Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4634 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They admit leaks from within the IRS and illegal disclosure of confidential information.
<quoted text>
Do you see what happens when same sex marriage supporters get power? They act like fascists.
Do you ever notice that you don't post links? I suspect its because you know your BS would be easily debunked.

No where does this mention schedule B, or any specific documentation whatsoever. Keep in mind that this office is run by a conservative Republican, and that there was both more money and political campaigning conducted by Republican non-profits. A lot of good it did them in the end. The reality is that such groups should not be able to participate in campaigns at all, and the evidence on the table is less than damning.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4635 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They admit leaks from within the IRS and illegal disclosure of confidential information.
<quoted text>
Do you see what happens when same sex marriage supporters get power? They act like fascists.
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-...
http://www.propublica.org/article/what-karl-r...

If anything, would that not reflect poorly on Pro Publica?

Oh, this in no way addresses your unfounded claim that the IRS released Schedule B of NOMs filing to HRC. Try again. The form that can easily be found is the very one openly available on www.guiestar.org

You aren't looking so bright in making this argument.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#4636 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote:
Do you ever notice that you don't post links? I suspect its because you know your BS would be easily debunked.
I post enough links, most of the time I'm trying to link with rational thought. Want to give it a try?

.
lides wrote:
No where does this mention schedule B, or any specific documentation whatsoever.
It's mentioned in Senator Hatch's letter, did you read it?

.
lides wrote:
Keep in mind that this office is run by a conservative Republican, and that there was both more money and political campaigning conducted by Republican non-profits.
This office was run by President Obama's pleasure; get a clue. When did Obama know and what did he know about IRS harassment and illegal leaks.

What difference does party make? Would it be bad if a Republican was using the IRS to suppress votes?

.
lides wrote:
A lot of good it did them in the end. The reality is that such groups should not be able to participate in campaigns at all, and the evidence on the table is less than damning.
I, on the other hand, believe in democracy, self rule, freedom, individual liberty and justice; this is where we differ. I don't believe in equality of outcomes mandated by federal law or gender equality not found in our Constitution.

There's nothing damning in noticing males and females are different; that's just human nature. Gays do it all the time, else they'd all be bisexual.

Same sex marriage is bad because of lides argument above, suppressing the lawful campaigns of political opponents, vilifying Republicans and Conservatives and the Tea Party. This scandal runs deep, lides is trying to excuse it here. This scandal stains the same sex marriage movement.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4637 Jun 12, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
I respect every religion. Idiotic fool. I am not like you. We all agree on this matter of "gay" marriages".
your cults also agree on slavery and subjugation of women and other equally horrid stuff. they are all also based on proven myths...

this is the low mentality that leads people like you to think sodomy is still against the law...

try the 21st century for breath of fresh, enlightened air...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4638 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I post enough links, most of the time I'm trying to link with rational thought. Want to give it a try?
It's mentioned in Senator Hatch's letter, did you read it?
This office was run by President Obama's pleasure; get a clue. When did Obama know and what did he know about IRS harassment and illegal leaks.
What difference does party make? Would it be bad if a Republican was using the IRS to suppress votes?
I, on the other hand, believe in democracy, self rule, freedom, individual liberty and justice; this is where we differ. I don't believe in equality of outcomes mandated by federal law or gender equality not found in our Constitution.
No, actually, you occasionally post snippets of an article, you seldom if ever post the link, and in this case the snippet you posted didn't make it as far as the Senator's letter.

You have yet to prove that Schedule B's were obtained or posted by those you have accused. If your claim had a factual basis, you would easily be able to prove it. Since you can't, one can only assume you are full of c***.
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing damning in noticing males and females are different; that's just human nature. Gays do it all the time, else they'd all be bisexual.
That observation alone is not a rational basis to deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. Keep digging.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because of lides argument above, suppressing the lawful campaigns of political opponents, vilifying Republicans and Conservatives and the Tea Party. This scandal runs deep, lides is trying to excuse it here. This scandal stains the same sex marriage movement.
Brian, you really are full of c***. The conduct of the Cincinnati IRS, headed by a conservative Republican, has nothing to do with same sex marriage, which is illegal in Ohio.

Once again, you make a foolish claim that you are utterly incapable of substantiating with fact. I am not trying to excuse the "scandal", the problem is that you are stupidly declaring it a "scandal" before it has been fully investigated.

http://www.propublica.org/article/six-facts-l...
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/22/conser...
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/05/1...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/money...

The truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Republican non-profit groups vastly outspent Democratic ones in the 2012 election, for what good it did them, it is only logical that they would receive greater scrutiny due to greater number of republican groups filing for non-profit status, and the volume of their spending. No one has said that NO Democratic groups were investigate, just that more Republican groups were. Some might call that logical.

You've also been unable to prove that the 990 Schedule B for NOM was released.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4639 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how all of your examples come from outside the US. Any examples of free speech infringement within our borders?
I didn't think so.
http://articles.latimes.com/19 91-09-09/news/mn-1439_1_calvar y-church

"SANTA ANA — More than 75 militant gays angered by fundamentalist Christian views on homosexuality, AIDS and gay rights issues descended on a major Orange County church during services Sunday in a raucous protest that ended in three arrests.

"Three activists disrupted an 11:15 a.m. service at Calvary Chapel in south Santa Ana by yelling "Stop crucifying queers!" They were pushed out of the sanctuary by ushers and arrested by police on suspicion of trespassing.

"The incident lasted more than three hours and was witnessed by thousands of worshipers. Outside the church, police formed a line to separate protesters from churchgoers.

"Inside, church ushers scuffled with the activists. "They fought us and we had to take them out forcibly," said one usher. Another usher said a protester bit his hand.

"The protest was organized by the radical group Queer Nation, sometimes described as the "shock troops" of the gay rights movement. Most waged their protest in a theatrical picket line that featured men wearing dresses, fishnet stockings and nuns' habits.

""God chose me to be queer," proclaimed one man's sign. Other slogans described sex acts. Two men kissed as churchgoers looked on. The activists say their tactics are intended to offend people they regard as their oppressors."

this is a common occurrence for some time now in california.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/mass-church...

"A Massachusetts church drew protest this past weekend over a message posted on its sign which said, "Two men are friends, not spouses."

the article goes on to explain that the church received bomb threats and death threats.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/mass-church...

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4640 Jun 12, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
If your pastor wants to ignore the homeless, the hungry, and the battered, so he can fear monger about homosexuality, then great. That's his business. Also, stop making gays out to be this secret cabal. That's tinfoil hat BS.
&fe ature=player_embedded
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4641 Jun 12, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
If your pastor wants to ignore the homeless, the hungry, and the battered, so he can fear monger about homosexuality, then great. That's his business. Also, stop making gays out to be this secret cabal. That's tinfoil hat BS.
it's cute how you assume that moral living would "ignore the homeless, the hungry, and the battered,". and of course that really isn't great with you either.

all i asked was were does it stop? you and i both know that it won't stop at a legal recognition of ssm but it will have to include special protection from being called wrong and sin. it will include a complete shut down of any debate over the negative aspects of such a life style. it will not only be sanctioned by the gov but it will also be subsidized by us all. and it won't be long that religious people will be forced to condone it also.
say goodbye to freedom of religion and to freedom of speech.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4642 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, quite frankly, you don't.
Quite frankly we do. Every religion in the world is against "gay" marriage.

lides wrote:
<quoted text>If you did you could respect those who hold vastly differing views, including that there may be no God Atheism).
I respect atheist idiots as long AS THEY RESAPECT THEISTS.

lides wrote:
<quoted text>Or that we are all made in God's image, that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, and that we should forgive even our enemies (Christianity).
That is not Islam. It is not necessary for me to agree with that in order for me to AGREE WITH THEM ON "GAY" MARRIAGE. We ought to unite on the basis of those things we agree on and agree to disagree on those things we do not agree on. We need Unity in the African Nation, not more dis-Unity.

lides wrote:
<quoted text>How about thou shalt not kill (Judaism). We already know you don't agree with that one,
Bytch, you are an idiot. Islam agrees on every prophesy in the Bible, including the prophesy of Moses from which Thou shall not kill comes and the prophesy of Jesus.(Peace and Blessings be upon all the prophets.)

lides wrote:
<quoted text>in your since deleted post #4623 "No matter what the government says, the penalty for most sex crimes is death."
Bytch, you misquoted me. I said the penalty for sex crimes, some sex crimes is death.

Now, screw you

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4643 Jun 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your cults also agree on slavery and subjugation of women and other equally horrid stuff. they are all also based on proven myths...
this is the low mentality that leads people like you to think sodomy is still against the law...
try the 21st century for breath of fresh, enlightened air...
That is a stupid lie not worthy of responding to.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4644 Jun 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your cults also agree on slavery and subjugation of women and other equally horrid stuff. they are all also based on proven myths...
this is the low mentality that leads people like you to think sodomy is still against the law...
try the 21st century for breath of fresh, enlightened air...
cute how if someone disagrees with you that they must also support the idea of slavery and the subjugation of women.

Since: Aug 09

Saint Louis, MO

#4645 Jun 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually, you occasionally post snippets of an article, you seldom if ever post the link, and in this case the snippet you posted didn't make it as far as the Senator's letter.
You have yet to prove that Schedule B's were obtained or posted by those you have accused. If your claim had a factual basis, you would easily be able to prove it. Since you can't, one can only assume you are full of c***.
<quoted text>
That observation alone is not a rational basis to deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry. Keep digging.
<quoted text>
Brian, you really are full of c***. The conduct of the Cincinnati IRS, headed by a conservative Republican, has nothing to do with same sex marriage, which is illegal in Ohio.
Once again, you make a foolish claim that you are utterly incapable of substantiating with fact. I am not trying to excuse the "scandal", the problem is that you are stupidly declaring it a "scandal" before it has been fully investigated.
http://www.propublica.org/article/six-facts-l...
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/05/22/conser...
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/05/1...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/money...
The truth is an absolute defense against defamation. Republican non-profit groups vastly outspent Democratic ones in the 2012 election, for what good it did them, it is only logical that they would receive greater scrutiny due to greater number of republican groups filing for non-profit status, and the volume of their spending. No one has said that NO Democratic groups were investigate, just that more Republican groups were. Some might call that logical.
You've also been unable to prove that the 990 Schedule B for NOM was released.
Dishonest lying bb-word, what do you know about the truth?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4646 Jun 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>cute how if someone disagrees with you that they must also support the idea of slavery and the subjugation of women.
his cult sure says it is OK...do people get to pick and choose which parts of their 'god's' word is true?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#4647 Jun 12, 2013
Abdurratln wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a stupid lie not worthy of responding to.
no, it is hjust that you can't counter those facts. just like you don't respond to posts where you say stupid shit like sodomy is illegal when clearly it is not.

your mouth and your bigotry write checks the facts and your cult cannot cash...

are you saying the mythical god of your cult does not condone slavery? why would you believe in such a piece of crap made-up god? there must be some cult somewhere that made up a moral god...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4648 Jun 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I post enough links, most of the time I'm trying to link with rational thought.
Good luck with that. It shouldn't be as difficult as you make it seem.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4650 Jun 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> http://articles.latimes.com/1991-09-09/news/m...
"SANTA ANA — More than 75 militant gays angered by fundamentalist Christian views on homosexuality, AIDS and gay rights issues descended on a major Orange County church during services Sunday in a raucous protest that ended in three arrests.
"Three activists disrupted an 11:15 a.m. service at Calvary Chapel in south Santa Ana by yelling "Stop crucifying queers!" They were pushed out of the sanctuary by ushers and arrested by police on suspicion of trespassing.
"The incident lasted more than three hours and was witnessed by thousands of worshipers. Outside the church, police formed a line to separate protesters from churchgoers.
"Inside, church ushers scuffled with the activists. "They fought us and we had to take them out forcibly," said one usher. Another usher said a protester bit his hand.
"The protest was organized by the radical group Queer Nation, sometimes described as the "shock troops" of the gay rights movement. Most waged their protest in a theatrical picket line that featured men wearing dresses, fishnet stockings and nuns' habits.
""God chose me to be queer," proclaimed one man's sign. Other slogans described sex acts. Two men kissed as churchgoers looked on. The activists say their tactics are intended to offend people they regard as their oppressors."
this is a common occurrence for some time now in california.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/mass-church...
"A Massachusetts church drew protest this past weekend over a message posted on its sign which said, "Two men are friends, not spouses."
the article goes on to explain that the church received bomb threats and death threats.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/mass-church...
Awwwww. Poor little babies have to drag out the same crap that's over two decades old.

Did our movement go to excess at times? Of course. All civil rights movements have gone to excess at times.

How much did our original organizers go through? Look what is happening in Russia today. That is what our movement went through in the 70's and 80's, and on into the 90's. It wasn't until Republicans were evicted from the White House in 1993 that anybody in the federal government made AIDS a priority. You'll note your little incident was part of the ACTUP era when many groups went to extremes to get any attention at all.

Did anybody break any bones? Martyr any Christians? Smash a stained glass window?

While what that congregation went through may not be right, it hardly rises to the level of horror that gays and lesbians are experiencing across the nation this very year.

So whine whine whine. And get revenge. It's what many so-called Christians have done since the founding of the faith that actually calls us to turn the other cheek.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4651 Jun 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
On 3 December 2009, the Court overturned the decision of the Alberta Human Rights Panel. The Court found that the contents of the letter did not violate the Alberta Human Rights Act, and that the remedies which had been imposed were either unlawful or unconstitutional.
<quoted text>
Yes, and I say you're a liar.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2 013/02/27/supreme-court-uphold s-canadas-hate-speech-laws-in- case-involving-anti-gay-crusad er/
"Supreme Court upholds Canada’s hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader"

http://stupiddopefresh.com/...
"Canadian Supreme Court Rules That Anti-Gay Speech In The Bible Will Be Considered A Hate Crime"

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/bernste...
"...the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.

"In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.

now since the canadian supreme court finally agreed with Reverend Boissoin, i wonder who paid his legal bills?
and, apparently it is not over;

"Gay activist appeals exoneration of Canadian pastor Boissoin"
Published: Tuesday, May 25, 2010,
The homosexual activist who pursued Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin on a complaint of discrimination since 2002 has re-launched his campaign, after a December court defeat, by taking his case to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Dr. Darren Lund is appealing the Dec. 4, 2009 Court of Queen’s Bench decision by Justice Earl C. Wilson, who overturned a 2008 ruling against Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

- See more at: http://www.theinterim.com/issues/human-rights...

so apparently in october 2012 the whole supreme court finally closed the case.
what is interesting is that the whole thing was brought by someone who could not prove that he had been harmed by the speech in question.
what it also shows is the real motive of the ssm crowd. they do not want any public opposition to their desires and their desires will not stop with a simple legal marriage license.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4652 Jun 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>his cult sure says it is OK...do people get to pick and choose which parts of their 'god's' word is true?
what's his cult?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#4653 Jun 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/supre...
"Supreme Court upholds Canada’s hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader"
http://stupiddopefresh.com/...
"Canadian Supreme Court Rules That Anti-Gay Speech In The Bible Will Be Considered A Hate Crime"
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/bernste...
"...the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered the Saskatoon Star Phoenix and Hugh Owens to each pay $1,500 to each of three gay activists as damages for publication of an advertisement, placed by Owens, which conveyed the message that the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
"In another incident, after Toronto print-shop owner Scott Brockie refused on religious grounds to print letterhead for a gay-activist group, the local human-rights commission ordered him to pay the group $5,000, print the requested material, and apologize to the group's leaders. Brockie, who always accepted print jobs from individual gay customers, and even did pro-bono work for a local AIDS group, is fighting the decision on religious-freedom grounds.
now since the canadian supreme court finally agreed with Reverend Boissoin, i wonder who paid his legal bills?
and, apparently it is not over;
"Gay activist appeals exoneration of Canadian pastor Boissoin"
Published: Tuesday, May 25, 2010,
The homosexual activist who pursued Alberta pastor Stephen Boissoin on a complaint of discrimination since 2002 has re-launched his campaign, after a December court defeat, by taking his case to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Dr. Darren Lund is appealing the Dec. 4, 2009 Court of Queen’s Bench decision by Justice Earl C. Wilson, who overturned a 2008 ruling against Boissoin by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
- See more at: http://www.theinterim.com/issues/human-rights...
so apparently in october 2012 the whole supreme court finally closed the case.
what is interesting is that the whole thing was brought by someone who could not prove that he had been harmed by the speech in question.
what it also shows is the real motive of the ssm crowd. they do not want any public opposition to their desires and their desires will not stop with a simple legal marriage license.
Who says Boissoin represents the entire gay community? Does Louis Farrakhan represent the entire black community? Does the Westboro Baptist Church represent the entire Christian community? What community do you grandly believe yourself to represent?

Bottom line: You've resorted to an example in a foreign country that was ultimately decided in favor of religious freedom. You are so desperate that you are forced to misrepresent the facts.

In other words, you're a liar.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#4654 Jun 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Who says Boissoin represents the entire gay community? Does Louis Farrakhan represent the entire black community? Does the Westboro Baptist Church represent the entire Christian community? What community do you grandly believe yourself to represent?
Bottom line: You've resorted to an example in a foreign country that was ultimately decided in favor of religious freedom. You are so desperate that you are forced to misrepresent the facts.
In other words, you're a liar.
get a clue. Boissoin is not gay nor does he represent the gay community.

now to answer your question;
farrakhan claims to represent the black community and those who remain silent when it comes to condemning are certainly represented by him.
westboro [not really a] baptist church does represent those baptists who are silent when it comes to their tactics.

and your conclusion that it was ultimately decided in favor of religious freedom is incorrect. it was decided on a free speech issue with a lack of sufficient evidence to qualify as hate speech.
meanwhile other similar cases are still being adjudicated.

there are attempts here to pass a similar law. you know it and don't deny it. you also know that our current SC seems to think that it is ok to consider precedents of rulings from foreign courts in our cases. it is the desire of the ssm crowd to legally silence opposition.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 4,330
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr WasteWater 36,043
News At gay pride parades, large crowds and increase... 2 hr OUCH 4
News WashPost: Trump Ties to Putin Make World 'Nervous' 7 hr uther pendragon 1
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 11 hr alsabaak 126
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) 13 hr Joy to the World 29
News Bollywood in Taipei 14 hr TW_sugar_daddio 2
More from around the web