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!

#11844 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
Yes, it did at least in Virginia....that's why they were arrested and filed a lawsuit......the district Judge told them that if "God had intended to mix the races He would have done so".

The ruling in Loving vs Virginia was about removing the color barrier......Richard was a white man and Mildred was a Black woman!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11845 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1.Was Mildred Loving a woman?
2.Was Richard Loving a man?
3.Did the law forbid them from marrying?
1.Yes

2.Yes

3.No.

They each could have married another person of their same race. Which was the state's legally enacted law at the time, equally applied to all citizens. The law only forbid them from marrying each other, not another man or woman of the appropriate race.

Isn't that the standard that you and Pietro keep trying to apply to same-sex couples. That those seeking a same-sex marriage are not denied the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the appropriate gender according to state law which is equally applied to all.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11846 Oct 26, 2013
River Tam wrote:
While all the little Red states keep rewriting their little constitutions to define marriage. They know it's not going to work and yet they keep doing it. Keep voting. it's not going to get any better for your but keep voting. That's the spirit... You crack me up, Brian.:-)
Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female. The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.

Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11847 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female.
And? Before 1920, women were not allowed to vote. Historical precedence is not a valid reason to deny rights.
Brian_G wrote:
The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
You have yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by these amendments that would render them constitutional.
A competent person could support the argument they were advancing.
Brian_G wrote:
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts.
The will of the people is not always relevant.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
I think that you are stupid and annoying, should I be allowed to put your free speech to a vote and limit your ability to speak freely if a majority feels that you are an annoying and stupid person?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Once again, the will of the public is irrelevant where equal protection of the law is concerned.

You have yet to advance a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, b) render your argument relevant, and c) prove that you are not a complete imbecile.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Many intelligent people realize that the will of the public is not applicable to fundamental rights. Marriage has been adjudicated to be one such right on 14 separate occasions by the US Supreme Court.

These facts have been pointed out to you time and time again, yet you seem not to absorb them. One could infer that you are simply stupid.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11848 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Mildred Loving a woman?
Was Richard Loving a man?
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
Actually, I've explained this to you before. But you insist on playing the idiot.

Mildred could have married any black man she wanted, giving her a rather large pool of potential life partners to which she could be intimately attracted. Richard could have married any white woman, again providing a large pool of potential intimate life partners. But telling a strictly gay man that he must choose a woman denies him ANY opportunity to choose a life partner to which he is intimately attracted.

So the case for supporting same sex marriage is actually STRONGER than the case against miscegenation.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11849 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The organization that owns the property"
How can this 'organization' own public property?
As far as I know, the only,organization that can own public property is the government (I.e., the public). What are you? An idiot?
Can you refer me to that deal, you know, the exchange tax exempt for equal public access? I'm sure there must be a public record. You never say anything you can't back up. BWAHAHAHA!
You could sit on your laze ass and google it yourself. But since you insist on, instead, displaying your ignorance as proudly as possible, I will do it for you when I get a chance.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11850 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil marriage laws require equality.
Exactly, each sex be equally represented.
How would anyone's existing marriage impacted by marriage equality Brian? You are making a fool of yourself with this silly banter.
Marriage as defined by the state, or the individuals?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11851 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, each sex be equally represented.
What state interest is furthered by such a restriction? Without such an interest, that restriction is unconstitutional. Do you have an answer, are are you conceding that you aren't terribly bright?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage as defined by the state, or the individuals?
It is defined by the state, however that definition must conform to the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all persons within a state's jurisdiction.

Have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render your argument valid?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11852 Oct 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
1.Yes
2.Yes
3.No.
They each could have married another person of their same race. Which was the state's legally enacted law at the time, equally applied to all citizens. The law only forbid them from marrying each other, not another man or woman of the appropriate race.
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Isn't that the standard that you and Pietro keep trying to apply to same-sex couples. That those seeking a same-sex marriage are not denied the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the appropriate gender according to state law which is equally applied to all.
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.

Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11853 Oct 26, 2013
Xaviers Breath Mint wrote:
<quoted text>
Frustrated much? Resorting to weak profane insults....sad.
Giving the facts of the lawsuit is resorting to weak profane insults? Gee... why aren't you jumping all over the other poster for LYING?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11854 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
It was addressed in 1967, bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional. Period, end of story. There was no need to address the issue on a race by race basis.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Of course, the fundamental problem with your argument is that you still lack the ability to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.

When you advance such an argument absent any such interest, you merely succeed in making yourself look like a fool.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11855 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
<quoted text>
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Saying that SSM is about keeping the sexes apart is about as stupid as it gets. Marriage is about the two people involved in the contract.

I know your feelings are hurt because you are losing this fight. Did you ever stop to think about why you are losing, and why your arguments are rejected by the Courts?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11856 Oct 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying that SSM is about keeping the sexes apart is about as stupid as it gets. Marriage is about the two people involved in the contract.
I know your feelings are hurt because you are losing this fight. Did you ever stop to think about why you are losing, and why your arguments are rejected by the Courts?
Did ya ever wonder why the Supreme Court never said same sex marriage is a fundamental right? Why even they, five justices actually, didn't go so far as to impose same sex marriage nationwide?

Now what are you going to do when a plural marriage family win the right to have their marriage(a) legally recognized, citing SSM as a precedent?

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/11...
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11857 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female. The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Before 1967, all custom and law defined marriage as A COUPLE OF THE SAME RACE. The states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of same race marriage did that in response to court challenges from different race marriage supporters.
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Different race marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why different race marriage is antidemocratic.
Many black conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11858 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, gay rights are human rights;
You almost had it right, Brian. Gays are human so have the SAME human rights that heterosexuals do.
Brian_G wrote:
not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone or to expel a student for her religious beliefs.
Gays have the same right to petition government to address their grievances that you do, Brian. Did you rant and whine when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional and changed marriage laws for everyone?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11859 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
How were those three Christian's marriages impacted with fines and court summons because they refused to participate in same sex marriage rituals?
How is anyone's marriage impacted when one of the spouses breaks the law, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Would you defend atheists who refused to participate in a same sex wedding?
If they broke the same the law, the consequences should be the same.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms everyone;
Lie.
Brian_G wrote:
that's why we protect marriage as one man and one woman.
No, YOU do so out of animus towards gays, Brian.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11860 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.
You didn't give any examples of someone's marriage being harmed. You merely provided the consequences of someone's actions resulting from breaking the law. Any "harm" to the marriage in that situation is the result of the one breaking the law.

And of course you ignore the demonstrable harm done to gays by your advocacy of discrimination against them, hypocrite.
Brian_G wrote:
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Then they simply share joint responsibility for their bad business decision to break the law.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage harms everyone.
Lie.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11861 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The organization that owns the property"
How can this 'organization' own public property?
Can you refer me to that deal, you know, the exchange tax exempt for equal public access? I'm sure there must be a public record. You never say anything you can't back up. BWAHAHAHA!
Here you go. No more excuses for not knowing what you're talking about, except for your overwhelming will to remain ignorant.

http://www.aclu-nj.org/files/8713/2639/9826/C...
Judge Metzger wrote:
n July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).
Neptune Township, the municipality within which respondent is located, opposed the application on grounds that respondent is governed by religious restrictions that make equal-access doubtful. At a public hearing conducted by the Department of
Environmental Protection in September 1989, respondent represented that the Pavilion was available for public use without reservation. Following the hearing the Department approved the tax exemption on certain conditions, one of which required the property to be open for public use on an equal basis. Respondent renewed this application every three years as required, and the tax exemption was continued through the period in question here with the same condition for equal access.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11862 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Was Mildred Loving a woman?
Yes.
Wondering wrote:
Was Richard Loving a man?
Yes.
Wondering wrote:
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
They were prevented from marrying because of their race, not because they were a man or a woman. They each could have married someone of the opposite sex had they abided by the race restriction. Which is why SCOTUS ruled the the race restriction unconstitutional and did not instead rule the right of opposite sex couples to marry was absolute.

If SCOTUS had ruled the latter, that would have overturned consanguinity restrictions too. A fact you apparently realized belatedly after I rubbed your face in your usual stupidity when you asserted ANY restriction on men and women marrying was unconstitutional.

And your intellectual dishonesty for deleting that part of my comments from your reply is noted. It's too bad for you that you can't as easily delete your stupidity as well.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11863 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.
Because your three examples didn't show how anyone's marriages were harmed. You presented how three people's businesses were harmed because they broke the law.
Feel free to try again. How has any straight person's marriage been harmed by mine Brian?
Waiting....
Waiting....
Waiting....
Brian_G wrote:
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Same sex marriage harms everyone.
There marriages weren't affected, their business were, because they broke the law.

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) 4 min Double Find 81,030
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min sonicfilter 1,762,910
News Black candidate makes history as women advance ... 10 min Party With Farts 52
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 12 min Susanm 341,387
News 'It's about time': President Trump pardons late... 20 min NotSoDivineMsM 104
News 2 shot, student in custody in IN middle school ... 21 min Tie Your Mother Down 30
News President Donald Trump has demanded answers abo... 28 min fish and poi 349