Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

Huh

Faribault, MN

#10557 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Visit an inner city church.
Your a Christian right? Are you outraged at fat and rich people???

Od like most Christians do you cherry pick what bible crap to follow./

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10558 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, I engaged the poster in a discussion on the issue. Yes, divorce is relevant to the issue.
Pietro, it is in no way relevant. You are merely grasping at straws because all of your arguments have been proven to be fallacious again and again. You have no valid argument against marriage equality, and the thread has tried to address the topic at hand in ages.

The reality remains that marriage equality will come to pass throughout the US, in part because there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry; and if churches seek to engage in political activity, they will be in danger of invalidating their tax exemption.

It's just that simple.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10559 Sep 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a Christian right? Are you outraged at fat and rich people???
You're an atheist right? Are you outraged at skinny poor people who believe in God?
Od like most Christians do you cherry pick what bible crap to follow./
Or are you like most atheists who suddenly find religion when the chips are down?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10560 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an atheist right? Are you outraged at skinny poor people who believe in God?
<quoted text>
Or are you like most atheists who suddenly find religion when the chips are down?
I am a atheist. And don't care if someone is fat skinny rich or poor.

You see ALL people should be equal in civil rights.

WHY DID YOU NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION????

Oh and I would never fall for your cult myth no matter what.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10561 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they have, however the effects of divorce can effect the adult children, of divorced parents, marriages.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/09/22/divorced...
(CNN)-- By the time Zulema Green turned 12, her mother had been divorced three times.
Her husband, Cory Green, was 3 when his father abandoned his family.
As the Georgia couple recently celebrated their fifth wedding anniversary at an upscale restaurant overlooking Atlanta, their milestone represented a far more personal challenge for each of them: They didn't follow their parents' footsteps.
"I figured I can get married," says Zulema Green, now a 31-year-old attorney. "I can do it right."
There are no precise statistics on the divorce rate in the U.S. because not all states report divorces. But among the states that did report, there were 3.4 divorces per 1,000 people in 2009, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
Experts say the number of divorces has risen since the 1960s because of laws making it easier and divorce becoming more socially acceptable.
After all those divorces in years past, it's no surprise that in modern-day couples at least one or both partners come from a family with divorced parents. But coming from a family that suffered marital discord can present challenges to the relationships of adult children of divorce, marriage experts say.
The risk of divorce is 50 percent higher when one spouse comes from a divorced home, and 200 percent higher risk when both of them do, says Nicholas Wolfinger, a professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah and author of "Understanding the Divorce Cycle: The Children of Divorce in Their Own Marriages."
Children of divorce are also 50 percent more likely to marry another child of divorce, he said.
Marriage counselors say they have seen marital strains affect the way a child perceives his or her romantic relationships. Zulema Green says she once approached her relationships with men cautiously. She had difficulty trusting and relying on other people.
In an effort to not follow her mother's path to divorce court, she read dozens of books on relationships and divorce. Before she and her boyfriend got married, they enrolled in premarital counseling.
"We realized our parents' relationships affected our relationship, and we didn't want to have a failed marriage," she said. "There are already so many things against you when it comes to marriage. We wanted to make sure we knew as much as we could."
The effect of divorce on children can be very different, says Bradford Wilcox, director of The National Marriage Project, a research group that examines marriages. Some adult children of divorced parents avoid long-term relationships and marriages, while others become determined to make their own marriage last.
"Divorce is a risk factor, but there's no such thing as a single sociological factor that dooms you to marital failure," Wilcox says. "It's important for couples to articulate their concerns to their boyfriend, girlfriend or spouse."
William J. Doherty, a professor at the Family Social Science Department of the University of Minnesota, says a failed marriage in the family might actually propel a child of divorce to get married, often times at an earlier age.
"They [the couple] will cohabitate, or they are more eager to jump in," he says.
Sarah Hill, 21, of Texas watched her mother endure two divorces. She says her father was largely absent, playing only a small role in her life. As a result, having a family of her own in a strong marriage became important to her.
Read the read on CNN
... and SSM is going to impact divorce? How so?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10562 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, it is in no way relevant. You are merely grasping at straws because all of your arguments have been proven to be fallacious again and again. You have no valid argument against marriage equality, and the thread has tried to address the topic at hand in ages.
You have no valid argument as to why marriage conjugality, the joining of the sexes, as husband and wife, should be rejected as the basis for legal marriage.
The reality remains that marriage equality will come to pass throughout the US,
Or that some states have rejected marriage conjugality and some other states might do the same.
in part because there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry;
In part because Americans no longer take marriage seriously, and some are avoiding it all together.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10563 Sep 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a atheist. And don't care if someone is fat skinny rich or poor.
No you just hate people who have a religious faith.
You see ALL people should be equal in civil rights.
As they are....ALL MEN, AND ALL WOMEN, have the same civil right to marry.
WHY DID YOU NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION????
The one regarding why you hate skinny poor people of faith?
Oh and I would never fall for your cult myth no matter what.
No you just fall for the atheist cult myth.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10564 Sep 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
... and SSM is going to impact divorce? How so?
It's not that it will impact divorce, although lesbians do seem to have a higher divorce rate than gay men, rather it represents, along with "no fault" divorce, a weakening of marriage in this country. If we're not going to take marriage seriously, understand it function within society, and its importance, why bother license it at all?
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10565 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No you just hate people who have a religious faith.
<quoted text>
As they are....ALL MEN, AND ALL WOMEN, have the same civil right to marry.
<quoted text>
The one regarding why you hate skinny poor people of faith?
<quoted text>
No you just fall for the atheist cult myth.
No not at all. ONLY HATE BIGOTS WHO WANT TO COTNROL PEOPLES LIVES AND FORCE THERE RLEIGION INTO LAW....

NO ALL MEN AND WOMEN DONT...Two guys who love each other cant marry..NOT EQUAL IDIOT.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION I WAS AN ADULT AND ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION...

GREED AND GLUTONY ARE EVIL BY BIBLES WORD.....DO YOU HATE AND ATTACK FAT AND RICH PEOPLE LIKE YOU DO GAYS???

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10566 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You have no valid argument as to why marriage conjugality, the joining of the sexes, as husband and wife, should be rejected as the basis for legal marriage.
I see you are back to obsessing about other peoples' sex lives again.
Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples marry? Because if so, your assertion is in a shambles.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Or that some states have rejected marriage conjugality and some other states might do the same.
No, they have just embraced the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people. You have offered no valid reason to deny such equal protection to all. Because that is, in fact, what you are arguing that some US Citizens should be held as a second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In part because Americans no longer take marriage seriously, and some are avoiding it all together.
That's the peril of free will, which you also seem to hate. As much as you would like to have input into everyone's life and make their decisions for them, you don't have that right.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10567 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not that it will impact divorce, although lesbians do seem to have a higher divorce rate than gay men, rather it represents, along with "no fault" divorce, a weakening of marriage in this country. If we're not going to take marriage seriously, understand it function within society, and its importance, why bother license it at all?
For legal rights and protections.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10568 Sep 28, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
No not at all. ONLY HATE BIGOTS WHO WANT TO COTNROL PEOPLES LIVES AND FORCE THERE RLEIGION INTO LAW....
Uhhhhh.....huh....and you do this by advocating the state regulate people's intimate personal relationships. Doesn't make a lot of sense sparky.
NO ALL MEN AND WOMEN DONT...Two guys who love each other cant marry..NOT EQUAL IDIOT.
Yes they do, all men have the same right to marry a woman, as all men have the right to marry a man. See equal rights. You want to change the definition of marriage and claim a right based on that redefinition.
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION I WAS AN ADULT AND ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION...
GREED AND GLUTONY ARE EVIL BY BIBLES WORD...
So is lazyness....I know you can attack all the fat rich lazy people...how does that sound?
..DO YOU HATE AND ATTACK FAT AND RICH PEOPLE LIKE YOU DO GAYS???
No one is attacking anyone, there are those of us, INCLUDING GAY PEOPLE, who sincerely believe redefining legal marriage is not a wise move, bad public policy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10569 Sep 28, 2013
I wonder how that political backlash is going for them.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10570 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes they do, all men have the same right to marry a woman, as all men have the right to marry a man. See equal rights. You want to change the definition of marriage and claim a right based on that redefinition.
Pietro, you have still failed to offer that elusive state interest served by limiting legal marriage to opposite sex couples that would render such a restriction constitutional.

Your argument that homosexuals have equal protection of the law to marry someone of the opposite sex are asinine, and utterly without logical foundation. It also illustrates that you advocate sham marriages, so your concern for the institution of marriage is only skin deep. You will actually advocate for marriages that are utterly loveless if that supports your rhetoric.

Congratulations, Pietro. You have proven that you are neither very intelligent, nor are you very honest.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#10571 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro...Your a child who cant discuss this subject honestly because bigotry and hate are not a platform...just pathetic...

Grow up. I mean your a old grey haired duffer. TIME TO GROW UP.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10572 Sep 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you are back to obsessing about other peoples' sex lives again.
Pietro, can infertile heterosexual couples marry? Because if so, your assertion is in a shambles.
The sexes.....men and women....joint them together...."conjugality " as it pertains to "husband and wife". That's it!
No, they have just embraced the US Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection of the law for all people.
Fine, lets protect women from prostate cancer, and men from cervical cancer. Equal protection after all. Beside the constitution is all in the interpretation.
You have offered no valid reason to deny such equal protection to all. Because that is, in fact, what you are arguing that some US Citizens should be held as a second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
No man should be denied the right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, recognized by all fifty states. Nor should any woman. Both men and women deserve equal protection as it relates to marriage. Why would you argue otherwise?
That's the peril of free will, which you also seem to hate.
Oh that's a new one....do tell.
As much as you would like to have input into everyone's life and make their decisions for them,
I'll let you do that for them.
you don't have that right.
Nor do they, me. Your point?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#10574 Sep 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhh.....Edmond....it was consistent prior to the redefinition.
Was it? All these civil unions, domestic partnerships, and recognized marriages from state to state, interspersed between prohibiting states. It may have felt consistent to YOU, but YOUR marriage wouldn’t flicker in and out of validity as you traveled cross-country.

And one might say that it was consistent prior to the FIRST redefinition, in 1973, when Maryland acted to ban same-sex marriages. Since then, inconsistency has been the norm. The “antis” should never have started in with adding such bans.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Husband and wife" is clumsy, mangled language? Oh how androgynously Orwellian of you.
No, the clumsy, mangled part was ‘an emotion union of "spouses for life regardless of gender composition".’

I think that “spouses for life” is enough, and always WAS until the bans started being enacted. Now the part about “regardless of gender composition” is only necessary to point out that we’re getting PAST the bans. The “emotion union” part was always there, even for you. You’ve just crammed in as many adjective phrases as you can, to make it seem like WE’VE made it unwieldy.
Pietro Armando wrote:
(Smiling) Okay Edmond that was good, informative too.
Just pointing out, the government isn’t changing your burger. They’re just telling you that if vegetarians want to call THEIR sandwiches “burgers” too, it doesn’t take anything away from yours or anyone else's.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10575 Sep 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
For legal rights and protections.
Wastey

I understand that...the problem is...where does it end? We gone from monogamous, as in two, conjugal marriage, to same sex marriage in some states. A polygamous family has a federal lawsuit pending. So polygamy may be next. After that, polyamory...they're out there too...the only thing left is incest....all it takes is a lawsuit or two, and a few sympathetic judges to get the ball rolling. SSM has changed the rules.

It's bizarre when some SSM advocates argue against other consenting adult relationships. As if, somehow, SSM is the "line in the sand"......does it really matter if other forms of marriage are legalized too? Again, where is the line?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10576 Sep 28, 2013
Denver Dan wrote:
Not all church leaders. The headline blanket statement made here is misleading at best as well as being an impotent claim.
Very true.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#10577 Sep 28, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Was it? All these civil unions, domestic partnerships, and recognized marriages from state to state, interspersed between prohibiting states. It may have felt consistent to YOU, but YOUR marriage wouldn’t flicker in and out of validity as you traveled cross-country.
Just go a tad farther back. Same basic requirements, one man and one woman, of age, able to consent, not too closely related by blood, and not currently married. Pretty consistent.
And one might say that it was consistent prior to the FIRST redefinition, in 1973, when Maryland acted to ban same-sex marriages. Since then, inconsistency has been the norm. The “antis” should never have started in with adding such bans.
Let's go back just a wee bit further, for Baker vs. Nelson
No, the clumsy, mangled part was ‘an emotion union of "spouses for life regardless of gender composition".’
Husband and wife works just fine, and incorporates both sexes.
I think that “spouses for life” is enough, and always WAS until the bans started being enacted.
Ya think?.....really?.....let me think about this....."I now, by the power vested in me by the state of confusion, pronounce you 'spouses for life' "......now that's just silly....it's "husband and wife"..... Although it had been preceded by "man and wife".
Now the part about “regardless of gender composition” is only necessary to point out that we’re getting PAST the bans.
No, it's to point out the foundation, conjugal as in husband AND wife, has been changed in a few states.
The “emotion union” part was always there, even for you.
True, but its not a legal requirement. No state cares if a couple is "in love", or just "in like".
. You’ve just crammed in as many adjective phrases as you can, to make it seem like WE’VE made it unwieldy.
But ye have laddie. Husband and wife, covers it.
Just pointing out, the government isn’t changing your burger. They’re just telling you that if vegetarians want to call THEIR sandwiches “burgers” too, it doesn’t take anything away from yours or anyone else's.
Hmmmmm.....I have to concede....when you put it like that....there is some logic to it. Does that mean men can be lesbians too? Male lesbians, google it.

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 Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 4 min Batch 37 Pain Is ... 997
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 min WasteWater 13,202
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 16 min Rube Goldstein 979
Will twoday be the day NE Jade apologizes two F... 23 min Ivan 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 38 min Frankie Rizzo 37,420
News The Latest: Celebrities record tribute to night... 45 min Frankie Rizzo 10
News More Americans Engaging in Same-Sex Encounters 2 hr LAVON AFFAIR 20
More from around the web