Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments
521 - 540 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#529
Jan 11, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
this is a valid question to you?
Psst, its not.
but do type it out for a third time...
Yes, ma'am.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#530
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Carol wrote:
<quoted text>
When the mother is easier on the son and harder on the daughter...
The father usually was harder on the son and easier on the daughter which balanced things out.
With the father absent in so many African American homes the solution is for blk women to marry the father before having sex with him...
The solution is not to have another woman in the home as the boys are acting up because they crave the father.
Same thing, if the mother is missing, children are going to feel cheated as they see other children with their mothers.
That's a bunch of neo-freudian dogmatic nonsense.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#531
Jan 11, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Being I have a wife, I doubt it...
you only think you understand...
of this I am sure...
I see. You and your wife discuss her menstrual cycles and tampon usage? Of course you do.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#532
Jan 11, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ma'am.
Does a marriage have any connection to love?

you got an answer?
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#533
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. You and your wife discuss her menstrual cycles and tampon usage? Of course you do.
I kinda gotta keep track since we have an active sex life..
see how that works?

funny you wouldn't think of that...

So tell me again how you having friends is just like having a spouse....

Since: Feb 09

My Own World

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#534
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you deleted the important part of my comment before you tried to deflect it and change the subject.
Being that I'm a gay man, I can guarantee you that I spend FAR more time in the company of women than YOU do.
I can ALSO guarantee you that, though I've never actually touched them, I know WAY more about lady bits and how they work than you will EVER know, including the minutia of how to deal with effectively with menstrual cycles.
I can't say I *wanted* to learn about it, but I sure did!
So much for your ridiculous claim that a father couldn't possibly help his daughter through puberty. What a load of crap.
So, I am not who you are posting to but am randomly butting in with my musings.

What if the government part of marriage was just done away with for all. Then we had to go through attorneys or fill out forms for such things as who would get our property, insurance, work benefits if we died, custody of kids, who would deide our medical issues if we were unable, etc. instead of so much dependant on who is on a piece of paper as our spouse according to the government.

To me marriage is a vow of the spirit I take with the one I love and in my case it is a covenant with God and is legitimate without government papers. I understand all the legal issues as well- but think that most should be able to be taken care of with a lawyer. Having a marriage mixed up with government has it's negatives too.

I'm not even saying tha I personally want the government part gone- but if it's there or if it's not- it's not the main thing about marriage to me.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#535
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Does a marriage have any connection to love?
you got an answer?
Historically, "love" was irrelevant.

A VERY old jewish proverb from the days of arranged marriages: "You learn to love the person you marry, not marry the person you love."

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#536
Jan 11, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Does a marriage have any connection to love?
you got an answer?
Sometimes, but it's not required.

See how that works?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#537
Jan 11, 2013
 
sONE wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I am not who you are posting to but am randomly butting in with my musings.
What if the government part of marriage was just done away with for all. Then we had to go through attorneys or fill out forms for such things as who would get our property, insurance, work benefits if we died, custody of kids, who would deide our medical issues if we were unable, etc. instead of so much dependant on who is on a piece of paper as our spouse according to the government.
To me marriage is a vow of the spirit I take with the one I love and in my case it is a covenant with God and is legitimate without government papers. I understand all the legal issues as well- but think that most should be able to be taken care of with a lawyer. Having a marriage mixed up with government has it's negatives too.
I'm not even saying tha I personally want the government part gone- but if it's there or if it's not- it's not the main thing about marriage to me.
I would agree with you on these things.

But the fact is, we have TWO distinct and different "marriage" definitions in this country, CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage.

Civil marriage is intended as a convenience for the government when it comes to the benefits, protections, and obligations provided by the government as well as clear lines of succession for property inheritance and decision making. Millions of couples are civilly married without ever having any religious involvement at all.

Religious marriage is just that. It's a way for religious institutions to take some control over and be involved in marriage. Those that value religious marriage are now and will always be welcome to value it and will have every right under freedom of religion to honor religious marriage in the way that is most meaningful to them.

If you don't believe that divorcees or gay people should be married, no problem! Under religious freedom, you are guaranteed that right to not marry if you're a divorcee or if you're gay.

Unfortunately, the religious institutions and the self-proclaimed religiously pious in this country have been VERY successful convincing people that civil marriage and religious marriage are the same thing so that they can claim that changes in CIVIL marriage law is someone understood to be a violation of their RELIGIOUS freedom.

See how that works? It's back to religious institutions attempting to take control over a civil institution using smokescreens and misinformation.

MY marriage to my husband likely means exactly the same thing to me as your marriage means to you. At least based on your description is does.

But I would NEVER even dream of trying to dictate to you who you can or cannot civilly marry OR what your religious beliefs should be regarding marriage. That's none of my business any more than my marriage is any of yours.

So why is it that so many people believe they DO get to force other people to comply with their own ideas about marriage? Makes no sense, does it? How would THEY feel if suddenly someone else's definition of who they can and cannot marry were to be forced onto them such that they were forbidden from marrying the person of their choice?
Carol

Oak Park, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#538
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do you keep apologizing?
<quoted text>
And if you're going to continue your obsession with running your and your children's lives by statistics and other people's beliefs, without regard for what really IS best for them, given the circumstances you're all in, why NOT just head on down to the homeless shelter and pick up some guy and have him live with you?
If you really believe that simply having an adult male living in your house will automatically and magically make everything better for your children, then I would say that you're being a bad mother for not doing it, right?
Oh, yeah, he might be a mentally ill alcoholic that will spend his days drunk and beating you and your children, but hey, he's an adult and he's got a penis. Isn't that all that matters?? Isn't that what you're saying?
<quoted text>
Right. Of course. But you're advocating that children in need be denied loving homes because those homes don't live up to the father/mother model that YOU YOURSELF are NOT supplying to YOUR OWN children. Does that not make you a hypocrite???
Where do you get off demanding that other families be denied equal treatment because they don't live up to a standard that you, yourself, are not living up to??
<quoted text>
Only because you believe that. Again, you need to get out of your house and learn about the world. It's FULL of well-adjusted adults that were raised by single parents. Your obsession with parental gender is the biggest problem your children have, not the lack of a father.
<quoted text>
Tell that to the 70% of children in this country being raised by single parents.
Again, you're forcing your own prejudices onto other people because YOU don't feel adequate. That's not right and you WILL harm your children if you don't get over such irrational thoughts.
Honestly I hope you're under 30 because you're twisting sensible comments into nonsense to suit your agenda.

I'll come back to this when I have more time.
Carol

Oak Park, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#539
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bunch of neo-freudian dogmatic nonsense.
Basically its common sense.
Carol

Oak Park, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#540
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Demon possessed?
hahahahahahah
ahahahhahaha
ahhahahahahaha
And you expect to be taken seriously?
hahahahah
ahahahahahha
ahahahahahah
You throw elementary school insults every time you post.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#541
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Historically, "love" was irrelevant.
A VERY old jewish proverb from the days of arranged marriages: "You learn to love the person you marry, not marry the person you love."
are you suggesting modern marriage has no connection at all to love?

Since: Feb 09

My Own World

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#542
Jan 11, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I would agree with you on these things.
But the fact is, we have TWO distinct and different "marriage" definitions in this country, CIVIL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage.
Civil marriage is intended as a convenience for the government when it comes to the benefits, protections, and obligations provided by the government as well as clear lines of succession for property inheritance and decision making. Millions of couples are civilly married without ever having any religious involvement at all.
Religious marriage is just that. It's a way for religious institutions to take some control over and be involved in marriage. Those that value religious marriage are now and will always be welcome to value it and will have every right under freedom of religion to honor religious marriage in the way that is most meaningful to them.
If you don't believe that divorcees or gay people should be married, no problem! Under religious freedom, you are guaranteed that right to not marry if you're a divorcee or if you're gay.
Unfortunately, the religious institutions and the self-proclaimed religiously pious in this country have been VERY successful convincing people that civil marriage and religious marriage are the same thing so that they can claim that changes in CIVIL marriage law is someone understood to be a violation of their RELIGIOUS freedom.
See how that works? It's back to religious institutions attempting to take control over a civil institution using smokescreens and misinformation.
MY marriage to my husband likely means exactly the same thing to me as your marriage means to you. At least based on your description is does.
But I would NEVER even dream of trying to dictate to you who you can or cannot civilly marry OR what your religious beliefs should be regarding marriage. That's none of my business any more than my marriage is any of yours.
So why is it that so many people believe they DO get to force other people to comply with their own ideas about marriage? Makes no sense, does it? How would THEY feel if suddenly someone else's definition of who they can and cannot marry were to be forced onto them such that they were forbidden from marrying the person of their choice?
Interesting. I am becoming more and more anti-government and having info. registered with them under the guise of lawful protection, etc-- but that's just me and I digress.

Personally, I don't give much thought to who people are with and all that. I THINK that marriage as it has came to be in most "Euroepan" type laws was mainly for the protection of the woman in the relationship- at a time when women were totally dependant on men- and for children that were born to her-- and it was mixed in with Christianity- the main long term belief system of most Euro people. You are right- I have not looked into legal definitions of it because I am heterosexual and will be a woman marrying a man. I guessed the legal definition was between a man and a woman and that this has been the long historical meaning and it seems it was not a right taken from gays, but a right that did not pertian to that relationship (?)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#543
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DISASTER LOOMS wrote:
I don't watch videos posted by losers on topix. If you have an argument to make, then make it.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#544
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Will Fare wrote:
Imagine if these black folks refused to go to work or take care of their homes if this gets passed. It would be like every other day in there lives. What is the backlash that they will do another useless march or candle light vigil. I'm not gay but these spooks are cracked up. They need to straighten out there own cesspool lives before they bust another groups balls.
Racist.

Next.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#545
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

eJohn wrote:
I was raised in a two-parent home with one mother and one father. NOT ONCE did the gender of either of my parents make one bit of difference to me. Never, ever.
And every kid I've ever asked has always said the same thing--kids don't care about gender. They only care that they're loved and cared for.
In the house I grew up in, Mom cooked and Dad washed the windows and put up the storms in winter. My niece's husband does the cooking in her house, and she takes care of the windows. Should I be concerned for the future of my two grand nephews?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#546
Jan 11, 2013
 
sONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. I am becoming more and more anti-government and having info. registered with them under the guise of lawful protection, etc-- but that's just me and I digress.
Personally, I don't give much thought to who people are with and all that. I THINK that marriage as it has came to be in most "Euroepan" type laws was mainly for the protection of the woman in the relationship- at a time when women were totally dependant on men- and for children that were born to her-- and it was mixed in with Christianity- the main long term belief system of most Euro people. You are right- I have not looked into legal definitions of it because I am heterosexual and will be a woman marrying a man. I guessed the legal definition was between a man and a woman and that this has been the long historical meaning and it seems it was not a right taken from gays, but a right that did not pertian to that relationship (?)
Well, considering that tradition or "we've ALWAYS done it that way" aren't reasons to support denying people equal civil rights, I take it that you would support marriage equality for same-sex couples?

Women never had the right to vote taken away from them, yet it is not recognized that they DO have a constitutional right to vote, no?

And African Americans never had freedom taken away from them (those that were born into slavery, anyway), and yet we no longer buy and sell them in public slave auctions, right?

Did you know that civil marriage brings with it over 1,100 rights, protections, and responsibilities that are denied any unmarried couple?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#547
Jan 11, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In the house I grew up in, Mom cooked and Dad washed the windows and put up the storms in winter. My niece's husband does the cooking in her house, and she takes care of the windows. Should I be concerned for the future of my two grand nephews?
According to idiots, you should.

;-)
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#548
Jan 11, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, considering that tradition or "we've ALWAYS done it that way" aren't reasons to support denying people equal civil rights,
got a legal citation for this proposition?
I would bet no....

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••