Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16971 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your efforts to defend me. However, you must realize that Flunkie just makes it up as he goes along. None of what he wrote about me is true.
I'm not making this stuff up, I support marriage equality for consenting adults and you do not. True story.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16972 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form..... other than to piss off bigots, and you better get used to that.
No, you are NOT following MY logic by using a false equivalency. Dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book and check.
Let me ask this silly question.... when will you stop whining about gay couples marrying? When 25 States have it?...or 35.... or 50? People like you will whine until you die rather than admit you are WQRONG.
Allowing polygamy does NOT affect the marriages of same sex couples in any way, shape or form..... other than to piss off bigots, and you better get used to that.
No, you are NOT following MY logic by using a false equivalency. Dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book and check.
Let me ask this silly question.... when will you stop whining about polygamy? When 25 States have it?...or 35.... or 50? People like you will whine until you die rather than admit you are WRONG.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16973 Feb 19, 2014
...problems arise if we consider Olson’s invocation of “patriarchy” as a justification for forbidding polygamy. We might ask: What’s wrong with patriarchy?

The most straightforward answer to this question that Olson could muster is that patriarchy is morally offensive in a liberal, egalitarian society. But, as we have seen, the case for a right to same-sex marriage depends on the Court’s willingness to expel moral sentiments as a basis for law. Or is the Court to hold that the things that offend traditional moral sensibilities are impermissible as bases for law while the things that offend progressive moral sensibilities are fine? This would be to reduce constitutional jurisprudence to naked partisanship and ideology.

- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972 ...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16974 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your efforts to defend me. However, you must realize that Flunkie just makes it up as he goes along. None of what he wrote about me is true.
She says you support ALL marriages and I do not whiich is exactly the opposite of the truth. An honorable man would have corrected her.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16975 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing same sex couples to marry does NOT affect the marriages of opposite sex couples in any way, shape or form..... other than to piss off bigots, and you better get used to that.
Allowing plural marriage practitioners to marry does NOT affect the marriages of couples in any way, shape or form....other than to piss off bigots, like yourself, poly phones, and you better get used to that.
No, you are NOT following MY logic by using a false equivalency. Dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS book and check.
I am following your logic by using a false equivalency as you have used it. You equate a same sex pair with the union of husband and wife, and yet you accuse others of using a false equivalency!
Let me ask this silly question.... when will you stop whining about gay couples marrying? When 25 States have it?...or 35.... or 50? People like you will whine until you die rather than admit you are WRONG.
When will you stop ignoring that "marriage equality" to use the Orwellian androgynous orthodoxy, doesn't end with "same sex marriage"? That it requires other adult consenting relationships to be considered as well? As long as you support the redefinition of marriage for one group, one sexual minority, you support it for all consenting adult relationships.

If, as a matter of public policy, conjugality, husband and wife/opposite sex, as the sole foundation of the marital relationship, is expendable, why must monogamy be maintained?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#16976 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Allowing plural marriage practitioners to marry does NOT affect the marriages of couples in any way, shape or form....other than to piss off bigots, like yourself, poly phones, and you better get used to that.
Actually, no one can definitively state that as true.

Marriage as defined today in the U.S.(including opposite-sex marriages) allows for one, and only one, SPOUSE. Most, if not all, of the ancillary laws that grant the 1100+ benefits of marriage rests on that basic principle. That principle did not change when same-sex couples were allowed to exercise their rights to marry.

But IF plural marriages are to be allowed, any law, rule, or court ruling dealing with marriage and a singular spouse would need to be adjusted or conceivably scrapped. So to claim that those 1100+ benefits would still be there and provide the same exact benefits that they do today is disingenuous. But then again your entire poly argument is disingenuous.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16977 Feb 19, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you, and yes, I know your name;0)
I thought U might.:-)

There was a German named Adam on one of the threads who was a real fanatic, he gave me a bad case of Godwin's Law. I said there'll will be no camps in concentration camps this century, then chose this name.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#16978 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your efforts to defend me. However, you must realize that Flunkie just makes it up as he goes along. None of what he wrote about me is true.
He's just entertainment, that's all.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16979 Feb 19, 2014
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, utterly irrelevant. You can't seem to keep your attention on the subject at hand and I know you went to soooo much trouble to Google, copy'n'paste.*sighs*
Yet you felt compelled to post this:
albtraum wrote:
If you ever care to expand your mind, small peter, take a look at the World Population Clock:
http://www.populationinstitute.org/ ...
we're about to screw ourselves out of room to sit down on this planet.
REDUCING population growth is now the road to survival. But I digress, just wanted to point out the utter lack of relevance of your argument.
Homosexuality is all over the globe. Embraced and celebrated????
Slow down there Day dream......why is the West, whose population, is in decline, embracing same sex marriage, at least among the ruling elites, even over the objections of the people?! That was proven in France, where the government legalized SSM over the protests of the people, including French homosexuals!

Imagine that! Gay people in France protesting against gay marriage!
You're living proof that every rose has a thorn, small minded peter.
You're living proof that some rose bushes are just a bunch of thorns that never sprout a rose.
Interesting that you would point out that the more humane (to different degrees) countries are the ones that are beginning to practice tolerance for the GLBTIQ Community ;0)
You're confusing tolerance with redefining marriage. Maintaining the Western Civilization definition of marriage, as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, doesn't prevent humane tolerance of the alphabet soup of sexual identities that seem to grow by the day. Even gay folks in France know this.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16980 Feb 19, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no one can definitively state that as true.
As it is with the effect of same sex marriage.
Marriage as defined today in the U.S.(including opposite-sex marriages) allows for one, and only one, SPOUSE.
It also allowed for husband and wife, only, yet some judges/state legislatures/referendums, thought other wise. So what's your point?
Most, if not all, of the ancillary laws that grant the 1100+ benefits of marriage rests on that basic principle. That principle did not change when same-sex couples were allowed to exercise their rights to marry.
The reason those "ancillary laws that grant the 1100+benefits of marriage" exist is because of the male female union as husband and wife. There has to be a vested interest in the marital relationship to begin with, an interest that does not exist in a same sex relationship.
But IF plural marriages are to be allowed, any law, rule, or court ruling dealing with marriage and a singular spouse would need to be adjusted or conceivably scrapped.
Soooooooooo....what? Conjugality was scrapped by some states, and suddenly you're concerned with monogamy?
So to claim that those 1100+ benefits would still be there and provide the same exact benefits that they do today is disingenuous.
It's disingenuous to advocate for the rejection of conjugality, and argue in favor of monogamy!
But then again your entire poly argument is disingenuous.
Your entire "just redefine marriage for us, but not for them" argument is disingenuous. Seriously....does it really matter to you, or any other SSM advocate, if polygamy in some form is legalized? Or even siblings?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16981 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a vested interest in the marital relationship to begin with, an interest that does not exist in a same sex relationship.
Hate to inform you, but my wife and I have a vested interest in our marital relationship for the EXACT same reasons that a husband and wife have a vested interest in their martial relationship without children or even with children.......and NOTHING you post can EVER change that!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16982 Feb 19, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to inform you, but my wife and I have a vested interest in our marital relationship for the EXACT same reasons that a husband and wife have a vested interest in their martial relationship without children or even with children.......and NOTHING you post can EVER change that!!!
Calm down.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16983 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it is with the effect of same sex marriage.
It also allowed for husband and wife, only, yet some judges/state legislatures/referendums, thought other wise. So what's your point?
The restriction on the sex of the marriage participants has been ruled unconstitutional; the number restriction hasn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The reason those "ancillary laws that grant the 1100+benefits of marriage" exist is because of the male female union as husband and wife.
Technically, yes. But that was also a result of discrimination against gays that prohibited legal recognition of same sex marriage. Now that 17 states and the federal government are recognizing same sex marriages, all of those benefits just as easily flow to same sex couples.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a vested interest in the marital relationship to begin with, an interest that does not exist in a same sex relationship.
No, lying *sswipe Peter, there is NO constitutional requirement for the state to have a "vested interest" in any marital relationship before recognizing it as marriage. Marriage is a fundamental right. Period. The state is required to recognize the exercise of fundamental rights by citizens unless there is a legitimate compelling interest to restrict the exercise of such rights. Repeating your lie will never make it true.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Soooooooooo....what? Conjugality was scrapped by some states, and suddenly you're concerned with monogamy?
Conjugality still results from every marriage in every state, stupid Peter. It's not been "scrapped", regardless of how many times you lie otherwise.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's disingenuous to advocate for the rejection of conjugality, and argue in favor of monogamy!
He's done no such thing. Conjugality still results from all marriages in the US, whether the participants are same sex or opposite sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your entire "just redefine marriage for us, but not for them" argument is disingenuous.
You don't get to tell gays how they can exercise their right to petition government to address THEIR grievances, stupid Peter. Nothing is stopping polygamists or siblings who want to marry from filing their own legal challenges against the marriage law restrictions that prevent them from marrying. Such legal grievances are evaluated independently on their own merits, NOT collectively as you erroneously insist.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously....does it really matter to you, or any other SSM advocate, if polygamy in some form is legalized? Or even siblings?
If they can demonstrate the currently accepted compelling state interests that prevent the marriages they seek are actually unconstitutional, no. But they don't get a free pass just because you're too stupid to understand constitutional law and are pissed off that court after court is now soundly rejecting every one of your feeble arguments against same sex marriage.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16984 Feb 19, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down.
Hormones in surround sound......extra-gen

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16985 Feb 19, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to inform you, but my wife and I have a vested interest in our marital relationship for the EXACT same reasons that a husband and wife have a vested interest in their martial relationship without children or even with children.......and NOTHING you post can EVER change that!!!
Uhhhhhhhh........ohhhhhhhh.... .kayyyyyy.....not exactly in line with what I wrote.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a vested interest in the marital relationship to begin with, an interest that does not exist in a same sex relationship.
The point, which you already know, is there is no vested state interest in a same sex relationship.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16986 Feb 19, 2014
THAT white guy wrote:
<quoted text> May i point out that Single Motherhood is a choice.Stop supporting them with Taxpayer money and it will largely stop.Neither the girl's family,the neighbors,nor the Black church will want to support them.
Then tell the men to choose to ask the young women for their hands in marriage BEFORE they try to get into their panties.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16987 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhhhh........ohhhhhhhh.... .kayyyyyy.....not exactly in line with what I wrote.
<quoted text>
The point, which you already know, is there is no vested state interest in a same sex relationship.
I used your words Pete..........actually there is NO compelling State interest to deny Gay and Lesbian individuals the right to marry........and there is as much as a vested State interest in my marriage as there is in yours........just because you don't want to grasp that concept is your BIGGEST issue!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#16988 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hormones in surround sound......extra-gen
Ya know you've lost when you agree with a known idiot who posts asinine comments all day long.....wonder if you two are brothers?

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#16989 Feb 19, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your efforts to defend me. However, you must realize that Flunkie just makes it up as he goes along. None of what he wrote about me is true.
Oh, I know he's nothing more than an unemployed loser with too much time on his hands and you are more than capable of defending yourself. I think I'm just going to ignore him for a while, his deliberate (?) stupidity it simply too much at times;0)
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#16991 Feb 19, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hormones in surround sound......extra-gen
B!tch 7.1 My girlfriend's got it tonight too. Comes over and starts in with the Frankie why did you do this? Why didn't you do that Frankie? bla bla bla

No boom boom tonight. Maybe tomorrow she'll appreciate me more. Ah good times!

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 Trump - not aware' of invite to Prince Harry an... 36 min Dr Wu 63
News What will Meghan wear? Royal wedding dress a to... 58 min Rosie P 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr cpeter1313 18,899
News In India, even gay people want an arranged marr... 2 hr Tea Bag Residue C... 1
News Catholic schoolteacher in Fla. fired days after... 4 hr Tea Bag Residue C... 14
News Ohio businessman, deported after 38 years in US... 6 hr spocko 50
News Court rules California bakeries may REFUSE to d... 8 hr Wondering 60
More from around the web