Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17554 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16040 Jan 27, 2014
Parents often bring children into the world and foot the bill. After that, children are raised by others such as the following.

1. Peers
2. Teachers
3. Tutors
4. Mentors
5. Friends

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16041 Jan 27, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
That only proves your ignorance. The state HAS ALWAYS allowed such couples to marry without any question as to the function and purpose of marriage as it relates to procreation.
Can you read, Pietro? Because that is just what I said, and it was precisely the point I was making. That such couples are regularly allowed to marry disproves your infantile notion that procreation has any relevance to legal marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You have yet off the elusive governmental interest in treating some men and women, differently as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all did states. Why do advocate unequal treatment?
You should really look at your coma placement.
I advocate equal protection for same sex couples to marry. You promote inequality under the law by excluding them from marriage. Saying that they have equal protection to marry someone of the opposite sex is a, infantile rationalization that doesn't stand up to even the least stringent scrutiny.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Quite the contrary. It views all men, and all women, as such, and recognizes marriage as a male female union.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by such a definition that would render it constitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Perhaps you could articulate the compelling state interest, in not only redefining marriage to include non conjugal and/or non monogamous relationships in general, but designating a same sex relationships, in particular, "marriage".
Pietro, what do you think conjugal means.
Polygamy doesn't seek equal protection of the law.
Learn to count, moron.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What you are advocating is actually inequality, by asking the state to treat some men and women as it relates to a matter of public policy?
Did you really mean for this to be a question, it seems to be a statement. Either way, it appears to be incomplete.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you also advocate separate water fountains as well, or separate sections on public modes of transportation too?
No, I am advocating for the law to treat people the same. There is no reason to exclude homosexuals from the legal protections of marriage. You are actually advocating segregation when you argue to exclude same sex couples from marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Feel free to offer any state interest served by designating non conjugal, and/or monogamous relationships as "marriage"......why not start with same sex relationships.
Pietro, you are an idiot. Clearly, you don't know what conjugal means. Look it up.
There is no state interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage.
Polygamy, by definition, seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people.
Were you not an idiot, you would understand the two are separate issues, and that allowing same sex marriage has no bearing upon polygamy. Just as legalization of interracial marriage had no impact upon polygamy.

I highly suggest you learn to count.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16042 Jan 27, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
Parents often bring children into the world and foot the bill. After that, children are raised by others such as the following.
1. Peers
2. Teachers
3. Tutors
4. Mentors
5. Friends
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16043 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
Dear moron, can a single mother legally raise a child, or does the state intervene?

The reality is that the state only has an interest in the circumstances surrounding child rearing if the child is in danger.

What is more, having and raising children is neither prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage.

Quit being an idiot, come back to the topic at hand.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#16044 Jan 27, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founding Fathers vision specifically provided for a constitutional republic that included a judicial branch with judges appointed for life that exercised the responsibility of judicial review of laws. Further, eligibility to vote at the time of the Founding wasn't universal; it was generally limited to white, male property owners. So the Founders indeed had a concept of government that was managed by the "elite" of the day imposed upon the masses that included nonvoting women and slaves.
Your ignorance of history is truly appalling, Brian.
<quoted text>
Your contempt for the constitution and the Founders' vision is noted.
Excellent

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16045 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
False. Given the huge number of dysfunctional homes, many biological parents are completely unfit. If I had a father like you, which I did, I would look elsewhere and ignore your stupidity.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16046 Jan 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear moron, can a single mother legally raise a child, or does the state intervene?
The reality is that the state only has an interest in the circumstances surrounding child rearing if the child is in danger.
What is more, having and raising children is neither prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage.
Quit being an idiot, come back to the topic at hand.
I have had the pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by single mothers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#16048 Jan 27, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I have had the pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by single mothers.
I have the same pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by their married mom and dad. Your point?

Was the single mother, a single mother by choice, or did Dad skip out? Or was he even in the picture?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#16049 Jan 27, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
None of them match the influence of mother and father; that's why marriage is one husband and one wife.
And the fact that same-sex couples were raising and adopting children was one of the reasons the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found denying civil marriages to these couples was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution, the oldest constitution in the world.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16050 Jan 27, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
I have the same pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by their married mom and dad. Your point?
The point is your oft repeated ideal of a child raised in a stable home with the biological mother and father is just that: an ideal. Reality can and does fall far short of that. So if the state doesn't intervene to enforce the "ideal" child rearing environment, then there's no rational basis on which to prohibit same sex couples from marrying simply because they don't provide this "ideal" environment that you neither require opposite sex couples to provide in the real world nor require procreation within marriage anyway.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was the single mother, a single mother by choice, or did Dad skip out? Or was he even in the picture?
What difference does it make? If the state isn't taking children away from these less than "ideal" family environments and placing them in "ideal" ones instead, the reason why a single family environment exists doesn't matter.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16051 Jan 28, 2014
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Sci...
Same sex marriage is the Left's attempt to segregate marriage by gender without the consent of the governed.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#16052 Jan 28, 2014
In the Christian buybull it says greed and gluttony are bad sins in fact it mentions each more then 20 times each.

When will Christians churches start getting laws and bans made to make being rich(greedy) and fat(gluttony) illegal????

Or is only gay sex worth there time to break the Constitution to ban.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16053 Jan 28, 2014
Never, in America the state makes laws, not the church.

Theft and illegal drug use are already criminal offenses; we don't need new laws, we need judges who will apply the law impartially to all not create their own law. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic because activist judges apply their elite morality in opposition to written law and precedent against the consent of the governed.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#16054 Jan 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Never, in America the state makes laws, not the church.
Theft and illegal drug use are already criminal offenses; we don't need new laws, we need judges who will apply the law impartially to all not create their own law. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic because activist judges apply their elite morality in opposition to written law and precedent against the consent of the governed.
But when them 'activist judges' rule in your favor on something......oh they are just doing their job.....ya right. ROTFL.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#16055 Jan 28, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I have the same pleasure of knowing several very successful people raised by their married mom and dad. Your point?
Was the single mother, a single mother by choice, or did Dad skip out? Or was he even in the picture?
There are fine examples of small primitive minds raised by heterosexual couples and we'll start with you as an example.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#16056 Jan 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Never, in America the state makes laws, not the church.
Theft and illegal drug use are already criminal offenses; we don't need new laws, we need judges who will apply the law impartially to all not create their own law. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic because activist judges apply their elite morality in opposition to written law and precedent against the consent of the governed.
Good keep your religious BS out of it then Nazi.

Same sex marriage is next step in EQUALITY......Your kind screamed when women got equal right and your kind screamed and killed blacks as the fought for and got equal rights...

Your kind always loses also Nazi.

YOUR FILTH HOPE YOU DIE IN HORRIBLE PAIN AND REST OF YOUR INBRED BROOD ALSO ....\

YOUR EITHER FOR EQUALITY OR YOUR NOT...If not move to Iran Nazi pig.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16057 Jan 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
http://www.prageruniversity.co m/Political-Science/The-Least- Free-Place-in-America.html
Irrelevant twaddle.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is the Left's attempt to segregate marriage by gender
No one is forced to marry someone of the same sex in states where same sex marriage is legally recognized. Voluntary segregation resting from one's constitutional guaranteed personal liberty interest decisions regarding a choice of spouse is in fact constitutionally permissible. Just like when two blacks or two Jews or two Chinese people marry, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
without the consent of the governed.
Changes that conform with constitutional processes like judicial review or legislative enactment do have the consent of the governed since the people ratified the constitution through their designated representatives.

Why do you lie, Brian?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#16058 Jan 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Never, in America the state makes laws, not the church.
Theft and illegal drug use are already criminal offenses; we don't need new laws, we need judges who will apply the law impartially to all not create their own law. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic because activist judges apply their elite morality in opposition to written law and precedent against the consent of the governed.
Judges performing their constitutionally appointed task of judicial review are acting in accordance with the the will of he people who did in fact ratify the constitution and authorize life-tnured judges, Brian. And that you personally think judges who don't rule the way you like are ignoring the law and precedent doesn't make it so.

The bottom line is you're uneducated regarding constitutional law and an f-ing liar.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16059 Jan 28, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Never, in America the state makes laws, not the church.
Theft and illegal drug use are already criminal offenses; we don't need new laws, we need judges who will apply the law impartially to all not create their own law. Same sex marriage is antidemocratic because activist judges apply their elite morality in opposition to written law and precedent against the consent of the governed.
Moron, the judges are striking down the law BECAUSE they are unconstitutional.

Why do you hate the US Constitution? Why do you hate equality under the law?

It is too bad that you are too cowardly to respond. If you turn much more yellow, you might just be forced to run for congress.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#16060 Jan 28, 2014
folks, i think we should stop and take a moment to thank both brian and pietro.

why, you wonder?

LOL. well, it's simple, really, they keep voicing all these silly, illogical "points" that are easily rebutted and cannot be verified (particularly so in brian's little bumpersticker posts).

and we keep batting them down and out of the park. showing the "points" as they actually are - utter and complete nonsense and not applicable to secular laws in these united states.

if you think about it, they're actually helping us to get the word out about the reality and how the laws work so that anyone just popping in and reading through the posts will see their points and how easily they're rebutted and found not to be, well, applicable.

in answering their nonsense, other people are seeing the truth and the logic and are leaving these pages a bit better informed.

so, i say, well done and thank you.

:)

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 Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 8 min Amused 65
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 47 min Respect71 45,158
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 49 min guest 1,092
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr carter county res... 24,777
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 7 hr Pleasures feminin... 55
News Singer Greg Gould: 'I was told not to be too gay' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
News Gay Pride just 'not black enough' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
More from around the web