Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

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.

Comments (Page 419)

Showing posts 8,361 - 8,380 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9090
Sep 1, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Little Terry....you seemed confused...perhaps that is why you ignore the obvious. The fundamental right to marry has to have a basis to it, and it does, the male female relationship.
I'm not confused at all, small Peter. The legal accomplishment of marriage is the establishment of kinship between previously unrelated parties. That is the one constant throughout history, regardless of whatever else has changed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So when Josh Weed, a self described gay man married his best friend, who then became Mrs. Weed, he exercised his fundamental right to marry. You can too.
Neither I nor anyone else is required to marry in accordance with your prejudices.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9091
Sep 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If theyíre applied equally. Want one?
Are you willing to find yourself a nice girl to be Mrs. Edmond?
Youíre so focused on labels. Itís strange. I think it impedes your understanding of this issue.
Aren't labels part of the debate? LBGTQ M.O.U.S.E.
Always with the jokes, when no logical reply is available. But do you understand what Iím saying? The damage done by the Bible? Yes, same-sex behavior has always existed. But thereís long been a pervading cultural directive to persecute us. Itís FAIR for us to be angry at that, and to resist it, and to correct it.
What is logical about the modern invention of homosexuality?
No idea what you mean.
Where one stands, depends on where one sits. One's views are often dependent on one's personal situation.
No, but does this mean that we should stop striving for it? Or that we donít deserve it?
Strive on.
Then HOW are 14 states managing to grant same-sex marriages?
Not that difficult to figure out. Marriage has fallen out of favor, out of wedlock births are up, so are divorce rates, and cohabitation rates, couple that with the "sexual revolution", and we have same sex marriage.
Sounds like civil rights arenít eligible for popularity contests. Shall we vote on slavery as well?
The flaw in that is that you ALREADY have the same civil right as any other man, no more no less.
Proving it can be severed, and marriage still perseveres.
To the detriment of children and society. Can't sever procreation from sex, certainly not on a large, nor practical scale.
I think itís about insuring inheritance rights, a right that gay people can make use of just as you can.
Why do keep using arguments against gay PARENTING? Is THAT what you really want to ban?
No need for marriage for "inheritance rights", a will can deal with that. Besides people with same sex sexual attraction have always taken advantage of that, long before "gay" went from meaning happy to hedonistic opposite sex sexual behavior to referencing same sex sexual behavior.
No idea what you mean here either.
Think about it, two, as in a man and woman, go to bed, but three, as in they had sex and conception occurred, get up.
I hope they win.
Bravo! Once again honesty from Edmond.
I CAN marry like every other man, in my state. And the federal government will recognize it. Whatís the problem?
You can?! Get out out of here! So the state will pronounce you, and the woman you'll marry, "husband and wife"?
Heh, no. Thatís not a requirement.
So you're not marrying like any other man.
But how does it APPLY? How does it FUNCTION? If itís so necessary, then what of the states that have chosen to discount it? Arenít their efforts doomed to failure, if this definition of ďconjugalĒ is so vital? If a man and a woman get a civil union instead of a marriage, what will they be missing?
Why bother recognizing it at all then?
Can you not express this argument in more concrete terms? When I marry my partner (next May is the plan), what part of our marriage wonít function, due to our disregarding your definition of conjugal?
Why is there a sudden need for men to marry other men, or to designate a personal same sex sexual relationship, "marriage"? How did we make it into the 21st century without it?
If marriage is SO reliant on this definition of conjugal, then HOW can marriages exist in so many places without it?
"This definition of conjugal"? If marriage can mean anything and anything, if anyone who wants to have their personal adult relationship designated "marriage", what's the point of recognizing marriage at all?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9092
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9093
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The Feds simply recognize what each individual state defines as marriage.
not really, the entire federal gov't, in all its offices and departments across all 50 states recognizes SSM.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9094
Sep 2, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.
just the ones that break the law.

More real world observations and facts: it seems this 'backlash' turns out to be most of the nation getting on board with SSM movement and the movement to recognize that homosexuality is a normal natural part of our species and society....

wow! some backlash that was!

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9095
Sep 2, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.
As long as a business owner unlawfully discriminates against minorities, they are subject to lawsuits - and thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine if every Christian, Jew, or black person had to go into a dozen stores, only to be turned away and embarrassed, just to find the one store that would serve them?

Fortunately, most Christians don't do that sort of thing, and don't support it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9096
Sep 2, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not really, the entire federal gov't, in all its offices and departments across all 50 states recognizes SSM.
Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government? C'mon now Woody, I know you know this one.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9097
Sep 2, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the federal government is now recognizing licensed same sex marriages for a host of legal benefits and privileges regardless of whether the state where the same sex couple actually lives legally recognizes it. Do keep up with current events, little Petey, before you're left behind as lost.
Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9098
Sep 2, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not confused at all, small Peter. The legal accomplishment of marriage is the establishment of kinship between previously unrelated parties. That is the one constant throughout history, regardless of whatever else has changed.
<quoted text>
Neither I nor anyone else is required to marry in accordance with your prejudices.
The "legal establishment of kinship" still required a foundation to it, that is the male female union. You can marry however way you want, but remember, not everyone wishes to marry according to your prejudices as well. Thanks to legal SSM, it's quite possible, that others can marry according to how they see fit, not according to anyone's "prejudice".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9099
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government? C'mon now Woody, I know you know this one.
who forces the states to change their marriage laws when they discriminate against people?

we are one more SCOTUS case away from legal SSM being the law of the land, SCOTUS knew this full well when they made their recent DOMA ruling.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9100
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?
Should it be ok or legal for a state to take a vote and make slavery legal again???? Would it be ok and legal for a state to make murder legal?????

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9101
Sep 2, 2013
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But the feds will now recognize any legally married same-sex couple regardless of the state where they reside. Same-sex couple from Texas goes to Massachusetts, gets legally married, returns to Texas... the feds will still recognize the couple as married regardless of Texas law. Legally married same-sex couples popping up all over the country.
Who issues the marriage license, the state or the federal government?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9102
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Should it be ok or legal for a state to take a vote and make slavery legal again???? Would it be ok and legal for a state to make murder legal?????
Sorry wrong answer. Try again. Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9103
Sep 2, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who forces the states to change their marriage laws when they discriminate against people?
we are one more SCOTUS case away from legal SSM being the law of the land, SCOTUS knew this full well when they made their recent DOMA ruling.
Are those state constitutional amendments still in place? Or did the Supreme Court declare invalidate them?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9104
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who issues the marriage license, the state or the federal government?
who rules whether the way they do that is constitutional?
Huh

Owatonna, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9105
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry wrong answer. Try again. Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?
The state does. But they cant deny federal or constitutional law....RIGHT??????

Now tell me can a state make murder legal?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9106
Sep 2, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are those state constitutional amendments still in place? Or did the Supreme Court declare invalidate them?
not yet, that case has not been brought before them since their last ruling on SSM.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9107
Sep 2, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Say who? YOU? LOL. I think not. Marriage has changed throughout history. This is merely the latest and in accordance with constitutional principles of equal protection of the laws.
And the one constant throughout time and place, male female. Eliminate one, and you eliminate marriage, the formula is no longer the same.
Seriously, little Petey, you need to take you head out of ass once in a while; the lack of oxygen is painfully obvious by you ad nauseam posting of this irrelevant legal opinion of a state appeals court from a state that now recognizes same sex marriage, thus rendering it moot.
Is it though. The statement contained within it is still factual. The fundamental right to marriage exists because of the nature of the male female relationship. Not once has the Supreme Court said, SSM is a fundamental right.
Indeed, equal protection of the law isn't complicated, except apparently for uneducable morons like you.
Of crybabies like you. "Wah....wah....I know I already have equal protection just like any other man or woman...but I don't like that....I want to be treated differently...even though I cry and stomp my feet for 'equal' protection"!
The basis for the fundamental right of marriage in this country is SCOTUS ruling it as such in accordance with the ninth amendment. Their ruling included no limitations or disclaimers regarding the sex of the participants of marriage. So none exist from a federal constitutional standpoint. The federal government now legally recognizes same sex marriages after the US v. Windsor ruling; it's only a matter of time before all states do as well.
Marriage exists because of the nature of the male female relationship. In case you hadn't noticed there are two sexes, and you are the product of both, much to your chagrin.
Hardly, little Petey. Allowing gays to marry could never cause as much damage to our social institutions as stupid, bigoted heterosexuals like you have done though the centuries.
I see your ignorance knows no bounds. First, "gays" have always been able to marry, just like any other man or woman. Second, "gay" as a sexual reference, used to refer to various illicit, and/or hedonistic opposite sex sexual practices. A "gay man" was a womanizer! A "gay woman" a prostitute. Third, even the word "heterosexual" is a recent invention, slightly older than "gay". Perhaps you should brush up on your history a bit.
Yeah. Just like civil rights for blacks and women proved to be passing phases too. Make sure you're buried in an unmarked grave so people won't know they should spit, piss and dance on it as they pass by in celebration of another dead bigot.
Again, your ignorance of history is illuminating. Civil rights for blacks started in this country at about the same time as the birth of the republic, as the legitimacy of slavery was questioned, for women, a little bit later. The concept of basing civil right based on one's sexual desires, is a recent invention. Time will tell whether or not the movement will sustain itself over the long haul, or die out for lack of a solid foundation.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9108
Sep 2, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who rules whether the way they do that is constitutional?
Answer the question, please. Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9109
Sep 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
The state does. But they cant deny federal or constitutional law....RIGHT??????
Now tell me can a state make murder legal?
Thank you Huh. Do you see that Woody? Huh answered it correctly. True they cannot deny federal or constitutional law. However, the state still determines what constitutes a marriage within their state. The Feds have not taken that power away from them as of yet.

As to your question....I don't know.....what's your point?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 8,361 - 8,380 of17,568
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••