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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6680 Jul 28, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
<quoted text>Somebody help, please, they are serving up down soup again and the liberals are drinking it.
Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by changing marriage from being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional?
The state has no interest in extending same sex couples rights to marry,which would require a political and to etiological change to marriage, a fact illustrated by your continual inability to indicate any such interest
Feel free to make yourself get a clue. We are selling them now for $2 dollars a clue, since your demand is so high.(used to be a buck, you should have hurried)
Bravo! Salud!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6681 Jul 28, 2013
Wow, that was painfully irrational.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
All they have are red herrings and they filled with baked molasses.
This is terribly ironic coming from you, as you have yet to offer a single valid or on topic argument, and often times appear to contradict yourself.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Same sex marriage is about discrimination:
No, it's not. It is about equal protection of the law.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
1. The gays discriminate against an entire sex
Please support this statement with facts. Be specific.
What sex do "gays" discriminate against?
How do they do so?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
2. The gays discriminate against asexual marriage and polygamy.
Asexual marriage does not exist, and polygamy is illegal. They in no way address these irrelevant issues.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
3. The gays discriminate against adult incest marriages.
Incest is similarly illegal, there are compelling state interest served by disallowing incestuous marriage, which renders those bans constitutional.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
4. The gays discriminate against child incest marriages.
Once again, incest is already illegal, and the laws against it serve a compelling state interest that renders them constitutional.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
5. The gays discriminate against bisexual marriages, one man and one man and woman.
No, they don't. Bisexuals still have the right to traditional marriage, and should have the right to marry the same sex partner of their choosing. You seem to be confusing bisexuality with being polyamorous the two are not synonymous.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Basically gays are hateful bigots who discriminate against anyone who is not like them.
Once again, I ask, how? Homosexuals seek equal protection of the law to marry the same sex partner of their choosing. You have just illustrated in five steps that you don't have any valid argument against equality for same sex couples to marry, nor are you capable of offering a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protection of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Allowing same sex marriage in no way impacts the rights of anyone who would not enter into such a union. So how is seeking equality being a hateful bigot?

You see, those seeking equality are not hateful bigots. The bigots are those who argue for fellow US citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws, as you do.

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, the anti-equality crowd is gathering an impressive record of losing in court and at the ballot box on the issue. the reality is that public support is moving in favor of equal protection, and allowing equal protection has no adverse impact upon anyone who wouldn't enter into such a union.

Now, grow up, or go out and play.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6682 Jul 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Rico? Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by eliminating the wife or the husband from the marital relationship that would render such an elimination constitutional?
Sometimes I think you are going out of your way to make yourself appear foolish.

Do you know where the concept of a compelling state interest originates? It comes from strict scrutiny, which is a heightened standard of judicial review. It applies when a law appears to violate one's constitutional rights.

Your use of the concept is hopelessly flawed. Beside which, no one is looking to eliminate a spouse, merely to be inclusive of same sex couples. Can you indicate any compelling state interest served by denying such equal protection? If not, you are out of gas.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The state had no interest in denying the individual parties to a SSC the same right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, as possessed by any other citizen. To do so would be to apply equal protection of the law, unequally to those individuals.
It also has no interest in limiting the legal protection of marriage to being between a husband and wife.

It's hysterical to me that you have decided to parrot the terms, when it is clear that you have no grasp of their relevance or application.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6683 Jul 28, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Somebody help, please, they are serving up down soup again and the liberals are drinking it.
Awww, what grade are you in?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by changing marriage from being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional?
I don't need to. A compelling state interest is necessary to deny a right, not to grant one. What is more, the US Constitution mandates that states must provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...

You see, there would need to be a compelling state interest to limit the legal protections of marriage to being between a man and a woman, one is not necessary to extend equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
The state has no interest in extending same sex couples rights to marry,which would require a political and to etiological change to marriage, a fact illustrated by your continual inability to indicate any such interest
Once again, a state interest is required to infringe upon rights, not grant them.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Feel free to make yourself get a clue. We are selling them now for $2 dollars a clue, since your demand is so high.(used to be a buck, you should have hurried)
Funny, I'm not the one who lacks an understanding of the concepts they are attempting to employ. Read the link, then see if you can grow a valid argument, or offer a state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

I fully expect your response to be as fun as watching a dog eat peanut butter.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6684 Jul 28, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is only hard for those not willing to commit fully to another person. But that does not make marriage a tool, like an automobile. Marriage is not a "thing", it is a relationship. Relationships are neither good nor bad intrinsically, but the people in them may be, thus making for a "good" or "bad" relationship.
Absolutely!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6685 Jul 28, 2013
lides wrote:
Wow, that was painfully irrational.
<quoted text>
This is terribly ironic coming from you, as you have yet to offer a single valid or on topic argument, and often times appear to contradict yourself.
<quoted text>
No, it's not. It is about equal protection of the law.
<quoted text>
Please support this statement with facts. Be specific.
What sex do "gays" discriminate against?
How do they do so?
<quoted text>
Asexual marriage does not exist, and polygamy is illegal. They in no way address these irrelevant issues.
<quoted text>
Incest is similarly illegal, there are compelling state interest served by disallowing incestuous marriage, which renders those bans constitutional.
<quoted text>
Once again, incest is already illegal, and the laws against it serve a compelling state interest that renders them constitutional.
<quoted text>
No, they don't. Bisexuals still have the right to traditional marriage, and should have the right to marry the same sex partner of their choosing. You seem to be confusing bisexuality with being polyamorous the two are not synonymous.
<quoted text>
Once again, I ask, how? Homosexuals seek equal protection of the law to marry the same sex partner of their choosing. You have just illustrated in five steps that you don't have any valid argument against equality for same sex couples to marry, nor are you capable of offering a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protection of marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Allowing same sex marriage in no way impacts the rights of anyone who would not enter into such a union. So how is seeking equality being a hateful bigot?
You see, those seeking equality are not hateful bigots. The bigots are those who argue for fellow US citizens to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws, as you do.
Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, the anti-equality crowd is gathering an impressive record of losing in court and at the ballot box on the issue. the reality is that public support is moving in favor of equal protection, and allowing equal protection has no adverse impact upon anyone who wouldn't enter into such a union.
Now, grow up, or go out and play.
No doubt. I would call it an irrational rant.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6686 Jul 28, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
<quoted text>You insult your mom and dad. You insult the human race. Who cares if you insult me, take responsibility for your horrible, hateful and deviant behavior and the harm you have caused to your parents and society. Living otherwise is suicidal and depressive. What business is it of yours to judge?
I love my mom and dad and they love me. Now you are insulting my family you lying piece of crap. What business is it of yours to insult other people for who they are.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6687 Jul 28, 2013
Savant wrote:
...Henry L. Gates, a very well off scholar at Harvard University, was arrested for breaking in his own house....
He wasn't arrested for breaking into his house, he was arrested for public disorder, yelling at police officers in the performance or their duty. If you forget your keys, don't blame the police.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6688 Jul 28, 2013
lides wrote:
...Brian, until you can offer a compelling state interest served by limiting the legal protections of marriage to opposite sex couples, expressly denying same sex couples the right to marry, which would render such a restriction constitutional, your infantile rationalizations regarding entitlements are irrelevant.
Your argument would only be valid if the state ended all legal marriage, and I don't even think you are dumb enough to make that argument.
Opposite sex marriage provides society with a benefit same sex marriage can't provide; mothers and fathers living together to raise their own kids. If same sex couples could provide that good, we could agree to entitlements, but they can't.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6689 Jul 28, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
All they have are red herrings and they filled with baked molasses.
Same sex marriage is about discrimination:
Well then, lets compare.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
1. The gays discriminate against an entire sex.
Untrue. Where have we advocated that either men or women cannot marry? We advocate that a man should be able to marry a woman or another man. And that a woman should be able to marry a man or another woman. All the sexes covered.
Sasha Cohen wrote:
2. The gays discriminate against asexual marriage and polygamy.
Untrue to the asexual marriages. We have consistently said that having sex is NOT a requirement to marry. It is your side that seeks to limit the sex acts that would be legally recognized as valid for marriage.

As to your complaint that gays discriminate against polygamy, can I infer that you would want to lift all states' legal restrictions against polygamy?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
3. The gays discriminate against adult incest marriages.
Can I infer that you would want to lift all states' legal restrictions against incest?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
4. The gays discriminate against child incest marriages.
Again, can I infer that you would want to lift all states' legal restrictions against incest as well as pedophilia?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
5. The gays discriminate against bisexual marriages, one man and one man and woman.
This is the same as Number 1 above. Again, can I infer that you would want to lift all states' legal restrictions against polygamy?
Sasha Cohen wrote:
Basically gays are hateful bigots who discriminate against anyone who is not like them.
So the conclusion to be drawn, the only differences of who gays would allow to marry from those that you would allow to marry,(assuming you are also against polygamy, incest, and pedophilia) is that YOU would discriminate against the gays marrying. All the discrimination belongs on your shoulders.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#6690 Jul 28, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
<quoted text>I agree....now go find me those adult men and women citizens who are not allowed to marry. I will start an initiative and put it on the ballot for them.
At the FEDERAL level; we 'are' allowed to legally marry
.
Here are the STATES where we 'are' allowed to legally marry
http://makeitequal.org/
.
You'll have to look up the hate states to find men and women who are not allowed to marry
.
Hurry though.....
.
Hate states are dropping like flies in a bug bomb

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6691 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Opposite sex marriage provides society with a benefit same sex marriage can't provide; mothers and fathers living together to raise their own kids. If same sex couples could provide that good, we could agree to entitlements, but they can't.
Sorry, but NOT entirely true and a failed argument to boot........there are many many children in orphanages and the foster care system because MOMMY AND DADDY didn't take care of them........so, not ALL heterosexual married couples provide society with a benefit.....and because children are raised by parents of the Same-Sex and turn out just fine......your own argument also fails!!!

By the way Brian.....there are heterosexual couples who don't have children, yet are STILL entitled to the 1138 federal rights, benefits and privileges that you keep insisting that legally married Gay and Lesbian couples SHOULDN'T be entitled to!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6692 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Opposite sex marriage provides society with a benefit same sex marriage can't provide;
Do tell.
Brian_G wrote:
mothers and fathers living together to raise their own kids.
Brian, you regularly.bring up child rearing, but you have never illustrated that opposite sex couples produce any better outcomes than same sex couples, which might render your argument relevant.
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex couples could provide that good, we could agree to entitlements, but they can't.
Looking story short, they don't need to. They are constitutionally entitled to equal protection of the laws. You've regularly failed to indicate any state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry.

Your grasp of the law and the United States Constitution is laughable, as are your childlike attempts to rationalize away the co Cnstitutional rights of fellow US citizens.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6693 Jul 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but NOT entirely true and a failed argument to boot........there are many many children in orphanages and the foster care system because MOMMY AND DADDY didn't take care of them........so, not ALL heterosexual married couples provide society with a benefit.....and because children are raised by parents of the Same-Sex and turn out just fine......your own argument also fails!!!
By the way Brian.....there are heterosexual couples who don't have children, yet are STILL entitled to the 1138 federal rights, benefits and privileges that you keep insisting that legally married Gay and Lesbian couples SHOULDN'T be entitled to!!!
Not to mention the fact that 40% of births in the US are to out of wedlock birth parents.

Brian_G sufferers from a disconnect with reality.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6694 Jul 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the fact that 40% of births in the US are to out of wedlock birth parents.
Brian_G sufferers from a disconnect with reality.
I would tend to agree with ya:-)

Brian just doesn't understand that his position regarding this issue has already sailed!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6695 Jul 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the fact that 40% of births in the US are to out of wedlock birth parents.
So that means that the state should promote out of wedlock births? Is that a desired outcome for the state or society at large?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6696 Jul 28, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I would tend to agree with ya:-)
Brian just doesn't understand that his position regarding this issue has already sailed!!!
They also have difficulty understanding facts, logic, or reason.

I'm not sure they're playing with a full deck.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6697 Jul 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Opposite sex marriage provides society with a benefit same sex marriage can't provide; mothers and fathers living together to raise their own kids. If same sex couples could provide that good, we could agree to entitlements, but they can't.
The fact that same-sex couples were already raising children was one of the reasons given by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when they mandated civil marriage equality for all couples; Goodridge 2003.

So your conclusions are not based upon factual reality.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6698 Jul 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
So that means that the state should promote out of wedlock births? Is that a desired outcome for the state or society at large?
Once again, you seem to wish to offer an irrelevant argument. What is more, you are attempting, once again, to put words in my mouth. The state does not have an interest in children being born to married parents. You see free will still exists, and that is a choice for the parents. It is also worthy of note that the state doesn't have an interest in children being raised by opposite sex parents or birth parents.

Would you care to return to the topic and offer a relevant argument? I don't think you can.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6699 Jul 28, 2013
The bible says 5 times gay is sin...It says over 20 times each that greed and gluttony are sins...Why doesn't the church and religious attack and call fat and rich people names and try to ban them??????

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Freedomofexpression 56,214
News Senate candidate Roy Moore says gay sex is "the... 11 min Delmar 26
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 12 min Freedomofexpression 10,337
News Gay couplea s home targeted by racist graffiti ... 45 min Delmar 1
News Seven arrested in Egypt after raising rainbow f... 59 min Truth Hurts 6
News Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 1 hr Tyrone 62
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 1 hr GAY BS BUSTER 228
More from around the web