Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8624 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I knew i liked you for a reason, Petey....
I do have to admit, and i cringe a little when i say this, but the pre-qual movie of the original star trek was pretty good. i thought they did a great job of setting up the characters of one of the most played off of shows ever. not an easy job...
that really was some excellent screenplay writing.
The special effects were cheeses, but the dialogue, made the show. TNG did improve as time went on, the first few seasons, were lame, as if conflict had disappeared from the galaxy. Boring without villains and valiant foes. Best Trek movie of all time......? Let's see if we're on the same page, or planet.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8625 Aug 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I do agree with ya......it's just like with using the words "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" before the word marriage.....the only reason for doing this is to make something out of NOTHING....
"Gay" and "marriage" are contradictory.....no marriage is happy! Sounds like a Henny Youngman one liner.
..I have no issue being referred to as Gay or Lesbian or Homosexual......all basically have the same meaning
Heterosexually challenged?
and until I participated in a Gay Pride Parade back in 1990, I didn't know anything different......except for when I was joking with a co-worker who happened to be Gay....like myself...and I referred to him as a "fa@@ot" and his respond back to me was that he was not a bunch of sticks or twigs.....
Or English cigarette.
.since then, I educate myself before making certain types of comments.......anyways, the point of my comment wasn't to make an issue out of the words, but basically to let the person know that it was probably the media that made the initials and decided to make an issue between "GAY" and "LESBIAN".
Hope all is well with you and yours!!!
I wonder if the "L" is first out of chivalry? Ladies first? Just a thought.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8626 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
But both are homosexual. Don't forget there are male lesbians.:)
<quoted text>
It's a legit question, why is it in that order and not alphabetical?
There are NO male Lesbians.......we may make jokes regarding heterosexual men being honorary Lesbians, but that's all it is!!!

Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8627 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
This subject and the fight is not funny and your comments clearly show just how insensitive you are regrading it!!!

I am NOT now nor EVER been heterosexually challenged, nor do I have any issues with men in general.......I just have NO desire or interest in being in a physical relationship with them or being intimate with them.......otherwise, I get a long just find with men!!!

The bottom line is this.......if you have an issue with marry someone of the Same-Sex......then don't, problem solved.

If thinking about what 2 consenting adult men do with each other disgusts you, then stop thinking about it.......problem solved.

See how easy that was.......lol!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#8628 Aug 25, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The special effects were cheeses, but the dialogue, made the show. TNG did improve as time went on, the first few seasons, were lame, as if conflict had disappeared from the galaxy. Boring without villains and valiant foes. Best Trek movie of all time......? Let's see if we're on the same page, or planet.
oh, totally the first pre-quel of the original series.
although...the "Kaaaaaahhhhnnnnn... " one was pretty stellar (sorry for the pun) Star trek....the over-the-top Kirk, over-the-top villain Montelban...that was pretty classic old school Trek, but i think the new take on it gave it backround, substantiality. a sense of place, which as a landscape designer, i have learned is the most important aspect any foundation can have....a sense of place.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8629 Aug 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Because legally married couples DO NOT HAVE TO BE 'HUSBAND' AND 'WIFE'!!!!!!!!!
In 30 plus states they do, and for the marriage to be legally valid nationwide.
That is the legal reality
Ditto
. The notion that the terms 'husband' and 'wife' bear any special legal fundamental quality that would always and forever preclude the inclusion of same-sex couples in civil marriage is inane.
That statement is inane.
Are there states that currently only allow 'husband and wife' marriages? Yes.
Is that requirement (husband and wife) outside of the bounds of constitutional review by the Supreme Court? NO! The court could rule that 'husband and wife' marriages as the only option unconstitutional.
It could also rule two siblings could marry, or banning plural marriage is unconstitutional.
What is the chances that that the SCOTUS will get such a case within the next 5-10 years? Very high.
What is the chance that that ruling will strike down 'husband and wife' only marriages and allow 'husband and husband' and 'wife and wife' marriages? Very high, considering the wording of the DOMA ruling. And those odds increase as more and more states strike down their own 'husband and wife' only marriage laws.
As do those odd, that other restrictions will be struck down as well, to the point, that it could become pointless.
If the terms 'husband' and 'wife' are so important, then please indicate which legal Rights, Benefits, or Obligations are granted solely to either the husband or wife that is not granted jointly as SPOUSES.
The point is those, rights, be fits, and obligations are granted because of the nature relationship, and the state's interest therein. Without a compelling state interest, there's no need, nor obligation in recognition of the relationship to begin with. Such a compelling state interest does not exist with a same sex relationship.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8630 Aug 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh, totally the first pre-quel of the original series.
although...the "Kaaaaaahhhhnnnnn... " one was pretty stellar (sorry for the pun) Star trek....the over-the-top Kirk, over-the-top villain Montelban...that was pretty classic old school Trek, but i think the new take on it gave it backround, substantiality. a sense of place, which as a landscape designer, i have learned is the most important aspect any foundation can have....a sense of place.
Give that man a cee GAR! The Wrath of Kahn was without a doubt the best Trek movie, at least of the original crew, not to mention the refitted Constitution class cruiser, as it appeared in the movie, still the best ship of all the Treks, movies, and TV, in my opinion. As I watched the new Trek II, it slowly dawned on me what the plot was when they introduced "Carol Marcus"......hmmmmmm..... as a smile formed on my face as the "Khan" plot unfolded. I agree, very good update. I also like the interior layouts of the new Enterprise, it has more of a actually ship's layout, as opposed to a sci fi space ship. I would like to see more of the crew showcased, the enlisted personnel, not just commissioned officers.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8631 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There are NO male Lesbians.......we may make jokes regarding heterosexual men being honorary Lesbians, but that's all it is!!!
Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...

1. male lesbian

A male lesbian is a physiologically heteosexual male who wishes he'd been born a girl. He feels alienated by the social standards of gender roles. He may be a crossdresser or consider himself transgendered, but he is probably not transsexual. His ideal would be to be able to be his feminine self in a relationship with a biological female. If he is open about this, he may be ridiculed by both the gay and straight communities.

2. Male Lesbian

A man who Absolutely LOVES and Desires Women. But on the contrast does not relate to Men. As a teen he may have been very shy and could have also been view as gay because of his feminine characteristics. He is very interested in his own appearance ie: grooming, hair ,designer cloths ,etc. He does not like to watch the football Game. He would rather be talking or flirting with an attractive female. HE is not sure he wants to be a woman, but knows what he would do if he was one ,first his personality and interests would be the same, and second he could lighten up and be himself , third he would be a lesbian. He has a strong desire to please women, paticuarly the ones he is most emotionally attracted to.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8632 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
This subject and the fight is not funny and your comments clearly show just how insensitive you are regrading it!!!
As this issue demonstrates, words, and their meanings are, or appear to be, ever changing. Gay was once commonly understood to be, and defined as, "showy" , "lively", etc. Even it's sexual iced references described various sexual illicit sexual practices between men and women. Not anymore.....not it almost exclusively refers to homosexuality.
I am NOT now nor EVER been heterosexually challenged, nor do I have any issues with men in general.......I just have NO desire or interest in being in a physical relationship with them or being intimate with them.......otherwise, I get a long just find with men!!!
Hold on now....don't be so quick to take offense. Being able to see is the norm, those who cannot, are referred to as visually impaired, or challenged. Same with hearing, or any number of conditions. If the vast majority of people are attractive to the opposite sex......What percent of lesbians, based on your personal interactions, have had sex with men at some point in their lives?
The bottom line is this.......if you have an issue with marry someone of the Same-Sex......then don't, problem solved.
If thinking about what 2 consenting adult men do with each other disgusts you, then stop thinking about it.......problem solved.
See how easy that was.......lol!!!
I rather enjoy thinking about what two consenting attractive WOMEN do to each other.....now we're talking! Ciao mi amica.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8633 Aug 26, 2013
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Historical context, the argument of idiots.
Historical amnesia, the bed of sand upon which the arguments of fools are built.
1 post removed
Rose Feratu

Hoboken, NJ

#8635 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In 30 plus states they do, and for the marriage to be legally valid nationwide.
...and that is never going to change, is it. Not very good at recognizing trends, are you? Are you Amish or something?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8636 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

<quoted text>
The point is those, rights, be fits, and obligations are granted because of the nature relationship, and the state's interest therein. Without a compelling state interest, there's no need, nor obligation in recognition of the relationship to begin with. Such a compelling state interest does not exist with a same sex relationship.
Once again, you have it backward.

Fundamental human rights belong to everyone.

They can only be restricted when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Age, informed consent, number, and incest restrictions, have been shown to provide legitimate restrictions. Your gender restriction provides no such interest.

Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state. Therefore, your continued attempts to make it a requirement now are irrational. This personal requirement of yours only fulfills the needs of your personal prejudice.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8637 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what's this thread about?
This thread is about the RIGHT to marry for Same-Sex Couples and more specifically how Church leaders vow to do something.......lol!!!

The fact that the media keeps referring to it as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage doesn't mean that's what it is actually called......BECAUSE IT ISN'T.....not one single "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" marriage license has been issued!!!

My wife and I do NOT have a Same-Sex marriage.....we just have a marriage that involves 2 consenting adults of the Same-Sex!!!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8638 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a legit question
It's the question of a child who simply wants to post for the sake of posting when he has absolutely nothing to say.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8639 Aug 26, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you do some research on why the acronym is the way it is? You just might learn something!!!
I'm sure it will tie into polygamy and procreation. Doesn't everything?!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8640 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what's this thread about?
Demonstrating what vacuous morons Pedro and you are.

Any other stupid questions we can clear up for you?
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#8641 Aug 26, 2013
0h-__-R3411Y wrote:
<quoted text>No they didn't. No stop deflecting and lying, copy cat.
LOL.

there there sweetheart. you'll wake up from your nap soon.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8642 Aug 26, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you have it backward.
Fundamental human rights belong to everyone.
[/QUOTE[

Exactly, all men and all women

[QUOTE]
They can only be restricted when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. Age, informed consent, number, and incest restrictions, have been shown to provide legitimate restrictions.
That they do and they apply to all men and women who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
Your gender restriction provides no such interest.
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in any state. Therefore, your continued attempts to make it a requirement now are irrational.
Nor have I claimed it was, and your continued attempts to claim I did are irrational.
This personal requirement of yours only fulfills the needs of your personal prejudice.
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8643 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That they do and they apply to all men and women who choose to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.
<quoted text>
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
<quoted text>
Nor have I claimed it was, and your continued attempts to claim I did are irrational.
<quoted text>
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.
Again, you fail to provide any compelling, legitimate governmental interest sufficient for your gender requirement. As procreation is not a requirement, nor is "conjugal" a requirement, your requirement (or restriction) of one of each gender is irrational, and serves no purpose beyond fulfilling your personal prejudice.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8644 Aug 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Neither gender is restricted, both are involved, both are necessary by the state to maintain the compelling state interest in marriage.
<quoted text>
It is you personal prejudice against the conjugal, husband and wife, nature of the marital relationship that prevents you from understanding the compelling state interest is based in the male female union, not your personal preferences.
If any of that were even remotely true, then SCOTUS would have upheld DOMA and maintained your definition of marriage. THE COURT DID NOT DO SO!!!! The court told the federal government that those male-male, and female-female couples legally married in their states were legally married according to federal law and entitled to the same Rights, Benefits, and Obligations given and expected of those male-female couples that you say say can be the only 'true''real' marriages. So, maintaining male-female, husband-wife,'conjugal' marriages ARE NOT a compelling state interest. If it were, Sec 3 of DOMA would still be the law of the land. It is not as of Jun 26, 2013.

Repeating something over and over again does not make your personal preferences true.

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
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Trump Has Lied 274,645
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 min RiccardoFire 6,901
News GOP victory lap after Georgia election win will... 1 min positronium 100
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min Coffee Party 241,583
News McDonald's Tweet Blasts President Trump, And Is... 4 min Oneryders Daughter 3
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Earl 1,548,270
News Mitt Romney surges, leads Obama in polls (Oct '12) 8 min BOTH partys Crooks 11
News James Comey fired as FBI director 12 min Ronald 3,899
More from around the web