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.

Pietro Armando

Canton, MA

#6412 Jul 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, an INDIVIDUAL Gay man should have the right to marry another INDIVIDUAL Gay man of his choosing.....is that better for ya, Pete?
Let's not forget the lesbians!:)

The point is in order to legally marry, marriage must first be legally defined. An individual enters into the relationship legally recognized by law. Thus in 30 plus states, to marry, means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Well, it may be that way now......it might not be that way over the next couple of years:-)
Perhaps not.....perhaps over the course of the next decade or two, marriage as we know it, may cease to exist. Where is the line drawn again?
Pietro Armando

Canton, MA

#6413 Jul 23, 2013
Rose Feratu wrote:
<quoted text>
...soon to be overturned....
Marriage as a legal union with boundaries? Any legal significance beyond a contract?
Continue your whining.
Yet the rainbow crowd cries "foul" when polygamy is mentioned.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6414 Jul 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not forget the lesbians!:)
The point is in order to legally marry, marriage must first be legally defined. An individual enters into the relationship legally recognized by law. Thus in 30 plus states, to marry, means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
<quoted text>
Perhaps not.....perhaps over the course of the next decade or two, marriage as we know it, may cease to exist. Where is the line drawn again?
Marriage WON'T cease to exist.......just your image of it as being only conjugal and only between a man and a woman.

Yes, in 30 states or 31, or 35 depending on who you opt to listen to, but there are currently 9 states that in the next year or so will probably get closer to granting the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples......but that's something you can't handle....so, why are you here repeating yourself daily?
Pietro Armando

Canton, MA

#6415 Jul 23, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage WON'T cease to exist.......just your image of it as being only conjugal and only between a man and a woman.
Where, Nor Cal, is the line drawn?
Yes, in 30 states or 31, or 35 depending on who you opt to listen to, but there are currently 9 states that in the next year or so will probably get closer to granting the right to marry for Gay and Lesbian couples...
Those nine states have opted to replace marriage conjugality, the union of husband and wife, with the Orwellian sounding phrase, "marriage equality", with no answer as to where the line ends.
...but that's something you can't handle....
More like, the nation as a whole.
so, why are you here repeating yourself daily?
I ask u the same, if not to banter with me. Ciao.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6416 Jul 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Where, Nor Cal, is the line drawn?
<quoted text>
Those nine states have opted to replace marriage conjugality, the union of husband and wife, with the Orwellian sounding phrase, "marriage equality", with no answer as to where the line ends.
<quoted text>
More like, the nation as a whole.
<quoted text>
I ask u the same, if not to banter with me. Ciao.
There are currently 13 States and DC......and the line is drawn at currently 2 consenting adults.........now, if family wants to marry.....then they MUST petition the States to remove the "NOT BE RELATED BY BLOOD" from their requirements and IF 3 or more want to marry.....then they MUST fight to decriminalize polygamy and then fight for the right to marry.......neither concern me nor affect my marriage.......I'm secure in my marriage.....why aren't you?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6417 Jul 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
Good boy, Brian! You're following the script laid out by the gun manufacturers: more half-cocked George Zimmermans shooting their guns at innocent youths will cause more innocent youths to want guns to protect themselves. Of course, everyone will stand their ground until no one is left standing. Then Everyone else will hear about gun fights in the streets and need their own firearms to protect themselves. The more people who own guns, the more shootings. The more shootings, the more people need guns to protect themselves.
If you, like Brian, have neither common sense nor morals, buy stock in gun manufacturers instead of a gun. Hen huddle in your house while you watch the carnage on the TV news and your profits rise.
After reading the autopsy report, or just looking at the pictures of George's bashed head; I don't think you can characterize Tray as 'innocent'. He wasn't innocent of assault and battery. Why do you think Tray hit George?

The left tried to make this a racial dispute but the jury didn't buy that argument. The issue is our homeowner's right to defend our property.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6418 Jul 24, 2013
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET

Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Some Never Came Home

Toronto, Canada

#6419 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
And pray tell us bumper sticker boy,what the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread? How about you get on topic or STFU,and move along now! I mean are you ever on topic? NO!

“"ENOUGH"”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#6420 Jul 24, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no "couple's right" to marry. It's an individual right. The right to marry, is the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship. In thirty plus states that relationship is defined as the union of husband and wife.
Basta! Basta! Basta! ;)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6421 Jul 24, 2013
BASTA wrote:
<quoted text>
Basta! Basta! Basta! ;)
Pasta! Pasta! Pasta! ;)

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6422 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Funny, when one reads the transcripts of the hearing, Issa comes off as the disingenuous liar that he is. Only an absolute moron would believe his unfounded ramblings. Then again, only an absolute moron would continually post such irrelevant drivel on a thread where it has no relevance.

Do you know what Brian? You are an absolute moron. I decided to go with the direct approach, because I think you lack the mental capacity to infer the obvious.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-19...

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6423 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Issa vows IRS hearing will show DC involvement in Tea Party targeting
By Bernie Becker - 07/18/13 11:42 AM ET
Claims that the IRS controversy can be blamed on staffers in a Cincinnati office are "absurd," House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Thursday.
Issa said Thursday's hearing on the IRS controversy would definitively show that Washington officials were deeply involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.
He faulted the White House for casting blame on the Cincinnati staffers, saying that claim would be “debunked” at the hearing, where Elizabeth Hofacre, an Ohio-based staffer who dealt with tax-exempt applications, and Carter Hull, a D.C.-based tax law specialist, are testifying.
“Washington made a catastrophic mistake” in dealing with the Tea Party applications, Issa said....
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domesti...
Do get back to us on this topic, if ever they come up with any PROOF. So far they don't have any.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6424 Jul 24, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are some criteria on which discrimination is not only permissible but required by common sense.
It is not discriminatory to refuse to hire a high school drop out (with no subsequent qualifying accomplishments) as a college professor. It is not discriminatory for a basketball team to refuse to hire someone who can't make a layup.
But many forms of discrimination--religion, ethnicity, physical challenges, etc.--are prohibited. Under Washington law, sexual orientation discrimination is also prohibited.
Sorry businessmen are not free to do whatever they want in their businesses. But we made the decision to regulate business practices long long ago. Your denial doesn't change anything. Except it makes you look foolish.
there was no discrimination based on sexual orientation. this person was an established customer who had done business with the florist before.
the event is what is in question. no discrimination involved.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6425 Jul 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you meant his tax subsidized church, didn't you? why do people's faith need to be subsidized anyway? must be a weak faith...most cults are weak...
so how is a church tax subsidized? our's certainly isn't.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6426 Jul 24, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there was no discrimination based on sexual orientation. this person was an established customer who had done business with the florist before.
the event is what is in question. no discrimination involved.
had she done other weddings? then it wasn't the event. she was a bigot like you, and she discriminated against these individuals based on their gender.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#6427 Jul 24, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so how is a church tax subsidized? our's certainly isn't.
Well all other businesses pay taxes. Since churches don't they get subsidized.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#6428 Jul 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, in fact just recently in MO a jp did just that.
no, again, the cults get to do whatever they want in their tax subsidized places of worship.
no-one is forced to participate. if you do not want to be involved even tangentally in such an event, do not go into a business that may have to do so...
if you open a catering business and a gay couple comes to you to service their wedding, not doing so because of their gender is discrimination.
right, now is that jp still in office?
you seem to be fixated on the term "tax subsidized". so tell us how a church is tax subsidized.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6429 Jul 24, 2013
don't be silly guys, ol. bumper-sticker bi never has proof, never concedes any point, never quits talking about stuff despite being proved wrong on multiple fronts by many people from many sources. he's about as obstinate and blind as they come.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6430 Jul 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Why do you think Tray hit George?
The obvious answer is that Martin hit Zimmerman because the latter had been following and harassing him. There is no other reason for Martin to have even noticed Zimmerman's existence.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6431 Jul 24, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>there was no discrimination based on sexual orientation. this person was an established customer who had done business with the florist before.
the event is what is in question. no discrimination involved.
and you state this despite the fact that she declined to take the job on because it was a gay wedding that went against her religious beliefs.

makes absolute zero sense that you think the way you do.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Incognito4Ever 1,395,330
News Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers fe... 3 min Chilli J 14
News Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead 4 min Drilling for the ... 75
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 7 min Born USA 3,459
News Adios, Three Amigos: Obama heads to last summit... 9 min Denny CranesPlace 17
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min Dr Guru 216,784
News Supreme Court Immigration Ruling Leaves Million... 12 min Cat74 53
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min Sharrp Shooter 388,111
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 1 hr Sheriff Joe 529 1,135
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 hr Democrat Hero 280
More from around the web