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.

JBH

Richmond, Canada

#5398 Jul 8, 2013
++++++++++
(1)

Former President Bush says immigration-reform bill can pass
Full story: Venice Gondolier
The immigration-reform plan working its way through Congress "has a chance to pass," former President George W. Bush said.

++++++++++
(2)
Bush sees positives for U.S. in Egypt, Arab Spring
Full story: CNN
When the dust settles from the protests in Egypt and other Arab nations, the resulting political balance will be favorable to the United States, former President George W. Bush predicts.

++++++++++
----------

The following refers to the above:
==========

(1)
Lots of many street walkers in Chicago, and millions in many cities say more about the same thing, better than him Bush== SAYING immigration-reform bill can pass. If that is passed, millions would not take credit because Bush says it too, and he would get it? But just who needs his view anyway if he is already gone, for is it likeable if he does this and that by saying as former president?

(2)

Bush is just like any OTHER man in the streets, who would say the same ON ARAB SPRINGS, and what makes Bush think his views of any, are new and creative? AND why would he say so? It may show he still wants a part of OR TAINT the current policies by not knowing he is the past-gone, for definitely this proves Obama is also confused by being elected with no own show and standpoint, AS IF to be run by former president's policies; but no one elected the former one to run anything.

---------

(3)
THOSE WHO SAY BUSH HAS A GOOD HEART ARE WRONG. THE WAY BUSH COMMITS AS AN OUTLAW IS HUGE, with wrongdoings too much bigger than the average ordinary man in the streets. When the ordinary man would steal a million dollars, Bush would steal 10 billions because Bush had the opportunities and was close to where lots of money WERE, as president.

When the average man would rob, AS he works by oneself or with just few associates, could only rob and kill a few. But Bush was at the presidency, he could corrupt so many and use force of so many soldiers to kill hundreds of thousands and millions, like Iraq war. In other words, the degree of Bush's breaking the law and rules is very huge than the ordinary person, and has no limit. Bush is no good man WITH GOOD HEART, as his intention has been to violate anything and rules, by ignoring the law AND INTERNATIONAL RULING AND UNIVERSAL LAW.

But the case in point at this time is that the US people are being enslaved into molding and programmed thoughts of doing all the wrong, WHEN the ignition of Bush way of conducts transfers their behavior of doing such BUSH STYLE, AS OBAMA WOULD DO THE SAME.
In the examples of doing drones lacking real evidences, facts and clues, going after cases as such , by breaking International regulations, to do whatever evil , wrong and bad in order to make others not to accept Snowden for asylum, this is very bad.

US since then from Bush period onward is no free world communities leader, but an International outlaw and violator by dismantling and ripping down its liberty value and freedom privacy rights for its people.

US is known today as the global obstruction violator in most everything, as its people have been burnt by not knowing what rules and laws are by carrying the wrongdoer Bush radicalism thoughts to breach anything.

Bush is not the model of activities based on reasons and stability of occurrence but tells any laws and regulations can be breached.

HOW CAN THE WORLD GO ON With NO UNIVERSAL RULING OF LAW AND REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS?

While people coming from US are still not aware of what all these are as rules, unlawfulness, wrongdoing, where they have lots of laws schools, how can the world people make existence with no rules?

US IS A WRONGDOER AND VIOLATOR IN THIS CENTURY AND NOT A MODEL AND LEADER AT ALL.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5399 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sugar plum, sorry but The Supremes have only been singing since the 1960's. as to the Supreme Court, the marriage they referenced, is the conjugal variety, you know husband and wife, it's been all the rage since the birth of the Republic, and some say even earlier than that.
Actually 1942 was the first time it was brought up. But I realize I'm dealing with someone who doesn't mind being misinformed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The ban on interracial marriage was based on white supremacy, and trying to recent mixed races babies. Besides interracial marriage is not new in this country. So sorry sweetie pie, but your analogy is flawed. Thanks for trying though.
It does matter what the ban was based on sweetie, the argument used to defend it is the same one you are trotting out today. Sorry for all your meaningless effort, but it doesn't change reality. The state of Virginia argued that there was no denial of equal protection because even though they had no right to marry each other, they still had an equal right to marry as long as they did so within the state's restriction. Thanks for playing hon, but you're using the racists playbook.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5401 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Changing the subject again, I see......lol!!! You start out discussing the leak against NOM and when someone points out that NOM hasn't won a court case and needs to disclose their donor list.....you change the subject to the 1st and 2nd Section of DOMA....
The Huffington Post didn't post court documents of NOM's donors, they posted NOM's 2008 confidential form 990 Schedule B.

From congressional testimony:

"[O]n March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that its confidential tax
information—specifically, its 2008 Form 990 Schedule B—had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”)—NOM’s principal opponent in the political battles over the redefinition of marriage—published on its website, and republished on numerous other websites such as the Huffington Post. The donor names were not redacted, but there was another redaction on the PDF document that had been posted, and NOM’s computer analysts were able to remove the document’s redaction layer and discover that the document had originated from within the IRS itself. As the attached copy of that document reflects, the un-redacted original bore two markings that, according to Section 3.11.12.1.26 of the Internal Revenue Manual (01-01-2012), are placed on documents e-filed with the IRS by the IRS’s Central Information System. An identification number,“100560209,” was stamped diagonally across the middle of leaked tax return. More significantly, the header of each page read:“THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,” making unmistakably clear that the document was a confidential tax return whose source was within the IRS itself.

The willful unauthorized public disclosure of NOM’s 2008 Schedule B by the IRS or its employees is a violation of federal law, 26 U.S.C.§ 6103. Indeed, it is a serious felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in federal prison, penalties that apply both to IRS and other government employees and third parties. 26 U.S.C.§ 7213(a)(1),(3)."

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5402 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The Huffington Post didn't post court documents of NOM's donors, they posted NOM's 2008 confidential form 990 Schedule B.
Who cares? NOM has already been TOLD by the Courts including SCOTUS to turn over their Donor List......and they won't.........which is going against the laws of several states!!!

Now, I asked you to provide evidence that HRC was responsible for this alleged leak and all you give is some article.......so, you don't actually have physical evidence that HRC did this, right?

Didn't think so!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5403 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Who cares? NOM has already been TOLD by the Courts including SCOTUS to turn over their Donor List......and they won't.........which is going against the laws of several states!!! Now, I asked you to provide evidence that HRC was responsible for this alleged leak and all you give is some article.......so, you don't actually have physical evidence that HRC did this, right? Didn't think so!!!
Those who believe in the rule of law care about IRS corruption, illegally leaking confidential tax forms to political opponents. Those who believe in democracy care about partisan media using those confidential tax forms to attack Mitt Romney during the 2012 election.

The issue isn't a court order to release NOM's 2008 schedule B, the issue is the Huffington Post put that form on the web, claimed they got it from the HRC and admitted the information is confidential:

"In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/mitt...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5404 Jul 9, 2013
Even if you are on the left, you should care about IRS corruption. The left won't always hold the White House.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5405 Jul 9, 2013
NorCalNative wrote: "Now, I asked you to provide evidence that HRC was responsible for this alleged leak and all you give is some article.......so, you don't actually have physical evidence that HRC did this, right?"

From sworn congressional testimony:

"Portions of NOM’s Form 990, specifically Schedule B, which contains the names and addresses of NOM’s major donors, are not public. Like nearly every other non-profit organization, NOM does not publically disclose its donor information. Indeed, because of the vicious and at times even violent campaign of intimidation that has been waged against supporters of traditional marriage—intimidation that the Supreme Court itself has remarked upon—NOM jealously guards the confidentiality of its donors.

Nevertheless, on March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that its confidential tax information—specifically, its 2008 Form 990 Schedule B—had been obtained by the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”)—NOM’s principal opponent in the political battles over the redefinition of marriage—published on its website, and republished on numerous other websites such as the Huffington Post. The donor names were not redacted, but there was another redaction on the PDF document that had been posted, and NOM’s computer analysts were able to remove the document’s redaction layer and discover that the document had originated from within the IRS itself. As the attached copy of that document reflects, the un-redacted original bore two markings that, according to Section 3.11.12.1.26 of the Internal Revenue Manual (01-01-2012), are placed on documents e-filed with the IRS by the IRS’s Central Information System. An identification number,“100560209,” was stamped diagonally across the middle of leaked tax return. More significantly, the header of each page read:“THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY,” making unmistakably clear that the document was a confidential tax return whose source was within the IRS itself.

The willful unauthorized public disclosure of NOM’s 2008 Schedule B by the IRS or its employees is a violation of federal law, 26 U.S.C.§ 6103. Indeed, it is a serious felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in federal prison, penalties that apply both to IRS and other government employees and third parties. 26 U.S.C.§ 7213(a)(1),(3)...."

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5406 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't a court order to release NOM's 2008 schedule B, the issue is the Huffington Post put that form on the web, claimed they got it from the HRC and admitted the information is confidential:
Either the IRS leaked the information or HRC leaked it......which one? My guess is you don't know and don't have the evidence to back up your claim and NOW you say that the Huffington Post claim they GOT it from HRC.......but again, you don't know that and you are just unhappy that Romney lost in the Election, DOMA Section 3 LOST at SCOTUS, Prop 8 proponents LOST at SCOTUS and you need something to complain about because everything you have been posting about in the last year basically is moot now and so you need something else to complain about!!!!

Got it!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5407 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Even if you are on the left, you should care about IRS corruption. The left won't always hold the White House.
The Democrats will hold the White House longer than you want........and that really upsets you......as for the leaked information......well, that stuff happens and I'm not a strong advocate for the government.......but I guess you fail to see all the other corruption going on like what Boehner and the Republicans have been doing in the House for the last coupled of years like hiring an attorney to defend Section 3 of DOMA using taxpayer money that they were not AUTHORIZED to use.......but that seems to have alluded you......figures!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5408 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
NorCalNative wrote: "Now, I asked you to provide evidence that HRC was responsible for this alleged leak and all you give is some article.......so, you don't actually have physical evidence that HRC did this, right?"

The willful unauthorized public disclosure of NOM’s 2008 Schedule B by the IRS or its employees is a violation of federal law, 26 U.S.C.§ 6103. Indeed, it is a serious felony punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to five years in federal prison, penalties that apply both to IRS and other government employees and third parties. 26 U.S.C.§ 7213(a)(1),(3)...."
Your article without a source link is a bit deceiving.....you keep mentioning HRC, but everything points to the IRS.......again, they aren't the same organization and you still haven't proven anything!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5409 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Your article without a source link is a bit deceiving.....you keep mentioning HRC, but everything points to the IRS.......again, they aren't the same organization and you still haven't proven anything!!!
I see the problem, the IRS leaked those tax records to NOM's political enemy, the HRC. The Huffington Post cites the HRC as the source of NOM's leaked 2008 Schedule B.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5410 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Either the IRS leaked the information or HRC leaked it......which one?...
Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's tax filings to the HRC. The HRC then gave those forms to the Huffington Post and others:

"In March of 2012 the Human Rights Campaign published a confidential tax return of the National Organization for Marriage, which was immediately republished byThe Huffington Post and other liberal news media outlets. The HRC and NOM are the leading national groups on opposing sides of the fight over gay marriage. HRC wants to redefine marriage to make it genderless, while NOM wishes to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

NOM a target

My organization was not the only conservative-linked political group or business that appears to have faced shady actions from IRS employees. ProPublica reported this week that the IRS handed over to them confidential documents of nine conservative organizations whose applications for non-profit status were still pending. Among them: Crossroads GPS, a key group backing Mitt Romney's presidential campaign...."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5411 Jul 9, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR ashamed?? LOL!!!!
"Same sex marriage harms homosexuals"
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
"Same sex marriage creates a new standard of gender segregation"
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
"Marriage equality is necrophilia marriage."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage, an idea out of it's time."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Following a social policy that disregards gender differences at the behest of homosexuals might not be the wisest policy."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it is a step toward chaos, depravity and decadence."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Homosexuals don't react to the opposite sex like heterosexuals [...] It's like asking a blind man to select a color scheme for your home."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Marriage equality is polygamy.[...] Men and women are not equal"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it causes employee cost risks and drives up unemployment."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like big government excessive spending."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"DNA says, "Same sex marriage is wrong.""
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
" Even if your argument against same sex marriage is illogical, it still has merit"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is wrong because you can't have it both ways."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like a day without sunshine."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"A day without sunshine is like night."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"If you wonder why your mortgage is upside down; same sex marriage is the same problem."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Why is same sex marriage bad? Why not?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is worse than paganism."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like oversensitiveness, like a social allergy."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"A same sex couple is naturally sterile, they don't qualify as marriage."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage has been tested by history and found wanting."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it's proponents defame people based on their orientation"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like a political leader without values or goals"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like child abuse"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Marriage must always remain husband and wife in honor of our mothers and fathers."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT... ...
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
Let me guess, these were included in those THOUSANDS of reasons, right? LOL!
Nice compendium, Johah. I can't even imagine how painful it was to read all of Brian's postings and boil them down to this list of nonsense. And all that cut and paste?

Nice job, Jonah. Unfortunately, Brian will read this synopsis of his postings with pride of his own cleverness, not the complete and total embarrassment his remarks should engnder.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5412 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I see the problem, the IRS leaked those tax records to NOM's political enemy, the HRC. The Huffington Post cites the HRC as the source of NOM's leaked 2008 Schedule B.
I doubt you see much of anything unless it's what you want.......you still have NO viable evidence that either the IRS or HRC is guilty of anything.....I mean has ANY official charges been filed against either organization?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5413 Jul 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Either the IRS leaked the information or HRC leaked it......which one?!
You leave out the very strong possibility that a hacker leaked the information, just as Wikileaks has done with so much other government information. Or that someone inside NOM, perhaps a closet-case like Mehlman, had an attack of conscience and leaked from inside.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5414 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's tax filings to the HRC. The HRC then gave those forms to the Huffington Post and others:
Again, where is your EVIDENCE that it was supporters of Marriage Equality in the IRS that leaked them to someone in HRC? Is this a difficult task for you to do?

By the way Brian......there is NO such thing as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" marriage or supporters of such entities.......there are SUPPORTERS of the RIGHT TO MARRY for Same-Sex couples........get this through your thick skull......thanks!!!

Oh and another thing.....you LOST with regards to both rulings......DOMA Section 3 is officially GONE and the proponents of Prop 8 had NO STANDING and therefore Judge Walker's ruling is in place!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5415 Jul 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Even if you are on the left, you should care about IRS corruption. The left won't always hold the White House.
I don't see why leaking donor lists should be a problem for left-leaning political organizations. Every organization that I have donated to has been meticulous about gathering donor information, even for my tiny contributions that are far less than the triggers in the law.

Our donors are proud of their fight for equality, not cowardly bullies afraid to show their faces as they trample others.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5416 Jul 9, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You leave out the very strong possibility that a hacker leaked the information, just as Wikileaks has done with so much other government information. Or that someone inside NOM, perhaps a closet-case like Mehlman, had an attack of conscience and leaked from inside.
That may be true......but I'm trying to get Brian to understand that he is making NO SENSE and that his claims are nothing but pure allegations with NO REAL evidence to back his claim up!!!

Maybe had NOM followed the rules in the first place instead of hide their donors......this would not have happened!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5417 Jul 9, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Actually 1942 was the first time it was brought up. But I realize I'm dealing with someone who doesn't mind being misinformed.
Ya don't say? Link please.
It does matter what the ban was based on sweetie, the argument used to defend it is the same one you are trotting out today
Oh but it does shnookums, according to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."
Sorry for all your meaningless effort, but it doesn't change reality. The state of Virginia argued that there was no denial of equal protection because even though they had no right to marry each other, they still had an equal right to marry as long as they did so within the state's restriction. Thanks for playing hon, but you're using the racists playbook.
Sorry shnookums, but the state of Virginia was using the same conjugal definition of marriage in use since the birth of the republic, and still in use today, at least in 30 plus states. Odd u would agree with the court that racial segregation in marriage is wrong, but gender segregation is acceptable.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5418 Jul 9, 2013
barry wrote:
but you and i know that you are changing the wording of situation. marriage was afforded by every state in the union of a husband and a wife, a man and a women. so again i ask if it is based on what was "accepted by every state in the union" and ssm was rejected by every state in the union, but somehow it was ok to change that, what basis is there for now arguing against poly-marriages?
The question is whether restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves any compelling state interest. It does not. Limiting marriage between two people is rational, and equal. Allowing three or more is to seek extraordinary protection of the law, which anyone who can count could understand.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>NOM is a 501(c)(4). Donor information isn't public, this is one of those Super PACs that won a Supreme Court victory to keep donor information private.
"501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly."
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
.
<quoted text>^^^That's just defamation of your political opponents; I'm ashamed of your level of argument. I've listed thousands of reasons why same sex marriage is a bad idea next to traditional marriage, and all I get are insults. Hardly worth my time.
.
<quoted text>Intimidating donors by publishing their names in the press after leaking them to the HRC is another way to suppress votes. I oppose corruption and illegal disclosure of citizen's private tax filings.
.
<quoted text>They won Proposition 8 at the voting booth, looks like lides was wrong.
.
<quoted text>True, same sex marriage is easily as bad as single parenthood. Good point.
.
<quoted text>There's a state interest in a child being raised by its own mother and father in a stable marriage. The welfare state with financial incentives for single motherhood has destroyed the black family. They want to destroy your family next.
.
<quoted text>Here's a thought experiment, was there anything your mother taught or way she comforted you that your father didn't? Also think to your father, was there anything he taught you that your mother couldn't? Ask yourself, which would you prefer to have had, two fathers, two mothers or a mother and father?
Same sex marriage is bad because we honor our mother and father.
Brian, you are a twit.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/05/another_nail_...
http://www.salon.com/2013/07
/08/how_the_media_outrageously _blew_the_irs_scandal_a_full_a ccounting/singleton/

"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990, including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information."
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...

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 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 8 min Big Boob Babe 11
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Just Think 6,180
News New Art Therapy Studio Draws on Power of Expres... 19 hr Dive4lifeblue 2
News Daycare worker, 23, is charged with the murder Sun Fit2Serve 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... Fri Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... May 26 Muslims lie all t... 2
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... May 24 The Wheeze of Trump 5
More from around the web