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”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6840 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not anything but just a marriage that includes 2 of the same gender.......but that is NOT called a gender segregated marriage except for by those who can't handle the fact that it's just a marriage!!!

Actually Pete there have been folks who think that allowing Gay and Lesbians to cohabitant is also wrong......but frankly I don't give a shiet about your pathetic sarcasm....I don't believe I'm required to live my life based on your acceptance or approval!!!

You are definitely allowed your opinion, but that's not the only thing you post......YOU WANT OUR SOCIETY TO TOTALLY LIVE BY YOUR FRUCKING BELIEFS and to continue to TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS YOU WANT IT TO BE DEFINED......sorry but that AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN PETE!!!

Gays and Lesbians ARE GOING TO BE TREATED AS ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHT TO MARRY THE PERSON OF THEIR CHOOSING instead of the way you want them to!!!!

Plain and simple!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6841 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And some plural marriage family files a law suit, as the Browns did, seeking recognition of their marriage(s), citing the precedent of SSM. So will you whine then, or wave the rainbow flag of marriage equality in support of them? C'mon Wastey...be fair....Marriage Equality for all. Tolerance and diversity.
The Browns are the ONLY polygamy family that I am aware of that is suing and what they are suing to predominately do is to decriminalization polygamy.

I already told you Pete.....the right to marry more than one other person IS NOT MY FIGHT......and seeing as you are advocating for them, will you truly support their fight? or just use it to make your point?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6842 Jul 29, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your hypothetical has no basis. The state has a compelling interest to discriminate against bigamy and the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act stands. Keep whining; your fallacy has no basis in reality.
Hmmmmm....what compelling interest is there in telling children their biological mother and father cannot marry because they're part of a plural marriage family.

So, for example, a man can father several children with several women, consider them his wives, they in turn consider him, their husband, all are consenting adults, and you're saying the state has an interest in....

....breaking the family up?

....not recognizing them as a family?

.....not protecting the husband, and wives?

....implying the adults are second class citizens?

.....the children don't deserve the dignity of having married parents?

I think you get the drift.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6843 Jul 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not anything but just a marriage that includes 2 of the same gender.......but that is NOT called a gender segregated marriage except for by those who can't handle the fact that it's just a marriage!!!
Or by those who can't admit IT IS a marriage of two women!....and yes it's different! Are we really arguing that its not???!!! It is what it is....if it makes ya happy....wonderful! But jeez us Louise....let's not pretend here its the same as husband and wife....C'mon Nor Cal....you're a smart woman.
Actually Pete there have been folks who think that allowing Gay and Lesbians to cohabitant is also wrong..
Live and let live.
....but frankly I don't give a shiet about your pathetic sarcasm....I don't believe I'm required to live my life based on your acceptance or approval!!!
Nor I, yours.
You are definitely allowed your opinion, but that's not the only thing you post......YOU WANT OUR SOCIETY TO TOTALLY LIVE BY YOUR FRUCKING BELIEFS and to continue to TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS YOU WANT IT TO BE DEFINED......sorry but that AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN PETE!!!
How about the tens of millions of Americans who voted to constitutionally define marriage, a definition that existed since the birth of the Republic, as a union of husband and wife. WHAT ABOUT THEIR FRUCKING BELIEFS? They're not just mine!!!!!!!!!! I didn't conjure up this concept called "marriage" it pre existed the Republic!
Gays and Lesbians ARE GOING TO BE TREATED AS ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHT TO MARRY THE PERSON OF THEIR CHOOSING
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! Either you want to be treated like any other American, or you don't, as it relates to marriage. The STATE STILL RESTRICTS WHO CAN MARRY!!!!!!!. Your "choice" is limited by the state, as it is with ANY OTHER AMERICAN.!!! At least be honest and admit what you want is for the state to call your personal intimate same sex relationship "marriage"!!!!!

See....now ya made me shout too.....sigh....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6844 Jul 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The Browns are the ONLY polygamy family that I am aware of that is suing and what they are suing to predominately do is to decriminalization polygamy.
First step, as with homosexual relations, is decriminalization. That's how it starts.
I already told you Pete.....the right to marry more than one other person IS NOT MY FIGHT......and seeing as you are advocating for them, will you truly support their fight? or just use it to make your point?
Nor Cal....no shouting...witty comments....sarcasm or whatever. Where is the line drawn? So SSM today....polygamy tomorrow....is that it? If you have the right to choose some one of the same sex....why don't polygamists have the right to choose more than one?

If everyone gets to define marriage as they choose, and expect the state to rubber stamp it, what's the point?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6845 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sorry Pete, but my marriage is just like any other legal marriage......nothing more and nothing less and YES, IT IS A MARRIAGE......just like your personal intimate relationship with the woman you cohabit with, the mother of your children and who the state issued a State Marriage license when you both applied, right? So, if what you have is a legal marriage because you have a state issued marriage license......then why is mine not considered a legal marriage in your eyes? I know.....because you feel threatened by my marriage, right?

Marriage as we know it has been changing since roughly 500 years ago......and all that is happening at this time is marriage is NOT being limited to strictly to the gender between one's legs.......nothing wrong with that and it can not be based on how or if the marriage is consummated, or if natural procreation takes place......and if people voted to limit marriage to just between a white man and a white woman, THAT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL just like it was in the Loving's ruling:-)

Again, if you would like.....I'm all in favor of putting the right to marry for ALL Americans to a vote........your right to marry, my right to marry, even polygamist right to marry more than one other person regardless of gender......how do you think that will turn out for ya, Pete?

Did 10 million Americans ACTUALLY vote to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? and if they did, can it not be voted on again to change it to any 2 person's regardless of gender?

Are you truly saying that an infertile/sterile heterosexual couple is different than a Same-Sex Couple? and if so, how? One set of couples, we don't deny them the right to marry and yet, the other couple, folks like you continue to try and deny them the right to marry and then keep insisting that your marriage is still somehow superior to our marriage.......in fact Pete, you are all in favor of discriminating against the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples just by the continued nasty comments you make........and this Country is NOT based on a majority wins and gets to trample on the rights of those you simply do NOT like!!!

Maybe others like to play with you repeatedly......but frankly, one of the reasons I ignore you most of the time is because I know you will NEVER see how wrong you are and that is truly sad!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6846 Jul 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First step, as with homosexual relations, is decriminalization. That's how it starts.
<quoted text>
Nor Cal....no shouting...witty comments....sarcasm or whatever. Where is the line drawn? So SSM today....polygamy tomorrow....is that it? If you have the right to choose some one of the same sex....why don't polygamists have the right to choose more than one?
If everyone gets to define marriage as they choose, and expect the state to rubber stamp it, what's the point?
You missed my second question.....wonder why? Will you advocate for polygamy to become legal? or is it just a talking point with no real commitment to standing with them?

Why don't polygamist have the right to choose more than one spouse? Because it is illegal and the United States Supreme Court ruled it that way in the Reynolds case!!!

If you don't like the ruling, then go and fight with the Browns or any other polygamist family and see what they truly want you to do.......like I stated many times......I believe the Brown's are only bringing this lawsuit because they didn't think of the ramifications when they agreed to do the show Sister Wives.......and again Polygamist COULD have started their own fight to change the laws regarding polygamy and polyandry relationships.......THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE HOW THINGS WOULD WORK OUT FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES!!!

By the way, you do know that is was NEVER a criminal act to have a civil contract or commitment ceremony with someone of the Same-Sex, right? It was considered a mental illness because folks didn't understand much about why some folks were attracted to the Same-Sex.......but I don't believe ANYONE was ever prosecuted JUST for being Gay or Lesbian..........however, people have been prosecuted for bigamy and polygamy as well.

Now, have a great life....do whatever you believe is right.......but know this......Marriage Equality is going to continue and we will gain more states over the next couple of years........and my guess is that you will still be here making the same comments over and over again, just like Brian_G does........and one day, one of your children may come up to you and say, "Dad, I'm Gay or a Lesbian and I'm getting married to my Gay friend or Lesbian friend"......and if that does happen, I hope you don't say to them what you have stated in these threads......that would be a real tragedy!!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6850 Jul 29, 2013
doc wrote:
You'd be wrong.

“WAY TO GO”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6851 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
You are just fixated on incest, aren't ya?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6852 Jul 30, 2013
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are just fixated on incest, aren't ya?
Rose mi amica, come va?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6853 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In the UK, polygamous marriage performed overseas in places where it is legal, are recognized for welfare purposes.
We aren't in the UK. Our laws prohibit polygamy. Your comment is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand because allowing same sex marriage does not inherently mean having to legalize polygamy. Our constitution mandates states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Polygamy seeks inherently greater protection for three or more people.

Why is it that the bigots who advance this argument invariably cannot count?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Additionally, immigrants to the UK, from the. Middle East, and North Africa, have a higher birthrate than the native population.
And?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6854 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
Dear lides, would you care to prove that your position has merit by offering a compelling state interest served by allowing the legal discrimination of marriage to allow a man and a man, and not a woman and her dog?
That's simple. A dog can't grant legal consent, nor can it enter into a legal contract.
Next time, ask a harder question.
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
Because if you can't, then such a allowance is patently unconstitutional, and your argument has no foundation.
You look foolish when you advance an argument that you cannot remotely defend
I just defended it. Congratulations on making yourself look foolish.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6855 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
You are a little liar tard. Stop whining you are losing and that is why you do not want the truth told.
37 states say you are stupid.
187 countries sat you are stupid.
Incest dads and daughters have a better chance than gays. You're on the wrong band wagon.
Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.
Sec. 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’
‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.
GOT IT, TARD.
That 37 states have laws on the boks does not mean those laws are constitutional. Clearly, you lack the wherewithal to defend them.

The laws of other countries are irrelevant. This is the United States of America, and our constitution mandates that state provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law.

I find it hysterical that you offer a citation of the DOMA, which will soon cease to exist, and which you certainly lack the intelligence to defend. Of course, the DOMA is merely a law, so I'll respond with the US Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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." US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1

Can you indicate and compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? If not, then gay marriage bans are illegal. As for DOMA, the definition of marriage is up to the states, however they may not make laws that abridge the rights of US citizens, and must afford all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Oh, it also violates full faith and credit.

My Constitution trumps your law, which is falling apart at the seams in court.

Personally, I like the USA, if you don't, move to Iran whose governance is more in line with your personal views.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6857 Jul 30, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
another bumper sticker - this time insulting both gays AND muslims!...
Can you explain how defending one man and one woman marriage insults gays? While your at it, how does a kafir saying he doesn't want to practice Sharia insult muslims? If I said I don't want to keep kosher, would I be insulting Jews?

If gays can redefine marriage, why not Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6858 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Can you explain how defending one man and one woman marriage insults gays?
It is arguing to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

It would be like me arguing that you have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc. Would you find that insulting, if I implied that you were somehow lesser and not worthy of equal protection under the law?
Brian_G wrote:
While your at it, how does a kafir saying he doesn't want to practice Sharia insult muslims? If I said I don't want to keep kosher, would I be insulting Jews?
Your points are, as usual, highly disingenuous. You are trying to conflate fictitious religious hypothetical, with a very real movement to deny equal protection of the laws to some people.
Brian_G wrote:
If gays can redefine marriage, why not Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.
Brian, once again, you are arguing for Sharia.

Most of us are in favor of equal protection of the law for all, and thus far you've been able to offer no good reason why same sex couples should be denied the right to legally marry.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#6859 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>Dear lides, would you care to prove that your position has merit by offering a compelling state interest served by allowing the legal discrimination of marriage to allow a man and a man, and not a woman and her dog? Because if you can't, then such a allowance is patently unconstitutional, and your argument has no foundation.
You look foolish when you advance an argument that you cannot remotely defend
It's really a shame that you weren't bright enough to figure it out for yourself. The state's compelling interest is in maintaining marriage as a contract between two consenting parties, which is served by denying marriage to dogs and other things which are unable to provide the requisite consent. You look foolish by offering up an argument this incredibly moronic. Ass dismissed.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6860 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In the UK, polygamous marriage performed overseas in places where it is legal, are recognized for welfare purposes. Additionally, immigrants to the UK, from the. Middle East, and North Africa, have a higher birthrate than the native population.
That sounds like an excellent reason NOT to recognize such marriages in the USA.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6861 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This from a member of the rainbow bumper sticker crowd.
<quoted text>
Everyone can do the same thing like marriage, a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Yes, everyone has the right to enter into such a relationship.
here we go AGAIN. you really enjoy repeating yourself.

you've already been informed that this scenario would result in a fraudulent marriage. your endorsment fraudulent marriages is noted. we do express sorrow for your spouse.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6862 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>You are a little liar tard. Stop whining you are losing and that is why you do not want the truth told.
37 states say you are stupid.
187 countries sat you are stupid.
Incest dads and daughters have a better chance than gays. You're on the wrong band wagon.
Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.
Sec. 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’
‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.
GOT IT, TARD.
gee, that's funny. considering when SCOTUS' ruling was handed down, we were told as a nation that all Federal agencies would be releasing statements and new rules that would reflect this new ruling and how it affects everyone. including those that live in states that don't recognize same sex marriage licenses.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6863 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Can you explain how defending one man and one woman marriage insults gays? While your at it, how does a kafir saying he doesn't want to practice Sharia insult muslims? If I said I don't want to keep kosher, would I be insulting Jews?
If gays can redefine marriage, why not Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman because I don't want to practice Sharia.
bi,
i can't add anything to what lides said in their response to this post of yours.

you truly are the most disengenuous and repetitive SSOB up here. you cannot be helped, despite many posters responses and attempts to inform you for at least 3+ years. how you made it out of elementary school is beyond my ability to understand.

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
Pro conservatives pushing fear to be white in A... 2 min Ihn 17
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Zonker 1,744,429
What Race Has Better Fighters, Non-black Or Black? 4 min T-BOS 549
White men love making babies with black women (Jun '12) 5 min Trucker408us 742
Post civilization whites, compared to blacks? 7 min Ihn 156
This is why Negroes must go 10 min Back Whipping Master 45
This is Why White ppl must Go. 14 min Ms Mack 18
Barbara Bush passes away 18 min Jake 53
If slavery were reinstated would you even want ... 28 min Jake 76
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 38 min --Curious Me-- 39,874
Todays dead mudshark story 41 min Jake 88
Two loitering Starbucks arrested. Race card pu... 2 hr The Patriot 182