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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6864 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
It is arguing to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
They aren't second class citizens, they share all the rights of the majority, but that doesn't satisfy. So, they want to redefine marriage for everyone. Don't blame me for your poorly considered political goals.

.
lides wrote:
It would be like me arguing that you have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc. Would you find that insulting, if I implied that you were somehow lesser and not worthy of equal protection under the law?
It's untrue to write: Gays "have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc." It's like arguing, you can't label something that never existed before the 21st Century in written law, a "right" then call everyone who disagrees, oppressive insulting bigots. Nice try though, I'm sure you'll get props.

.
lides wrote:
Your points are, as usual, highly disingenuous. You are trying to conflate fictitious religious hypothetical, with a very real movement to deny equal protection of the laws to some people.
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality; it's about rewriting marriage law for everyone to satisfy a mascot victim group. Same sex marriage is like a pity f^ck.

I'll bet you find that insulting too. Truth hurts.

.
lides wrote:
Brian, once again, you are arguing for Sharia.
Most of us are in favor of equal protection of the law for all, and thus far you've been able to offer no good reason why same sex couples should be denied the right to legally marry.
I'm arguing against Sharia, backlash, violence and rewriting marriage laws. I like marriage law as is, up until 2000. Gays have equal protection, many have married, there is no orientation test for a marriage license.

If you rewrite marriage laws for gays why can't you do that for Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman, because I don't want to practice Sharia.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6865 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gee Brian......just when I thought you couldn't get any more ridiculous in your comments, you again prove you can.......allowing Gays and Lesbians to marry the person of their choosing just like you got to has NOTHING to do with Sharia or Muslims or polygamy or anything else you claim!!!

You have been shown and told that Same-Sex Couples have married in the past, like in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries......hell, even with Jesus Christ appearing to bless a Same-Sex Saint Couple, which hangs in the Kiev Museum......you just don't want to believe they actually happened......so, marriage rights did exist prior to the 21st century and again.....that is totally irrelevant!!!

You do harm Gays and Lesbians when you state you would work hard to nullify their legal marriages, you do harm Gays and Lesbians by continuing to insist that DP's and Civil Unions are just fine for us and you continue to harm Gays and Lesbians by comparing us to shiet that is totally irrelevant like Muslims and Sharia laws that is NOT ever going to happen in this Country!!!

Get use to Marriage Equality Brian.....IT'S NOT GOING TO CEASE TO EXIST JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6866 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equal rights; it's about the special right to redefine marriage. If gays get it, why not Muslims?
Marriage is still defined as an "institution", a "commitment" and a "ceremony", even when gays do it. Your "redefinition" is completely non-existent.

So in Brian_G land, Muslims can't currently marry? Got it.
Flaunt your ignorance proudly.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm in favor of defending one man and one woman marriage because I don't like Sharia.
Just when one thinks you can't say something stupider than your past posts.....there you go.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6867 Jul 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
So they go to another state, get married, then file a discrimination lawsuit. Guess where this is going to end in spite of all your whining.
Nail on the head!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6868 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>Dear lides, would you care to prove that your position has merit by offering a compelling state interest served by allowing the legal discrimination of marriage to allow a man and a man, and not a woman and her dog? Because if you can't, then such a allowance is patently unconstitutional, and your argument has no foundation.
You look foolish when you advance an argument that you cannot remotely defend
When you find the state that will legally recognize a dog's ability to consent to such a relationship, do let us know.

The only one looking foolish is you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6869 Jul 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pete, but my marriage is just like any other legal marriage......nothing more and nothing less and YES, IT IS A MARRIAGE.....
But it does differ in form and function.
.just like your personal intimate relationship with the woman you cohabit with, the mother of your children and who the state issued a State Marriage license when you both applied, right?
Yes, a license with a line for "husband", and "wife".
So, if what you have is a legal marriage because you have a state issued marriage license......then why is mine not considered a legal marriage in your eyes?
It differs in function, form, and expectations
I know.....because you feel threatened by my marriage, right?
No, because it changes the meaning of marriage as it relates, and applies, to society at large. If you wish to marry another woman....wonderful...fantastic ...boil the water...I'll bring the pasta and vino. However, I disagree with changing the definition of legal marriage.
Marriage as we know it has been changing since roughly 500 years ago....
The two basic ingredients, male and female, are still there.
..and all that is happening at this time is marriage is NOT being limited to strictly to the gender between one's legs.......nothing wrong with that and it can not be based on how or if the marriage is consummated, or if natural procreation takes place..
No, it's based on the union of the sexes.
....and if people voted to limit marriage to just between a white man and a white woman, THAT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL just like it was in the Loving's ruling:-)
It was unconstitutional because bans on interracial marriage served to maintain white supremacy. Also the ethnicity of the husband and wife in no way altered the understanding of marriage as a conjugal union.
Again, if you would like.....I'm all in favor of putting the right to marry for ALL Americans to a vote........your right to marry, my right to marry, even polygamist right to marry more than one other person regardless of gender......how do you think that will turn out for ya, Pete?
I think the conjugal monogamist concept of legal marriage would win out. People could still marry whomever they wanted to, albeit without legal recognition.
Did 10 million Americans ACTUALLY vote to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman? and if they did, can it not be voted on again to change it to any 2 person's regardless of gender?
Absolutely! It could also be voted to remove marriage from the realm of government too.
Are you truly saying that an infertile/sterile heterosexual couple is different than a Same-Sex Couple? and if so, how?
It's "opposite sex couple", and yes they differ for the obvious reason, they are of the opposite sex.
One set of couples, we don't deny them the right to marry and yet, the other couple, folks like you continue to try and deny them the right to marry and then keep insisting that your marriage is still somehow superior to our marriage......
They differ in function and form. Why not include incestuous marriages too? Are "yours" superior to them?
.in fact Pete, you are all in favor of discriminating against the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples just by the continued nasty comments you make........and this Country is NOT based on a majority wins and gets to trample on the rights of those you simply do NOT like!!!
Great! Let's allow any one who wants to create their own form of marriage the right to do so, and have legal recognition. After all, if we follow the logic of SSM, that has to happen, it's discrimination otherwise. Or are there some forms of "discrimination" within marriage law that is acceptable? Which is it?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6870 Jul 30, 2013
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think any of our children will come up to us and say that they are gay, because we do not intend to abuse our children and make them gay, like yours did.
None of your children would tell you they are gay even if they were. They would simply run away since you are clearly unhinged about the issue.
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is illegal for the same reason that same sex marriages are illegal in 37 states and 187 countries.
Um, dear, marriages between gay people are not illegal, they are simply not recognized currently by some states. Polygamy on the other had IS illegal and the laws making it illegal don't affect gays and their marriages whatsoever.

You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. It always amazes me when people who know absolutely nothing about a subject so willingly thrust themselves into the conversation.
Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no intention of standing with polygamist, not your problem, so why should straights except your nonsense and stand with your mental issue?
You seem completely incapable of forming a coherent question. Straights stand with gays because they see the inequality that gays are being subjected to. If you wish to discuss polygamy, then I suggest you address the moron known as Pietro. He loves this unrelated subjects. In fact, he's creepily obsessed with it.

Sanctified by the Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you support adult incest marriages, given your experience with incest? Why or why not? If not, then why should any straight support SSM?
Yeah, you definitely need to speak with Peitro. You both seem to demonstrate about the same low IQ level.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6871 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
We aren't in the UK. Our laws prohibit polygamy. Your comment is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand because allowing same sex marriage does not inherently mean having to legalize polygamy. Our constitution mandates states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law.
So does the desire for legal SSM. All men, and all women are provided equal protection of law as it applies to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. Your argument is because you sexually prefer someone of the same sex, somehow you're being denied "equal protection". You may prefer to marry a sibling, but the law says no, and that doesn't violate equal protection.
Polygamy seeks inherently greater protection for three or more people.
Why is it that the bigots who advance this argument invariably cannot count?
And?
SSM seeks greater protection as well. It's disingenuous to argue other wise. A man, or woman, with a self professed same sex attraction/orientation, is still a man or woman, and is entitled to the same equal protection, as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, as any other man or woman. No more, no less.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6872 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is arguing to hold them as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
No, it's holding them to the same standard, and rules, as any other American citizen, as it relates to this issue.
It would be like me arguing that you have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc. Would you find that insulting, if I implied that you were somehow lesser and not worthy of equal protection under the law?
You are already entitled to equal protection under the law, same as any other American of your respective gender, as it relates to this issue.
Most of us are in favor of equal protection of the law for all, and thus far you've been able to offer no good reason why same sex couples should be denied the right to legally marry.
You have yet to offer a good reason why a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship should be called marriage. There is no couples right to marry?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6873 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't second class citizens, they share all the rights of the majority, but that doesn't satisfy. So, they want to redefine marriage for everyone. Don't blame me for your poorly considered political goals.
I'm already married. List the top 5 ways that YOUR marriage has been redefined by this fact.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting....
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality; it's about rewriting marriage law for everyone to satisfy a mascot victim group. Same sex marriage is like a pity f^ck.
I'll bet you find that insulting too. Truth hurts.
Well, if anyone on here knew about a pity f*ck, we're all positive it would be you. I'll bet you find that insulting. Truth hurts.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm arguing against Sharia,
No, you are arguing for a Christian version of it.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
rewriting marriage laws.
No marriage laws have been "rewritten". Laws discriminating against gays have been struck down. No laws pertaining to marriage have been rewritten. But don't let facts get in the way of showing off your stupidity Brian_G.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I like marriage law as is, up until 2000. Gays have equal protection, many have married, there is no orientation test for a marriage license.
If you rewrite marriage laws for gays why can't you do that for Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman, because I don't want to practice Sharia.
What laws pertaining to marriage would need to be rewritten for Muslims Brian_G? The existing laws work just fine for Muslims, just as they work just fine for gays.

I think you ought to go bed for one of those pity f*cks that you are so familiar with. It sounds like you could use one about now.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6874 Jul 30, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
Marriage is still defined as an "institution", a "commitment" and a "ceremony", even when gays do it. Your "redefinition" is completely non-existent. So in Brian_G land, Muslims can't currently marry? Got it. Flaunt your ignorance proudly.[] Just when one thinks you can't say something stupider than your past posts.....there you go.
Muslims haven't rewritten marriage law in America, the way same sex marriage supporters have. If a gay or a lesbian can redefine marriage, why not a Muslim man or woman?

Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6875 Jul 30, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
When you find the state that will legally recognize a dog's ability to consent to such a relationship, do let us know. The only one looking foolish is you.
If you can spay or neuter your dog without consent, why would you ask consent to marry? Animals don't require consent; if same sex marriage is law, why not other sexual orientations?

Keep marriage male/female now, because if you lose, tomorrow Sharia will define polygamous marriage and consent will become disentangled from marriage, just as they attempt to remove its male/female aspect.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6876 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm....what compelling interest is there in telling children their biological mother and father cannot marry because they're part of a plural marriage family.
So, for example, a man can father several children with several women, consider them his wives, they in turn consider him, their husband, all are consenting adults, and you're saying the state has an interest in....
....breaking the family up?
....not recognizing them as a family?
.....not protecting the husband, and wives?
....implying the adults are second class citizens?
.....the children don't deserve the dignity of having married parents?
I think you get the drift.
1. Polygamy is a sexist construct which hurts women.

2. Polygamy leads to overpopulation.

3. Polygamy causes strife within families. The Bible can be used to illustrate this point as in the case of King David's successor to name just one example.

4. Marriage is a combination of two beings. Multiples cause successor-ship problems as in the Biblical explanation.

4. Polygamy is against the law due to the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act of 1973.

You have no point. There is a compelling state interest to maintain the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6877 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Muslims haven't rewritten marriage law in America, the way same sex marriage supporters have. If a gay or a lesbian can redefine marriage, why not a Muslim man or woman?
Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.
What is the First Amendment?

NEXT

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6878 Jul 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
What is the First Amendment? NEXT
The First Amendment give Barronelle Stutzman the right to not service a same sex wedding ceremony. See you in court.

Same sex marriage is bad because it makes neighbor sue neighbor.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6879 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sorry Pete, but it isn't different by form or function......unless you are saying that the ONLY function of marriage is to procreate and raise biological children? Otherwise my wife and I pretty much have similar issues as any other family and married couple have.....IT'S CALLED LIFE!!

Again Pete, you'd be wrong.......in 2008, California adopted the Marriage License format of Massachusetts......which was a line for Party A and another line for Party B.........Massachusetts still uses that format today, however California now has boxes to check on each line referring to Groom/Bride......so, for example if their is a Bride and Groom, either party can be on line one, if it is two Grooms, then the appropriate boxes are check and the same for 2 Brides.......rather a simple concept!!!

How does my marriage differ in function, form and expectation than yours? I'm rather curious how you define your marriage in order to try and make mine seem different.......the only difference is that our roles are NOT defined by gender!!!

You can disagree all ya want.....but Marriage Equality is going to happen in all 50 States whether you agree, like, accept or approve of it......Gays and Lesbians are American Citizens and therefore should be allowed to make a major decision regarding who they want to spend their life with......free of discrimination, harassment and other forms of abuse!!!

Marriage is about forming legal kinship between otherwise NON-RELATED individuals......so, a father and daughter, mother and son and siblings already have a legal kinship because they are related by blood.......again, if there are folks out there who truly are interested in marry a parent, child or sibling.......then they need to give a compelling reason as to why the State needs to remove a block to them getting married......it's their fight, one I doubt truly exists and one I will not agree with it, but then my acceptance is not required.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6880 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The First Amendment give Barronelle Stutzman the right to not service a same sex wedding ceremony. See you in court.
Same sex marriage is bad because it makes neighbor sue neighbor.
NO it does not.....it states that she has the right to her personal religious beliefs.....NOT that she can deny services to anyone based on those religious beliefs!!!

There is NO such thing as "SAME-SEX" marriage Brian.......it's just a marriage that involves a Same-Sex couple!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6882 Jul 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They aren't second class citizens, they share all the rights of the majority, but that doesn't satisfy. So, they want to redefine marriage for everyone. Don't blame me for your poorly considered political goals.
Can they legally marry in all jurisdictions?
Brian_G wrote:
It's untrue to write: Gays "have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc." It's like arguing, you can't label something that never existed before the 21st Century in written law, a "right" then call everyone who disagrees, oppressive insulting bigots. Nice try though, I'm sure you'll get props.
Do try to keep up. May statement was not addressed at homosexuals, I was making a comparison saying
Brian_G wrote:
It would be like me arguing that you have no right to speak freely, worship the religion of your choosing, carry a firearm, etc. Would you find that insulting, if I implied that you were somehow lesser and not worthy of equal protection under the law?

You see I was making a comparative argument that contrasts what you were saying, if it were applied to your own rights. Should I be able to take away your free speech simply because you say stupid things? Of course not. That's the point.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't about freedom or equality; it's about rewriting marriage law for everyone to satisfy a mascot victim group. Same sex marriage is like a pity f^ck.
I'll bet you find that insulting too. Truth hurts.
No, it's about equality under the law. Even a child could understand that. One wonders why you cannot.
Brian_G wrote:
I'm arguing against Sharia, backlash, violence and rewriting marriage laws. I like marriage law as is, up until 2000. Gays have equal protection, many have married, there is no orientation test for a marriage license.
If you rewrite marriage laws for gays why can't you do that for Muslims? Keep marriage one man and one woman, because I don't want to practice Sharia.
I don't know why you keep bringing up sharia law. It in no way advances your argument, and ironically, you are advocating for the same position. It really makes you looks stupid.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, Islam is a religion. Legislators are constitutionally forbidden from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. If you don't understand that, then maybe you need to retake high school civics.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6883 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does the desire for legal SSM. All men, and all women are provided equal protection of law as it applies to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
Of course, you have yet to illustrate any state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your argument is because you sexually prefer someone of the same sex, somehow you're being denied "equal protection". You may prefer to marry a sibling, but the law says no, and that doesn't violate equal protection.
Please don't summarize my arguments, you are terrible at it.

My argument is that the existing limitations constraining marriage to being between a man and a woman fail to address any legitimate state interest, and therefore are unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM seeks greater protection as well. It's disingenuous to argue other wise.
How? Be specific.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A man, or woman, with a self professed same sex attraction/orientation, is still a man or woman, and is entitled to the same equal protection, as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife valid in all fifty states, as any other man or woman. No more, no less.
Once again, unless you can come up with a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, such a restriction remains unconstitutional.

This is why those making arguments similar to your own have been regularly losing in court.

Although I keep sticking to the judicial standard of review, which requires a compelling governmental interest, the reality is that such a restriction fails the much lower rational basis test.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6884 Jul 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, it's holding them to the same standard, and rules, as any other American citizen, as it relates to this issue. You are already entitled to equal protection under the law, same as any other American of your respective gender, as it relates to this issue.
Pietro, you've yet to indicate that the rules are constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You have yet to offer a good reason why a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship should be called marriage. There is no couples right to marry?
Because marriage is the legal name of the rights and protections involved, and you have no reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

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 Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... 14 hr Sco-ttt 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 22 hr Lips9431 4,722
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... Tue Xstain Mullah Aroma 17
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) Mon fathiwady 13
News Gay 'marriage': A recipe for anarchy (Apr '15) Mon SaintSin242 37
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed Mon Mitts Gold Taliblets 8
News Kaine says Catholic Church might change on gay ... Mon filmsz 74
More from around the web