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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10704 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh......yeahhhhh...but even in Utah purporting to be married to more than one woman is a crime.
So why shouldn't they be allowed to have their unions legally recognized?
Apparently it's not a concern to the Browns since their federal lawsuit doesn't seek to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. You're apparently the main cheerleader for something your poster men and women don't even want: legally recognized polygamous civil marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10705 Sep 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they seek greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Learn to count.
Learn anatomy, and biology. SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10706 Sep 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it's not a concern to the Browns since their federal lawsuit doesn't seek to overturn Utah's anti-bigamy law. You're apparently the main cheerleader for something your poster men and women don't even want: legally recognized polygamous civil marriage.
One step at a time Little Terri.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10707 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Learn anatomy, and biology.
Neither are relevant to the topic at hand, namely equality under the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.
You've yet to offer that elusive state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional, and give your argument a rational foundation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10708 Sep 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You AREN'T interested in Marriage Equality
I am interested in marriage conjugality.
.......you just want folks to keep giving you attention on this issue and that is all........why do I say this? Because of the redundancy of the repeated questions you continue to ask even though they have been answered!!!
What answers? It's either, "no...no...no....'marriag e equality' is just for us", or "if polygamists want to petition the government....".
Get a clue....Marriage has been evolving for some time now and it does INCLUDE Same-Sex couples.
How does marriage "evolve" by eliminating the wife, or the husband?
.....and it may include polygamist one day..
"One day"? Uhhhhhhh.....Nor.......marriag e throughout history has had two primary dominant forms, both male female. Either monogamous, or polygynous. So I suggest you get a clue.
....but as I have always stated......POLYGAMIST DID NOT NEED MARRIAGE RIGHTS TO COME TO GAYS AND LESBIANS in order for them to fight for what they believe in!!!
Sure they did.....they just needed someone to get the rules changed, fundamentally alter the marital legal foundation.
By the way, Williams is ONLY legally married to one of his supposed wives as is Kody Brown!!!
Oooooooh...."supposed wives"? I'm sure they consider themselves his wives, as does he. I would think as a wife, you would have greater respect for other wives.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10709 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn anatomy, and biology. SSMers seek greater protection of law for more than one woman, or man.
Really? Why because there are either 2 men or 2 women instead of a man and a woman? What a farce Pete!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10710 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I am interested in marriage conjugality.
Sorry, but what you are interested in simply doesn't exist.......Marriage was NEVER just about conjugal sexual relations and your word "CONJUGALITY" doesn't even exist!!!

By the way Pete.......Marriage has been evolving because back in the early days......marriage has we know it has only existed for roughly 500 years......before that, it was nothing more than a business arrangement between families and the woman was just the property of her father and had NO say in who she was married to.......today, women have as much right in deciding who they marry as men do!!!

I know you want heterosexual married couples to remain superior, but in reality.......they are just a couple who can procreate(SOMETIMES) within the marriage.......but many can't and need outside intervention........and that's where your argument fails and has failed in the Courts as well!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10711 Sep 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but what you are interested in simply doesn't exist.......
Marriage conjugality doesn't exist?!!!!
Marriage was NEVER just about conjugal sexual relations and your word "CONJUGALITY" doesn't even exist!!!
I never said it was just about "conjugal relations".....and the word does exit. Here's a site that even I corporates the word.

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality
By the way Pete.......Marriage has been evolving because back in the early days......marriage has we know it has only existed for roughly 500 years......before that, it was nothing more than a business arrangement between families and the woman was just the property of her father and had NO say in who she was married to.......today, women have as much right in deciding who they marry as men do!!!
Please, Nor, explain how marriage evolves by elimination? Elevating the wife within the marital relationship doesn't mean she should be removed altogether!
I know you want heterosexual married couples to remain superior, but in reality..
Actually it's opposite sex....and it's not a question of "superior"....rather different form, and function.
.....they are just a couple who can procreate(SOMETIMES) within the marriage.......but many can't and need outside intervention........and that's where your argument fails and has failed in the Courts as well!!!
First, it's "not failed" in every court. Second, for many can, then cannot, and third it's the reason marriage is even a privileged relationship to begin with.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10712 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please, Nor, explain how marriage evolves by elimination?
Nothing is being ELIMINATED.......opposite-sex couples AREN'T being denied the right to marry......marriage is just now being more INCLUSIVE.......why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

My marriage is not truly ANY different than my aunt and uncle's marriage of 38 years.......and they are not affected by my marriage, nor do they see it different than theirs.......I mean yes, their marriage is an opposite-sex marriage and mine is a Same-Sex marriage........neither of us have children from our marriages, nor do we want children at our ages......but why my wife and I got married is pretty much the same reason my aunt and uncle got married.......oh, there is one small difference......this is my first marriage and for them, it is their second marriage!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10713 Sep 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, it's "not failed" in every court.
Actually, the procreation argument has failed in just about every RECENT court case.......and according to SCOTUS marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......NOT a privilege.....and if it is a privilege, then why shouldn't Same-Sex Couples be allowed to participate in it?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10717 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
"Your reliance on insults and pejorative terminology doesn't change reality."
A statement which neither addresses the topic at hand, nor negates the reality that Brian G is, in fact, and idiot.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10718 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One step at a time Little Terri.
So you need to mount a recruiting drive to find polygamists that actually want multiple civil marriages?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10719 Oct 1, 2013
Still waiting for churches to come out and start fights for laws banning gluttony and greed...

I mean sin is bad right?????? So Christians should fight against all sins with laws not just single out one sin.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10720 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I am interested in marriage conjugality.
You should develop an interest in your own education. Then you'd know that same sex marriages are conjugal too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What answers? It's either, "no...no...no....'marriag e equality' is just for us", or "if polygamists want to petition the government....".
That you don't like the answers doesn't make them any less answers. You've given no rational rebuttal to the latter one. In fact you keep citing the Brown's pending federal trial and keep lying that they're actually challenging anti-bigamy laws when their pleadings state no such thing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How does marriage "evolve" by eliminating the wife, or the husband?
The same way it evolved by eliminating coverture.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"One day"? Uhhhhhhh.....Nor.......marriag e throughout history has had two primary dominant forms, both male female. Either monogamous, or polygynous. So I suggest you get a clue.
From the dissent of Conaway v. Deane:

"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sure they did.....they just needed someone to get the rules changed, fundamentally alter the marital legal foundation.
The legal arguments of polygamists have to stand on their own merit in order to succeed at trial. Unless, of course, they convince their fellow citizens and legislators first to both decriminalize bigamy and eliminate the restriction in current marriage law limiting the number of participants to two.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oooooooh...."supposed wives"? I'm sure they consider themselves his wives, as does he. I would think as a wife, you would have greater respect for other wives.
You mean like the "respect" you show to same sex spouses in general?

From a civil law standpoint, only one of them is a "wife". But nothing stops them from calling themselves "wife", "queen" or "ruler of the universe" if it makes them feel good. Except for "wife" in Utah, that is. But then that and Utah's anti co-habitation law are the real targets of the Brown's federal lawsuit.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10721 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>...or related consenting adult couples,
... and consenting adult groups...?
Right, because so many related adults are into each other.......idiot!!!

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10722 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong and aloof,^^ as usual.
The killer was sentenced to LIFE without parole.
Nobody was talking about killing him.
This is the problem with most of your arguments,....you have no idea what you're talking about, so your talking points are rendered irrelevant.
You ignore the point about drawing a line based on age.

Do you believe we should lock up a 3 yr old for life?

When you don't cite your references, you shouldn't be surprised if I address a similar but different case.

Your argument still relies on insults, and doesn't address the points raised.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10723 Oct 1, 2013
GrouchoMarxist wrote:
<quoted text>...or related consenting adult couples,
... and consenting adult groups...?
Again, the number restriction and the incest restriction have nothing to do with the gender restriction.

Restrictions must provide a compelling interest. Gender fails that test. The other restrictions have passed that test.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10724 Oct 1, 2013
Huh wrote:
Still waiting for churches to come out and start fights for laws banning gluttony and greed...
I mean sin is bad right?????? So Christians should fight against all sins with laws not just single out one sin.
Love is not a sin.

Gluttony, greed, and many other sins are clearly specified, while it is only the misinterpretation and mistranslation of a few verses that allow some to ignore and contradict the Golden Rule.

But as you point out, most of them won't give those sins more than lip service, while they try to tell us love is a sin.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10725 Oct 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage conjugality doesn't exist?!!!!
When are you going to get your head out of your pants?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10726 Oct 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the procreation argument has failed in just about every RECENT court case.......and according to SCOTUS marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT......NOT a privilege.....and if it is a privilege, then why shouldn't Same-Sex Couples be allowed to participate in it?
Perhaps more importantly, those recent court cases have shown why previous conclusions supporting restrictions based on procreation were wrong, and based on prejudice rather than logic, reason, and the equal protection requirements of the constitution. They have shown os couples neither lose or gain anything by treating ss couples equally under all of the same laws, while ss couples are harmed by denial of equality.

The Supreme Court cases that make it clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when procreation and even ability to have sex are clearly impossible, also make it clear the procreation argument is irrelevant and irrational.

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
why is trump still bagging on obama? 5 min uhuru kenyatta 1
Is Feminism a Cancer? (Oct '16) 19 min MEN GOING THEIR O... 318
Why do black people call white people racists when (Apr '13) 23 min Xtasty 87
Why blacks should be deported 30 min UidiotRaceMakeWor... 24
IRBW And Their Fantasies. 34 min Mick 466
Why do black men who date white women look GAY? (Oct '10) 35 min XTASY 44
WHY ARE BLACKS so LAZY? 1 hr CIA POLLS 4
3 Weeks on Topix AA has proven to me Blacks are... 4 hr The Power Of Mast... 78
Do Blacks See It As An Upgrade To Date Whites? 4 hr Ttt 102
Why do bm give ww a pass on racism? 5 hr IT IS I 191
Hi! My name is Tommy X Hoffman 8 hr ugly monkeys 17
More from around the web