Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5137 Jun 29, 2013
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

#5138 Jun 29, 2013
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

#5139 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5140 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5141 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5142 Jul 2, 2013
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

#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

#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.

Since: Mar 13

.......

#5145 Jul 2, 2013
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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5146 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5147 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5148 Jul 2, 2013
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 that’s 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

#5149 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5150 Jul 2, 2013
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

#5151 Jul 2, 2013
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 • 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 monogamy’s core institution and whom it should include. Most miss the following point: DOMA doesn’t 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

#5152 Jul 2, 2013
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

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5153 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A touch of fresh air.
<quoted text>
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.
[<quoted text>
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 that’s 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.'
<quoted text>
Could a state decide to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone? If so, would the right still exist?
Thank you.

Indeed! Polygamy would require it's own legal action.

Yes you are correct, states will eventually be disallowed marriage discrimination.

Yes I see your connection also. Makes perfect sense in this legal context. I believe the Morrill Act is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Poly people could be allowed to marry, but legal succession, taxation and inheritance would be limited to a primary relationship. Keep in mind, Kings in the Bible only had one successor.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5154 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
It this really important? If so, why?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5155 Jul 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Don't worry, liddy.....I'm sure the anticipation is killing you. Relax, have some vino, tune in later. Ciao
Why bother, you obviously lack the capacity to make a rational argument for your position, but that is at least in part because your position is utterly untenable.

There is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you are up to the task.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5156 Jul 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why bother, you obviously lack the capacity to make a rational argument for your position, but that is at least in part because your position is utterly untenable.
There is no valid reason to deny same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you are up to the task.
There is no valid reason to allow same sex relationships to be called marriage. Individuals can legally marry, as the state defines marriage. Sorry no couple's right.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 8 min Amused 65
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 47 min Respect71 45,158
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 49 min guest 1,092
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr carter county res... 24,777
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 7 hr Pleasures feminin... 55
News Singer Greg Gould: 'I was told not to be too gay' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
News Gay Pride just 'not black enough' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
More from around the web