Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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.

Full Story
barry

Birmingham, AL

#5539 Jul 12, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You are a mess.
No dearie, it is NOT expected that the state step in for homosexual couples. Where on earth do you come up with this shyt?
BTW, you might want to look up the word "lifestyle". From your post it's obvious you currently don't know how to employ it properly.
lifestyle - definition of lifestyle by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/lifestyle&#8206 ;
life新tyle also life-style or life style (l f st l ). n. A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: "It was a millionaire's lifestyle ...

perhaps you can enlighten me.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5541 Jul 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
BTW, NOM isn't anit-gay; many gays belong to NOM.
Many gays? Do you have a list of these many gays? I suspect it's like Exodus's list of many gays turning straight: It exists only in your imagination.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5542 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>now that is a real mature and well thought out response that really adds a lot to the conversation.
What would you know about well thought out? I've read your responses concerning the florist and the wedding.

And I can tell you from your stereotyping, I wouldn't want to volunteer anywhere where I would have to interact with you, so I can speak freely that other homosexuals would most likely feel the same way. You know, since I am one, I have more authority on the subject then you do.
What

Faribault, MN

#5543 Jul 12, 2013
Trying to find where the Christians tried to get laws passed to stop greed and gluttony.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5544 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>barry wrote:
<quoted text>
homosexuals generally don't have the responsibility nor the cost of raising children.
....
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i know, some do, but generally they have the money to put into their houses, hobbies and businesses. they have the time also to be politically active.
no, not just like straight people. the quote was that "generally" it should be usually. the vast majority have no interest in children or the responsibility.
and no, they are not politically active like straight people. when they don{t have the responsibility and the expenses of children, they definitely have the time and the money to spend on their business, hobbies and politics.
meanwhile the rest of society is taking care of preparing for the future.
yawn. Taking care of the future requires NUMEROUS things, not just producing spawn.

And nothing in your nonsense supports your statements about homosexuals needing more from the state in old age. In fact, the majority of your post is self contradictory.

Some people have children, some don't. Straight and gay alike.
Your stereotypes are just that...stereotypes. Worthless drivel.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5545 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
than you don{t believe in freedom.
I do believe in freedom. I also believe in the US Constitution and its guarantee of equality under the law.
barry wrote:
what i put out on university letterhead is grammatically correct. however if you have any age on you at all then you know that the rules of english are forever evolving. what we learned in school back in the last millenium is not exactly what is being taught today. also being bilingual the rules of capitalization are not universally the same in different languages. so for give me if i chose not to capitalize except for words that should be respected like American. also since i am bilingual, my son is fluent and has degrees in two languages, since i am at his house i am typing with a keyboard that is set up for a different language. so forgive me if i can t find all the punctuation.
so believe what you want. it does t change the truth.
Feel free to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction Constitutional. Personally, I don't think you are capable of doing so. Just as I don't believe that you produce anything on University letterhead, or that you work for a university.

Translation, you are lazy. Got it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5546 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text> the encroachment on our freedoms through frivolous lawsuits that try to force us to condone, celebrate and participate in activities related to your lifestyle is an attack on the constitutional freedoms and that is the issue.
Run on sentences don't help you.

1) What specific freedom of yours is being encroached upon when gays marry?

2) Who has forced you to condone anything? How did they force you to condone it, what was their method?

3) Who has forced you to celebrate activities related to me or people like me. How did they force you, what was their method?

4) Who has asked you to participate, and what was it you were asked to participate in? Since homosexuality isn't an action, it's not something one can "participate" in, so I'll need you to clarify this "participation" that has been forced upon you.

5) Homosexuality doesn't classify as a lifestyle. You should buy a dictionary so you will know how to use that word properly.

6) What specific lawsuits are you referring to, and what criteria was used to label them as frivolous? Again, explain how the rulings of these lawsuits forced you to condone, celebrate or participate in something.

7) Which one (or more) of your Constitutional freedoms has been attacked. Provide specifics of how it was attacked and how that has impacted you as it relates to your freedoms.

We will all wait anxiously. When you are done pouting and stomping your feet, please get back to us right away.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5547 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>lifestyle - definition of lifestyle by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/lifestyle&#8206 ;
life新tyle also life-style or life style (l f st l ). n. A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: "It was a millionaire's lifestyle ...
perhaps you can enlighten me.
I don't think the free dictionary is terribly helpful on this matter. Just as there is no gay lifestyle, neither is there a millionaire's lifestyle.

My husband used to work for Boston's premier bank for the blue blooded. He worked with many extremely wealthy families. Most of them valued traditional modesty in their lives. Yes, their houses were a bit larger and their gardens professionally kept, but most did not live out of the range of say a dentist or a lawyer.

Others lived very ostentatious lifestyles, zipping around the world on a combination of private planes and private yachts.

Still others were incorrigible philanthropists. One woman gave away 85% of her income. Because you cannot deduct more than 50% of your income for charity, she had just enough left after taxes to maintain her modest apartment in Cambridge.

There is also no trailer park lifestyle. Most people who live in trailers do their best to maintain them and keep them clean. They try to have attractive yards. But others don't mow their lawns or pay their bills. Some are drug addicts (as are some millionaires).

This whole business of "lifestyle" should probably be dropped because it is so often misapplied. It's a euphemistic way to stereotype groups whose members may have very little in common.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#5548 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>as a contractor i've worked for several. certainly not poor. as a person in management of a business, i've hired a few. the lesbians were great employees. the male homosexuals didn't last. now that i work for a well respected university i have contact with them on a regular basis. believe me they are definitely different. those that are athletes have difficulty handling both the training and the academics together. usually their studies are not a problem but their choice and desire of night life activities out on the town usually limit their ability to perform at the best of their potential. it might be that my experience with the homosexual community just might be more diverse than yours.
Huge sampling error.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5549 Jul 12, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Run on sentences don't help you.
They also tend to detract from the notion that barry is a university employee. Well, a custodian, perhaps?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5550 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>lifestyle - definition of lifestyle by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/lifestyle&#8206 ;
life新tyle also life-style or life style (l f st l ). n. A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: "It was a millionaire's lifestyle ...
perhaps you can enlighten me.
Because gays and lesbians have no shared "way of life" nor do we share a "style of living". We are as unique and varied as heterosexuals, who also have no shared way of life or style of living.

As a group, we do not share the same attitudes or values.

We are Republicans and Democrats and independents. We are married, co habituating and single. We are black, white, Asian, Hispanic and all other. We are poor, middle class and rich. We are Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Buddhists. We are conservatives and liberals. We are anti-abortion and pro-choice. As a group, our shared characteristic of homosexuality does not magically create a shared way of life or a shared style of living.

From your posts, your comprehension about homosexuality seems extremely stunted. Please let me know if I can clarify anything else for you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5551 Jul 12, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe in freedom. I also believe in the US Constitution and its guarantee of equality under the law.
Why are naturalized citizens prohibited from running for president, if the constitution guarantees equality under law?
Feel free to articulate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction Constitutional. Personally, I don't think you are capable of doing so. Just as I don't believe that you produce anything on University letterhead, or that you work for a university.
Translation, you are lazy. Got it.
There is no "couple's right" to marry, people cannot combine their right to marry in order to force a redefinition of marriage. If that we're the case plural marriage could be legalized.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5552 Jul 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why are naturalized citizens prohibited from running for president, if the constitution guarantees equality under law?
Being president is not a protection of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is no "couple's right" to marry,
No one, except those making the inept argument you posit here, have argued that there is. There is an individual right to equal protection, and thus far you have failed to articulate any compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
people cannot combine their right to marry in order to force a redefinition of marriage. If that we're the case plural marriage could be legalized.
Actually, your assertion is incorrect. If this were the case "plural marriage" would have been instantly legalized following the court having struck down bans on interracial marriage. It was not.

Do you know why? Because the two are separate issues.
yuma

Bury, UK

#5553 Jul 12, 2013
bpebbbpbpybb

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5554 Jul 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are naturalized citizens prohibited from running for president, if the constitution guarantees equality under law?
Because our Founding Fathers quite rationally feared a political take-over by people loyal to the king, or conceivably to other imperial powers. This was no small fear at a time when much of the world was controlled by imperial Europe.

Furthermore, the federal government was weak, having just reorganized after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. In addition, there was really no other test of citizenship. Ellis Island was an empty patch of sand, and the INS did not exist even in the imagination of people of the time.

The Founders were seeking some signal that our leaders would be loyal to the new nation. They undoubtedly realized that being born in the colonies was no more a guarantee of loyalty than foreign birth undermined loyalty. But at least it prevented interlopers coming to the nascent country for the sole purpose of taking over the government and becoming puppets of European powers.

Furthermore, citizenship in the old world was commonly determined by birth--as it is today. If you weren't born of a citizen, you couldn't become a citizen and participate in politics. I believe that's still in practice in parts of Europe. Allowing anyone born in the colonies to be considered a citizen was actually quite liberal at the time.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5555 Jul 12, 2013
barry wrote:
lifestyle - definition of lifestyle by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/lifestyle&#8206 ;
life新tyle also life-style or life style (l f st l ). n. A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group: "It was a millionaire's lifestyle ...
perhaps you can enlighten me.
Being gay is not an "attitude" or a "value". No more than being left-handed or red-haired. It's simply something someone IS (or isn't). There's no such thing as a "left-handed lifestyle" or a "red-headed lifestyle", now is there?

If a person enjoys drinking, partying and sex, THAT'S a lifestyle. One which many straight people enjoy.

If a person perfers quiet evenings with Netflix, visiting with family, or spending time on hobbies like art or collecting, that's ALSO a lifestyle. One which many GAY people enjoy.

You can't learn anything at all about a person's life by simply labeling one of their characteristics a "lifestyle". This tells you nothing about how they actually live. It's just a quick path to stereotyping.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5556 Jul 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because our Founding Fathers quite rationally feared a political take-over by people loyal to the king, or conceivably to other imperial powers. This was no small fear at a time when much of the world was controlled by imperial Europe.
Furthermore, the federal government was weak, having just reorganized after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. In addition, there was really no other test of citizenship. Ellis Island was an empty patch of sand, and the INS did not exist even in the imagination of people of the time.
The Founders were seeking some signal that our leaders would be loyal to the new nation. They undoubtedly realized that being born in the colonies was no more a guarantee of loyalty than foreign birth undermined loyalty. But at least it prevented interlopers coming to the nascent country for the sole purpose of taking over the government and becoming puppets of European powers.
Furthermore, citizenship in the old world was commonly determined by birth--as it is today. If you weren't born of a citizen, you couldn't become a citizen and participate in politics. I believe that's still in practice in parts of Europe. Allowing anyone born in the colonies to be considered a citizen was actually quite liberal at the time.
Thanks. I did know the rationale behind it, but appreciate the information.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5557 Jul 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think the free dictionary is terribly helpful on this matter. Just as there is no gay lifestyle, neither is there a millionaire's lifestyle.
I would agree. I prefer this definition. I think it is much more succinct.

life新tyle
[lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
noun
1.
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group.

It's the "THAT TOGETHER CONSTITUTE......" that is a much more clear definition. One singular item or characteristic does not establish a lifestyle.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5558 Jul 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
eHarmony?
What PERSON do you think would be qualified to be matched to me?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The same as any other marriage of husband and wife, no more no less.
Your marriage provides benefits to someone outside your marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do u wish me to describe marriage? As in conjugal?
Since" conjugal" MEANS "marriage", I guess so. Of course, you're going to want "conjugal" to mean "excluding same-sex couples", for no reason at all.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I didn't realize a program was needed for this.
Maybe if you were gay, and had to deal with what we do, there'd be a LOT you'd realize about this issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I could explain to him that there are many rights, not all of which he will want to exercise...Perhaps I could arrange for him to meet with gay men who support the definition of marriage as a male female union, yet are still partnered up,.
What's wrong with the people he already knows? What if he DOES want to exercise all his rights? Why do you have to lead him AWAY from the life he's trying to build?
Pietro Armando wrote:
"MILLIONS"? Maybe we could have Dan Savage explain to them the concept of "monogamish", to them
Will you be policing straight marriages also?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Josh Weed
I KNEW I should've also specified people who have not had their identities distorted by religious pressure. We'll never know if Mr Weed would've found happiness with someone more suited to him, if he weren't a Mormon.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Then the state should ban mixed orientation marriages.
No, the state should recognize a person's partner of choice. Orientation shouldn't matter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
We allow first cousins to marry in some state, and if its an SSM state, ss first cousins. So why bar, at least same sex, siblings from marrying? Two brothers/sisters, can just as easily be "spouses for life", as can first cousins.
It's overkill for them to be siblings AND spouses. It's an unfair (and unnecessary) redundancy of rights. Many cousins are only related because of someone ELSE'S marriage. But siblings are already something... siblings.

But if states want to establish rules for marriage of same-sex siblings, I guess they could do that. There are already MANY, MANY LAX laws allowing incest all over the place.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gay people are not excluded, they can marry, as society defines marriage.
What society are you talking about? In my society here in Washington State, I can marry my same-sex partner. The Federal government will recognize it. 30% of US citizens live where this is true. Not to mention nearly 20 nations around the world, like Canada, Denmark or France. Maybe you mean societies like Afghanistan, Iran or Uganda.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Live and let live, but part of living in a modern society is establishing acceptable modes of behavior. We both know that, and I doubt u are advocating anything goes.
If same-sex cohabitating is an "acceptable mode of behavior", and legal recognition is, then there's no reason that same-sex marriage can't be also. The behavior is no different, just because you give it a different name.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's start with the foundation upon which the whole concept of marriage is based, the union of husband and wife. Why change that? You want the benefits, but not the relationship, the name, "marriage", but not that "husband and wife" basis. If all you're looking for is a benefits package, explain why a benefits package in other name is either unacceptable, or won't work?
If it's identical in every function then its only purpose is segregation. It's to allow some people to be spared sharing equal titles with someone they hold in contempt.

Explain why the very same benefits package won't work for gay and straight couples.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5559 Jul 12, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
This is probably one of the funniest posts you have ever made.......NOM is definitely ANTI-GAY, it is listed as a Hate organization on the Southern Poverty Watch List........and they violate Election Campaign laws and have for the last couple of elections......but you want to align yourself with that group......speaks VOLUMES about your character!!!
The Southern Law Center is a Democratic Party leftist partisan organization, 501(c)(3), here's the public filing of their 2009 tax form:

http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/...

Note the omission of the SPLC's Schedule B while NOM's 2008 Schedule B was leaked to the HRC, who had their left wing advocacy media publish that form to defame Mitt Romney during the 2012 election. Who's the hater when it comes to stealing confidential tax filings and publishing?

I don't align myself with Democratic Party front groups like the SPLC; I oppose labeling political opposition groups as hate groups. I'll label the criminal leakers as lawbreakers and enemies of democracy.

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
Baker faces complaint for refusing anti-gay mes... 35 min Sneaky Pete 17
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 1 hr Bob 42
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 1 hr blasterboy1984 578
Top Catholics and evangelicals: Gay marriage wo... 4 hr Belle Sexton 37
Grimes venue settles bias complaint filed by ga... 5 hr Belle Sexton 9
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 7 hr Belle Sexton 29,154
Lewisburg mayor backs same-sex marriage (Nov '13) 7 hr Ally 160
More from around the web