Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#18905 Apr 15, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a "same sex couples right to marry"? The right to marry is an individual right of men and and women to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. By your reasoning, not only is there a "couple's right" but it includes an obligation on the part of the state to redefine marriage in order to justify said couple's right.
<quoted text>
So those men and women who marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, are first class citizens? So be a first class citizen. Marry like any other man or woman.
Stop it Pete......you know that David was discussing the right to marry for the individual who is part of a "COUPLE"........sing le folks AREN'T getting married to themselves that I'm aware of!!!

Exactly Pete, the right of an INDIVIDUAL man to marry either an INDIVIDUAL woman or another INDIVIDUAL man....to live together in a legally recognized union of either husband and wife or husband and husband in ALL 50 States, if that's what the "COUPLE" decides to do!!!

No Pete, those men and women who opt to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife are NOT first class Citizens, they are just Citizens, but folks like you and others want to treat the legally recognized union of either husband and husband or wife and wife as SOMETHING other than what it is.....a legal marriage entered into by 2 American or Naturalized Citizens protected under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Amendment!!!

Just so ya know Pete, I am a FIRST CLASS AMERICAN CITIZEN who EXERCISED my right to marry the other non-related, consenting adult over the age of 18, who also EXERCISED her right to marry me, who is NOT related to her, a consenting adult over the age of 18......we have been legally recognized as wife and wife NOT only in the State we reside in and married in, but we are ALSO recognized as wife and wife at the federal level regardless of what State we reside in!!!

I know you WON'T grasp this post and will try and make some sarcastic comment or re-post some other nonsense that you believe.......but in reality.....you might want to read the ruling from the Federal Judge out of Ohio........he had harsh words for people like you!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#18906 Apr 15, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I don't believe it's "marriage" as I understand marriage to mean.
That being said, I'll make no move against it being allowed to exist or become standing practice/law or whatever.
I don't get to dictate my beliefs upon society, nor others upon mine.
A marriage is a promise between two people to always be truthful and faithful to one another in all things, and have that promise recognized by the state or other civil authority.

How then is that not a marriage simply because the 2 people are of the same sex ? You may say that it is not a marriage but that is a denial of reality.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18907 Apr 15, 2014
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise; I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage or new laws against homosexual relationships. The extremists want to redefine marriage or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18908 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise; I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage or new laws against homosexual relationships. The extremists want to redefine marriage or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.
"A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", MARRIAGE IS MORE."

That statement says it all. You advocate that same-sex couples should have something less than what you would allow opposite-sex couples. Isn't that a demonstration of second-class citizenship?

FYI, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled exactly that way in their advisory opinion when the legislature asked if civil unions would satisfy the demands of the Goodridge ruling. Under the Massachusetts Constitution (the oldest in the world) civil unions are unconstitutional.
Dan

United States

#18909 Apr 15, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
A marriage is a promise between two people to always be truthful and faithful to one another in all things, and have that promise recognized by the state or other civil authority.
How then is that not a marriage simply because the 2 people are of the same sex ? You may say that it is not a marriage but that is a denial of reality.
Someone asked, I answered.

I'm not bound to accept your definitions nor your opinions of what my reality is or isn't, am I Foxy?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18910 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise; I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage or new laws against homosexual relationships. The extremists want to redefine marriage or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.
Brian, grow a brain.
You just admitted that marriage is more than a civil union of domestic partnership, ergo they cannot provide equal protection of the law.

You are in no way a moderate, you are a radical who advocates for fellow citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.

You are despicable.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18911 Apr 15, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
... Isn't that a demonstration of second-class citizenship?....
No, because there are no couple's rights in the Constitution. No because there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality even if D.i.M. disagrees. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; equal rights under the same law for all.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Level 9

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#18912 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise; I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage or new laws against homosexual relationships. The extremists want to redefine marriage or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.
To bad Brian.........Civil Unions and DP's AREN'T a good compromise ESPECIALLY when Civil Marriage is a perfect solution and ALREADY happening:-)

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#18913 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
No, because there are no couple's rights in the Constitution.
Gays are still citizens entitled to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
No because there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality even if D.i.M. disagrees.
Yet you advocate discrimination and harm to gays and infringement of their fundamental rights and Dave doesn't.
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; equal rights under the same law for all.
Just like blacks and whites married under the same anti-miscegenation laws. Yet those laws were ruled unconstitutional then just like the sex restriction on marriage is being ruled unconstitutional today because there wasn't a legitimate compelling state interest to justify such restrictions.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#18914 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more.

If you wouldn't settle for a civil union or a domestic partnership, why should gays?
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise
If you're a bigot, yes. But you conveniently forget that many states that prohibited legal recognition of same sex marriage also banned legal recognition of relationships approximately marriage (i.e., civil unions and domestic partnerships). Which makes it pretty obvious that the intent wasn't to "protect traditional marriage" but rather to inflict animus and harm against gays.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage or new laws against homosexual relationships.
No you're not; you're a bigot who seeks to inflict your prejudice upon gays by enacting laws that unconstitutionally discriminates against them and causes them actual harm.
Brian_G wrote:
The extremists want to redefine marriage or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.
No, the extremists are the ones who wish to violate the constitution to slake their prejudice against gays. Like you, Brian.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#18915 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
No, because there are no couple's rights in the Constitution.
There are individual rights, and homosexuals are individuals, you idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
No because there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality even if D.i.M. disagrees.
When did you, rightly, start referring to yourself as dim?
Brian_G wrote:
Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; equal rights under the same law for all.
Brian, are you an idiot, or can you finally offer a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between opposite sex couples?

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18916 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Bill Maher describes it as the Gay Mafia whacking Brendan Eich, he resigned under pressure. Wait until its your job that's lost because of your political speech, that's next if they aren't stopped now.
.
<quoted text>During the 2008 campaign, when Proposition 8 was on the ballot, Obama ran on the same view of marriage California's voters supported, marriage as one man and one woman. At that time, there was no discernible difference between Obama's view of marriage and Eich's.
.
<quoted text>Now, sex segregation marriage supporters aren't arguing for their policy but attacking political opponents by saying they: "advocate discrimination and harm against or infringement of the fundamental rights of a minority group they dislike", ad hominem irrationality instead of reason. See T.F.'s quote above for proof.
.
<quoted text>If we don't stop this new McCarthyism, you might be next. Your choice, be silent when they come for the one man and one woman marriage supporters and nobody will speak for you when they come to get the climate deniers, pro-life advocates, libertarians, atheists and Jews.
more baseless nonsense

Thanks for the rant.

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#18917 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, because there are no couple's rights in the Constitution. No because there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality even if D.i.M. disagrees. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; equal rights under the same law for all.
There are no marriage rights either per se.

Ever heard of fundamental rights moron?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Level 1

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18918 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A civil union or domestic partnership "is a promise between two people", marriage is more.
Yes, we know marriage is more, that's why we aren't settling for anything else. Heteros don't get special privileges.
Brian_G wrote:
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are perfect compromise;
No, they aren't. They are lesser institutions that do not provide the safety, security and privileges of marriages. We aren't interested in lesser institutions Brian. We are equal citizens, entitled to equal representation. Equality doesn't have a compromise dolt. Something is either equal or it isn't.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm a middle of the road moderate who doesn't want radical change by licensing sex segregated marriage
There's no such thing as sex segregated marriage. That is a phrase you use over and over that doesn't mean anything. It's another example of your idiocy.
Brian_G wrote:
or new laws against homosexual relationships.
There are new laws against homosexual relationships. They were enacted by zealot fundamentalists. They are systematically being overturned by our judicial branch for being unconstitutional. But yet you want these unconstitutional laws to stay on the books. So much for you supposedly being a moderate.
Brian_G wrote:
The extremists want to redefine marriage
We aren't the extremists, you are. And marriage hasn't been redefined in any way. It is still a union, an institution and a ceremony. It's definition is exactly the same. Why do you lie so much Brian? This is no different then when you constantly bitch about laws that have been changed, yet you can't present one law that has been rewritten over this issue. You're an extremist liar.
Brian_G wrote:
or criminalize same sex relationships; they are the radicals.
Who has tried to criminalize same sex relationships? Please provide a link.

Waiting.....

Brian_G remains the Village Idiot

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18919 Apr 15, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
No, because there are no couple's rights in the Constitution. No because there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality even if D.i.M. disagrees. Gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else; equal rights under the same law for all.
Yes, rights belong to the individual. But when you advocate that individual G and individual Q can only receive a civil union or domestic partnership while individual W and individual M can receive marriage AFTER you have already admitted that civil unions and domestic partnerships are less than a marriage....

You advocate that gays and lesbians should be treated as less than their hetero fellow citizens. That, by definition, is second class citizenship.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18920 Apr 15, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, rights belong to the individual. But when you advocate that individual G and individual Q can only receive a civil union or domestic partnership, while individual W and individual M can receive marriage (AFTER you have already admitted that civil unions and domestic partnerships are less than a marriage...)

Then, you advocate that gays and lesbians should be treated as less than their hetero fellow citizens. That, by definition, is second class citizenship.
Oh my...good show, Dave! That's possibly the most concise and cogent statement so far on this thread.

Kudos to you.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18921 Apr 15, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
Oh my...good show, Dave! That's possibly the most concise and cogent statement so far on this thread.
Kudos to you.
Thank you.

After other attempts to point out Brian's flawed reasoning, sometimes you just have to break it down to basics where he cannot wiggle out of his own statements.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18922 Apr 15, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
After other attempts to point out Brian's flawed reasoning, sometimes you just have to break it down to basics where he cannot wiggle out of his own statements.
Mighty glad you did....but do you think he'll get it?

He is slightly calcified in the synapse department.....

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18923 Apr 15, 2014

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#18924 Apr 15, 2014
dedbebbies wrote:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/ 302019921/statue-of-a-homeless -jesus-startles-a-wealthy-comm unity?utm_campaign=storyshare &utm_source=share&utm_ medium=facebook
If only more who claim to follow him actually remembered what it is they are supposed to be embracing.

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
Slavery Wasn't a trade 2 min coretta 26
Why Does It Take So Many BMs To Fight 1 WM, Lat... 3 min T-BOS 15
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min John Galt 1,262,072
In 1492 Native Americans discovered Columbus lo... 4 min coretta 1
I just rimmed an INDIAN MAN from New Delhi 4 min raja 6
Tasmanians survived for thousands of years unti... 5 min fo real 18
All women prefer white men 9 min Mick 5,601
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 18 min Curious Me 34,878
Why are most white people racist? 55 min sup bro 1,957
white women are the prettiest, black women are ... 2 hr miguel is the man 2 219
Somalis and their shameless self promotion 4 hr selina london 250
More from around the web