Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 comments on the Jan 7, 2013, NBC Chicago story 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5477 Jul 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All men have the same right to marry, as do all women, as marriage is legally defined by the state. That is true.
<quoted text>
The assumption is you will marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, at least in 30 plus states, valid in all fifty.
<quoted text>
No problem little pal. Just trying to keep u on the straight path toward the facts.:)
Yawn. blacks are free to marry other blacks, and whites are free to marry other whites, thus equality exists. Yeah, Pedro , we've heard your version before. Your version lost. Your version will ALWAYS lose. Sucks for you. Bit please, do keep posting! Nothing funnier.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5478 Jul 11, 2013
lides wrote:
A 501(c)(4) can be a political organization, you twit. NOM has consistantly failed in court when it claims to be a social welfare organization. I'll tell you what, you are the one who loves investigations and transparency, why mot have NOM open up their books and let us see how much they spend on social welfare vs political campaigning/lobbying? They spend nothing on social welfare, they are strictly a political group, and you are a gullible fool.
The IRS determined NOM is exempt as a 501(c)(4), but lides thinks he knows better than the law. He's not the only one:

"Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said it should not qualify for 501(c)(4) status with the Internal Revenue Service, because it is not a social welfare group but political in nature."

and

"Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s (D-Texas) remarks that the statute should be reinterpreted to restrict political activities of 501(c)(4) groups, Blumenauer said the current law “invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep it secret and to engage in political activity.”

Dr. Eastman responds:

“I really have to respond to the scurrilous things that were said on the other side,” Eastman said.“Representative Blumenauer, it’s your kind of statement that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not.

“The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous,” Eastman said.“And how sad it is, Rep. Doggett, how sad it is that efforts to educate about our Constitution have become a partisan political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt status for that.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/democrat-defe...

Note, those democrats recognize NOM's exemption under the 501(c)(4) law, they don't like it. Instead of using legal cures, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's exempted tax disclosures to their political enemies the HRC. Even if NOM's status is incorrect, two wrongs don't make a right. You don't have the right to violate taxpayer privacy and then blame the victim.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5479 Jul 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Wow Brian, really? I see it's okay for NOM to violate the law, but they don't like it when happens to them.......you are as much a hypocrite as NOM is!!!
^^^This is untrue, have the FBI investigate and if anyone broke the law, prosecute them.
This is the difference between same sex marriage supporters and the rest of us; they will say or do anything to protect their allies, even attacking the victims of their crimes.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#5480 Jul 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^This is untrue, have the FBI investigate and if anyone broke the law, prosecute them.
This is the difference between same sex marriage supporters and the rest of us; they will say or do anything to protect their allies, even attacking the victims of their crimes.
Sorry Brian, but NOM violated the laws regarding Donors that are required to be public and NOM after losing at State Supreme Courts in a couple of States and at SCOTUS has STILL not released their donor list.....so, I have no sympathy for them......and if they want to play politics then they should lose their tax-exempt status!!!

Again Brian, you'd be wrong.......you are no better at playing the victim than NOM is!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5481 Jul 11, 2013
Can you cite charges brought against NOM? NCN doesn't get to define 501(c)(4) status, the IRS does that.

So, we have a scandal where the IRS delays and harasses groups applying for 501(c)(4) status then the abuse and illegal disclosure of a group that already has 501(c)(4) status. Prosecute the guilty; Lois Lerner plead the fifth.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#5482 Jul 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Can you cite charges brought against NOM? NCN doesn't get to define 501(c)(4) status, the IRS does that.
So, we have a scandal where the IRS delays and harasses groups applying for 501(c)(4) status then the abuse and illegal disclosure of a group that already has 501(c)(4) status. Prosecute the guilty; Lois Lerner plead the fifth.
Who said I was defining anything? You're the one complaining about this issue and don't seem to get the fact that NOM is guilty of violating campaign and donor listing regulations!!!

By the way....here's some articles regarding NOM's violations:
http://sdgln.com/news/2013/05/31/maine-high-c...

Seattle:
http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews40_40/mobile/page6....

Minnesota:
http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/...

Iowa:
http://www.rightsequalrights.com/2013/06/20/n...

So, you are chastising the IRS for an alleged incident compared to numerous actual violations that you are ignoring against NOM........interesting!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5484 Jul 11, 2013
Wow, news articles but no charges; the IRS says they are a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. NOM isn't charged because they didn't violate federal law. NCN wants to confuse federal tax violations with state election disclosure laws. How's that working out for you?

On the other hand same sex marriage supporters in the IRS harassed conservative organizations and leaked NOM's tax filings to the HRC.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5485 Jul 11, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn. blacks are free to marry other blacks, and whites are free to marry other whites, thus equality exists.
Yawn, men are free to marry women and vice versa. Thus equality already exists.
Yeah, Pedro , we've heard your version before. Your version lost. Your version will ALWAYS lose. Sucks for you. Bit please, do keep posting! Nothing funnier.
Yeah Joh-nee we've heard that version before, and it works.......it really does. Men and women marrying each other. But keep arguing otherwise. Nothing funnier
NSA stop tapping me

Manassas, VA

#5486 Jul 11, 2013
h.ttp://www.salon.com/2010/05/ 21/twincest/

the world is getting crazier

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5487 Jul 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't have it both ways.
If you are arguing that homosexuals have equal protection of the law to marry someone of the opposite sex, then you're arguing in favor of sham marriages.
I'm not advocating "sham" marriages. Everyone is free to marry or not marry. If one wishes to legally marry, one marry legally as marriage is defined by the state.

If your argument is that homosexuals are incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, should the state prohibit mixed orientation marriages?
Conversely, if you say you aren't your argument to the homosexual h your argument to the homosexual has equal protection of the long to marry someone of the opposite sex is an invalid argument.
Every man, and woman, as the same right to be equally protected within the legally recognized marital union of husband and wife, if they choose to enter into marriage.

Should the state require statements of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Should it prohibit mixed orientation marriages?
dolphin

London, UK

#5488 Jul 11, 2013
The church leaders r gay themselves,so they don't want it legalise which will eventually expose them n they will lose their church members whom the pump on.
dolphin

London, UK

#5489 Jul 11, 2013
Typo pimp

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5490 Jul 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The IRS determined NOM is exempt as a 501(c)(4), but lides thinks he knows better than the law. He's not the only one:
"Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said it should not qualify for 501(c)(4) status with the Internal Revenue Service, because it is not a social welfare group but political in nature."
and
"Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s (D-Texas) remarks that the statute should be reinterpreted to restrict political activities of 501(c)(4) groups, Blumenauer said the current law “invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep it secret and to engage in political activity.”
Dr. Eastman responds:
“I really have to respond to the scurrilous things that were said on the other side,” Eastman said.“Representative Blumenauer, it’s your kind of statement that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not.
“The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous,” Eastman said.“And how sad it is, Rep. Doggett, how sad it is that efforts to educate about our Constitution have become a partisan political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt status for that.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/democrat-defe...
Note, those democrats recognize NOM's exemption under the 501(c)(4) law, they don't like it. Instead of using legal cures, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's exempted tax disclosures to their political enemies the HRC. Even if NOM's status is incorrect, two wrongs don't make a right. You don't have the right to violate taxpayer privacy and then blame the victim.
http://news.yahoo.com/irs-delayed-action-prog...
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/issas_irs_sca...
"Tax-exempt political organizations may also be required to file Form 990, including Schedule B. Political organizations must make both of these forms available to the public, including the contributor information."
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eo_disclosure...

You are an ignorant person if you believe there is any scandal here.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5491 Jul 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The IRS determined NOM is exempt as a 501(c)(4), but lides thinks he knows better than the law. He's not the only one:
"Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said it should not qualify for 501(c)(4) status with the Internal Revenue Service, because it is not a social welfare group but political in nature."
and
"Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s (D-Texas) remarks that the statute should be reinterpreted to restrict political activities of 501(c)(4) groups, Blumenauer said the current law “invites people to raise vast sums of money and keep it secret and to engage in political activity.”
Dr. Eastman responds:
“I really have to respond to the scurrilous things that were said on the other side,” Eastman said.“Representative Blumenauer, it’s your kind of statement that have empowered IRS agents to make determinations about which organizations qualify for the public good and which do not.
“The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous,” Eastman said.“And how sad it is, Rep. Doggett, how sad it is that efforts to educate about our Constitution have become a partisan political issue that you think people ought not to get tax-exempt status for that.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/democrat-defe...
Note, those democrats recognize NOM's exemption under the 501(c)(4) law, they don't like it. Instead of using legal cures, same sex marriage supporters in the IRS leaked NOM's exempted tax disclosures to their political enemies the HRC. Even if NOM's status is incorrect, two wrongs don't make a right. You don't have the right to violate taxpayer privacy and then blame the victim.
Stop pretending your hate group is a victim. The only victims are those affected by the evil that NOM has perpetuated.

But you keep clinging to them Brian while you can. Their doors will be closed very soon. Then you'll have to find something else to blame gays for.

Funniest line in your post? This one:“The notion that defending traditional marriage doesn’t qualify as a defense of the public good is beyond preposterous." What your precious "Dr." Eastman fails to do is to present the "threat" that traditional marriage is under, and thus explain why it needs "defending". Know why he can't do this Brian? Same reason no one promoting anti-gay causes can. Because the threat doesn't exist.

Carry on village idiot.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5492 Jul 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm not advocating "sham" marriages. Everyone is free to marry or not marry. If one wishes to legally marry, one marry legally as marriage is defined by the state.
If your argument is that homosexuals are incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, should the state prohibit mixed orientation marriages?
Of course, it shouldn't prohibit such a marriage, but you are a fool if you think you aren't advocating for sham marriages if you are saying that a homosexual has equal protection of the law to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Every man, and woman, as the same right to be equally protected within the legally recognized marital union of husband and wife, if they choose to enter into marriage.
Should the state require statements of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Should it prohibit mixed orientation marriages?
Are you intelligent enough to offer a compelling state interest served by restriction marriage to being between two members of the opposite sex, which would render such a restriction constitutional? I don't think you are.

You are advocating for sham marriages, whether you care to admit as much or not. I have known some disingenuous liars in my day, but you take the cake.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#5493 Jul 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Should the state require statements of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Should it prohibit mixed orientation marriages?
Repeatedly asking the same stupid questions doesn't make you look intelligent. The state has no vested interested in the sexual orientation of people that wish to marry. That's one of the reasons that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other are being struck down. And straight people are free to marry someone of the same gender should they choose. All equal.

Do you have more on this you want to throw out, or will you be switching back to poly questions?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5494 Jul 11, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You ate correct, rights are individual.
Grazie
Can you think of a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional?
Can u think of a state interest served by redefining marriage to include other relationships other than a monogamous union of husband and wife that would render such a redefinition sufficient to maintain constitutionality and thus necessitate a state interest?
Can you think of a compelling state interest served by denying two individuals of the same sex the right to marry.
Can you think of a compelling state interest served by denying two individuals of the same sex, as individuals, the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?

I think you lack the capacity to rationally defend your position.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5495 Jul 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Grazie
<quoted text>
Can u think of a state interest served by redefining marriage to include other relationships other than a monogamous union of husband and wife that would render such a redefinition sufficient to maintain constitutionality and thus necessitate a state interest?
<quoted text>
Can you think of a compelling state interest served by denying two individuals of the same sex, as individuals, the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
I think you lack the capacity to rationally defend your position.
The state only has an interest in taxation.

NEXT

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5496 Jul 11, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Grazie
Da nada.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Can u think of a state interest served by redefining marriage to include other relationships other than a monogamous union of husband and wife that would render such a redefinition sufficient to maintain constitutionality and thus necessitate a state interest?
Can you think of a compelling state interest served by denying two individuals of the same sex, as individuals, the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
I think you lack the capacity to rationally defend your position.
Pietro, this is where you embarrass yourself.

First of all, the state interest served in including same sex couples in the legal protections of marriage is equal protection under the law as laid out in the 14th Amendment of the constitution.

What really makes you look foolish is your inability to grasp the concept of a compelling state interest. A compelling state interest is required by the judicial level of review of strict scrutiny, and such an interest is necessary to infringe upon rights, not to grant them.

Here's a chance to learn something. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5497 Jul 11, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeatedly asking the same stupid questions doesn't make you look intelligent.
Nor does your failure, prior to now, to answer it.
The state has no vested interested in the sexual orientation of people that wish to marry. That's one of the reasons that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other are being struck down. And straight people are free to marry someone of the same gender should they choose. All equal.
If the argument is a gay person is incapable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, of entering into a monogamous union of husband and wife, then the state should prohibit such unions, mixed orientation marriages, in order to protect both parties. That is the state interest in that regard.

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 Now out, Bruce Jenner shines spotlight on trans... 14 min david traversa 2
News Same-sex marriage pioneer among lawyers for hig... 15 min barefoot2626 12
News Potsdam gay pride parade brings faith and aware... 41 min wow wee !! 109
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 52 min Blackburn 32,016
Trying to Understand and Accept Homosexuality 56 min Rick in Kansas 85
News Jenner's transgender reveal applauded 1 hr Remus 11
NE Jade - Neat Gay or Scumbag? 1 hr Evan 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Terra Firma 19,635
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 2 hr Wall 47
Are the mods fair and balanced? 3 hr Wall 651
News Chief Justice John Roberts faces another big mo... 5 hr Belle Sexton 80
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 5 hr Pietro Armando 2,054
More from around the web