build a family. The state already recognizes their kinship.

Three or more people deteriorates the protection they can offer one another (unless 1,138 rewrites are offered up, which I'd be open to), and calls their commitment into question.

Allowing gay people to form legal unions of another kind, such as civil unions, belabors the point of segregation, unless significant differences between marriages and civil unions can be outlined.

Arguing that marriage ensures that children are raised by their biological parents ignores every instance where that doesn't happen yet marriages are recognized anyway, and it's contradictory in the face of support for adoption by gay couples.

Does that about cover all your points? I'm sorry, but you just seem to have nothing resembling a cogent argument. "Adoption". Really?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15977 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Well then....SSM is legally recognized by every state in the Union, right? Or not?
No, some states still have unconstitutional laws which bar same sex marriage. They will be overturned, because dullards, like yourself, lack the grey matter to come up with a legitimate argument to defend such laws.

When, rather "if," you grow a brain, you will realize that there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15978 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What a card you are Rainbow Kid....let me guess you ride a rainbow pony.
"If"? Silly kid.....there's no "if", 150 years of court cases stating just that proves that.
Here's a few.....again for the heterosexually challenged.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-hsiao/refe...
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
A “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race.”– Adams v. Howerton (C.D. Cal. 1980) 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124, affirmed on other grounds (9th Cir. 1982) 673 F.2d 1036.
This “central purpose... provides the kind of rational basis... permitting limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples.”– Dean v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1995) 653 A.2d 307, 337 (Ferren, J., concurring and dissenting).
It's rather ironic that all but one of the jurisdictions whose cases you cite now give legal recognition to same sex marriage. Guess procreation wasn't such an important aspect of marriage after all, stupid Peter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15979 Jan 25, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still can't distinguish between "function" and "requirement" I see.
Apparently you're blind, because I can.
No matter how many times you trot out this long cut and paste, it remains irrelevant. Marriage does not require procreation. It never has, it never will
No many how many times you state the obvious, as we all know, that marriage doesn't require procreation, doesn't negate it's function as it relates to marriage, and why e state recognizes it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15980 Jan 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, some states still have unconstitutional laws which bar same sex marriage.
No, some states constitutionally define marriage, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the legal understanding and/or definition of marriage for all but ten years of American history.
They will be overturned, because dullards, like yourself, lack the grey matter to come up with a legitimate argument to defend such laws.
Perhaps, perhaps not, because chooches like yourself lack the smarts to come up with a rational reason why conjugality, as the basis of legal marriage, should be dropped, and no other defining characteristic.
When, rather "if," you grow a brain, you will realize that there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Yet, there have been courts who stated there is a state interest to maintain marriage as sundown of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Individual parties to a "same sex couple" are still men and women. So why should they be treated differently than other men and women? Why should they be told their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, shouldn't be exercised like any other man or woman? Why do advocate unequal treatment?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15981 Jan 25, 2014
Overturning elections is antidemocratic; same sex marriage came to America by court order against legislation and referendum.

Same sex marriage is more than antidemocratic; its the death of freedom.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15982 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Overturning elections is antidemocratic; same sex marriage came to America by court order against legislation and referendum.
Same sex marriage is more than antidemocratic; its the death of freedom.
Overturning unconstitutional elections is a duty of our judiciary. Same sex marriage came to America by judicial review of the constitutionality of misguided legislations and referenda, which has been consistently found to be lacking.

Same-sex marriage was implemented fully democratically (though civil rights should not be subject to democratic vote) in Washington state, Maine, and Maryland, yet you don't acknowledge this. Denying same-sex marriage recognition is more than just unconstitutional, it's the same trampling of freedom that gay people have ALWAYS coped with.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15983 Jan 26, 2014
Those referendums complied with the law; same sex marriage is antidemocratic. There is no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone to satiate your sexual desire.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15984 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Those referendums complied with the law
The resulting amendments did not.
Brian_G wrote:
same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Most civil rights are. The very idea of a Constitution is antidemocratic. There are reasons we don't just allow the majority to decide EVERYTHING. Some things MUST be taken out of the hands of the majority.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone to satiate your sexual desire.
If you think that the relationship of two gay people can be no deeper than sexual desire, then there may be no way to help you understand this issue. If you refuse to have any empathy for how the law disadvantages some people, then you will only have yourself to blame for your frustrations when the law is changed.

Since we are succeeding at "rewriting marriage law for everyone", I think we obviously DO have the right to do so. Although, I think you'd be hard pressed to explain how this "rewriting" of the law affects you in the least.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15985 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Overturning elections is antidemocratic; same sex marriage came to America by court order against legislation and referendum.
Same sex marriage is more than antidemocratic; its the death of freedom.
Brian, don't be an idiot. The courts are absolutely part of the democratic process, and at the federal level largely exist to do away with laws that defy the US Constitution.

Why do you hate the US Constitution?

Why do you long for majority tyranny and mob rule?

How would you feel if the majority suddenly became muslims and decided to enact Sharia law? Would you not want the court to intervene and declare such a move unconstitutional, or would that be undemocratic?

Moron.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15986 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Those referendums complied with the law; same sex marriage is antidemocratic. There is no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone to satiate your sexual desire.
Brian, you are an idiot, and the referendums were overturned because they were unconstitutional.

The action of the courts is absolutely democratic, you ****ing moron.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15987 Jan 26, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, some states constitutionally define marriage, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the legal understanding and/or definition of marriage for all but ten years of American history.
Let's see if we can make your argument slightly less stupid by taking a look at its foundation, shall we?

What compelling state interest is served by such a definition, which expressly excludes same sex couples from marriage. Be specific.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not, because chooches like yourself lack the smarts to come up with a rational reason why conjugality, as the basis of legal marriage, should be dropped, and no other defining characteristic.
First of all, you look like an idiot when you keep misusing that word. I know what you think it means, but it simply doesn't look it up, the word itself means "relating to marriage or to a married couple" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con...
Twit.
Even if it DID mean what you think it means, that argument has been cast aside by none other than Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v Texas.
Scalia dissenting in Lawrence v Texas
"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's dissent in Lawrence v Texas http://www.law.co r nell.edu/supct/htm l/02-102.ZD.html
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yet, there have been courts who stated there is a state interest to maintain marriage as sundown of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
What were you attempting to say?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Individual parties to a "same sex couple" are still men and women. So why should they be treated differently than other men and women? Why should they be told their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, shouldn't be exercised like any other man or woman? Why do advocate unequal treatment?
Because it is not unequal treatment. For the state to intervene and tell a loving, consenting, adult couple that they may not marry is unequal, and thus far you seem to lack the ability or intelligence to articulate a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional, and begin to indicate that you aren't a complete imbecile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15988 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Overturning elections is antidemocratic; same sex marriage came to America by court order against legislation and referendum.
Same sex marriage is more than antidemocratic; its the death of freedom.
What a dope.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15989 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Those referendums complied with the law; same sex marriage is antidemocratic. There is no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone to satiate your sexual desire.
You have no franchise on marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15990 Jan 26, 2014
Ok, here's a quiz if you believe rewriting marriage laws to satiate sexual desire is a fundamental right; which of the following are also fundamental rights.

The right to have anal sex without risk of HIV.

The right to have sex in public parks.

The right to force your family to embrace your homosexuality.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15991 Jan 26, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Those referendums complied with the law; same sex marriage is antidemocratic. There is no right to rewrite marriage law for everyone to satiate your sexual desire.
Cool your jets; sugar
.
None of the marriage laws for homophobes; pedophiles; and straight people have been rewritten

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 Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 3 min haha 3,107
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 6 min Deeper than Truth 201,863
News Antigay Kentucky Clerk Inadvertently Married Th... 11 min Old Kentuckin 18
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 28 min tongangodz 7,237
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 28 min Old Kentuckin 373
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 35 min NoahLovesU 8,779
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 50 min NoahLovesU 34,839
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 50 min NorCal Native 298
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 3 hr WasteWater 1,168
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr NoahLovesU 25,785
More from around the web