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
5,541 - 5,560 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#5782 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So u only read articles/opinion pieces/news from sources that are EXTREMELY pro-gay and gay biased?
No, that's not true......I'll read many things, just not sources I already know are biased against me and my rights.

One day, you'll stop trying to think you know me and stop making asinine comments regarding me.....thanks!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5783 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
"Bias" is in the eye of the beholder, and not necessarily viewed as bias by all who read the information. There's bias among anti conjugal marriage sites too.
There is a difference between bias and making-it-up. WND is way over the on the making-it-up side. Serious people--whether liberal or conservative--agree on that.

Yes, there are plenty of pro-gay sites that are just as unreliable as WND. But we aren't citing them as our sources.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5784 Jul 16, 2013
WND "controversies" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#Co...

9/11 attacks

On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., that occurred two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America". Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate
WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president. Such claims are considered unsubstantiated or debunked by most news sources. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.

Libel lawsuit

On September 20, 2000, WND published an article claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer", and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001, the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008; but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones. A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.

Ann Coulter speaking at Homocon

WND has also come out against LGBT participants in the Republican party and their associates. In 2010 when writer and pundit Ann Coulter accepted the invitation to attend and speak at GOProud's Homocon 2010 event, Farah announced the withdrawal of Coulter's name from the list of speakers at the company's Taking America Back conference. Coulter responded by saying that speaking engagements do not imply endorsement of the hosting organization; however, after Farah published private emails between himself and Coulter, Coulter called him a “publicity whore” and a “swine” in an email to the Daily Caller blog.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5785 Jul 16, 2013
barry wrote:
but none the less, their actions are consistent with their "lifestyle". as you can see i used the term correctly.
No, I don't see that. I see you using it as a "broad brush" to allow you to stereotype and stigmatize as many people as possible, with the incorrect belief that because they share ONE characteristic, they must share ALL the characteristics that you decide to ascribe to them.
barry wrote:
you certainly don't see straight people having pride events that flaunt their total disrespect for public decency, at least not in the center of town at the taxpayers expense.
Oh, I certainly do. Every Mardi Gras, every Spring Break. They flaunt and party and debauch with the best of them. Right in the center of town.

The only "taxpayer expense" however, is the slight inconvenience of having traffic routes dedicated to parade routes for a few hours. Of course, this is true of ALL parades.

Although, straight people don't exactly celebrate "pride", as their childhoods and adolescents were not made into obstacle courses to be survived due to their being straight. They don't have the acheivement of enduring others who make it their life's work to strangle their rights and block their pursuit of happiness. Straight parades are just people partying to party.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5786 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in "husband and wife".
That's NOT what conjugal means.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#5787 Jul 16, 2013
lides wrote:
...Brian, you've never proven that this form was not "leaked" by NOM, nor have you proven that NOM is not a political group, in which case, their form 990 Schedule B must be made public by law.
"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...
Each time you present this argument, you reaffirm that you are an imbecile.
The citation above is a 2012 law, the issue is the leaking of NOM's 2008 Schedule B. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in America.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5788 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Your Mom.
Dodging questions again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's an easy one.....my children of course, the benefit from having their mother and father married to each other.
Dodging AGAIN. You really need everything spelled out to you in minute detail, don't you? Otherwise you find a loophole to avoid answering.

What ADULTS, besides you and your spouse, enjoy the benefits granted to you by marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Conjugal as in husband AND wife.
Sorry, that's just not what conjugal means.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not all gay people support SSM. Some reject it for the same reason I do, others think its too constraining, too "hetero".
Some gay people kill themselves, too, out of shame heaped on them by society. Is that the model we should all follow?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nothing at all, but those folks can offer alternative opinions, he might not find among those he knows.
And once he's heard all the "alternatives" and STILL wants to apply marriage benefits to the person best suited to him that he's chosen to spend his life with?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you mean opposite sex marriages? How would you characterize an opposite sex mixed orientation marriage, like the Weeds?
Dodging again. If we just call them ALL "marriages", will you be policing their monogamy?
Pietro Armando wrote:
They seem very happy.
And do you expect all gay people to follow their model? Do you think the MILLIONS of gay people around the world fighting for this right, are only doing so because they can't find the right person of the opposite sex?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why bother recognizing it at all then?
Because marriage is a CONTRACT (god, you're like a carnival ride, round and round). The government enforces contracts. If someone breaks a contract with you, where do you seek arbitration?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly. No state cares about "orientation", in most states, all that matters is the parties be of the opposite sex.
Not for long. Funny that the states allowing same-sex marriage are all Northern, progressive, liberal states, and all the rest are still getting over the end of slavery. They'll figure out how to treat gay people soon enough.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But that undermines your contention of "a person of one's choice". If a woman chooses her sister to be her spouse and vice versa, is she not exercising her choice? A pair of siblings can be "spouses for life". Some are, for all practical purposes?
And which of the 1,138 rights of marriage do they need?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Jersey right?
Start there.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Which is consistent with my answer.
Good to know you have such... high aspirations of society. Shall we soon be shrouding our women in veils, as those societies do?

Seriously.... you're PROUD that much of the US models their marriage laws after places like Afghanistan and Iran? You claim that something happens "in society", and you're GLAD that your answer is consistent... in Uganda? Man, even England will be a member of the nations that recognize the dignity of gay people by about the time you finish reading this. What kind of society do you WANT?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Differs in form and function. No matter how hard u try, short of chemicals and surgery, you're still a male member of the human species. You're not a woman.

Differences in form are superficial, but there is no difference in function.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The bennies could work for ANY pairing. So what makes SSCs so special in that regard?
It's as special as yours is. It's unique bond of two strangers who found love in each other and became family to protect one another, forsaking all others.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5789 Jul 16, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between bias and making-it-up. WND is way over the on the making-it-up side. Serious people--whether liberal or conservative--agree on that.
Yes, there are plenty of pro-gay sites that are just as unreliable as WND. But we aren't citing them as our sources.
Fair enough.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5790 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT what conjugal means.
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5791 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodging questions again.
<quoted text>
Dodging AGAIN. You really need everything spelled out to you in minute detail, don't you? Otherwise you find a loophole to avoid answering.
What ADULTS, besides you and your spouse, enjoy the benefits granted to you by marriage?
<quoted text>
Sorry, that's just not what conjugal means.
<quoted text>
Some gay people kill themselves, too, out of shame heaped on them by society. Is that the model we should all follow?
<quoted text>
And once he's heard all the "alternatives" and STILL wants to apply marriage benefits to the person best suited to him that he's chosen to spend his life with?
<quoted text>
Dodging again. If we just call them ALL "marriages", will you be policing their monogamy?
<quoted text>
And do you expect all gay people to follow their model? Do you think the MILLIONS of gay people around the world fighting for this right, are only doing so because they can't find the right person of the opposite sex?
<quoted text>
Because marriage is a CONTRACT (god, you're like a carnival ride, round and round). The government enforces contracts. If someone breaks a contract with you, where do you seek arbitration?
<quoted text>
Not for long. Funny that the states allowing same-sex marriage are all Northern, progressive, liberal states, and all the rest are still getting over the end of slavery. They'll figure out how to treat gay people soon enough.
<quoted text>
And which of the 1,138 rights of marriage do they need?
<quoted text>
Start there.
<quoted text>
Good to know you have such... high aspirations of society. Shall we soon be shrouding our women in veils, as those societies do?
Seriously.... you're PROUD that much of the US models their marriage laws after places like Afghanistan and Iran? You claim that something happens "in society", and you're GLAD that your answer is consistent... in Uganda? Man, even England will be a member of the nations that recognize the dignity of gay people by about the time you finish reading this. What kind of society do you WANT?
<quoted text>
Differences in form are superficial, but there is no difference in function.
<quoted text>
It's as special as yours is. It's unique bond of two strangers who found love in each other and became family to protect one another, forsaking all others.
considering how brian & pietro like to gnaw on the same point repeatedly, asking the same questions over and over and over again - you'd think they were one in the same poster.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5792 Jul 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not true......I'll read many things, just not sources I already know are biased against me and my rights.
That doesn't quite answer my question.

Pietro Armando wrote:
So u only read articles/opinion pieces/news from sources that are EXTREMELY pro-gay and gay biased?

"Bias" is a two way street.
One day, you'll stop trying to think you know me and stop making asinine comments regarding me.....thanks!!!
One day you'll stop assuming I claimed to know you....thanks!!! I'm merely engaging in an exchange of thoughts and opinions.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5793 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's NOT what conjugal means.
for a little clarity, so that this doesn't have to be revisited AGAIN....here's the definition straight from merriam webster online dictionary :

Definition of CONJUGAL

: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5794 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
con·ju·gal [kon-juh-guhl]

adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.

2. pertaining to the relation between marriage partners.

So, now we know that dictionaries can vary. But you don't just get to pin YOUR favorite definition onto a word, and insist that everyone else MUST abide by it. Definitions shift as social use shifts. And in a dozen US states, DC, one Native Oregon tribe, and 15 nations around the world, that definition includes same-sex couples.

The one common component to BOTH our definitions is that "conjugal" simply means "relating to marriage". Your definition even has an "or" in it, allowing for either use. You don't succeed at putting marriage out of the reach of gay couples, simply by insisting that "conjugal" means "male and female only".

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5795 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
con·ju·gal
/&#712;känj&#601;g &#601;l/
Adjective
Of or relating to marriage or the relationship between husband and wife: "conjugal loyalty".
Synonyms
marital - connubial - matrimonial - married - wedded
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#5796 Jul 16, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
for a little clarity, so that this doesn't have to be revisited AGAIN....here's the definition straight from merriam webster online dictionary :
Definition of CONJUGAL
: of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations
It seems ridiculous when someone tries to insist that this MUST pertain ONLY to a man married to a woman. The same "requirement" could be forcibly applied to the definitions of "dating" or "romance" or even just "sex".

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#5797 Jul 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't quite answer my question.
Actually it did:-)

As for your comment about engaging in meaningful discussion......sorry, but you don't really.....you just repeat the same issues regardless of how many times they have been addressed.

Oh and you continue to think it's okay to slap my marriage down as being something different than yours......and the only real difference is that my wife and I can't naturally create children between us......but that truly is irrelevant because we are both pass the childbearing years anyways!!
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5798 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems ridiculous when someone tries to insist that this MUST pertain ONLY to a man married to a woman. The same "requirement" could be forcibly applied to the definitions of "dating" or "romance" or even just "sex".
true.

as john prine sang "you are what you are and you ain't what you ain't"

if people were really comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn't feel threatened or disturbed by someone else's problivities or who someone else was attracted to. it wouldn't matter what someone else did. i just don't get this obsession some folks have about what other people do and think that because they object to it, they'll get someone else to stop or change. it'd be the height of arrogance if i decided i didn't like people to wear orange and expected everyone to stop wearing the color orange because it offended me or my sensibilities. because, afterall, some folks might actually like the color or even look good in orange. for all i know, some folks would wear orange just to tick me off (ok, maybe just my middle son would, LOL).
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#5799 Jul 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it did:-)
As for your comment about engaging in meaningful discussion......sorry, but you don't really.....you just repeat the same issues regardless of how many times they have been addressed.
Oh and you continue to think it's okay to slap my marriage down as being something different than yours......and the only real difference is that my wife and I can't naturally create children between us......but that truly is irrelevant because we are both pass the childbearing years anyways!!
congratulations on your marriage!
i hope that my partner and i can be legally married sometime soon, too. we're certainly planning the event.

...and the childbearing thing? totally irrelavent (and i know you know this, too...LOL) since no state, no municipality, no law no statute anywhere in these united states require a couple to either procreate or to agree to adopt children. furthermore, there's no law that requires a pregnant woman to marry anyone. children a commonly born out of wedlock. some folks cringe at that thought, but it does not negate the hard reality that children are born out of wedlock and have since the beginnings of time. the marriage status does not matter when it comes to birthing a child.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5800 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.
I just read that and thought of Archie Bunker.:)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5801 Jul 16, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops, make that SIXTEEN nations around the world. England is one of ours now.
I think you meant to type WEEEEE!

On another note, I'm a little confused by whose covered. I am under the Impression that this law will cover both England and Wales. But I know that Scottland and Ireland both have separate governments considering the issue.(Ireland will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year.). Does anyone know exactly how England and Wales fit together?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Biggest Gay Lies 5 min Good Reverend 1,740
Man alleges sexual abuse as anti-gay 'conversion' 6 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 8
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 8 min Reverend Alan 52
This industry illustrates the unresolved legal ... 13 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 15
Ga. teen kicked out after admitting he's gay to... 16 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 35
Local group hopes to revisit decade-old convers... 20 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 9
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 21 min lides 3,016
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 54 min Reverend Alan 622
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 hr Gunther 55,058
Which QUEER is the BIGGEST PIECE OF SH!T? 9 hr Frank Rizzo 8
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••