Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13861 Nov 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
So, we all know segregated clubs are a bad thing. Then, why do you want to change marriage so its not integrated, to allow segregation and discrimination? Is it a sex thing?
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?

Have you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional yet?

Allowing someone to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing is neither segregation, nor it is discrimination. It is discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.

Don't be an idiot, Brian.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13862 Nov 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?
He has light years to go before he looks as dumb as you do.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13863 Nov 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you must be such a sweet person.
Says the person that thinks that certain discrimination is justifiable and that society benefits from certain discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
my discussion on this subject has nothing to do with your right to be 'married'.
I never said it was. I’m already married so it’s not up for discussion.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
My discussion is about you insisting that everyone who happens to have a religious conviction based on their understanding of morality must be dragged into servicing and supporting your wedding.
Ah, there you go again with your made up “support”. No one was asked to support my wedding nor was your bigot florist asked to support the wedding of the couple that attempted to employ her. And her religious convictions are irrelevant. Customers entering a public business are not obligated to know what the business owner’s religious convictions are. Your bigot florist was never asked what her religious convictions are, because they are irrelevant. She opened a public business. She’s obligated to follow the laws of the state as such. SHE “offered” her religious convictions so that she could discriminate against certain customers. That’s illegal.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so now you make this claim...
No, I actually made that claim some time ago, not now. But since you are desperate, you’ve chosen to try and side track with it, even though it has nothing to do with the rest of your post.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
'They still exist in the south and they thrive. They may not have advertising acknowledging it, but they definitely make sure the rules are known. Are you really this stupid?'
how about a link or some kind of proof, or must it be so because you think so?
Well, since I noted that they don’t advertise as such, I can’t really present that now can I. But your intentional daftness of this fact is quite funny. How about this? How about you drive around the back woods of Alabama and look at some of the bars that are there. If they have 2 or 3 Confederate flags hanging outside, and if all the patrons inside are white, that would be what I’m talking about. Hey, here’s an idea. Why don’t you simply tell the owner of one of these shops that discrimination benefits society, and that as long as the discrimination they wish to promote is justifiable to them they should go for it. Let us know how that goes.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13864 Nov 23, 2013
Barry wrote:
<quoted text>
Discrimination is healthy part of society
Hey Barry, we're all still waiting. Here are some of the statements you've made that we're still waiting for you to support.

1) How has discrimination benefited society? Specifics please.

2) Please list the top five discriminations that are the "justifiable discriminations" you mentioned.

3) Where is the post where I demanded that that you and your fellow fundies "celebrate" this supposed "lifestyle" that you think I have?

4) Where is the study and research you brought up that says that gender identity and sexual orientation are related?

I could go on with many more, but let's just start with these for now.

Why do you cowardly avoid answering and supporting yourself?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13865 Nov 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?
We'll, if you provide him a picture of you, he could then look as dumb as you.
Have you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional yet?
Have you come up with a state interest served by redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or monogamous unions that would render such an interest constitutionally necessary?
Allowing someone to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing is neither segregation, nor it is discrimination.
It is redefining marriage without a compelling state interest.
It is discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.
By that reasoning it's also discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult relative consenting partner of their choosing, or any other adult regardless of that person's marital status.

Don't be an idiot, Liddie.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13866 Nov 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
We'll, if you provide him a picture of you, he could then look as dumb as you.
And yet you make anyone seem a genius by comparison.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Have you come up with a state interest served by redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or monogamous unions that would render such an interest constitutionally necessary?
No such interest need be proven or provided, stupid Peter, because it isn't a constitutional requirement regarding fundamental rights. The actual standard, of which you've been schooled numerous times now, is the state must provide a compelling government interest to restrict the exercise of a fundamental right that relationally relates the stated interest to the restriction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is redefining marriage without a compelling state interest.
Compelling state interests apply to the restriction on exercising a fundamental, stupid Peter, not on removing them. But you keep making this same stupid mistake ad nauseam because you conflate restrictions on exercising a fundamental right with the definition of said right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
By that reasoning it's also discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult relative consenting partner of their choosing or any other adult regardless of that person's marital status.
No, because compelling state interests justifying those restriction have already been legally recognized. Restrictions are evaluated for constitutionally one by one, not all or none, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't be an idiot, Liddie.
You appear long past the point where it's possible for you to be anything but an idiot.

“ WOOF ! ”

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13867 Nov 23, 2013
Actually to be accurate and consistent with the article the headline writer should have instead written: "Black Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes".
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13869 Nov 23, 2013
Gay Marriage is bad for the Economy.
Let's say I hire a gay man to work my Clinique counter. His bug-hunting "husband" goes to a Gifting Party and becomes infected with HIV. Now MY Health insurance is supposed to pay for that?
That's why I won't hire a homosexual.

“Unconvinced”

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13870 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
Gay Marriage is bad for the Economy.
Let's say I hire a gay man to work my Clinique counter. His bug-hunting "husband" goes to a Gifting Party and becomes infected with HIV. Now MY Health insurance is supposed to pay for that?
That's why I won't hire a homosexual.
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13871 Nov 23, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Actually to be accurate and consistent with the article the headline writer should have instead written: "Black Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes".
Why would that matter? It seems gays way over use black issues in a lame attempt to support their cause.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13872 Nov 23, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
Why would happy people do that?
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13873 Nov 23, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
No, but they will attempt to seduce and convert straight children. This common practice was proven empirically by the NIH study on Human Sexuality and Aberrance. A shockingly well documented and meticulously researched study, I might add.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13874 Nov 23, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
The rules can be changed for other aggrieved groups too if they 1) exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances, 2) have standing to file such a legal challenge, and 3) can make a convincing case that a restriction on the exercise of their fundamental right of marriage lacks a compelling government interest.
Why wait? If there's no compelling state interest in maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, as you claim, then what compelling state interest is there in denying any consenting adult relationship the designation "marriage"?
You don't get to dictate how others exercise their right to pet ion government, stupid Peter.
Nor do you, stupid Terry
Nope. That where compelling government interests come into play. Under that standard, the government may exercise its police powers in the interest of public safety for the greater good of all members of society even if it infringes the rights of certain subsets of society.
Oh...like in those thirty states that maintained the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife.....understood.
Such compelling interest have already been judicially recognized for consanguinity and number of with regard to the fundamental right of marriage.
That was before legal SSM, the rules have changed, "equality" , regardless of its definition, takes precedence.
However, that doesn't preclude people from legally challenging those restrictions again.
Why wait? Let's end all the "discrimination" now, in regards or marriage.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13875 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but they will attempt to seduce and convert straight children. This common practice was proven empirically by the NIH study on Human Sexuality and Aberranence. A shockingly well documented and meticulously researched study, I might add.
No they won't......one either IS or ISN'T Gay, Lesbian or Straight......one CAN NOT be converted anymore than one CAN be converted to being straight......what a serious idiot you are!!!

Link to this well documented article or study please......can't find it by your title!!
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13876 Nov 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No they won't......one either IS or ISN'T Gay, Lesbian or Straight......one CAN NOT be converted anymore than one CAN be converted to being straight......what a serious idiot you are!!!
Link to this well documented article or study please......can't find it by your title!!
All one has to do is observes how Ellen ruined Anne Heche's life and the pattern of malfeasance becomes clear.

But if you must have the hard facts, please examine this article's references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13877 Nov 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why wait? If there's no compelling state interest in maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, as you claim, then what compelling state interest is there in denying any consenting adult relationship the designation "marriage"?
Incest practitioners are already related by blood so establishing kinship by marriage is not only redundant but also creates conflicting relationships under the law. Polygamists have already been told by SCOTUS they have no first amendment religious right to polygamy. Whiles others have given additional reasons top prohibit polygamy, I'm not aware of any court ruling now whether they've been deemed a compelling state interest. So polygamists are free to petition government and find out.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor do you, stupid Terry
I've not told you or anyone else how to exercise your right to petition government, lying Peter. Apparently you've forgotten YOU are the one insisting gays have to address the plight of polygamists and incest practitioners. Is your Alzheimer's acting up, feeble minded Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh...like in those thirty states that maintained the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife.....understood.
Nope. Those laws/constitutional amendments have not been subjected to judicial review so it's not been determined whether they meet the constitutional standard of a compelling state interest to restrict the exercise of a fundamental right. They're merely untested examples of legislative action and/or public referendums. But they are legal and enforceable until judicially declared otherwise.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That was before legal SSM, the rules have changed, "equality" , regardless of its definition, takes precedence.
Nope. The same constitutional standard applies to each restriction on a fundamental right individually. Each restriction must be separately justified by a compelling state interest and the determination of constitutionally of one restriction has no bearing on the constitutionality of other restrictions. After months of having this beaten into your thick skull, dumbs Peter, are you still incapable of even the most basic of learning?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why wait? Let's end all the "discrimination" now, in regards or marriage.
Making changes via the legal system requires someone with standing to file a legal challenge. No one in the polygamist community has yet to do so (at least to overturn the laws prohibiting multiple concurrent civil marriages). Making changes via the legislative process requires mobilization of citizens to lobby and persuade elected representatives to change laws or gather signatures for a ballot initiative. Again, nothing is stopping people affected by those marriage restrictions from doing that. And you're certainly welcome to stop being a hypocrite and actually work on behalf of those groups you've been using for the sake of argument. Of course your continued failure to do so just proves you don't really give a f*ck about their plight.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#13878 Nov 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes NO SENSE!
Good question, it goes beyond "same sex", as it relates to marriage. By that reasoning, in order not to "harm someone you don't even know", all restrictions must be removed from marriage as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. The conjugal, opposite sex, requirement, "harms" same sex couples, the monogamy, one wife/husband at a time, "harms" polygamists, etc. So either all "harms" are eliminated, or they remain in place.
No, slippery slope arguments hardly ever make sense. They are just a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from a flawed argument.

The definition of marriage is changing. No laws are being broken, just expanded. Whether or not YOU like it is irrelevant. Keep up or get left behind, you're not that important to the bigger picture.

Or....you can marry a lesbian (assuming one would ever have you), she won't love you and your advances will be abhorrent to her. Doesn't sound like anybody will be having any fun, but if that's what you really want, go for it;0)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13879 Nov 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No they won't......one either IS or ISN'T Gay, Lesbian or Straight.
What happened to the rest of the letters...."B"..... "T"....."Q "....."I"...... ..? Why are these sexual political identity labels so important to you?
.....one CAN NOT be converted anymore than one CAN be converted to being straight......what a serious idiot you are!!!
So it's all set in stone?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#13881 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but they will attempt to seduce and convert straight children. This common practice was proven empirically by the NIH study on Human Sexuality and Aberrance. A shockingly well documented and meticulously researched study, I might add.
Obviously a blatant lie on your part. Site your twisted fundie source so that we may all debunk it.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13882 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
All one has to do is observes how Ellen ruined Anne Heche's life and the pattern of malfeasance becomes clear.
But if you must have the hard facts, please examine this article's references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing
You really believe that it was ELLEN who was at fault for that relationship fiasco? I think Ellen got the better end of the deal with Portia Rossi.......at least their marriage is NOT based on some gimmick or game as I believe it was with Heche.......and Heche's life was NOT ruined then or now......she has always been Bisexual and she remains that way today and seems very happy with the path her life took......so, in essence it was a win-win for both women!!!

I guess Wikipedia was all you could come up with........that's to funny!!!

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Incognito4Ever 1,394,414
IRBW are free from Black Mind Control 3 min enoch powell 58
Blacks built nothing 3 min blacks built 5
I want a black man to sleep with my wife while ... (Feb '09) 3 min wife deep fantasy 132
Africans discovered the AMERICA before Columbus! (Jan '12) 5 min Anonymous 7,922
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 10 min Drilling for the ... 1,283
What's wrong with eating watermelon? 11 min Jax 4
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 21 min TheOriginalDoby 90
Three Iraqi/Sudanese children abused and pissed... 59 min Matthew_1 76
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 1 hr Don Barros Serrano 32,517
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 1 hr TheMediaLies 46,234
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 3 hr yisarel 135,923
More from around the web