Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,567

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.

Full Story

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9110 Sep 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not yet, that case has not been brought before them since their last ruling on SSM.
Oh so they, SCOTUS, didn't force every single state to recognize to recognize SMS, is that correct?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9111 Sep 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.
Well, Brian, that's not exactly true. You make it sound as though those evil homosexuals are just indiscriminately suing Christians without justification.

Of course, if you weren't a dullard, you would realize that even that would not be any particular threat, because if the cases were not justified, the evil homosexuals would not win, and the court would order them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification.

Of course, that scenario is far from the truth. The lawsuits in question have arisen in cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws.

The reality of the matter is that it does not violate a business owner's free exercise of religion simply to provide services to a person who holds differing religious moral beliefs.

If you weren't an idiot, you would understand this. Keep making yourself look like a fool Brian. You are making great strides for marriage equality by making the opposition look like buffoonish cartoons.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9112 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question, please. Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?
I did. it is the state, as long as they do so without violating the US constitution.

one SCOTUS case away from nationwide, legal SSM.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#9113 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
SCOTUS will soon,and should. Bigotry and hate cant be law.

My question is the point. NO STATE LAW CAN OVER RIDE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Yes states issue marriage certs. States use to be able to say if slavery as legal or not...THAT GOT CHANGED. So will this.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9114 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Answer the question, please. Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?
The state.

Your question has been answered simply and directly.

Quid pro quo, answer this question please. What compelling governmental interest is served by a state limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex marriage, which renders such a restriction constitutional?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9115 Sep 2, 2013
Who decides who gets the 1,138 federal rights and protections of marriage provided by federal law?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9116 Sep 2, 2013
What is the basis of the freedom of speech? Freedom of religious choice? Association? Life? Liberty? The pursuit of happiness? What is the basis for these and other fundamental rights?
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9118 Sep 2, 2013
y-l-l-a-e-r-h-o wrote:
<quoted text>Everyone already has that equal protection. Gays don't want equality, they want special privileges to accommodate their sexual predilections.
Asking for something you already have doesn't make it special.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9119 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so they, SCOTUS, didn't force every single state to recognize to recognize SMS, is that correct?
not yet, but they will.... have no doubt.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9120 Sep 2, 2013
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?
Florida has.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9121 Sep 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.
Christians should stop breaking the law.
Huh

Owatonna, MN

#9124 Sep 2, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
Florida has.
Yes they did. In Florida I could follow a couple out for walk...call the women names make nasty comments, if the guy turns and throws punch at me I can pull out gun shoot him and it is legal.....
Kareen Noboa

Crownsville, MD

#9125 Sep 2, 2013
the best free on line dating website ever!! send and receive messages, flirts, and video chat all for free!! check this one out. http://tinyurl.com/ksdya7p

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9126 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so they, SCOTUS, didn't force every single state to recognize to recognize SMS, is that correct?
how could they? that case has not been brought before their bench. you do know how the Supreme court of your own nations works, don't you? they do not make laws. they do not rule on laws not before their bench.
barry

Rainsville, AL

#9127 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Brian, that's not exactly true. You make it sound as though those evil homosexuals are just indiscriminately suing Christians without justification.
Of course, if you weren't a dullard, you would realize that even that would not be any particular threat, because if the cases were not justified, the evil homosexuals would not win, and the court would order them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification.
Of course, that scenario is far from the truth. The lawsuits in question have arisen in cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws.
The reality of the matter is that it does not violate a business owner's free exercise of religion simply to provide services to a person who holds differing religious moral beliefs.
If you weren't an idiot, you would understand this. Keep making yourself look like a fool Brian. You are making great strides for marriage equality by making the opposition look like buffoonish cartoons.
first of all there is no general principle of the courts ordering "them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification."
second of all it is clear that not all cases are "cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws."
however it probably could be said that all cases are the result of their feelings being hurt when people exercised their right to free speech and told them that their moral convictions [another constitutional right] would prevent them from participating in their activities.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9128 Sep 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I did. it is the state, as long as they do so without violating the US constitution.
one SCOTUS case away from nationwide, legal SSM.
So one state with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman is in violation of the federal constitution, but another state with the same is not?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9129 Sep 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how could they? that case has not been brought before their bench. you do know how the Supreme court of your own nations works, don't you? they do not make laws. they do not rule on laws not before their bench.
But they could have done so, it was well within their authority to do it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9130 Sep 2, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS will soon,and should. Bigotry and hate cant be law.
My question is the point. NO STATE LAW CAN OVER RIDE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Yes states issue marriage certs. States use to be able to say if slavery as legal or not...THAT GOT CHANGED. So will this.
Seriously sickofit, toomanylaws, and now "huh", why didn't SCOTUS, five Justices specifically, rule that SSM is the law of the land and every state must recognize it?

The comparison to slavery is bizarre, no one chooses to become a slave, or at least no one sane. People are not forced to marry, or even marry with state sanction.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9131 Sep 2, 2013
barry wrote:
first of all there is no general principle of the courts ordering "them to pay for the legal fees of the people they sued without justification."
http://www.novackmacey.com/wp-content/uploads...
It is long established that legal fees can be recovered if the lawsuit is frivolous. In many cases the dismissal will summarily include the legal fees of the defendant if the claim against them lacks merit.
barry wrote:
second of all it is clear that not all cases are "cases where business owners have broken state anti-discrimination laws."
Actually, so far, the three major suits Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico all involve states with anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation as a protected class.
https://www.aclu.org/maps/non-discrimination-...
barry wrote:
however it probably could be said that all cases are the result of their feelings being hurt when people exercised their right to free speech and told them that their moral convictions [another constitutional right] would prevent them from participating in their activities.
The state does not bring cases because someone's feelings have been hurt. Although that may be the basis of the civil cases, the state criminal cases are brought because the proprietors broke the laws of the state.

Take a moment to know what you are talking about before you spout drivel.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9132 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The state.
Your question has been answered simply and directly.
Quid pro quo, answer this question please. What compelling governmental interest is served by a state limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman, expressly forbidding same sex marriage, which renders such a restriction constitutional?
Rather simple actually, the state has a compelling interest in the relationship itself, the male female union. All men, and all women, regardless of self professed same sex attraction are still men and women, and thus they can choose to enter that relationship, form that union, male female, which establishes the compelling state interest. The state has no interest in a same sex relationship, if it had such an interest would have manifested itself long before now, quite possibly it would already exist before now, rendering this debate moot.

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
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 27 min Suculent-dry 25,986
Democratic activist accused of abusing 15-year-old 28 min Zeppelin 6
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 38 min Obvious 647
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Terra Firma 4,335
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 2 hr FUB 2,469
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 2 hr Pro Ukraine 2,717
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 4 hr Cali Girl 2014 68,393
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,312
Study Suggests But Doesn't Prove Genetic Link t... 6 hr Abrahammock Religion 194
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,849

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE