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

#8521 Aug 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Normal people are the folks getting sued for their belief, marriage is male/female.
No one is being sued for their beliefs, you moron. They are being sued for breaking the law. Do you think you phony 'christians' are exempt from the law????????
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8522 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one's "fundamental right" was voted away, simply constitutional defining, that which had been understood since before the birth of the Republic, marriage as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife. Since those with self professed same sex attraction and/or orientation, are still either men or women, they have always had, and exercised, the fundamental right to marry. We both know that. As for the rest.....
SCOTUS disagrees with you. Tough, ain't it?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8523 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
2/3 intimated by the wife...which makes one wonder what the lesbian divorce rate is. Actually, that wasn't from Maggie Gallagher....I'm surprised you can type her name without shaking. She must be the devil incarnate among the alphabet soup rainbow crowd.
hahahahahahah

Are you serious? Maggie-the cow- Gallagher is a professional liar. Mark my words: one day she will end up in jail for income tax evasion.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8524 Aug 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Rewriting marriage laws for everyone isn't a fundamental right. Else, Muslims would have polygamy. Keeping marriage as is prevents the segregation of marriage where we've now got perfect affirmative action and diversity of one man/one woman marriage.
If you love integration over segregation; keep marriage one man and one woman.
Dear god, Brian.... you are too stupid. Religions don't dictate law in this country!! What is wrong with you?????????
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8525 Aug 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Junior high? No, they start much earlier, kindergarten. They use bullying as a reason to justify promoting homosexuality. Normal people can see right through that.
2. It does present major problems. If gays shower with straights of the same sex then equality demands that opposite sex straights should shower together.
1. No one is 'promoting homosexuality,' you idiot. People either are gay or they are not gay. Normal people see it as promoting tolerance and kindness to your neighbors.... something you dislike because it makes you feel un-special.

2. Perhaps you should dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS textbook and give it another read. "equality demands?" ahahahahahahhahaha

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8526 Aug 21, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
Dear god, Brian.... you are too stupid. Religions don't dictate law in this country!! What is wrong with you?????????
Where do you see religion in arguing same sex marriage introduces sex segregation to perfectly integrated one man/one woman marriage? Is it the idea of perfection over segregation? Why don't you discuss the issue, the American preference for integration and diversity over segregation even when voluntary?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8528 Aug 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard that lesbians first date is dinner and a movie. The second date is a U-haul. And the third date is an arbitrator.
Funny stuff.
But seriously, I know a lot of lesbian couples who've been together for a few decades.
Of that, I don't doubt there are.
Some research suggests, counter-intuitively, that male-male life-time partnerships are the longest lasting.
That makes sense, look at the differences between male friendships, and female friendships. Far less drama with men.
There is also anecdotal evidence that some of those relationships benefit from a certain amount of, shall we call it, flexibility?
Understood. I can't imagine too many wives agreeing to "flexibility".....un less they're a gymnast.:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8529 Aug 21, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS disagrees with you. Tough, ain't it?
Ohhhhhh....so ssm is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS? That would mean its legal nation wide. Thanks for clearing that up........nice try.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8530 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Understood. I can't imagine too many wives agreeing to "flexibility".....un less they're a gymnast.:)
Actually, there is a long tradition of women looking the other way while their husbands flexed their muscles. I suspect making an issue of it is a relatively modern phenomenon--only after women had independent means of support.

Flexibility for both the husband and wife seems to be quite common in certain circles, too.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8531 Aug 21, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, there is a long tradition of women looking the other way while their husbands flexed their muscles.
True, even expected, in some cultures, for the husband to have a mistress.
I suspect making an issue of it is a relatively modern phenomenon--only after women had independent means of support.
Sounds about right....now a husband wouldn't even think about even suggesting it.
Flexibility for both the husband and wife seems to be quite common in certain circles, too.
There'll always b swingers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8532 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No one's "fundamental right" was voted away, simply constitutional defining, that which had been understood since before the birth of the Republic, marriage as a union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife. Since those with self professed same sex attraction and/or orientation, are still either men or women, they have always had, and exercised, the fundamental right to marry. We both know that. As for the rest.....
It is clear you have no understanding of fundamental rights.

"Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel."

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

Please observe the words, due process.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8533 Aug 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It is clear you have no understanding of fundamental rights.
"Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_ri...
Please observe the words, due process.
The right to marry has to have a definitional foundation to it, which is the right to enter into a monogamous union of husband and wife. Its not what one wishes to define marriage.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8535 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry has to have a definitional foundation to it, which is the right to enter into a monogamous union of husband and wife. Its not what one wishes to define marriage.
yet the US federal government now defines marriage to include same sex marriages,so that basic civil right of marriage should be had by all., regardless of which state they live in.

Scotus knew the ramifications of their decision. they opened the door that should have been opened and SSM will be the law of the land very soon. one SCOTUS case away....
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8536 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh....so ssm is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS? That would mean its legal nation wide. Thanks for clearing that up........nice try.
Did I say that? No, I didn't. Thanks for jumping to unsupportable conclusions.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8537 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry has to have a definitional foundation to it, which is the right to enter into a monogamous union of husband and wife. Its not what one wishes to define marriage.
Oh, but it is. It's whatever the government says it is. Marriage is legal government recognition, and they are free to define it any damn way they choose. Our Constitution guarantees equal protection to all citizens, not only heterosexuals.

What's the matter? Are you afraid of change? It's the one thing you can depend on.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8538 Aug 21, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say that? No, I didn't. Thanks for jumping to unsupportable conclusions.
in fact, it is legal for some nationwide. members of the military have their SSM recognized by the US gov't regardless of where they are based. the military even will grant them ten days off to go to a state where SSM is legal so they can get married.

SCOTUS opened the door wide for this civil right to be legally recognized across the nation. they knew the ramifications of their decision...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8540 Aug 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry has to have a definitional foundation to it, which is the right to enter into a monogamous union of husband and wife. Its not what one wishes to define marriage.
Not so. It is a legal union of two people who are committed to one another sharing family duties, property, and other things associated with a family unit. Such legal relationships are bound by law and subject to protection of pertinent laws. To deny same-sex couples the right to establish such family units denies them due process of the law.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8541 Aug 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet the US federal government now defines marriage to include same sex marriages,
Yet they did not explicitly say ssm is a fundamental right.
so that basic civil right of marriage should be had by all., regardless of which state they live in.
It was, and still is "had by all", all men and women provided they meet as any other basic requirements set forth by the state. Are you suggesting the individual has the right to define legal marriage as they so choose, and have the state simply grant it?
Scotus knew the ramifications of their decision. they opened the door that should have been opened and SSM will be the law of the land very soon. one SCOTUS case away....
Or they opened a Pandora's box. If the conjugality, as in opposite sex, is expendable, what other state requirements can be maintained if marriage is a "fundamental right"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8542 Aug 22, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then,....what's the point in them BEING husband and wife?
Wait, I know...they get to benefit from the institution of marriage financially, like married gay couples,
....without all that boring "married" stuff, like,...commitment, for instance.
VERY progressive.
Very,....."liberal",
to coin a phrase.
I believe the point way back when was for women to be taken care of by their men. Don't blame me for heterosexual cultural shadow-traditions. I merely observe. And I don't believe there are any serious disagreements with my impressions.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8543 Aug 22, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then,....what's the point in them BEING husband and wife?
Wait, I know...they get to benefit from the institution of marriage financially, like married gay couples,
....without all that boring "married" stuff, like,...commitment, for instance.
VERY progressive.
Very,....."liberal",
to coin a phrase.
monoogamy isn't just a "straight" thing sugar.

my partner & i've been together now for 23+ yrs and been monogamous.

kind of like our parents.

but not all straight married couple stay together or are monogamous, either, are they? gee, maybe it's a human thing and not an orientation thing, all things considered.

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
Transgender woman assaults 10 year old in restroom 4 min TomInElPaso 2
News Birth-record fix for gays falls to lower court 22 min Carol Welsh 1
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 35 min neighbor 2,561
News Russian who says he helped meddle in US electio... 1 hr anonz 9
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 3 hr EdmondWA 336
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr NoahLovesU 57,572
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr cpeter1313 12,971
News Who would be a better president: Donald Trump o... 12 hr RIP 31
News Tanzania authorities arrest 12 over "homosexual... 18 hr Frankie Rizzo 33
More from around the web