Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 246)

Showing posts 4,901 - 4,920 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
anonymousofcours e

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5133
Jun 29, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You should probably read up on a few of Ms Dean's pronouncements. She has an ongoing foot-in-mouth problem. That said, I don't imagine that she ever treats any individual differently nor with disrespect.
On the other hand, though my home-town just north of Mason-Dixon was not as rabidly prejudice as towns just south, all of the symptoms you describe existed there. My mother was one of the leaders who realized how badly things needed to change. I certainly heard the n-word. But that is probably the only bad word that I never used. Ever.
I'm afraid Ms Dean needs to move into proactive opposition to subtle prejudice.
yes of course, that is how north of the Mason Dixon line manages racism.....very subtly. we all know it's still there. one just has to watch more closely, pay attention to "private" conversations which occur among two Caucasian people, how Caucasians are given treatments and privileges which differ from non-Caucasians. How do I know this? Because, I am mixed yet can definitely pass for Caucasian. It's amazing the info I have discovered until they learn I am not actually full Caucasian nor am I assimilated to white culture.

the same level of racism occurs in the North just as well as the South, but you're correct in saying that it is subtle! I guess that makes you proud? Or, clever?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5134
Jun 29, 2013
 
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read the WHOLE article?
Yesssssss....I did.
Do you realize Olson responded? Quite eloquently, I think.
Yes......and not quite.
From the article YOU cited: Olson responded by saying that polygamy raises questions "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody ó it is an entirely different thing."
"If a state prohibits polygamy," he said, "itís prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."
He didn't argue that it shouldn't be legal. Nor did he point out the legal reality. Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife, in 30 plus states, and that marriage would be valid nation wide. He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid.
And I'm still trying to figure out if you support or oppose it. Without taking a side, you REALLY just look like your only goal is to forestall debate about SSM, to load it up with as much baggage as you can find so that discussion is too cumbersome.
It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage for them and no one else. Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy. So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife. Who knows....we may reach a point when it becomes pointless for the state to recognize marriage at all.
We could say that the repeal of DADT increased the odds that SSM would become legal. We could go back further and say that Lawrence v. Texas increased the odds that DADT would fall. Each step might have (or might not have, who knows) precipitated the next.
L v. T paved the way for SSM. Didn't Scalia opine that? SSM paves the way for polygamy, which has ways loomed in the background as the issue took shape. We now have polygamists cheering the recent ruling.
Did you support the decision in Lawrence,
I hadn't given it much thought. Homosexuality is what it is.
or the repeal of DADT?
I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field.
Maybe THOSE will one day precipitate polygamy, and should have been denied on those grounds. We could deny ANY right, if we're worried about who else may want it in the future.
No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined. U seek a right based on your redefinition of marriage. So why can't the same reasoning be applied to polygamy? Their right to marry is based on heir definition of marriage. Everybody gets to define it, and the state just rubber stamps it, right?
Parson Browne

Wilmington, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5135
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

homosexuality is a disgusting perverted sin
its no wonder gays are condemned to the pit
but they can be redeemed if they confess their sins and turn around from their filth
KingsloveQueens

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5136
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Parson Browne wrote:
homosexuality is a disgusting perverted sin
its no wonder gays are condemned to the pit
but they can be redeemed if they confess their sins and turn around from their filth
God loves the person not the sin ..C/S with your statement above (= nice to know we have normal people with values and morals and the love of God still in existance..

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5137
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EdmondWA wrote:
I wouldn't even have dared try to predict Windsor or Prop 8, and you want to know how I think the court will react to a hypothetical case that you already know I feel is unrelated to this issue, and one that's already been settled 150 years ago?
We both know it never went away, now, thanks to SSM, polygamists are coming out of the closet, starring in reality shows, and cheering SCOTUS rulings related to SSM.
My answer is: What Olson said.
Copy cat.
Maybe it doesn't.
Thanks for the honesty.
I don't support polygamy per se, I support the right of humans to not be disenfranchised by their government when they are kind, peaceful and cooperative citizens. Their rights should not be contingent on who they love, or how many, or which gender, or maybe even how closely related they are. Honestly, other than the genetic issues, incestuous marriages would have no more affect on me than my marriage will have on you.
Man oh man, you're on a roll. More honesty.
If the state thinks there are OTHER considerations in recognizing marriages, then those will have to be addressed one at a time, as we did this week. When the polygamists or the incestuous get up in front of the judges, they just have to make their cases as best they can, and hope that the law supports them, as we did.
Is it possible we could be witnessing the eventual disengagement of marriage by the state, or its delegalization? Let's assume for the sake of discussion. SSM becomes the law of the land, and in the process, one, or a few states legalize polygamy in some form. Other than incest, what other prohibitions remain? At that point why does the government need to be involved?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5138
Jun 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>you're trying to expand the conversation and shift the emphasis. the point is no one should be forced to participate in, condone or celebrate anything that they feel is immorally wrong. as a contractor i should not be required to work on a strip joint. nor should i be required to offer my services to a religious organization that i believe is greatly harming its people.
they were always free to buy flowers from her. they wanted her to go and arrange the flowers for them at the ceremony. flowers are an expression of support. this lady respectfully declined the invitation to go and support their wedding.
they were always welcome AT her business. she just simply declined to participate in showing support for their wedding.
Wedding flowers are arranged at the shop and delivered to the wedding facility. Typically, someone else places the arrangements around the facility.

Creating bouquets for a same-sex wedding is not more approving of the marriage than delivering flowers to a funeral is approving of the decedent.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5139
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Vice President Joe Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate.
Our Highest Court decided he voted out of malice. The jokes on you!
DOMA has been struck down.

15 countries now recognize marriage equality.

13 U.S. states and Washington DC, and now the U.S. federal government recognize marriage equality.

Gays and lesbian civil advancements are now recognized in public school curriculum.

Gays and lesbians are fully recognized on public television and radio and news.

More and more parents are raising their children in environments where they will never be indoctrinated into a religiously generated sense of shame about who they are, should they HAPPEN be gay.

JOKES ON YOU VILLAGE IDIOT!!!

Knuckle dragging fool!!!

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5140
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Parson Browne wrote:
homosexuality is a disgusting perverted sin
its no wonder gays are condemned to the pit
but they can be redeemed if they confess their sins and turn around from their filth
Vile, blasphemous LIES. You clearly are a total stranger to God.
Homosexuality is not a sin AT ALL. It is not "perverted" and is only "disgusting" to Nazi scum like yourself.
It is a lie that slurs and insults God to claim they are "condemned to the pit." Nothing could be more UNTRUE.

A person CANNOT "confess" sins that DO NOT EXIST, and being gay is NOT a sin. Being gay is also not "filth," while your hate and lies are.

And a person CANNOT "turn around" from being gay, either. There is no such thing as a former homosexual.

Congratulations, it's hard for you to cram that much hate and that many lies into so few words.

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5141
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando--
"Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife,"

Proving it's the bigots and homophobes, NOT gay people, insulting marriage. For you to pretend this is a "marriage," them "marrying" a person they do not love and have no attraction to, shows you don't give a damn about the institution.

It is NOT equality to tell someone "You can get married, but not to anyone you actually love or are attracted to." This remains a cheap, stupid lie. No, gay people CANNOT marry in those states.

"He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid."

No, it isn't. The "slippery slope" argument is a load of bull, they tried this stunt when interracial marriage was legalized. This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with incest. Totally separate issue.
"It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage"

Lie. They're NOT redefining marriage. It means exactly the same thing it always has.

"for them and no one else."

Lie. This is about EQUALITY, and your lame-ass "slippery slope" argument deals with unrelated issues that DO NOT damage equality or constitutional rights.

"Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy."

Lie. It does NOT.

"So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage"

ANGLO American? You don't get such a blatant admission of the ties between racism and homophobia often.

"as a monogamous union of husband and wife."

"Monogamous" is NOT part of the definition, a guy who has an affair is still married.

"I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field."

First off, Clinton served this nation in many ways for many years. Secondly, the "morale" complaint was used by those who tried to keep blacks out of the military too.

If your "morale" is harmed by gays or blacks being around you, you are the one with the problem.

"No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined."

A pathetic, stupid, and intentional LIE. The right to marry the person you want to, the person you love and are attracted to, is DENIED gay couples. The "Definition" you are clinging to DISCRIMINATES against gay people, and violates the constitution of the United States. Gay people DO NOT have the same rights, liar.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5142
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

Is it possible we could be witnessing the eventual disengagement of marriage by the state, or its delegalization? Let's assume for the sake of discussion. SSM becomes the law of the land, and in the process, one, or a few states legalize polygamy in some form. Other than incest, what other prohibitions remain? At that point why does the government need to be involved?
Mixing things up again my friend. SSM could become the law of the land after enough discrimination suits. Of course, with the federal regs cleared, same-sex couples can get married in a state which has legal SSM and get equal protection for Federal regulations. This would mean that state tax laws would be discriminatory in states without SSM. It will only take one test to make SSM the law of the land. No state would be able to legalize polygamy because of Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which is still the law. There is no connection. Polygamy laws stand unless some group of proponents can make their case and get the law changed. Good question. Why should government be involved in marriage? The answer is as old as marriage itself. The government has an interest in legal succession and inheritance matters. The interest is one of Tax collection and is financial in nature. The government need not be involved in religious issues. The first amendment allows religious institutions to discriminate as they see fit.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5143
Jul 2, 2013
 
Here is the link to the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1773 which discriminated against the Mormons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Big...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5144
Jul 2, 2013
 
OkieDarren wrote:
Pietro Armando--
"Gay and lesbian citizens CAN marry, as marriage is legally defined, a union of husband and wife,"
Proving it's the bigots and homophobes, NOT gay people, insulting marriage. For you to pretend this is a "marriage," them "marrying" a person they do not love and have no attraction to, shows you don't give a damn about the institution.
It is NOT equality to tell someone "You can get married, but not to anyone you actually love or are attracted to." This remains a cheap, stupid lie. No, gay people CANNOT marry in those states.
"He also didn't address the issue of incest. The question raised by the justice is still valid."
No, it isn't. The "slippery slope" argument is a load of bull, they tried this stunt when interracial marriage was legalized. This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with incest. Totally separate issue.
"It seems most SSMers want to the state to redefine legal marriage"
Lie. They're NOT redefining marriage. It means exactly the same thing it always has.
"for them and no one else."
Lie. This is about EQUALITY, and your lame-ass "slippery slope" argument deals with unrelated issues that DO NOT damage equality or constitutional rights.
"Plus ignoring the fact that legal SSM opens the door to polygamy."
Lie. It does NOT.
"So the ultimate goal is fundamently alter the Anglo American definition of marriage"
ANGLO American? You don't get such a blatant admission of the ties between racism and homophobia often.
"as a monogamous union of husband and wife."
"Monogamous" is NOT part of the definition, a guy who has an affair is still married.
"I thought Clinton was playing politics with that. Strange that a man who never served, and with all other other issues facing the country at that time, he chose that issue. Personally, I was concerned of the impact it could have on military impact, and morale of the troops in the field."
First off, Clinton served this nation in many ways for many years. Secondly, the "morale" complaint was used by those who tried to keep blacks out of the military too.
If your "morale" is harmed by gays or blacks being around you, you are the one with the problem.
"No right is being denied, every man and woman has the same right to marry, as marriage is defined."
A pathetic, stupid, and intentional LIE. The right to marry the person you want to, the person you love and are attracted to, is DENIED gay couples. The "Definition" you are clinging to DISCRIMINATES against gay people, and violates the constitution of the United States. Gay people DO NOT have the same rights, liar.
Wow....so misinformation....so little time at the moment, but don't despair Okey Dokey, it'll be set straight.

“Black In Public,Black Out Loud”

Since: Mar 13

Black And Proud

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5145
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I think its kinda funny, they wouldn't dare push it on Islam because they know Muslims WILL lash out on the people on England/Europe and America, which would probably cause terrorist attacks and riots.

They push this on Christians because they know Christians wouldn't really make a big fuss out of it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5146
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow....so misinformation....so little time at the moment, but don't despair Okey Dokey, it'll be set straight.
Do You notice how you make the claim, but do nothing to substantiate it?

That's generally a sign that you can't back up your argument with cold hard fact.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5147
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow....so misinformation....so little time at the moment, but don't despair Okey Dokey, it'll be set straight.
Wow! An honest reply. LOL

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5148
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Mixing things up again my friend.
A touch of fresh air.
SSM could become the law of the land after enough discrimination suits. Of course, with the federal regs cleared, same-sex couples can get married in a state which has legal SSM and get equal protection for Federal regulations. This would mean that state tax laws would be discriminatory in states without SSM. It will only take one test to make SSM the law of the land. No state would be able to legalize polygamy because of Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which is still the law.
Many complexities. The DOMA ruling could have a positive effect for polygamists seeking due criminalization. I don't see how SCOTUS can let the states define marriage, if they don't allow the possibility of plural marriage at the state level. If anything the ruling just made the waters murkier.

[
There is no connection. Polygamy laws stand unless some group of proponents can make their case and get the law changed.
Awwwwww....Wastey of course there is amico.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-23494...
Joe Darger, a man from Utah who has three wives, said the court 'has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that's certainly something thatís going to trickle down and impact us'.
Anita Wagner Illig, a leading polygamy activist as head of the group Practical Polyamory, told U.S. News & World Report that gay-rights campaigners had set a welcome precedent.
'We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,' she said.
'I would absolutely want to seek multi-partner marriage - it would eliminate a common challenge polyamorists face when two [people] are legally married and others in their group relationships aren't part of that marriage.'
Good question. Why should government be involved in marriage? The answer is as old as marriage itself. The government has an interest in legal succession and inheritance matters. The interest is one of Tax collection and is financial in nature. The government need not be involved in religious issues. The first amendment allows religious institutions to discriminate as they see fit.
Could a state decide to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone? If so, would the right still exist?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5149
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Seriously folks, the poly people are thanking their lesbian sisters and gay brother for blazing the trail. Deny the connection all you want, but the red headed step children of the SSM movement aren't going away.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5150
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do You notice how you make the claim, but do nothing to substantiate it?
That's generally a sign that you can't back up your argument with cold hard fact.
I'm trying to stop......ha ha ha ha ha....laughing at what was written. Tears are streaming down my face from laughter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5151
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WasteWater wrote:
Here is the link to the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1773 which discriminated against the Mormons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Big...
Thanks for the link, did a quick read of it. There are other groups that practice polygamy. It's evident among Muslim immigrants,
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/56282277...

Polygamy and DOMA
By mark goldfeder
First Published May 11 2013 01:01 am ē Last Updated May 11 2013 01:01 am
While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, activists along the political spectrum are voicing their opinions on monogamyís core institution and whom it should include. Most miss the following point: DOMA doesnít just prohibit gay marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also prohibits plural marriage by limiting it to one and one.

The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5152
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do You notice how you make the claim, but do nothing to substantiate it?
That's generally a sign that you can't back up your argument with cold hard fact.
Don't worry, liddy.....I'm sure the anticipation is killing you. Relax, have some vino, tune in later. Ciao

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,901 - 4,920 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••