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.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9144 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Well, when SCOTUS does finally take a case where they are asked to rule on the fundamental question of marriage equality for same-sex couples, I am sure that there will be countless amicus briefs supporting your belief filed by some of the states and the usual groups. And those briefs will be weighed against the reality of legally married same-sex couples from those states that allow it and those couples being recognized as married by the federal government. Lets see... how will the court rule.

Lets take their DOMA ruling as a template. I am sure that your position on the issue was addressed by at least (probably many) of the briefs; that congress was acting constitutionally when it enacted DOMA for the reason you posit. Gee, it would seem that by mandating the federal government recognize same-sex marriages as valid and legal doesn't bode well for your side of the issue.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9145 Sep 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's going to be backlash because same sex marriage supporters keep suing Christians.
Dear, same sex marriage supporters are suing law breakers. They deserve to be sued. If they don't want to be sued, they shouldn't try and break the law. The backlash is already occurring, and your "Christians" are the losers. That's what happens to people that pretend they are above the law.

Must suck knowing you are on the side of the losers. Oh, who am I kidding. You donated money to Mischelle Bachmann!! You've always been on the side of losers. It's where you belong!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9146 Sep 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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.
They were never asked to participate in the activities. They were employed to provide services offered by their public businesses. There moral convictions were irrelevant. Just like the moral convictions of a KKK member are irrelevant if they operate a public business and are employed by a Jew.

Go peddle your imaginary persecution somewhere else. No one here is buying that shyt.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9147 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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-...
<quoted text>
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.
Excellent response. Poor Barry is still upset to find out that all marriages are the same institution so his previous attempts to excuse the discrimination these business owners perpetuated didn't work. Now, like a child he's trying to blame it on anything he can. In this case, "hurt feelings". His attempts to minimalize discrimination say much about his character and integrity.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9148 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who issues the marriage license, the state, or the federal government?
It doesn't matter; same sex couples can get federal legal recognition of their marriages regardless of whether they live in a state that legally recognizes them.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9149 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The "legal establishment of kinship" still required a foundation to it, that is the male female union.
Nope. It merely requires previously unrelated people; since there are historical examples of same sex marriage, the sex of the participants is irrelevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You can marry however way you want,
Gays can't marry a same sex partner in all states so no, they can't marry "however" they want.
Pietro Armando wrote:
but remember, not everyone wishes to marry according to your prejudices as well.
The difference being opposite sex people have never been forced to marry a same sex partner yet you and others repeatedly have asserted and expect same sex couples to marry an opposite sex partner instead merely to satisfy your prejudices.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thanks to legal SSM, it's quite possible, that others can marry according to how they see fit, not according to anyone's "prejudice".
Except you expect same sex couples to marry out of state and forego legal recognition of their marriages in their state of residence by 30+ states and until just recently forego federal recognition of their marriages altogether. All because of your prejudices.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9150 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And the one constant throughout time and place, male female. Eliminate one, and you eliminate marriage, the formula is no longer the same.
On the contrary, since there are historical examples of same sex marriage, opposite sex participants is not the one constant through time and place. Creating kinship between unrelated persons is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Not once has SCOTUS declared heterosexual marriage a fundamental right either. Because the fundamental right is MARRIAGE, period. Take a clue from the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick in which the court ruled in Lawrence that Hardwick completely misstated the nature of the liberty claim when it characterized it as a "right to homosexual sodomy". Which is why they struck down sodomy laws, period, without regard to whether they targeted same sex participants, opposite sex participants or both.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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 actual problem is you're too f-ing retarded to understand the difference between equal application of the law vs. equal protection of the law. Even though it's been explained to you probably dozens of times now. That makes you uneducable.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Other types of marriage have existed and continue to exist so obviously that isn't either a requirement or the "nature" of marriage. People have had children outside of marriage throughout history. Therefore marriage is neither required to have children nor is it the "nature" of marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I see your ignorance knows no bounds. First, "gays" have always been able to marry, just like any other man or woman
Just like blacks and whites were able to marry under anti-miscegenation laws. Again, you're too f-ing stupid to understand the difference between equal application of the law vs. equal protection of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Hundreds of years ago, yes. But the definition of the word has evolved and that historical definition has fallen into disuse and been superseded as a reference to homosexual men and women. Language evolves, small Peter. Which is exactly what's happening with the word "marriage". Again.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Third, even the word "heterosexual" is a recent invention, slightly older than "gay". Perhaps you should brush up on your history a bit.
Which is irrelevant to the factual assertion that heterosexual marriages have caused more harm to the institution of marriage than gays ever have.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
It's simply wishful thinking on your part that LGBT rights will simply go away. Yet more proof of your stupidity.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#9151 Sep 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Um.... your moral convictions do not give you the right to ignore the law. Sorry.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#9152 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Are you willing to find yourself a nice girl to be Mrs. Edmond?
What part of the basics of this issue do you need refreshed on?

And now I need a female for a civil union TOO?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Aren't labels part of the debate? LBGTQ M.O.U.S.E.
Labels should be used to understand the people involved, not to FORCE them into convenient boxes.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What is logical about the modern invention of homosexuality?
Do you have a specific criticism about my freedom of identity?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Where one stands, depends on where one sits. One's views are often dependent on one's personal situation.
But EMPATHY helps us step outside our views, and see what others are going through.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
So my desire for a legal commitment is a BAD thing?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw in that is that you ALREADY have the same civil right as any other man, no more no less.
Tell that to Edith Windsor.
Pietro Armando wrote:
To the detriment of children and society. Can't sever procreation from sex, certainly not on a large, nor practical scale.
No one’s talking about severing procreation from sex. This is about marriage, which REQUIRES neither.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No need for marriage for "inheritance rights", a will can deal with that.
Is that what you did?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides people with same sex sexual attraction have always taken advantage of that
Care to elaborate?
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Didn’t happen for the people who raised me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bravo! Once again honesty from Edmond.
Maybe one day it will be you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What You can?! Get out out of here! So the state will pronounce you, and the woman you'll marry, "husband and wife"?
They’ll pronounce my partner and I as “husbands”. Will our marriage fail if we aren’t pronounced “husband and wife”?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you're not marrying like any other man.
Yes, I’m marrying the one and only person I want to be devoted to, for the rest of our lives. That’s how other men (and women) do it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why bother recognizing it at all then?
Why couldn’t you answer my question?

How would you regulate your estate, and ensure that it’s all delegated where you want it to go, if it WEREN’T recognized?

(See, I answer YOURS).
Pietro Armando wrote:
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?
How indeed. Millions of people throughout history might’ve appreciated it.

Why are you so bad at answering MY questions?
Pietro Armando wrote:
"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?
Do you want people’s estates distributed at the state’s whim, despite existing heirs? May any outsider interfere with the bond that two people declare for one another? Should this bond just be replaced by a stack of contracts?

“Conjugal” simply means “of marriage”. It carries NO connotations of gender. If gender were SO IMPORTANT, then same-sex marriages simply could not exist. Yet they do. Until they all vanish, I suggest you drop this foolish line of debate.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9153 Sep 2, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>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.
While an individual can exercise their free speech to express their moral convictions to others, they aren't allowed to use them as excuses to refuse business services to members of protected classes under anti-discrimination laws if they offer those services to the general public.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9154 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 in California; they ruled the proponents lacked standing to defend the case and let the District court ruling stand. SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the case and simply dismissed the appeal on a technicality. And the District court ruling applies only to the state of California.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9155 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But they could have done so, it was well within their authority to do it.
A majority of SCOTUS justices determined the Prop 8 proponents lacked standing to defend the initiative in federal court, which rendered the Prop 8 proponents unable to legally appeal the verdict of the District court. That finding meant there was no valid appeal before SCOTUS on which the court could rule on the merits of the case.

For US v. Windsor, the question before SCOTUS wasn't whether state prohibition of legal recognition of same sex marriages was constitutional. Rather it was whether the federal government could deny legal recognition to same sex marriages authorized by a state.

Your ignorance of our legal system is rather appalling. Courts can only rule on the issues properly brought before them; they can't rule on matters unrelated to the cases before them.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9156 Sep 2, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a clueless twit. I see you still don't understand the law, or the applicability of a compelling governmental interest. All you accomplish when you post this gibberish to to make yourself seem to be a blithering imbecile.
All that angst....and you call yourself gay, you don't sound very happy at all.
How is this a state interest? Be specific.
Hmmmmmmm......lets think about this....could it be because sex between men and women makes little Liddie's?

All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
Nor need there be. As has been explained to you, time and time again, a compelling governmental interest is necessary to infringe upon, not to extend, rights.
I have difficulty believing that you could actually be as stupid as you are presenting yourself to be.
There's nothing to "extend". All men, and all women are covered. Your right to marry is the same as mine, always has been.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9157 Sep 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS didn't rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 in California; they ruled the proponents lacked standing to defend the case and let the District court ruling stand. SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the case and simply dismissed the appeal on a technicality. And the District court ruling applies only to the state of California.
So no fundamental right to SSM?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9158 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
All that angst....and you call yourself gay, you don't sound very happy at all.
I dont recall Lides ever disclosing his/her sexual orientation. Are you just making assumptions again?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm......lets think about this....could it be because sex between men and women makes little Liddie's?
How is your asserted state interest in children actually linked to marriage? Nothing in state marriage laws talks about children. There are no requirements to affirm a desire or an ability to have children. in order to obtain a marriage license. Infertile opposite couples aren't prohibited from marrying. And most federal legal benefits and privileges linked to marriage aren't related to children.

The reality is the decision to have or not have children is a constitutionally protected privacy right. It's not the reason marriage has been ruled a fundamental right. It's merely one more aspect of constitutionally protected privacy or personal liberty as it's sometimes referred to.
Pietro Armando wrote:
All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species…
Inference isn't a positive declaration of such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)
After reviewing your favorite state legal ruling in greater detail, I've confirmed that it is strictly a state case based on the constitution of the state of Maryland. No part of the ruling relies on US constitutional law and therefore any editorial discussion of SCOTUS or US constitutional law has any relevance to the opinion you've cited. And it's an inaccurate summary of SCOTUS cases on the topic to boot.

More instructive and better reasoned are the dissenting opinions in this case, which include the following quotes:

“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights. &#8194; Indeed, in recasting the plaintiffs' invocation of their fundamental right to marry as a request for recognition of a ‘new’ right to same-sex marriage, the Court misapprehends the nature of the liberty interest at stake.”

"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it"

"[i]t is no answer that same-sex couples can be excluded from marriage because ‘marriage,’ by definition, does not include them. &#8194; In the end,‘an argument that marriage is heterosexual because it ‘just is' amounts to circular reasoning"
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's nothing to "extend". All men, and all women are covered. Your right to marry is the same as mine, always has been.
Indeed, all citizens, including gays, already have the fundamental right to marry. Which is apparently why you're unable to actually address Lides' comment that the state must provide a compelling reason to INFRINGE a fundamental right like marriage (which is what you're doing) rather than assert a compelling reason to EXTEND a fundamental right (since fundamental rights already belong to all citizens, as you noted, there is nothing to extend).

Your arguments, small Peter, are as impotent as you.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#9159 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So no fundamental right to SSM?
Really, small Peter, do take your head out of your ass and actually read what others write to you for a change. SCOTUS has only ruled marriage a fundamental right of citizens. Their ruling contained no disclaimers limiting marriage to "opposite sex" participants nor did they exclude "same sex"participants. So there is currently no fundamental right to opposite sex marriage or to same sex marriage; there is simply a fundamental right to marriage. Period.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9160 Sep 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont recall Lides ever disclosing his/her sexual orientation. Are you just making assumptions again?
Good point, way to angry to be gay.
How is your asserted state interest in children actually linked to marriage? Nothing in state marriage laws talks about children. There are no requirements to affirm a desire or an ability to have children. in order to obtain a marriage license. Infertile opposite couples aren't prohibited from marrying. And most federal legal benefits and privileges linked to marriage aren't related to children.
“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species… Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.”– Conaway v. Deane, 903 A.2d 416, 620 (Md. 2007)

“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.”– Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006) 138 P.3d 962, 978

“[T]he first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.”– Baker v. Baker (1859) 13 Cal. 87, 103.

“[T]he procreation of children under the shield and sanction of the law” is one of the “two principle ends of marriage.”– Sharon v. Sharon (1888) 75 Cal. 1,33
The reality is the decision to have or not have children is a constitutionally protected privacy right. It's not the reason marriage has been ruled a fundamental right. It's merely one more aspect of constitutionally protected privacy or personal liberty as it's sometimes referred to.
Marriage, male female, that's the foundation of its fundamental right.
After reviewing your favorite state legal ruling in greater detail, I've confirmed that it is strictly a state case based on the constitution of the state of Maryland. No part of the ruling relies on US constitutional law and therefore any editorial discussion of SCOTUS or US constitutional law has any relevance to the opinion you've cited. And it's an inaccurate summary of SCOTUS cases on the topic to boot.
The first line sums it up. Marriage is a fundamental right based on the male female
Huh

Faribault, MN

#9161 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando...........Since you don't like freedom and equality and justice why not move to Iran. The USA is a free equal nation....This is no country for Nazi pigs like you.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9162 Sep 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
More instructive and better reasoned are the dissenting opinions in this case, which include the following quotes:
“Fundamental rights once recognized cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights. &#8194; Indeed, in recasting the plaintiffs' invocation of their fundamental right to marry as a request for recognition of a ‘new’ right to same-sex marriage, the Court misapprehends the nature of the liberty interest at stake.”
That fundamental right still must have a definitional foundation to it, if not, anyone could claim their fundamental right, in this case, to marry, is being denied because one is prohibited from marrying________.
"An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it"
Who has it been historically denied to? What is the origin of this historic denial?
"[i]t is no answer that same-sex couples can be excluded from marriage because ‘marriage,’ by definition, does not include them. &#8194; In the end,‘an argument that marriage is heterosexual because it ‘just is' amounts to circular reasoning"
Marriage is not "heterosexual" it is conjugal, a joining of male and female.
Indeed, all citizens, including gays, already have the fundamental right to marry.
Even those who are self described "gay", Josh Weed, have married, entered into a legally recognized union of husband and wife. Mr. Weed exercised his right to marry, as any other man.
Which is apparently why you're unable to actually address Lides' comment that the state must provide a compelling reason to INFRINGE a fundamental right like marriage.
I have addressed it, there's nothing to infringe. Lides has the SAME RIGHT to marry, as anyone else, no more no less.
which is what you're doing) rather than assert a compelling reason to EXTEND a fundamental right (since fundamental rights already belong to all citizens, as you noted, there is nothing to extend).
Your arguments, small Peter, are as impotent as you.
The point is, either the law applies to all, or it doesn't. If those with self asserted same sex attraction wish to be treated like another citizen, then that is what should happen. Actually I'm quite potent, just ask the missus.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9163 Sep 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So no fundamental right to SSM?
yes, as per the
DOMA ruling.

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
Curious question 27 min Lester 3
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 34 min June VanDerMark 57,953
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 39 min Uncle Sugar 26,454
News Lesbian granted rights of 'husband' in same-sex... (May '17) 39 min Harry Pothead 37
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 1 hr RIP 16
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 3 hr Rainbow Kid 1
News Theoa s journey: A transgender child at war wit... 5 hr Rick Santpornum 3
News Kim Davis Denied This Gay Man A Marriage Licens... 5 hr Rick Santpornum 5
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 6 hr Concerned 85
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 hr Concerned 14,162
More from around the web