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.

#8709 Aug 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
Hate freedom much?
Freedom means being a professional photographer without the government forcing you to support a same sex wedding with your art Same sex marriage isn't just antidemocratic, it's anti-freedom too.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8710 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Freedom means being a professional photographer without the government forcing you to support a same sex wedding with your art Same sex marriage isn't just antidemocratic, it's anti-freedom too.
Brian, you are an idiot. The photographer's right to freely exercise the religion of their choosing is not infringed by having to shoot photographs of people with whom they disagree on faith.

Could I refuse you a service merely because you are stupid and unpleasant? Of course not. Only a fool would say otherwise.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8711 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm advocating for equal rights and I've given evidence homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else. I'm advocating against the special right to sue your neighbor or state to have an activist judiciary rewrite marriage law instead of applying that law impartially to all.
Brian, you have yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Until you do so, your point is invalid, and utterly unsupported by fact.
Brian_G wrote:
Also note, other than WasteWater, nobody has agreed with advocating Russian gays threatened by Putin's fascist speech restrictions and violence be granted asylum in America. What's the matter with you all? Don't you care about murdered Russian gays? Is it more desirable to defame religion with blame than to face the fact Putin's antidemocratic and same sex marriage is less important than survival.
Do try to stay on topic.
Brian_G wrote:
Reason number one for keeping marriage male/female; survival. The same sex marriage left really doesn't care if Gays are murdered in Russia as long as that doesn't hurt their political goals. I believe life is more important than same sex marriage; that's why I support current marriage law and oppose courts imposing their morality on the people without consent. I oppose suing citizens who refuse to facilitate same sex marriage, like that poor florist at Arlene's Flowers in Washington. And I oppose sitting around defaming political opponents why Russian gays are arrested, imprisoned and murdered. That's why I advocate asylum for Russian Gays: Survival - Reason Number One.
Brian, if same sex couples are not allowed to marry, will they still have sex?
If same sex marriage is allowed, will opposites sex couples stop having sex?

You see, legally allowing or denying same sex marriage has no impact whatsoever upon procreation or the continuation of the species. You look terribly unintelligent each and every time you advance this infantile notion.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8712 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, you are an idiot. The photographer's right to freely exercise the religion of their choosing is not infringed by having to shoot photographs of people with whom they disagree on faith. Could I refuse you a service merely because you are stupid and unpleasant? Of course not. Only a fool would say otherwise.
Then, you force a Jewish photographer to photograph a Nazi party commemoration or an African-American photographer to shoot a KKK rally? That's coexistence and neighborly behavior now, don't like their religion so you sue?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8713 Aug 28, 2013
ARTIST WHO PAINTED PUTIN IN UNDERWEAR FLEES RUSSIA

MOSCOW (AP)-- A museum director says an artist whose paintings depicted Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in women's undergarments has fled the country.

The director of St. Petersburg's Museum of Power, Tatiana Titova, said Wednesday that Konstantin Altunin left for France and was planning to request asylum there. Authorities removed four of Altunin's satirical depictions of Russian politicians on Monday and shut down the exhibition.

A police statement did not specify which laws may have been violated by the provocative works. A Russian law prohibits insulting state authorities. Another law bans so-called homosexual propaganda aimed at minors....

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8714 Aug 28, 2013

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8715 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Then, you force a Jewish photographer to photograph a Nazi party commemoration or an African-American photographer to shoot a KKK rally? That's coexistence and neighborly behavior now, don't like their religion so you sue?
Brian, your hypothetical is disingenuous and inflammatory at best.

Both Neo-Nazis and the KKK are hate groups who clearly have malicious views towards Jews and African Americans respectively.

The fact that you equate homosexuals, who are not a hate group, with Neo-Nazis and the KK says more about you than anything else. Of course, no business owner should be forced to enter a dangerous environment where they risk bodily harm to perform a service. Can you indicate any way in which a Christian business owner risks life or limb by offering their services for a gay wedding? You certainly have not offered a way in which their rendering a service violates their free exercise of religion.

In fat, you've mainly made yourself out to be a bigoted fool.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8716 Aug 28, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, your hypothetical is disingenuous and inflammatory at best. Both Neo-Nazis and the KKK are hate groups who clearly have malicious views towards Jews and African Americans respectively. The fact that you equate homosexuals, who are not a hate group, with Neo-Nazis and the KK says more about you than anything else. Of course, no business owner should be forced to enter a dangerous environment where they risk bodily harm to perform a service. Can you indicate any way in which a Christian business owner risks life or limb by offering their services for a gay wedding? You certainly have not offered a way in which their rendering a service violates their free exercise of religion. In fat, you've mainly made yourself out to be a bigoted fool.
In fact, I never compared homosexuals "with Neo-Nazis and the KK[K]", in fact I claim many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman.

The point is the victims, the artistic freedom of the photographer, baker and florist, and their freedom not to custom same sex marriage. You claimed it wouldn't affect our marriage; its affecting three marriages and counting. Every time they sue, it proves same sex marriage causes social harm.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8717 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
in fact I claim many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman.
Do you have ANY evidence to back up this claim? I think the fact that you believe this doesn't make it true and I'm sure that there are Gays and Lesbians who do defend your definition......but how many is my question to you......can you answer it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8718 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
ARTIST WHO PAINTED PUTIN IN UNDERWEAR FLEES RUSSIA
MOSCOW (AP)-- A museum director says an artist whose paintings depicted Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in women's undergarments has fled the country.
The director of St. Petersburg's Museum of Power, Tatiana Titova, said Wednesday that Konstantin Altunin left for France and was planning to request asylum there. Authorities removed four of Altunin's satirical depictions of Russian politicians on Monday and shut down the exhibition.
A police statement did not specify which laws may have been violated by the provocative works. A Russian law prohibits insulting state authorities. Another law bans so-called homosexual propaganda aimed at minors....
"propaganda"? can people be ad-blitzed into being gay?

could you have been persuaded into being gay?

sheesh, what a tool!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8719 Aug 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The courst have found no such compelling state interest exists.
Wastey....sigh...put down the spiked rainbow punch...you've had enough.

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8720 Aug 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
His excuses have already been submitted to the courts and found to be irrational.
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski)
Not according to these courts.

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8721 Aug 28, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said the court ruled that marriage for same-sex couples was a fundamental right. Yet.
But you keep spouting that the male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' couple is the fundamental definition of marriage. If that were true, then the court would have upheld DOMA as constitutional. That fact alone would have been enough for the congress to properly enact DOMA. But your problem is that the court did not rule that way. Therefore, the male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' couple cannot be the fundamental definition of marriage as you keep positing.
Seriously Dave, considering that legal SSM is less than ten years old, same sex sexual behavior was considered criminal, and/or a sign of mental illness for most of American history, what definition of marriage is the fundamental right based on?

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8722 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Dave, considering that legal SSM is less than ten years old, same sex sexual behavior was considered criminal, and/or a sign of mental illness for most of American history, what definition of marriage is the fundamental right based on?
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
the fact that bigots criminalized homosexuality and treated it as a mental illness in no way makes it correct, or moral in any way, no matter how long they did it.

really one of your worst arguments, Petey...off your game again?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8723 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Freedom means being a professional photographer without the government forcing you to support a same sex wedding with your art Same sex marriage isn't just antidemocratic, it's anti-freedom too.
Freedom requires everyone to uphold our Constitutional ideals. Open discrimination fails to meet such a definition. Your straw man dodge is noted.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8724 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wastey....sigh...put down the spiked rainbow punch...you've had enough.
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
If one has a fundamental right to procreate, then one also has a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8725 Aug 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
If one has a fundamental right to procreate, then one also has a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice.
One can marry whomever they wish, and it can be recognized by their respective religious faith, community, family, or only by those involved. However if one wishes to marry legally, one must do so according to the laws set forth by the state.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8726 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to these courts.
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978
Your cases ignore the Supreme Court has made it clear the fundamental right of marriage does not depend on ability, intent, desire to procreate, nor does it require the ability to have sex. The fact procreation may or may not be a major consideration for some, does not justify making it a requirement now that the court has made it clear it is not and has never been. Again, these show procreation is a choice of the individual, not the state.

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):“[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expressionof emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education.… Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

And again, subsequent cases, including the Supreme Court case of Windsor, have invalidated your assertions. A tradition of harming others fails as an excuse for continuing a harmful tradition.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8727 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Re-posting the same response isn't going to change anything......however both cases are NO LONGER relevant seeing as both States have granted the right to marry to Gay and Lesbian Couples!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8728 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One can marry whomever they wish, and it can be recognized by their respective religious faith, community, family, or only by those involved. However if one wishes to marry legally, one must do so according to the laws set forth by the state.
Which is something you keep failing to understand and grasp........Marriage is NO LONG defined as strictly between a man and a woman in 14 states and DC........and in the next year, there is a possibility that 8 more states could also change their Marriage Requirements to grant the right to marry to INCLUDE Gay and Lesbian couples thus reducing your numbers down and increasing the numbers that are not restricting marriage to just a man and a woman!!!

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
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) 33 min Mohsen 261
News Rev. Long was at Cedar Springs Baptist Church i... (Sep '10) 2 hr sad 6
News Trump's victory has unleashed a wave of same-se... 2 hr Rev Cash Dollar 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 hr Sceptical-Mal 4,986
News Residents irritated by Journey guitarist's SF w... (Dec '13) 8 hr Fred 2
News 7 Weird But Real Jobs Wed wichita-rick 9
News Lacusong: What is your religion's ultimate goal? Wed True Christian wi... 1
More from around the web