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

#8271 Aug 15, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not gay. Just love the Constitution and want you racist bigoted Nazi far righters to die out...WHICH YOU ARE. Most people under age 30 support same sex marriage,....You old turds tyranny is almost over...BYE wimp.
Oh and know this I could snap you in half with one hand tied behind my back punk. So run off and hope you never meet me and spout off bitch.
You don't sound very gay, happy that is at all. All those Nazi sightings in your world makes you very un gay....not happy.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#8272 Aug 15, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you might be right......and then you might be wrong......by the way......when will your party win the White House?
I don't know if Rand Paul and the Libertarian party will ever win.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8273 Aug 15, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, that ship sailed long ago. Do you realize that there are more states recognizing marriage equality than civil unions or domestic partnerships or newfangled whatchamacallits? Do you realize that, as the number of states recognizing same-sex marriages has increased, the number of states recognizing newfangled unions has been decreasing?
This is true on the world-wide stage, as well. Several nations have adopted marriage equality this year, while I am unaware of any adopting any form of newfangled unions.
Had the marriage traditionalists coalesced behind civil unions a decade ago and begun earnestly passing civil union laws across the nation, the story might well be different. But the reality is that 90% of the people who oppose same-sex marriages also oppose civil unions, many with the same vehemence.
Had that ugly monster not carried the day in Massachusetts, marriage equality would have been turned back in the only state that had it, at the time. In 2004, the Massachusetts legislature recommended a constitutional amendment to overturn the Goodridge decision by creating civil unions and reserving marriage to one man and one woman.
But that wasn't good enough for the people who don't want any recognition at all for same-sex couples. In 2005, at the behest of the very groups fighting same-sex marriage, the constitutional amendment proposed by the previous legislature was scuttled, making room for a people's initiative that allowed for no recognition at all of same-sex couples.
This overreach resulted in the loss of both the battle and the war. Had they not made this mistake, the constitutional amendment would have appeared on the ballot in November 2006, at a time when same-sex marriage was little understood and widely disdained. In my opinion, there would have been almost no chance of defeating that amendment had it been put to Massachusetts voters.
As it happened, a people's initiative was filed. But it failed to garner support by a mere 50 of Massachusetts' 200 representatives. Thus the people's initiative died in 2007, never to be resurrected.
Any such initiative would resoundingly lose a vote today, if enough signatures could even be gathered.
So the fact is that the anti-gay folks jumped onto the sinking ship named "Civil Union" after they had already lost the marriage battle. Expecting that others will board your sinking scow is the height of denial.
So the bottom line is, several states, and nations, primarily in the West, have abandoned marriage conjugality, as the sole marital basis and replaced it with "marriage equality", the new fangled whatchamacallit, described as a union of two persons regardless of gender composition.

So when do those same states and nations abandon monogamy too? Who do you think will be first? Utah? UK? France? Sweden?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8277 Aug 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
how is denying a citizens their constitutional rights in any way a "kind thing"?
No citizen is denied their constitutional right, there's just some citizens who don't wish to exercise that right the same way as any other person of their sex does.
Would I be being kind to you if I had you civilly committed and removed your free speech, free exercise of religion, and right to due process? Of course not. only an imbecile would argue to the contrary.
Oh the drama thou displayeth.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8278 Aug 15, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if Rand Paul and the Libertarian party will ever win.
Libertarians aren't strict Constitutionalism are they?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8279 Aug 15, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if Rand Paul and the Libertarian party will ever win.
No. Now you do know.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8280 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
When are you going to learn the differences between men and women, you don't seek equal protection, because you already possess it, no different than any other man. So if you seek that which you already possess, you are either ignorant, or are seeking greater, or at least different protection, which would mean unequal.
Pietro, can you indicate a compelling state interest served by preventing a homosexual from marrying someone that they love who happens to be of the same sex that would render your position remotely valid, and hint that you have even an iota of intelligence?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8281 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Which definition of marriage is the fundamental right to marry based on?
You've certainly failed to prove that it is based upon procreation. That notion went out the window the moment the state allowed any infertile heterosexual couple the right to legally marry.

You've similarly proven incapable of offering a state interest served by denying a homosexual the right to marry someone of the same sex who they love.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8282 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No citizen is denied their constitutional right, there's just some citizens who don't wish to exercise that right the same way as any other person of their sex does.
You can, of course, offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying them the right to marry the person that they love who happens to be of the same sex, right?

Because so far, you have failed to meet this query with an answer that would justify the restriction you are defending, and prove that the restriction is constitutional.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8283 Aug 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No "group of people" were excluded to begin with. Both men and women have always been included in the recognition of marriage, it's their union which forms the definitional foundation of marriage. To remove one sex from that definition, would be to redefine marriage.
.
<quoted text>
There is also a church that performs plural marriage ceremonies too...are they being denied the right to marry couples too?
you're absolutely wrong and you know it. it's been explained to you since your first flurry of posts on this topic, so i won't bother repeating the same information again. there's no point in being redundent because it just doesn't sink in with you and bi.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8284 Aug 16, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>was there even marriage before religion?
yes, barry, marriage predates religion. maybe the ritual may not be familiar to us modern humans, but the state of being married has been around since humankind started realizing that they could own property and assets.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8285 Aug 16, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what all the closet Queers, like you, say. Don't blame you, if I was a [email protected], like you are, I'd want to hide it also. Don't kid yourself [email protected] Retard, you're no where near as tough as you tend to believe. Just a big goofy retard.
closet?

bwahahaah.....pot, meet kettle.

the lady doth protest too much.
bob lewis

AOL

#8286 Aug 16, 2013
Vance1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if Rand Paul and the Libertarian party will ever win.
Too late. The Extremists appear to have won their War on traditional America. Church leaders better pipe down. In Egypt the Extremists attacked and torched over 30 Churches yesterday. Each day more and more Americans are choosing to surrender to Big Brother rather than stand up for their values.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8287 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, can you indicate a compelling state interest served by preventing a homosexual from marrying someone that they love who happens to be of the same sex that would render your position remotely valid, and hint that you have even an iota of intelligence?
what makes you think he's any smarter than the attornies that showed up for his side that couldn't show a valid state interest beyond "yeah, but we're offended".

LOL

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8288 Aug 16, 2013
bob lewis wrote:
Each day more and more Americans are choosing to surrender to Big Brother rather than stand up for their values.
This statement doesn't even make sense. Denying Americans equality under the law is much more of a big brother issue than allowing equality for same sex couples to marry.

How does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights if you choose not to enter into such a union?

Your logic is highly flawed.
bob lewis

AOL

#8289 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
This statement doesn't even make sense. Denying Americans equality under the law is much more of a big brother issue than allowing equality for same sex couples to marry.
How does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights if you choose not to enter into such a union?
Your logic is highly flawed.
Gay Marriage is fine with me. Big Brother is using
Gay Marriage as an excuse to attack Christians. If not Gay Marriage it would be something else. Religion is ultimately outlawed in most all Totalitarian Dictatorships from China, North Korea, to the old USSR. Brush up on your Orwelle. It is the roadmap for what is happening in America.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8290 Aug 16, 2013
bob lewis wrote:
Gay Marriage is fine with me. Big Brother is using
Gay Marriage as an excuse to attack Christians. If not Gay Marriage it would be something else. Religion is ultimately outlawed in most all Totalitarian Dictatorships from China, North Korea, to the old USSR. Brush up on your Orwelle. It is the roadmap for what is happening in America.
one could make this argument, but it would be pretty inept.

How is gay marriage being used as "as an excuse to attack Christians"? Be specific.
bob lewis

AOL

#8291 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
one could make this argument, but it would be pretty inept.
How is gay marriage being used as "as an excuse to attack Christians"? Be specific.
This is pretty simple stuff.
Many basic tenents of Religious groups believe Marriage only applies to a Union between a Man and a Woman so the Religious Groups must abandon their principles and values as Big Brother demands. Big Brother no longer values the Separation of Church and State UNLESS Churches embrace the Progressive political point of view on Social Issues. It's a "totalitarian govt" thing.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8293 Aug 16, 2013
bob lewis wrote:
<quoted text>
This is pretty simple stuff.
Many basic tenents of Religious groups believe Marriage only applies to a Union between a Man and a Woman so the Religious Groups must abandon their principles and values as Big Brother demands. Big Brother no longer values the Separation of Church and State UNLESS Churches embrace the Progressive political point of view on Social Issues. It's a "totalitarian govt" thing.
Keeping kosher is fundamental to conservative Judaism. Yet we somehow manage to eat cheeseburgers and ham subs without destroying Jews' religious beliefs.

The problem with the kind of Christians you're talking about is that they can't STAND the idea that someone doesn't do what they say.[I have my own theory that this comes from the self-styled Christians own lack of good character and/or faith in his beliefs. But that is a whole new topic.]

Personally, I think we should endeavor on a short but sharp attack against these cry-baby Christians just so they could learn what true oppression feels like. It might even help them become somewhat empathetic with the groups that they spend most of their time oppressing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#8294 Aug 16, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
one could make this argument, but it would be pretty inept.
Only if you tried. You are consistently inept.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 14 min Wondering 25,357
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min Terra Firma 48,188
Freaky Friday Turdkey Shack 26 min Professor Righteous 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 40 min Agents of Corruption 5,648
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 1 hr Prosperity Fundie... 105
News Methodist court ruling a blow for openly lesbia... 1 hr Prosperity Fundie... 10
News Judge won't hear gay adoptions because it's not... 1 hr Tre H 6
More from around the web