Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9738 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves.
No Brian, it DOESN'T.......that's just your rhetoric coming through!!!

Actually the ONLY problem with having the right to marry the person of one's choosing is people like you trying to MAKE problems that don't really exist except for in your mind or the empty space between your ears......lol!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9739 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Welcome back. How can a same sex couple be treated "equally" as an opposite sex couple under law, when the composition of the two pairings are different.
Simple, the law treats them equally.

How dumb, do you want me to believe that you are? Because I already think that a rock could best you in an argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you suggesting a man be treated as a woman, and vice versa? How can that be constitutional?
I'm suggesting that both are constitutionally entitled to equal protection of the law, which does not require physical equality. Were you not an imbecile, you would understand that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You're assuming that applies to marriage as well, and the Supreme Courts has rendered an opinion stating that, including same sex marriage. If they have, please cite a link.
You've yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Until you do so, there is also no reason why full faith and credit would not apply to those legal marriages.

Grow up, grow a brain.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9740 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves.
What problem does it create?? How is two men getting married toe ach other hurt you or anyone outside that marriage????

This should be good....It will be lies and BS but funny.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9741 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves.
How? Be specific.

This is your chance to prove that you are not a moron... Or to prove that you are.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9742 Sep 11, 2013
"To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9743 Sep 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
What ever Josh Weed decided.......it was his and his best friends decision to make......but you CAN NOT expect other Gay men to follow his decision and that is what you figure they should do!!!
I have no expectation what other self described gay men, or women do, or don't do.
Sorry, but EVERY person regardless of their sexual orientation should be able to decide for themselves who they want to marry.
And they can, plus ya don't need the state to do that! The state is not obligated to license every individual definition of marriage, if it was, polygamy would be legal, as would incest.
.....and you can't grasp that or at least you pretend not to grasp that concept.......and procreation has NO BEARING on the couple's decision to marry!!!
Why an individual couple chooses to marry is irrelevant as to why marriage is even recognized by the state to begin with. If not for the fact that sex between men and women makes babies, marriage wouldn't exist as we know it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9744 Sep 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple, the law treats them equally.
How can it? Unless of course you're arguing that men and women are interchangeable androgynous beings.
How dumb, do you want me to believe that you are? Because I already think that a rock could best you in an argument.
So that's what u do when you're to on topix, argue with rocks.
I'm suggesting that both are constitutionally entitled to equal protection of the law, which does not require physical equality. Were you not an imbecile, you would understand that.
As it pertains to marriage, they are.
You've yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
You have yet to offer a compelling governmental reason why the individual parties should be denied to exercise their right, as men, or women, to marry.
Until you do so, there is also no reason why full faith and credit would not apply to those legal marriages.
Grow up, grow a brain.
Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, each state is free to define marriage as they choose, and are not forced to recognized a relationship contrary to their definition of marriage.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9745 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can it? Unless of course you're arguing that men and women are interchangeable androgynous beings.
How does the state treat husbands and wives now? They treat them as SPOUSES! There is nothing in any of the laws that govern married couples that treat 'husbands' any different;y than 'wives'. They each get treated as SPOUSES! And two males or two females legally married get treated as SPOUSES by the state.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9746 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sorry, repeat.......but you want your version of marriage to continue as you believe it should, hell......you probably even commend Josh Weed for doing the "RIGHT" thing........HOWEVER, Gays and Lesbians are getting married to those they love and want to share a life with and NOT based on the sexual parts.........again, sorry that you have an issue with that!!!

Yes, couples can get married without state involvement......but then they also don't get the state or federal rights, benefits and privileges that happen to go with the State issued marriage license......again, sorry you can't grasp that!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9747 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no expectation what other self described gay men, or women do, or don't do.
<quoted text>
And they can, plus ya don't need the state to do that! The state is not obligated to license every individual definition of marriage, if it was, polygamy would be legal, as would incest.
<quoted text>
Why an individual couple chooses to marry is irrelevant as to why marriage is even recognized by the state to begin with. If not for the fact that sex between men and women makes babies, marriage wouldn't exist as we know it.
Most of the time, sex between opposite sex couples does not produce children.

Many opposite sex couples can never have a child, no matter how much sex they have, while some can't even have sex.

They are allowed to get married despite that fact, as procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state or by the federal government. Even anti-gay Justice Scalia recognizes this fact of law. Individuals who are elderly or otherwise sterile, paralyzed, amputated, or otherwise incapable of even having sex, are still recognized as retaining the fundamental right of marriage.

Your personal requirement of procreation ability in order to get married is your personal prejudice, not a requirement of law. Apply it to yourself if you choose, but the law does not impose it on anyone.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9748 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No state makes such demands.
Then it wasn't a very good point. If no STATE demands it, then YOU certainly don't get to.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gay people raising kids are but one alternative family structure, among many.
And if all those OTHERS are no barrier to marriage....

And since parenting status doesn't affect marriage eligibility....

Once again, having children, or not, does not dictate a need OR an impediment to marriage. One may happen without ANY consideration for the other. And they often do.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The issues boils down to the legal definition of marriage, and why such definition should be changed, or maintained.
For the purposes of justice.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Does it not, to a degree parallel the decline in conjugal, as in husband and wife, marriage?
I don't know. I doubt it. It also parallels a rise in sea levels, or Batman movies. So? Correlation doesn't equal causation. I don't know that such a decline even exists
Pietro Armando wrote:
I thought ai had read an opinion piece prior to the ruling that indicated it was possible, not very probable though.
Well, I don't know what you read. Cases must be handled one issue at a time. Eventually, someone will sue against the unconstitutionality of Section 2.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps it is.
It is for me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No state is compelled to recognize marriages performed in other states, as far as I know.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution calls for them to, but Section 2 of DOMA violates that.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Who said anything about the "dark ages"?
I'm just wondering what specific "negative impacts" there will be. I keep hearing that there WILL be some, but never WHAT they will be.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm pointing out the negative impact of "no fault" divorce, and the rise in out of wedlock births.
You're claiming that such impacts exist, but you haven't pointed out what they are yet.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are advocating its a positive to have weaker divorce laws, and increased out of wedlock births?
First off, I'd say these have nothing to do with same-sex marriages. Don't blame gay people for things we are not involved in.

But I would advocate that people should be free to form their own families, in their own ways. They don't need to be "shamed", or labeled as "negative impacts", just because they do it differently than you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What was the impact in that country? Did it hasten the decline in marriage rates?
Oh, no doubt. Probably set off a whole pack of nukes too, and soured milk across the nation. Did I just see the Hague fall into the sea?

I'm sure the lousy world economy, or 10,000 other factors, played no part. It must be the gay marriages.

Why would you think that gay MARRIAGES have an erosive effect on nations, but gay CIVIL UNIONS are fine? If gay people can legally pair up ANYWAY, what makes you think one version will be harmful and the other harmless?
Pietro Armando wrote:
It we use "no fault" divorce as a guide, usually within a generation or two. Who knows, maybe SSM is a passing phase, that will eventually fade away. It never sustained itself, in the few societies that formally recognized same sex unions, so why do we think, this time is the charm?
Will they be throwing us back out of the military, too? Maybe ALL the rights we've fought for are a passing phase. Maybe Levitical law will kick back in. Maybe THAT'S the way to improve civil rights in this country. Maybe we should just GIVE UP striving for civil equality. Maybe it's just a phase.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#9749 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
How would I put "marriage out of her reach"?
It seems that if you had your way, she could not marry the person she wants, and who is best suited for her. If she were a lesbian.
Pietro Armando wrote:
She's gotta live with 'em.
Or with 'er, as the case may be.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The functionality comes into play based on its relationship to society at large. Why is there a sudden need for SSM? How has society functioned for decades, if not centuries without it?
How did society function without allowing gays in the military? Society can still function while injustices are present. But once they are identified, work should be done to eliminate them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
He chose his "best friend"
Hint: so did you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm not suggesting you find some "random woman just to satisfy someone else's expectations".
Every time you tell a gay person to go marry someone of the opposite sex ("like everyone else in this country"), that's what you're suggesting. Gay people DON'T fall in love with people of the opposite sex (in case you didn't understand how we work), so to marry the way YOU want would mean finding someone OTHER than the person they've fallen in love with. Some third-party stranger who has no investment in the existing relationship.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If they chose to marry each other, they would also choose what ever arrangements, if any, they wanted.
And if they chose all that TOGETHER, openly and honestly, then I see no problem. But how many women do you know who are anxious to marry a gay man, almost guaranteeing adultery and neglect against their wishes? That's not an "arrangement", it's just disfunction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhh.....ohhhhhh.....Kay.
Was I unclear?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Maybe you just haven't met her yet. I'll bite, what "standards...couldn't begin to Imagine"?
If I can't imagine them, how can I describe them? It isn't in my nature to choose a woman, not based on ANY standards. My nature points me to men. My standards assess men. Marrying a woman would be a defeatist effort, aimed only at satisfying YOU, and not me (or her) in any way.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not "should" , could, as in possesses the same legal right to do so.
And when our shared national laws better reflect equality, you "could" marry a man, as you'll possess the same legal right to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not at all.
Oh, you just assume they'll think it sounds like a good idea?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, not at all. What's changed is several states have changed the foundation of legal marriage, eliminated the opposite sex requirement.
Recognizing how gay people work. Good for them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you're implying by that. "Won't work"?
You seem certain that marriage requires different genders, or your (narrow) definition of conjugality. If it requires these things, then it should not be possible for states to implement same-sex marriages. Yet it IS possible, disproving your requirements.

If these things WERE requirements, then NO same-sex marriage would function. They would fail out of the gate. They "wouldn't work". Yet they DO. It MUST be obvious that your "requirements" are not required.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9750 Sep 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, repeat.......but you want your version of marriage to continue as you believe it should, hell......
"....your version of marriage"? Seriously NorCal......you must think before you type. It is or "my version", but the version of marriage nationwide until 2004, and still the version in over thirty states. But thanks for giving me the super power of defining marriage since the birth of the Republic. Why is "your version" of marriage the only other form of marriage that should be legalized?
you probably even commend Josh Weed for doing the "RIGHT" thing........
Still burns your britches...doesn't it? Are you suggesting it the "wrong" thing?
HOWEVER, Gays and Lesbians are getting married to those they love and want to share a life with and NOT based on the sexual parts......
So if its not about the "sexual parts", why not seek love among those whose "sexual parts" are not a gendered duplicate? Those "sexual parts" are just as important to "gays and lesbians" as they are to everyone else.,
Yes, couples can get married without state involvement......
Thank you for the honesty.
but then they also don't get the state or federal rights, benefits and privileges that happen to go with the State issued marriage license....
That is correct, and yes I can "grasp" that.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9751 Sep 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it wasn't a very good point. If no STATE demands it, then YOU certainly don't get to.
Why would there need to be a state requirement?
And if all those OTHERS are no barrier to marriage....
Yet we do to automatically designate the adult relationship in those alternative family structures, "marriage".
And since parenting status doesn't affect marriage eligibility....
.....There's no reason why a man and a woman should be denied the right to marry, provided they meet the other requirements.
Once again, having children, or not, does not dictate a need OR an impediment to marriage. One may happen without ANY consideration for the other. And they often do.
However, children, the by products of the male female sexual union are the foundation, primary reason, why marriage is recognized in the first place.
I don't know. I doubt it. It also parallels a rise in sea levels, or Batman movies. So? Correlation doesn't equal causation. I don't know that such a decline even exists
Batman movies? Now yer talking...what do you think of Ben Afleck as the new Bruce Wayne/Batman?
Well, I don't know what you read. Cases must be handled one issue at a time. Eventually, someone will sue against the unconstitutionality of Section 2.
I'm sure someone will as well.
It is for me.
Well then.....good for you!
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution calls for them to, but Section 2 of DOMA violates that.
That's up to SCOTUS to decide.
I'm just wondering what specific "negative impacts" there will be. I keep hearing that there WILL be some, but never WHAT they will be.
You're claiming that such impacts exist, but you haven't pointed out what they are yet.
First off, I'd say these have nothing to do with same-sex marriages. Don't blame gay people for things we are not involved in.
Agreed...in fairness...these conditions preceded ssm, not the fault of gay people. I do think, if marriage rates and in wedlock birth rates were at the same levels as they were 30-40 years ago, ssm wouldn't be legal.
But I would advocate that people should be free to form their own families, in their own ways. They don't need to be "shamed", or labeled as "negative impacts", just because they do it differently than you.
True....but I do see an ethical issue regarding the use of ART.
Oh, no doubt. Probably set off a whole pack of nukes too, and soured milk across the nation. Did I just see the Hague fall into the sea?
Still waiting on California to do that.
I'm sure the lousy world economy, or 10,000 other factors, played no part. It must be the gay marriages.
Why would you think that gay MARRIAGES have an erosive effect on nations, but gay CIVIL UNIONS are fine? If gay people can legally pair up ANYWAY, what makes you think one version will be harmful and the other harmless?
It's the foundation on which it rests. SSM is virtually a modern western invention. Marriage in the west is on the deline, as are birth rates. SSM changes the understanding of marriage as a male female relationship intrinsically linked to procreation, to one of simply a means of adult "happiness". A ss civil union legally acknowledges same sex relationships, while maintaining marriage as a legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Will they be throwing us back out of the military, too? Maybe ALL the rights we've fought for are a passing phase. Maybe Levitical law will kick back in. Maybe THAT'S the way to improve civil rights in this country. Maybe we should just GIVE UP striving for civil equality. Maybe it's just a phase.
If ssm is such a great idea in the history of human civilizations, why didn't it develop cross time, cross culture alongside osm, both mono, and poly? SSSB isn't new.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9752 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is or "my version", but the version of marriage nationwide until 2004, and still the version in over thirty states.
It matters not when it changed or how many states still have an issue with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples like you do, the fact is that it is changing and those 30 states you keep speaking about, at least 9 of them are probably going to being switching sides on this issue......then what?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9753 Sep 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It matters not when it changed or how many states still have an issue with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples like you do, the fact is that it is changing and those 30 states you keep speaking about, at least 9 of them are probably going to being switching sides on this issue......then what?
No response to the rest of my post? Maybe they'll switch side, maybe they won't. Time will tell.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9754 Sep 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that if you had your way, she could not marry the person she wants, and who is best suited for her. If she were a lesbian.
Why stop there? Perhaps it's not one person best suited for her but two? Maybe it's her sister.
Or with 'er, as the case may be.
Them
How did society function without allowing gays in the military? Society can still function while injustices are present. But once they are identified, work should be done to eliminate them.
That depends too on what is considered an "injustice"? Why the sudden need for men to "marry" men, or women to "marry" women? Why hasn't such a need manifested itself before now?
Hint: so did you.
I.....did? Hmmmmmm....
Every time you tell a gay person to go marry someone of the opposite sex ("like everyone else in this country"), that's what you're suggesting. Gay people DON'T fall in love with people of the opposite sex (in case you didn't understand how we work), so to marry the way YOU want would mean finding someone OTHER than the person they've fallen in love with. Some third-party stranger who has no investment in the existing relationship.
Gay people can marry whomever they want, however if they seek to legally marry, they have to follow the same rules. A man might fall in love with two women, but the laws says he can only legally marry one. Two sisters may consider themselves spouses to each other, bu the laws says they cannot legally marry. It's not just gay people.
And if they chose all that TOGETHER, openly and honestly, then I see no problem. But how many women do you know who are anxious to marry a gay man, almost guaranteeing adultery and neglect against their wishes? That's not an "arrangement", it's just disfunction.
Perhaps you can clarify something. I get the impression that male sexuality is more "fixed" than female, which appears to be more "fluid". For example, a woman who has been married for years, decades perhaps to her husband, and with children, "comes out of the closet" without any indication she was in the closet. Contrast that with a woman who used to self identify as a lesbian, flannel shirts, rainbow bumper sticker, is now married to a man and has children with him. If a "straight" woman can "become a lesbian", and a "lesbian" can become a "straight woman".....is it really set in stone, at least for some?
If I can't imagine them, how can I describe them? It isn't in my nature to choose a woman, not based on ANY standards. My nature points me to men. My standards assess men. Marrying a woman would be a defeatist effort, aimed only at satisfying YOU, and not me (or her) in any way.
So you want a man like "dear old Dad"?
And when our shared national laws better reflect equality, you "could" marry a man, as you'll possess the same legal right to do so.
Why stop there....lets go hog wild with "equality". Maybe one could marry two, or a sibling?
Recognizing how gay people work. Good for them.
The same as everyone else who works...I suppose.
You seem certain that marriage requires different genders, or your (narrow) definition of conjugality. If it requires these things, then it should not be possible for states to implement same-sex marriages. Yet it IS possible, disproving your requirements.
You seem certain marriage can't include poly arrangements, or siblings. Your "narrow" definition can be changed too.
If these things WERE requirements, then NO same-sex marriage would function. They would fail out of the gate. They "wouldn't work". Yet they DO. It MUST be obvious that your "requirements" are not required.
It's, male female, a requirement, is over thirty states. By your reasoning, any requirement, other than age of consent and ability to consent, could be no longer required, in order for marriage "to work".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9755 Sep 11, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
How does the state treat husbands and wives now? They treat them as SPOUSES! There is nothing in any of the laws that govern married couples that treat 'husbands' any different;y than 'wives'. They each get treated as SPOUSES! And two males or two females legally married get treated as SPOUSES by the state.
There's also no reason why siblings, at least same sex, can be spouses, or three people can't be spouses.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9756 Sep 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's also no reason why siblings, at least same sex, can be spouses, or three people can't be spouses.
I addressed the same-sex sibling issue in #9314 on 4 Sept.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TP39MT577...

Plural marriages has also been address ad nauseum. It is not my issue. If those seeking such legal marriages wish to petition either their state legislature or the courts to seek redress, they are more than free to do so. More than two spouses would need a total revamp of the laws governing married couples however (something that did not have to happen when same-sex couples began marrying.).

The key word in all of this is SPOUSE. Not husband or wife. Did you ever find any law that treats the 'husband' or 'wife' differently?

Just because the phrase 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' is not used in same-sex marriages does not make those marriages any different or less legal than marriages that happen to use the phrase.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#9757 Sep 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage creates more problems than it solves.
only on your imaginary playground. Best to learn to get along.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min JCPete 275,062
News Jeronimo Yanez, Minnesota officer in Philando C... 5 min fingers mcgurke 49
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min obama muslim 1,549,917
News Cuomo: Senate's health care bill an 'assault' o... 7 min fingers mcgurke 5
News James T. Hodgkinson showed all the signs before... 8 min fingers mcgurke 53
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 9 min bad bob 8,005
News Sarah Palin sues NY Times over editorial tying ... 10 min SirPrize 2
News James Comey fired as FBI director 19 min bad bob 3,956
News POLL: Americans Trust James Comey Over Trump 4 hr huntcoyotes 697
More from around the web