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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18515 Mar 31, 2014
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism; sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.

Keep marriage one man and one woman for diversity, integration and perfect affirmative action.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18516 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism; sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.
Keep marriage one man and one woman for diversity, integration and perfect affirmative action.
Brian, you are an idiot. If an African American decides to marry and African American, is that segregation?

Segregation is when the choice is taken away by authority, not when people are allowed to exercise free will.

Stop being a moron.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18517 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why just couples?
Is the resident idiot is still having difficulty understanding what equal means?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18518 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is all about bigotry. Segregation. And inequality.
Why don't you just get a big neon sign that says "I've got nothing". It would save you a lot of time.

Brian_G = Village Idiot

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18519 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism; sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.
Really Brian? And yet none of the lawyers arguing against marriage equality were EVER able to demonstrate the "harm" you mention.

Go ahead Brian, through cause and effect, demonstrate the harm to society that has occurred because gays marry. That should be very simple to do, since we've been marrying in this country for ten years now. You should be able to easily demonstrate these "harms" you reference. Come big mouth.....list the top five harms that society has experienced because I'm married.

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Waiting.....

Brian_G = Village Idiot and blatant LIAR.

Proverbs 6:16-19
"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, A LYING TONGUE, and hands that shed innocent blood, A HEART THAT DEVISES WICKED PLANS, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, AND ONE WHO SOWS DISCORD AMONG BROTHERS."

Get ready for hell Brian_G, Satan has a spot picked out for you already.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18520 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Really...how does "Wife and wife", or "husband and husband" interact?
Do some field research and find out for yourself.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What consenting adult non conjugal
All marriage sby definition are "conjugal", stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
and/or non monogamous relationships should the state designate "marriage"?
Any for which there isn't a legitimate compelling state interest to prohibit.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sure it is, hence ".....now pronounce you husband AND wife".
Such language isn't required in a wedding ceremony nor does it have ANY legal significance. Why do you lie, stupid Peter?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The couple consulates their relationship, engages in "marital relations" and if conception should occur, the husband is presumed to be the father.
Same sex couple consummate their marriages as well. Regardless, consummation isn't a requirement for a marriage to be valid; it's strictly the decision of the spouses over which neither you nor the state has any say. Ditto for procreation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True not all legal conjugal marriages will bear children, but 100% of same sex marriages will not.
Which makes them no differently situated than opposite sex couples that are sterile or beyond child bearing years.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That is an impossibility.
It only seems that way to stupid bigots like you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can all marriages be treated equally under the law, if they're not equally composed of husband and wife?
Equal protection requires equal treatment for similarly situated people, not identically composed people. If you'd ever bother to learn about constitutional law, you wouldn't keep making these stupid mistakes, lying *sswipe Peter.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18521 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmm....maybe you need more veggie in your diet?
Unfortunately, I doubt a change in your diet will fix your learning disability.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It doesn't reserve marriage to "heterosexual couples", it recognizes opposite sex couples as marriage, those who so desire it, and go through the process.
The law increasingly recognizes same sex couple as marriage too. And that will be the law of the land in the not too distant future.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sexual identity labels are irrelevant.
You wish but unfortunately for you, they aren't. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is one of the reasons same sex marriage prohibitions are being ruled unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As long as the couple is of the opposite sex, what sexual identity they chose to adopt, whether it's gay, lesbian, bi, tri, quad, poly, pan, hetero, straight, or even asexual, is their business.
There's no need for the couple to be of opposite sex because that restriction is unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What else ya got?
Far more than you since you've got nothing.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18524 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes they are, and marriage isn't mentioned as right
Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right by SCOTUS in accordance with the ninth amendment regarding unenumerated rights.
Pietro Armando wrote:
nor an obligation of government to acknowledge.
The state is obligated to recognized the exercise of fundamental rights by citizens unless it has a legitimate compelling interest not to.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ahhhhh....the good ole days...when men were men and sheep were nervous! Not quite sure what you mean by that.....are you linking the advent of sexual identity politics to living in caves?
No, she's linking it to your neanderthal thinking.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That they do.
Italians give camels?
No we just spoke to the Godfather, he made the arrangements.
No doubt your father was required to to pay someone to take responsibility for you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmm.....people did give envelopes with cash at the wedding....does that count?
Everyone had to chip in since the godfather's price was more than your father could afford.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18525 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....maybe you need more veggie in your diet?
Not me - I eat lots of veggies. Maybe you need more coherence in your posts.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't reserve marriage to "heterosexual couples", it recognizes opposite sex couples as marriage, those who so desire it, and go through the process. Sexual identity labels are irrelevant. As long as the couple is of the opposite sex, what sexual identity they chose to adopt, whether it's gay, lesbian, bi, tri, quad, poly, pan, hetero, straight, or even asexual, is their business.
What else ya got?
Your nuts in a vise, apparently. "It recognizes opposite sex couples as marriage," ?

You're sounding a bit squeaky there. Lemme give it another twist....

You got nuttin'. The rights and benefits which accrue to married couples, will be recognized for couples of the same sex who make that commitment, and who apply for, and are granted, marriage licenses. If that affects you, or your marriage, in a negative way, you might examine your own marriage....it would seem to be on pretty shaky ground.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

Next....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18526 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why just couples?
Eventually, in the fullness of time, ALL the unions you object to will become legal. Be patient.

Next...

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18527 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hey didn't the founding fathers see fit to clearly spell it out.....marriage, a union of two people regardless of gender composition?
The Founders didn't spell anything out regarding marriage; they left it to the evolving understanding of future generations.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Such as the right of the people within a state to define marriage within their state.
Such definitions must still comply with the requirements of the federal constitution, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmm.....apparently some federal judges don't care much for the people.
On the contrary, apparently you don't understand the constitutionally appointed role of the federal judiciary.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18528 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Pretty much...."? Meaning not in everyday.
Yes, because they're similarly situated, not identical.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh Madone! Give it a rest.
That goes for all your drivel too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know the state won't declare two women, or two men, "husband and wife", because they're not.
The state makes no declarations regarding what any marriage participants are called.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's relevant to the right to marry, and why marriage is a right to begin with!!!! We both know that.
No it's not. Procreative decisions are a separate and distance fundamental right from marriage under our constitutional law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In other words, a benefits package. Which can be applied of ANY two people, or more doe that matter....in time.
Only if the state doesn't assert a legitimate compelling interest to restrict other possible combinations from exercising the fundamental right to marry.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#18529 Mar 31, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Segregation is about bigotry, prejudice, inequality and separatism
Is that why why you advocate segregating marriage based on sexual orientation and prohibiting only gays from marrying, Brian? To satisfy your personal prejudice and bigotry against gays?
Brian_G wrote:
sex segregated marriage is harmful to society.
No it's not.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Keep marriage one man and one woman for diversity, integration and perfect affirmative action.
When are you going to address racial, religious and ethnic segregation within marriage, Brian? After all, yo don't wanted to be a hypocrite and not address all forms of segregation within marriage...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18530 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pretty much...."? Meaning not in everyday.
<quoted text>
Oh Madone! Give it a rest.
<quoted text>
We both know the state won't declare two women, or two men, "husband and wife", because they're not.
<quoted text>
It's relevant to the right to marry, and why marriage is a right to begin with!!!! We both know that.
<quoted text>
In other words, a benefits package. Which can be applied of ANY two people, or more doe that matter....in time.
Yep, my wife and I interact like a wife and wife EVERYDAY in EVERY WAY.......again, you will try ANYTHING to somehow think that being married ONLY happens if it's a man and a woman......what an idiot you are!!!

You're right......the State WON'T declare 2 men or 2 women a "husband and wife", why should they? Besides.....the State DOESN'T make the pronouncement.....who ever is performing the ceremony does and unless the 2 people DON'T have ANY involvement in their wedding ceremony, it is the couple who decide how they want their pronouncement to be.

Marriage is a RIGHT because SCOTUS ruled it as a RIGHT and marriage is relevant because the State said so.......and again it has NOTHING to do with one's ability to procreate!!!

Marriage is WAY more important than just about benefits.......my wife and I are just now receiving federal rights, benefits and privileges of being married after 5 1/2 years.........unlike opposite-sex couples who have been receiving federal rights, benefits and privileges since the day they were married......who has had the "SPECIAL" rights, it appears is obvious until recently!!!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18532 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Really...how does "Wife and wife", or "husband and husband" interact?
<quoted text>
What consenting adult non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships should the state designate "marriage"?
<quoted text>
Sure it is, hence ".....now pronounce you husband AND wife". The couple consulates their relationship, engages in "marital relations", and if conception should occur, the husband is presumed to be the father.
<quoted text>
True not all legal conjugal marriages will bear children, but 100% of same sex marriages will not.
<quoted text>
That is an impossibility. How can all marriages be treated equally under the law, if they're not equally composed of husband and wife?
Why not use your imagination?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18533 Mar 31, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, and marriage isn't mentioned as right, nor an obligation of government to acknowledge.
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh....the good ole days...when men were men and sheep were nervous! Not quite sure what you mean by that.....are you linking the advent of sexual identity politics to living in caves?
<quoted text>
That they do.
<quoted text>
Italians give camels?
<quoted text>
No we just spoke to the Godfather, he made the arrangements.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm.....people did give envelopes with cash at the wedding....does that count?
Not specifically but choosing your mate is a fundamental right.

Irrelevant red herring fallacy. Not funny.

Yes, cash is good.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18534 Mar 31, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Why not use your imagination?
One first needs to have one.
The Worlds Biggest Lie

Florence, MA

#18535 Mar 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
One first needs to have one.
I'm so sorry you lost yours.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18536 Mar 31, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
Why don't you just get a big neon sign that says "I've got nothing". It would save you a lot of time. Brian_G = Village Idiot
I trust everyone notices Jo's habit of insulting other posters. Ad hominem arguments are irrational.

To answer the question: I don't need a sign because I'm not advocating segregation, inequality, prejudice and bigotry. I favor the perfect affirmative action, diversity and integration of one man and one woman marriage.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18537 Mar 31, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
One first needs to have one.
You have a point there. lol

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) 2 min Injudgement 1,536,178
White women are extremely jealous of bw! 12 min 2 Dogs 51
Indian Wh0rs are the Biggest Race-traitors on t... (Dec '14) 12 min Big Daddy 7
Why do American Blacks think they're Egyptians? (Apr '12) 14 min thetruth 3,703
Is Zoe Saldana a sellout? (Dec '14) 15 min Big Daddy 52
Kip - In Africa! 20 min Big Daddy 1
What would happen if blacks were given their ow... 23 min 2 Dogs 228
Black women want kids with that GOOD HAIR 27 min Big Daddy 36
HA HA HA! Trump cuts $1.7 TRILLION in welfare! 1 hr KIP 230
Why are black men so thirsty for white women? 3 hr SadButTrue 87
Interracial dating is gross! (Nov '10) 5 hr SadButTrue 104
More from around the web