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.

Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6497 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage as a legal union with boundaries? Any legal significance beyond a contract?
<quoted text>
Yet the rainbow crowd cries "foul" when polygamy is mentioned.
Still challenged by simple arithmetic, eh? The ONLY fools bringing up polygamy you wackos. Three is GREATER THAN two.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6498 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they have, as thirty or so state constitutional amendments have demonstrated.
Gee.... mean people pass unconstitutional laws. Who would have thought....
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6499 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In the same way that extending legal marriage rights to plural marriage practitioners and their families.:)
Great non-answer.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6500 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They won't argue the consequences; they prefer to defame opponents and call them homophobes. They don't have rational arguments, they have name-calling.
What consequences, Brain? The ones that only entail your embarrassment at being wrong and bereft of facts that you can prove?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6501 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but why does it exist in the first place?
<quoted text>
Wills, power of attorney, health care proxy, real estate contracts, child support agreements, etc.
<quoted text>
For example? What specific serious disadvantage are "same sex families" at? Why do "same sex families" merit advantages over other non conjugal and/or monogamous couples/families?
Um.... not been paying attention, eh? Windsor had to pay $385,000 in estate taxes that a straight couples don't have to pay.

ADVANTAGES?????????? Seriously?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6502 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>she stated two facts that influenced her decision.
What were those to "facts"?
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i'll bet if two heterosexual men or women would come and and ask her to do something for their union which may have nothing to do with sex, that she would decline them also. so she declined the event not an already established customer.
She declined the event because of the participants. Your example here does the same thing.


Oh, and just fyi, most weddings I've been involved with are typically about love and commitment, not sex. Maybe its different for you holier-than-thous.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6503 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>the evil was on the part of Satan. however when they decided to disobey God they brought evil and the Knowledge of evil into the world. makes perfect sense.
If you are 7.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6504 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
LGBT refers to people. Your odd link is to an organization that services those people, and has qualified for tax exempt status. LGBT are not tax exempt. I, and other gays all pay our taxes. Your link is to a some"thing", not a some"body".

But don't let that stop you from trying. I mean heck, if I'm entitled to tax exemption because I'm LGBT, I'd like to know it. Any additional assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6505 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>now who is discriminating? why couldn't for example two older heterosexual males who wanted to cut costs as well as take advantage of certain legal tax advantages apply for a "marriage" license and live together platonicly? isd this now something that only homosexuals well be able to do?
so you think that a person has to explain themselves or their relationship in order to pass a test to obtain a marriage license?

you make no sense.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6506 Jul 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
They won't argue the consequences; they prefer to defame opponents and call them homophobes. They don't have rational arguments, they have name-calling.
bi, the consequences have been enumerated repeatedly.

we can start with those 1300+ priviliges extended to legally married couples that same sex couples don't have access to. well except for doma and prop 8 struck down.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6507 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>then don't ask a Christian florist to have a part in your wedding if she would happen to think that it was not sacred and immoral.
1) Not all "Christians" are bigots like your florist. Many "Christian" faiths and people fully embrace gay people and their commitments to each other. Your pretending to speak for all "Christians" insults most of them.

2) Future spouses are free to ask ANY florist, including one they already knew and were familiar with. Future spouses aren't obligated to know the extreme and bizarre religious leanings of a florist, anymore than the florist is obligated to approve or not approve of the participants in a wedding. If you are a florist, do your job and keep your unrequested opinions to yourself.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6508 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>not many artists in your family are there?
Whether she concededly considered herself an artist is irrelevant. She was still not participating in the wedding.

Your desire to elevate her "work" and opinion over the work of those cleaning the church and tuning the piano is dismissed as the smarmy, cocky nonsense that it is.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6509 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>like i said before, if felix and oscar wanted to take advantage of the current interpretation of the law and form a legal union that the state would recognize as a marriage she probably would not want to have any part of that situation either.
If the state recognizes it as a marriage, the it IS a marriage. Her opinion of that marriage is irrelevant. And her refusal is still because of the participants, not the event. That's discrimination.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so it is not specifically about the people as they were already customers of hers but it was about the event period.
Yes, it is specifically about the people. She serviced weddings in the past. Her refusal to service this event was not because it was a wedding, but because of the participants in the wedding.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6510 Jul 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What, again, were the rational arguments for those bigoted, discriminatory amendments that will be over-ruled within a few years?
The ones you disagree with of course. They're only "bigoted, discriminatory" because they contrary to your opinion.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6511 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you had made this claim earlier;
"There's no such thing as a same sex wedding. Weddings are an institution, they don't have a sexual orientation."
Actually that's not a claim, it's a fact.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so which is it. wedding; an event or an institution?
Are you implying the answer can only be an either/or? Since you seem now to want to argue from a point of semantics, let's indulge you.

Marriage is DEFINED as a "ceremony (also known as an "event" or a "marriage")", an "institution", and a "union".

Marriage is a ceremony AND an institution. My statement above may have thrown you since I used the word wedding instead of marriage. I'm sorry that the content of the post was completely lost on you because of this minor point.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now you're claiming that marriage is an event?
I'm not "claiming" that, I'm stating it. It IS an event, according to one of it's definitions.

mar┬Ěriage
[mar-ij]
noun
4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
is english your first language, or perhaps your bilingual?
Again, does it have to be an either/or? English IS my first language, and I'm also bilingual.

Your post here completely backfired dear. You simply came off as a jackass.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#6512 Jul 25, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>but you want to her to participate in something that she judges to be morally wrong.
She was being hired for her work, not her judgments. The participants of the wedding are not obligated to know her bizarre religious leanings. And yet again, she was not "participating" in the wedding. And she was free to disagree with their wedding the entire time that she made and placed the arrangements.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she would not force you to participate in something that you would judge to be wrong.
Really? By refusing to service the wedding she was forcing the couple to "participate" in her religious convictions. Chomp on that a bit.

What she "judged to be wrong" should NEVER have been brought up.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and yes it is because of the participants.
Yes, we are all well aware.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
she would never see the wedding of two men or two women or perhaps a man and three women as being anything that she would willingly have a part in.
Yes, we know. We've been telling you it was about the participants, and not the event, for some time now. I'm glad you've finally caught up on that fact.

Now, once again, let me go very slowly for you.

She wasn't going to see the wedding. Only those that had part in the wedding would see it. She wasn't part of the wedding.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
to her it is wrong.
What she thinks is wrong is irrelevant. She wasn't hired for her opinions, she was hired for her skill set.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
now as you pointed out before they can be just as married without her approval or participation in their event.
They wanted to use her skills. They didn't ask her for her approvals or participation. Her skills were already known because they had done business with her previously. Now she refused to service them because she wished to discriminate her services because of who they were. Because the florist is a bigot who thinks that she can use religion as a justification to discriminate. Now she's finding out she was wrong. Perhaps in the future she won't be so quick to think that her "approval" is desired or required.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and apparently the event is not protected.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. For someone that just attempted to chastise me over my mastery of the English language, you might want to consider employing complete sentences in the future.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6513 Jul 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but why does it exist in the first place?
<quoted text>
Wills, power of attorney, health care proxy, real estate contracts, child support agreements, etc.
<quoted text>
For example? What specific serious disadvantage are "same sex families" at? Why do "same sex families" merit advantages over other non conjugal and/or monogamous couples/families?
For the reasons I already stated.

1,400 laws an statutes pertaining to married couples and their families.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6514 Jul 25, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex couples that are denied civil marriage are denied all the Benefits and Rights that those able to marry automatically get.
Same sex couples are not "denied civil marriage". They do not constitute the relationship that fits the definition of marriage, at least in thirty plus states. As individuals, they have the same right to marry as anyone else.
Ironically, same-sex couples are often hit with the Responsibilities absent being able to marry. Edith Windsor was hit with a $363,000 estate tax that those whose marriage was recognized didn't/wouldn't have had to pay. There are 1400 other reason.
So anyone can form a "marriage" and expect the state to recognize it, so as to avoid taxes?
As to non-married couples/families? They have the option to marry but choose not to for their own reasons. Something you seek to prevent same-sex couples the ability to do.
Gay people also have the option to marry, just like any one else. There is no couple's right to marry.
Why do "opposite-sex families" merit advantages over same-sex families? Those with and without children... those monogamous or not... those sexually active or not.
Human reproduction is sexual. We all have a mother and father. Society recognizes this, and privileges that relationship, husband and wife, for that reason. It is beneficial to society that men and women marry. Even men and women who choose not to, or cannot, procreate, still demonstrate the marital form most advantageous to society. It's still husband AND wife, it begins with that.

There are other ways to provide legal recognition/protection to other relationships.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6515 Jul 25, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
For the reasons I already stated.
1,400 laws an statutes pertaining to married couples and their families.
Marriage doesn't exist simply as a benefits package, if it did, there's no reason not to declare any number of consenting adult relationships, "marriage". Why exclude plural marriage practitioners, and their children, from legal marriage. Don't those children deserve to have the state legally recognize the marriage of their mother AND father?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6516 Jul 25, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
so you think that a person has to explain themselves or their relationship in order to pass a test to obtain a marriage license?
you make no sense.
No, they just have to meet the basic requirements as set forth by the state.

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 a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 1 hr Retribution 5
News Why Is It So Hard For The TV News To Say 'Gay'? 4 hr Cordwainer Trout 3
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 5 hr Marcavage s Trick 366
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Frindly 15,006
News Unhinged pastor tells "gay world" to "go to a M... 5 hr Marcavage s Trick 7
Jewboy Jade's Kosher Pig Peckers 7 hr Jewboy Jade 1
News Arlington Receives "All-Star" Rating for LGBTQ ... 7 hr Marcavage s Trick 22
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 8 hr Ralph 146
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) Fri GodSmacked 26,930
More from around the web