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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10129 Sep 20, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think ANY of those points means the USA is a Christian nation, you have bigger problems.
That was the justification for making polygamy illegal. That we are a Christian nation. Of course it wouldn't hold up now, but you still think it should in this case.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10130 Sep 20, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
My choices? Pray tell, Miss Cleo, what are they?
What the fuck do you know about self esteem, Frankie? You don't even have enough sense to be embarrassed about your ridiculous posts. You laugh at science, you ignore the lessons of history and your knowledge of logic is ZERO. Wait.... congratulations are in order. You are perhaps the stupidest person alive.
You are probably the most unhappy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#10131 Sep 20, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry. You'll grow up one day. Stay in school.
Will he get a cool name like yours when he grows up?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10132 Sep 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The esteemed Kentucky Blowme family.
Ohhhhhhh......he's one of the Kentucky Blowme's....that explains a lot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10133 Sep 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
All fundamental rights exist because we are human. No other "because" is needed. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Requiring one of each gender is a restriction on gender. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Your argument for restriction on gender still relies on the false assumption fundamental rights must provide some benefit to the government. Liberty is freedom from governmental control. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
All those cases are based on the understanding of marriage as a male female union. Thanks for pointing that out.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#10134 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All those cases are based on the understanding of marriage as a male female union. Thanks for pointing that out.
But it's not a male and female union anymore, is it?

I can marry either in my state. I choose.........female.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10135 Sep 21, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Regardless of what you think Brian......these PUBLIC business owners violated their states anti-discrimination policies and that's why they are being sued.......you defend them even though they violated the law........this has NOTHING to do with their religious beliefs, it has EVERYTHING to do with treating customers with dignity and respect!!! Your idea of marriage remaining as just between a man and a woman is losing.......and it should because there is NO State compelling interest to deny the right to marry to Same-Sex Couples!!!
I think these PC antidiscrimination laws are bad, do you think a liberal photographer should be forced to support a Republican party event?

For the left, equality is a religious value.
Storm Warning

Baraboo, WI

#10136 Sep 21, 2013
The gay agenda comes from the gay president

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10137 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All those cases are based on the understanding of marriage as a male female union. Thanks for pointing that out.
Wrong. None of them found gender to be a requirement, though several made it clear gender is not a requirement, as procreation ability was clearly established as not being a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”(Casey)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10138 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Those very same major religions also allow polygamy. Interesting.
<quoted text>
I don't recall seeing that in either document.
<quoted text>
Render onto Caesar.... Is that biblical?
Wrong again. Most major religions do not promote or support polygamy.

The Declaration says all are created equal and all are endowed with unalienable rights. The Constitution requires equal protection under the 5th and 14th amendments. Treating others as you would yourself under the law is promised in the Declaration and required by the Constitution.

The Constitution also makes it clear, fundamental rights belong to each individual, not to Ceasar.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10139 Sep 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I think these PC antidiscrimination laws are bad, do you think a liberal photographer should be forced to support a Republican party event?
For the left, equality is a religious value.
Who cares what you think.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10140 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All those cases are based on the understanding of marriage as a male female union. Thanks for pointing that out.
All those cases also preceded landmark gay civil rights rulings that have led to the gradual dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against gays. Nor did any of those cases explicitly rule marriage was restricted to opposite sex couples. Thanks for ignoring that. As usual.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10141 Sep 21, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
All those cases also preceded landmark gay civil rights rulings that have led to the gradual dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against gays. Nor did any of those cases explicitly rule marriage was restricted to opposite sex couples. Thanks for ignoring that. As usual.
He is also ignoring this one:

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10142 Sep 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. None of them found gender to be a requirement, though several made it clear gender is not a requirement, as procreation ability was clearly established as not being a requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons.
Let's do the math here
. SSM wasn't legal until 2004.
Same sex sexual behavior was still criminal in many states.
The idea of a "same sex marriage" was inconceivable, pun intended, for most of American history.
Marriage was legally recognized solely as a union of husband and wife.
Add that all up, and you get, SURPRISE, all those cases accepted marriage as a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No other definition used to base those court rulings on. Nice try though.
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”(Casey)
Define one's (your) right anyway u wish.....however it does to mean the state has to agree with every aspect of it legally.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10143 Sep 21, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
All those cases also preceded landmark gay civil rights rulings that have led to the gradual dismantling of institutionalized discrimination against gays. Nor did any of those cases explicitly rule marriage was restricted to opposite sex couples. Thanks for ignoring that. As usual.
What other definition of marriage, other than the legally recognized union of husband and wife, was legally valid at the time those rulings were issued?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10144 Sep 21, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
He is also ignoring this one:
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Not at all.....but you if ignored the dates on those cases you cited. All them were based on the standing legal definition of marriage as a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No other.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10145 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's do the math here
. SSM wasn't legal until 2004.
Same sex sexual behavior was still criminal in many states.
The idea of a "same sex marriage" was inconceivable, pun intended, for most of American history.
Marriage was legally recognized solely as a union of husband and wife.
Add that all up, and you get, SURPRISE, all those cases accepted marriage as a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No other definition used to base those court rulings on. Nice try though.
<quoted text>
Define one's (your) right anyway u wish.....however it does to mean the state has to agree with every aspect of it legally.
Uhm, when last I checked, the laws against homosexuality were struck because they were unconstitutional. That the decision didn't come until 2004 does not mean they were any more constitutional before then.

The reality remains that the 14th Amendment mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, marriage is a protection of the law, and you cannot indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10146 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.....but you if ignored the dates on those cases you cited. All them were based on the standing legal definition of marriage as a legally recognized union of husband and wife. No other.
The definition of marriage has been changed before so no big deal..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10147 Sep 21, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm, when last I checked, the laws against homosexuality were struck because they were unconstitutional. That the decision didn't come until 2004 does not mean they were any more constitutional before then.
The reality remains that the 14th Amendment mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, marriage is a protection of the law, and you cannot indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
All those cases Nye cited all dealt with marriage as a union of husband and wife, the only legally recognized marriage at the time of those cases. He was implying a "right" to SSM based on those rulings.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10148 Sep 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What other definition of marriage, other than the legally recognized union of husband and wife, was legally valid at the time those rulings were issued?
From the dissent of your favorite Maryland marriage case Conaway v. Deane:

“[i]t is no answer that same-sex couples can be excluded from marriage because ‘marriage,’ by definition, does not include them. &#8194; In the end,‘an argument that marriage is heterosexual because it ‘just is' amounts to circular reasoning"

and

“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights."

and

"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it"

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 35 min youareadufus 47,236
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 39 min zef 322,289
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 41 min Grey Ghost 1,659,412
News White House: FBI records show 'extreme bias' ag... 51 min Retribution 46
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr loose cannon 243,099
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr Fuggooo 37,514
News After Alabama, abortion may be backseat issue i... 2 hr Card Carrying Zio... 11
More from around the web