Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17555 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!

#11312 Oct 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In regards to this fundamental right, one must prove one is of the opposite sex of the individual to who one is going to be married to, at least in thirty plus states.
What will you do when there are NO longer 30 plus states? Will you continue to repeat your comments using the lesser number of States? And then when all 50 States recognize the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......what will you do next?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11313 Oct 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
That "freedom of choice" was still within the understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife,
And was (and still is in 30+ states) within the context of historical animus and discrimination against gays and infringement of their rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not "should marry" but "could marry".
And how is that any less insulting?
Pietro Armando wrote:
What's insulting is this constant whining that you be treated any differ from any other man as it relates to marriage. Equal treatment is just that. Different situations can be, and should be treated differently.
And yet blacks and whites were treated the same under anti-miscegenation laws. You still are too f-ing stupid to understand the difference the between equal application of the law and the constitutional protection of equal protection of the law. You're fortunate citizenship in this country isn't predicated on a minimum level of intelligence; otherwise you might face deportation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No need to redefine marriage in order to provide a legal structure, including benefits, to same sex couples.
"Separate but equal" wasn't for blacks and it's not proven to be so with civil unions either. Civil unions aren't recognized by the federal government. Or by other states. Unless, of course, thousands of laws of laws in hundreds of political entities are changed. But all it takes is a single SCOTUS ruling to change it all simultaneously.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seems odd that you would seek such a hated "heteronormative" institution.
The institution of marriage isn't intrinsically heteronormative. It's bigoted heterosexuals like you that have made it so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh wait, wasn't the term "homosexual" coined in the late 19th century, with the invention of "heterosexual" following soon after that?
To describe the aspects of sexual orientation, yes. The words came into existence as our knowledge and understanding of human sexuality grew. The terms are still valid even if lay people choose other words with the same meaning to describe that aspect of themselves. However, as our understanding grew, we also moved away from considering race and ethnicity interchangeable to being distinct.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Plus it sounds like a sandwich, like a BLT, and everybody loves sandwiches. I get it though....it just sometimes....such terms are over used....worn on one's sleeve, or car bumper.
It's not unusual of groups that have faced discrimination to use words and symbols to establish unity and identity during the process of breaking free from such discrimination.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or Italian in place of......some of those ethnic slurs used by white people towards paisans.
True.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11314 Oct 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriages create......what?......duplica tion of gender? Breaks in the bloodline?
No, kinship and families. Is English not your native language?
Pietro Armando wrote:
In regards to this fundamental right, one must prove one is of the opposite sex of the individual to who one is going to be married to, at least in thirty plus states.
That's merely a restriction. Like number, age and consanguinity. If it were fundamental to the right itself, then it couldn't be removed as has been done in 13 states and in other countries.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both men and women will be lesbians?
No, they will have a relationship as spouses conferred on them by marriage, which is what conjugal means.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in husband AND wife. Not a reference to sexual intercourse.
Conjugal is not restricted to just a husband and wife. It applies to marital relationships in general. Evolve, small Peter. Or just die and quit wasting the world's oxygen.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So men can finally be called lesbians too? Yaaaaaaaay....the English language wins!
If you want so badly to be referred to as a "lesbian", I'll start doing so, lesbian Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Other polygamists have stated they like to see it decriminalized. They were reported in the media cheering the DOMA ruling.
Laws aren't overturned by saying you wished something would change.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But the people can ultimately decide through the constitutional amendment process, either at the state or federal level.
Just because a state amends its constitution doesn't make it constitutional at a federal level. California's Prop 8 and Colorado's amendment 2 were both ruled violations of the federal constitution. And Prop 8 isn't even the first California constitutional amendment ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.

As for the federal constitution, there is no precedent for amendments that infringe fundamental rights for only certain classes of people and no case law of which I'm aware of whether one can challenge a federal constitutional amendment as a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. It would be charting new territory.
Pietro Armando wrote:
One man and one woman, is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
The interest hasn't been deemed "compelling". In fact, SCOTUS has noted previously "historicity" of a practice isn't a valid reason to justify discrimination or infringement of rights. One case even referenced the historicity of anti-miscegenation laws, if I recall correctly.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That could be said about incest, and polygamy too, which is strange that you object to those "restrictions" being removed. Why?
Pay attention, lesbian Peter. >> I'm << not the one who's argued against removing the restriction on number. I've merely stated gays aren't obligated to address the grievances of other groups of people. Especially when those people don't seem to be inclined to take any action themselves.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, why does it matter what other, besides same sex,consenting adult relationships are designated "marriage"?
The other restrictions currently placed on the exercise of the fundamental right of marriage have all previously been tested in court and deemed to be compelling interests. However, there's nothing preventing society from collectively changing their mind and removing such restrictions through the legislative process. Although I suppose some groups could try challenging the removal of the number, age or consanguinity restrictions in court.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11315 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts have always displayed heteronormativity.
So does that mean, as a counter, your posts either display a homonormativity, or a homoabnormativity?
It's not something that just reared its ugly head; it's part of your interior ugliness you claim doesn't exist.
One man's ugly, is other man's, or woman's beauty.
It's not a "sexual political identity label". Except perhaps to bigots. It refers to the person's sexual orientation.
Oh but it is, hence the various politically associated organizations, and use of a rainbow flag, both the flag itself, and as an identifying symbol
You praise gays who adopt children by advocating continued prohibition of giving them legal recognition of their marriages and the associated legal benefits and privileges conferred by marriage, some of which are child oriented?
I praise anyone who adopts a child, however that doesn't mean marital status is conferred upon the adopting adults.
Probably the same as opposite sex couples use when they employ that type of medical assistance.
Both present an ethical concern, with the same sex couple complicating things further by deny the child, one parent, even if the biological offspring of someone else, an opposite sex parent.
Procreation within marriage was of more importance in the past when social and cultural stigma as well as legal disabilities were imposed on children born out of wedlock. However, that's really not the case any more, likely due in no small part to SCOTUS ruling legitimacy a quasi-suspect class for equal protection law.
So you do admit procreation within the marital relationship was acknowledged by society, and the courts, as the desired setting, and a function, if not the primary, at least one of the primary functions of matrimony. Thank you for that admission. Never the less it is just as important today as in the past, although I agree the stigma attached to out of wedlock births is no longer as strong as it once was. Never the less, procreation within the marital relationship is still the preferred setting, not only for society as a whole, but for the individual children as well.
To the extent children have been cited in important recent court rulings, it's been in the context that gay couples have and raise children and those children are harmed relative to those of opposite sex couples due to the lack of legal recognition of same sex marriages and access to legal benefits and privileges that marriage confers.
What specific harm do these children experience by the lack of same sex marriage recognition? If those children are harmed by such lack, what does that mean for children of plural marriage families?
Sex isn't marriage.
I was stating an obvious fact, both u and I, as well as everyone else on this thread, are the products of a male female union.
And yet when a segment of society expresses a desire to be included within marriage, you still advocate discrimination against them and thus also harm the children they have. Hypocrite.
Yet you wish to fundamentally alter the very object you seek. Strange that your desire to enter into the institution of marriage only if you can do so without by one half of the marital relationship, either the husband or wife.
On the contrary, it's you who ignore the fact the English language has evolved and left you behind.
No, not at all, Language continues to evolve, some words slower than others or not at all. Some even become the opposite of what they once meant. "Gay" once described various hedonistic, or unconventional opposite sex persons and practices.
Allowing opposite sex people who can't procreate to marry refutes your assertion.
Courts have ruled procreation a function of matrimony, knowing the not all married couples (OS) could, or would
bear children

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11316 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
Not without rewriting the laws of every state. Which is pretty much the same obstacle faced by those wishing to legalize polygamy. Doable? Yes. Easily?. No.
Agreed.
No it doesn't. Kinship is established between unrelated parties for both same sex and opposite sex couples. When eliminating the gender restriction of current marriage laws, no other laws need to be rewritten.
Yes it does. Marriage establishes a man and woman as husband and wife. That is the historic, cultural, social, legal, at least in thirty plus states, and/or religious understanding of marriage. Creating kinship between two unrelated, first cousins excluded, men, or women, is an alien concept, a recent legal creation within American marital jurisprudence.
One can always invoke the slippery slope fallacy against any change.
True.
But by all means, name all the countries and states that have given legal recognition to same sex marriages that have also allowed polygamous or incestuous marriages as well. I'll wait.
Simply because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't not eliminate its plausible possibility. The UK does recognize polygamous marriages for welfare purposes.
Then of what relevance is your blathering regarding adult adoption? It's not a viable substitute for marriage nor does it confer the legal benefits and privileges associated with marriage. Only marriage does that.
Nor did I claim it did. However it does establish legal kinship, and some same sex couples have used I in the past to do just that for financial purpose, as the article from the link had revealed.
No. A pair still means "two" so you still have a pair of shoes regardless of their orientation.
How many pairs of two left, or two right, shoes do you own?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11317 Oct 13, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
What will you do when there are NO longer 30 plus states? Will you continue to repeat your comments using the lesser number of States? And then when all 50 States recognize the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......what will you do next?
Throw a party, serve rainbow punch, and hope the alphabet soup group offer marriage equality support and encouragement to their brothers and sisters who practice plural marriage. After all the "marriage equality" movement still has work, as Jillian Keenan of slate magazine has pointed out, to do.
1 post removed
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11319 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Issues that can be addressed. Legally recognizing same sex unions as "marriage" fundamentally alters the understanding of marriage. Once that is done, it is not out of the realm of possibility to legally designate other consenting adult relationships, including, at least same sex siblings, if not opposite sex,
It is not out of the realm of possibility that you could LEARN a few things about logic, as well. However, it is highly doubtful given your hyperbolic mindset and penchant for emotion-laden arguments.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11320 Oct 13, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Throw a party, serve rainbow punch, and hope the alphabet soup group offer marriage equality support and encouragement to their brothers and sisters who practice plural marriage. After all the "marriage equality" movement still has work, as Jillian Keenan of slate magazine has pointed out, to do.
Given the extensive body of knowledge that exists on the harm polygamy causes to society, I doubt that any sane people will attend your party.
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11321 Oct 13, 2013
"Gay" marriage has nothing to do with love or relationships. It's ALL about the financial aspects. It's all about GREED.
Just ask any one of them....
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11322 Oct 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
A pair still means "two" so you still have a pair of shoes regardless of their orientation.
Yes, but two left shoes is not NORMAL,
....even if it DOES "occur in nature".

(Who's side are you arguing for, anyway?)
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#11323 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
"Gay" marriage has nothing to do with love or relationships. It's ALL about the financial aspects. It's all about GREED.
Just ask any one of them....
Just ask any straight couple why they get married.... it's all about the financial aspects. Just ask any one of them.
No Comment

New Port Richey, FL

#11324 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Just ask any straight couple why they get married.... it's all about the financial aspects. Just ask any one of them.
But straights are whining about "equal protection of law", but then using "love" as an excuse,... dopey.

You should just not reply to me, especially when I didn't yank your leash.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11325 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
"Gay" marriage has nothing to do with love or relationships. It's ALL about the financial aspects. It's all about GREED.
Just ask any one of them....
Silly notion, of course, since gay folks have been marrying without legal recognition and benefits forever.

However, ask any of your straight married friends if they would be okay with filing taxes as individuals, removing their spouses from their medical insurance, forgoing spousal benefits for Social Security, and paying estate taxes on joint assets, etc, etc, etc.

I bet there isn't a one of them who would like to do that.

Are you saying that every straight person who legally marries instead of just shacking up is greedy? You must not have many friends.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11326 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but two left shoes is not NORMAL,
....even if it DOES "occur in nature".
(Who's side are you arguing for, anyway?)
Shoes are a human constructs - people are not.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11327 Oct 13, 2013
No Comment wrote:
<quoted text>But straights are whining about "equal protection of law",..
Because they are ALREADY protected by the law.

At least make some sense.

If we were to strip away each and every protection and benefit of legal marriage, you don't think straight married people would scream to high heaven?

Geesh.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11328 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Just ask any straight couple why they get married.... it's all about the financial aspects. Just ask any one of them.
That would be "opposite sex couple", not straight.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11329 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are ALREADY protected by the law.
At least make some sense.
If we were to strip away each and every protection and benefit of legal marriage, you don't think straight married people would scream to high heaven?
Geesh.
Its opposite sex couple, not straight.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11330 Oct 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoes are a human constructs - people are not.
Is sexual identity a recent human construct?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11331 Oct 13, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not out of the realm of possibility that you could LEARN a few things about logic, as well. However, it is highly doubtful given your hyperbolic mindset and penchant for emotion-laden arguments.
Impressive....I see Mrs Blowme's little boy Neil has been reading the dictionary again. Bravo!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11332 Oct 13, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does that mean, as a counter, your posts either display a homonormativity, or a homoabnormativity?
No. Why don't you try looking up the meaning of the word so you don't look so stupid?
Pietro Armando wrote:
One man's ugly, is other man's, or woman's beauty.
This really isn't anything beautiful about bigotry and discrimination. BUt keep lying to yourself if it helps you get through the day.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh but it is, hence the various politically associated organizations, and use of a rainbow flag, both the flag itself, and as an identifying symbol
Gay refers to sexual orientation. That groups of people with common concerns or characteristics also create organizations to pursue political, philanthropic or cultural goals is not limited to gays. When I refer to gay people in my comments, I'm referring to their sexual orientation, not the Human Rights Campaign. The rainbow flag is primarily cultural, although nothing stops people from using it politically as well. Or do you think all donkeys are really democrats and all elephants are actually republicans?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I praise anyone who adopts a child, however that doesn't mean marital status is conferred upon the adopting adults.
If you were truly concerned about the welfare of children, you'd advocate allowing the legal privileges and benefits of marriage be made available to all families that included adopted children, not just some of them. Or you'd advocate against current public policy that allows single people (whether gay or straight) or same sex couples from adopting rather than praising "anyone who adopts a child". As it is, your advocacy is incongruent with your stated concerns with the fate of children. A situation not uncommon among bigots.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Both present an ethical concern, with the same sex couple complicating things further by deny the child, one parent, even if the biological offspring of someone else, an opposite sex parent.
But apparently not a sufficient ethical concern to legally prohibit the practice. In which case your ethical concern applies only to yourself.

And same sex couples don't deny children "one parent". You do realize that a "couple" means two, don't you? Perhaps you meant to say a same sex couple denies a child a parent of both sexes. But then so do single adoptive parents and the state doesn't prohibit that nor have I heard you advocate against it since you praise "anyone who adopts". Which again points out the incongruence of your advocacy positions.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you do admit procreation within the marital relationship was acknowledged by society, and the courts, as the desired setting, and a function, if not the primary, at least one of the primary functions of matrimony. Thank you for that admission.
Yes, it was important IN THE PAST due to the social and legal stigma attached to illegitimacy. But apparently even straight people grew tired of punishing children for the conduct of adults so attitudes and the law changed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Never the less it is just as important today as in the past, although I agree the stigma attached to out of wedlock births is no longer as strong as it once was. Never the less, procreation within the marital relationship is still the preferred setting, not only for society as a whole, but for the individual children as well.
Preferred by whom? And to be clear, the word "preferred' isn't a synonym for "required". So in the end, it's simply a choice by the individuals involved, a choice that is a constitutionally protected individual right and with which the state can't interfere or mandate.

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, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min VetnorsGate 1,431,824
News Suspect arrested in Washington mall shooting 2 min Denny CranesPlace 53
News RFK's daughter claims George H.W. Bush will vot... 3 min Cujo 114
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 4 min Ole Miss Heroin 1,256
News Police in riot-hit Charlotte say shooting victi... 4 min WelbyMD 557
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min HILLARY 2016 243,475
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Chicagoan by Birth 225,557
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 18 min deplorable spud 10,186
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr Crazy Beautiful 395,383
More from around the web