Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 508)

Showing posts 10,141 - 10,160 of17,515
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11025
Oct 6, 2013
 
Mr_oH wrote:
Name one.
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
Mr_oH wrote:
No, each individual in those groups are seeking their own person equal protection of law.
Sorry charlie, the union they seek is greater by definition.
Mr_oH wrote:
That's because counting has noting to do with it.
Is three greater than two? If so, counting has everything to do with it, because they seek greater, not equal, protection of the law.
Mr_oH wrote:
Consenting adult incest, by related individuals.
Incest has a demonstrably higher instance of mental illness and birth defects. There is a compelling governmental interest in discouraging such unions.
Mr_oH wrote:
What are you, a parrot?
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments that have long been settled as a matter of law and have no bering upon the topic at hand.

Do you have a relevant argument applicable to same sex marriage, or are you admitting that you are, in fact, a parrot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11026
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Isnt sunday morning the time you Nazi pigs get together and worship your cults god and find out who else to hate??
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.

RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11027
Oct 6, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That long......hmmmmmmm....anything since colonial times?
<quoted text>
How does the survey breakdown among Catholics themselves in terms of regular mass attendance, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc.?
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the same sex composition, is based on an entirely different understanding of marital law and social structure and therefore not equality but a change for everyone to a new revisionist form of gender irrelevant union.
<quoted text>
As Terri failed to admit, it is hypocritical of him and other SSM advocates to demand the law fundamentally alter the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife for him and other advocates, but no other form of marriage.
<quoted text>
while continuing to ignore that the other restrictions also represent a fundamental change in the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. It is only "irrational" to him, and you, because it is contrary to your desire/need/want. The other "restrictions" can be viewed just as "irrational" to others, as gender is to you.
Again, you can demonstrate no law that diminishes or changes the effect of the law, by removing the gender restriction. All of the same 1,138 federal laws remain in full force and effect for couples, regardless of gender. Legally, they are the same in form and function. All couples are treated equally under all of the same laws. No more, no less, no different.

The social structure of society has not changed. Heterosexual people will continue to form bonds with other heterosexual people, and gay people will continue to form bonds with other gay people.

Again, removing the other restrictions would require changing what those laws of marriage. Social Security is just one example. Would all 100 people in the marriage inherit the social security equally until they all die? What happens when younger people are included in the group marriage? Are all married to each other equally, or just to one man? There are many questions that haven't even begun to be addressed, but they demonstrate removing the number restriction changes what marriage legally means for everyone on a fundamental level. It also restructures society in favor of the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. Removing the gender restriction does none of that.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11028
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No its the time we pray for ignorant commie fools like you.
RUN OFF TO YOUR COMMIE PARTY MEETING.
I hate commie as much as I hate you Nazis. Your both traitors. I will stick with freedom equality and the Constitution..WHY DONT YOU TRAITORS MVOE GET OUT OF THIS NATION SINCE YOU HATE FREEDOM./

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11029
Oct 6, 2013
 
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...
You really should go outside and scream at trees before you throw your little hissy fits on line....
(Start the hysterical judging now,...fool...)
Perhaps you've posted in this thread using multiple ID's but I haven't. Here's a clue: "Terra Firma" and "Neil An Blowme" are two different ID's and in this case also two different people. YOu should pay closer attention to whom you direct your responses before whining about having your errors pointed out.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11030
Oct 6, 2013
 
Mr_oH wrote:
<quoted text>...except polygamists and consenting adult relatives...
Number and incest are very different restrictions, applied to all persons equally, and both have been tested and shown to provide compelling governmental interests. Gender has failed that test.

The incest restriction helps prevent child abuse in addition to the reproductive considerations. Removing the incest restriction would tell children and parents they can train a child from birth to become a spouse. It facilitates and encourages child abuse. Most understand this is just an absurd excuse for maintaining the gender restriction. It also changes marriage for everyone, while removing the gender restriction does not alter marriage for heterosexuals. Most understand this is just an absurd and stigmatizing excuse for maintaining the gender restriction.

We've covered the number restriction, but again, it requires changing the laws to an entirely different set of laws which no one has attempted to explain, as they know doing so would show it is something entirely different, not the same as the laws currently in effect for couples. It also favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. It is not equality, but something entirely different for everyone.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11032
Oct 6, 2013
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again. Everyone knows you're an idiot, no need to keep proving it. I knew two families that had 12 kids. Each family, 14 people. Greater protection? No. Polygamy, greater protection? No. You are ridiculous, JD.
You cannot be THAT stupid. The children aren't part of the marriage contract, you dolt.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11033
Oct 6, 2013
 
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Male lesbians...... hahahahahahahaha
You religitards will believe any ol' thing.
I missed why that has anything to do with anything else. They can still get married, regardless of how they see themselves. This does however, demonstrate gender identity is not a simple either/or proposition but a broad range of human traits we try to label as distinctly male or female. Most "male" and "female" traits are simply human traits shared to various degrees by all humans, regardless of sex or gender identity. Removing the gender restriction on marriage makes gender self identity irrelevant to marriage.

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.”
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11034
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution protects fundamental rights of all persons, and marriage is one of those fundamental rights.
Once again, states regulate marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11035
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
They seek greater protection of the law for three or more people. Learn to count.
No person can get triple protection, you idiot. Each person has equal protection, singular. What a moron you are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11036
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

lides wrote:
I am not the one offering irrelevant arguments
Everything you say is irrelevant.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11037
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, states regulate marriage. There is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
Could a state ban religion????

Nope...Know why??? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.....You Nazi pigs hate that right?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11038
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Could a state ban religion????
Nope...Know why??? CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.....You Nazi pigs hate that right?
I bet you and lides went to the same schools.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11039
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
I support polygamous marriages.
What do you have against it? Will it harm your children? Will your Bible burst into flames?
The Bible supports polygamy in no uncertain terms.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11040
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you and lides went to the same schools.
So you know you cant answer it honestly for it will show your lying and wrong..

I AM RIGHT 100%..
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11041
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:
We've covered the number restriction, but again, it requires changing the laws to an entirely different set of laws which no one has attempted to explain, as they know doing so would show it is something entirely different, not the same as the laws currently in effect for couples.
Marriage laws in Massachusetts were changed to allow same sex marriage. It didn't seem like a difficult process. Just words on paper. Forms were changed as well.

Only a gay person would claim gender doesn't matter. If it wasn't for the gender difference between your mother and father, you wouldn't be here today.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11042
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So you know you cant answer it honestly for it will show your lying and wrong..
I AM RIGHT 100%..
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?

Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.

Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11043
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?
Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.
Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
And marriage is a civil contract being as such it should be equal for all...14TH AMENDMENT AND ALL..

Now tell me how SSM affects you personally or anyone who is nto involved.

What reason do you have to stop SSM.....OTHER THEN YOUR HATE AND BIGOTRY AND RELIGOUS BELIEF..

Real reasons.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11044
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage laws in Massachusetts were changed to allow same sex marriage. It didn't seem like a difficult process. Just words on paper. Forms were changed as well.
Only a gay person would claim gender doesn't matter. If it wasn't for the gender difference between your mother and father, you wouldn't be here today.
And the marriage laws wouldn't have had anything to do with that. Do you really think heterosexual men will stop mating with heterosexual people if gay people are allowed to get married? Again, with or without marriage, many people will procreate if they want to,(and even some who don't.)

DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples--whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both--or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem,...but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA's treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage."

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11045
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When you shake your head do you hear a rattling sound or is it completely empty?
Religion is dealt with in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
Show me the word 'marriage' in the constitution. I'll wait.
Not answering you is just my way of avoiding idiots. Hitler Boy.
Yes, the constitution prevents the state from recognizing one religious belief over another, which is one of the reasons that the bans on marriage are failing. One person's strongly held religious belief ends at the next person's door.

The rest of your post doesn't sake sense. Are you saying that marriage is not governed by laws? And that gay people can be denied equal protection under those laws, with no valid or rational governmental interest?

Can you show us the part of the constitution that allows unequal protection of law based on either gender or sexual orientation?

I can't seem to find it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,141 - 10,160 of17,515
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••