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.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5378 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
DOMA sections 1 and 2 are still good, the courts leave the decision to the states.
Dumpling, Section 1 of DOMA is its title and Section 2 merely provides states with protections against claims that they are violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. That protection is meaningless in cases where the issue is equal protection.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#5379 Jul 8, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>until they have no children or grandchildren to take responsibility for them when they become old.
But that would be true for childless heterosexual married couples. So your point is...?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5380 Jul 8, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR ashamed?? LOL!!!!
"Same sex marriage harms homosexuals"
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
"Same sex marriage creates a new standard of gender segregation"
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
"Marriage equality is necrophilia marriage."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage, an idea out of it's time."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Following a social policy that disregards gender differences at the behest of homosexuals might not be the wisest policy."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it is a step toward chaos, depravity and decadence."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Homosexuals don't react to the opposite sex like heterosexuals [...] It's like asking a blind man to select a color scheme for your home."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Marriage equality is polygamy.[...] Men and women are not equal"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it causes employee cost risks and drives up unemployment."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like big government excessive spending."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"DNA says, "Same sex marriage is wrong.""
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
" Even if your argument against same sex marriage is illogical, it still has merit"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is wrong because you can't have it both ways."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like a day without sunshine."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"A day without sunshine is like night."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"If you wonder why your mortgage is upside down; same sex marriage is the same problem."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Why is same sex marriage bad? Why not?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is worse than paganism."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like oversensitiveness, like a social allergy."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"A same sex couple is naturally sterile, they don't qualify as marriage."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage has been tested by history and found wanting."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is bad because it's proponents defame people based on their orientation"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like a political leader without values or goals"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like child abuse"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Marriage must always remain husband and wife in honor of our mothers and fathers."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
" Same sex marriage hurts children, post hoc ergo propter hoc,"
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is ersatz equality."
http://www.topix.com/forum/san-diego/TH6FC2NT...
"Same sex marriage is like mob violence."
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...
Let me guess, these were included in those THOUSANDS of reasons, right? LOL!
great synopsis of the history of brian's idiocy.

thank you.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5381 Jul 8, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
great synopsis of the history of brian's idiocy.
thank you.
You are more than welcome! I could have added more, but you know, Topix space issues!!

I personally loved, "a day without sunshine is like night"!!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5382 Jul 8, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are more than welcome! I could have added more, but you know, Topix space issues!!
I personally loved, "a day without sunshine is like night"!!!
LOL

I've been reading little bi's bumper-stickeresque comments for years now - starting in the el paso gay marriage poll. he posts the same bumper stickers in every thread he can find.

never minding the fact that he lives in germany. he set his location to hidden after he caught enough flak about living in germany while posting in thread pertaining to american law.

my favorite, since he apparantly doesn't understand the meaning of many words, was his usage of the "necrophelia" (failed) point. he seems to go in cycles, as well.

LOL. he's quite the little chuckle, isn't she?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5383 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't a court order for NOM to disclose information; the Huffington Post published NOM's 2008 Schedule B donors list after it was processed by the IRS. There's clear evidence, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's filing to their political enemies, the HRC. Then, they used that information in the 2012 campaign against Romney.
DOMA sections 1 and 2 are still good, the courts leave the decision to the states.
Changing the subject again, I see......lol!!!

You start out discussing the leak against NOM and when someone points out that NOM hasn't won a court case and needs to disclose their donor list.....you change the subject to the 1st and 2nd Section of DOMA........please try to stay on whatever task you start!!!

By the way......DOMA only had 3 Sections and one of them is now gone.....Section 1 is nothing more than the title and then Section 2.......so in essence......only Section 2 remains and even that will either be challenged or repealed by Congress!!!

Here's the whole make-up of DOMA:
Section 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marri...

Section 1 is nothing but the Title and Section 3 has been tossed by SCOTUS..........and the last Section standing can be challenged or repealed by Congress!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#5384 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The issue isn't a court order for NOM to disclose information; the Huffington Post published NOM's 2008 Schedule B donors list after it was processed by the IRS. There's clear evidence, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's filing to their political enemies, the HRC. Then, they used that information in the 2012 campaign against Romney.
You have actual evidence to back up your allegations, right?

NO one needed to use anything against Romney.....he lost the election due to his own Stupidity!!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5385 Jul 8, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>until they have no children or grandchildren to take responsibility for them when they become old.
there's no law requiring children of aging parents to take care of them. there is no guarantee that a child of an aging parent will take care of them.

so your point is, well, pointless.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5386 Jul 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about polygamist rights? How so? There is no discrimination. Polygamy is against the law for everyone except those who migrate from a country where it is legal. Still beating this dead horse? Wanna buy some rat's ass? They are going fast.
Where in the constitution is marriage, monogamous, or polygamous, mentioned at all? It's not, as we both know. Everyone has the same right, nationwide, to marry, enter into a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife. This applies to the BGLT m.o.u.s.e crowd, and the plural marriage practitioners. Again, SSM seeks to keep the monogamy but drop the conjugal, as in husband and wife. Polygamy wants to drop the monogamy, but keep the conjugal aspect.

The rat's asses, do they come in all the colors of the rainbow flag?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5387 Jul 8, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was also largely rejected at one time that the wife was an equal partner in the marriage, but we somehow found it ok to change that too. The basis for that change was equality. Progress is a wonderful thing.
Some change, get rid of the wife all together. So much for her being an equal partner if she doesn't exist.
Those who wish to argue for poly-marriages are free to do so. They are free to present their case. If they can show that they are being discriminated against unconstitutionally, then they can go from there. You sure do seem concerned about poly-marriages. There a big gaggle of people in your area looking to get poly-married?
Why not just legalize it too, along with SSM, just to save time? Does it really matter to the rainbow crowd if poly is legalized, as long as they get theirs? Once the legal standard of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife, is discarded, why does it matter, who marries who legally, or doesn't marry who? Are SSMers going to fight to preserve monogamous marriage?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5388 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the constitution is marriage, monogamous, or polygamous, mentioned at all? It's not, as we both know. Everyone has the same right, nationwide, to marry, enter into a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife. This applies to the BGLT m.o.u.s.e crowd, and the plural marriage practitioners. Again, SSM seeks to keep the monogamy but drop the conjugal, as in husband and wife. Polygamy wants to drop the monogamy, but keep the conjugal aspect.
The rat's asses, do they come in all the colors of the rainbow flag?
Dumpling, the Supremes have been saying that marriage is a fundamental right of the individual for the better part of a century and your argument that everyone has the same right, is the same damn argument which was used to defend the ban on interracial marriages and we all know how well that worked out.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5389 Jul 8, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Where in the constitution is marriage, monogamous, or polygamous, mentioned at all? It's not, as we both know. Everyone has the same right, nationwide, to marry, enter into a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife.
If marriage is not in the Constitution, then why do you assume that everyone has the same right to enter into a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife? Where did they get THAT right, if THAT'S not in the Constitution either?

Marriage has simply always been a common human practice, so world governments commonly recognize them. And since the commitments associated with marriage need to be contractually bound (otherwise they cannot be enforced, and would be functionally useless), the government regulates and upholds it.

Shutting gay people outside of the doors of social convention has ALSO always been a common practice. But that doesn't make it RIGHT to do so, nor is any more right to shut gay people out of the convention of marriage.

NO ONE is granted marriage from the Constitution, not gay couples OR straight couples. But we ARE all granted the right to be treated equally. The treatment of gay people has been a one-note composition for too long, with some people demanding that ANYTHING we ask for be put out of our reach. This is an unreasonable demand, and the Constitution doesn't support it. Not when it comes to parenting, teaching, co-habitating, having sex, military service, and not to marriage either.

Since: Jul 13

Pueblo, CO

#5390 Jul 8, 2013
Carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The USA is basically broke.
Please stop worrying about the Christian church. It will be the militant muslims that you all will be at odds with, not the Christians.
So kill off the few Christians left or put us all in concentration camps...
But your true problems will just be beginning. Forcing acceptance (Marriage)is the least of your worries.
You will be praying that a few backwards Christians were all you had to deal with...
and you all may experience loss of your freedoms and will probably be praying to the Christian God just to survive.
Projecting much, are we? No one has talked about putting Christians in concentration camps, so get off it! You are being called on your bigoted bullshit. Nothing more, nothing less than that. Problem is, you Christians LOVE to project--yes, it was a Christian minister who last year proposed that all of us be placed in electrified pens and allowed to die off. So now who wants who in concentration camps?+++-
This country is not a theocracy and I suggest you get used to that. Your religion is no more to be an influence on our government or the lives of citizens than mine is. Don't like it? Find some theocracy to move to.
You Christians fundie bigots LOVE to bring up the militant Muslims as if they are some real threat in this country. They are not. Rather it is militant conservative Christians who want everyone to live according to their beliefs. It is Christians who are spearheading the movement against LGBT Americans. Not Jews, nor Muslims--CHRISTIANS.
The problem is that the right wing Christians in this country have a persecution complex extraordinaire. As I have said, you are not being "persecuted". You ARE being called on your bullshit and you don't like it. American Christians have no idea of what REAL persecution is. Go check with the Middle Eastern Christians--THAT is REAL persecution, as in their lives are in real danger for practicing their faith. I have sympathy for them. I have none for spoiled American Christians who simply cannot deal with the fact that free speech is a double edged sword: you have the right to say anything you want (as evidenced by your paranoid post) and I have the right to call you on it. Well, this is America, and this is how free speech works. Get over it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5391 Jul 8, 2013
This And That wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the Constitution mention why no it doesn't but then it doesn't have to as the supreme court has 7 or 8 times!
What pray tell, definition of marriage, did the Supreme Court have in mind when it ruled on marriage cases?
Not to mention the 14th amendment which states "Equal" treatment under the law and now thanks to the supreme court there are now 13 states and D.C. where there were none just 10 years ago! So you see oh great clueless one the constitution doesn't have to mention marriage! Are you so stupid that you don't realize that you've already lost the battle?
Why didn't the court simply impose SSM nationwide? If "equal treatment" was their objective. The battle is still being fought.
Part 3 of DOMA has fallen and the rest of it will in the coming years and the rest of the states will one day fall also through the popular vote as in Maine,Maryland and Washington state or through legislation!
Time will tell.....time will tell
Now how about this...Guinea,WOP,DAGO? I can say this because my last name is very similar to yours and my father went through Ellis island in 1906!
Cool, have u been on the Ellis Island website? Great stuff there for family history, shows the passenger manifests, and even pictures of the ship your father came over on, assuming all the ships are pictured. I found my grandparent's ships, all four. Salud.
Now what were you saying? Something about a man and a women?
"Women"? Polygyny?
Sorry but the harsh reality for you is NOT any longer pal,gotta love that pesky OL Constitution!
The beauty of it is, it can changed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5392 Jul 8, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dumpling, the Supremes have been saying that marriage is a fundamental right of the individual for the better part of a century and your argument that everyone has the same right,
Sugar plum, sorry but The Supremes have only been singing since the 1960's. as to the Supreme Court, the marriage they referenced, is the conjugal variety, you know husband and wife, it's been all the rage since the birth of the Republic, and some say even earlier than that.
is the same damn argument which was used to defend the ban on interracial marriages and we all know how well that worked out.
The ban on interracial marriage was based on white supremacy, and trying to recent mixed races babies. Besides interracial marriage is not new in this country. So sorry sweetie pie, but your analogy is flawed. Thanks for trying though.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-140744234.htm...

The marriage of John and Ellen Davis was one between a white woman and an African-American man, a Scottish immigrant and a native New Yorker, and two working class laborers. While one might assume that such relationships were rare in the nineteenth century, a close examination of United States Manuscript Census Records in New York City for 1850, 1860, and 1870 indicates that such interracial, cross-cultural marriages constituted five to seven percent of married couples living in predominantly black neighborhoods. The number of interracial marriages varied over the twenty year period under investigation but skyrocketed following the Civil War. Census records indicate that there were 29 interracial marriages in 1850, 19 in 1860, and 116 in 1870. The vast majority of such relationships occurred between black men and white women often between an African-American male born in the United States and a woman who had immigrated from Europe, most of whom were Irish, Scottish, or English.(2) While mixed-race couples in different regions and in different eras faced tremendous resistance, such couples were not uncommon in mid-nineteenth-century New York City. Interracial couples often married in black churches in New York, worked in the city, sent their children to local African schools, and successfully interacted with government institutions, including pension officials, local court representatives, and census takers.

This article examines why such interracial relationships were not unusual to New York City from 1850 to 1870. A number of factors contributed to these unions. Interracial relationships met three criteria that reflected ideas about race, class, and gender during this era. First, these relationships were almost exclusively between immigrant women from Scotland and Ireland and native-born African-American men. They did not take on the taint of improper behavior because these immigrant women were not perceived to be "white." (3) Second, these relationships generally occurred between people of the same class background and between individuals who lived in close proximity to one another in working class neighborhoods. As a consequence, these relationships did not cross class lines and did not violate ideas about proper behavior within a certain class. Third, since these immigrant women were not held to middle class gender standards such liaisons did not infringe on ideals of proper female behavior in the mid-nineteenth century.

Since: Jul 13

Pueblo, CO

#5393 Jul 8, 2013
Carol wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that 100% of homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other...
nature/God automatically gives normal species the ability to reproduce...
how is homosexuality the same as heterosexuality...
if your species will die out without outside help.
Just keep putting your ignorance out there. Homosexuality will not die out any more than heterosexuality will. Homosexuality has been with us over the 200,000 years or so that humans have been on the planet. We are not going anywhere.

Oh, and LOVE your insistence on reproduction. We already have 7 billion plus people on the planet. Not enough for you, apparently...or not enough of your kind of people, hmmm?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5394 Jul 8, 2013
IoanLightoller wrote:
<quoted text>
Just keep putting your ignorance out there. Homosexuality will not die out any more than heterosexuality will. Homosexuality has been with us over the 200,000 years or so that humans have been on the planet. We are not going anywhere.
Same sex sexual behavior is very old, labeling it as "homosexuality" is relatively new, calling it "gay", a word that used to describe various hedonistic heterosexual behaviors, is even newer still. Ironic that a "gay man" used to be a womanizer.
Oh, and LOVE your insistence on reproduction. We already have 7 billion plus people on the planet. Not enough for you, apparently...or not enough of your kind of people, hmmm?
How else are we going to create more rainbow flag wavers?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5395 Jul 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage is not in the Constitution, then why do you assume that everyone has the same right to enter into a legally recognized monogamous union of husband and wife?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is defined, at least in 30 plush states as a union of one man, and one woman.
Where did they get THAT right, if THAT'S not in the Constitution either?
Marriage has simply always been a common human practice, so world governments commonly recognize them. And since the commitments associated with marriage need to be contractually bound (otherwise they cannot be enforced, and would be functionally useless), the government regulates and upholds it.
Shutting gay people outside of the doors of social convention has ALSO always been a common practice.
Actually gay people, long before gay was used exclusively to refer to homosexuality, were never shut out of marriage, they married like everyone else.
But that doesn't make it RIGHT to do so, nor is any more right to shut gay people out of the convention of marriage.
Gay people have always married, conjugally speakking as in husband and wife. We both know that.
NO ONE is granted marriage from the Constitution, not gay couples OR straight couples. But we ARE all granted the right to be treated equally.
True, and equally does not mean everything is treated the same. Should all men be treated equally? All women? Regardless of self described orientation?
The treatment of gay people has been a one-note composition for too long, with some people demanding that ANYTHING we ask for be put out of our reach. This is an unreasonable demand, and the Constitution doesn't support it. Not when it comes to parenting, teaching, co-habitating, having sex, military service, and not to marriage either.
Gay people can marry, have married, and will continue to marry, the same way as everyone else. What u seek is to have your same sex intimate personal relationship called marriage. Therein lies the distinction.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5396 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's already had an effect on NOM's donors, there names were illegally leaked by SSM supporters in the IRS, to the HRC, a SSM advocacy group. The horse is out of the barn, too late to close the doors now. We'll put together a posse and go after the thieves instead.
.
<quoted text>Why do you hate those children's mothers and fathers? Is it because the parent that deceived and deserted the first marriage has a new spouse now? Do you hate single parents and don't care if a child is raised by his own mom and dad?
Remember, every child raised by a gender segregated couple is raised without a mother or a father.
And what does that have to do with what I posted?

I already said that SSM has on effect on opposite sex marriage.

Are you totally daft?

ROTFLMAO. What a joker.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5397 Jul 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's already had an effect on NOM's donors, there names were illegally leaked by SSM supporters in the IRS, to the HRC, a SSM advocacy group. The horse is out of the barn, too late to close the doors now. We'll put together a posse and go after the thieves instead.
.
<quoted text>Why do you hate those children's mothers and fathers? Is it because the parent that deceived and deserted the first marriage has a new spouse now? Do you hate single parents and don't care if a child is raised by his own mom and dad?
Remember, every child raised by a gender segregated couple is raised without a mother or a father.
Your spam bores me. YAWN

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 Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... (Nov '16) 2 min UMORONRACEMAKEWOR... 2,432
FuNKY ARCHIVES 17 min Amos 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 50 min Big Nick 53,714
40 years ago today 1 hr Big Nick 7
News Pride in local LGBT progress: Some of Metro Van... 1 hr Western Canuck 17
News Teen weighs impact of joining school gay-straig... 1 hr Big Nick 4
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Big Nick 69,603
News School district removes gay students' yearbook ... 20 hr DaveinMass 36
More from around the web