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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17859 Mar 8, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
That raises the logical question, if a same sex relationship can be designated "marriage", why not a plural marriage one, which historically is a valid form of marriage throughout time and place, and is practiced in this country, albeit with out state recognition?
So then you agree it can be, but is simply waiting for a lawsuit to start the process. Very good.
I've stated multiple times I don't oppose civil polygamy but neither do I feel compelled to actively advocate for it either since I have no personal interest in it. I'm sorry you're apparently too senile to keep track of the positions of various posters. It likely explains why you're unable to ever learn anything as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I advocate for the legal definition of marriage to remain a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. If state choose to, or are forced to jettison said definition, it should recognize other marriages as well.[QUOTE]
You'e pathetically naive if your think legislators or the courts are going to remove all marriage restrictions (including number, consanguinity, age and ability to consent) simply because one restriction has been successfully challenged in court. Legislators are naturally risk averse until forced to act and the courts only rule on actual legal issues presented to them. Hence the need for polygamists to file a lawsuit challenging anti-bigamy laws if you expect civil polygamy to be legalized any time soon.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]
Actually there is a difference. Far too often the movement to redefine marriage gives the impression both by advocates themselves, and the media, that there isn't opposition to it within the gay community.
The existence of such people in no way changes the validity of the legal arguments in favor of same sex marriage nor does it have any impact on court rulings. No one has ever said gays act in monolithic lock step; they're just as diverse politically, religiously, ethnically, etc. as straight people. If people don't realize that it's because they're blinded by their own prejudice against gays and have a need to think otherwise.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Very good, you are officially on record as supporting plural marriage.
Is that what your pathetic English comprehension took away from my comments? Not actively opposing is not the same thing as actively supporting. My position is the former, not the latter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I use it as it is commonly understood, culturally, socially, historically, and/or religiously.
Your "common understanding" is outdated.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugality references opposite sex, husband and wife, both sexes.
If a state declares an apple an orange, does that result in the apple becoming a citrus fruit?
The meaning of the word has evolved and isn't strictly limited to opposite sex/husband and wife/both sexes any more. The reason being that conjugality results from marriage so now that same sex couples can marry it applies to them as well. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending time stood still right before Massachusetts gave legal recognition to same sex marriage and the marriage landscape hasn't changed is both stupid and juvenile. As is your fruit analogy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You contradicted yourself. Monogamy, as in one wife or husband at a time, as opposed to polygamy, not a reference to sexual fidelity.
There's no contradiction; I simply used a different meaning of the word than you did:

mo·nog·a·my
n.
1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monogamy
Pietro Armando wrote:
Monogamy, not polygamy, nor sexual fidelity.
Monogamy in the sense I used the word as indicated above.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17860 Mar 8, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>

so, servants and slaves are not necessarily the same thing. the slavery that was practiced here in the south was not what the Bible condones. and history shows us that we as a nation paid a great price for our sin. God judged us.
A veritable crock of sh!it.

Other human beings had had enough of the cruelty the south practiced. England didn't come in on the side of the south (southerners thought their support was guaranteed due to KING COTTON) because the English people despised slavery, the merchants would have sided with the south but they didn't dare go against the public tide.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17861 Mar 8, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there you go again using that word "employ". so if they were employing her than they should make accommodations for her religious convictions and simply asked another florist.
and once again, she would equally decline to service anyone's ss "wedding" regardless of their orientation. so there is no discrimination apart from your couple trying to force their convictions on someone who disagrees with the choices that they are making.
My religious convictions instruct you to move to a seat in the back of the bus.

YAWN, I remember your parents using the same inane arguments back in the '60's against civil rights. Deja vu all over again.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17862 Mar 8, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem very hung up on pretending there are levels of slavery. Some acceptable, some not. It's similar to the way you see discrimination.
"Slavery AS IT WAS PRACTICED..." as if some practicing of slavery is quite all right.
The levels that fundamentalists will go to excuse repugnant behavior is appalling.
<quoted text>
I love it when you fundies try and downplay the atrocities of your god and his words!! You intentionally try to spin that these slaves were servants only!! Yes, the translations were "servant", "bondservant" and "manservant". You do this when you want to make your bible and your atrocious god seem more palatable! Typical of your deceitfulness.
Regardless if they are referred to as "servants" or not, they were still SLAVES. They were bought and sold and treated no differently then lifestock.
Above, you change Exodus 21:2-6 to "Hebrew servant" to make it more appealing. Guess you forgot to include the first four words that proceed it. Here, I'll refresh your memory.... "YOU MAY BUY A Hebrew servant". That's slavery. The entire passage ends with ....[he] WILL BELONG TO HIS MASTER FOREVER.
You can do all the fundie spinning you want, but NO WHERE does your bible condemn the practice of slavery. These people were PROPERTY.....SLAVES. Trying to soften this by calling them "servants" is disgusting.
Typical bigot's strategy, first you trivialize it.....sort of like Hitler trivializing a Jewish person's right to exist. Yes, the bible condones it, you can make the bible condone or condemn anything.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17863 Mar 8, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Ask Barronelle Stutzman if being sued for not serving a same sex wedding is imaginary. Ask the baker and photographer too.
Same sex marriage means neighbor suing neighbor. Its like the IRS leaking the National Organization for Marriage's tax filing to their political enemies or targeting Tea Party organizations.
She wasn't required to attend or celebrate, she was asked to perform a service that her business advertised. How about all you xtians get out of business, politics and school boards, just trust in your lord to provide. Quit trying to insert your personal beliefs into the lives of others. Then we'd all be happy;0)
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#17865 Mar 9, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That raises the logical question, if a same sex relationship can be designated "marriage", why not a plural marriage one, which historically is a valid form of marriage throughout time and place, and is practiced in this country, albeit with out state recognition?
Logical?

Only in YOUR mind.

A is legal, therefore B should be legal?????????? You think that is logical?
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#17866 Mar 9, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>What? And the join all you brothas' and sistas's in the welfare line? No thanks. Peace out and your welcome.
Welfare line?

ahhaahahahahah
ahahhaahhahaah

Very lame and transparent.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#17867 Mar 9, 2014
DebraE wrote:
She wasn't required to attend or celebrate, she was asked to perform a service that her business advertised. How about all you xtians get out of business, politics and school boards, just trust in your lord to provide. Quit trying to insert your personal beliefs into the lives of others. Then we'd all be happy;0)
Her business never advertised serving same sex weddings; that would violate her religious faith. Same sex marriage means Christians sued for not helping celebrate same sex wedding ceremonies.

I wouldn't tell anyone to give up and let marriage become sex segregated; it's up to each of us to do the right thing.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17869 Mar 9, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Her business never advertised serving same sex weddings; that would violate her religious faith.
Nor did she post notice she only sold flowers for weddings to certain classes of people that did not include gays. Likely because that would have publicly proclaimed her non-compliance with state anti-discrimination law.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage means Christians sued for not helping celebrate same sex wedding ceremonies.
No, some Christians erroneously thinking their religious beliefs makes them above the law caused them to be sued for breaking the law, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I wouldn't tell anyone to give up and let marriage become sex segregated
That's because you're a bigot who erroneously thinks you have the right to dictate to others who they can and can't marry in violation of constitutionally protected liberty interest to choose ones marriage partner. The only exception is if the state can assert a legitimate compelling to restrict such a personal liberty interest. And as we're seeing with increasing frequency, federal courts are ruling no such compelling interest exists to justify the sex restriction in marriage laws.
Brian_G wrote:
it's up to each of us to do the right thing.
Since you advocate harm, discrimination and infringement of the fundamental rights of others, Brian, you obviously have failed big time in doing "the right thing".

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#17870 Mar 9, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Nor did she post notice she only sold flowers for weddings to certain classes of people that did not include gays....
That's untrue, she's sold to gays in the past and continues to do so now. If you want to buy flowers in her shop, you're more than welcome.

What she doesn't do is create floral arrangements in celebration of same sex marriage. Even if straight folks want to marry for convenience, no sex segregated ceremonies. Get it, she's Christian.

You have the right to not attend and serve a religious ceremony; you live in a free country. At least, we had religious freedom until they started suing Christians.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17871 Mar 9, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
That's untrue
It is true. Perhaps you should take the time to actually read what others' comments before posting, Brian. I stated:

"Nor did she post notice she only sold flowers for weddings to certain classes of people that did not include gays...."

She didn't post a sign saying she only sold flowers for WEDDINGS to non-gays. Asserting otherwise is a lie.
Brian_G wrote:
she's sold to gays in the past and continues to do so now. If you want to buy flowers in her shop, you're more than welcome.
You're not welcome if you're gay and want to buy flowers for your wedding. That's the whole reason she's in this legal mess: because she violated anti-discrmination law by refusing service to a member of a protected class.
Brian_G wrote:
What she doesn't do is create floral arrangements in celebration of same sex marriage.
That's not her choice under the law. If she creates and sells floral arrangements for ANY weddings then she's obligated under the law to sell them to any member of a protected class who wants to buy flowers for a wedding.
Brian_G wrote:
Even if straight folks want to marry for convenience, no sex segregated ceremonies.
Then she'd still be violating anti-discrimination since the protected class is "sexual orientation" which includes heterosexuals and bisexuals in addition to homosexuals.
Brian_G wrote:
Get it, she's Christian.
Yes, she's a Christian law breaker.
Brian_G wrote:
You have the right to not attend and serve a religious ceremony
She wasn't asked t attend a religious ceremony, Brian. She was asked to provide flowers for a wedding and she refused before any of the details were even discussed. The gay customers never mentioned if their wedding would be a :religious ceremony" so your assertion that is the basis of her refusal is a LIE. Further, flowers are placed BEFORE the ceremony, religious or otherwise even starts, so even if she personally delivered the flowers she wouldn't have been there during the ceremony. So again, your justification is a LIE.

Why do you lie, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
you live in a free country.
We live in a freer country, Brian. NONE of our civil or fundamental rights are absolute, including freedom of religion; ALL of our rights are subject to some limitations in order for us to have a functioning society. Christians aren't exempt regardless of how much you whine otherwise.
Brian_G wrote:
At least, we had religious freedom until they started suing Christians.
You still have religious freedom, Brian. It's just no different than the fact Christians can no longer discriminate against blacks based on their religious beliefs which they used in the past to justify slavery and Jim Crow segregation.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17872 Mar 9, 2014
Liberals R Defective wrote:
<quoted text>What? And the join all you brothas' and sistas's in the welfare line? No thanks. Peace out and your welcome.
Sorry sparky, I work for a living.

BTW, it's "you're welcome". You're is a contraction for 'you are' and 'your' indicates ownership or possession of an entity (a thing). I don't possess a 'welcome ', it isn't even a noun which is a tangible thing.

Homeschooled much?

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17874 Mar 9, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Her business never advertised serving same sex weddings; that would violate her religious faith. Same sex marriage means Christians sued for not helping celebrate same sex wedding ceremonies.
I wouldn't tell anyone to give up and let marriage become sex segregated; it's up to each of us to do the right thing.
Sorry little brian, she did not advertise her limitations as to whom she would or wouldn't server. Know why? I'll clue you in, it's illegal and she damned well knew it. It doesn't matter if she's Christian, Hindu or Hari Krishna.

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it doesn't exist." Friedrich Nietzsche

Try sticking to the legal way bri, or face the consequence of your actions like an adult instead of a whiney child.

“Common sense prevails.”

Since: Mar 14

3rd rock from the sun.

#17875 Mar 9, 2014
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
<quoted text>...like the gay couple tried to with the photographers that were against the situation did?
You'll have to give me a link to that one, or a link to the right thread. Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to compare apples to oranges here? We'll see.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17877 Mar 9, 2014
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
You were asked for a link about the photographer you mentioned, not a link back to that poster's own post. Illiterate much?
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Because you're not very intelligent, obviously.
You're one to talk when you can't even comprehend a simple request in English.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Also, because getting your own "logic" worked against you made you mad, so now you're just deflecting.
If you're referring to your linked post where the other poster made a comment about their "religious convictions", you're obviously too stupid to understand the comment was for rhetorical effect and not the poster's actual beliefs. She was referencing the fact many white Christians during the segregation era cited their religious beliefs as justification for discriminating against blacks.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Now, you're about to go off on some tirade about ssm "not" being that couple's "personal" beliefs, or some other irrelevant babble, but I'd suggest against that. I can already tell you their own marriage,
.... is VERY "personal", to them.
One's personal feelings about their own or someone's else's marriage is not the issue nor even relevant. The instances of Christian business owners being sued result from their violations of anti-discrimination laws applicable to businesses deemed public accommodations. Some but not all states include sexual orientation as a protected class within their anti-dsicrmination laws, including all the ones in which these Christian business owners are being sued for refusing service to gays. Neither freedom of religion nor specific religious beliefs exempt one from obeying civil laws.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#17879 Mar 9, 2014
"Gay Hairdresser Refuses to Do Governor’s Hair Because She Opposes Gay Marriage".....?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17880 Mar 9, 2014
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
<quoted text>
... <quoted text>
Hissy fit,.... much?
Pointing out your illiteracy and general stupidity is stating a demonstrated fact, not having a "hissy fit".

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17882 Mar 9, 2014
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Well, you let me know if and when that happens.
It already has. Pretending otherwise doesn't change that fact.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
She asked for a link "to the right thread", and that's what I posted.
No, she asked you for a link to the post or thread in which you claimed :

"like the gay couple tried to with the photographers that were against the situation did?"

To which she responded:

"You'll have to give me a link to that one, or a link to the right thread."

And then you gave her a link to a post she made in this very thread that mentioned nothing about a photographer.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
The rest of your babbling rant was ignored, because it started out dead wrong.
Says the illiterate moron who can't read and comprehend plain English.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#17884 Mar 9, 2014
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
No she didn't.
I proved otherwise.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Stop stuffing posts with straw just so you can knock it back out, you pitiful lying dunce.
I'm posting facts, not creating straw men, you illiterate, lying *sswipe.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
ALL her request said was
"a link to that one, or a link to the right thread."
Her request was in espouse to YOUR comments and "that one" referred the post or thread you mentioned about the photographers.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
.....and that's what posted.
Your link said nothing about photographers.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
Your hissy fits and immature buffoonery will never change reality anywhere
Your delusions don't count as reality.
Moulinyan Parmesian wrote:
... besides that vacuous expanse between your ears.
If my mind is vacuous yours doesn't even rise to the intelligence level of primordial ooze, cupcake.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#17886 Mar 10, 2014
DebraE wrote:
Sorry little brian, she did not advertise her limitations as to whom she would or wouldn't server. Know why? I'll clue you in, it's illegal and she damned well knew it. It doesn't matter if she's Christian, Hindu or Hari Krishna. "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it doesn't exist." Friedrich Nietzsche Try sticking to the legal way bri, or face the consequence of your actions like an adult instead of a whiney child.
The left would have Christians sued to force them to help celebrate same sex marriage; that's reason enough to keep marriage one man and one woman.

Same sex marriage brings a new standard of sex segregation to perfectly integrated one man and one woman marriage. If you like diversity and affirmative action, stop sex apartheid marriage.

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 Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr Levy Hater 31,940
News Italy earthquake: Amid the rubble, a couple say... 14 hr who do u call 1
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 20 hr Rose_NoHo 60
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) Aug 29 mariam 176
News Rizzoli & Isles' introduction of Maura's husban... Aug 27 Ex Fan 1
More from around the web