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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13658 Nov 19, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Since civil law doesn't recognize their "spiritual" marriages, it's an apt description.
con·cu·bine (link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concub... )
noun
1. a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, especially one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress.
That could apply to any woman living with a man to whom she is not legally married.
2.(among polygamous peoples) a secondary wife, usually of inferior rank.
Adulteress, mistress and fornicator could also apply.
There's also this:
spiritual wife
Web definitions
(Spiritual wifery) Spiritual wifery is a term first used in America by the Immortalists in and near the Blackstone Valley of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 1740s....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery
That gays have almost universally been discriminated against and precluded from marrying across time and cultures
"Gays" are a modern Western invention. Same sex sexual behavior, and people who engage in such, are not new. Please do not interject in to the past modern concepts which are alien to previous places, and times.
in no way justifies continuing to violate their fundamental rights.
Good point, all "gays" , individual men and women, should have the same fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
No, it was banned, generality as a result of religious beliefs imposed via state mandate. Which, by the way is now constitutionally prohibited and thus the slow but sure continuing dismantlement of this institutionalized discrimination that's existed for centuries.
No....not even close. Although there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, the idea of a "same sex marriage" is a virtual modern western invention based on sexual identity politics. The idea of a "homosexual", or "heterosexual" sexual identity is relatively new, the words themselves were only coined in the late 19th century, and early 29th century, respectively. Apparently most of human societies throughout history felt no need to establish such identities.
When do yo or any polygamist plan to start that process? What the Brown's have asked for as relief in their lawsuit is to strike down the provisions of Utah's anti-bigamy law that criminalize cohabitation among consenting adults and referring to oneself as married in the absence of a civil marriage license, not the provision that bars and criminalizes multiple simultaneous civil marriage licenses and multiple marriage partners. Doesn't look like the Brown's want to be your poster children.
I know you're smarter than that. Wining the lawsuit is the first step, although it might be said years from now, legal SSM, and the DOMA ruling paced the way. Once the lawsuit is own, it open the door to further litigation.
Perhaps because they realize you don't really give a f*ck about their "plight' since you don't really support legalized polygamy.
Seriously...why do you or any other SSM advocates care if polygamy is legalized, or even some form of incestuous marriage is? Are you going to argue against it? SSM open the door to this path, where it leads, nobody knows. So stop whining about polygamy....I think you're afraid it will crash the Big Fat Gay Wedding.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13659 Nov 19, 2013
http://www.jewishpulseradio.com/2013/11/gay-c...

An openly homosexual columnist in Ireland has written a piece blasting his country for considering same-sex marriage, warning the state has no business reinventing the family and undermining children’s “right” to a mother and father.

Paddy Manning, writing in the Irish Daily Mirror, tells of being arrested for hitting on a male police officer, but warns the solution to persecution of homosexuals isn’t to have government carve up traditional marriage.

“Same-sex marriage is not some warm, fluffy equality bunny; it’s a bare-faced state power grab,” Manning writes.“The state gets to entirely remake marriage, not as the man/woman/child model we’ve inherited from 10,000 years of history and across all cultures, but as an anything-goes irrelevant partnership agreement between adults.”

Manning explains same-sex unions will render marriage “irrelevant” because “for the first time, children and parenthood [will have] no place in marriage.”

“Only a man and a woman have children, despite every fantasy the gender-busters want us to believe,” Manning writes.“Every child has a right to that natural life. Same-sex marriage asks us to ignore reality and children’s rights to a mother and father.”

Manning’s column was published as part of a newspaper debate conducted after it was revealed the Republic of Ireland will hold a referendum on the issue in 2015.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Enda Kenny said he supports same-sex marriage “very strongly” and that the Government will actively campaign for it.

But Manning is telling Kenny to keep the government out of fixing what isn’t broken.

“People get married for their own reasons, but we have marriage because marriage has a meaning and does a vital job – not just for individuals, but for society,” Manning writes.“Claiming that equality demands that men and women be as interchangeable as Lego blocks shows you don’t understand men and women, marriage or much else.”

Manning insists marriage isn’t just about two people who “love” each other, but about “a man and a woman committing to making and raising children.”

When the government steps in and changes that, he reasons, the children will suffer.

“We can ignore reality all we want, but the outcomes for children are not the same across all family models,” Manning insists.“Marriage of a man and a woman gives children the best chance. That doesn’t mean there are not great parents in other circumstances, just that the weight of evidence is stacked against them.”

The Iona Institute, a campaign group that promotes the place of marriage and religion in society, agrees.

“Virtually all of the political parties in Ireland are prepared to radically change for the worse the most important child-centred social institution we have,” the organization said in a press release.“They no longer see any reason why we should have a social institution dedicated above all to encouraging men and women to raise their children together. To this extent, they are attacking the natural rights of children.”

Dr John Murray of The Iona Institute added,“This debate is really about the value we attach to a child having a mother and a father as distinct from two fathers or two mothers.… If we redefine marriage, we will be saying as a society that these things don’t matter. We will also be saying that the sexual union of a man and a woman isn’t different in any socially significant way from that of two men or two women. Given that only the former can result in children, this is plainly untrue. Different things should be treated in different ways. This does not violate the principle of equality.”

Ireland’s 2015 referendum will come five years after the nation granted same-sex couples civil partnerships and 20 years after homosexuality was decriminalized.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13660 Nov 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
and early 29th century, respectively.
Early 29th century........will you still be alive? I doubt I will......lol!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13661 Nov 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
He is ENTITLED to his opinion!!!
robert

Silver City, NM

#13663 Nov 19, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that "stand against wrong" working out for those churches??? 70% of their young mothers having children out of wedlock and raising them with no father in the picture??
I'm thinking that their courageous "stand against wrong" isn't working out so well, is it?
Maybe they should get some education and start living in the real world instead of an ideological world that never has and never will exist....
So you suggest they loose the other twenty percent of their husbands
to homosexual men .
With help like that who needs enemeys ?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13664 Nov 19, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
He is ENTITLED to his opinion!!!
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13665 Nov 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.
Surprise, there are openly Gays and Lesbians who are NOT in support of Marriage Equality.......but they AREN'T out there working hard against it either!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13666 Nov 19, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
That could apply to any woman living with a man to whom she is not legally married.
Indeed. Which is why it applies to all but one of the Browns.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's also this:
spiritual wife
Web definitions
(Spiritual wifery) Spiritual wifery is a term first used in America by the Immortalists in and near the Blackstone Valley of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 1740s....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery
Still not considered civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gays" are a modern Western invention. Same sex sexual behavior, and people who engage in such, are not new. Please do not interject in to the past modern concepts which are alien to previous places, and times.
A rose by any other name... Discrimination is still discrimination regardless of how you try to semantically twist out of it, small Peter.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Good point, all "gays" , individual men and women, should have the same fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
On the contrary, gays should not have their fundamental right of marriage restricted in a manner incongruent with their sexual orientation since such a restriction serves no compelling government interest.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No....not even close.[/t even deal with reality?
You don't think same sex behavior was criminalized and punished across times and cultures? Are you really that much of a f-ing bigot you can't even deal with historical reality? If same sex behavior is prohibited why would you be so stupid as to think same sex marriage would be allowed?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Although there are scattered historical examples of recognized same sex unions, the idea of a "same sex marriage" is a virtual modern western invention based on sexual identity politics.
Sexual orientation isn't a political identity, small Peter. it's an innate human characteristic that's part of human sexuality. It's part of the knowledge humans have gained over the centuries since the times you keep appealing to as defining what variants of marriage are allowable in your feeble mind.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The idea of a "homosexual", or "heterosexual" sexual identity is relatively new, the words themselves were only coined in the late 19th century, and early 29th century, respectively. Apparently most of human societies throughout history felt no need to establish such identities.
Why would you think they'd do so when most societies historically punished homosexual behavior and deemed it abnormal? Our modern understanding of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexual orientation and human sexuality has enabled gays to challenge and institutionalized discrimination against them because it's now evident such discrimination is based at best on religious beliefs that aren't a constitutionally permissible basis for discrimination against a minority group and at worst on outright animus towards that minority group.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13667 Nov 19, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
I know you're smarter than that. Wining the lawsuit is the first step, although it might be said years from now, legal SSM, and the DOMA ruling paced the way. Once the lawsuit is own, it open the door to further litigation.
There's absolutely nothing stopping polygamists from challenging the provision of anti-bigamy laws that restrict the number of marriage participants now. Except to their reluctance, that is.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Seriously...why do you or any other SSM advocates care if polygamy is legalized, or even some form of incestuous marriage is? Are you going to argue against it?
Seriously, do you have Alzheimer's? How many time do I have to say I'm not actively opposing polygamy before it sticks in that pea sized rock you call a brain? But neither am I required to petition government to address the grievances of others that don't affect my life.
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSM open the door to this path, where it leads, nobody knows.
From a legal standpoint, no. The marriage law restriction on gender is completely separate and different from the one based on number and people challenging the restriction on number must prove why that restriction serves no compelling government interest. If the legal arguments were the same for both restrictions, then polygamists would already be allowed to marry in those sates recognizing same sex marriage. The fact they aren't demonstrates they are legally different issues regardless of you personally wish to characterize it.

From a legislative standpoint, perhaps. Part of what has changed public opinion about gays and their relationships is they're increasing reluctance to stay closeted and to come out at an earlier age. Advocating discrimination is easier when it's against an abstract "someone"; it's much harder when it's a family member, friend, work colleague or neighbor that you interact with on a daily basis and know personally. Then it becomes easier to see the propaganda spread by bigots for what it really is: lies.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So stop whining about polygamy....I think you're afraid it will crash the Big Fat Gay Wedding.
I'm not the one who whines incessantly about polygamy, small Peter. That would be you. And it makes you a big fat f-ing hypocrite too since you don't really support polygamy based on your defense of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman. Don't forget Jesus called hypocrites like you "whitewashed tombs"; be sure to ask forgiveness for your blatant hypocrisy at your next confession.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#13668 Nov 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.
Now if you could only convince him to marry a female, you could claim him as your gay Uncle Tom to replace Josh Weed since you threw under the bus a couple of weeks ago.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13669 Nov 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise, there are openly Gays and Lesbians who are NOT in support of Marriage Equality.......but they AREN'T out there working hard against it either!!!
The support marriage conjugality, maintaining the current definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13670 Nov 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Early 29th century........will you still be alive? I doubt I will......lol!!!
Oops....typo....but ya never know....maybe I'll be reincarnated as a male lesbian!:)

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13671 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The support marriage conjugality, maintaining the current definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Well, again re-pete........that definition is NOT the ONLY legal definition of marriage in ALL 50 States.......16 states(Illinois Governor will sign the State's Marriage Equality bill today)define marriage between 2 UNRELATED consenting adults WITHOUT regard to the specific gender....which means that a man and a woman can marry, 2 men can marry or 2 women can marry, this also does include first cousins in SOME states, but NOT all states.

Now, you can continue to repeat your conjugal marriage definition, but it's NOT a biblical marital definition and it's NOT an accurate marital definition.......and frankly Pete, my wife and I are happy to be legally married to each other and to have both State and Federal recognition:-)

You are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to define your marriage ANY way ya like......I'm truly happy for you and your wife......but your marriage has NO affect on mine, not now and not before I knew a Pete existed out in this Country!!!

If you NEVER accept or like or want to believe that marriage is NOT going to be defined as you want it to be going forward....that is your right......but frankly no one is truly asking you to accept, like or approve of the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians and in time.....it is my belief that SCOTUS will state that the right to marry was ALWAYS a Fundamental right regardless of one's sexual orientation......see Pete, I NEVER truly lost my FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY.......it has ALWAYS been there.......it was the GENDER RESTRICTION that was actually removed:-)

JMPO and you DON'T have to agree, accept or like!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#13672 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oops....typo....but ya never know....maybe I'll be reincarnated as a male lesbian!:)
Ummmmm, ya.....some just don't get it and sad they NEVER will!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#13673 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.
The beauty of it, there are openly straight individuals and they oppose the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples! Bad move.

Whose list of supporters do you think will be longer? And what does does that prove?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#13674 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.
Hey, I know straight people who support marriage equality. So they must be right, and everyone else is wrong.

See how well your logic works?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#13675 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The beauty of it, he's openly gay, and opposes the redefinition of marriage! Bad move.
I agree that it is a bad move, but they are entitled to their opinion.

Do you ever read what you have written prior to posting? You sometimes don't make the point you had intended to make.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#13676 Nov 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> ^^^This is untrue and he knows it; I advocate everyone have the same right to marry under the same laws. There is no orientation test for a marriage license and gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else. It's perfectly legal for a gay to marry a lesbian in every state.
.
<quoted text>^^^I don't understand, did he mean "lying"?
.
<quoted text>The quote above shows many same sex marriage supporters believe male/female marriage is bad and say so. Isn't that reason enough to support male/female marriage?
.
<quoted text>^^^This is how "heartandmind" insults people; sexual innuendo. The above quote contains an often repeated sexual orientation label. Do you know what slurs heartandmind uses for homosexuals?
.
<quoted text>^^^I'm not here to serve "heartandmind", I'm here to support our Church leaders and keep marriage one man and one woman.
1.it is absolutely true since you don't want folks to marry of the same gender. stop LYING. LOL.

2. stop avoiding, stop being obtuse. it is not cute or funny. it's infantile and ridiculous. but since it's a reflection upon the person's stupidity that does this....

3. have you ever heard of "tongue in cheek"....i don't want any american to be denied to right to marry the single, non-related adult of their choosing. you know this. i stated it repeatedly to you and in other threads. memory issues?

4. if you're insulted by the "bi"...then we do see your bias, your bigotry. if you weren't insulted, you wouldn't be bigoted.

5. "our church leaders"....YOU DON'T PROFESS TO BE A CHRISTIAN SO NONE OF THE "CHURCH LEADERS ARE "YOURS" SO YOU CAN'T CALL THEM "OUR".....and for the record, and you know this as I've posted the list for you several times in other threads - there are churches that do or will perform same sex marriage ceremonies. you wish to deny them their religious right by telling them that the religious rite they perform shouldn't be a legal and binding ceremony. so, which is it - do you or don't you support religious freedom and the right to express it in these united states? well, except for the fact that you don't live in these united states.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#13677 Nov 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is being denied the right to legally marry, as it is defined by the state?
well, color you clueless, plumcake.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13678 Nov 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Surprise, there are openly Gays and Lesbians who are NOT in support of Marriage Equality.......but they AREN'T out there working hard against it either!!!
What's even more surprising is why he's against it. It's in line with why many people oppose legally redefining marriage.

“Same-sex marriage is not some warm, fluffy equality bunny; it’s a bare-faced state power grab,” Manning writes.“The state gets to entirely remake marriage, not as the man/woman/child model we’ve inherited from 10,000 years of history and across all cultures, but as an anything-goes irrelevant partnership agreement between adults.”

Manning explains same-sex unions will render marriage “irrelevant” because “for the first time, children and parenthood [will have] no place in marriage.”

“Only a man and a woman have children, despite every fantasy the gender-busters want us to believe,” Manning writes.“Every child has a right to that natural life. Same-sex marriage asks us to ignore reality and children’s rights to a mother and father.”

I wonder, does that make hi a "bigot", or a "homophobe", or maybe even a "self loathing gay", that one really just gives one the warm fuzzies.

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 Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 21 min cpeter1313 45
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 41 min cpeter1313 46,428
News LGBTQ group criticizes Johns Hopkins over psych... 1 hr HumanSpirit 1
News 2nd Circuit allows sex bias suit based on gay s... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 11
News The dome of the Rotunda at City Hall was awash ... 1 hr Rev Cash Dollar 2
News Rick Perry Criticizes Election Of Openly Gay St... 1 hr Rev Cash Dollar 3
Best Gay Dating Apps 1 hr Rev Cash Dollar 7
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 3 hr Rev Cash Dollar 128
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr Judgement 25,302
More from around the web