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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16796 Feb 13, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, your judgment is clouded by your prejudice. In fact, your prejudice is so obvious to you that you don't even see the assumptions underlying your statement.
Oh by all mean oh bias and prejudice free nhjeff, enlighten me.
Neither bisexuality nor homosexuality necessarily implies promiscuity. Surely you will admit that
Yes I will.
many young people investigate their sexual urges, whether or not that is a good idea. The fact that some choose to investigate with someone of the same sex instead of exclusively with people of the opposite sex tells us nothing of the risks that they take or the health of their emotional relationships. In either case, the romantic relationship need never reach the point of sex.
Understood.....next.
It is healthier for people to realize that they have options that might work better for them than others. That is your problem. You can't stand the idea that others don't fall into your idea of "normal."
Ohhhhhhh...and you were doing so well after that first line......now it's back to the accusations. Enjoy the moment I suppose.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16798 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.....really Wastey....the man calls people "Nazi".
I was only talking about your behavior; about repeating the same nonsense day after day.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16799 Feb 13, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
Marriage has never been solely a union of husband and wife across cultures and time
Sure there's polygyny, one man several wives, polyandry which is rare, one wife several husbands, and a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex union. But SSM never seemed to sustain itself cross time cross place.

However in U.S. history, English common law from which our concept do marriage comes from, and Western Civilization, one man one woman, is the definition.
and is certainly not exclusively so in the US anymore.
Statistically speaking, it's still virtually an opposite sex union....not to mention culturally, socially,....
The fundamental nature of marriage isn't being redefined; marriage still creates kinship between previously unrelated parties.
That may be what it does...but the nature, conjugal, opposite sex, is, at least legally, being refined.
Removing unconstitutional restrictions on excessing a fundamental right does not "redefine" the right.
Removing the husband and replacing him with another woman, and removing the wife and replacing her with another man, IS REDEFINING IT! The right only exists because the state recognizes the male female union as husband and wife, which predates the state!
Separate but equal inherently isn't.
So don't separate the husband and wife then.
You can't cite a recent ruling and you can't cite any since the SCOTUS ruling in Windsor v. United States. In fact, you just lost a mother federal district court decision in Kentucky today. You're fortunately the only parties involved were same sex couples who legally married in other states; otherwise Kentucky's ban on granting same sex marriage licenses within the state would have been struck down as well.
Those other rulings still exist. SCOTUS hasn't imposed SSM nationwide.
My opinions, unlike yours, are well reasoned and grounded in law, not emotions, appeals to tradition, wishful thinking or outright prejudice.
Your opinions are loaded with wishful thinking, and revisionist history.
When people like you can't refute the substance of what I post, you're reduced to whining about the manner of presentation or my choice of words that accurately describe the vacuousness of your reasoning skills or lack of knowledge or education in the subject matter. Ignorance can be excused but willful stupidity can't.
There has to be substance first, before it can be, and has been, refuted.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16800 Feb 13, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I was only talking about your behavior; about repeating the same nonsense day after day.
Whew....that was close...I thought you were taking "cancer suxs" seriously. Okay.....now back to our program. Thanks Wastey.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16801 Feb 13, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Defending the male/female nature of marriage isn't bigotry,
It is when you defend it by advocating discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays.
Brian_G wrote:
men and women differ and we discriminate in art, law, language, sports and all of society.
Laws may only discriminate based on sex when their is an important government interest served by doing so. To the extent sports are a private endeavor, discrimination is permissible since private organizations may set their membership or participation standards. Sports that are sponsored by public educational institutions and receive federal funding are subject to title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Art and language - really?
Brian_G wrote:
There is no sex equality right
And yet sex is a quasi-suspect class subject to intermediate scrutiny in equal protection constitutional.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
two men or two women don't benefit society the way opposite sex couples do, in quality or quantity.
According to whom? You? You and value judgment of same sex couples are irrelevant. SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.
Brian_G wrote:
men and women as different isn't the same as Russian human rights abuses
You're the only one who insists on comparing the two, Brian. If you now admit they're different, then quit bringing up human rights abuses in other countries to deflect from YOUR personal prejudice and advocacy of discrimination against gays.
Brian_G wrote:
gays have the right to tolerance
Gays have the constitutionally guaranteed right of equal protection of the laws, Brian. No one gives a f*ck whether you tolerate, much less accept, gays.
Brian_G wrote:
not celebration or oppression.
No one's asking you to "celebrate" gays but they are demanding that YOU stop trying to oppress them by your advocacy of discrimination against and infringement of their fundamental rights.
Brian_G wrote:
The left shelters the Mayor of Sochi by comparing him to marriage defenders
No one here is "sheltering" the Mayor of Sochi. He has been ridiculed for his stupid and uninformed remarks in much the same manner you are here for your equally stupid and uninformed opinions.
Brian_G wrote:
they doom Russian gays to murder while trying to defame their political opponents.
No one on the "left" here is trying to murder gays, Brian. You're the one who advocates harm to gays, although admittedly you've not advocated killing gays.

Nor has anyone has defamed you, Brian. Why do you lie?
Brian_G wrote:
That's why same sex marriage harms gays most of all.
Same sex marriage doesn't harm gays, Brian. Bigots like YOU harm gays. The mayor of Sochi is your bedfellow; you just draw your lines of discrimination against gays in different places.
Brian_G wrote:
Reason number one for keeping marriage one man and one woman: Survival.
And this is lie number one of Brian.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16802 Feb 13, 2014
Part 1 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Gays may enter into civil marriage in every state
I specifically said civil marriage with a same sex partner. And no, gays are not allowed to enter into civil marriages with a same sex partner in every state.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
no state prohibits travel from jurisdictions that license same sex marriage.
If opposite sex couples don't have to travel to another state to get married, neither should same sex couples. That in itself is discrimination.
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't freedom
Actually, that's exactly what the issue is: freedom for gays to exercise their fundamental right of marriage without unconstitutional restrictions placed upon them that have no legitimate compelling state interest to justify such restrictions.
Brian_G wrote:
its forcing everyone to redefine marriage and the family to satiate the sexual desire of homosexuals plain and simple.
Nothing is being redefined, Brian. Civil marriage still does what is always has: establish kinship between previously unrelated parties. That happens whether a couple is opposite sex or same sex. And gays establish families just like straight people do, Brian. Their families are just as deserving of protection as yours.

Why are you a lying bigot, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Its ersatz sex equality when in accordance to culture, science, law and common sense, the sexes aren't the same, are inherently unequal and sex differences permeate society.
No, it's equal protection of the law based on sexual orientation. Plain and simple.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is like calling "Women and children first to the lifeboats" is antiquated, discriminatory and unjust.
No it's not. However, your bigotry against gays is like throwing them overboard to drown when there's plenty of room in the lifeboats FOR EVERYONE. Equal protection of the law is not a scarce commodity that must be rationed; there's more than enough to go around for everyone, Brian. It's only a problem when bigots like you rear their ugly heads.
Brian_G wrote:
The left wants income equality by taking from the rich and redistributing wealth; the lies come from the left.
That's the nature of a progressive income tax, Brian. A tax practice which, by the way, has been supported by Republicans for decades now.
Brian_G wrote:
Plenty of rich service the left while protecting their wealth and income by lobbying both parties.
Perhaps the rich should emulate Bill Gate and Warren Buffet and focus on giving their wealth away to support worthy causes rather than trying to shelter their wealth and buy political favors.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16803 Feb 13, 2014
Part 2 of 2
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage transcends civil law

Civil marriage transcends the law only to the extent that it's a fundamental right that the state may not infringe without a legitimate compelling interest to do so.
Brian_G wrote:
and we're entitled to elect representatives that share our values.
Individuals are entitled to do that, yes. Churches and certain other tax exempt entities trade the ability to engage in the same level of political advocacy in exchange for their tax exempt status. If they wish to be unfettered like individuals, then then need to forfeit their tax exempt status and pay their fair share of taxes like individuals or businesses.
Brian_G wrote:
The left is at war with our nongovernmental institutions of church, family and business relationships.
Only when such institutions and individuals proclaim themselves above the law.
Brian_G wrote:
There's no gender equality right in the Constitution, the ERA failed ratification.
Gender is a quasi-=suspect class subject to intermediate scrutiny under equal protection constitutional law. Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." I don't give T.F. high marks for that one.
Lying isn't against the law, Brian, except when lying under oath in legal proceedings in which case it's called perjury. And you're fortunate ling isn't a crime; otherwise you'd be serving life in prison without possibility of parole for all the lies you've told just in Topix.
Brian_G wrote:
Good thing, we're not in court, where the faith based value of truth isn't equal to T.F.'s spam defamations.
It's unfortunate for you courts don't give special consideration or privileges to people of faith, Brian. And you can't be defamed by the truth. Embarrassed, yes; defamed, no.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16804 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sure there's polygyny, one man several wives, polyandry which is rare, one wife several husbands, and a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex union. But SSM never seemed to sustain itself cross time cross place.
Whether it did or not doesn't change the fact it did exist. And ignoring the fact same sex behavior has been almost universally punished and discriminated against across time and cultures and expecting same sex marriage to sustain itself in such circumstances is the epitome of stupid, Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
However in U.S. history, English common law from which our concept do marriage comes from, and Western Civilization, one man one woman, is the definition.
The US has more or less abandoned common law as it applies to marriage, including common law marriage itself excepts for a handful of states and most importantly, the legal concept of coverture. Eliminating the sex restriction is just one more step in our evolution away from common law concerning marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Statistically speaking, it's still virtually an opposite sex union....not to mention culturally, socially,....
It's unfortunate for you that minorities don't need to meet a size threshold in order for their civil and fundamental rights to be recognized.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That may be what it does...but the nature, conjugal, opposite sex, is, at least legally, being refined.
It's removing an unconstitutional restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right that has no legitimate compelling state interest to justify it. It's correcting centuries of discrimination and animus against gays that caused the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage in the first place.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Removing the husband and replacing him with another woman, and removing the wife and replacing her with another man, IS REDEFINING IT!
No one is stopping those wanting to marry an opposite sex partner from doing so. Nothing has been "removed" except an unconstitutional restriction that allows gays to exercise their personal liberty interest with someone of a congruent sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right only exists because the state recognizes the male female union as husband and wife, which predates the state!
That gays were prevented from exercising their fundamental right of marriage with an opposite sex partner because of majority animus and discrimination doesn't justify continuing to do so. SCOTUS has ruled neither tradition or moral disapproval is a constitutionally permissible reason to justify discrimination. Your days of stomping your feet and shouting your circular reasoning and finding a receptive court are coming to an end, stupid Peter. Evolve or die. I personally don't care which you choose.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So don't separate the husband and wife then.
I'd say you were feigning ignorance with regarded to what I was referencing with "separate but equal" but I long ago learned your stupidity is real and not an act.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those other rulings still exist.
And are either moot or under appeal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SCOTUS hasn't imposed SSM nationwide.
They've yet to have a case before where that was the appropriate remedy. As has been explained to you multiple times, uneducable Peter, SCOTUS only rules on the actual issues before them, not on questions that others wish they might answer.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your opinions are loaded with wishful thinking, and revisionist history.
Feel free to prove it. But we both know you can't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be substance first, before it can be, and has been, refuted.
You've refuted nothing I've asserted. Because you're unable, not because my assertions are without substance.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16805 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So your father breast fed you? That explains it!
Huh?

"Equal does not necessarily mean equivalent.".

What does that have to do with breast feeding? You get more desperate every day.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16807 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those other rulings still exist. SCOTUS hasn't imposed SSM nationwide.
Not yet. But they will.

You'll have to get a new hobby.... or maybe you'll start whining about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16808 Feb 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
"Equal does not necessarily mean equivalent.".
What does that have to do with breast feeding? You get more desperate every day.
A union of two men, or two women is not equivalent to a man and a woman. A same sex union is just that, and produces nothing. Capeesh.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16809 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A union of two men, or two women is not equivalent to a man and a woman. A same sex union is just that, and produces nothing. Capeesh.
Likewise an infertile woman and a fertile man produce NOTHING!

A sterile man and a fertile woman produce NOTHING!

A fertile man and a woman who has had a hysterectomy produce NOTHING!

A woman past childbearing years and a fertile man produce NOTHING!

Yet ALL have the same right to marry and so should a Same-Sex couple.......they are EQUAL under the eyes of the law!!!

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16810 Feb 13, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A union of two men, or two women is not equivalent to a man and a woman. A same sex union is just that, and produces nothing. Capeesh.
Too bad for you, stupid Peter, that yet another federal District court judge just sh!t all over you and your lame arguments to restrict marriage to opposite sex only couples, this time ruling Virginia's same sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

“It's Time. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16811 Feb 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I was only talking about your behavior; about repeating the same nonsense day after day.
It's nothing but another load of waffle. And I only like waffle when it's served with ice-cream.
caner suxs

Faribault, MN

#16812 Feb 14, 2014
When will churches get some backlash going against fat people..I mean gluttony is a horrible sin. They should start by banning all fat people from going to church....HOLD ON THAT WOULD BE 75% OF PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHUCRH.

Ok see why they don't fight that sin.

Notice how Christians only get mad about sins they don't do themselves. Sins they do daily they think are just great.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16813 Feb 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
A union of two men, or two women is not equivalent to a man and a woman. A same sex union is just that, and produces nothing.
It need not be equal, moron.
An infertile heterosexual couples is "not equivalent" to a fertile one, however the infertile couple is still allowed to marry. No couple need be physically equal in order to receive equal protection of the law. Were you not an imbecile, you would understand as much.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Capeesh.
This is the best attempted spelling you could do?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16815 Feb 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad for you, stupid Peter, that yet another federal District court judge just sh!t all over you and your lame arguments to restrict marriage to opposite sex only couples, this time ruling Virginia's same sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
In addition to Virginia's ban being struck down, a federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that marriages of gay couples that occur in other states must be recognized by Kentucky.

These are going to come faster and faster. Not a damn thing stupid Pedro and stupid Brian_G can do about it!!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16816 Feb 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A union of two men, or two women is not equivalent to a man and a woman. A same sex union is just that, and produces nothing. Capeesh.
Yesterday Kentucky.....Today Virginia.....

How much longer are you going to hold onto your OBVIOUSLY flawed logic? "Production" is irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16817 Feb 14, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yesterday Kentucky.....Today Virginia.....
How much longer are you going to hold onto your OBVIOUSLY flawed logic? "Production" is irrelevant.
Whatever motivated you to move from Kentucky to Joisey? Does NJ even accept immigrants from Kentucky or did you sneak in when Christie was eating a jumbo pizza?

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!

“It's Time. . .”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16818 Feb 14, 2014
caner suxs wrote:
When will churches get some backlash going against fat people..I mean gluttony is a horrible sin. They should start by banning all fat people from going to church....HOLD ON THAT WOULD BE 75% OF PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHUCRH.
Ok see why they don't fight that sin.
Notice how Christians only get mad about sins they don't do themselves. Sins they do daily they think are just great.
LOLOL! Have you forgotten church luncheons?

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) 5 min Coffee Party 1,684,405
Dems Finally showing some BackBone 6 min Joey 5
Bets on how long shutdown will last... 14 min Joey 31
News As women march a year after Trump's election, h... 23 min Cath League of Du... 5
Highest poverty rate in U.S.? California! 38 min Paul 111
president donald trump dead at age 71 40 min Jake 22
White girls are hating hard on Meghan Markle !! 46 min GreatSouthbay4040 88
Racist White People on MLK Day. 49 min Paul 129
Black rulership in Eroupe during the Dark Ages? (Dec '10) 1 hr el rey de los cam... 757
WHITE FOLKS: YOU need to know what King Knew! 1 hr el rey de los cam... 161
Democrats decide that illegal immigrants are mo... 2 hr el rey de los cam... 29
More from around the web