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.

Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3564 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
says you.
how about if we let voters decide?
why do you think your view (in the minority at that) should prevail?
Because OTHERWISE only land-owning WASPS would have rights, not people with a name like "Francisco dAnconia". Read your history.

WASPs see a name like yours and think "African". Minorities throughout history didn't get rights because the majority wanted to share it's power.

Here, read this and think about how dumb your views are. You are on the wrong side of history:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/voting_right...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3565 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Because OTHERWISE only land-owning WASPS would have rights, not people with a name like "Francisco dAnconia". Read your history.
WASPs see a name like yours and think "African". Minorities throughout history didn't get rights because the majority wanted to share it's power.
Here, read this and think about how dumb your views are. You are on the wrong side of history:
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/voting_right...
wow, you pile off base on top of off base...
the name is a character from atlas shrugged...
that was the closest thing to right you got here...
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3566 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, you pile off base on top of off base...
the name is a character from atlas shrugged...
that was the closest thing to right you got here...
he who wishes to be greatest, must be servant to all.
to serve others as self is to serve all.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3567 Mar 8, 2013
looks like Mona is back to playing with the icons..
what a sad loon he is...
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3568 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, you pile off base on top of off base...
the name is a character from atlas shrugged...
that was the closest thing to right you got here...
LOL Oh, you aren't to the right, you just adore that hypocritical atheist Ayn Rand fiction writer who took social security. Perhaps you need your mother's bosom to suckle for some inspiration while your ravel in your ignorance. Try reading some nonfiction and comment about facts.
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3569 Mar 8, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>he who wishes to be greatest, must be servant to all.
to serve others as self is to serve all.
LOL That's a Christian idea. Jesus would agree. Francisco is an atheist follower of the hypocritical fiction-writer Ayn Rand.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#3570 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
says you.
how about if we let voters decide?
why do you think your view (in the minority at that) should prevail?
Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples. While the majority can make the laws, the constitution requires equal treatment under those laws for all persons. A majority voting on the equal rights of a minority is like a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

And that is why we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The founders knew very well that majorities would deny equal rights to minorities if they could get away with it. That is why they promised equal treatment for all, and required it in the constitution. The fact we still have not yet gotten it right, only demonstrates the need, and why they tried to establish equal treatment as a cornerstone of our government.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. 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." SCOTUS

"The majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority." John Adams, the second U.S. president.

“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” James Madison

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

The difference in our views is that you want to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself, causing needless harm, while we want equal treatment under the law. You lose nothing either way.
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3571 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL That's a Christian idea. Jesus would agree. Francisco is an atheist follower of the hypocritical fiction-writer Ayn Rand.
actually the idea can be found in many different philosophies, religions, belief systems.

1 do no harm
2. do not to others what you would not done to you

et al
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3572 Mar 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
A majority voting on the equal rights of a minority is like a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
great analogy
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3573 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL Oh, you aren't to the right, you just adore that hypocritical atheist Ayn Rand fiction writer who took social security. Perhaps you need your mother's bosom to suckle for some inspiration while your ravel in your ignorance. Try reading some nonfiction and comment about facts.
wow, off you go.
do you need another poster to fake responding to or are you good going off alone now?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3574 Mar 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples. While the majority can make the laws, the constitution requires equal treatment under those laws for all persons. A majority voting on the equal rights of a minority is like a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
And that is why we are a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The founders knew very well that majorities would deny equal rights to minorities if they could get away with it. That is why they promised equal treatment for all, and required it in the constitution. The fact we still have not yet gotten it right, only demonstrates the need, and why they tried to establish equal treatment as a cornerstone of our government.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. 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." SCOTUS
"The majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority." John Adams, the second U.S. president.
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” James Madison
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson
The difference in our views is that you want to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself, causing needless harm, while we want equal treatment under the law. You lose nothing either way.
yup, because you assume two things wrongly:
1. that marriage is fundamental right apart from procreation
2. that gays are sufficiently similar to straights in this regard.

you have assumed them for so long you have no doubt...but you should have one...
that gays do not procreate TOGETHER is a rational distinction based on a material issue as related to marriage...
citing to racial civil rights and all the TJ you want doesn't change where the rubber meets the road...
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3575 Mar 8, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>actually the idea can be found in many different philosophies, religions, belief systems.
1 do no harm
2. do not to others what you would not done to you
et al
Of course, but we are talking about the Church and Francisco is very hypocritical.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3576 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, but we are talking about the Church and Francisco is very hypocritical.
I love how you guys HAVE to attack the poster...
even an anonymous one you have already shown you know nothing about...
its a weak tack.....
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3577 Mar 8, 2013
This is a crucial time in history. The best case scenario would be for the SCOTUS to rule against gay marriage in June.

Then Democrats will be motivated to VOTE in the midterms (a novelty to date) and get rid of the conservative taliban in congress once and for all.

As a result, the president will also be able to replace the American taliban on the SCOTUS. The majority of Americans support gay marriage.

The American taliban is on the wrong side of history.
Makes sense

Evansville, IN

#3578 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, because you assume two things wrongly:
1. that marriage is fundamental right apart from procreation
2. that gays are sufficiently similar to straights in this regard.
you have assumed them for so long you have no doubt...but you should have one...
that gays do not procreate TOGETHER is a rational distinction based on a material issue as related to marriage...
citing to racial civil rights and all the TJ you want doesn't change where the rubber meets the road...
You don't have to procreate to be a parent, nitwit. Have you ever heard of adoption?
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3579 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how you guys HAVE to attack the poster...
even an anonymous one you have already shown you know nothing about...
its a weak tack.....
i haven't attacked anyone.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3580 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to procreate to be a parent, nitwit. Have you ever heard of adoption?
psst, I am talking about constitutional law, you are talking about nonsense jerry springer style...
dolt.

"taliban"?
yup, that's enough to ignore you as wacky...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#3581 Mar 8, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>i haven't attacked anyone.
then maybe I didn't mean you?

I meant your "side" tends to attack the poster, we both know why...
its silly.
harpocrates

Middlesboro, KY

#3582 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
then maybe I didn't mean you?
I meant your "side" tends to attack the poster, we both know why...
its silly.
my side?

i'll be sure and get a blood test if i ever decide to become one sided.

i tend to be a bit more rotund. a point tends to be pointless
nature lover

Nicholasville, KY

#3583 Mar 8, 2013
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to procreate to be a parent, nitwit. Have you ever heard of adoption?
Why do queers expect straight people to carry the load for them? The gay lifestyle does not allow for reproduction because it goes against nature. If they want children they should leave their perverted lifestyle and marry someone of the opposite sex and have them.

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
RMG : Was there surveillance at Trump Tower ? 1 hr Mr oH 64
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Reality Check 1,510,373
Why is the media pushing interracial relationsh... (Sep '14) 1 hr UnderstandPeople 700
this is the mixed race thread (Dec '11) 2 hr Emily 122
Jimi Hendrix vs Jimmy Page? Best guitar hero? 2 hr WHITE AMERICA 4 EVER 8
Blacks are ugly (Jun '16) 3 hr WHITE AMERICA 4 EVER 21
Bi/Gay skype sex??? (Dec '12) 3 hr Sammysissy999 114
White men DO NOT want white girls who date blac... (Nov '10) 3 hr jtr304 5,489
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 4 hr Cigar Face 25 1,447
White men are the solution for the single black... 5 hr IT IS I 231
Blacks and Tipping 7 hr KIP 102
More from around the web