Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9512 Sep 7, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee a gay man said "no rational basis".....what a surprise there. So when other judges have said,there is a rational basis, are they offering "silly arguments"?
SCOTUS seems to think so. And they have the last word.

U.S. District Court Judge James Ware upheld former colleague's Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on California's Proposition 8. Questions had been raised about Walker's ability to impartially decide the controversial question of same-sex marriage.

"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware ruled.

Gee.... not reasonable.... no rational basis.... seems like you need to go back to school.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9513 Sep 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False on two counts.
1. The vote was 5 - 4.
2. Gay couples can't produce children. Until you can, you can't be equal.
Tell it to the Court, old fool. In the eyes of the State, they ARE equal.... that really chaps your ass, doesn't it? Aaaaawwww......

Procreation isn't required. Non-procreative couples aren't banned from marriage.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9514 Sep 7, 2013
MAD DOG BUSTER wrote:
For instance, what compelling interest do states have in restricting humans from marrying Martians.
Because they don't exist.... like your intellect.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9515 Sep 7, 2013
MAD DOG BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>The truth is the federal government does not recognize SSM at all.
Um, yes they do. Did you miss the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA?
barry

Henagar, AL

#9516 Sep 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>wow! you seem to know a lot of bigots, huh?
are you really serious in thinking that "sincere christian" photogs would do a Mormon wedding?
you have gone off the deep end.
The comment was "very few sincere Christians", so, yes i am serious. i'am not sure what your point or problem with that statement is so perhaps you could expound on it.

i am also not so sure what you are talking about when you make reference to "a lot of bigots" perhaps you could explain that also.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9517 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Providing flowers for someone else's wedding that you won't even witness and likening to idolatry is rather a stretch.
<quoted text>
Neither status as an artist nor one's religious beliefs/moral convictions are provide exemption from anti-discrimnation law.
As noted in the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling link I gave you, artists who do not wish to establish a business and be considered a public accommodation to the general public can choose alternate distribution channels such as galleries or other businesses and thereby avoid being considered a public accommodation subject to anti-discrimination laws.
I personally have never attended a wedding in which the bride or groom publicly announced the name of the business supplying decorations such as flowers nor have I even seen such information noted in wedding programs or other handouts. Why would you or the florist think anyone would associate her work with an event, much less see it as an endorsement of the event?
<quoted text>
Perhaps because most people have neither ready access to a wide range of flowers nor the time or skill to create numerous arrangements in addition to other work related to hosting a big event.
Do you rally think people purchasing goods and services from businesses for a wedding or any other event are seeking moral approval from the business as well?
<quoted text>
Your words, in reference to a substantially similar case involving a photographer in New Mexico, were:
"i just don't think that a photographer can make that argument"
The argument in question is citing ones moral convictions related to religious beliefs to justify not serving customers coming to your business for service.
ok, i do feel that he could make that argument. i thought the argument was more along the lines of the fact that his pictures do not convey a message that he had a part in creating but rather are simply a record of the event.
i have an extensive history in the photography business from both a commercial/retail and a news perspective.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9518 Sep 7, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False on two counts.
1. The vote was 5 - 4.
2. Gay couples can't produce children. Until you can, you can't be equal.
ummm...not false in any way at all.

regardless of the vote, the federal gov't recognizes same sex marriages as equal. no qualifier needed at all.

procreation has absolutely nothing to do with the right to marry or the equality of a marriage. many opposite sex couples cannot procreate either, their marriages are equal to all others also.

i in fact, did procreate in my marriage.

outside of getting absolutely everything wrong in your post, you almost nailed it there, sport! keep swinging your prejudice around, you might actually hit something once.(most likely yourself in the face...)
barry

Henagar, AL

#9519 Sep 7, 2013
that being said i really don't know why anyone would want to hire a photographer who didn't want to be there. that is just plain stupid and therefore their lawsuit is nothing more then political activism.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9520 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The law defined protection from discrimination as a civil right. Civil rights belong to individuals, not groups. The anti-dsicrmination law protects individuals based on their membership in a protected class. A class based on a human characteristic like sexual orientation includes all variants of that characteristic, including homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals. You can't escape discrimination charges by claiming you don't serve any individuals with a particular characteristic variant (homosexual or same sex as you like to call it) if you serve individuals with other characteristic variants such as heterosexual. Which is essentially what you asserted when you stated:
"therefore she is not under any obligation to provide flowers for any ssw if she does not provide flowers for any ssws."
<quoted text>
...
let me ask you a question, are ss weddings only restricted to homosexual couples? must one be a homosexual in order to form a union with a ss partner and legally have it recognized as a marriage?
when you honestly answer that question then you confirm that she discriminated against the event and not the couple.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9521 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>The comment was "very few sincere Christians", so, yes i am serious. i'am not sure what your point or problem with that statement is so perhaps you could expound on it.
i am also not so sure what you are talking about when you make reference to "a lot of bigots" perhaps you could explain that also.
pretty self explanatory to a normal mind, barry...

in fact, most sincere christians would work a mormon wedding, except bigots. since you seem to think they wouldn't you must know w lot of bigots, but then birds of a feather and all that...you are a bigot, so you most likely hang out with bigots. most normal people wouldn't suffer your company, so i imagine you really have no choice in the matter...
barry

Henagar, AL

#9522 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
...
<quoted text>"barry wrote:
your point about "any weddings" is wishful thinking all weddings are not the same. the result may be the same but they are not the same."
[your response]
Legally, they are the same.
<quoted text>
...
legally the end result is the same but the process is unique to each. we [i] am talking about the process.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9523 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>let me ask you a question, are ss weddings only restricted to homosexual couples? must one be a homosexual in order to form a union with a ss partner and legally have it recognized as a marriage?
when you honestly answer that question then you confirm that she discriminated against the event and not the couple.
Wow! did you pull a hamstring with that stretch to support your prejudice?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9524 Sep 7, 2013
barry wrote:
that being said i really don't know why anyone would want to hire a photographer who didn't want to be there. that is just plain stupid and therefore their lawsuit is nothing more then political activism.
they wpouldn't want to hire that photog...they would want to see them answer for breaking the laws of the land...so to stop such future abrogations...

this is what makes a civilized society.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9525 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
....
Who knew photographers were such religious bigots? Perhaps most photographers then are smarter than the hapless florist in Washington state to be able to offer a non-discriminatory reason for declining to provide services (such as "sorry, I'm completely booked that day").
<quoted text>
I'm sure Jesus would be so proud of his followers refusing to provide goods or services to their brethren because of denominational/doctrinal disputes.
<quoted text>
That she is consistent in her discriminatory activities is hardly a virtue.
<quoted text>
I guess blacks in the south should have just continued to kowtow to white Southern Baptists that cited their religious convictions as justification for segregation too, huh?
<quoted text>
I'm not denying them the opportunity. You seem to think gays would protest against opposite sex heterosexuals marrying each other for benefits. Here's a clue: no one cares why people choose to marry and the state doesn't either. Gays are more concerned about being able to marry period than interrogating people regarding their motivations for marriage.
no, it's not about bigotry. it's about respect. even when we disagreed with people we respected their freedom to be wrong. and no, people were honest and everyone understood that there would be differences of moral convictions. instead of focusing on the conflict they focused on respect. nothing is won morally through conflict.

who said that all were followers of Christ? Christ separated himself from and condemned the religious rulers of his day. and in the end he accepted their condemnation.

the fact is we all make discriminatory judgments. being consistent without prejudice certainly is a virtue.

and finally this comment from you is classic and actually very worn out:
"I guess blacks in the south should have just continued to kowtow to white Southern Baptists that cited their religious convictions as justification for segregation too, huh?"
i agree that Southern baptist [why must you use the discriminatory term "white"?] carry most of the responsibility for the injustice to blacks however there is one big difference. the segregation was the law of the land. no one really had an option to do right. there was no other way to set it right.
however have you not noticed that even today the vast majority of Blacks still segregate themselves to black churches? and they are free to do so.
and anyone else is till free to segregate themselves from anyone that they don't wish to be around. it just is no longer legal to force others to segregate who do not wish to segregate.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9526 Sep 7, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS seems to think so. And they have the last word.
U.S. District Court Judge James Ware upheld former colleague's Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on California's Proposition 8. Questions had been raised about Walker's ability to impartially decide the controversial question of same-sex marriage.
"It is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings," Ware ruled.
Gee.... not reasonable.... no rational basis.... seems like you need to go back to school.
Yet they didn't impose "rational" nationwide.
barry

Henagar, AL

#9527 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
...
I'm not denying them the opportunity. You seem to think gays would protest against opposite sex heterosexuals marrying each other for benefits. Here's a clue: no one cares why people choose to marry and the state doesn't either. Gays are more concerned about being able to marry period than interrogating people regarding their motivations for marriage.
no, i don't think for one moment that homosexuals would be against heterosexuals of the same sex actually marrying. i'm accusing you of not recognizing that since it could legally happen and that the florist in question would also not provide flowers for them that it is not about the sexual orientation of the couple but it is purely about the event.
so perhaps you need to step back and reconsider what is actually being accomplished by trying to sue the florist.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9528 Sep 7, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we actually know that for a fact? or do you believe what they both claim?
I haven't done an in depth study on their family, so I'll just have to accept their claim.
See, Josh wants EVERYONE to somehow believe he is an out Gay man, married to his best friend, and fathered 3 children all at the same time as saying he is NOT interested or attracted to other women and he's NEVER been with a man.......frankly, JMPO......I think he's Bisexual with a preference to men, whom he has NEVER been involved with and I believe remaining true to his religious beliefs is what drives him......not his sexual orientation.
Why us it difficult to believe? Not every gay man, using the modern definition, is going to fit neatly in the little rainbow box. There has to be exceptions. No different than a woman who after years of marriage, to her husband, and kids, "comes out of the closet" with not indication that she was in the closet. Or the woman who formerly identified as a lesbian, is now married, to her husband and has children! Are women more flexible sexually? More fluid?
Again, Josh Weed is NOT your poster boy for stating that Gays and Lesbians should be like him......I don't buy his story......but then, that's my right!!!
That just gets your knickers in a knot, doesn't it? How DARE HE turn his back on the rainbow flag....and.....and.....MARRY A WOMAN?!!!! Oh he horror! It works for him, and Mrs. Weed. There has to be others, even lesbians married to men.
http://nypost.com/2012/11/18/lesbian-playmate...
She’s now married (to a man) and loves the NYPD.
Adams, 42, credits local cops with saving her from a deranged stalker who surfaced after she won a $1.2 million jury award in February in her case against the Police Department.
Jurors found that Sgt. John Rajan tossed her to the ground, injuring her back and neck, after a cabby falsely claimed she pulled a gun on him and flashed “vampire teeth” on a street near her Chelsea apartment in 2006.
“I joked with my lawyer that I started out single and gay and at the end of the lawsuit, I ended up straight and married,” the model-turned-author told The Post.
Five months after the excessive-force award, she received a threatening e-mail on her birthday, July 24.
“It said,‘Happy Death Day,’ and [that] he wouldn’t rest until I was dead,” Adams said.“It was a racist thing.”
Adams, who has Caucasian, African-American and Cherokee roots and is descended from President John Adams, reached out to the NYPD — and got a quick response from Deputy Inspector Edward Winski, she said.
The commander of the First Precinct tracked down her stalker in Virginia after investigators researched his e-mail server and uncovered hate-spewing Web sites from the unemployed, 30-something blogger.
“He hated black people and gay people,” Adams said.“And he made it clear he thought I would be afraid to go to the police.”
She said cops also learned that he had been following her every move during the course of the civil suit.“He said awful, derogatory things,” she said.
Winski, working with investigators in Virginia, obtained a phone number for the creep and got him on the line.
“He told him he would be arrested if he set foot in New York,” she said.“He was my hero. He was so supportive.”
Her marriage to Charles Nicolai, a chiropractor, has not stopped her from supporting gay and lesbian causes.
“I still identify myself as LBGT,” she said.
Adams, who says she kept up her looks without dieting, exercise or plastic surgery, is helping Nicolai run Wall Street Chiropractic, a treatment office at 75 Wall St.
His adjustment work comes in handy at home, she says: Adams suffers from chronic back pain but can’t take medication because her son is still nursing.
The couple met on Match.com , and he helped her during her pregnancy in 2010, when she was on bed rest.
“We felt like we were soul mates right from the beginning,” she said.

Spotted Girl

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#9529 Sep 7, 2013
It isn't "gay marriage." Marriage ALWAYS has a man and a woman in it. If it doesn't have a male and a female component, it is not marriage, but something else. Maybe equally valid, but something else entirely.

And I am removing this from my tracker. It isn't my fault that Topix keeps trying to shove these stories down our throats. That's oral rape if you ask me. So I am deleting this and bowing out.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9530 Sep 7, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Establishing kinship between unrelated parties perfectly sums up what marriage does. And also encompasses all types of marriages around the world as well. Unlike your definition.
"My definition"? Okay, here's another one. The joining of one man and one woman as husband and wife, thus establishing kinship between said husband and wife, and recognizing any children created,by them, including extending kinship to said children.
Judges perform their constitutionally appointed duty of adjudicating cases within our legal system. Some are also charged with judicial review of laws for constitutionality. The will of the people cannot contravene the constitution either. Even state constitutional amendments can be found to violate the federal constitution and thus be struck down.

I guess the judge didn't get your memo

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-rules-aga...

HONOLULU (AP)— A federal judge ruled Wednesday against two Hawaii women who want to get married instead of enter into a civil union, handing a victory to opponents of gay marriage in a state that's been at the forefront of the issue.

U.S. District Court Judge Alan C. Kay's ruling sides with Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy and Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian group that was allowed to intervene in the case.

"Accordingly, Hawaii's marriage laws are not unconstitutional," the ruling states. "Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment," and not through the courts.
Unlike you, I also know that US law has moved away from and abandoned many aspects of common law as our country has developed its own legal identity. Further, I also know throughout much of English history, marriage, particularly within the ruling class, was a means of establishing political alliances among families and a means of generating revenue for the crown as the king/queen often had control over the marriage rights of numerous noble women and many noble men were willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of gaining control over land and other wealth that came along with the bride. Having children in such marriages was certainly a help, but the primary gains were accomplished by the marriage itself, regardless of whether children came about.
So why wasn't marriage a union of "two people regardless of gender composition"? SSSB must have taken place among the English....what is an English cigarette called again......a fag? Never understood how that became a dig on homosexual men.
The relative newness of medical and scientific understanding doesn't negate the knowledge. The earth always revolved around the sun despite the longstanding "knowledge" of the pre-eminent thinkers of the day to the contrary. Just because some things take longer to learn or comprehend doesn't mean they haven't aways existed.
SSSB is not new.....so why no sustained SSM?
Do you frequently have difficulty finding the "right" hole?
If sex is a pain in the arse, you're doing it the wrong way!:)]
You're still confusing sex with marriage. The former doesn't require the latter and the latter isn't dependent on the former. Children result from sex, not marriage.
But it works well for society when both, sex, coitus, and procreation occur within the marital relationship.
You have a mixed track record of responding so I'm never sure if you will reply to a particular post or not.
Don't worry Little Terry......we've only just begun.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9531 Sep 7, 2013
Spotted Girl wrote:
It isn't "gay marriage." Marriage ALWAYS has a man and a woman in it. If it doesn't have a male and a female component, it is not marriage, but something else. Maybe equally valid, but something else entirely.
And I am removing this from my tracker. It isn't my fault that Topix keeps trying to shove these stories down our throats. That's oral rape if you ask me. So I am deleting this and bowing out.
no, clearly marriage also includes same sex couples. even your own government says that is true.

i would imagine you are bowing out as you have nothing but your prejudice to support your views.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 hr Webster NE 8,496
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 4 hr Holy Guacamole 12
News Elvis Is Alive and Well In Las Vegas 7 hr Dead and Drugged 2
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... 8 hr South Knox Hombre 7
News Muslim cleric tells Australians: 'Husbands shou... (Jan '09) 11 hr Say NO to islam 65
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Aug 19 huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... Aug 19 Carmine 1
More from around the web