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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15961 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
The person writing "hate the constitution" is Terra Firma; not me. I just noticed same sex marriage law created by courts is antidemocratic.
The judiciary was specifically created by the Founders within the constitution to interpret the constitution and perform judicial review, Brian. Reviewing laws and declaring them unconstitutional isn't "creating" law; it's performing the constitutionally mandated responsibility of judicial review. Why whine incessantly about how the constitution was designed to work if you don't dislike those particular provisions?
Brian_G wrote:
The Constitution is about more than democracy alone; I don't hate it and I call T.F. on his defamation and lies.
The only person lying here is YOU, Brian, when you willfully mischaracterize what the judiciary does as part of their constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Performing judicial review or a law or state constitutional amendment is not "creating" law; it's not the result of "activist" judges ignoring the "will of the people" or misapplying precedent. All those assertions you make are LIES, Brian. They're the lies of a pathetic bigot who despises our constitutional processes he neither understands nor can control.
Brian_G wrote:
Provide any quote, I've never written even one word against the US Constitution. Else; ask pardon for your lies.
Every time you whine and mischaracterize judicial processes provided for in our constitution and cast aspersions on judges preforming their constitutional duties you impugn the constitution, Brian. That you refuse to recognize what you do doesn't change that fact.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15962 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My arguments are based on issues, not profanity or intellect.
Your arguments are based on prejudice, not any understanding of the law or the constitution.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15963 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Our civil rights regulations came from legislation voted in Congress. So did our laws against slavery.
Slavery was abolished by executive order of President Lincoln in the Emancipation Proclamation and formalized in the 13th amendment to the constitution. Neither was the result solely of Congressional legislation.

Further, the civil rights acts passed by Congress are based on the 14th amendment's section 5 that specifically states "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Such power is considered remedial for enforcement purposes of ensuring the the rights enumerated in the amendment are not infringed by the states in their enact ion of legislation. For further enlightenment on section 5's limits on the federal government, see City of Boerne v. Flores.
Brian_G wrote:
If democratic vote was good enough for race rights, why not for same sex marriage?
It wasn't good enough for race rights, Brian. Apparently you slept through your US history classes that talked about landmark civil rights rulings by SCOTUS such as Brown v. Board of Education which overturned the "separate but equal" legal principle of Plessy v. Ferguson that enabled legal racial segregation or Loving v. Virginia that ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

Go back and get a real education Brian instead of embarrassing yourself by constantly asserting lies and misinformation.
Brian_G wrote:
Is it that people naturally reject sex segregation in marriage and embrace the affirmative action of one man and one woman marriage?
No, it's that bigots like you have simply shifted the focus of their prejudice from blacks to gays.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15964 Jan 25, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arguments are based on prejudice, not any understanding of the law or the constitution.
Absolutely!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#15965 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My arguments are based on issues, not profanity or intellect.
Well, yes, Brian. We know you have a limited intellect. I named three States that permitted gay couples to marry by popular vote. How is THAT anti-democratic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15966 Jan 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro, are you completely ignorant of the US Constitution?
U.S. Constitution › Article IV
ARTICLE IV
SECTION 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/artic...
You aren't too bright, are you, Pietro?
Well then....SSM is legally recognized by every state in the Union, right? Or not?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15967 Jan 25, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
If procreation is a function of marriage; a couple would have to show a baby to qualify for the purchase of a marriage license. The fundies would freak because all firstborn babies would be born out of wedlock
.
And even that isn't foolproof; because gay couples can show a baby to qualify for the purchase of a marriage license too
.
So I suggest this little prayer for you to say when you look into your mirror:
.
"Oh LORD; please help me to keep my nose out of other people's business"
.
Problem solved ;o)
What a card you are Rainbow Kid....let me guess you ride a rainbow pony.

"If"? Silly kid.....there's no "if", 150 years of court cases stating just that proves that.

Here's a few.....again for the heterosexually challenged.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-hsiao/refe...

“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336

“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628

“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254

“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)

“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

A “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race.”– Adams v. Howerton (C.D. Cal. 1980) 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124, affirmed on other grounds (9th Cir. 1982) 673 F.2d 1036.

This “central purpose... provides the kind of rational basis... permitting limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples.”– Dean v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1995) 653 A.2d 307, 337 (Ferren, J., concurring and dissenting).

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15968 Jan 25, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Adoption in the US only creates parent-cild relationships, stupid Peter, not a kinship of equals like marriage.
Waitaminit.....who said anything about "equals"? The mantra, as a few SSMers have chanted is seems to be about "establishing legal kinship between previously unrelated parties.. Adoption does that. Marriage establishes a man and a woman as husband and wife.
That's just a subset of the possible kinship relationships that can be established via marriage, small Peter. It also works to create husband and husband and wife and wife.
There's no valid reason to create "husband and husband", or "wife and wife". There has to be a rational basis to establish kinship.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#15969 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What a card you are Rainbow Kid....let me guess you ride a rainbow pony.
"If"? Silly kid.....there's no "if", 150 years of court cases stating just that proves that.
Here's a few.....again for the heterosexually challenged.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-hsiao/refe...
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
A “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race.”– Adams v. Howerton (C.D. Cal. 1980) 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124, affirmed on other grounds (9th Cir. 1982) 673 F.2d 1036.
This “central purpose... provides the kind of rational basis... permitting limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples.”– Dean v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1995) 653 A.2d 307, 337 (Ferren, J., concurring and dissenting).
LOL! Thanks for all the hard work you and Maggie Gallagher put into your presentation
.
Her first child was born before she got married; so naturally she could show her baby to a marriage clerk to get a license
.
Gay folks have developed a secret weapon that we 'borrow' off grocery store shelves; use it to make babies; and then return it to the grocery store shelf before it is discovered missing
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15970 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And just where is the requirement to "love"? Where is it a requirement that only married couple's "love"? What is the legal punishment of the people that "love" without being married?
What court has stated procreation is a function of marriage?
We'll lets see....
“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”– Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) 316 U.S. 535, 541
“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of socity, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”– Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211.
“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”– Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12
“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 family is the basic unit of our society, the center of the personal affections that ennoble and enrich human life. It channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive; it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment; it establishes continuity from one generation to another; it nurtures and develops the individual initiative that distinguishes a free people. Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage.– De Burgh v. De Burgh (1952) 39 Cal.2d 858, 863-864.
Procreation is “[o]ne of the prime purposes of matrimony.”– Maslow v. Maslow (1952) 117 Cal.App.2d. 237, 241.
“[P]rocreation of offspring could be considered one of the major purposes of marriage.”– Poe v. Gerstein (5th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 787, 796.
“[M]arriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”– Singer v. Hara (Wash. App. 1974) 522 P.2d 1187, 1195.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 , 639.
Still can't distinguish between "function" and "requirement" I see. No matter how many times you trot out this long cut and paste, it remains irrelevant. Marriage does not require procreation. It never has, it never will

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15971 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see Oklahoma, Utah, California, Iowa and Massachusetts for proof.
No village idiot, those states prove that mob rule is undemocratic....and unconstitutional. You've lost. You will continue to lose. You're a loser village idiot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#15972 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The person writing "hate the constitution" is Terra Firma; not me. I just noticed same sex marriage law created by courts is antidemocratic.
No village idiot, you didn't "notice" it, you simply "pretended" it. There's a huge difference.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15973 Jan 25, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic; see Oklahoma, Utah, California, Iowa and Massachusetts for proof.
All you're saying is that you believe that the LEGAL PROCESS is antidemocratic. The way things were done in those states is not unique to same-sex marriage. Many laws are enforced by the courts.

What about Washington, Maine, and Maryland, Brian? What about those? What do THEY prove about same-sex marriage?

Neither group of states prove anything about same-sex marriage. They all only prove that the legal process is sometimes different from the democratic process. But both processes are important to our legal system.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15974 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitaminit.....who said anything about "equals"?
Did you wife adopt you as her child? It would seem so given your grade school level education and knowledge.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The mantra, as a few SSMers have chanted is seems to be about "establishing legal kinship between previously unrelated parties.. Adoption does that.
Marriage doesn't establish kinship as a parent-child relationship, stupid Peter. Really, must everything always be spelled out of you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage establishes a man and a woman as husband and wife.
And husband and husband as well as wife and wife. Got to account for all marriage in the US, stupid Peter, not just those you wish to recognize.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's no valid reason to create "husband and husband", or "wife and wife".
There's just as valid a reason as there is for husband and wife. The establishment of kinship creates a new family unit as well as "in-law" relationships between the families of each of the marriage partners.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There has to be a rational basis to establish kinship.
Kinship is what results from exercising one's fundamental right of marriage. People don't need justify to you or anyone else why they wish to establish kinship. They need only meet any restrictions placed on the exercise of a fundamental right (which much be based on a legitimate compelling state interest that rationally relates the the restriction to said interest).

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15975 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
So does that mean ANY valid contract, regardless of its intention, and purpose, must be recognized by another state? So any state can dictate the marriage laws of any other state?
This has nothing to do with dictating laws, only with recognizing legal contracts. Given that the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been ratified, states which do not recognize the marriages of other states are in conflict with the Constitution. Don’t pretend that this is a settled issue. Only section 2 of DOMA keeps this up in the air.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Any one can "choose their spouse", assuming one desires a spouse, without state involvement
Of course state involvement is required. Who are you kidding?
Pietro Armando wrote:
even choose a relative to be their "spouse"
Only cousins, who are barely related anyway, and may not be by blood.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not nearly astounding as your belief that one state should be able to dictate another state's definition of marriage within their borders.
That happens ANYWAY. Are you not following? Did I fail to mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Nope, I mentioned it. What’s astounding is your short-term memory loss.
Pietro Armando wrote:
They still have the right to define marriage, as it's been defined for all but ten years of the history of the Republic, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
LOL! They have the “right” to define marriage according to the definition you’ve laid out here? Do they have the right to define it any OTHER way besides the definition you’ve given? If they can’t change it to something else, then what “right” are they actually exercising?
Pietro Armando wrote:
No state should be able to force on another state such a fundamental redefinition of marriage on another state. If Utah were to recognize plural marriage, should every state be forced to, as well?
Can they do that? CAN Utah simply decide to recognize plural marriage? You JUST GOT DONE telling me that states have the right to define marriage. Doesn’t that mean that Utah can recognize whatever they want?

They can’t do whatever they want in contradiction to the US Constitution. Including disregarding the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You watch what happens to these laws.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, but it should be a license to maintain the definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife which is consistent nation wide.
Well, now those laws are NOT consistent nationwide. My marriage won’t be recognized in Alabama. What do we do now?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Another pro polygamy comment.
I’m certainly pro-polygamy, guilty as charged. I’m open to more changes in the name of fairness. Why aren't you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
I did?
Yes. In my post #15828, I said that you’ll have to work fast to convince courts not to grant anymore same-sex marriage rights. In your reply #15838, you said that I should also act fast, before existing rights change again. Why? What worries should I have, if I don’t “act fast”? Plural marriages are no threat to mine. Even incestuous ones, should the state choose to recognize them, will have no bearing on my own marriage. What benefit will I gain if I “act fast”, that I might lose if I act slowly?
Pietro Armando wrote:
"More marriages"? Plural marriages? Who then determines what constitutes "marriage"? Can anyone declare there relationship "marriage" and expect the state to recognize it as such?
Sure. Two unmarried, unrelated adults who wish to become family. I think you’re going to find little resistance to this definition, and more and more states leaning that way. There's no reason to WANT to exclude same-sex couples.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15976 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Legal kinship can be established through adoption, as well.
Um, how is this an argument? Are you suggesting that gay people should ADOPT each other to establish kinship?

As if you need to be told, adoption establishes a very particular kind of kinship, that of parent and child. Please tell me you're not so obtuse that you don't see the difference between the kinship that a parent and child share, and the kinship that independant adults share (or at least seek).
Pietro Armando wrote:
There must be something more to marriage than just that.
There is. Marriage is nothing like adoption. You've been ridiculous before, but don't be THIS ridiculous.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That would be joining a man and woman as husband and wife.
And that unnecessarily narrow view leaves gay and lesbian couples with no legal recourse whatsoever for building a family, protecting their loved ones and fully sharing their futures. Which is FAR more "to the heart of the issue" of marriage than simply insisting on two genders. Two people of the same gender have the same hopes and needs in this respect.

People who are already family don't need legal recourse to build a family. The state already recognizes their kinship.

Three or more people deteriorates the protection they can offer one another (unless 1,138 rewrites are offered up, which I'd be open to), and calls their commitment into question.

Allowing gay people to form legal unions of another kind, such as civil unions, belabors the point of segregation, unless significant differences between marriages and civil unions can be outlined.

Arguing that marriage ensures that children are raised by their biological parents ignores every instance where that doesn't happen yet marriages are recognized anyway, and it's contradictory in the face of support for adoption by gay couples.

Does that about cover all your points? I'm sorry, but you just seem to have nothing resembling a cogent argument. "Adoption". Really?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#15977 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
Well then....SSM is legally recognized by every state in the Union, right? Or not?
No, some states still have unconstitutional laws which bar same sex marriage. They will be overturned, because dullards, like yourself, lack the grey matter to come up with a legitimate argument to defend such laws.

When, rather "if," you grow a brain, you will realize that there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#15978 Jan 25, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What a card you are Rainbow Kid....let me guess you ride a rainbow pony.
"If"? Silly kid.....there's no "if", 150 years of court cases stating just that proves that.
Here's a few.....again for the heterosexually challenged.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/tim-hsiao/refe...
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.
A “state has a compelling interest in encouraging and fostering procreation of the race.”– Adams v. Howerton (C.D. Cal. 1980) 486 F. Supp. 1119, 1124, affirmed on other grounds (9th Cir. 1982) 673 F.2d 1036.
This “central purpose... provides the kind of rational basis... permitting limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples.”– Dean v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1995) 653 A.2d 307, 337 (Ferren, J., concurring and dissenting).
It's rather ironic that all but one of the jurisdictions whose cases you cite now give legal recognition to same sex marriage. Guess procreation wasn't such an important aspect of marriage after all, stupid Peter.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15979 Jan 25, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still can't distinguish between "function" and "requirement" I see.
Apparently you're blind, because I can.
No matter how many times you trot out this long cut and paste, it remains irrelevant. Marriage does not require procreation. It never has, it never will
No many how many times you state the obvious, as we all know, that marriage doesn't require procreation, doesn't negate it's function as it relates to marriage, and why e state recognizes it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#15980 Jan 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, some states still have unconstitutional laws which bar same sex marriage.
No, some states constitutionally define marriage, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the legal understanding and/or definition of marriage for all but ten years of American history.
They will be overturned, because dullards, like yourself, lack the grey matter to come up with a legitimate argument to defend such laws.
Perhaps, perhaps not, because chooches like yourself lack the smarts to come up with a rational reason why conjugality, as the basis of legal marriage, should be dropped, and no other defining characteristic.
When, rather "if," you grow a brain, you will realize that there is no state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Yet, there have been courts who stated there is a state interest to maintain marriage as sundown of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Individual parties to a "same sex couple" are still men and women. So why should they be treated differently than other men and women? Why should they be told their constitutional right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, shouldn't be exercised like any other man or woman? Why do advocate unequal treatment?

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
BIG LaBOR DAY WEEKEND PARTAAY!!! 36 min Lil Stinky Jr 1
ARCHIVES Revisited 48 min Lil Stinky Jr 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr RiccardoFire 8,372
40 years ago today 2 hr SteveO 6
FuNKY ARCHIVES 2 hr SteveO 4
News Mr Gay Europe wants to raise awareness around s... 3 hr TomInElPaso 11
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Beatnik 53,602
More from around the web