Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: NBC Chicago 17,562

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
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#13649 Nov 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.
ahahahahah
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahahah

No one violated her religious rights. Do you even know what those rights are, or are you just repeating what you heard on Glenn Beck? There is no religious right to break State law.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13650 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual; where's her artistic freedom?
Her artistic freedom comes from creating floral arrangements, not selling them. If she wishes to sell her creations o the general public as a business, she must abide by the same anti-dscirmination laws as other businesses.
Brian_G wrote:
Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals?
She's not "participating" in a wedding ritual, religious or otherwise. She's a vendor, not a wedding guest or family/friend with a role in the wedding ceremony.
Brian_G wrote:
Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes. It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
Political affiliation isn't a protected class for anti-discrimination law, despite your lie yesterday implying it was. So a vendor can refuse service to someone based on their political affiliation.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government. Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.
Ensuring equal protection of the law is a responsibility of government, Brian. It's not an optional activity that can be cut or defunded simply because you dislike a particular minority group.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13651 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point.
And rarely do you use rational, informed or logical thought in making your points either, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
I respect people too much, to treat them badly.
So you advocate discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays because you "respect" them? Really? And in what universe is inflicting harm on others considered not "treating them badly"?
Brian_G wrote:
I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
The fact people use accurate words to describe you and your opinions doesn't negate their constitutional arguments for legal recognition of same sex marriage, Brian. Nor does your whining constitute a valid argument against it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13652 Nov 19, 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.
Equal application of the law doesn't make it constitutional, Brian. After all, anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks but nevertheless were ruled unconstitutional. Advocating for the status quo harms gays.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no orientation test for a marriage license
The gender restriction of marriage laws is a de facto sexual orientation test since it only allows gays to marry a member of a gender incongruent with their sexual orientation.
Brian_G wrote:
and gays have always married under the same laws as everyone else.
That's the same logic used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, Brian, and look what happened to those laws.
Brian_G wrote:
It's perfectly legal for a gay to marry a lesbian in every state.
It was perfectly legal for a black woman to marry a non-white man in every state prior to Loving v. Virginia too, Brian. Citizens shouldn't have their fundamental rights infringed just to satisfy your bigotry.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^I don't understand, did he mean "lying"?/[QUOTE]
And this is an example of his observation that "you treat people badly by being obtuse".

[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]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?
No. Just as you stating same sex marriage is bad isn't reason enough to prohibit it.
Brian_G wrote:
^^^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?
"Bi", when referring to sexual orientation, isn't deemed derogatory, offensive or a slur in English language dictionaries, Brian; it's simply considered slang. If you don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality of homosexuals, why would you consider being called "bi" and insult? Why not just correct him?
Brian_G wrote:
^^^I'm not here to serve "heartandmind", I'm here to support our Church leaders and keep marriage one man and one woman.
Indeed. We already know you're here to promote discrimination and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays based on your prejudice against them.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13653 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Baronelle Stutzman was sued because she refused to provide her art to support a same sex wedding ritual;
Art!! I love it!! Um, Brian_G, neither art, nor flower arrangements, "support" anything. And your bigot florist was sued because she broke the law.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
where's her artistic freedom?
Don't know or care, since her artistic freedom doesn't supersede existing non-discrimination laws.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Does political correctness compel a Christian to participate in religious rituals?
Nope, but your bigot florist wasn't asked to participate. Participants in weddings don't get paid Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a leftist photographer refuse a gig to photograph a Tea Party Rally; I say yes.
And you would be wrong according to the law of the state of Washington.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
It's OK to tolerate people who don't support your political goals, in fact that's civil behavior.
You seem to be under the impression that rudely refusing to provide your business services is a form of tolerance. It isn't.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is about State and Federal law; bigger government. Change isn't always good, see Obamacare for example.
Brian_G_Village_Idiot, please demonstrate in our country's history when and where a group of citizens were granted equal representation, where it was later discovered to be a bad thing and that equal representation was repealed. Provide the example to support your ridiculous assertion. Oh, wait, you can't. Because there is NOTHING bad about equality. There is only bad associated with INEQUALITY....you know, what YOU keep fighting for.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13654 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad albtraum is amused; I don't use insults to make my point.
Idiot, you have YET to actually make a point.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I respect people too much, to treat them badly.
Promoting inequality for a sect of society IS treating them badly. Your statement is a lie.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
I discuss the issue; same sex marriage is bad because of the arguments used by its supporters. See the post above for one example.
You're yet to present ONE reason that marriage equality is bad. I've proven this numerous times by stringing your arguments together in one post, demonstrating you're a parrot shill idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#13655 Nov 19, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? The gays were customers for 10 years, no discrimination there. When it became a gay marriage her 1st amendment protected religious rights were violated. She's suing back and I think she will win.
She didn't refuse the marriage her services, she refused the participants. You said so yesterday, remember? "One more time, just for you: It's because they are gay and she believes gays have no business being married" http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TP39MT577DHK0... Why are you backtracking now?!!!! LOL!!!!!!

How did poor Barry take the news when you told him how you admitted the truth of things??!!!

Oh, and her 1st amendment rights weren't violated in any way, shape or form. If you disagree, then present the specifics of the violation. Good luck with that. She will lose this case, in the same manner the photographer in New Mexico lost his similar case.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#13656 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue isn't tolerance, the issue is being forced to serve a same sex wedding ritual. Ms. Stutzman was sued by the State's Attorney General and the ACLU. Why not simply find another florist?
So when hotels, restaurants and other public accommodations refused to serve blacks during the era of segregation, you think blacks should have just found a different hotel, restaurant or business? Because many white Christians of that era justified serration based on their religious beliefs, Brian. So why did we even bother to dismantle institutionalized segregation, much less free the slaves? Tell us, Brian, we're all ears.
Brian_G wrote:
Where's the harm
There's emotional harm when when one is discriminated against.
Brian_G wrote:
I see fiscal harm to Stutzman
Of her own doing. First she refused business, thereby decreasing her own business revenue. And her legal expenses are a direct result of her decision to violate the law.
Brian_G wrote:
and a trivial emotional harm to plantiffs.
You can attempt to trivialize emotional harm all you want, Brian, but it's a recoverable harm under numerous laws. The key factor here is Ms. Stutzman caused both the financial harm to herself as well as the harm to her victims.
Brian_G wrote:
Aren't there any gay florists in Washington or are they trying to put the Christian bakers, florsts, wedding photographers and other straight vendors out of business?
Do you want them and other gays to start wearing pink triangles like they were required to in Nazi Germany so they can be more easily identified and targeted for discrimination, Brian?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#13657 Nov 19, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
you're treating people badly by wishing to deny americans with full citizenship the right to legally marry.
Who is being denied the right to legally marry, as it is defined by the state?

“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.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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!!!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

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

Mimbres, 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.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#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!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#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.

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
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 min Big D 201,449
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Reverend Alan 16,223
Latest gay marriage ruling creates confusion in... 50 min Wondering 73
Alabama Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage 54 min Yakitori 47
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 58 min Brian_G 1,202
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Trevers94 68,618
Religious objection to gay marriage leads to bi... 1 hr Wondering 97
Wall Street pushes SCOTUS on gay marriage 5 hr david 66
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 6 hr Confusious 3,249
More from around the web