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
1,021 - 1,040 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1054
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

And yet, some come here just to bash and abuse.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1055
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sONE wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe I have a problem determining it. I said many will want to blur the lines to suit themselves and I see it in many situations.
So, many who would say they are "on the left" politically put down the right but the left are usually the ones who are the most insulting in a debate and tell people to die and that they hope horrible things happen to them, that they are stupid, etc.
Exactly. However, there will never be any blurring the lines when it comes to same sex marriage. It's too firmly ingrained in people. No matter how many times they might say that they are married, there's no overlooking that it's a same sex union with the label "marriage" attached to it. People will never view it in the same light as a marriage involving a man and a woman. You can't blur the lines when it comes to same sex unions and heterosexual ones w/respect to marriage. No matter how many times we hear equal, the two will always be different. Some people are so stuck on separate equating to inferior, that they don't see that each time they do that, the lines become more firmly etched in stone. Separate is not a bad thing unless they let it be.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1056
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

sONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality is FINE- but marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. It is not a MAN and a MAN or a WOMAN and a WOMAN or numerous people of one or multiple genders who want to be a family.
You choose to define marriage as only a man and a woman. But there is no reason it must be that way, and gay people have been forming committed marriage like unions since cave man days. The only thing new about it, is recognition as equal under our current laws. None of the over 1,138 legal federal rights and protections of marriage are things that require the two people be male and female. Nor do any of the other relationship dynamics that determine what makes a marriage, even though those are unique for each couple. The gender distinction is an artificial one of your own choosing.

And there is no reason to believe more of the same thing, would require us to do something different. Marriage equality for gay people is more of the same. Group arrangements are something very different.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1057
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And how will it affect society in any harmful way?
Neither vague fear of the future nor a religious belief not shared by all, constitute a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for deny equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
Denial of equal treatment is harmful in many ways. Equal treatment harms no one.
In case you missed it, separate can never be equal: "The statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples are not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118 In Re Marriage)
"While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (p.117 In re Marriage)
No one is denying anyone equal treatment. Re-defining marriage which is the union between one man and one woman is not equality it is changing it to make it fit your definition of what you consider to be equal.

And yes, two things which are separate can be equal. Just because something is different it doesn't mean that it's any less equal but just that it's different. Two things can be equal but separate within their own right. What I'm seeing is that the more "equality" is thrown around, the more divided people are becoming.
Sam

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1058
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA is not part of any reasonable discussion.
We know from decades of science and everything else, child abuse is harmful and therefore immoral. If you want to talk about child abuse, that is a different topic. As a Social Worker, I can tell you horrific tales all day of straight parents beating, boiling, burning thier children and worse. Lets stay on topic, shall we?
There is an enormous overlap between homosexuality and pederasty.

The priest abuse scandal involved little pedophilia, but was over 80% homosexual in nature and primarily involved homosexual molestation of minor young men. Dishonest radical homosexual hate groups have done their best at calling pederasty pedophilia. Surely you know better than that, or are you, too, just being dishonest?
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1059
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. However, there will never be any blurring the lines when it comes to same sex marriage. It's too firmly ingrained in people. No matter how many times they might say that they are married, there's no overlooking that it's a same sex union with the label "marriage" attached to it. People will never view it in the same light as a marriage involving a man and a woman. You can't blur the lines when it comes to same sex unions and heterosexual ones w/respect to marriage. No matter how many times we hear equal, the two will always be different. Some people are so stuck on separate equating to inferior, that they don't see that each time they do that, the lines become more firmly etched in stone. Separate is not a bad thing unless they let it be.
take out "same sex" and put in Blacks......Now go back 50 years.....YOU SOUND JUST LIKE THE RACIST PIG KKK NAZI,S FROM THAT ERA..........GUESS WHAT TODAY MOST PEOPLE EXCEPT BLACKS AS EQUAL........So yea guess yoru gonna lose fool
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1061
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

sONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Good gawd......
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Caps_36fc71_...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1063
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. However, there will never be any blurring the lines when it comes to same sex marriage. It's too firmly ingrained in people. No matter how many times they might say that they are married, there's no overlooking that it's a same sex union with the label "marriage" attached to it. People will never view it in the same light as a marriage involving a man and a woman. You can't blur the lines when it comes to same sex unions and heterosexual ones w/respect to marriage. No matter how many times we hear equal, the two will always be different. Some people are so stuck on separate equating to inferior, that they don't see that each time they do that, the lines become more firmly etched in stone. Separate is not a bad thing unless they let it be.
I suspect your perspective is of someone who has not been denied equal treatment under the law their entire life.

While what you say about perception may be true for you, but it is not true for everyone. I view the marriages of same sex couples like I do the marriages of opposite sex couples. Some are really good, some, not so much, and every one is different. Some last a lifetime, while Brittany and so many others don't last a week! Just as each person is unique, so is each marriage.

But whether shared by none or many, your perception fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
sickofit

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1065
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying anyone equal treatment. Re-defining marriage which is the union between one man and one woman is not equality it is changing it to make it fit your definition of what you consider to be equal.
And yes, two things which are separate can be equal. Just because something is different it doesn't mean that it's any less equal but just that it's different. Two things can be equal but separate within their own right. What I'm seeing is that the more "equality" is thrown around, the more divided people are becoming.
MAKING IT FIT ALL..........HMMMMMM YES EQUALITY...

you have lost this fight hitler........Same sex will be legal in every sate within 20 years..NOTHING YOU KKK NAZI PIGS CAN DO TOC HANGE THAT......SO YEA....F OFF AND DIE PIG

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1066
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is denying anyone equal treatment. Re-defining marriage which is the union between one man and one woman is not equality it is changing it to make it fit your definition of what you consider to be equal.
And yes, two things which are separate can be equal. Just because something is different it doesn't mean that it's any less equal but just that it's different. Two things can be equal but separate within their own right. What I'm seeing is that the more "equality" is thrown around, the more divided people are becoming.
Yes, gay people are being denied equal treatment under the law. Even where civil unions have been tried, they fail to provide the same rights and protections in real life situations. They are viewed as less than equal, causing confusion in those tasked with applying them, and harm to those denied equal treatment.

But marriage equality for gay couples is now recognized in 10 states and many other countries and jurisdictions in the Americas as well as other continents. The legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdictions. This is clearly discrimination under the law. Gay couples are being denied equal treatment. This is a fact of law.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1067
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It is often difficult for those who are not harmed by laws and religious beliefs which perpetuate anti-gay prejudice, to recognize and appreciate the severity of harm caused by those anti-gay laws, and scientifically unsupportable beliefs.
I suspect they are not closely related to any of the 14,000 gay people who have had their careers and sometimes their very lives destroyed by DADT.
I suspect they have never been physically attacked and beaten simply for being gay, fired from your job, kicked out of your home, disowned by family members, friends, and church for who you love.
They do not feel the effects of the demonization and dehumanization some who claim to be Christians dish out daily which drives many gay people to self destructive behavior including suicide.
They don't have one of the major political parties trying to criminalize them, including some who want to return us to the recent past when if we voiced our opinion we were locked up in jails and institutions, sometimes for life, and tortured with emetics, electric shock, castration, and lobotomies.
They are not among the highest per capita victims of hate crimes, youth homelessness, and suicide.
Individuals and governments don't bully, beat, imprison, torture, and kill them because of whom they love.
Suffering and death are the extreme results of the belief being gay is not acceptable and we must change to heterosexual or live a life of celibacy and denial of our humanity.
Not all Christian groups judge and condemn, and some accept gay people as we are without condition. But those who demonize and punish us are still killing us. Many of us reach a point where we decide to fight back rather than kill ourselves or accept dehumanization quietly. Unless we accept punishment and dehumanization as a way of life, we have no choice but to challenge and oppose prejudice no matter where is comes from, and whether it is mild or extreme.
Decades of history, literature, and science, in addition to trial records of many different courts have all clearly demonstrated: Prejudice and discrimination cause suffering and death.
No one is seeking to cause suffering and death. What people are saying is that marriage should be preserved as the union between a man and a woman. What I'm seeing is that this is about marriage not so much to protect anyone but instead to right some agenda. To make people feel like they are accepted. I can tell you, not everyone will ever be accepted by other people. Same sex marriages may become law but the fact of the matter is that they will never be viewed in the same light as a marriage between a man and a woman. It's not hate, discrimination or whatever. It's just life. Marriage will always be viewed as that between a man and a woman. It's firmly ingrained in our culture and to change that, you can't. If you start changing marriage it will have an impact on the culture. I personally like this country's culture and that includes marriage between one man and one woman. Period. No hate, etc. If people wish to change that, then to be quite honest, take it somewhere else. Go and demand to change their culture. See how quickly you'll be shown the door.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1070
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect your perspective is of someone who has not been denied equal treatment under the law their entire life.
While what you say about perception may be true for you, but it is not true for everyone. I view the marriages of same sex couples like I do the marriages of opposite sex couples. Some are really good, some, not so much, and every one is different. Some last a lifetime, while Brittany and so many others don't last a week! Just as each person is unique, so is each marriage.
But whether shared by none or many, your perception fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to deny equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
So, do tell, are you a constitutional lawyer to make that judgement.

It's not my perception, it's the laws we have in place. Until I'm discriminated in a court of law, I don't sweat the small stuff.

And I'm sure not about to change my religious beliefs to make someone feel good and so that they feel equal. That's not my job.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1071
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, gay people are being denied equal treatment under the law. Even where civil unions have been tried, they fail to provide the same rights and protections in real life situations. They are viewed as less than equal, causing confusion in those tasked with applying them, and harm to those denied equal treatment.
But marriage equality for gay couples is now recognized in 10 states and many other countries and jurisdictions in the Americas as well as other continents. The legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdictions. This is clearly discrimination under the law. Gay couples are being denied equal treatment. This is a fact of law.
Odd but last time that I checked, we're waiting on the ruling to determine that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1072
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is seeking to cause suffering and death. What people are saying is that marriage should be preserved as the union between a man and a woman. What I'm seeing is that this is about marriage not so much to protect anyone but instead to right some agenda. To make people feel like they are accepted. I can tell you, not everyone will ever be accepted by other people. Same sex marriages may become law but the fact of the matter is that they will never be viewed in the same light as a marriage between a man and a woman. It's not hate, discrimination or whatever. It's just life. Marriage will always be viewed as that between a man and a woman. It's firmly ingrained in our culture and to change that, you can't. If you start changing marriage it will have an impact on the culture. I personally like this country's culture and that includes marriage between one man and one woman. Period. No hate, etc. If people wish to change that, then to be quite honest, take it somewhere else. Go and demand to change their culture. See how quickly you'll be shown the door.
What are these changes to the culture you fear?

The agenda you may be missing, is that marriage equality is the last major hurdle toward achieving equal rights for gay people. You may not realize we started from being locked up and tortured legally simply for being gay. The right to exist without being locked up was the first hurdle. Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, to associate, to serve in the military, are all basic rights gay people have had to fight for that you take for granted, as it should be. Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Allowing gay people to participate equally under the laws currently in effect will not change your marriage in any way, nor will it require any change to the laws that determine what a marriage is legally. The "what" remains the same, with the only change being in "who" can participate.

But no matter what the motivation, the effects remain the same: We know for certain, discrimination and prejudice cause needless suffering and death.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1073
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd but last time that I checked, we're waiting on the ruling to determine that.
We are waiting on a ruling that may or may not tell us if the current discrimination taking place is allowed under the equal protection clauses of the constitution or not. So far, the courts are saying it is not. But no matter how the court rules, the 10 states that currently recognize marriage will continue to do so.
Sam

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1074
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
What are these changes to the culture you fear?
The agenda you may be missing, is that marriage equality is the last major hurdle toward achieving equal rights for gay people. You may not realize we started from being locked up and tortured legally simply for being gay. The right to exist without being locked up was the first hurdle. Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, to associate, to serve in the military, are all basic rights gay people have had to fight for that you take for granted, as it should be. Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Allowing gay people to participate equally under the laws currently in effect will not change your marriage in any way, nor will it require any change to the laws that determine what a marriage is legally. The "what" remains the same, with the only change being in "who" can participate.
But no matter what the motivation, the effects remain the same: We know for certain, discrimination and prejudice cause needless suffering and death.
It is ludicrous to suggest that anything homosexual is the same thing as a real marriage. They are in fact extremely different in composition, frequency, characteristics, effects on society, etc.

There is no rational argument for homosexual 'marriage,' and no legal homosexual relationship is really the government's business. There is no logical reason for the government to be involved.
aisling-

Dundee, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1075
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
NAMBLA?
hahahahah
ahahahahahha
ahahahahahah
ahahahahah
"The

American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an “unconstitutional” lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group’s members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.
Ads by Google

12% Yield Stocks to BuyThese stocks yield 12%, yet most US investors don't know they exist. www.GlobalDividends.com
Brain Training GamesImprove Memory with Scientifically Designed Exercises - Free Trial! www.lumosity.com

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA’s website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey’s body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA’s website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy’s murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes’ possession, which contain ”photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,” are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ”urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,” ACLU attorneys wrote.”Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,” the dismissal motion states.”But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act.”

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ”sued for their ideas.” According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ”profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,” because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ”environment” that encourages sexual abuse.

”What they don’t like is what NAMBLA stands for,” said John Reinstein, legal director of the

Massachusetts chapter of the
ACLU.”They don’t like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,” he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son’s killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory.

WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/4648/#lucW1FoU6hsE...

(and while at the same rate, the ACLU sued the Boy Scouts.)
Sam

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1076
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Samatha wrote:
Dissecting the 'gay' marriage charade
Published: 03/07/2012 at 7:51 PM
Anyone in the United States can participate in the institution of marriage – if they choose to do so.
Homosexuals don’t usually choose to do so because they usually don’t want to be married to members of the opposite sex. But it’s their choice.
So why do homosexual activists make this claim? And how do they get away with making a patently false charge against a 6,000-year-old religious institution and the civil laws that it inspired?
Same-sex marriage advocates no more care about the legality of same-sex marriage than Hamas cares about the creation of a Palestinian state.
Neither is interested in creating something new – something that has never been before. Instead, what same-sex marriage advocates and the terrorists of the Gaza Strip have in common is their desire to destroy something they find repulsive. In Gaza, it’s the Jewish state of Israel. Among homosexual activists, it’s the institution of marriage.
By making the bogus claim that marriage, as it has been known through the eons, is inherently unfair because some people don’t want to participate in it as it has always been defined, homosexual activists are able to establish for themselves what appears to be the political high ground of the victim. In exactly the same way, Arab terrorists are able to portray themselves as the victim by claiming they have been denied a state.
But scratch beneath the surface of these two movements and you will soon learn that their objectives go far beyond same-sex marriage and a Palestinian state.
For instance, let’s examine the logic of the victimization homosexuals claim as the basis for pushing same-sex marriage. If it is true that limiting the definition of marriage to a union between one man and one woman is inherently a violation of civil rights, wouldn’t it also be true that defining marriage as a union between just two people is equally discriminatory?
The advocates of same-sex marriage hate this challenge, because they have no intelligent response to it. By default, a capitulation to the same-sex marriage advocates represents future capitulation to the logic they use. That means support of same-sex marriage, to be consistent, must translate into support of polygamy and group marriages of any combination.
Recently, a columnist for the Huffington Post tried to make the case that, unlike same-sex marriage, which has never existed in the history of the world anywhere at any time, polygamy represents a clear and present danger to society. That’s the distinction, he claimed. He cites one infamous polygamist leader charged with sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts as examples of how this works. Of course, he ignores a virtual epidemic of violence and molestation in the homosexual community in favor of one isolated case in the polygamy community.
Eliyahu Federman also states:“There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy.”
Ten years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was scarcely even discussed, let alone performed. So the absence of a body of evidence is a red herring. In the case of polygamy, however, we have thousands of years of history to examine.
It is amazing how quickly the same-sex marriage advocates have been able to rally support from the media, the cultural establishment, the government elite and the judiciary for a radical social experiment that challenges the fundamental building block of human civilization – the family.
They’ve done this by inaccurately portraying themselves as victims of discrimination. They are no more victims of discrimination than any other radicals who believe forcibly remaking society in their own image is their inalienable right.
This article is VERY devastating to the fraud of homosexual 'marriage.'

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1077
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

aisling- wrote:
<quoted text>
So, do tell, are you a constitutional lawyer to make that judgement.
It's not my perception, it's the laws we have in place. Until I'm discriminated in a court of law, I don't sweat the small stuff.
And I'm sure not about to change my religious beliefs to make someone feel good and so that they feel equal. That's not my job.
You have not offered any excuses that have not already been tried in a court of law and found to be without merit. Do you think you have an argument that provides a compelling legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the equal treatment required by the constitution?
Sam

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1078
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not offered any excuses that have not already been tried in a court of law and found to be without merit. Do you think you have an argument that provides a compelling legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the equal treatment required by the constitution?
No.

Courts have OVERWHELMINGLY rejected the political charade of homosexual 'marriage,' just as homosexuals themselves have overwhelmingly rejected it as an actual practice in every country that allows your concocted oxymoron.

You have failed to make any rational case for homosexual 'marriage.'

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••