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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15666 Jan 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian is beyond pathetic. They openly post lies and half truths, and present a childlike facade in the hopes that one does not see the underlying troll. They are a despicable excuse of a human being.
Sort of like the GOP writing bills that are design to do NOTHING more than sanction legal discrimination towards GLBT individuals!!!!

Read the thread entitled Arizona GOP and the new bill they have proposed!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15667 Jan 16, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
Funny how folks like Pete are ALL in favor of the one Judge who ruled the Cohabitation law in Utah UNCONSTITUTIONAL........but AREN'T in favor of Judge Shelby's ruling that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny Same-Sex couples the right to marry.....wonder why?
Petey the Wondering isn't know for his intellectual consistency.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15668 Jan 16, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Petey the Wondering isn't know for his intellectual consistency.
Well, that may have some truth in it........he does like to repeat himself though!!!
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#15669 Jan 16, 2014
You know if Christians fought for laws and bans of all sins I would respect them. But most since they do themselves and they don't blink those...I mean g to a church on sunday and watch hw many super rich and fat slobs that go in...GREED(RICH) and GUTONY) fat are sins...Why no bans of fat people and rich people Christians??

OH YEA BECAUSE MOST CHRISTIANS ARE RICH OR FAT OR BOTH...
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15670 Jan 16, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
You know if Christians fought for laws and bans of all sins I would respect them. But most since they do themselves and they don't blink those...I mean g to a church on sunday and watch hw many super rich and fat slobs that go in...GREED(RICH) and GUTONY) fat are sins...Why no bans of fat people and rich people Christians??
OH YEA BECAUSE MOST CHRISTIANS ARE RICH OR FAT OR BOTH...
Nah..... most Christians aren't rich... but most are "one paycheck away from homeless" republicans.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15671 Jan 16, 2014
Love Times Three

http://youtu.be/v5U1DdBO1v8

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15672 Jan 16, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that may have some truth in it........he does like to repeat himself though!!!
You funny.....uhhhhhhh.....hellooo oooooo....you too repeat yourself, as do the rest of the rainbow crowd on this thread.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15673 Jan 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You funny.....uhhhhhhh.....hellooo oooooo....you too repeat yourself, as do the rest of the rainbow crowd on this thread.
Of course you never do.

Or is it short term memory loss? Can you really be sure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15674 Jan 16, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. You make an ass of yourself every time you bring that up.
What exactly is "irrelevant", Wastey?
False as previously explained.
What's false? That the marriage of husband and wife doesn't benefit society?
There is no impact because people do what people do.
Uhhhhhhhh......huh?
Are you implying that somehow if SSM becomes the norm, everyone will become gay? You must be kidding me.
Oh Madone! Sigh.....no Wastey.. I didn't imply that. Suppose polygamy "becomes the norm" will everyone become a polygamist?
False as previously explained. Same-sex families are not receiving equal protection of the law as well as due process.
Equal protection of the law? How can a "same sex family", receive "equal protection of law", the same as a family comprised of a husband and wife and their own children?
. Your remark is mean-spirited.
Yet you have no problem viewing plural marriage families with contempt. So whose the "mean spirited" one?

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15675 Jan 16, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "harm" is fictitious, and we aren't governed by the UN.
<quoted text>
Marriage isn't being redefined. It's definition continues to be a "union", a "ceremony" and an "institution" regardless of whether gays or straights enter into it. And our marriages have nothing to do with sexual desire. Our desires are met or ignored regardless of our marital status. And you are wrong about marriage being a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has deemed it as such on 14 occasions:
Maynard v Hill
Meyer v Nebraska
skinner v Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson
Griswold v Connecticut
Loving v Virginia
Boddie v Connecticut
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur
Moore v City of East Cleveland
Carey v Population Services International
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey
M.L.B v S.L.J
Lawrence v Texas
Congratulations. You remain the Village Idiot.
Ya forgot this one, Joanie loves baloney

In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15676 Jan 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You funny.....uhhhhhhh.....hellooo oooooo....you too repeat yourself, as do the rest of the rainbow crowd on this thread.
Sorry Pete, but I Rarely copy and paste any of my previous posts to respond to comments made......you do it often and continue to use sources that have been debunked.........I mean copying and pasting previous court rulings from over a 150 years ago when you have been told that they are IRRELEVANT......you do it like every other day or so.......try some NEW material instead of repeating your lame comments about Conjugality and marriage is a union between a man and a woman.......ESPECIALLY when you know that I am legally married and that my marriage has both State and Federal recognition, along with the same rights, benefits and privileges that any other LEGAL marriage has in this Country!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15677 Jan 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).
See, this is what I mean......this ruling is 129 years old, when having babies was rather important to the survival of this Country.......but it is rather IRRELEVANT as are most of these cases if you'd BOTHER to read Griswold vs Connecticut(1965):
is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Conn...

So, if marriage was SOLELY about procreation........that all changed with this ruling stating that a WOMAN had the right to decide WHEN she wanted to start her family.......NOT just because she happened to be her husband's prize possession!!!

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15678 Jan 16, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya forgot this one, Joanie loves baloney
In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court articulated the crucial foundation of society:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (1885, emp. added).
Since the case you cite is a voter registration case and has nothing to do with marriage law, it wasn't forgotten. It's simply not relevant for marriage law precedent.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15679 Jan 17, 2014
Reason Five for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Same sex marriage is taboo.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#15680 Jan 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Reason Five for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Same sex marriage is taboo.
Sorry, but your taboo reason is way out of date!!!

This is the 21st Century!!!
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#15681 Jan 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Reason Five for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Same sex marriage is taboo.
Taboo??? So taboo is banned in the Constitution???

Nah I will stick stick with FREEDOM EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL AND SUPPORT SSM.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15682 Jan 17, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pete, but I Rarely copy and paste any of my previous posts to respond to comments made......you do it often and continue to use sources that have been debunked.....
"Debunked"? Please what has been "debunked"?
....I mean copying and pasting previous court rulings from over a 150 years ago when you have been told that they are IRRELEVANT....
The relevancy is illustration of how the Court viewed marriage. A union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. It laid the foundation for subsequent rulings. They didn't create a new form of marriage.
..you do it like every other day or so.......try some NEW material instead of repeating your lame comments about Conjugality and marriage is a union between a man and a woman.....
As do others on the flip side of this debate, who often repeat the same talking point all over again. As for conjugality, that term addresses the opposite sex aspect of marriage.
..ESPECIALLY when you know that I am legally married and that my marriage has both State and Federal recognition, along with the same rights, benefits and privileges that any other LEGAL marriage has in this Country!!!
Yes LEGALLY, that doesn't mean every single aspect of American marital jurisprudence as compiled over the past several centuries suddenly applies to a same sex union! That's simply not true, nor can a woman of your intelligence, argue otherwise!

The State of California, against the wishes of the voters, was forced to eliminate conjugality, opposite sex, as the basis for legal marriage in the state, and replace it with a two person model regardless of gender composition. Are you going to dispute this?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15683 Jan 17, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah I will stick stick with FREEDOM EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL AND SUPPORT SSM.
That's nice....now run along little boy...put some pants on to cover your superman underoos, and put mom's table cloth back on the table.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15684 Jan 17, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even read your own posts?
"The Friday ruling did not address legal polygamy — actually being married to multiple people — but only what U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups referred to as “religious cohabitation.”
Did I say the ruling legalized polygamy, or multiple marriage licenses? No, the judged ruled in favor of the Browns, a plural marriage family.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#15685 Jan 17, 2014
Notice how when you have Christian nazi types backed into a corner all they have is nasty attacks and attempted cut downs and smears...

It is sad how a dying beast fights when they know there time is up.

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
NEANDERTHALS made WHITES more INTELLIGENT (Apr '13) 2 min Redefined 1,752
HOW do Africans become USA Agents, HOW does CIA... 2 min Human 3
Poll Will Donald Trump be the next President of the ... (Aug '15) 4 min DerekJ 1,583
RNC Day 4 ratings TROUNCE DNC by MILLIONS 6 min Hillary 2016 16
CROOKED HILLARY : A violent erratic psychopath 8 min Dan Snow 2
BM Thwarts White Rapist & Robber. 12 min Dan Snow 29
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min My New Alias RULES 1,406,078
Trump BUSTED .....PUTIN 18 min Hillary 2016 23
More from around the web