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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7033 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Nor prohibit the free exercise there of. Don't worry The President will still light the national Christmas tree this year.
How does allowing same sex couples the right to marry prohibit the free exercise of religion? Be specific.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7035 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How does allowing same sex couples the right to marry prohibit the free exercise of religion? Be specific.
I never said it did. I was simply completing the rest of the amendment you listed.

How can a same sex couple have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states? Sounds like you are arguing for group marriage, or polygamy.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7036 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
I never said it did. I was simply completing the rest of the amendment you listed.
I never said you did, but it is the argument being offered by Barronelle Stutzman. Since you are taking her position, I thought you might have insight into her legal logic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
How can a same sex couple have the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states?

Did you mean this to be two sentences with the question mark where the comma is?

Can you indicate any state interest served by limiting marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional? You've never quite been able to figure out an answer to this simple question.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sounds like you are arguing for group marriage, or polygamy.
No, only a fool would infer as much.

You see, polygamy seeks greater protection of the law. How, I hear you ask? Well, polygamy, by definition, is the union of three or more people, and three (or more) is inherently greater than two. It's a simple matter of counting.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#7037 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're catching on!
<quoted text>
Two for two
<quoted text>
Do you mean the 80yr old man and woman? Yes? Very good......think about it......exactly! Because they still accept each other as husband and wife! Oh.....there's more? Of course.....the state has always allowed 80yr olds to marry, enter into a legally recognized relationship of husband and wife, and no one ever said "gee marriage must not be about procreation because GRANDMA AND GRANDPA are allowed to marry"!
<quoted text>
The state expects them to accept each other as husband and wife, no different from any other man and woman who marry each other.
<quoted text>
Grandma and Grandpa who marry each other reinforce the marital understanding as a union of husband and wife. Seriously, Dave, does anyone ever look at an elderly opposite sex couple and not view them as "grandma and grandpa", or think that somehow marriage isn't about husband and wives and the children they create?
So the government's only interest in having eighty-year-olds marry is that they will accept each other as husband and wife.

Do you realize what an inane statement that is?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7038 Aug 2, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
So the government's only interest in having eighty-year-olds marry is that they will accept each other as husband and wife.
Do you realize what an inane statement that is?
What do you expect from an irrational mental midget?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#7039 Aug 2, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
"mascot victim group"??
Same sex marriage supporters are a mascot victim group for the left. Have you noticed the way they continually sue their neighbors and state? They don't have the political power to push their radical changes on marriage so they act offended and sue.

.
heartandmind wrote:
what the hell are you talking about bi? do you even know yourself what you're talking about in these bumpersticker nonsensical and nonrelatable posts of yours?
Why does h&m continually call me "bi"? He doesn't like me, do you think he's trying to be offensive? Is it a reference to orientation? Let me ask you, if he posts those labels on a public board, what do you think he calls gays and lesbians in private?

The left aren't your friends; they use you to achieve their political goals and if they win, you'll be the one's who suffer most.

.
heartandmind wrote:
if you don't want to practice sharia - great! neither does anyone else that hasn't already chosen to be a muslim. your failed attempt at that ol' slippery slope just dumped back on you.
If you set a precedent to change the definition of marriage for gays and lesbians; why not change the definition for Muslims too? You're setting a very bad precedent:

Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7040 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters are a mascot victim group for the left.
No, they are a group of citizens seeking equal protection of the law, which they are constitutionally guaranteed.
Brian_G wrote:
Have you noticed the way they continually sue their neighbors and state?
Have you noticed they only sue when there is just cause.
Brian_G wrote:
They don't have the political power to push their radical changes on marriage so they act offended and sue.
They don't need the political power. As has been pointed out time and time again, fundamental rights may not be put to a vote. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...

Why do you hate freedom?
Brian_G wrote:
Why does h&m continually call me "bi"? He doesn't like me, do you think he's trying to be offensive? Is it a reference to orientation? Let me ask you, if he posts those labels on a public board, what do you think he calls gays and lesbians in private?
The left aren't your friends; they use you to achieve their political goals and if they win, you'll be the one's who suffer most.
Probably, because they have never encountered anyone who is fervently anti-equality who isn't a closet case.
Brian_G wrote:
If you set a precedent to change the definition of marriage for gays and lesbians; why not change the definition for Muslims too?
Because, fool, Islam is a religion. The law cannot be changed to respect an establishment of religion, Muslim or otherwise. Read the first amendment.
Brian_G wrote:
You're setting a very bad precedent:
Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.
Actually, it is you who advocate for a bad precedent. If we treat one minority group as second class citizens, what stops us from doing so with others. Would you like it if we classified dim-wits, such as yourself, as second class citizens who should not have free speech?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#7041 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage supporters are a mascot victim group for the left. Have you noticed the way they continually sue their neighbors and state? They don't have the political power to push their radical changes on marriage so they act offended and sue.
.
<quoted text>Why does h&m continually call me "bi"? He doesn't like me, do you think he's trying to be offensive? Is it a reference to orientation? Let me ask you, if he posts those labels on a public board, what do you think he calls gays and lesbians in private?
The left aren't your friends; they use you to achieve their political goals and if they win, you'll be the one's who suffer most.
.
<quoted text>If you set a precedent to change the definition of marriage for gays and lesbians; why not change the definition for Muslims too? You're setting a very bad precedent:
Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.
i've already explained at least twice why i refer to you as "bi"....go back re-read those posts with the questions posed that you CHOSE to ignore. i'd asked for some data, some proof, of some claims you'd made -which, as usual, you completely ignored.

and has anyone noticed how this dud manages to repeat himself with these little bumpersticker arguments? without offering anything along the lines of substantiation? whine whine whine.

and bi, you've painted yourself into a corner here. you've colored yourself with a deep shade of ignorance and decided to opt with blindness instead of choosing to understand what you've been told and taught. you choose to support discrimination going so far as to show indignation. you're siding with taking away a citizen's right to publicly redress a legal and civil wrongdoing. the couple in question is following the law - you don't like the fact that the law supports their case and gives them the right to handle this in the public courts. we get it. you're against same sex marrigae. your reasons are your own and the do not matter. to anyone. legally, they do not matter. the only hurt feelinsg around here are your own.

if you don't like how america's laws are written or interpreted, then move back here and run for public office. use what you've written here as your platform to run a campaign. you'll get publicity. lots and lots of it. you'll be noticed. some, a small minority, will agree with you and vote for you. the vast majority, however, will see you for what you are.

the other alternatives you have are either to just roll with the flow and not let it bother you OR you can move to another country that is more in line with your way of thinking and become a citizen of that country. i hear russia just changed it's laws - i'm sure you'd be quite happy living there, considering how it's structured it's laws to the point that even being supportive of homosexuality gets you arrested and nothing is done to those people that attach gays. sincerely i wish you the best of luck in your quest to find peace and happiness.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#7042 Aug 2, 2013
sorry, "attach" should be "attack".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7043 Aug 2, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
So the government's only interest in having eighty-year-olds marry is that they will accept each other as husband and wife.
As with any other couple, the state recognizes marriage as a union of husband and wife. It also realizes there will be couples such as the 80yr olds who, although we'll past any child bearing years, serve to reinforce the understanding of marriage as a union of husband and wife,
Do you realize what an inane statement that is?
This from a man advocating that a personal intimate same sex sexual union be designated marriage by the state because the state has interest in two men calling each other husband and husband, or two women wife and wife.

Did u actually read, and comprehend what I wrote in the last post? Here's a repost.

The state has always allowed 80yr olds to marry, enter into a legally recognized relationship of husband and wife, and no one ever said "gee marriage must not be about procreation because GRANDMA AND GRANDPA are allowed to marry"!

The state expects them to accept each other as husband and wife, no different from any other man and woman who marry each other.

Grandma and Grandpa who marry each other reinforce the marital understanding as a union of husband and wife. Seriously, Dave, does anyone ever look at an elderly opposite sex couple and not view them as "grandma and grandpa", or think that somehow marriage isn't about husband and wives and the children they create?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7044 Aug 2, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
the other alternatives you have are either to just roll with the flow and not let it bother you OR you can move to another country that is more in line with your way of thinking and become a citizen of that country. i hear russia just changed it's laws - i'm sure you'd be quite happy living there, considering how it's structured it's laws to the point that even being supportive of homosexuality gets you arrested and nothing is done to those people that attach gays. sincerely i wish you the best of luck in your quest to find peace and happiness.
Actually, with their obsession over Sharia law, perhaps Iran is a better option.

Brian is truly a detractor of true freedom and equality.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7045 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The refutation is in the obvious. A SSM differs in function and form.
So you claim... again and again and again. Yet the only difference you point out is the gender of the participants. Marriages are otherwise identical.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#7046 Aug 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are a group of citizens seeking equal protection of the law, which they are constitutionally guaranteed.
They seek that which they already possess.
They don't need the political power. As has been pointed out time and time again, fundamental rights may not be put to a vote. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
They can when there are those, who already possess the fundamental right, seek to fundamentally alter the very right they ALREADY POSSESS!!!!!
Why do you hate freedom?
Why do you hate the freedom to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
Probably, because they have never encountered anyone who is fervently anti-equality who isn't a closet case.
Or someone who is fervently anti conjugality who isn't a nut case.
Actually, it is you who advocate for a bad precedent. If we treat one minority group as second class citizens, what stops us from doing so with others. Would you like it if we classified dim-wits, such as yourself, as second class citizens who should not have free speech?
Again, you offer another subtle argument for plural marriage.....you are clever.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7047 Aug 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>"And there’s the problem in a nutshell.
Oh, this should be good! You wrapping things up in a "nutshell"!! LOL!!
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
If gay rights trumps religion,
Well, so much for that supposed nutshell. Like it or not Barry, this isn't about "gay rights", it's about civil liberties. And yes, no matter how much you don't like it, civil liberties ALWAYS trump in this country. We are founded on the Constitution that guarantees them, not your bible. If you don't like that, then move to a country founded on theocracy rather than one founded on democracy.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
then the two cannot co-exist.
They most certainly can co-exist. Within the confines of civil law. Just as religion has co-existed in the past. You and your florist can cry all week about the fact that she has to perform her job regardless of what she thinks about the customers. Just as bigots in the past have had to serve blacks, work for women and actually pay their labor force, despite their beliefs that the bible tells them they shouldn't have to do these things.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a clash between two religions.
Neither homosexuality, nor civil rights are a religion. Your statement is stupid.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity and Liberalism.
Neither is Liberalism a religion. Your statement is stupid.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
We have a state church and it performs gay weddings and insists that everyone participate in them as well." copied.
Way to demonstrate the idiocy of your point. Did you also put your hands on your hips and stomp your feet when you typed this?

I notice you still haven't provided an example of an application for a gay wedding. Any reason you're avoiding doing that? I mean, even here in your childish "closing argument" you reference them. Hey, do me a favor, when you present a copy, please also present the paperwork issued by the state that informs you that that you must participate in a "gay wedding". Show us what extent of participation the state is requiring you to have in that event.

LOL! Now you run along cry baby. The adults need some time to talk.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7048 Aug 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and you have failed to show where a wedding is a protected event or somehow is covered by the law. as it clearly is not.
I'm not required to. The case isn't about the wedding, it's about the participants.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you also can not show that she declined this event simply and only because they were a homosexual couple.
She serviced wedding in the past, and she stated that she was not serving this one because the outcome would be that two gays would be married. She noted she "couldn't support that", as if she had been asked to support it. She wasn't. She was asked to make flower arrangements. Or, in your eyes, she was asked to make art. In either scenario, her support was neither requested or required. And her refusal to perform this particular job rests solely on the fact that the participants in the wedding were homosexual. Whether she had sold flowers to homosexuals in the past because she approved of how the flowers were going to be used in other scenarios is irrelevant.

She declined this event solely because the end result would be that two "homosexuals" would be married. Are you trying to pretend there were other reasons? Well Barry, since you seem to have such insight into her thoughts and reasoning, why don't you present them?!!! There is NOTHING funnier, than watching a bigot try to establish alternative reasons for why they need to discriminate against certain people!!! Please, have at it!!! Why did the florist refuse to service this wedding if it had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the participants?

Waiting....

Waiting....

Waiting.....
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
i am claiming that if they were two heterosexual men forming a union that the state would have to call a marriage that she would have declined to service that also.
I'm sure she would. In this case it would be because of the gender of the participants. That's still illegal in Washington State. She would still be breaking the law. She would still be discriminating. But outside of your make believe scenario, the fact still remains that she refused that ACTUAL job, because of the sexual orientation of the patrons.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
so once again, it was about the event and not about who they were.
Once again, that's utter bullshyt. And you know it. The fact that you deny it only demonstrates how desperate you are to justify her discrimination. It paints you as quite ugly.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7049 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor prohibit the free exercise there of. Don't worry The President will still light the national Christmas tree this year.
Shhhhhh! Don't let the evangelical Obama-haters hear that. It will destroy their narrative about the White House war on Christmas.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#7050 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is bad because I don't want to practice Sharia.
Hey there Brian_G! Glad to see you up and at 'em this morning!!

So, will you be responding, or cowardly avoiding following up on your past claims?

EXPOSING THE COWARDICE OF BRIAN_G

1) Brian_G stated that NOM wasn't against homosexuals, just concerned with marriage laws. I pointed out that NOM made public condemnations to the Boy Scouts when they lifted their ban on having gay scouts. I asked Brian_G to explain what the Boy Scouts has to do with marriage laws. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0...

2)Brian_G has stated numerous times that gays being married will change laws for everyone that marries. I've asked him to supply a law that is not applied differently to straight married couples then it was applied to them prior to gays getting married. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...

3)Brian_G claims that gays want to redefine marriages for everyone else. I've asked how his or any other straight person's marriages has been redefined. Specifically to list 5 ways their marriage is now defined differently. To date - NO ANSWER from the coward.
http://www.topix.com/forum/living/wedding/TP3...

Brian_G = Coward_Village_Idiot

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#7051 Aug 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
They seek that which they already possess.
Pietro, in most jurisdictions in the US they do not have equal protection, which is why they continue to work towards it. What is the point of making such a plainly false statement as the one you made here?
Pietro Armando wrote:
They can when there are those, who already possess the fundamental right, seek to fundamentally alter the very right they ALREADY POSSESS!!!!!
Once again, Pietro, you have yet to offer even so little as a rational basis to laws that restrict marriage to being between opposite sex partners.

Personally, I don't think you are up to the task. Anyone dim enough to claim that a homosexual has equal protection to marry someone of the opposite sex, in addition to inadvertently endorsing sham marriages, isn't playing with a full deck.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why do you hate the freedom to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?
I don't, and tradition marriage is in no way altered or harmed by the inclusion of same sex couples being able to marry. Feel free to illustrate that allowing same sex marriage does harm traditional marriage. Be specific. The reality is that you cannot, because there is no harm.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or someone who is fervently anti conjugality who isn't a nut case.
No, just fervently equal protection of the laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, you offer another subtle argument for plural marriage.....you are clever.
No, Pietro. I can still count, and understand that three or more is greater than two. One wonders why you don't understand this simple fact. Maybe you could sit in at the local Kindergarten and take some brush up counting lessons. I'm sure the kids would be able to tutor you.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7052 Aug 2, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I would argue Baker became irrelevant when the governor signed the law, but a minor detail. Either way, it is now a shameful relic of history.
Baker may be moot in Minnesota, but the ghost is still hanging over many other states.

Minnesota's choice to allow same-sex couple to marry didn't really affect Baker. But the Windsor decision affected the legal landscape like a 9.0 earthquake.

Remember, the only comment SCOTUS made in Baker was that it lacked a federal question. That means that the US Constitution did not confer a right to marriage to same-sex couples, so Minnesota was free to decide for itself.

The obvious change in the landscape since Baker is that a quarter of the states now allow same-sex couples to marry. And Baker was completely irrelevant to Windsor since the entire question was about federal recognition of marriages by those states. The court found the federal government must recognize the decisions of the states.

On its surface, that leaves Baker in tact. But the problems that will be caused by married couples moving to other states, having residency in multiple states, and having business interests around the country will soon create substantial federal questions.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7053 Aug 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage supporters are a mascot victim group for the left. Have you noticed the way they continually sue their neighbors and state? They don't have the political power to push their radical changes on marriage so they act offended and sue.
Oh Brian, you do crack me up! Have you never noticed how the right-wingers clog up the court system with nonsense that they can't get through even their puppet red-giant legislatures?

But please, your jokes are funny only the first time. They are really boring when you repeat and repeat and repeat.

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 Gay pastor fights censure by United Methodist C... 23 min Rose_NoHo 165
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 48 min Respect71 48,085
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 2 hr Defeat Elizabeth ... 87
News Gay pride parade to be replaced by anti-Trump p... 2 hr Defeat Nancy Pelosi 9
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr The Troll Stopper 5,600
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 3 hr Stinky McPoophead 13,398
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr Imprtnrd 25,305
More from around the web