Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17553 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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#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.

lides

“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.

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18925 Apr 15, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
If only more who claim to follow him actually remembered what it is they are supposed to be embracing.
Yeah, right....as if 2000 years of corrupted message hasn't done ENOUGH damage....now us heathens WANT 'christians' to remember the ACTUAL message.

How dare we?????

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18926 Apr 15, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
If only more who claim to follow him actually remembered what it is they are supposed to be embracing.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_a-bVnj7txoI/TFZOfxY...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18927 Apr 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Gays are still citizens entitled to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitution.
Gays have equal protection of the laws, no state has an orientation test for marriage. Some states have legislated sex segregated marriage, every gay in the USA has the right to marry in a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
Yet you advocate discrimination and harm to gays and infringement of their fundamental rights and Dave doesn't.
We're discussing government marriage law, every gay has the right to marry when they meet the standards. I advocate tolerance and good will toward all; harm and discrimination to none. There is no fundamental right to rewrite marriage law for the purpose of satiating sexual desire; but there are bigots, sex segregationist, same sex marriage supporters and leftists who would harass and harm people who actively defend one man and one woman marriage.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
Just like blacks and whites married under the same anti-miscegenation laws.
^^^This is nonsense because there's no comparison between race and gender.

.
Terra Firma wrote:
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.
Consent of the governed is a legitimate compelling state interest to justify one man and one woman marriage. Rule of law, civil discourse, precedent and human sexual differentiation are compelling reasons too.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#18928 Apr 16, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
...There are new laws against homosexual relationships. They were enacted by zealot fundamentalists....
If so:
Jonah1 wrote:
Who has tried to criminalize same sex relationships? Please provide a link. Waiting.....[Jonah1] remains the Village Idiot
.
Sam

Stafford, VA

#18930 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>.......
<quoted text>Consent of the governed is a legitimate compelling state interest to justify one man and one woman marriage. Rule of law, civil discourse, precedent and human sexual differentiation are compelling reasons too.
That makes no sense. Are you really arguing that the mere desire of any majority is enough to strip away any basic civil or human right from any minority?

That's sick, and un-American.
Sam

Stafford, VA

#18931 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>..

<quoted text>We're discussing government marriage law, every gay has the right to marry when they meet the standards........
Just like every black or white person had the same right to marry someone of the SAME race?, So Loving was an error, in your opinion?

How can any idiot really argue that the ability of a heterosexual to marry the person they love is the same as the ability to ONLY marry someone you can't?

Who thinks like that?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18932 Apr 16, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>...... There is no fundamental right to rewrite marriage law for the purpose of satiating sexual desire; .........
Silly stuff. Marriage isn't required to "satiate sexual desire". If that's all you think marriage is about, it's no wonder you aren't married. Normal folks - regardless of sexual orientation - know better.

And since all of these marriage bans were created rather recently, are you saying that the people that promoted them had no right to re-write marriage code to support their beliefs? We agree there.

And are you REALLY going to argue that there is no fundamental right for any party to seek redress for unconstitutional laws that directly harm them? And you call yourself American?

“Define Necessity”

Since: Mar 13

FOR YOURSELF

#18933 Apr 16, 2014
Well....one first must be an idiot.........

See, it takes idiocy to cling to the idea that only YOUR marriage should rate marital benefits. It takes idiocy to fail Jesus' expectations for a Christian life....that's so easy! FORGIVE.

....for GOD so LOVED the WORLD that he gave his ONLY begotten son that WHOSOEVER believeth in him shall never perish, but shall have eternal life.......

But He never said WHERE that 'eternal' life would take place..........

and eternity is a LONG DAMN TIME.

Food for thought.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18934 Apr 16, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays are still citizens entitled to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitution.
"Gays" as individual MEN AND WOMEN, are entitled to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the constitution as it applies to all men and women.
Yet you advocate discrimination and harm to gays and infringement of their fundamental rights and Dave doesn't.
Why not advocate all men and all women be treated the same as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife?
Just like blacks and whites married under the same anti-miscegenation laws.
Which laws did Italians marry under? Were they prohibited from marrying non Italians under those laws? Italians were considered a separate "race", as were many ethnic groups.
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.
If a state is going to have the federal government dictate to them they cannot define marriage, as they always defined it, and it was understood to be since the birth of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, why should they recognize marriage at all? Let the Feds issue the license.

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) 1 min USAsince1680 1,508,778
A good theme music... 2 min Israelite Suprema... 5
Blacks and Space Travel? 9 min Long Legged Mack ... 1
Best Guard Dog 25 min Long Legged Mack ... 3
Soo, ummm, is this what it looks like? 25 min MeSo 8
Mars 36 min Israelite Suprema... 6
Black Israelites! Answer these questions. 48 min Israelite Suprema... 5
White men are the solution for the single black... 1 hr Visitor 139
This good ol' boy never meant no harm! 1 hr misfit 0676 2,031
Do black men really have larger penises? (Sep '10) 2 hr Lori899 1,417
TRUMPCARE ~ is DEAD!! 5 hr I build-they come 32
More from around the web