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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17116 Feb 21, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone on here that doesn't understand the concept of separation of church and state should be sent to re-education camps.
No one should be sent to re-education camp. This is the USA dummy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17117 Feb 21, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigamy is a federal and state crime, dummy.
Squawk!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17118 Feb 21, 2014
Mike J S wrote:
Nope, I'm not.....but you obviously DON'T have anything else.....and all you prove is just how much of a hypocrite you are........so, in really, you hate a group of people you DON'T know all because they are who they are.........you're sad and pathetic!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#17119 Feb 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://politicalhat.com/2013/12/20/sliding-do...
Sliding Down the Slippery Slope to Polygamy
How many times will you bring this up after you've already been corrected? Polygamy is not legal in Utah. No court in the US has mandated recognition of marriages to multiple partners. What was declared illegal was prohibition against consenting adults making their own living arrangements. Utah was unique with its laws prohibiting certain private arrangements. Its law is now in line with those of the other 49 states and federal policy.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17120 Feb 21, 2014
we are doomed wrote:
<quoted text>
You avatar is correct marriage is about love and commitment........between a male and female outside of that marriage cannot exist. Two males or two females cannot marry its a dream,a fantasy for gays to think so.The family,which is comprised of mother and father and children, is the basic foundation of any society two people of the same gender does not make a family.The Romans learned the hard way, without that family foundation no society can survive.The last days of Rome was fraught with incest,homosexuality and perversions of every type no society can survive that extreme immorality.
Marriage IS about love and commitment......and it CAN and DOES exist just as much with Same-Sex couples as it does with opposite-sex couples!!!

Sorry, but Same-Sex couples CAN and DO have families.........and NO matter how much you stomp your feet, hold your breath and state otherwise......your opinion is IRRELEVANT and has NO BEARING to what my marriage is all about or my family!!!

Opposite-sex couples will continue to produce children, as will Gay and Lesbian couples.......some differently than others, but having children nevertheless.

Again your view of what's immoral is just that....YOUR view and has NO BEARING on my morals or values........so, again your opinion is IRRELEVANT to me!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#17121 Feb 21, 2014
Mike J S wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriages has always been read bible
Nope, it HASN'T always been read in the bible and again your religious beliefs are IRRELEVANT to this discussion!!!

Believe as you want, but your bible is a book about stories written by men who wanted to be gods and therefore you can shove your bible up your azz!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#17125 Feb 21, 2014
THAT white guy wrote:
<quoted text> Every now and then i look around and wonder if this is still the USA.We are starting to function like a 3rd would country.
That's because we've been increasingly using superstition to guide our laws and our economy.
we are doomed

Manassas, VA

#17127 Feb 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage IS about love and commitment......and it CAN and DOES exist just as much with Same-Sex couples as it does with opposite-sex couples!!!
Sorry, but Same-Sex couples CAN and DO have families.........and NO matter how much you stomp your feet, hold your breath and state otherwise......your opinion is IRRELEVANT and has NO BEARING to what my marriage is all about or my family!!!
Opposite-sex couples will continue to produce children, as will Gay and Lesbian couples.......some differently than others, but having children nevertheless.
Again your view of what's immoral is just that....YOUR view and has NO BEARING on my morals or values........so, again your opinion is IRRELEVANT to me!!!
There is no holding of my breath or stomping my feet I am just stating facts you have no marriage,you engage in a sham relationship. You have as much chance of having children by masturbation than by a homosexual relationship.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17128 Feb 21, 2014
Poof wrote:
<quoted text>Hey NorCal how are you? Tell the wife I said HI. You know that you must have applied at least 50,000 rolls of duct take to Brian over the years, at some point enough is enough, you have to cut your losses and toss him in the dumpster. Stupid is forever, and you can't fix it.
A wizard walked into a gay bar and disappeared with a poof.

HAR!HAR!HAR! Good one. The local kids who fish off my dock told me that one.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17129 Feb 21, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage existed way before your Buybull, dumbass.
Why are NYers so depressed?
Because the light at the end of the tunnel is just New Jersey.

YUK!YUK!YUK! Ah good times!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17131 Feb 21, 2014
Why can't Helen Keller drive a car?
Because she’s dead.

Kids on the dock. They got a million of 'em. That's why I let them fish off my dock. Not to mention a few stray crabs end up on my BBQ. Ah good times!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#17132 Feb 21, 2014
A guy wearing only saran wrap underwear walks into a psychiatrists office. The doctor takes one look at him and says,“Well, I can clearly see your nuts.”

Silly kids. Gotta love 'em!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17134 Feb 21, 2014
Mike J S wrote:
Who you calling a douche bag
Look in the mirror trailer trash.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#17135 Feb 21, 2014
we are doomed wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no holding of my breath or stomping my feet I am just stating facts you have no marriage,you engage in a sham relationship. You have as much chance of having children by masturbation than by a homosexual relationship.
Totally irrelevant. Procreation is not a marriage requirement. Get your head out of your pants fool.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17138 Feb 21, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Opposite sex couples give government a benefit no sex segregated couple can give: procreation.
The ability to exercise fundamental rights like marriage aren't conditioned on whether doing so provides a benefit to the government. The state is charged with protecting the rights of citizens enumerated in or interpreted from the constitution without regard to how it may profit from doing so.
Brian_G wrote:
Its all about biology.
Marriage has nothing to do with "biology". Marriage establishes kinship between previously untreated parties whether those parties procreate or not and whether they are opposite sex or same sex.
Brian_G wrote:
Sex segregating marriage is like rolling back affirmative action, diversity and integration
Affirmative action is public policy to combat the effects of discrimination, Brian, not to reinforce the existing discrimination against gays that you continue to advocate. Stop your Orwellian 1984 speak; you're applying normal English language words opposite their actual meaning.
Brian_G wrote:
a war on masculinity and femininity together.[QUOTE]
No one is preventing opposite sex couples from marrying, Brian. Why do you lie?

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]Keepin g marriage as is; that's centrist, moderate and reasonable;

On the contrary, it's discriminatory and unconstitutional and therefore anything but "centrist, moderate and reasonable".
Brian_G wrote:
criminalizing same sex behavior and radically redefining marriage are the extremist radical positions.
No one is "redefining marriage" (much less radically so) from it's current basis of establishing kinship between previously unrelated parties; they're merry removing an unconstitutional restriction on exercise a fundamental right. So no worries, Brian; you can run along and whine about something else.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17140 Feb 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really.....every single court? Throughout the history of the Republic?
No, not every court case in US history. But then it was fairly obvious she was referring to recent jurisprudence and precedent, not cases that are moot or the irrelevant editorial comments you pull from legal rulings that don't address marriage issues in the first place.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No government interest in "....anything but perhaps the reasoning of children......"?
Raising, not reasoning. I presume you had an autocorrect incident. The government does have an interest in the welfare of children since they can become wards of the state. However, that interest encompasses ALL children, regardless of method of birth, regardless of by whom they're being raised. Which is why SCOTUS cited the welfare of children as a reason fro striking down DOMA section 3 as unconstitutional. Unlike YOU, they don't don't seek to punish children simply because they're being raised by people you're prejudiced against.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I.....don't think that's true.
Facts aren't based on what you "think", small Peter. Not that you actually demonstrate that ability very often anyway.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not in every case, nor have they been "debunked", some judges have simply ignored them to make the decision they want in favor of SSM.
Actually, you have it backwards, stupid Peter. The judges that have accepted your specious arguments have misapplied rational basis scrutiny in order to rule those arguments valid justifications for allowing marriage restrictions that discriminate. Those judges failed to consider how the restriction rationally relates to the purported reason for the restriction. So those judges in fact were the ones ignoring the judicial scrutiny rules laid out by SCOTUS in order to arrive at the decision they wanted.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17141 Feb 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
IT IS RELEVANT as to why marriage exists in he first place, as numerous courts over the past 150 YEARS have stated!
When will YOU GRASP that concept?
Because what's relevant is RECENT SCOTUS precedent, not rulings that are moot or whose precedents have been overruled or evolved by more recent rulings. The current state of SCOTUS precedent is that marriage and procreation/child rearing are two distinct and separate fundamental rights. That they often times overlap in their exercise by individuals doesn't change that fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Helllllooooooooooo.......McFly "....a Gay person or Lesbian person...." ALREADY DOES!
Not to each other. Which is the actual point being made.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No different than any other man or woman.
Once more for the intellectually retarded small Peter: equal application of the law isn't the same as constitutional equal protection of the law. Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to blacks and whites and yet were ruled unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you continue to state, over, and over, and over, that they don't, when they DO?!
Why do you ignore the point actually being made to keep repeating your irrelevant point ad nauseam?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So then you have a biological mother or father, and a biological stranger.
So? Opposite sex couples use this same reproductive technique. Yet you don't advocate disqualifying them from marrying each other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No,.....no it's not. But it doesn't have to be in order for procreation to be the reason the statue recognizes marriage in the first place! MARRIAGE IN GENERAL, not necessarily individual marriage.
Then you have NO legitimate reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage if you allow ANY opposite sex couple to marry that can't or chooses not to procreate. None. NADA. Because doing so is plainly invidious discrimination on your part since same sex couples are similarly situated as those opposite sex couples that can't or choose not to procreate yet you treat them differently based solely on your animus towards gays.

Even Justice Scalia recognizes that fact in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:

"Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality),“[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

Unlike you, small Peter, Justice Scalia at least has the integrity and intellectual honesty to admit that prohibitions against same sex marriage are based on nothing more than moral disapproval of gays. But rather than simply admitting your prejudice against gays and honestly embracing it, you persist in your semantic gymnastics and mental masturbatory exercises to give your animus the facade of rationality. It isn't rational nor will it ever be. And the US has finally reached a tipping point where most people recognize that fact as well. Which is why your side is losing at an accelerated rate.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17142 Feb 21, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
The sex of the participants has remained stable over time though.
Because until recently, discrimination against gays had remained steady over time as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Still opposite sex, or conjugal.
And gays were still discriminated against and often persecuted as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sex between men and women still made babies.
For which marriage isn't and never was a prerequisite to accomplish.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygyny was more widely practiced, even today.
Then why do you oppose it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not in Western Civilization though, nor did SSM sustain itself.
Because of discrimination against and persecution of gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sigh....for an intelligent woman, you have difficulty seeing through those rainbow colored glasses sometimes.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Is-Governme...
A study by the Left-leaning Brookings Institution finds that $229 billion in welfare spending between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year. And Utah State University scholar David Schramm has estimated that divorce alone costs local, state and federal government $33 billion each year.
Civil marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively, and at less cost than picking up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture.
Of course, it isn’t just the legal title of marriage that encourages adherence to marital norms. There is nothing magical about the word “marriage.” Instead, marriage laws work by embodying and promoting a true vision of what marriage is that makes sense of those norms as a coherent whole.
So why do irrationally advocate against same sex marriage then, since they have and raise children? And those same sex coupes that don't have or raise children either don't inflict the social ills society described above or are no different in their impact than opposite sex couples.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17144 Feb 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage DIDN'T exist 150 years ago for PROCREATION either.......no matter how many times you think so!!!
Marriage exists as an acknowledgement that there are two sexes, and what happens when the sexes have sex, colitis, and as a means to deal with the products, children, of that sex. The courts, long before the contemporary notions of gender neutral marriage have taken over the minds of some judges, have recognized this.
Again, regardless of how I came to be.....NO one is disputing that,
Finally.....a ray of sanity.
but again it is IRRELEVANT to one's right to marry as children can and are born regardless of whether or not their parents are or get married!!!
True, children are born regardless of whether or not their parents marry, and one's right to marry is not dependent upon their intention, or capacity to procreate. However, society recognizes, and the state issues a marriage license the male female union, and what that union produces, children, regardless of whether or individual male female pairings actually produce any.

A same sex pairing, is just that, same sex. It produces nothing, nor does it reinforce societal marital norms. There's no compelling state interest in designating such a relationship "marriage". None, zippo, niente,......
Now, take your repeated BS and shove off!!!
That sounds like a country song.

BTW, you too offer "repeated BS", no harm in admitting it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17145 Feb 21, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage IS about love and commitment......and it CAN and DOES exist just as much with Same-Sex couples as it does with opposite-sex couples!!!
But that doesn't require a license. Only physical sexual love between a man and a woman can bear fruit. That generates a state interest.
Sorry, but Same-Sex couples CAN and DO have families........
Yes, children, often produced within previous marriage, opposite sex, of one, or both parties.
.and NO matter how much you stomp your feet, hold your breath and state otherwise......your opinion is IRRELEVANT and has NO BEARING to what my marriage is all about or my family!!!
Opposite-sex couples will continue to produce children, as will Gay and Lesbian couples....
An opposite sex couple will produce children that is a biological product of both of them, as opposed to a same sex couple, in which only one party can be the biological parent.
...some differently than others, but having children nevertheless.
But not as part of an intact married mother and father home.
Again your view of what's immoral is just that....YOUR view and has NO BEARING on my morals or values........so, again your opinion is IRRELEVANT to me!!!
Morals can and do change, but the core of the issue is the definition of marriage, and why the state has a compelling interest in the conjugal monogamist definition, and no other.

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) 30 min Chuckles-Divine 1,643,725
How often did slaves need to be whipped? 32 min Harvey Weinstein 1
Can AA's EVER be Troll-free? 33 min Blackhead Popper 2
Mouthy know-it-all BW. ugh... 48 min KIR SUCKA 11
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 51 min Micha Ben Israel 137,316
NFL ratings slump getting worse with no end in... 56 min Blackhead Popper 8
White people stole from everyone in history wit... (Feb '12) 58 min MonkeyFunny 210
I feel like I can't be with a white guy if he's... 1 hr Dixieeland 119
Homogeneity Is The ONLY Way To MAGA 3 hr KIR SUCKA 28
Everyday I thank the Lord I am Black!! 4 hr NotSoDivineMsM 390
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 10 hr im fair are you 1,601
More from around the web