Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 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.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18376 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so then why should the state be involved in "marriage" at all? why should the state even sanction marriage?
Wow. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any stupider.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#18377 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, so i assume that wedding flowers are delivered and set up by the florist because that is what happens at weddings i attend. and my son just got married. you assume that the couple in question was going to pick up their flowers. not a typical situation but i can see your point. since we don't know i'll just assume that you don't go to many weddings or at least not many conventional weddings.
By the way, my wife and I had a conventional wedding ceremony and we opted NOT to have REAL flowers at our wedding and instead made the flower arrangements needed for the bridal bouquet, Maid of Honor and the flowers for the flower girl......so, please STOP using your ideas as reasons to judge others....thanks!!!
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18378 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con ...
i'll suggest that she has. therefore i'll ask you to point out what part of anything from this site and the posted document applies to what you are trying to say. in other words i think that you didn't even read your own link.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
N....
<quoted text>
I'd say you know about as much about the Constitution as you do Washington State law and what constitutes a "place of public accommodation". And of course by that, I mean, absolutely nothing.
Here you go princess, it's called the 14th amendment....." All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."
I'll even draw the lines for you Barry, since you generally seem unable to. The Constitution guaranteed equal protection of the laws. The law of Washington State is that all patrons are to be treated equally regardless of gender or sexual orientation. A straight couple wanting flowers for their wedding are to be treated the same as a bisexual couple wanting flowers and the same as homosexual couple wanting flowers for their wedding. Bigot Baronelle choice to violate that law.
what is sad is that the 14th was not a part of the site that you posted. so i was correct. you didn't check the site that you posted.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18379 Mar 27, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any stupider.
so why should the state be involved in marriage?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18380 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>ok, so i assume that wedding flowers are delivered and set up by the florist because that is what happens at weddings i attend.
Doesn't alter those services being part of her POPA, and still subject to every and all state laws.

But I do appreciate you acknowledging that your arguments aren't based on the facts of the case, but on assumptions you want to make. That's very big of you.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
and my son just got married.
Good for him. I hope he didn't have to deal with bigots and individuals offering him unsolicited opinions about who he was marrying and what they thought of it. I hope that all his first choices for vendors for all aspects of his wedding treated him fairly and ethically.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
you assume that the couple in question was going to pick up their flowers.
No, that's an assumption you've made for me, not one I made on my own. There are many people involved with the wedding besides the wedding party and the florist. Typically there are floral assistants, delivery specialists, subcontractors, wedding planners, and the wedding party itself. At least that's how my wedding worked.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
not a typical situation but i can see your point.
No, obviously you can't since you assigned me such a limited assumption on your behalf.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>
since we don't know i'll just assume that you don't go to many weddings or at least not many conventional weddings.
You make a LOT of assumptions. And this one, like most, is based on nothing but your ignorance and your bigotry. You're mental faculties are severely flawed, and your memory of past statements made by yourself and by others in the forum is for shit.

And for the record, the weddings of gays can be and are just as conventional or non conventional as those of heterosexuals. You don't have a monopoly on convention.

Carry on bigot.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18381 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
barry wrote:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con ...
i'll suggest that she has. therefore i'll ask you to point out what part of anything from this site and the posted document applies to what you are trying to say. in other words i think that you didn't even read your own link.<quoted text>what is sad is that the 14th was not a part of the site that you posted. so i was correct. you didn't check the site that you posted.
Is the 14th part of the Constitution, yes or no?

Watch as Barry returns to beat more pulp from his desperate dead horse.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#18382 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so why should the state be involved in marriage?
Because the state is responsible for establishing the legality of the kinship established through the marriage. The state is responsible for adhering to all legal matters related to that kinship. The state is the only entity that can establish this kinship for the millions of people that aren't prey to imaginary deities. And most importantly, because without the state, your pastor, and all the other pastors would not be vested by any type of REAL authority in order to declare a marriage.

Any other stupid questions, or do you need this elaborated on? Just let me know hon.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#18383 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so why should the state be involved in marriage?
Then don't get a state sanctioned legal marriage. Shack up with the woman who will have you. No one is required to be married to shack up or to pop out babies.

But.....

Don't then expect to recieve the benefits associated with being legally maried.

She will be compelled to testify you in a court of law. The right not to is given to legal spouses.

She will have to pay the inheretance tax when die on anything you leave to her in a will including the half of the house you bought together. The tax exemption is reserved for legally married spouses.

Don't forget to pay the tax on any 'domestic partner' benifits your employer offers to that women you live with. If she were your spouse, what your employer contributes would not be taxed.

Make sure you spend money with your lawyer to draw up the health care proxies. The woman you shack up with is not your 'next of kin' and will be kept out of your hospital room.

Don't forget to make absolutely clear who gets to make your funeral arrangements. You might not like what your estranged brother has planned for you as your legal next of kin.

Getting the picture why legal civil marriage is important?... Shall I and others continue the list?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18384 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so then why should the state be involved in "marriage" at all? why should the state even sanction marriage?
The first answer is that, as a society, we have various expectations of people who take marriage vows. Believe it or not, however, not everyone who takes those vows lives up to expectations. And sometimes two people taking the same vows have different interpretations and expectations.

Therefore, marriage law sets some minimal standards, just as regulators set minimal standards for auto and home insurance. The FDA also sets minimum standards for food and drugs that are sold to the public. In all cases, government became involved because some participants in these institutions--marriage, insurance, food, drugs--behaved outside the norms that society considered to be acceptable.

Gay people want to rely on the same protections that straight people assume when they marry. That's one reason marriage is important to us.

The second answer is that government has recognized that families carry out their endeavors as a unit, not as multiple individuals. A couple buys a house together. They make career decisions together. One spouse often makes career sacrifices for the sake of the family or to further the career of the other spouse. Therefore, a series of laws recognize the family as a unit, not as two individuals.

The actions that gay couples take as a family are entirely analogous to the actions that straight couples take. Therefore they should be treated analogously by government.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18385 Mar 27, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
How come same sex marriage is only SIN religious people want banned.
I mean why doesn't churches fight to ban fat people and to ban rich people. And ban working on sunday..
Why is it only one sin does religious people attack through the law.??
why can't we work on sunday?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18386 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no, you did not cite any verse that said that Christians had to obey the laws or the government of the land. you cited verses that used different words that you claimed meant the same as "obey" but in actuality have a different meaning therefore the different word was used.
OMFG! You can't be THAT stupid.
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
OMFG! You can't be THAT stupid.
Romans 13
13 Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God, and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God. 2 So anyone who opposes the authority is standing against what God has established. People who take this kind of stand will get punished. 3 The authorities don’t frighten people who are doing the right thing. Rather, they frighten people who are doing wrong. Would you rather not be afraid of authority? Do what’s right, and you will receive its approval. 4 It is God’s servant given for your benefit. But if you do what’s wrong, be afraid because it doesn’t have weapons to enforce the law for nothing. It is God’s servant put in place to carry out his punishment on those who do what is wrong. 5 That is why it is necessary to place yourself under the government’s authority, not only to avoid God’s punishment but also for the sake of your conscience. 6 You should also pay taxes for the same reason, because the authorities are God’s assistants, concerned with this very thing. 7 So pay everyone what you owe them. Pay the taxes you owe, pay the duties you are charged, give respect to those you should respect, and honor those you should honor.
like i said, you didn't post any verses that say that a Christian must "obey".
"place themselves under the authority of the government" is not the same as obey. we have a right to accept the penalty of not conforming to what the authorities might want.
was it not Peter who says we need to obey God rather than man? was it not Daniel who ignored the anti prayer law and opened his windows so that all could see that he was praying? was it not paul who accepted a free ride to rome as a prisoner of rome?
God's law always trumps man's but we will accept the penalty as God will work it for good.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18388 Mar 27, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The first answer is that, as a society, we have various expectations of people who take marriage vows. Believe it or not, however, not everyone who takes those vows lives up to expectations. And sometimes two people taking the same vows have different interpretations and expectations.
Therefore, marriage law sets some minimal standards, just as regulators set minimal standards for auto and home insurance. The FDA also sets minimum standards for food and drugs that are sold to the public. In all cases, government became involved because some participants in these institutions--marriage, insurance, food, drugs--behaved outside the norms that society considered to be acceptable.
Gay people want to rely on the same protections that straight people assume when they marry. That's one reason marriage is important to us.
The second answer is that government has recognized that families carry out their endeavors as a unit, not as multiple individuals. A couple buys a house together. They make career decisions together. One spouse often makes career sacrifices for the sake of the family or to further the career of the other spouse. Therefore, a series of laws recognize the family as a unit, not as two individuals.
The actions that gay couples take as a family are entirely analogous to the actions that straight couples take. Therefore they should be treated analogously by government.
i fail to see how you answered the question.
we have "expectations" but we do not require them to live up to those expectations. so what importance do those "expectations"have?
what would be those "minimal standards" be for a marriage?
and i'm curious, what protections are there for a committed couple that requires a recognition of "marriage"
don't legal partnerships do all of the examples [buy a house, career decisions, sacrifices etc] and are covered by law whether they involve living together or just business? don't people who "live together" outside of marriage do all of the above?

i fully understand your last statement. while i disagree with SSM, i have not argued against it here. my question is based on my long held position that gov should not be involved in anything that some people consider sacred. Every argument for ssm could be accomplished simply by getting gov out of the marriage business and let all committed couples conform to the laws that already exist for "married" couples by simply signing a legal agreement.
i have however argued against the attempt to force a business person to service an event or activity that they feel is morally wrong.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18389 Mar 27, 2014
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Then don't get a state sanctioned legal marriage. Shack up with the woman who will have you. No one is required to be married to shack up or to pop out babies.
But.....
Don't then expect to recieve the benefits associated with being legally maried.
She will be compelled to testify you in a court of law. The right not to is given to legal spouses.
She will have to pay the inheretance tax when die on anything you leave to her in a will including the half of the house you bought together. The tax exemption is reserved for legally married spouses.
Don't forget to pay the tax on any 'domestic partner' benifits your employer offers to that women you live with. If she were your spouse, what your employer contributes would not be taxed.
Make sure you spend money with your lawyer to draw up the health care proxies. The woman you shack up with is not your 'next of kin' and will be kept out of your hospital room.
Don't forget to make absolutely clear who gets to make your funeral arrangements. You might not like what your estranged brother has planned for you as your legal next of kin.
Getting the picture why legal civil marriage is important?... Shall I and others continue the list?
all of this could be handled by simply filing a notice with the gov that you and your committed partner are a partnership.

the only exception i see is that testifying one. but i also think that it can be covered the same way.
the inheritance tax should have nothing to do with marriage. everyone should have the right to name one person that gets their inheritance tax free married or not. otherwise unmarried people are not treated equally as married people as per the 14th.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18390 Mar 27, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the state is responsible for establishing the legality of the kinship established through the marriage. The state is responsible for adhering to all legal matters related to that kinship. The state is the only entity that can establish this kinship for the millions of people that aren't prey to imaginary deities. And most importantly, because without the state, your pastor, and all the other pastors would not be vested by any type of REAL authority in order to declare a marriage.
Any other stupid questions, or do you need this elaborated on? Just let me know hon.
kinship? sons are still sons, cousins are still cousins aunts and uncles are still aunts and uncles. you'll have to elaborate on this one.
I just wonder, in today's a-moral society what purpose does state sanctioned marriage serve?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18391 Mar 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Pietro, polygamy is not legal in any state in the United States.
It is legal, it's simply not legally recognized through issuance of multiple concurrent marriage licenses.
The case the Browns brought merely struck down laws barring cohabitation.
Utah law criminalized even purporting to be married. Thus the Browns, faced prosecution for living as, albeit religiously recognized, husband wife, wife, wife, and wife.
There still is only one marriage in the group,
Correct.
the rest merely call themselves married,
No, they interact as husband and wives.
but have no legal rights or protections of legal marriage.
True, bigotry and discrimination are responsible for this.
"The Browns have only entered into one legally recognized marriage, so they could have faced prosecution for calling their relationship a marriage, a decision they made based on their religion."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/17/utah...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-po...

(CNN)-- A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."
The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."
Brown family on 'Becoming Sister Wives'

The 91-page decision comes months after the Supreme Court struck down a separate federal law that defined marriage as between only one man and one woman, a major legal, political, and social victory for homosexual couples seeking recognition of their same-sex unions.

The current suit was brought two years ago by Kody Brown, a Utah resident and his four wives -- Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn -- who together have 17 children, and whose lives are chronicled on the TLC cable television program.

They claim their privacy rights were being violated by the decades-old law, passed around the time Utah became a state. They are members of a fundamentalist branch of the Mormon Church known as the Apostolic United Brethren Church.

Brown and his family said in a statement they were grateful for the ruling.
"Many people do not approve of plural families," he said, but "we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs."

Some religious groups criticized the ruling.

"This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life," said Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing."
There was no initial reaction to the ruling from Utah officials, but they are expected to appeal.
The case is Brown v. Buhman (2:11-cv-652).

Do you ever take the time to know what you are talking about before you write?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18392 Mar 27, 2014
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you seem to think that homosexuality is not a choice.
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I KNOW that homosexuality is not a choice.
.... Typical of the sheep fundies shill.
so you can tell all those who claimed to be homosexuals who now are married to opposite sex partners and have produced kids that they must have been confused.
and you can start with the mayor's wife. she clearly chose and chooses to be what she is today.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18393 Mar 27, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, my wife and I had a conventional wedding ceremony and we opted NOT to have REAL flowers at our wedding and instead made the flower arrangements needed for the bridal bouquet, Maid of Honor and the flowers for the flower girl......so, please STOP using your ideas as reasons to judge others....thanks!!!
".....conventional wedding ceremony...?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18394 Mar 27, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you'd be WRONG.....but then you really DON'T get it and ya DON'T really care.....you're just USING the polygamy issue to justify your position..
Actually, you're wrong. Polygamy IS LEGAL, it's not legally recognized through issuance of multiple concurrent marriage licenses.
...but hey, that's okay because in the end......polygamy still has a long fight ahead of itself and UNTIL the appropriate challenge to Reynolds reaches the Supreme Court......polygamy will stay right were it's at!!!
If a state decides to legally recognize plural marriage, thanks to the recent DOMA ruling, the Feds would have to recognize it.
You might want to go read the Judge's ruling, but again, you WON'T because it DOESN'T say what you believe it does......POLYGAMY is still ILLEGAL in Utah.....Cohabiting is NOT!!!
The Utah law was directed at those who practiced polygamy, and even purported to be married.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-po...

(CNN)-- A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."
The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."
Neither Kody Brown and his one legal wife and his "SPIRITUAL" Cohabiting concubines can legally marry anymore than Brady Williams is legally married to all of his "WIVES".....
Wow....such disdain for the Brown family. Tsk...tsk....not very tolerant. Besides, the Brown practice a valid for of marriage throughout time and place, not the virtual modern Western invention know as "same sex" marriage.
..and it's NOT just about being legally recognized........it's about NOT being legally married to ANYONE but one of these women!!!
It's all a matter of time.
At least in the Brown's situation, they all live in separate houses...
It works for them.
....in the William's case, 2 wives live in one house and 3 live in the other house.........and Brady William's complains that the ONLY time he gets to himself is driving to work!!!
Yet, the wives still stay married to him, and he to they.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18395 Mar 27, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, polygamy, polyandry, siblings marrying and parent-child marrying are IRRELEVANT to this discussion as they have OTHER issues to deal with....
They're just as relevant to the discussion, as is SSM. As long as you advocate for the redefinition of marriage, the abolition of the sole legal definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, those "ALTERNATIVE", are just as relevant as the alternative relationship at the heart of the debate, same sex.
....now, NO one is saying that in time those "ALTERNATIVE" marriages WON'T come to fruition, but that discussion is NOT today or in the near foreseeable future!
One alternative marriage, same sex, came to fruition in some states, so it's only a matter of time before another one does.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#18396 Mar 27, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
<quoted text>
So can a really religious ambulance person deny life saving care to accident victim because victim is gay?
YOU DONT GET IT....DISCRIMINATION IS IMMORAL ILLEGAL AND VILE AND EVIL AND WRONG.
i don't get it. of course it would be wrong. what does being "gay" have to do with morality. being and acting are two different things.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 16 min River Tam 13,010
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 18 min Ismail 622
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Here is what I 36,046
News Pope says gay people deserve an apology 1 hr Here is what I 7
News Albuquerque Muslims mourn with, look to local L... 2 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 11
News Clinton marches in New York pride parade 2 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News The Latest: Obama pledges federal support in fl... 2 hr WasteWater 1
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 2 hr WasteWater 39
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 2 hr WasteWater 919
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr TomInElPaso 37,271
More from around the web