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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11005 Oct 5, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you avoided a direct question.
You already answered the question that the Supreme Court had the right to overturn bans on interracial marriages even when the states held such bans as essential public policy. I agree.
The new question was:
What language in the Constitution do you believe would prevent the Supreme Court from making a similar ruling for same-sex marriage that it made in the Loving (1967) case?
Race and gender are two different characteristics, and marriage is a union of both genders....it's in there...ya just have to look.
This is not asking you what language in the constitution SUPPORTS a decision fully legalizing nation-wide same-sex marriage. I know you do not support such an action. So I want you to tell us what language in the constitution would PREVENT THE COURT from coming to a Loving-type ruling striking down all the state laws and state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
Don't rely on past rulings by the court. As you yourself said those are interpretations.
All rulings are interpretations.
Rulings can be overturned. Bowers (1986) once allowed the criminalization of sodomy. Lawrence (2003) said that was not constitutional and the constitution did not change in the intervening years, only the conclusion of the court.
Only the conclusion of some justices.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11006 Oct 5, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>You asked where we got the "idea" of "male lesbians". We showed you.
If you have some kind of problem with it,
write to Doctor Gilmartin.
Thanks Mr. oh......Terry apparently didn't like the answer.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11007 Oct 5, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Real news flash.
The constitution mandates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Homosexuals are people.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
It doesn't mandate distinctions regarding gender, or other characteristics Must be discarded.

Homosexuals are still men and women.

Marriage is defined by the state.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11008 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving.
I don't speak for all gays nor have I ever claimed to. I've told you my position and yet you lied about it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"?
It's marketing 101; you've also been told there's an implicit "for gays" that follows "marriage equality". But you conveniently ignore that so you can whine about the "plight" of other groups you really care nothing about.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard?
Same sex marriages fall within that standard, you're ignorance of the English language notwithstanding.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
If they can make convincing arguments to courts or legislatures, more power to them. However, will you then whine they're marriages aren't real just as you currently do for same sex marriages?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized.
And yet he pleadings in the Brown suit don't ask the court to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. How do polygamists intend to get polygamy decriminalized if they don't challenge the actual law that criminalizes it? You really need to pay closer attention to what the "victims" you're championing are actually litigating, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor?
I'm not advocating against polygamy. But neither is there any organized group of any significance asking for support. If it's something they really want, they need to do the heavy lifting themselves. And that starts with organizing support and actually challenging the relevant laws, neither of which is happening.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.
Then complain to an actual GLBT group, not me.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11009 Oct 5, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
You asked where we got the "idea" of "male lesbians". We showed you.
No, I asked Pietro:

"What dictionary includes males in the definition of "lesbian"?"

You really should focus more on comprehending what others write if you intend to respond to them.
Mr_oH wrote:
If you have some kind of problem with it,
write to Doctor Gilmartin.
His writing isn't about sexual orientation in general or lesbians in particular but rather "love shyness". His book is 30 years old and out of print. The top Google search link for the term "male lesbian" is urbandictionary.com which focuses on slang rather than formal English. That pretty much sums up the relevance of his work to the topic of marriage.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11010 Oct 5, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....
>> I << have never said you were a"bigot and a hater" for not supporting same sex marriage. You must be confusing me with another poster. Or have you posted to me using a different registered or unregistered ID than "No Comment"?

Since: Oct 13

San Francisco, CA

#11011 Oct 5, 2013
Just like choir gown, different sizes and colors of grad gowns, master graduation dresses, graduation accessory, high school cap and gown are easily available in various land based and online stores. You can also choose from an array of choir stoles, clergy robes and cap gown to suit your requirements. The products available on the reliable sites are simply excellent, made up of best quality material and available at an affordable price.[www.ivyrobes.com]

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11012 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Race and gender are two different characteristics, and marriage is a union of both genders....it's in there...ya just have to look.
IF marriage can ONLY be the union of both genders, then the court would have upheld Congress's DOMA definition of marriage. The court did not. By mandating legal standing of valid state same-sex marriages, the court has clearly made your position outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
But you have already stated (post 10973) that the court was justified and right to invalidate state marriage laws found to be unconstitutional. So the 10th cannot then now be used to prevent similar court action.

Marriage laws belong to the states, and not the federal government. But those marriage laws cannot run afoul of constitutional scrutiny. So no, the 10th would NOT be enough to prevent a Loving-type ruling by the court regarding same-sex marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All rulings are interpretations.
True. Lawrence negated Bowers. Just as all those cases you cite implying male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriages through the court's DOMA ruling.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only the conclusion of some justices.
Yes, but the majority in any ruling carries the day and establishes case law. Dissenting opinions, while interesting, carry no legal authority.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11013 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks Mr. oh......Terry apparently didn't like the answer.
It didn't actually answer my question since I inquired what dictionary defined lesbians using the word male. But then you have a habit of not answering questions as asked but instead answering questions you apparently make up yourself and attribute to others. If you even bother to respond at all since avoidance of facts seems to be one of your coping mechanisms.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11014 Oct 5, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody said you "have" to, all I'm saying is you're a bigot and a "hater" if you don't, just like YOU say / am for not supporting gay marriage....
Nobody cares what you support. Basic human rights are not something you get to vote for or against. Judges keep driving that point home.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11015 Oct 5, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the opposition by SSM advocates, some at least, to polygamy? It seems then the "p word" is mention, some of you folks start ranting and raving. Isn't the objective of the movement, "marriage equality"? Breaking that monogamous conjugal marital standard? Are you afraid that the poly folks will crash the big fat gay wedding?
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....Little Terry....first that have to get it decriminalized. Besides the Brown family has gone on record as supporters of SSM.....why not return the favor? It would be nice for some major BLT group to publicly express support for polygamous marriage equality.
I support polygamous marriages.

What do you have against it? Will it harm your children? Will your Bible burst into flames?
2 posts removed

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11018 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution doesn't regulate marriage, states do. The laws in each state apply to everyone in that state and therefore are applied equally.
There are only two genders, male and female. You are one or the other without restriction.
The constitution protects fundamental rights of all persons, and marriage is one of those fundamental rights.

When a woman can marry a man but not a woman, that is a restriction on gender. It is absurd to pretend there is no restriction on gender in the states that still restrict it.

Many people travel or move to other states. States that refuse to treat the lawful marriages of ss couples equally to the marriages of os couples from the same jurisdiction are in violation of the 14th.

14th: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11019 Oct 6, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I asked Pietro:
"What dictionary includes males in the definition of "lesbian"?"
You really should focus more on comprehending what others write if you intend to respond to them.
<quoted text>
His writing isn't about sexual orientation in general or lesbians in particular but rather "love shyness". His book is 30 years old and out of print. The top Google search link for the term "male lesbian" is urbandictionary.com which focuses on slang rather than formal English. That pretty much sums up the relevance of his work to the topic of marriage.
Thank you for that background. I was curious but dismissed it as irrelevant, so hadn't bothered with digging it up, but nice to know and affirm it is irrelevant.
1 post removed

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11021 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>...except polygamists and consenting adult relatives...
Constitutional rights may be infringed if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. I don't understand why those half-wits that advance this argument invariably can't count.) and incest.

Can you indicate a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11022 Oct 6, 2013
lides wrote:
Such interests exist regarding polygamists (who actually seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11023 Oct 6, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??

RUN OFF TO CHURCH NAZI.
1 post removed

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11025 Oct 6, 2013
Mr_oH wrote:
Name one.
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
Mr_oH wrote:
No, each individual in those groups are seeking their own person equal protection of law.
Sorry charlie, the union they seek is greater by definition.
Mr_oH wrote:
That's because counting has noting to do with it.
Is three greater than two? If so, counting has everything to do with it, because they seek greater, not equal, protection of the law.
Mr_oH wrote:
Consenting adult incest, by related individuals.
Incest has a demonstrably higher instance of mental illness and birth defects. There is a compelling governmental interest in discouraging such unions.
Mr_oH wrote:
What are you, a parrot?
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments that have long been settled as a matter of law and have no bering upon the topic at hand.

Do you have a relevant argument applicable to same sex marriage, or are you admitting that you are, in fact, a parrot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11026 Oct 6, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.

RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#11027 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That long......hmmmmmmm....anything since colonial times?
<quoted text>
How does the survey breakdown among Catholics themselves in terms of regular mass attendance, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc.?
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the same sex composition, is based on an entirely different understanding of marital law and social structure and therefore not equality but a change for everyone to a new revisionist form of gender irrelevant union.
<quoted text>
As Terri failed to admit, it is hypocritical of him and other SSM advocates to demand the law fundamentally alter the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife for him and other advocates, but no other form of marriage.
<quoted text>
while continuing to ignore that the other restrictions also represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. It is only "irrational" to him, and you, because it is contrary to your desire/need/want. The other "restrictions" can be viewed just as "irrational" to others, as gender is to you.
Again, you can demonstrate no law that diminishes or changes the effect of the law, by removing the gender restriction. All of the same 1,138 federal laws remain in full force and effect for couples, regardless of gender. Legally, they are the same in form and function. All couples are treated equally under all of the same laws. No more, no less, no different.

The social structure of society has not changed. Heterosexual people will continue to form bonds with other heterosexual people, and gay people will continue to form bonds with other gay people.

Again, removing the other restrictions would require changing what those laws of marriage. Social Security is just one example. Would all 100 people in the marriage inherit the social security equally until they all die? What happens when younger people are included in the group marriage? Are all married to each other equally, or just to one man? There are many questions that haven't even begun to be addressed, but they demonstrate removing the number restriction changes what marriage legally means for everyone on a fundamental level. It also restructures society in favor of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. Removing the gender restriction does none of that.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#11028 Oct 6, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.
RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.
I hate commie as much as I hate you Nazis. Your both traitors. I will stick with freedom equality and the Constitution..WHY DONT YOU TRAITORS MVOE GET OUT OF THIS NATION SINCE YOU HATE FREEDOM./

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 9 min FastandFurious 189,639
News Lottery board approves new CEO (Oct '12) 15 min Neila Taylor 4
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 16 min IND 182,218
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min Blitzking 163,679
News Paulson insists bailout restoring stability (Nov '08) 35 min swedenforever 14
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 37 min Agents of Corruption 7,216
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 41 min Agents of Corruption 328,250
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 45 min Agents of Corruption 1,232,043
News Huckabee: I would ask Clinton about Benghazi 2 hr mitt s santorum s... 107
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 2 hr NoahLovesU 1,976
More from around the web