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.

HUH

Faribault, MN

#6615 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>when did i say that you couldn't have one?
So your all for same sex marriage being legal????

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6616 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
your comment is really off subject and out of sync with the conversation.
my response was to a person who threw out a large dollar figure as a statistical average for what wedding flowers cost. his implied accusation was that this devout Christian did not seem to have any problem making a lot of money off of what she considered to be a sacred event.
That was me you were talking to. You're making WAY too big a deal out of the statistics I gave. They weren't intended to prove anything. You seemed to be suggesting that she may not be making much money from her wedding flowers, and I found some numbers just to provide some INFORMATIONAL perspective.

The money she makes doesn't matter. Anyone can say that anything is "sacred", I don't think there are any limits to such a word. This will allow them to put ANY service they want out of reach of any customers they choose, just by claiming that it's "sacred".

"Sure, you can buy our cellphones, no problem. But our chargers are SACRED, only for Christians, so sorry". Business doesn't work like that.

It seems to me that the words "sacred" and "merchandise" don't even belong in the same sentence. If someone is willing to part with an item for cash, then it isn't the ITEM that's sacred, it's the CASH.
barry wrote:
of course he did not provide any pertinent information about the costs involved and what she happens to charge. we buy our flowers from a lady who runs a little shop as a hobby right down the road from us.
She can call it a "hobby" if she likes, but when it comes down to it, she's still running a business, and must obey her local business laws. You don't get to change back and forth between "hobby" and "legitimate business" depending who is at the door.
barry wrote:
now you also show how little you know about me when you imply that i would think that "gay" people could not be upstanding citizens in the community.
But SHE obviously thought they weren't upstanding enough, and you're defending her.
barry wrote:
i have never declined to work on the home of a homosexual person. i would however decline to work on a "gay" bar but then i would decline to work on any bar.
Then it sounds like you're a contractor, and not a merchant. You'd be subject to different laws.
barry wrote:
when i ran a retail over the counter business and a lab two of my best employees that i hired were a committed lesbian couple.
I thought we were discussing how merchants are expected to treat customers, not employment practices.
barry wrote:
i have no problem with homosexual people i do however have a problem with some of the things they do.
As long as they're obeying the law, I don't see why you should have a problem.
barry wrote:
and unless that has a bearing on how they work or the quality of their work, i don't see a problem. how are we going to win their respect if we don't respect those who are respectable?
You're shifting this to make it about employment practices. Why?
barry wrote:
you're right about some people in "bad situations" lying about it. however their neighbors usually know the truth and it comes out.
i'm sorry that you missed understood my attempt to have fun with the accusation that i was guilty of nepotism for giving discounts to members of our church. i am also sorry that you feel that there would be something wrong with being nepotistic by giving discounts to my family. sorry for you and your family.
Nepotism can mean friends AND family. I just don't see why you give discounts to the people in your church, when they do nothing to merit it. There's nothing wrong with giving a sibling or a spouse the "family discount", but if I were a customer in your store, and saw you give another person a discount, I'd want to know why, and I'd want in on it (anyone would). If you denied me simply because I don't attend your church, that's pretty low.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#6617 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
my conversation is not about whether they can or can't get married it is about whether anyone must be forced to do or participate in something that is against their religious convictions.
A florist doesn't "participate" in a wedding, any more than a mechanic participates in a road trip, or a dentist participates in a meal. She's an EMPLOYEE. If it's against her religion to obey fair business laws, then she should opt out of business.
barry wrote:
i would think that if someone wanted flowers for a divorce celebration that she might just decline to deliver and set up them also. i'll bet she declines some bachelor parties also.
Yet we never hear about that. It's always with the gays. Always. And as I said, when one newspaper called one of these businesses, they were more than happy to serve all manner of "sinners".
barry wrote:
and since when must remarrying be a sin?
Oh, probably since about Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18. If you consider those sources worth listening to.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6618 Jul 26, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>go ahead try it. we already have pagan images on our paper money. not too many are complaining are they?
Nice touch.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6619 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
(Smiling, chucking, and shaking head). Ya know Wastey...you seem all right...you advocate for what u believe in, and although I disagree, I can respect that. However, we both know, the poly people are still there, they ain't going away.
http://prospect.org/article/slippery-slope-po...
It’s been a few weeks since the victories in the marriage cases at the Supreme Court, and maybe it’s time for the political left to own up to something.
You know those opponents of marriage equality who said government approval of same-sex marriage might erode bans on polygamous and incestuous marriages? They’re right. As a matter of constitutional rationale, there is indeed a slippery slope between recognizing same-sex marriages and allowing marriages among more than two people and between consenting adults who are related. If we don’t want to go there, we need to come up with distinctions that we have not yet articulated well.
The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling. Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of “fundamental rights” and equal protection. Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
Poly people have no political clout because nobody cares, especially me.
No, they are not in the least bit right. You are simply going back to the slippery-slope hog trough. http://www.livestockwatertroughrepair.com/ima...
To be continued...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6620 Jul 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
(Smiling, chucking, and shaking head). Ya know Wastey...you seem all right...you advocate for what u believe in, and although I disagree, I can respect that. However, we both know, the poly people are still there, they ain't going away...

Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification. The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion.
When it comes to marriage, the fundamental rights claims and the equal protection arguments often intertwine. For example, Justice Kennedy’s opinion last month striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act said that DOMA’s injection of “inequality into the United States Code” violated the “liberty” protected by the Constitution. The “inequality” part is equal protection language; the “liberty” wording is fundamental rights stuff. The analytical box is not all that important. What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion. And prejudice—simply thinking something is “icky”—doesn’t count as a reason.
The arguments supporters of same-sex marriage have made in court do not sufficiently distinguish marriage for lesbians and gay men from other possible claimants to the marriage right. If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn't count as prejudice?
(continued)

You said, "The equal protection argument is simply that the marriage right should not be taken away from groups unless the government has good reasons to exclude those groups.
What it boils down to is that when the government wants to exclude groups from something important like marriage, it has to show good reasons for the exclusion."

Now you are touching on the "compelling interest doctrine." Do you know what this actually means and it's legal origin?

This is your argument?

"Fundamental-rights analysis says that marriage is for many a crucial element of human flourishing, or as the Court said almost fifty years ago “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.” Because it’s so important, government can restrict marriage only by showing a truly compelling justification."

To validate such an argument, one must show that same-sex marriage has an actual impact on opposite-sex marriage. Such a connection is yet to be proven using readily verifiable, tangible evidence.

Polygamy? Doesn't matter. It is separate due to the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act of 1873. One can easily show the state's interest in prohibiting bigamy. Bigamy is a sexist construct with leads to disorderly family structure and over population.

You are spinning your wheels again my friend.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6621 Jul 27, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
Brian you and I have went round and round about this issue and I have been respectful of your stance and I have disagreed vigorously with you. I have a real issue with how those that represent the LGBT do this with name calling and such anger because we both know you cannot fight hate with hate. I prefer the human side of the LGBT because each lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is a human being just like you and I. I hope all is well with you are yours.
There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for rewriting marriage laws for everyone. Polygamists are people too.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6627 Jul 27, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
There is nothing wrong with people who choose homosexuality. What is wrong and destructive is homosexuality. To blame the behavior is like blaming the drugs or alcohol.
No, I disagree; I want to appeal to everyone's better nature and create arguments for one man and one woman marriage that don't harm.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6628 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for rewriting marriage laws for everyone. Polygamists are people too.
It's funny. I bet you didn't complain when marriage laws were re-written over the last 30 years to deny gay folks the right to vote - a re-writing that HARMED countless people. Directly harmed families and children.

And now you have the nerve to complain that gay folks are turning back the clock on those new laws, and overturning them, while not harming a single soul?

Geesh.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#6629 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I disagree; I want to appeal to everyone's better nature and create arguments for one man and one woman marriage that don't harm.
Restricting legal marriage to one man and one woman, for no rational reason, creates nothing BUT harm.

It doesn't help a single heterosexual couple, but it it harms countless gay couples and their kids, and the millions of gay kids who grow up knowing that they are second class citizens in society's view.

You can't logically spin that any other way.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Palo Alto, CA

#6630 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for rewriting marriage laws for everyone. Polygamists are people too.
I do not see any marriage laws being rewritten because it is still based on two individuals. I do see laws that are unconstitutional being removed from the books however no laws added.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6632 Jul 27, 2013
Sasha Cohen wrote:
<quoted text>Then we agree on that point. I am not sure about your definition of not harming. Mine is that the entire idea of SSM is harmful. You can not erase an entire gender out of the equation and then create healthy families and relationships. It is impossible and like trying to force a large square peg into a small circle. It just doesn't fit.
What evidence do you have to back this spurious claim? So far no one has proven that SSM impacts opposite sex marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#6633 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, I disagree; I want to appeal to everyone's better nature and create arguments for one man and one woman marriage that don't harm.
What are you talking about? Many divorced people claim to have been harmed by marriage. Many say, "I don't know why I married that person."

Are you kidding me?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6634 Jul 27, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? Many divorced people claim to have been harmed by marriage. Many say, "I don't know why I married that person."
Are you kidding me?
People are not harmed by marriage. People are harmed by people. Don't blame an institution for what the participants are at fault for.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6635 Jul 27, 2013
HUH wrote:
<quoted text>
So your all for same sex marriage being legal????
you made the accusation;
i asked the question;

barry wrote:
<quoted text>when did i say that you couldn't have one?

you still have not answered the question.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6636 Jul 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad these people never have ANY convictions about the hundreds of OTHER so-called "sins" in the Bible. They ONLY target homosexuals. They don't bat an eye at ANYONE ELSE that is supposedly condemned by their religion.
are you sure? if she was against divorce or premarital sex or lying and stealing, how would that make the news? maybe you could make an application that would apply to this case or the florist in question.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6637 Jul 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That was me you were talking to. You're making WAY too big a deal out of the statistics I gave. They weren't intended to prove anything. You seemed to be suggesting that she may not be making much money from her wedding flowers, and I found some numbers just to provide some INFORMATIONAL perspective.
The money she makes doesn't matter. Anyone can say that anything is "sacred", I don't think there are any limits to such a word. This will allow them to put ANY service they want out of reach of any customers they choose, just by claiming that it's "sacred".
"Sure, you can buy our cellphones, no problem. But our chargers are SACRED, only for Christians, so sorry". Business doesn't work like that.
It seems to me that the words "sacred" and "merchandise" don't even belong in the same sentence. If someone is willing to part with an item for cash, then it isn't the ITEM that's sacred, it's the CASH.
<quoted text>
She can call it a "hobby" if she likes, but when it comes down to it, she's still running a business, and must obey her local business laws. You don't get to change back and forth between "hobby" and "legitimate business" depending who is at the door.
<quoted text>
But SHE obviously thought they weren't upstanding enough, and you're defending her.
<quoted text>
Then it sounds like you're a contractor, and not a merchant. You'd be subject to different laws.
<quoted text>
I thought we were discussing how merchants are expected to treat customers, not employment practices.
<quoted text>
As long as they're obeying the law, I don't see why you should have a problem.
<quoted text>
You're shifting this to make it about employment practices. Why?
<quoted text>
Nepotism can mean friends AND family. I just don't see why you give discounts to the people in your church, when they do nothing to merit it. There's nothing wrong with giving a sibling or a spouse the "family discount", but if I were a customer in your store, and saw you give another person a discount, I'd want to know why, and I'd want in on it (anyone would). If you denied me simply because I don't attend your church, that's pretty low.
"they weren't intended to prove anything"? really? the insinuation was that wedding flowers was a very lucrative business and therefore not necessarily very sacred. however you were called on it as nothing that you said could be applied to this ladies situation without real information pertaining to the situation. you were trying to smear her by using statistics. and btw maybe she does make good money on weddings. i don't know and you don't know either.

i never said it was a hobby for her. i was just referencing an example of the florist that usually does the events that are held at our church. and fyi, she does not attend our church.

now your example of chargers maybe being sacred to someone...how does that foolishness apply?

and once again they were established customers. it was not about them it was about the event.

as for obeying laws; i have not seen anyone post the law and show what specific part of it that she has broken. maybe you can.

i was a merchant. i am a contractor. i am also employed by a respected university.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6638 Jul 27, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
A florist doesn't "participate" in a wedding, any more than a mechanic participates in a road trip, or a dentist participates in a meal. She's an EMPLOYEE. If it's against her religion to obey fair business laws, then she should opt out of business.
<quoted text>
Yet we never hear about that. It's always with the gays. Always. And as I said, when one newspaper called one of these businesses, they were more than happy to serve all manner of "sinners".
<quoted text>
Oh, probably since about Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18. If you consider those sources worth listening to.
maybe just maybe no one cares if she declines to make flowers for a divorce celebration. i'll bet you haven't heard about the lesbian judge in texas who refuses to officiate any weddings. so what is your point. it is "always about the gays" because the media chooses to make it so.
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#6643 Jul 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, five Justices are either unwilling, or unable to see the larger implications of their ruling. My do u care? After all the intent of the SSM movement is the rejection of monogamous conjugal, as in husband and wife, marriage as the sole legal marital standard. So why does it matter if polygamy is legalized in some form? Afraid the poly people are gay wedding crashes?
Rosie says, "That's not fair.....'marriage equality' is about calling a same sex personal intimate relationship 'equal' to the relationship of husband and wife......"
Three is greater than two.

Go back to grade school.
fingiswold

Fitzgerald, GA

#6645 Jul 27, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no justification for rewriting marriage laws for everyone. Polygamists are people too.
only homophobes have 'rewritten' the laws, brainless. the constitution has always provided for equal treatment for all americans, and gay marriage is only the latest example of the enforcement of this constitutional provision.

polygamy? not yet at play, but it'd be ok with me, too, your disingenuity nonwithstanding..

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Coffee Party 216,877
News Trump takes on trade deals in Pennsylvania speech 3 min Responsibility 4
News Paulson: crisis happens once or twice in 100 years (Nov '08) 3 min Goldman Sachs 17
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min gritz 388,224
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Chimney1 199,399
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min flack 1,395,684
News RNC delegates launch 'Anybody but Trump' drive 6 min Hank Paulson jr 68
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min HILLARY 2016 228,676
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 59 min southern at heart 1,192
More from around the web