Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
6,361 - 6,380 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6859
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6864
Jul 30, 2013
 
lides wrote:
It is arguing to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
They aren't second class citizens, they share all the rights of the majority, but that doesn't satisfy. So, they want to redefine marriage for everyone. Don't blame me for your poorly considered political goals.

.
lides wrote:
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?
It's untrue to write: Gays "have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc." It's like arguing, you can't label something that never existed before the 21st Century in written law, a "right" then call everyone who disagrees, oppressive insulting bigots. Nice try though, I'm sure you'll get props.

.
lides wrote:
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.
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality; it's about rewriting marriage law for everyone to satisfy a mascot victim group. Same sex marriage is like a pity f^ck.

I'll bet you find that insulting too. Truth hurts.

.
lides wrote:
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.
I'm arguing against Sharia, backlash, violence and rewriting marriage laws. I like marriage law as is, up until 2000. Gays have equal protection, many have married, there is no orientation test for a marriage license.

If you rewrite marriage laws for gays why can't you do that for Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman, because I don't want to practice Sharia.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6865
Jul 30, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Gee Brian......just when I thought you couldn't get any more ridiculous in your comments, you again prove you can.......allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry the person of their choosing just like you got to has NOTHING to do with Sharia or Muslims or polygamy or anything else you claim!!!

You have been shown and told that Same-Sex Couples have married in the past, like in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries......hell, even with Jesus Christ appearing to bless a Same-Sex Saint Couple, which hangs in the Kiev Museum......you just don't want to believe they actually happened......so, marriage rights did exist prior to the 21st century and again.....that is totally irrelevant!!!

You do harm Gays and Lesbians when you state you would work hard to nullify their legal marriages, you do harm Gays and Lesbians by continuing to insist that DP's and Civil Unions are just fine for us and you continue to harm Gays and Lesbians by comparing us to shiet that is totally irrelevant like Muslims and Sharia laws that is NOT ever going to happen in this Country!!!

Get use to Marriage Equality Brian.....IT'S NOT GOING TO CEASE TO EXIST JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6866
Jul 30, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equal rights; it's about the special right to redefine marriage. If gays get it, why not Muslims?
Marriage is still defined as an "institution", a "commitment" and a "ceremony", even when gays do it. Your "redefinition" is completely non-existent.

So in Brian_G land, Muslims can't currently marry? Got it.
Flaunt your ignorance proudly.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm in favor of defending one man and one woman marriage because I don't like Sharia.
Just when one thinks you can't say something stupider than your past posts.....there you go.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6867
Jul 30, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So they go to another state, get married, then file a discrimination lawsuit. Guess where this is going to end in spite of all your whining.
Nail on the head!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6868
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
When you find the state that will legally recognize a dog's ability to consent to such a relationship, do let us know.

The only one looking foolish is you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6869
Jul 30, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pete, but my marriage is just like any other legal marriage......nothing more and nothing less and YES, IT IS A MARRIAGE.....
But it does differ in form and function.
.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?
Yes, a license with a line for "husband", and "wife".
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?
It differs in function, form, and expectations
I know.....because you feel threatened by my marriage, right?
No, because it changes the meaning of marriage as it relates, and applies, to society at large. If you wish to marry another woman....wonderful...fantastic ...boil the water...I'll bring the pasta and vino. However, I disagree with changing the definition of legal marriage.
Marriage as we know it has been changing since roughly 500 years ago....
The two basic ingredients, male and female, are still there.
..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..
No, it's based on the union of the sexes.
....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:-)
It was unconstitutional because bans on interracial marriage served to maintain white supremacy. Also the ethnicity of the husband and wife in no way altered the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union.
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?
I think the conjugal monogamist concept of legal marriage would win out. People could still marry whomever they wanted to, albeit without legal recognition.
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?
Absolutely! It could also be voted to remove marriage from the realm of government too.
Are you truly saying that an infertile/sterile heterosexual couple is different than a Same-Sex Couple? and if so, how?
It's "opposite sex couple", and yes they differ for the obvious reason, they are of the opposite sex.
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......
They differ in function and form. Why not include incestuous marriages too? Are "yours" superior to them?
.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!!!
Great! Let's allow any one who wants to create their own form of marriage the right to do so, and have legal recognition. After all, if we follow the logic of SSM, that has to happen, it's discrimination otherwise. Or are there some forms of "discrimination" within marriage law that is acceptable? Which is it?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6870
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think any of our children will come up to us and say that they are gay, because we do not intend to abuse our children and make them gay, like yours did.
None of your children would tell you they are gay even if they were. They would simply run away since you are clearly unhinged about the issue.
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is illegal for the same reason that same sex marriages are illegal in 37 states and 187 countries.
Um, dear, marriages between gay people are not illegal, they are simply not recognized currently by some states. Polygamy on the other had IS illegal and the laws making it illegal don't affect gays and their marriages whatsoever.

You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. It always amazes me when people who know absolutely nothing about a subject so willingly thrust themselves into the conversation.
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no intention of standing with polygamist, not your problem, so why should straights except your nonsense and stand with your mental issue?
You seem completely incapable of forming a coherent question. Straights stand with gays because they see the inequality that gays are being subjected to. If you wish to discuss polygamy, then I suggest you address the moron known as Pietro. He loves this unrelated subjects. In fact, he's creepily obsessed with it.

Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you support adult incest marriages, given your experience with incest? Why or why not? If not, then why should any straight support SSM?
Yeah, you definitely need to speak with Peitro. You both seem to demonstrate about the same low IQ level.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6871
Jul 30, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So does the desire for legal SSM. All men, and all women are provided equal protection of law as it applies to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Your argument is because you sexually prefer someone of the same sex, somehow you're being denied "equal protection". You may prefer to marry a sibling, but the law says no, and that doesn't violate equal protection.
Polygamy seeks inherently greater protection for three or more people.
Why is it that the bigots who advance this argument invariably cannot count?
And?
SSM seeks greater protection as well. It's disingenuous to argue other wise. A man, or woman, with a self professed same sex attraction/orientation, is still a man or woman, and is entitled to the same equal protection, as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, as any other man or woman. No more, no less.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6872
Jul 30, 2013
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is arguing to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
No, it's holding them to the same standard, and rules, as any other American citizen, as it relates to this issue.
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?
You are already entitled to equal protection under the law, same as any other American of your respective gender, as it relates to this issue.
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.
You have yet to offer a good reason why a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship should be called marriage. There is no couples right to marry?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6873
Jul 30, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't second class citizens, they share all the rights of the majority, but that doesn't satisfy. So, they want to redefine marriage for everyone. Don't blame me for your poorly considered political goals.
I'm already married. List the top 5 ways that YOUR marriage has been redefined by this fact.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality; it's about rewriting marriage law for everyone to satisfy a mascot victim group. Same sex marriage is like a pity f^ck.
I'll bet you find that insulting too. Truth hurts.
Well, if anyone on here knew about a pity f*ck, we're all positive it would be you. I'll bet you find that insulting. Truth hurts.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm arguing against Sharia,
No, you are arguing for a Christian version of it.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
rewriting marriage laws.
No marriage laws have been "rewritten". Laws discriminating against gays have been struck down. No laws pertaining to marriage have been rewritten. But don't let facts get in the way of showing off your stupidity Brian_G.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I like marriage law as is, up until 2000. Gays have equal protection, many have married, there is no orientation test for a marriage license.
If you rewrite marriage laws for gays why can't you do that for Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman, because I don't want to practice Sharia.
What laws pertaining to marriage would need to be rewritten for Muslims Brian_G? The existing laws work just fine for Muslims, just as they work just fine for gays.

I think you ought to go bed for one of those pity f*cks that you are so familiar with. It sounds like you could use one about now.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6874
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jonah1 wrote:
Marriage is still defined as an "institution", a "commitment" and a "ceremony", even when gays do it. Your "redefinition" is completely non-existent. So in Brian_G land, Muslims can't currently marry? Got it. Flaunt your ignorance proudly.[] Just when one thinks you can't say something stupider than your past posts.....there you go.
Muslims haven't rewritten marriage law in America, the way same sex marriage supporters have. If a gay or a lesbian can redefine marriage, why not a Muslim man or woman?

Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6875
Jul 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jonah1 wrote:
When you find the state that will legally recognize a dog's ability to consent to such a relationship, do let us know. The only one looking foolish is you.
If you can spay or neuter your dog without consent, why would you ask consent to marry? Animals don't require consent; if same sex marriage is law, why not other sexual orientations?

Keep marriage male/female now, because if you lose, tomorrow Sharia will define polygamous marriage and consent will become disentangled from marriage, just as they attempt to remove its male/female aspect.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

363 Users are viewing the African-American Forum right now

Search the African-American Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
About foreign born blacks. ---------- 1 min Aussie Bob 556
Another BM with a HOT WW Wife__----------- 3 min SadButTrue 249
First time gay sex (Mar '12) 4 min Brad 67
Paris Hilton is a RACIST. She "hates" black men 4 min Redefined 117
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 5 min Slave Coast 94,478
Gene therapy will turn white people into black ... 11 min blacks are a failure 22
Is Maceo a Silverback Gorilla? (Aug '12) 14 min SadButTrue 74
Random thoughts... (Sep '07) 25 min Loulou 78,304
Why do good looking black women like white men ... (Sep '12) 35 min SadButTrue 6,211
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
Ashburn Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••