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.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6931 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
None of those states ban same sex marriage, they limit what government considers marriage but you have the freedom to religious same sex marriage even in those states, travel to and from those states for a wedding in a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage or the freedom to ask friends and acquaintances to treat you and your partner as if married. There is a nationwide ban on polygamous marriage, but no law anywhere bans same sex marriage.
BTW, 30 of those states have Constitutional amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman; therefor same sex marriage is unconstitutional.
Are you trying to prove that you have no brain?

Brian, in those 30 jurisdictions, may same sex couples marry, or not?

If they may not due to a constitutional amendment that prevents them, they are banned form doing so. Even a child could understand this, one wonders why you can't?

Perhaps because you are nothing more than a liar and a troll?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6932 Jul 31, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Women who enter into a poly relationship are stupid. No, it is not considered unacceptable. It is simply outside the law. Our law does not sanction legal poly marriage. It is demeaning to women and leads to over-population and disorderly succession.
On the contrary, different arrangements work for different people. As long as people enter polyamorous relationships of their own free will, respect all members of the group, and have the ability to depart whenever they find it necessary for their health, I have no problem.

That doesn't mean that the law should support multiple partners. All existing and historical laws supporting multiple partners have been discriminatory to one sex or the other--usually women. In polygamous societies today, a man can have as many wives as he will, and he can divorce one or more of them. But a divorced or widowed woman is discarded by society. She's not able to work because she is a woman, and she is not able to remarry because she is not a virgin.

Most people are not capable of maintaining a relationship with multiple partners. For those who are, whatever rules they agree on to help their group survive are fine with me. But two groups of people are unlikely to agree to the same sets of rules. So before we codify the rules, we need to know what they are and that the polygamous groups actually want to abide them.

I predict that neither of those things will happen.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6933 Jul 31, 2013
lides wrote:
Are you trying to prove that you have no brain? Brian, in those 30 jurisdictions, may same sex couples marry, or not?
Same sex couples may marry in EVERY state, it's just that not every state has the power to recognize those unions. There's no law in any state that stops a same sex couple from a same sex marriage ceremony, a common law marriage or travel to and from a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage for their ceremony. No state forbids same sex marriage though 35 don't recognize them.

.
lides wrote:
If they may not due to a constitutional amendment that prevents them, they are banned form doing so. Even a child could understand this, one wonders why you can't? Perhaps because you are nothing more than a liar and a troll?
There is no ban like the one against polygamy; I think lides wishes there was. He's not your friend, he would claim you are banned from marriage when only the government is banned from recognizing your love and partnership.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6934 Jul 31, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to prove that you have no brain?
Brian, in those 30 jurisdictions, may same sex couples marry, or not?
Legally, no, religiously, yes.
If they may not due to a constitutional amendment that prevents them, they are banned form doing so.
As individuals they can marry, as it is constitutionally defined.

Even a child could understand this, one wonders why you can't?

Perhaps because you are nothing more than a liar and a troll?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6935 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
Do civil unions really do what the anti gays said they would do? Well well well. Looks like the claims by the bigots that civil unions will do the same thing as marriage is unraveling in KY. Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be forced to testify against each other?
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Exclu...
...
Same sex marriage is like getting away with murder. See the citation above for proof, the story is about a murder who's partner heard her confession. I want the Jury to hear it too, let her testify.
haddlse

Pittsburgh, PA

#6936 Jul 31, 2013
Welcome to the Club

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6937 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
Do civil unions really do what the anti gays said they would do?
Well well well. Looks like the claims by the bigots that civil unions will do the same thing as marriage is unraveling in KY.
Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be forced to testify against each other?
http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Exclu...
I hope we get this to be a big buzz on the internet. It will be interesting to hear the usual suspects respond,(Hannity, Limbaugh, Nom, AFA, Robertson, O'Reilly, etc.).
I Love it! PLEASE promote this story everywhere: Facebook; Twitter; etc.
Oh and all you anti gays who backed civil unions.....
1. Abiding Truth Ministries (Scott Lively)
.
2. American Family Association (Tim Wildmon; Bryan Fischer)
.
3. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (Peter LaBarbera)
.
4. American Vision (Gary DeMar)
.
5. Chalcedon Foundation (R. J. Rushdoony)
.
6. Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (Gary Cass)
.
7. Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye)
.
8. Coral Ridge Ministries (Robert Knight)
.
9. Dove World Outreach Center (Terry Jones)
.
10. Faithful Word Baptist Church (Steven Anderson)
.
11. Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)
.
12. Family research Institute (Paul Cameron)
.
13. Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (Wayne Lela)
.
14. Illinois Family Institute (Laurie Higgins)
.
15. Liberty Council (Matt Barber; Peter LaBarbera)
.
16. Mass Resistance (Brian Camenker)
.
17. National Organization for Marriage (Maggie Gallagher; Robert George; Brian Brown)
.
18. Traditional Values Coalition (Lou Sheldon; Andrea Lafferty)
……..checkmate!
A civil union is not designed, nor intended to be, marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife valid nationwide. So why are you claiming others have claimed it is?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6938 Jul 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
A civil union is not designed, nor intended to be, marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife valid nationwide. So why are you claiming others have claimed it is?
We have never made that claim. But that claim is made all the time by opponents of marriage equality for same sex couples. When they are fighting marriage equality in a state that already has civil unions, they say that civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and no changes are necessary. When they are fighting against civil unions in a state that has neither civil unions nor marriage for same-sex couples, they claim that they are equivalent and, therefore, civil unions should not be enacted. When they are arguing against ANY benefit at all--such as employee benefits for same-sex partners--they claim that ANY benefit at all is too marriage-like and would be unconstitutional.

But to be clear: No one advocating for same-sex marriage equality believes that civil unions are the same. It's just an excuse made up by our mealy mouthed opponents to try to confuse the issue.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6939 Jul 31, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
Queers will go after anything with a d!ck, like a catfish after a worm, the younger the better.
I guess you'd know first hand, then, chuckles?

And word to the wise, you go after any one of my kids, you'll draw back a bloody stump.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#6940 Jul 31, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Same sex marriage is like getting away with murder. See the citation above for proof, the story is about a murder who's partner heard her confession. I want the Jury to hear it too, let her testify.
WTF Brian? Now Same-Sex Couples who are legally married are getting away with murder, really?

Brian, that article isn't about murder, but about spousal privileges not being required to testify against one's spouse.

Besides just because one is charged with murder, it doesn't mean that murder happened......it is true that a man dies, but the circumstances behind that death is under investigation......the defendant claims self defense........we will have to wait to see how this ends!!!
1 post removed
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#6942 Jul 31, 2013
The AssTroll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
You Queer Pedophile, you go after one of my kids and you won't have to worry about losing a stump. You fking pervert.
you obviously know more about being one than i do, chuckles.
1 post removed

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6944 Jul 31, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We have never made that claim. But that claim is made all the time by opponents of marriage equality for same sex couples. When they are fighting marriage equality in a state that already has civil unions, they say that civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and no changes are necessary. When they are fighting against civil unions in a state that has neither civil unions nor marriage for same-sex couples, they claim that they are equivalent and, therefore, civil unions should not be enacted. When they are arguing against ANY benefit at all--such as employee benefits for same-sex partners--they claim that ANY benefit at all is too marriage-like and would be unconstitutional.
But to be clear: No one advocating for same-sex marriage equality believes that civil unions are the same. It's just an excuse made up by our mealy mouthed opponents to try to confuse the issue.
As are those advocating for "same sex marriage equality" . Seriously Jeff, what exactly does "same sex marriage equality " mean? What that a union of husband and wife is the same as a union of two men, or two women? No differences what so ever?
barry

Henagar, AL

#6945 Jul 31, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they do, and Christians, primarily Baptists make up the largest portions of those divorces.
<quoted text>
Ours? You'll need to clarify which group you think you are talking for. Straight people or fundamentalists? In either case, 50% of your marriages will end in divorce. Being straight and/or being a fundamentalist whack job doesn't make you special. Some marriages last, some don't. But those that "serve god with their lives" aren't guaranteed any leg up in the success of their marriages. Fundamentalist Christians account for the largest number of divorces. You know, since the majority of them are hypocrites.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.ht...
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/...
your statistics are too general and not defined. they also might be very biased.
just because someone says they are a Christian does not necessarily make them a Christian by conviction. they might well be a Christian by culture.

if you look at the statistics by church attendance profiles the #s are dramatically different.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/...

if you look at seriously conservative churches like independent baptist, menonites even very conservative jews, divorce is basically non existent.
barry

Henagar, AL

#6946 Jul 31, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I wasn't. But don't let that get in the way of you pretending I was.
<quoted text>
No, the stupid statement that was made was that LGBT people have tax exempt status. But as always, your comprehensive skills didn't kick in and you decided to insert yourself into that discussion and present an LGBT organization. People and organizations aren't the same thing. But don't let that get in the way of you continuing to beat your dead horse.
<quoted text>
Yes, I did. Too bad you didn't.
so go ahead and post the comment that you claim was made. you now are tap dancing i think.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6947 Jul 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
As are those advocating for "same sex marriage equality" . Seriously Jeff, what exactly does "same sex marriage equality " mean?
It means that Male-Female, Male-Male, and Female-Female couples have the ability to legally marry under state law meeting the applicable laws regarding age of consent and consanguinity. Residency, blood test etc. It specifically does NOT require that only a certain combination of gender (male-female) is the only acceptable couple.

Couples that are legally married in one state, retain that status along with all of the applicable Rights, Benefits and Responsibilities, as they travel and move to any or all of the other states.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What that a union of husband and wife is the same as a union of two men, or two women?
Yes, legally treated exactly the same. Male-Female, Female-Male, Male-Male, Female-Female couples. Couples with children. Couples without children. Couples with no desire to ever have children. Couples in their 20's, 30's... 60's 70's 80's and 90's. Couples with vastly different ages.(and no, I am not advocating below the age of consent.) Couples of the same race. Couples of different races. Couples of different nationalities.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No differences what so ever?
None whatsoever.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6948 Jul 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As are those advocating for "same sex marriage equality" . Seriously Jeff, what exactly does "same sex marriage equality " mean? What that a union of husband and wife is the same as a union of two men, or two women? No differences what so ever?
no difference legally. no rational reason they should be...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6949 Jul 31, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As are those advocating for "same sex marriage equality" . Seriously Jeff, what exactly does "same sex marriage equality " mean? What that a union of husband and wife is the same as a union of two men, or two women? No differences what so ever?
Seriously, I'm going to treat your question as if it wasn't just a stupid question.

Marriage equality means equal treatment under the law.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6950 Aug 1, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that Male-Female, Male-Male, and Female-Female couples have the ability to legally marry under state law meeting the applicable laws regarding age of consent and consanguinity. Residency, blood test etc. It specifically does NOT require that only a certain combination of gender (male-female) is the only acceptable couple.
What does it mean to marry? In thirty plus states it means to enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife.
Yes, legally treated exactly the same. Male-Female, Female-Male, Male-Male, Female-Female couples. Couples with children. Couples without children. Couples with no desire to ever have children. Couples in their 20's, 30's... 60's 70's 80's and 90's. Couples with vastly different ages.(and no, I am not advocating below the age of consent.) Couples of the same race. Couples of different races. Couples of different nationalities.
<quoted text>
None whatsoever.
None what so ever? So the state pronounces each couple "husband and wife"? Both same sex and opposite sex marriages are equally consummated throughout the first act of sexual intercourse by husband and wife? That failure to consummate is grounds for an annulment in certain states and it applies to both relationships ? The "presumption of paternity" applies to both relationships? Something tells me that despite all the "equality", they're not the same.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#6951 Aug 1, 2013
Are you high? You are definitely a liar.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples may marry in EVERY state, it's just that not every state has the power to recognize those unions.
How stupid do you want us to believe you are?

in 35 states, same sex couples may not legally marry.
Brian_G wrote:
There's no law in any state that stops a same sex couple from a same sex marriage ceremony, a common law marriage or travel to and from a jurisdiction that licenses same sex marriage for their ceremony.
30 States have constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Since same sex marriage is banned in these jurisdictions, there is no such thing as a common law same sex marriage in those jurisdictions, only an intensely stupid person, or a liar, would claim otherwise.

thank you for openly admitting that you are a liar.
Brian_G wrote:
No state forbids same sex marriage though 35 don't recognize them.
Brian, 30 states have constitutional amendments expressly forbidding same sex marriage.

Thank you for reiterating that you are a liar.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no ban like the one against polygamy; I think lides wishes there was. He's not your friend, he would claim you are banned from marriage when only the government is banned from recognizing your love and partnership.
Brian, are you a liar, or just an idiot? Because it has to be one of the two.

Proof positive that all of your claims are disingenuous lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#6952 Aug 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no difference legally. no rational reason they should be...
Biology 101. I would think as a he man secular outdoorsman you would be familiar with the differences between men and women. Maybe that on,y applies to sheep.:)

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 Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 1 min o see the light 2,539
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Copout 1,498,714
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Laughing At Trump 259,193
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 min MANCHILD TRUMP 6,143
News Trump to skip White House Correspondentsa Assoc... 3 min RoxLo 65
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 min Rshermr 36,606
News Tom Perez to lead US Democrats against Donald T... 4 min RoxLo 73
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 27 min katrina 413,303
News Donald Trump Is Mentally Ill According to Petit... 41 min Frogface Kate 303
More from around the web