Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“Filia Spartacus”

Since: Jun 13

Libertas

#16380 Feb 5, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Cute.
Fact is neither the gay community as a whole nor the straight community will identify themselves as being pedophiles because neither of us is not yet you want to use the same idea to label heterosexuals as being little kiddy rapists.
Better get your shit straight loser because MOST people identify gays as being a danger to children now.
You stupid queer - I too think it's a misconception people view gays as a threat to children but you start attacking heterosexuals in the same fashion you're SCREWED buddy. You're digging your own grave.
He only mentioned the heteros who do molest little girls. So you shouldn't need to worry - right?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16381 Feb 5, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
Hey punk -
---we haven't "moved past" the idea religious freedoms were not a basic CIVIL RIGHT just because a bunch of sexually confused idiots thinks so.
I never stated religious freedom wasn't a basic civil right. But freedom of religion is no more absolute than any other of our civil or fundamental rights. Freedom of religion does not extend to running a business and discriminating against classes of people you dislike in direct violation of anti-discrmination laws. Period. If you don't like it, I suggest you take it up with SCOTUS. They made that ruling, not me. But I do agree with it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16382 Feb 5, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
None in this forum has bitch.- Next.
What do you even know about racial discrimination in the past idiot.- It has NO connection to those wanting to marry their cow or have sex with their fraternal brother from college idiot. Let alone the pains they had to endure.
It so angers me given I have family that endured those times and to hear from some QUEER he didn't get his wedding cake from a single baker in a city friendly TO gays is such a joke it's unbelievable when compared to reality real discrimination was about.
Get lost drama homo. You've got no more ammo that a little toddler crying to her momma why she didn't get the Cap'n Crunch cereal instead of the Cheerios her mother bought for her.
Gays are nothing but punks explaining their delays in life.
Go take two Midol and untwist your panties, Dan. You've apparently cut off the circulation to your brain, again.
Denver Dan

Sacramento, CA

#16383 Feb 5, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Go take two Midol and untwist your panties, Dan. You've apparently cut off the circulation to your brain, again.
ROFL - You always seem to to ground me.-
SteamRoller

Philadelphia, PA

#16384 Feb 5, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
None in this forum has bitch.- Next.
What do you even know about racial discrimination in the past idiot.- It has NO connection to those wanting to marry their cow or have sex with their fraternal brother from college idiot. Let alone the pains they had to endure.
It so angers me given I have family that endured those times and to hear from some QUEER he didn't get his wedding cake from a single baker in a city friendly TO gays is such a joke it's unbelievable when compared to reality real discrimination was about.
Get lost drama homo. You've got no more ammo that a little toddler crying to her momma why she didn't get the Cap'n Crunch cereal instead of the Cheerios her mother bought for her.
Gays are nothing but punks explaining their delays in life.
Me suck you long time.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#16385 Feb 6, 2014
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#16386 Feb 6, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
When are you going to quit with that charade? They are the same if a STR8 couple get divorce...or a guy says ........see ya to his g/f if she gets pregnant. Then don't leave out the child that gets physically abused by the parents.....the list goes on.....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16387 Feb 6, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
Brian, does the state intervene when a child is born out of wedlock?
Does it prohibit divorce?

If not, your argument is out of gas.

One more question, if a gay couple were to sign a document stating that they relinquish all rights to adopt a child, would you support their right to marry, or is this just another in a series of Bull**** rationalizations on your part? I know, it is an absurd hypothetical, but since your argument is bat **** insane, it is the only one that fits.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16388 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What is your interpretation of why it is illegal if not moral disapproval? As nhjeff pointed out, the term "odious" was used.
The question in Reynolds, if you had actually bothered to read the decision, is the legality of the grand jury, and whether this was an infringement of religious freedom. the court decided that neither was the case.

It's a good idea to know a little about a case before one starts spouting BS. Particularly, if they are intent upon including things that are outside the scope of the ruling rendered.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16389 Feb 6, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage was created so children may be raised in a home by their mother and father. Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless.
And you have yet to provide a single example of a child who had better alternatives. We're waiting, but we're not holding our breath.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16390 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The question in Reynolds, if you had actually bothered to read the decision, is the legality of the grand jury, and whether this was an infringement of religious freedom. the court decided that neither was the case.
It's a good idea to know a little about a case before one starts spouting BS. Particularly, if they are intent upon including things that are outside the scope of the ruling rendered.
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16391 Feb 6, 2014
Denver Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the deal.
You play grabass with your "partner" all you want.
I agree you should hold that right. Crap - marry the fruit, who cares???
But when it comes to you and yours suddenly taking your newly found freedoms and telling heterosexuals how to live and behave we'll shove your fresh found freedoms back to where they came.
OK??????????
Could you present the post number where some one told you how to live or behave? Yeah, I didn't think so. Just another jackass whiner. You sound like a sniveling 8 year old.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16392 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most of the Court’s argument is dedicated to the original meaning of the Constitution’s religion clauses, but also noteworthy is its passing comment on the basis of the law in question, a basis that the Court at that time apparently found unquestionably legitimate:“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice.
- See more at: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?

One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.

Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.

Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16393 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Love the spin!
No spin required. Try educating yourself rather than just being childish smartass.

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.asp...
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16394 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?
One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.
Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.
Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.
Long winded lame dodge. If the reason polygamy is illegal is not moral disapproval "odious", what is it?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16395 Feb 6, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No spin required. Try educating yourself rather than just being childish smartass.
http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.asp...
Like I said, love the spin.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16396 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice that from a decision that is over 100 pages in length, you can find one sentence in passing that supports your absurd notion?
One could almost draw the conclusion that this was not the main thrust of the courts ruling, and that it was in fact little more than a passing mention. None of which negates the simple fact that the court held against Reynolds, and the decision has not been reversed.
Even you must be smart enough to see that the court seems to think that the issue of polygamy poses a substantially differing set of legal issues than interracial marriage, or same sex marriage, which is why the court addresses these issues separately, instead of making sweeping changes to existing law and jurisprudence.
Quit being an idiot and come back to the topic at hand, Frankie. If you are able.
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16397 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Long winded lame dodge. If the reason polygamy is illegal is not moral disapproval "odious", what is it?
Frankie, it was neither long winded, nor was it a dodge. You are arguing irrelevant drivel, likely because you are too stupid to see that it is irrelevant.

Learn to count, Frankie.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
Frankie, that is one sentence out of over 100 pages. Were you not an imbecile, you would realize that this is not the foundation of the decision, and that it is in fact little more than a passing mention.

The end reality remains, the decision goes against your position, and has not been overturned. What is more, the court has ruled on many other marriage cases without disrupting the existing jurisprudence regarding polygamy.

If you could count, you would realize how irrelevant and idiotic your arguments are.

Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand? If not, I am done participating in your idiotic and irrelevant obfuscations. Troll on, moron. Oh, and learn to count.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#16398 Feb 6, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, it was neither long winded, nor was it a dodge. You are arguing irrelevant drivel, likely because you are too stupid to see that it is irrelevant.
Learn to count, Frankie.
<quoted text>
Frankie, that is one sentence out of over 100 pages. Were you not an imbecile, you would realize that this is not the foundation of the decision, and that it is in fact little more than a passing mention.
The end reality remains, the decision goes against your position, and has not been overturned. What is more, the court has ruled on many other marriage cases without disrupting the existing jurisprudence regarding polygamy.
If you could count, you would realize how irrelevant and idiotic your arguments are.
Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand? If not, I am done participating in your idiotic and irrelevant obfuscations. Troll on, moron. Oh, and learn to count.
Some one who insists "you can't count" is a legitimate reason to deny marriage equality tells me I am idiotic. Too funny!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#16399 Feb 6, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, love the spin.
Let us know when you have any actual refutation.

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 Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 min Reverend Alan 5,682
News Church reels after Ireland's huge 'Yes' to gay ... 2 min Fa-Foxy 12
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 min Dana Robertson 3,729
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 16 min Artimus 39
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 25 min Wondering 21,578
News What it cost Indiana to fight same-sex marriage 36 min Wondering 5
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 43 min Wondering 4,430
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 1 hr Wondering 187
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr WasteWater 33,098
More from around the web