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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10391 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
How about gays and lesbians who advocate maintaining marriage as a legally defined union of husband and wife, while granting SSCs legal recognition and benefits under a different structure? Are they self hating too?
How about offering a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional?

You seem to be running scared, and without a rational argument to back your position.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10392 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
you notice they won't answer the questions about restaurants. When one is accustomed to discrimination against a particular group, it seems completely reasonable. It's exactly the same attitude that many had about serving blacks fifty years ago. They were just so damned uppity...
Yes they like to focus on a cake or photographer and ignore public accomodations include food, clothing, and shelter.

And there are still some around today who would deny equal treatment to people of color on that basis alone, if it were not for public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination. Unfortunately, these cases show public accommodations laws need to be expanded, not removed.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10393 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro. You still have nothing. Again, you continue to demonstrate a failure to understand fundamental rights. They are not granted at the grace of the government. They existed before the government, whether recognized or not.(9th amendment) They can be and have been restricted by the government. Gender is not a valid restriction, while other restrictions on age, number, and incest pass the test of protecting others. Child abuse is one of the compelling, legitimate reasons for restricting incest.

Polygamy changes the laws that determine what marriage is for couples. Removing the gender restriction does not alter the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples. You have not shown any right that has been removed from os couples by allowing ss couples to participate under the same laws in effect for os couples. Again, it is a separate argument which has nothing to do with the restriction on gender.

You continue to place restrictions on marriage that are fine for a church or you personally, but not required by the government. Gender is not a valid requirement. Monogamy, a good idea for disease prevention, is not a legal requirement for marriage to remain a fundamental right.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10394 Sep 24, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How about offering a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional?
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.

Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10395 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
"No fault" divorce harms society, high number of out of wedlock births harm society. Fatherlessness harms society.
How so? Exactly. Please, outline these "harms", in concrete, recognizable ways.

Anyone who watched Sunday's Emmy's was at least slightly touched by Merritt Wever's brief, rushed acceptance speech for her role as Zoey on "Nurse Jackie". It was a sweet moment from a very surprised actress. If you watch the show, you know how much fun she is. She's very entertaining and extremely talented.

Her mother conceived her with a sperm donor, and raised her alone. I don't see the harm.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10396 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.
Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?
Please explain what compelling state interest Alabama has, which Washington state does not.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10397 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The government favors that relationship, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, because it is not only crucial to societal stability, but also provides the necessary union to generate the next generation of citizens and taxpayers.
Of course, this is a rather childish rationalization that is disproven by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry.

Sorry Pietro, it's time to grow up and offer a big boy argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men, and all women, can, if they so choose, exercise their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, provide of course they meet the other basic requirements as set forth by the state.
Pietro, can you offer a factual and logic reason why such a restriction serves a compelling governmental interest? The procreation argument is disproven by the fact that the state allows infertile heterosexual couples to marry, it allows divorce even in cases where children are present, and it does not intervene in the case of those born out of wedlock.
Simply put, your argument is utterly irrational.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Please explain the compelling state interest in denying some men, and some women, the right to exercise their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states, if they so choose?
Why would I defend an argument that I have never made, just because you ineptly try to put words in my mouth?
Why don't you grow up and offer that compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to legally marry?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10401 Sep 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
What a LIAR you are........but then you just like to recycle your comments in the first place.......there are some Gays and Lesbians who don't believe in marriage for themselves, but they aren't supporting your crap either.......yet, you claim they are......interesting!!!
I make my argument without name-calling; I respect gays and lesbians who defend one man and one woman marriage. I don't use profanity either.

Same sex marriage is the worst idea of our time.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10402 Sep 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Not all "Christians" have bad values. You shouldn't paint them with such a broad brush.
I didn't, nhjeff misunderstands. All same sex marriage supporters have bad values and that's proven when they sue Christians who refuse to support same sex weddings.

All the hate and intolerance comes from the left.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10403 Sep 24, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Her mother conceived her with a sperm donor, and raised her alone. I don't see the harm.
In other words her mother used a freeze pop. You see no harm? Are you a father?

Not every donor conceived child/adult views it as harmless.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10404 Sep 24, 2013
EXCLUSIVE -- BROADCASTER FIRED FOR OPPOSING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BLASTS FOX SPORTS FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION

In exclusive comment to Breitbart News, former ESPN and CBS broadcaster and former Southern Methodist University and NFL star tailback Craig James criticized former employer Fox Sports Southwest for its firing of him two weeks ago over his public stance on same-sex marriage.

“I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at Fox Sports,” James told Breitbart News.“That is not right and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”

James continued,“I have worked in broadcasting for twenty-four years and have always treated my colleagues with respect and dignity regardless of their background or personal beliefs. I believe it is essential in our business to maintain professional relationships with people from a diverse background and have tolerance for those of different beliefs. I have never discussed my faith while broadcasting and it has never been an issue until now.” James’s attorneys at Liberty Institute have sent a demand letter, given exclusively to Breitbart News, to Fox Sports. The letter is embedded below.

...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/201...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10405 Sep 24, 2013
Media Almost Totally Ignore Book Claiming Matthew Shepard Murder Wasn't a Hate Crime
By Noel Sheppard | September 24, 2013

The 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard is considered one of the nation's most notorious hate crimes.

Yet when a new book comes out by a gay author contending that Shepard was not killed because of his sexual orientation, America's media appear disinterested in reporting the new revelations.

...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Turns out, he was killed for drugs, not because he was gay.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#10406 Sep 24, 2013
fr Brian_G:

>Media Almost Totally Ignore Book Claiming Matthew Shepard Murder Wasn't a Hate Crime...<

That's because the "book" is a complete LIE.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#10407 Sep 24, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference being the law defined not being discriminated against by businesses as a civil right and sexual orientation was one of the protected classes. There was no exemption in the anti-discrimination law for religious beliefs refusing to sell goods and services to a customer. These are the same anti-discrimination laws that protect people from being discriminated against by businesses on the basis of race, sex and religion too, among other protected classes. Freedom of religion, on the other hand has been ruled by SCOTUS multiple times to include belief but not any or all actions an individual feels are required by their beliefs. So the law disagrees with your view and, quite frankly, so do many others who profess a Christian or other faith or whose moral values are informed by other sources.
The bottom line is, one can not claim to be above the law based on their religious beliefs and case law doesn't support the position asserted by you or the Christians who ran afoul of the anti-dsicrimination laws.
<quoted text>
That argument didn't work to justify segregation and Jim Crow laws against blacks and it equally fails here. There were many people who cited their Christian religious beliefs as the basis for treating blacks as second class citizens and slaves. Conducting business is not religious worship or belief. If people are unable to separate the two then they then need to choose a different business model for making their artistic endeavors available to the public that doesn't require the direct contact with the public which subjects them anti-discrimination laws.
Neither of the businesses mentioned had refused service to the person or persons asking and, in fact, pointed out that they had gay customers. They simply didn't want to service a same sex wedding. Put yourself in the same position. If someone wanted to force you to do something you found immoral would you want to do it?

By your thinking a Jewish delicatessen could be sued if they refused a customer a ham sandwich because it discriminated against the person ordering it. I always felt the smokers were out of line crying about how their rights were being stepped on when they couldn't smoke in public places, until they were told they couldn't smoke in the corner bar anymore and had to stand outside to do so. I think there are times when people carry things to extremes. If someone doesn't want to serve a person why not just go to someone who does want to.

I don't know what Christian morals were used to keep blacks and whites segregated, though I don't say it wasn't done, but this is simply someone demanding something from someone who feels they are being denied their rights. It comes down to a difference of opinion. And, I have nothing against single sex marriage and I would service one, if I offered such a service. I simply don't see the point to forcing someone to do something they don't want to.(Rather like drafting people and forcing them to serve in the military.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10408 Sep 24, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Brian_G:
>Media Almost Totally Ignore Book Claiming Matthew Shepard Murder Wasn't a Hate Crime...<
That's because the "book" is a complete LIE.
And it is an old lie as well. It has been shown to be a lie by the killer himself, who admits Matt was targeted and tortured to death because he was gay.

Yet some want to continue pushing that lie, and ignore that hate crimes continue to happen even though they don't get the same attention this one did, as most aren't as ruthless and cruel as this one was. Most victims of hate crimes aren't crucified.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10409 Sep 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
In other words her mother used a freeze pop. You see no harm?
Oh, NOW I see it! How could I have been so BLIND??

Thank you for framing it in a demeaning, trivial way, so I could see it the way you do.

NO, I don't see any stupid harm. WHAT HARM? I asked you that in my previous post. OUTLINE these harms. Be as specific as possible when you do (IF you do). Don't just slap insulting labels on things that you don't like, and then EXPECT everyone else to see whatever harm you do.

If a child born to a "freezer pop" can win an Emmy, then no, I don't see any harm. I DO see harm in dehumanizing people with cute little buzzwords intended to paint them in an unflattering light, however.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you a father?
Irrelevent (and ad hominem, to boot). Are my opinions invalid, simply because I may not have children?

I HAVE a father, and he is adoptive. Do you have a cutesy name for adoptive parents? Finders Keepers, maybe, or Usurpop? If my adoptive parents had decided on an artificial assistance in some way, would that have been automatically "harmful"?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not every donor conceived child/adult views it as harmless.
Which means that everyone has their own opinion on the subject, and there is no objective harm that happens to all in that situation. Just because YOU FEEL that there is harm, doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way. Plenty of people live fantastic lives in the framework of a single-parent family, and plenty of people turn out to be criminal lowlifes who came from "nuclear" families.

You haven't proven that there's any harm. You've only proven that you PERCEIVE these other family formats as harmful.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Doylestown, PA

#10410 Sep 24, 2013
If churches are going to engage in politics they should pay taxes like everyone else. Why give these moochers a free ride?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10411 Sep 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my argument without name-calling; I respect gays and lesbians who defend one man and one woman marriage. I don't use profanity either.
Same sex marriage is the worst idea of our time.
Sorry, you have NO respect for Gays and Lesbians......and all ya want is to harm us by nullify our legal marriages and regulating us to 2nd Class Citizens all while making sure that opposite-sex married couples continue to have "SPECIAL" rights, benefits and privileges........not buying your BS!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10412 Sep 24, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither of the businesses mentioned had refused service to the person or persons asking and, in fact, pointed out that they had gay customers. They simply didn't want to service a same sex wedding. Put yourself in the same position. If someone wanted to force you to do something you found immoral would you want to do it?
By your thinking a Jewish delicatessen could be sued if they refused a customer a ham sandwich because it discriminated against the person ordering it. I always felt the smokers were out of line crying about how their rights were being stepped on when they couldn't smoke in public places, until they were told they couldn't smoke in the corner bar anymore and had to stand outside to do so. I think there are times when people carry things to extremes. If someone doesn't want to serve a person why not just go to someone who does want to.
I don't know what Christian morals were used to keep blacks and whites segregated, though I don't say it wasn't done, but this is simply someone demanding something from someone who feels they are being denied their rights. It comes down to a difference of opinion. And, I have nothing against single sex marriage and I would service one, if I offered such a service. I simply don't see the point to forcing someone to do something they don't want to.(Rather like drafting people and forcing them to serve in the military.)
The Jewish deli could only be sued if they sold ham sandwiches to some customers, but denied the same sandwich to others. They don't have to provide any specific sandwich, unless they do that as part of their business. But if they provide a specific service, they need to provide that same service to anyone who can pay for it, regardless of their personal views.

If you believe marriage is immoral, don't advertise your services for marriage ceremonies.

You continue to ignore the principal of equal protection of the laws. No one is being forced to do something they don't offer as a service for a fee. If you sell cake, you sell cake. If you rent rooms, you rent rooms.

You also ignore there might be no other choices. If all business owners go to the same church, the entire town could be off limits to any unpopular group they choose. Again, apartheid and segregation are clear examples of why public accommodations law came to be, and why they are necessary.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#10413 Sep 24, 2013
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>By your thinking a Jewish delicatessen could be sued if they refused a customer a ham sandwich because it discriminated against the person ordering it.
Actually, there would be NO DISCRIMINATION because no customer would get a "HAM" or "Pork" sandwich, not a straight customer, Gay, Lesbian, Christian, Muslim, red, white, black or anyone else.......therefore there is NO discrimination.....in the case of the florist......yes, she provided this same customer with flowers for other occasions, but it was her comment when asked to provide flowers for their wedding that she discriminated against them......see, she would have provided flowers for any other opposite-sex couple....even those who were remarrying after a divorce.......not a good Christian and certainly one who thought her religious beliefs somehow trumped the law!!!

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) 1 hr petrol 4,739
News Democrats pressure Obama to offer blanket pardo... 4 hr Kiss9180 2
News Video company challenges gay marriage law 18 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 2
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... 18 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 18
News Japan's sex problem is so bad that people are q... Wed Dr Modi 1
News Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... Tue Sco-ttt 2
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) Dec 5 fathiwady 13
More from around the web