Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
2,341 - 2,360 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2460
Feb 15, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>One whole trio?!? how's the sky looking chicken little? so if all of the hundred or so polygamists in the US got married, assuming the laws were created to make them equal to current marriages, what big whoop would that be to you?
no breakdown of society, no rioting in the streets, no atonal music...just life as usual...
All the more reason to welcome Kody and his ladies into the "marriage equality" clubhouse. The more the merrier....the line is always shifting don't ya know. Besides they're stars....might even brighten up the clubhouse.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2461
Feb 15, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you offer unsupportable fear mongering and pejorative terminology, but no rational, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right.
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
That "fundamental right" still has to be defined and regulated by the state. A right by the way, which you already possess.
Reasonable restrictions can only be made if they they present a compelling and legitimate governmental interest. Reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.
Who are what determines the resonableness of the restriction.
Gay couples are asking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Why should a state have to recognize a relationship it does not wish to?
Equal treatment under the laws currently in effect do not change the restrictions due to age, informed consent, not being closely related, currently married, or human.
Is equal treatment applied to the individual, or the "couple"?
Neither tradition nor gender provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.
What about simple biological differences? Men and women are different? Human reproduction is sexual? Are any of these sufficient? If not, why?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2462
Feb 15, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Promote full equality. Treat all loving couples the same under one law: Marriage. Stop inventing novel institutions that allow anything goes.
First, equality does not demand elimination of distinction, difference, or biology. Second, it is you who are inventing not one, but two novel institutions, one gay male, one lesbian female.
Lastly, those "loving couples" ARE treated different under the same law. There is one significant aspect of American marital jurisprudence that cannot apply to same sex couples. Please explain, how legal language, which addresses the sexual aspects of the male female marital relationship, apply to same sex couples? How can a SSCs, consumate their marriage? Consumate as in the first act of marital coital sexual intercourse. Explain how the "presumption of paternity" applies to a same sex couple, male or female?

Perhaps you could explain why marriage between opposite sex siblings is not allowed even though "marriage is not about procreation"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2463
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where US law has ever required procreation ability, intent, or even the possibility of having sex.
(It never has. There is no such requirement.)
Dear Not Yet Equal, but maybe Splenda

Such a silly question. Why would there have to be such requirements? Is conjugal marriage a new idea, conjured up within the last 20 years or so? Or does it predate the birth of the republic? You can't honestly be claiming that married folks wouldn't have sex, or make babies unless there was a legal requirement to do so, are you? Is that what the quest for SSM has done to your reasoning abilities?
Again, the line has been drawn at two people. Rational reasons have been presented and acknowledged all the way to the Supreme Court. They will have to overcome those rational arguments if they want to change the laws that determine "what" marriage is for everyone.
Not all of those reasons were "rational". Some were based on religious predjudice, Anti Mormon to be exact. Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why is it acceptable for a man to father several children out of wedlock with different women. Live with those women. Provided emotional, financial, and physical support for his children and their mothers. All perfectly acceptable by law, save Utah, and maybe a few other states with anti cohabitation laws on the books. By your reasoning, forgive me if I mischaracterize it, its unreasonable, unacceptable, not part of the 'marriage equality' manifesto, for said man to legally call those women his wives, and they inturn call him their husband. I just don't get it. Why does it bother you, or the rest of the "marriage equality" crowd, a so mucha?
Treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect does not change the "what" of marriage for opposite sex or same sex couples. Only the "who" is expanded by removing the gender restriction. Poly arrangements require changing the "what" of marriage for everyone.
Not so fast Splenda. SSM maintains the number at the cost of nature. Plural marriage, maintains the nature, but not the number. A plural marriage arrangement, ala Kody and his wives, is still about husband and wife, and wife, and wife, and wife. The marriages have been consumated, children begotten, paternity presumed, and marital relations engaged in.
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Fundamental rights may only be delayed or restricted when a legitimate and compelling governmental interest for doing so can be demonstrated. You provide no rational legitimate governmental interest in restricting equal participation under the laws currently in effect based on gender.
There's no compelling need for it. Seriously, if men don't marry men, and women don't marry women, what will happen? Nothing! There's no interest there.
1+ 1 never equals more than two married people.(Children aren't married to their parents. Same sex couples can adopt or reproduce using the same assisted methods straight couples use.)
Its simple BI-OL-LO-GEE. What method can a same sex couple use that allows the children to born into a conjugal marriage of husband and wife? Whats the difference between a female SSC using ART, and a single woman who uses ART, and is going to raise the child in live in partnership with her sister?
(Additionally, same sex marriage is nothing new. It may be rare, but examples can be found at various times and places.)
See, we agree on something. I've always said, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex relationships, SSM is a modern Western invention. Boswell's work, and conclusions, regarding male ss union in medeivel Europe are highly questionable.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2464
Feb 15, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, equality does not demand elimination of distinction, difference, or biology. Second, it is you who are inventing not one, but two novel institutions, one gay male, one lesbian female.
Lastly, those "loving couples" ARE treated different under the same law. There is one significant aspect of American marital jurisprudence that cannot apply to same sex couples. Please explain, how legal language, which addresses the sexual aspects of the male female marital relationship, apply to same sex couples? How can a SSCs, consumate their marriage?
I can't speak for every state, but I've read the marriage laws in New England states quite thoroughly. Not one of them says anything about consummation. In any event, I find your interest in the wedding night disturbing and perverted.
Consumate as in the first act of marital coital sexual intercourse. Explain how the "presumption of paternity" applies to a same sex couple, male or female?
This is quite simple: Children born into a marriage area assumed to be offspring of that marriage, unless parenthood is challenged. This is actually the issue in the Miller-Jenkins kidnapping. Jenkins was presumed to be a parent based on her civil union with Miller. That is why Miller is an international fugitive who kidnapped their child.
Perhaps you could explain why marriage between opposite sex siblings is not allowed even though "marriage is not about procreation"?
There are probably many good reasons why society prohibits sibling marriage. Manipulation is high on the list. Procreation is, of course, always a POSSIBILITY in marriage. It is simply not a requirement. And the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage do not depend in any way on whether or not procreation has occurred.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2465
Feb 15, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps Rosie you could explain what it means "to marry"? Why a distinction is made?
Well, if you are so stupid you don't know what it means to marry, I can't help you.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2466
Feb 15, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
If we ever lose gender integrated marriage, and people start gender segregation marriage, they'll go after brother/sister incest and polygamy next.
When will prison rape become legal in MD? You said if gay marriage becomes legal, prison rape will become legal, too.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2468
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Most same sex marriage supporters refuse to consider the consequences of their policy.
.
Such as what?
The legalization of prison rape?
Forced prison marriages?
Forced marriages between members of pro sports teams?
I understand why your arguments embarrass you and you won't deal with them.
But you did claim that gay marriage would lead to those things
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Every justification for same sex marriage will be used to support brother/sister incest marriage and polygamy.
.
Each issue can stand or fall on its own merits.
The fact other issues may come up in the future isn't a good argument against gay marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There is an incest taboo, just as there is a same sex marriage taboo. There's no scientific evidence adult brother/sister incest is harmful, that's just an excuse to impose your religious values.
.
<quoted text>Why should Muslims be denied marriage equality if homosexuals can redefine marriage for their marriage equality?
.
Do you have to put your religion on the marriage license form?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage would create new intrusive government regulations around marriage,
Like legalizing prison rape?
Brian_G wrote:
more wasteful government spending on a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries and higher taxes to pay for it all.
Single people would be harmed economically by same sex marriage.
But not straight marriage?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Here's Not Yet Equal citing a Westboro Baptist Church religious argument. Wow, talk about clueless!
OK, let's talk about you.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2469
Feb 15, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Brother and sister aren't next of kin, if they are married to someone else or have children. So, in the case of brother/sister incest marriage, those couples won't be deprived marriage equality, just like same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>Marriage is everyone's business, single and married. Marriage isn't for everybody.
It wasn't for you...

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2470
Feb 15, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That "fundamental right" still has to be defined and regulated by the state. A right by the way, which you already possess.
<quoted text>
Who are what determines the resonableness of the restriction.
<quoted text>
Why should a state have to recognize a relationship it does not wish to?
<quoted text>
Is equal treatment applied to the individual, or the "couple"?
<quoted text>
What about simple biological differences? Men and women are different? Human reproduction is sexual? Are any of these sufficient? If not, why?
Well, stupid, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2471
Feb 15, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, equality does not demand elimination of distinction, difference, or biology. Second, it is you who are inventing not one, but two novel institutions, one gay male, one lesbian female.
Lastly, those "loving couples" ARE treated different under the same law. There is one significant aspect of American marital jurisprudence that cannot apply to same sex couples. Please explain, how legal language, which addresses the sexual aspects of the male female marital relationship, apply to same sex couples? How can a SSCs, consumate their marriage? Consumate as in the first act of marital coital sexual intercourse. Explain how the "presumption of paternity" applies to a same sex couple, male or female?
Perhaps you could explain why marriage between opposite sex siblings is not allowed even though "marriage is not about procreation"?
LOL! You are so stupid! You actually think these are issues? None of the answers to your silly questions matter!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2472
Feb 16, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Again, you offer unsupportable fear mongering and pejorative terminology,... for denial of a fundamental right....
Marriage isn't for everyone, there's no right to brother/sister incest marriage, polygamy, bestial marriage or same sex marriage, unless you get more citizens to agree to your plans.

Changing marriage without the consent of the governed is like forced marriage, without consent of your spouse. If you love freedom, keep marriage gender diverse and keep gender segregated marriage out of state.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2473
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

BACKLASS?

I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if Medicare, Madicaid or Social Security is cut or threatened. I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if we don't get universal single payer health care. I would like to see the Church stir up a backlash in reply to the violation of people voting rights or the rights of working people to collective bargaining.
If the Church won't stand for justice, but only AGAINST some people's rights, then we'd be better off without the Church. To hell with it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2474
Feb 16, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for every state, but I've read the marriage laws in New England states quite thoroughly. Not one of them says anything about consummation.
Dig a little deeper, explore marital case law, even divorce law, which failure to consumate can be grounds for divorce.
In any event, I find your interest in the wedding night disturbing and perverted.
Simple biology, sometimes, nine months later little nhjeff is born. You do know where babies come from, don't you? Ohhhhhhh...so that's it....Dad never had "the talk" with you. Perhaps its not too late. Or maybe you do know, but can't understand why you're not pregnant yet. Then you definately need to have "the talk".
This is quite simple: Children born into a marriage area assumed to be offspring of that marriage, unless parenthood is challenged. This is actually the issue in the Miller-Jenkins kidnapping. Jenkins was presumed to be a parent based on her civil union with Miller. That is why Miller is an international fugitive who kidnapped their child.
Hmmmmmmm...the concept is "presumption of paternity". Say one half of a lesbian couple, at an office party, finds herself strangely attracted to a male coworker and friend. She and he, become "better aquainted", so to speak. Before ya know it, she finds herself in a family way. Assuming she maintains the pregnancy to term, and decides to keep the child, do you think that anyone will presume her female partner is the father? Suppose the father want to assert paternal rights? Would that trump, her female partner's "parenthood" claim?
There are probably many good reasons why society prohibits sibling marriage. Manipulation is high on the list.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that sex, and the possible result, conception, is at the top of the list, and quite possibly the sole legitimate reason why its prohibited. Now if same sex siblings were to seek marriage recognition, or at least all those 1000 plus benefits, that the nice gay couples want, there'd be no reason to deny them based on sex.
Procreation is, of course, always a POSSIBILITY in marriage.
Praise the Lord, finally some sanity. I see you had "the talk". Very good. Its refreshing to see someone on the proSSM side recognize that procreation and marriage are linked.
It is simply not a requirement. And the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage do not depend in any way on whether or not procreation has occurred.
Seriously, "It is simply not a requirement."? What legally, culturally, religiously, etc.? Considering that marriage since the dawn of time has been virtually an exclusive male female relationship, would there really be a need for any society to "require" procreation for marriage? Just so that in the year 2001 plus, in the United States of America, some folks could try to justify same sex marriage?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2475
Feb 16, 2013
 
Savant wrote:
BACKLASS?
I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if Medicare, Madicaid or Social Security is cut or threatened. I would like to see the Church promise a backlash if we don't get universal single payer health care. I would like to see the Church stir up a backlash in reply to the violation of people voting rights or the rights of working people to collective bargaining.
I think that might violate tenents of the Social Gospel
If the Church won't stand for justice, but only AGAINST some people's rights, then we'd be better off without the Church. To hell with it.
Actually they're standing up for all people in this regard, particularly the children, who seem largely forgotten in the desire for "rights". The right to marry already exists, just because some folks don't want to exercise it the same way as the it is intended, doesn't mean they don't have the right in the first place.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2476
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, stupid, you don't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.
True, and some married folks reproduce the stupid. Smile, you're on Candid Camera.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2477
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
(Gill)

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2479
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage isn't for everyone,
It wasn't for you!
Brian_G wrote:
there's no right to brother/sister incest marriage, polygamy, bestial marriage or same sex marriage, unless you get more citizens to agree to your plans.
The lack of gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment.
Brian_G wrote:
Changing marriage without the consent of the governed
Is what was done with Loving v VA.
Do you have a problem with that?
Brian_G wrote:
is like forced marriage, without consent of your spouse. If you love freedom, keep marriage gender diverse and keep gender segregated marriage out of state.
You're not big on that "logic" thing, are you?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2480
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't for you!
<quoted text>
The lack of gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment.
<quoted text>
Is what was done with Loving v VA.
Do you have a problem with that?
<quoted text>
You're not big on that "logic" thing, are you?
A superior colored man ... and a Scotch woman': interracial marriages in New York City, 1850-1870.
When interviewed by a pension official in 1893, Ellen Davis stated that she was fifty-nine years old, employed as a washerwoman, and that she was born in Scotland. The widow spoke affectionately of her husband John Davis, a veteran of Company G of the 26th United States Colored Infantry who had passed away in 1887 at the age of seventy. The two had married at their home in Brooklyn in 1879 and settled down to raise Ellen's three children from her previous marriage. She recalled, "I had three children by my first husband [.H]is name was James Ronald [and] he was a Scotsman. I married him in Chanden, Scotland in 1859. We went to Australia within two weeks after we were married.... and lived on a sheep farm.... I lived there two years when his health began to fail and we moved back to Scotland." Her husband died soon thereafter and Ellen Davis moved to New York City in 1874 to stay with her cousin. Three years later, she met John Davis who worked as a sawyer in a mill. The Davis couple was well-liked in their neighborhood. According to a local official, "He was a superior colored man, a sawyer by trade, and was considered an honest and truthful man....[she] is a Scotch woman [who] speaks with a strong Scotch accent [and] appears to [be] honest and truthful." (1)
The marriage of John and Ellen Davis was one between a white woman and an African-American man, a Scottish immigrant and a native New Yorker, and two working class laborers. While one might assume that such relationships were rare in the nineteenth century, a close examination of United States Manuscript Census Records in New York City for 1850, 1860, and 1870 indicates that such interracial, cross-cultural marriages constituted five to seven percent of married couples living in predominantly black neighborhoods. The number of interracial marriages varied over the twenty year period under investigation but skyrocketed following the Civil War. Census records indicate that there were 29 interracial marriages in 1850, 19 in 1860, and 116 in 1870. The vast majority of such relationships occurred between black men and white women often between an African-American male born in the United States and a woman who had immigrated from Europe, most of whom were Irish, Scottish, or English.(2) While mixed-race couples in different regions and in different eras faced tremendous resistance, such couples were not uncommon in mid-nineteenth-century New York City. Interracial couples often married in black churches in New York, worked in the city, sent their children to local African schools, and successfully interacted with government institutions, including pension officials, local court representatives, and census takers.
This article examines why such interracial relationships were not unusual to New York City from 1850 to 1870.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2481
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Interracial marriages in NYC in the mid 19th century. Who would've thunk it? Now what year was the Loving case?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••