Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11757 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Catholic teachings on solidarity demand that we listen to the marginalized and oppressed.
... unless they are gay.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11758 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.....lame actually ....c'mon XBox, you can insult me more creatively than that.....can't you?
<quoted text>
You're not going to sing the Grinch song.....are you?
<quoted text>
That's not true. I have a great deal of empathy for your Mom and Dad. Look at how little XBox turned out.
<quoted text>
So will you adapt to reality when "marriage equality" is expanded to include polygamists?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So will you adapt to reality when "marriage equality" is expanded to include polygamists?
Still building strawmen?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11759 Oct 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Still building strawmen?
Just asking the obvious questions. So does that mean polygamists are included in the marriage equality clubhouse?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11760 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Just asking the obvious questions. So does that mean polygamists are included in the marriage equality clubhouse?
Certainly. Just as soon as they convince either the courts or legislatures to decriminalize bigamy and remove the restriction on the number of marriage participants in the marriage laws of all 50 states.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11761 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Just asking the obvious questions. So does that mean polygamists are included in the marriage equality clubhouse?
Tell me what polygamy and same sex marriage have in common.

Polygamy is closer to opposite sex marriage. Polygyny and polyandry both involve men and women. The only comparison I see between polygamy and same sex marriage in this discussion is that you're opposed to both and since same sex marriage in the U.S. will be legal in all states before too long, at least you'll have something else to stomp your feet about. Good for you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11763 Oct 23, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>... unless they are gay.
... or women.... or transexuals etc. etc.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11764 Oct 23, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me what polygamy and same sex marriage have in common.
Polygamy is closer to opposite sex marriage. Polygyny and polyandry both involve men and women. The only comparison I see between polygamy and same sex marriage in this discussion is that you're opposed to both and since same sex marriage in the U.S. will be legal in all states before too long, at least you'll have something else to stomp your feet about. Good for you.
I'm glad you asked. Both SSM, and Polygamy represent a fundamental change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. SSM changes the nature, conjugal or opposite sex, and polygamy changes the number. So why is conjugality legally expendable, but monogamy, as in the number two, not?

All men and all women are, or we're, depending on the state, treated the same in regards to marriage, how it was defined, and who they could marry. Now, some men, and some women, are treated differently than other men or women, based on their self professed same sex attraction/orientation. So their interests are catered to, now what about the next group,? Or is SSM the proverbial "line in the sand"?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11765 Oct 23, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
... or women.... or transexuals etc. etc.....
Tri sexuals, quad sexuals, etc.
Shay

Cleveland, MS

#11766 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Tri sexuals, quad sexuals, etc.
Hilarious! 100 sexual

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11767 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
All men and all women are, or we're, depending on the state, treated the same in regards to marriage, how it was defined, and who they could marry.
Really, how so? I am an American Citizen, a Veteran, over the age of 21 and STILL was NOT able to choose the person I wanted to marry UNTIL 2008.....STRICTLY because of her gender.......that was a violation of my Due Process and Equal Protection......and over the last 5 years my legal marriage was treated UNEQUAL by the Federal Government SIMPLY because my wife is NOT of the opposite-sex......so, excuse me if I don't see that what you want is for OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES TO REMAIN GETTING "SPECIAL" RIGHTS, BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES STRICTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A POLE AND YOUR WIFE HAS A PLUG........laws and benefits still have to follow the Constitution and until some state can show that ALLUSIVE compelling State interest as to why a man and a woman are the ONLY folks who should be allowed to marry........and so far the State HASN'T been able to.......then to deny a Gay or Lesbian person their FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry as they see fit is denying them both Due Process and Equal Protection.......something you can't explain nor grasp!!!

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11768 Oct 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you asked. Both SSM, and Polygamy represent a fundamental change in the American legal understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. SSM changes the nature, conjugal or opposite sex, and polygamy changes the number. So why is conjugality legally expendable, but monogamy, as in the number two, not?
All men and all women are, or we're, depending on the state, treated the same in regards to marriage, how it was defined, and who they could marry. Now, some men, and some women, are treated differently than other men or women, based on their self professed same sex attraction/orientation. So their interests are catered to, now what about the next group,? Or is SSM the proverbial "line in the sand"?
You don't know much about polygamy and "America" do you? It was the fundamentalists that had to fight and bribe even other christians to conform to their idea of marriage between one man and one woman. Fundies had their way for awhile but that's all unraveling now, isn't it?

Just think. One day you can tell your grandchildren stories about how when you were a kid, marriage was between one man and one woman and they can say, "Shutup Grampa, stop kidding us".

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11769 Oct 23, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
If making floral arrangements is against the religious convictions of Baronelle Stutzman, then she shouldn't have become a florist for hire.
The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?

If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11770 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
It's simple Brian. Just file a lawsuit that claims that discrimination laws are unconstitutional.

I'll eagerly await the outcome...or the laughter that comes from the legal community. Whichever comes first.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11771 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
Geez Brian.......how many times MUST you be told that she is NOT attending the wedding......she is PROVIDING flowers for it and NO she doesn't need to be there to set them up.......so, again she is NOT attending ANYONE'S wedding, just the flowers she sells!!!

Damn, your thick headed........lol!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11772 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
No, that isn't the issue moron, as she wasn't invited to participate in the wedding, nor was she asked to attend. She was asked to make floral arrangements. Period.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
Was your bigot forced to attend the service? Yes or no Brian?

Brian_G = Village Idiot
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11773 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
Who was forced to attend religious services, Brian? Oh, that's right, NOBODY was.

You are the reason this country has to put directions on a bottle of shampoo.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11774 Oct 24, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know much about polygamy and "America" do you?
Huh....so I take it you're an expert on "....polygamy and 'America' "?
It was the fundamentalists that had to fight and bribe even other christians to conform to their idea of marriage between one man and one woman.
Not quite sure of the time frame or context of that
Fundies had their way for awhile but that's all unraveling now, isn't it?
The Glibtees are the Unravelers.
Just think. One day you can tell your grandchildren stories about how when you were a kid, marriage was between one man and one woman and they can say, "Shutup Grampa, stop kidding us".
That assumes marriage still exists as a legally recognized relationship. Who knows, maybe after the Glibtees are done, polys get their turn, after that,....
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11775 Oct 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh....so I take it you're an expert on "....polygamy and 'America' "?
<quoted text>
Not quite sure of the time frame or context of that
<quoted text>
The Glibtees are the Unravelers.
<quoted text>
That assumes marriage still exists as a legally recognized relationship. Who knows, maybe after the Glibtees are done, polys get their turn, after that,....
Speculations of a dimwit.... how exciting.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11776 Oct 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is forcing her to participate in a same sex wedding ritual; she doesn't want to attend. Don't you believe in consent?
If same sex marriage can force Christians to attend religious services against their beliefs, why not the same for atheists?
The florist can make the floral arrangements at his/her place of business and have the delivery person take them to the wedding site. Problem solved, Brian.

Quit whining about and defending law breakers.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11777 Oct 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Geez Brian.......how many times MUST you be told that she is NOT attending the wedding......she is PROVIDING flowers for it and NO she doesn't need to be there to set them up.......so, again she is NOT attending ANYONE'S wedding, just the flowers she sells!!! Damn, your thick headed........lol!!!
Are you claiming the Christian photographer didn't need to attend the same sex wedding either? How does that work?

Same sex marriage means its supporters suing Christians who decline to participate in those religious ceremonies. If you believe in religious freedom, keep marriage one man and one woman.

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 Italy earthquake: Amid the rubble, a couple say... 6 hr who do u call 1
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 13 hr Rose_NoHo 60
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Tue Unfortunate 31,938
News Carroll Daybook Tue MaltaMerlin 3
News Hindu girl weds childhood Muslim friend in Paki... Mon Rosa 2
[Guide] Funny maid of honor speech (Sep '14) Mon mariam 176
News Rizzoli & Isles' introduction of Maura's husban... Aug 27 Ex Fan 1
More from around the web