Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#13855 Nov 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The State ALREADY has issued my wife and I a marriage license and we have been legally married for over 5 years whether you like it or not......so, if you are going to jump into a conversation between myself and Brian......you'd better have some idea about WHAT THE HELL IS BEING DISCUSSED......thanks!!!
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13856 Nov 23, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If you'll recall, the post you responded to already thoroughly debunked your post.
So, you believe because you SAY something happened, it really did?
I believe that's called Magical Thinking.
That pat, gay talking points response in no way addressed or debunked anything I posted.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13857 Nov 23, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
That makes NO SENSE! How can "same sex couples", be included in the institution of marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
Because the institution of marriage has never been solely "one man and one woman". Liar.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How does one include, by excluding?
You tell us. You whine about the plight of polygamists and yet you still advocate their exclusion from marriage. Hypocrite.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nope! Just the "DISCRIMINATION" you don't like. Marriage laws will continue to "discriminate" based on marital status, only one wife, or husband at a time, and prior relationship, no blood relatives other than first cousins. So, "discrimination" is not going away, just that "discrimination" which you don't like.
Yes, the discrimination that can't be justified by a compelling government interest is going away.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not hard to grasp at all, you simply want "marriage" to mean "everything and anything". Why should "gender" be the only "without regard to" you accept?
She's still being more inclusive than you. And in exercising her right to petition government to address her grievances she's under no obligation to address the grievances of others or those which you designate.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm......well you could find a man to "love", not that it matters as far as the state is concerned. The state cares not if marriage candidates are "in love", or just "in like".
Just as the state doesn't care if you can procreate or even want children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides no one is forced to marry.
Exercising a fundamental right is an individual decision and is not be be restricted or infringed by the state in the absence of a compelling government interest to do so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no obligation on the part of the state to crater to every, and any self professed sexual identity label.
Actually, there is. The constitutional standard is if the state can't offer a compelling interest to restrict the exercise of a fundamental right, then it may not interfere in an individual's personal liberty interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If that we're the case, "bisexuals" should be allowed to marry one of each sex, if they so choose. After all, we wouldn't want to "discriminate".
No, stupid Peter, because a sexual orientation determines to which gender(s) one is attracted, not how many people one wishes to marry simultaneously.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But you're not "only allowed a CU or DP", you can marry like any other woman.
Just like women could marry like any other women under anti-miscegenation laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But that's not what you seek. You want the state to designate your same sex relationship "marriage".
Indeed. Because there is no compelling government interest for the gender restriction in exercising the fundamental right of marriage. An institution, whose only consistent legal accomplishment across time and cultures has been to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. A fact now recognized by 16 states and the District of Columbia in the US.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13858 Nov 23, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
So to make things "equal" , we change the rules, but just for you......no one else...."some are more equal than others", to quote George Orwell.
The rules can be changed for other aggrieved groups too if they 1) exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances, 2) have standing to file such a legal challenge, and 3) can make a convincing case that a restriction on the exercise of their fundamental right of marriage lacks a compelling government interest.

You don't get to dictate how others exercise their right to pet ion government, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Good question, it goes beyond "same sex", as it relates to marriage. By that reasoning, in order not to "harm someone you don't even know", all restrictions must be removed from marriage as long as the parties involved are consenting adults. The conjugal, opposite sex, requirement, "harms" same sex couples, the monogamy, one wife/husband at a time, "harms" polygamists, etc. So either all "harms" are eliminated, or they remain in place.
Nope. That where compelling government interests come into play. Under that standard, the government may exercise its police powers in the interest of public safety for the greater good of all members of society even if it infringes the rights of certain subsets of society. Such compelling interest have already been judicially recognized for consanguinity and number of with regard to the fundamental right of marriage. However, that doesn't preclude people from legally challenging those restrictions again.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13859 Nov 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
So, we all know segregated clubs are a bad thing.
SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, Brian. Private clubs and organizations can set their own membership rules. I don't recall your whining incessantly about the Boy Scouts excluding gays from membership until their policy change earlier this year.

Voluntary segregation is public or private settings isn't unconditional, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
Then, why do you want to change marriage so its not integrated, to allow segregation and discrimination? Is it a sex thing?
Then why aren't you requiring mandatory interracial and interfaith marriage if your goal is to avoid segregation and discrimination within marriage, Brian? Hypocrite.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#13860 Nov 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
Oh my. Dear, segregation in a club means keeping otherwise qualified people from joining based on dislike of race, gender, etc. Are you REALLY trying to say that a marriage is "segregated" unless the couple allows other people to join? NOW you are supporting forced polygamy?
No, I'm opposing sex segregated marriage in favor of the perfect affirmative action of one man and one woman sex integration and diversity.

Same sex marriage is bad because it forces government to support segregation.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13861 Nov 23, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
So, we all know segregated clubs are a bad thing. Then, why do you want to change marriage so its not integrated, to allow segregation and discrimination? Is it a sex thing?
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?

Have you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional yet?

Allowing someone to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing is neither segregation, nor it is discrimination. It is discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.

Don't be an idiot, Brian.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13862 Nov 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?
He has light years to go before he looks as dumb as you do.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13863 Nov 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you must be such a sweet person.
Says the person that thinks that certain discrimination is justifiable and that society benefits from certain discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
my discussion on this subject has nothing to do with your right to be 'married'.
I never said it was. I’m already married so it’s not up for discussion.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
My discussion is about you insisting that everyone who happens to have a religious conviction based on their understanding of morality must be dragged into servicing and supporting your wedding.
Ah, there you go again with your made up “support”. No one was asked to support my wedding nor was your bigot florist asked to support the wedding of the couple that attempted to employ her. And her religious convictions are irrelevant. Customers entering a public business are not obligated to know what the business owner’s religious convictions are. Your bigot florist was never asked what her religious convictions are, because they are irrelevant. She opened a public business. She’s obligated to follow the laws of the state as such. SHE “offered” her religious convictions so that she could discriminate against certain customers. That’s illegal.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so now you make this claim...
No, I actually made that claim some time ago, not now. But since you are desperate, you’ve chosen to try and side track with it, even though it has nothing to do with the rest of your post.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
'They still exist in the south and they thrive. They may not have advertising acknowledging it, but they definitely make sure the rules are known. Are you really this stupid?'
how about a link or some kind of proof, or must it be so because you think so?
Well, since I noted that they don’t advertise as such, I can’t really present that now can I. But your intentional daftness of this fact is quite funny. How about this? How about you drive around the back woods of Alabama and look at some of the bars that are there. If they have 2 or 3 Confederate flags hanging outside, and if all the patrons inside are white, that would be what I’m talking about. Hey, here’s an idea. Why don’t you simply tell the owner of one of these shops that discrimination benefits society, and that as long as the discrimination they wish to promote is justifiable to them they should go for it. Let us know how that goes.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13864 Nov 23, 2013
Barry wrote:
<quoted text>
Discrimination is healthy part of society
Hey Barry, we're all still waiting. Here are some of the statements you've made that we're still waiting for you to support.

1) How has discrimination benefited society? Specifics please.

2) Please list the top five discriminations that are the "justifiable discriminations" you mentioned.

3) Where is the post where I demanded that that you and your fellow fundies "celebrate" this supposed "lifestyle" that you think I have?

4) Where is the study and research you brought up that says that gender identity and sexual orientation are related?

I could go on with many more, but let's just start with these for now.

Why do you cowardly avoid answering and supporting yourself?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13865 Nov 23, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian, how dumb do you wish to look?
We'll, if you provide him a picture of you, he could then look as dumb as you.
Have you come up with a state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional yet?
Have you come up with a state interest served by redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or monogamous unions that would render such an interest constitutionally necessary?
Allowing someone to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing is neither segregation, nor it is discrimination.
It is redefining marriage without a compelling state interest.
It is discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.
By that reasoning it's also discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult relative consenting partner of their choosing, or any other adult regardless of that person's marital status.

Don't be an idiot, Liddie.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13866 Nov 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
We'll, if you provide him a picture of you, he could then look as dumb as you.
And yet you make anyone seem a genius by comparison.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Have you come up with a state interest served by redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or monogamous unions that would render such an interest constitutionally necessary?
No such interest need be proven or provided, stupid Peter, because it isn't a constitutional requirement regarding fundamental rights. The actual standard, of which you've been schooled numerous times now, is the state must provide a compelling government interest to restrict the exercise of a fundamental right that relationally relates the stated interest to the restriction.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It is redefining marriage without a compelling state interest.
Compelling state interests apply to the restriction on exercising a fundamental, stupid Peter, not on removing them. But you keep making this same stupid mistake ad nauseam because you conflate restrictions on exercising a fundamental right with the definition of said right.
Pietro Armando wrote:
By that reasoning it's also discriminatory to deny someone the right to marry the adult relative consenting partner of their choosing or any other adult regardless of that person's marital status.
No, because compelling state interests justifying those restriction have already been legally recognized. Restrictions are evaluated for constitutionally one by one, not all or none, stupid Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't be an idiot, Liddie.
You appear long past the point where it's possible for you to be anything but an idiot.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13867 Nov 23, 2013
Actually to be accurate and consistent with the article the headline writer should have instead written: "Black Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes".
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13869 Nov 23, 2013
Gay Marriage is bad for the Economy.
Let's say I hire a gay man to work my Clinique counter. His bug-hunting "husband" goes to a Gifting Party and becomes infected with HIV. Now MY Health insurance is supposed to pay for that?
That's why I won't hire a homosexual.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#13870 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
Gay Marriage is bad for the Economy.
Let's say I hire a gay man to work my Clinique counter. His bug-hunting "husband" goes to a Gifting Party and becomes infected with HIV. Now MY Health insurance is supposed to pay for that?
That's why I won't hire a homosexual.
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#13871 Nov 23, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Actually to be accurate and consistent with the article the headline writer should have instead written: "Black Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes".
Why would that matter? It seems gays way over use black issues in a lame attempt to support their cause.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13872 Nov 23, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
Why would happy people do that?
Old Friend of the Family

Ridgewood, NJ

#13873 Nov 23, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay people will eat your babies, too. Didn't you know that?
No, but they will attempt to seduce and convert straight children. This common practice was proven empirically by the NIH study on Human Sexuality and Aberrance. A shockingly well documented and meticulously researched study, I might add.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13874 Nov 23, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
The rules can be changed for other aggrieved groups too if they 1) exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances, 2) have standing to file such a legal challenge, and 3) can make a convincing case that a restriction on the exercise of their fundamental right of marriage lacks a compelling government interest.
Why wait? If there's no compelling state interest in maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, as you claim, then what compelling state interest is there in denying any consenting adult relationship the designation "marriage"?
You don't get to dictate how others exercise their right to pet ion government, stupid Peter.
Nor do you, stupid Terry
Nope. That where compelling government interests come into play. Under that standard, the government may exercise its police powers in the interest of public safety for the greater good of all members of society even if it infringes the rights of certain subsets of society.
Oh...like in those thirty states that maintained the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife.....understood.
Such compelling interest have already been judicially recognized for consanguinity and number of with regard to the fundamental right of marriage.
That was before legal SSM, the rules have changed, "equality" , regardless of its definition, takes precedence.
However, that doesn't preclude people from legally challenging those restrictions again.
Why wait? Let's end all the "discrimination" now, in regards or marriage.

“TO HATE SOMEONE SIMPLY FOR WHO”

Since: Aug 08

THEY ARE IS WRONG!!!

#13875 Nov 23, 2013
Old Friend of the Family wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but they will attempt to seduce and convert straight children. This common practice was proven empirically by the NIH study on Human Sexuality and Aberranence. A shockingly well documented and meticulously researched study, I might add.
No they won't......one either IS or ISN'T Gay, Lesbian or Straight......one CAN NOT be converted anymore than one CAN be converted to being straight......what a serious idiot you are!!!

Link to this well documented article or study please......can't find it by your title!!

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 6 min NoMo 6,728
News GOP hopefuls take on illegal immigration in deb... 32 min wild child 2
News Oregon issues final order in gay wedding cake case 1 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 54
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr Lucy 34,572
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 4 hr Frank A 5,904
News How is it that cake became a favourite platform... 6 hr WeTheSheeple 19
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr Adolph Dawetter 52,071
More from around the web