Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11624 Oct 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in religious freedom, those Christian vendors have the right not to participate in religious rituals they view as profane.
Same sex marriage is bad because it's taboo.
Well, you may thinks it's taboo, but it's not......and it's growing and we now have 14 States and DC:-)

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11625 Oct 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I sure affected the baker, photographer and florist; they've been fined and no longer have the cash they planned to use on their families.
Same sex couples and same sex marriages didn't affect these people at all. Their desire to break the law did.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage harms Christians; see where they've sued them for proof.
Same sex marriage hasn't harmed one Christian anywhere. The lawsuits were the result of Christians believing they were above the law. They aren't.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11626 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Good one River.......but Brian's incapable of that sort of simple understanding!!!
Brian's incapable of any understanding. He's a moronic parrot. The village idiot of Topix.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11627 Oct 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No threat from super volcanoes, war, meteorites, famine, disease?
You must be a stupid moron idiot.
Threats involving procreation jackass. It was implied already. You were the only one too stupid to keep up.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11628 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
I guess the ruling from the article River posted means that New Jersey is the official 14th State to grant the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......awesome!!!
New Mexico and Oregon will be next. And there's nothing all the whining fundamentalists can do to stop it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11629 Oct 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in religious freedom, those Christian vendors have the right not to participate in religious rituals they view as profane.
They weren't asked to participate, they were employed to provide a service from their public businesses.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it's taboo.
If things were deemed "bad" because they were taboo we still wouldn't allow women to vote, inter-racial marriages, handicapped people in the workplace, fertility assistance, women in the workplace, or proper health care.

Taboo is only an argument for the stupid. That would be you Brian_G_Village_Idiot.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11630 Oct 19, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
New Mexico and Oregon will be next. And there's nothing all the whining fundamentalists can do to stop it.
I totally agree......we could still see Hawaii as well this year!!!

I think we get Illinois and possibly Pennsylvania early next year.....and maybe some states that will be a total surprise like North Carolina!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11631 Oct 19, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Thirteen states and counting prove you wrong, small Peter. And the Supreme Court of California ruled gays had the fundamental right of marriage in that state before voters sought to permanently infringe that right via Prop 8.
Did they actually use those words?
It's inherent in the liberty to choose one's mate with which to exercise their fundamental right of marriage.
From Bowers v. Texas:
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
Gee, that could allow a number of options.
It only seems different to stupid people like you since you're unable to distinguish between the actual legal accomplishment of marriage and the various restrictions placed on exercising that right.
"The legal accomplishment of marriage"? Ohhhhhh........joining one man and one woman together as legally recognized husband and wife.
On the contrary, the laws were equally applied within the state in which they were enacted. It's irrelevant whether the laws varied between states or whether all states even had anti-miscegenation laws. The race restriction served no compelling government interest and was thus unconstitutional.
Exactly how we're they applied "equally"? How does one apply a law equally to a person of mixed ethnicity/race?
Gays don't have to conform to YOUR unconstitutional expectations to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of bigoted *sswipes like you.
It must drive you crazy knowing there are self described gay men, and lesbians, who actually choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even engage in coitus! And what can coitus result in? Conception!
I don't have to explain them. How they self identify doesn't refute the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is innate.
If ya can't, just say so.
Nor does it refute the fact sexual orientation meets the criteria SCOTUS has set for determining suspect classes for equal protection cases. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has always bent over backwards to use rational basis scrutiny to rule in favor of gays and thus avoid the need to declare sexual orientation a suspect class. Probably because they know if they do, they'd be forced to declare all state laws withholding legal recognition of same sex marriages unconstitutional.
Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11632 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they actually use those words?
Yes, basically that is what the CSSC said in the reMarriage case in May of 2008!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11633 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?
Yes, it's called being BISEXUAL!!!

Since: Jan 10

Westerville, OH

#11634 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As are yours Marramie.
<quoted text>
Uhhhhh......huh.....and you're just sitiing up on the mountain top dispensing pearls of wisdom to the "ignorant" masses. It must be such a burden.
It is a burden, thanks for acknowledging that. If you ignorant haters would just crack a book every once in a while you would lessen the burden and not be such an embarrassment to the United States. Really, when is the last time read anything other than the TV?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11635 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, basically that is what the CSSC said in the reMarriage case in May of 2008!!!
Did they use those actual words?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11636 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they use those actual words?
What difference does it make?

Same sex couples are getting married in California and the Federal government grants them the same rights as opposite sex married couples.

What a great country, right?

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11637 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did they actually use those words?
Yes. From In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757:

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gee, that could allow a number of options.
Possibly.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"The legal accomplishment of marriage"? Ohhhhhh........joining one man and one woman together as legally recognized husband and wife.
Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly how we're they applied "equally"? How does one apply a law equally to a person of mixed ethnicity/race?
The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It must drive you crazy knowing there are self described gay men, and lesbians, who actually choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even engage in coitus! And what can coitus result in? Conception!
On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If ya can't, just say so.
I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?
They're called bisexuals.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11638 Oct 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I believe in religious freedom, those Christian vendors have the right not to participate in religious rituals they view as profane.
Same sex marriage is bad because it's taboo.
No it isn't.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11639 Oct 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they use those actual words?
Go look......you want the information.....go read the ruling.

You just might learn something!!!

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#11640 Oct 19, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. From In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757:
"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
<quoted text>
Possibly.
<quoted text>
Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.
<quoted text>
The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.
<quoted text>
I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.
<quoted text>
They're called bisexuals.
Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11642 Oct 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.
Pietro is too lazy to do that. Even when you spoon feed him, he often just ignores it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11643 Oct 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, you may thinks it's taboo, but it's not......and it's growing and we now have 14 States and DC:-)
Note how it grows by court order instead of legislation; same sex marriage started by court order, without the consent of the governed.

That's why they sue Christian's who don't consent to attend their religious same sex marriage celebrations. They don't want tolerance, they want celebration.

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic elitism.

“Expecting!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 13

Royally Inked

#11644 Oct 20, 2013
So...I'm a gluten free vegetarian and I was at Subway yesterday and the guy behind me didn't order a Veggie Delight with gluten free bread! I was SO upset! He shouldn't be allowed to dine at Subway!

See how ridiculous it sounds?

Yeah.

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 Does It Take So Many BMs To Fight 1 Non-bla... 1 min T-BOS 37
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Realtime 1,261,839
Black girls 2 min vlsurtz 8
All women prefer white men 2 min enoch powell 5,538
Why are most white people racist? 3 min USaGlobalWarMonge... 1,906
Spotted 'Girl' spying in the south. 6 min Chuck Bones 7
Child Sexual Abuse Rampant in Black Community (May '12) 9 min Moorspeaks 261
Somalis and their shameless self promotion 13 min USaGlobalWarMonge... 243
white women are the prettiest, black women are ... 17 min Lenny bruce 172
Barros reveals his ethnicity 38 min Savant 266
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 2 hr Curious Me 34,870
More from around the web