Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 20 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15473 Jan 13, 2014
If you believe in same sex marriage by court order; why have legislators? If the courts may write their own law, why do they need law?

Same sex marriage is just so bad.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15474 Jan 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to marry a sibling or have multiple wives, then get off your ass and either file lawsuit challenging those restrictions or start lobbying your legislature to change the law. No one's stopping you.
Ohhhhhhh.......so you agree that consanguity and/or monogomy are also expendable, as some states have shown conjugality to be.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15475 Jan 14, 2014
Holder, Shelby and Obama's actions are outrageous; Obama ran on marriage as one man and one woman back in 2008.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15476 Jan 14, 2014
A-Rod was suspended by the league and and independent arbitrator; he's guilty as hell and pays the price. I wish defeating same sex marriage was so easy.
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#15477 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe in same sex marriage by court order; why have legislators? If the courts may write their own law, why do they need law?
Same sex marriage is just so bad.
How is equality and more freedom bad? Tell me why do you want our government to be a theocracy run by stone age religious law?

Why do you far righters want government so small it can fit in our bedrooms and wombs.

I say freedom and equality for all..MEANS GAY PEOPLE ALSO.

“RULING IN JUNE”

Since: Aug 08

WILL FUEL PRIDE WEEK :-)

#15478 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A-Rod was suspended by the league and and independent arbitrator; he's guilty as hell and pays the price. I wish defeating same sex marriage was so easy.
What does A-Rod violating an anti-doping issue have ANYTHING to do with the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples? My guess is NOTHING, which is typical for you to bring up!!!

By the way......you CAN'T defeat something that DOESN'T exist........and "GAY" or
"SAME-SEX" Marriage simple DOESN'T exist and that's why you have such a difficult time understanding it!!!!

The right to marry is FUNDAMENTAL for ALL Americans who meet the martial requirements that the State sets.......which at this time in 18 States includes Same-Sex Couples:-)
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#15479 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A-Rod was suspended by the league and and independent arbitrator; he's guilty as hell and pays the price. I wish defeating same sex marriage was so easy.
A-rod did something wrong. Same sex marriage is progress towards equal rights.

I know you Nazi fascist hate mongers don't like freedom and equality for anyone but rich white Christian men....But TOUGH CRAP LEAVE THEN HITLER BOY.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15482 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
In Massachusettes, Iowa, California and Utah it was a the court that overthrew an election and invalidated the law; in Egypt it was the Army.
When it comes to moral values like "fairness and equality", the citizenry are the only judge. Government must have the consent of the governed or it is illegitimate. Same sex marriage is bad because it is antidemocratic.
Brian, comparing the rule of law (including decisions by a court) to a military coup d'etat makes you look like an imbecile.
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe in same sex marriage by court order; why have legislators? If the courts may write their own law, why do they need law?
Same sex marriage is just so bad.
Once again, Brian, you look like an imbecile when you oversimplify things. This would be like saying if you believe in a representative republic with legislators making the law, why have courts?

Only an idiot would think that the courts are not a valid part of a robust government, and a vital to checks and balances.
Brian_G wrote:
Holder, Shelby and Obama's actions are outrageous; Obama ran on marriage as one man and one woman back in 2008.
And then his views changed.
Brian_G wrote:
A-Rod was suspended by the league and and independent arbitrator; he's guilty as hell and pays the price. I wish defeating same sex marriage was so easy.
Get a clue, Brian. A Rod actually did something wrong. Same sex marriage seeks a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, namely equal protection of the law.

You will continue to lose in the courts, because those defending "traditional marriage" and gay marriage bans, are no smarter than you; or they are merely collecting a lucrative payday knowing the case is a loser, but they will still get paid. How much did congressional republicans authorize for the failed defense of the DOMA? Gee, that's money thrown down a rat hole.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15483 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't call my political opponents names; Jon does so often. Human biology helps form culture, one man and one woman marriage is an aspect of human sexuality that culture has kept over millennium. Same sex marriage; sex segregating marriage is the radical social change, never seen in written law before Y2K. Male/female relationships are fertile but male/male and female/female relationships are not. These are the facts of nature, reflected in culture and law.
Marriage is a man made institution. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with biology. Thanks for demonstrating yet again what a complete moron you are.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#15484 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
In Massachusettes, Iowa, California and Utah it was a the court that overthrew an election and invalidated the law; in Egypt it was the Army.
The difference, Brian, is the US and all state constitutions authorize the judicial branch of government of government to perform judicial review of laws, whether passed by legislatures of citizen initiative while Egypt's constitution didn't authorize a coup d'etat by the military.
Brian_G wrote:
When it comes to moral values like "fairness and equality", the citizenry are the only judge.
No, judging is the role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.What you deem "fairness and equality" determined by the citizenry is all too often moral judgment of a minority based on animus or religious beliefs, neither of which is a constitutionally permissible justification for discriminating against minorities.
Brian_G wrote:
Government must have the consent of the governed or it is illegitimate.
It does. That's what the federal and state constitutions do: provide the assent of the people to our system of government and laws.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is bad because it is antidemocratic.
It's only bad if you're a bigot and it prevents you from imposing discrimination on and infringing the the fundamental rights of a group of people you dislike.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#15485 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
If you believe in same sex marriage by court order; why have legislators? If the courts may write their own law, why do they need law?
Courts aren't "writing" their own law, Brian; they're applying constitutionally mandated judicial review to determine the constitutionality of laws. Laws passed by legislators and citizens alike must pass constitutional muster, whether you like it or not.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is just so bad.
Brian is just such a whiner.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#15486 Jan 14, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ohhhhhhh.......so you agree that consanguity and/or monogomy are also expendable
No, I'm simply stating you have the right to petition government to address your grievances. I didn't give an opinion of whether you would be successful in an endeavor to remove the currently legally recognized compelling government interests on which the consanguinity and number restrictions on marriage based.
Pietro Armando wrote:
as some states have shown conjugality to be.
No state has done away with "conjugality" in marriage, stupid Peter. Conjugality is a result of marriage, not a requirement for it. And it results from both opposite sex and same sex marriages.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#15487 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Holder, Shelby and Obama's actions are outrageous; Obama ran on marriage as one man and one woman back in 2008.
Then sue Obama for changing his mind. Oh wait, you can't because it's not illegal.

Then man up and deal with it like an adult rather than throwing hissy fits like a spoiled child.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#15488 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
A-Rod was suspended by the league and and independent arbitrator; he's guilty as hell and pays the price. I wish defeating same sex marriage was so easy.
So what have gays done to deserve your desire to punish them, Brian? Other than exist, that is.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15489 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't call my political opponents names; Jon does so often. Human biology helps form culture, one man and one woman marriage is an aspect of human sexuality that culture has kept over millennium. Same sex marriage; sex segregating marriage is the radical social change, never seen in written law before Y2K. Male/female relationships are fertile but male/male and female/female relationships are not. These are the facts of nature, reflected in culture and law.
Poor Brian..... smart enough to be able to write, stupid enough to not understand what he reads.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15490 Jan 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Then get off your lazy ass and research it. Oh wait, that would prove how ignorant you really are on the topic and rob you of the ability to play stupid.
Nail on the head, nail on the head, nail on the head!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15491 Jan 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
So what have gays done to deserve your desire to punish them, Brian? Other than exist, that is.
I have no desire to punish anyone for their sexual orientation or any other trait; that's not how I roll. I defend marriage as one man and one woman because it benefits gays, whether they realize it or not.

Reason One for keeping marriage one man and one woman: posterity. Every gay was born of heterosexual union; if that's unfair, that's life. Tough love, marriage's not for everybody.

T.F., I don't insult and demean people who support same sex marriage; I just note they prefer sex segregation to perfectly sex integrated marriage - my sole objection here.

Gays have always existed, in the West they've never had so much freedom but ignoring the life and death plight of homosexuals in Tehran because of a same sex marriage agenda is evil and anti-life. Human rights should be universal; let's fight for what we agree, not bicker over redefining marriage. For the sake of gays, lesbians and transsexuals punished by their governments for victim less 'crimes'.

Many gays defend marriage as one man and one woman, some don't. Everyone's free to defend their views.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#15492 Jan 14, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
Marriage is a man made institution. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with biology. Thanks for demonstrating yet again what a complete moron you are.
Marriage is part of culture and that is influenced by human biology. Male and female differences are a universal part of life, that's why marriage has husband and wife.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15493 Jan 14, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage is part of culture and that is influenced by human biology. Male and female differences are a universal part of life, that's why marriage has husband and wife.
Not a lick of sense or truthfulness in that rambling. More stupidity from the village idiot.

Know what else is part of culture? Homosexuals. Oh, and not all marriages have a husband and a wife. Some have two husbands, some have two wives. Not a damn thing you can do to change that fact.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15494 Jan 14, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexual orientation is as old as humanity whether we've used that label or not. People attracted to members of the same sex have always existed. It's an innate characteristic and not something someone "adopts".
Same sex attraction and/or same sex sexual behavior, I agree is it new. Attaching an identity to it, is. So yes, one does adopt such an identity. One chooses to call him/herself "gay", "bi", etc.
No, bisexuality simply means a person is attracted to people of both sexes.
Both an "orientation" and a sexual identity label.
Polyamory is the word that describes people who wish to have an intimate emotional or sexual relationship with more than one person at a time.
For all intents and purposes it is sexual identity label. What's it's not, though, is an innate sexual orientation like homosexuality or, as many people of that sexual orientation refer to themselves: gay.
How is it not an "innate sexual orientation"?
That was the price the US demanded for allowing Utah to become a state. And apparently God wanted Utah to be a US state so badly he gave the Mormon leader the revelation to abandon polygamy as a religious belief/practice to pave the way.
The U.S. Army helped too.
All state laws and constitutions are still subordinate to the US constitution, small Peter.
And are subject to interpretation.
Likely the people of Virginia were just as miffed when told by SCOTUS their anti-miscegenation law that had been in effect for almost two hundred years was unconstitutional.
They were likely just as miffed at any effort by he federal government to undermine white supremacy with in their state.
After all, who are they to define marriage within a state border, eh small Peter?
After all who were they to forbid white black interracial marriage in an effort to prevent miscegenation of the race, yet turn a blind eye to white black.....white male black female...specifically....sexua l intermixing.....which of course does lead to "miscegenation" of the race....mixed race babies. Sally Hennings?
Utah would still have to amend its own state constitution to remove the prohibition against bigamy that currently exists. Of course that would seem to contradict the actual language of the constitution which states "...polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited". I believe the definition of "forever" is more than 118 years.
It's a brave new world, thanks to legal SSM!

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
Are the mods fair and balanced? 2 min NE Jade 856
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 4 min NorCal Native 578
News Out on a very shaky limb: Gay business figures ... 24 min Aspirin Between M... 7
News Gay marriage foe's argument seems to leave Supr... 28 min Fa-Foxy 225
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 30 min The_Box 3,517
News Gay leaders happy even with anti-discrimination... 37 min Robin Hood 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 47 min The_Box 20,748
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 59,653
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Pietro Armando 2,487
More from around the web