Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5878 Jul 17, 2013
barry wrote:
but if you're a florist in washington st.... someone will try to sue you if you wish to choose to abstain from participating.
But if you're a business owner you are required to follow state anti-discrimination laws. You don't just get to choose which kinds of customers you're going to serve, and which you aren't.

The use of the word "participating" seems to be out of place. Bridesmaids "participate" in a wedding. Ushers participate. The father of the bride, the officiator, the Best Man. THESE people actually participate.

But florists? Bakers? Photographers? These people are EMPLOYEES. They are NOT "participating" in the wedding. They are beholden to state consumer laws. They are over-estimating their part in a wedding, if they call it "participating".

Who else may "abstain from participating" in the business world, based on how they view the general public? Can a bank deny service to gay customers? Hotels and motels? Gas stations? Grocers? Doctors, hospitals and pharmacies? Are there any limits?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#5879 Jul 17, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but if you're a florist in washington st.... someone will try to sue you if you wish to choose to abstain from participating.
Oh? Afraid of a lawsuit, eh? It it illegal to discriminate in Alafuckingbama? Y'all have such a rich history of it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5880 Jul 17, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He gets his talking points from the fundie crowd. They make up all kinds of shyt like that.
No, just from some Glibtees.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5881 Jul 17, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Not nearly as ironic as you imagining that the argument which failed miserably as it did in defending mandated racial segregation in marriage is going to be successful in defending the mandated gender integration of it.
L v. V was about preventing micengenation of the race....no mixed race babies. SSM is about no babies at all.
It is the individual's right to marry without unwarranted governmental intrusion into their marriage choices, bunny.
The right to marry, ducky, still requires a definition upon which to base that right. Also If u don't want the state in your "marriage" by whatever way u define that, don't invite it in.
Why you aren't seeing the mandated gender integration of your marriage as much of an unwarranted intrusion into your rights as was their mandated racial segregation is beyond me.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together. But as we know Ricky, with each passing year, we all become nieces and nephews of Uncle Sam.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5883 Jul 17, 2013
barry wrote:
but if you're a florist in washington st.... someone will try to sue you if you wish to choose to abstain from participating.
There is a non-discrimination statute in Washington state that prevents such a denial of service simply because the client was gay.

Had the business owner merely said they were overcommitted for that period instead of using the instance to flaunt their politicala views, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in. Of course, that would also be true if they were decent businessmen, or if they weren't small minded bigots.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5884 Jul 17, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:

Too bad for you. SCOTUS in its DOMA ruling recognized all of the LEGALLY married same-sex couples as EQUAL to all of the legally married opposite-sex couples by the federal government. So SCOTUS believes they constitute 'marriage'. And Scalia himself predicts that the DOMA ruling spells the eventual death to all of the state bans.
He also believes it will lead to polygamy too.
And FYI: same-sex marriages have been around from the earliest times and is nothing new. Google it. John Boswell's, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995) is also a good source of information.
Actually its a bad source of information....very bad. Try again. Oh there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, but Boswell's work has been discredited by historians.

If there had been a ssm culture, male or female, with deep sustained historical roots, in western civilization would there be a need for a debate? No, because it would have already existed.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6002 Jul 18, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but if you're a florist in washington st.... someone will try to sue you if you wish to choose to abstain from participating.
No, they will sue you if you discriminate against them. They are being employed, nor participating.

Buy a dictionary.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6003 Jul 18, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
The 'usually' simply notes rare exceptions which in no way invalidate the normal.
Did the authors note "rare exception" or did they use the term "usually". They used usually. PERIOD. Your desire to fundie-twirl that into "rare exception" is dismissed.

u·su·al
[yoo-zhoo-uhl, yoozh-wuhl]
adjective
1. habitual or customary: her usual skill.
2. commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary: the usual January weather.
3. commonplace; everyday: He says the usual things.
"Customary" and "commonly" don't magically become "but with rare exception".

Not that it really matters since this is all completely irrelevant in the long run. The state doesn't have, nor will they ever have, a mating prerequisite that matches one singular definition of the word that fundies pretend is the only definition.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep twirling queen.
The only one twirling is you c*nt.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6004 Jul 18, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Neither is sex. A marriage is legally consummated through cohabitation.
Not so in every state.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6005 Jul 18, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It also depends on how we define "society", and what you mean by "we".
so·ci·e·ty
/s&#601;&#712;s&#2 99;&#601;t&#275;/
Noun
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.
Synonyms
association - company - community - fellowship - club
]
Not every country in the world defines marriage in the same way. When we say "society", are we counting Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia or Burma? Do we include their definitions of marriage with ours? What about England, Denmark, Canada or Argentina? Which definition trumps?
Conjugal as in husband and wife. Overwhelmingly the most common form of marriage in the world.
We have the same problem even if we restrict the conversation to the US. In a discussion about how "we as a society" define marriage, you have to take into consideration the conflicting definitions in Alabama and California.
See above.
"We as a society" is a complex phrase, making it difficult to find a single, common definition of almost ANYTHING. It means that definitions will be constantly shifting, always under debate.
What it DOESN'T do is serve as a blanket phrase, consolidating the entire planet's definitions into one, with a tidy bow.
Common consensus, broad cultural understanding and practice, communal norms, etc.
"Conjugal" means "of marriage". Even the definition YOU provided allowed for that.
That it does, but one must look at the word in perspective, taking into account its most commonly understood meaning, historic context, legal usage I various jurisdictions, cultural foundation, etc.
"Poly people" have 1,138 problems to solve before they join marriage.
Oh no they don't that's up to Uncle Sam. All that has to be done is for a sympathetic judge or two to declare "marriage equality" applies to them, and there is a right to plural marriage. They can build upon the success of the SSM movement.
None of the rights of marriage are dependent on the gender of the recipients.
Nor to a couple as well, any two adults would suffice.
They are ALL dependent on there being only two people, one who selects the other to be the beneficiary of every right, who selects the first person back for the same thing. Stray from that, and their administration becomes unmanageable.
Not insurmountable. If conjugality is expendable, as several states have already done, why is monogamy not?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6006 Jul 18, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
it's a completely different topic, as the court did not rule on either prop 8 or doma as inclusive of poly-marriage situations.
Yet it was raised in response to the issue of marriage as a fundamental right.
. it's their perogative to file a suit in court regarding polygamy and pursue that form of marriage using the proper channels. those proper channels were followed by a handful of same sex couples, and they won their cases, eventually, if the polygamy crowd has arguments that have merit before the court, let them be heard and considered, based upon laws. that's not for us, or them, to decide the legality of polygamy.
H&M, does it really matter? If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definition of marriage nationwide, why does it matter, if after SSM, or in conjunction with, plural marriage is legalized in some form? Where is the line drawn?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6007 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so in every state.
According to Black's Law dictionary, you are mistaken.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6009 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
L v. V was about preventing micengenation of the race....no mixed race babies. SSM is about no babies at all.
<quoted text>
The right to marry, ducky, still requires a definition upon which to base that right. Also If u don't want the state in your "marriage" by whatever way u define that, don't invite it in.
<quoted text>
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together. But as we know Ricky, with each passing year, we all become nieces and nephews of Uncle Sam.
Government should get out of the marriage business? Um, helloooooooooooooo... marriage is a LEGAL contract.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6010 Jul 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I do not, the above is mere defamation rather than logical argument.
You can donate to NOM's tax deductible 501(c)(3) Education Fund here:
https://donate.nationformarriage.org/donate_n...
Don't you mean NOM's propaganda machine? They pander to stupid people.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6011 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it was raised in response to the issue of marriage as a fundamental right.
<quoted text>
H&M, does it really matter? If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definition of marriage nationwide, why does it matter, if after SSM, or in conjunction with, plural marriage is legalized in some form? Where is the line drawn?
The line is drawn when STUPID people like you try to bring up the slippery slope FALLACY. Why do you think you lose in court?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6012 Jul 18, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
Don't you mean NOM's propaganda machine? They pander to stupid people.
That's just defamation; can't you do better than calling political opponents, "stupid people"?

I mean the tax deductible 501(c)(3) part of NOM, their education fund. You can donate here:
https://donate.nationformarriage.org/donate_n...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6013 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet it was raised in response to the issue of marriage as a fundamental right.
<quoted text>
H&M, does it really matter? If the monogamous union of husband and wife is no longer the sole legal definition of marriage nationwide, why does it matter, if after SSM, or in conjunction with, plural marriage is legalized in some form? Where is the line drawn?
then show us in SCOTUS's decision where they ruled on polygamy. I'll wait eagerly to see the text.

and yes, it does matter. if it's worth fighting for, then step up to the plate and take that swing at it in court. put up or shut up. prove your points, or lack thereof, in a court of law before a seated judge. i'll be happy to read about either your success or failure. if not you per se, then someone from that side.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6014 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
so·ci·e·ty
/s&#601;&#712;s&#2 99;&#601;t&#275;/
Noun
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.
Synonyms
association - company - community - fellowship - club
Back to the dictionary, huh? You understand, it's only going to REFLECT usage, not dictate it.

But notice where it says "in a particular region". So, how do we define the region? "Society" could be all humans on Earth, or only those on a particular continent, or within one nation, or just in one state, or maybe a county or city, or even just your neighborhood. As you drift from one "region" to another, the shared customs, laws and organizations will change. Very close neighbors may have very different customs and laws. Very distant peoples might have very similar ones.

NONE of this gives anyone any justification for saying "this is how WE define so-and-so", and then insisiting that anyone else comply with that definition.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in husband and wife. Overwhelmingly the most common form of marriage in the world.
But not the only one. And even with same-sex couples, we're still dealing with 2 and only 2 people who select each other (and no one else) for every and all benefits of marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
See above.
And how does that help? California and Alabama have 2 different definitions of marriage. Are the the same society? Are the different societies? Does one of them not count?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Common consensus, broad cultural understanding and practice, communal norms, etc.
And watch them change.... That's what they do.

Common consensus once kept gay people from serving in the military. Communal norms have led parents to disown their children when they find out they're gay. Broad cultural understanding and practices have not treated gay people very well in the past.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That it does, but one must look at the word in perspective, taking into account its most commonly understood meaning, historic context, legal usage I various jurisdictions, cultural foundation, etc.
...as well as broader meanings, secondary definitions, regional variations, the ability to change, etc.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh no they don't that's up to Uncle Sam. All that has to be done is for a sympathetic judge or two to declare "marriage equality" applies to them, and there is a right to plural marriage. They can build upon the success of the SSM movement.
And then what? How do you apply pension benefits to 8 people? How do you allot Social Security benefits to 5 survivors? Who makes custody decisions, divorce decisions, end of life decisions? How many green cards or immigrant visas can be issued to spouses? How much medical care leave can a person take to care for a dozen spouses?

If you think that polygamists can just jump into marriage without considering these and many other points, then you haven't thought it through. Ten people can't ride a bicycle built for two.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor to a couple as well, any two adults would suffice.
"Couple" means two.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not insurmountable. If conjugality is expendable, as several states have already done, why is monogamy not?
Since conjugality can just mean "of marriage", it hasn't been expended.

But, why monogamy? I gave a handful of scenarios that become untenable with polygamy. I'm sure you could continue to think up dozens of situations where the benefits of marriage become too convoluted to administer, when divided among multiple parties who may not want equal division. Even when they do, some benefits of marriage can only be administered to a single other person.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6015 Jul 18, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not so in every state.
In every state where that matters, the state NEVER steps in to enforce it, unless the married parties ASK for it. If they don't care, the state doesn't care.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6016 Jul 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's just defamation; can't you do better than calling political opponents, "stupid people"?
I mean the tax deductible 501(c)(3) part of NOM, their education fund. You can donate here:
Brian, thetruth is an absolute defense against defamation, NOM does cater to stupid people, every off topic post that you make about NOM proves as much.

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 Stand up for what is fair and right 2 hr Ravenclaw 1
News KKK, other racist groups disavow the white supr... 3 hr Dr Wu 4
News Methodists Trying to Avoid Church Split Over Ga... (May '16) 7 hr South Knox Hombre 4
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 17 hr Vikram 54
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) Fri crucifiedguy 4,740
News Video company challenges gay marriage law Dec 8 Shirvell s Shrivel 2
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... Dec 8 Shirvell s Shrivel 18
More from around the web