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 538)

Showing posts 10,741 - 10,760 of17,567
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11662
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh don't be silly.....Terry just couldn't wait to find it, makes him feel like how accomplished something.
On the contrary, since I'd already told you what the California Supreme Court had ruled, I didn't have to "find" anything. And that ruling systematically demolishes every one of the ignorant and uninformed arguments you've ever put forth on the subject.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11663
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Brian_G wrote:
Note how it grows by court order instead of legislation; same sex marriage started by court order, without the consent of the governed.
Most civil rights gains by discriminated against minorities start with legal victories, Brian. If the majority was prejudiced against the minority o start with, they wouldn't enact the legislation that causes discrimination. Duh. Further, the judiciary is a constitutionally established branch of government and therefore is explicitly a manifestation of the consent of the governed who established the constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
That's why they sue Christian's who don't consent to attend their religious same sex marriage celebrations.
They aren't being sued for refusing an invitation to attend a wedding, Brian. They're being sued for breaking the law for refusing to provide goods and services to a member of the general public as all businesses that are deemed public accommodations are required to do.

Why do you lie?
Brian_G wrote:
They don't want tolerance, they want celebration.
Aren't most weddings a celebration? Why would you stupidly think a same sex wedding would be any different than an opposite sex wedding? And to be clear, unless a business owner happens to be a close friend of the wedding party, they are neither invited to attend or "celebrate" at the wedding reception; they're merely being asked to provide goods and services that enable the invited guests to do so.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic elitism.
On he contrary, you want Christians o be above the law; shove your Christian dominionist claptrap up your ass, Brian. It has no place in a constitutional republic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11664
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

9

9

9

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the flaw in your logic is that you cannot provide any state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a husband and wife that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist. Your brain is a fantasy land.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11665
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How about if she's a man trapped in a woman's body and is sexually attracted to women?
Do you have some confusion about women and females?

What if YOU were a retard trapped in a retard's body, and are sexually attracted to your hand?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11666
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist. Your brain is a fantasy land.
<rolls eyes>

Make it up as you go along, dummy.

And yes, we realize that arithmetic is a fantasy in your world.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11667
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

10

9

9

Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy will NEVER be legal.
That was once said about SSM. Many of the same arguments can be used to advocate for polygamy. Besides, why does it matter if it is?
Lesbians are women, by definition.
Not anymore, men can be lesbians too. Google it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11668
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That was once said about SSM. Many of the same arguments can be used to advocate for polygamy. Besides, why does it matter if it is?
<quoted text>
Not anymore, men can be lesbians too. Google it.
Perhaps you should read what you Google and you wouldn't make these erroneous assertions and stupid mistakes, small Peter.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11669
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Have you met Curteese?
2. You are the poster boy for ignorance. It's ok though, it's very entertaining.
Getting your ass handed to you is entertaining to you?

That explains why you're here at least.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11670
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what Terry wrote. The flaw, is that gays already had the "fundamental right to marry", as it was understood, a union of husband and wife. My question is, Did the CA Supreme Court actually rule that gays had a fundamental right to marry some one of the same sex?
<quoted text>
I know, pretty soon marriage equality will include polygamists, and men can be lesbians too!
What do you have against polygamists?

Do you want to control everybody's life?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11671
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How about if she's a man trapped in a woman's body and is sexually attracted to women?
What?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11672
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Wondering wrote:
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist
On the contrary, it's you who conflate equal application of the law with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to blacks and whites but that didn't save them from being ruled unconstitutional.
Wondering wrote:
Your brain is a fantasy land.
You haven't really demonstrated that you have a brain.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11673
Oct 20, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should read what you Google and you wouldn't make these erroneous assertions and stupid mistakes, small Peter.
sarcasm escapes him.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11674
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

8

River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you have against polygamists?
Do you want to control everybody's life?
So are you a supporter of legal polygamy?

“"Works For Me"”

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11676
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like someone's battling a phallic obsession.....
And a very happy KKK morning to you to! And who knows maybe some day you might even post something intelligent,logical and critically thought out and add something positive to the debate? But then again I highly doubt that you're capable of doing so from your past off topic,unintelligent and idiotic blabber you do post! But do carry on and continue making yourself look like the village idiot that you seem to be,that is quite self evident!

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11677
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Have you ever thought about the Christians who have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding rituals? What other religion, besides leftism, compels religious attendance?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11678
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Note how it grows by court order instead of legislation; same sex marriage started by court order, without the consent of the governed.
Goodness you are stupid. It grows because of legislation you stupid moron. The courts merely point out the validity of the legislation.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why they sue Christian's who don't consent to attend their religious same sex marriage celebrations. They don't want tolerance, they want celebration.
Non of your law breaking Christian's were asked to celebrate anything. They were asked to provide the services of their public businesses. Businesses allowed to be open because they applied for business licenses that mandated they obey established law. You're Christians pretended they were above the law, and now they are paying for their discriminatory folly.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic elitism.
Brian_G is still the village idiot.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11679
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the flaw in your logic is that you cannot provide any state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a husband and wife that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.
Of course, the flaw in your logic is that you cannot provide any state interest served by designating other comsenting adult relationships, "marriage", beyond the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife that would render such an expansion constitutionally necessary, considering all men, and all women have the same right to marry.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11680
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
1. On the contrary, it's you who conflate equal application of the law with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
2. Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to blacks and whites but that didn't save them from being ruled unconstitutional.
3. You haven't really demonstrated that you have a brain.
1. Maybe you can't understand what you read, just like lides.
States meet constitutional requirements by making their laws apply equally to everyone in their jurisdiction.
2. As long as they were one man and one woman.
3. It's your lack of understanding.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11681
Oct 21, 2013
 
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like someone's battling a phallic obsession.....
Hardly, considering the poster's Topix ID contains the Italian spelling of the name Peter and "small" is my term of endearment based on the poster's demonstrated intellectual capabilities. Unlike you, I don't spend time fantasizing about the sexual organs of anonymous people on the internet.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11682
Oct 21, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
On the contrary, the historic discrimination that has prohibited legal recognition of same sex marriages is both anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
Have you ever thought about the Christians who have been sued for refusing to attend same sex wedding rituals?
No one has ever been sued for refusing an invitation to attend a wedding ceremony, Brian. There are no laws governing attendance to social events. On the other hand, people have been sued in their capacity as business owners for refusing to provide goods and services to a protected class of people in violation of anti-discrimination laws.
Brian_G wrote:
What other religion, besides leftism, compels religious attendance?
Both Judaism and Catholicism require religious service attendance in accordance with God's commandments. There are likely others as well.

And there is no religion called "leftism", Brian. Why do you lie?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 10,741 - 10,760 of17,567
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••