Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,568

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.

Full Story

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11663 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11664 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11665 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11666 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11667 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11668 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11669 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11670 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11671 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11672 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11673 Oct 20, 2013
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

#11674 Oct 21, 2013
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

#11676 Oct 21, 2013
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!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#11677 Oct 21, 2013
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

#11678 Oct 21, 2013
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

#11679 Oct 21, 2013
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

#11680 Oct 21, 2013
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

#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

#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?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11683 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to everyone on their jurisdiction yet were ruled unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause.
Wondering wrote:
2. As long as they were one man and one woman.
It was only men and women marrying in that era. Yet anti-miscegenation laws were still ruled unconstitutional.
Wondering wrote:
3. It's your lack of understanding.
On the contrary, you're unable to understand why anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional when they were applied equally to men and women and blacks and whites. Which proves the point you totally clueless about the difference between equal application of the law and constitutional equal protection of the law. Go back to school and learn something before you embarrass yourself further.

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
Judge Strikes Down NC Gay Marriage Ban 36 min Messed Up Mess 66
'Gayborhoods' fade with growing acceptance of LGBT 45 min Messed Up Mess 93
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 54 min Messed Up Mess 25,297
Elizabeth Taylor & Michael Jackson at Her Final... 1 hr Octopus 1
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 3 hr Belle Sexton 145
Methodist panel to hear appeal over gay wedding 4 hr Belle Sexton 1
Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - Hawaii News (Feb '09) 5 hr Joe Balls 165

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE