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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11653 Oct 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Brian is an utterly irrational person, who will reject reality and substitute his own.
2. Feel free to spar with them, but don't think for a moment that they are intelligent enough to understand what you say.
1. Have you met Curteese?
2. You are the poster boy for ignorance. It's ok though, it's very entertaining.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11654 Oct 20, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
And the Supreme Court of California ruled gays had the fundamental right of marriage in that state before voters sought to permanently infringe that right via Prop 8.
This is what Terry wrote. The flaw, is that gays already had the "fundamental right to marry", as it was understood, a union of husband and wife. My question is, Did the CA Supreme Court actually rule that gays had a fundamental right to marry some one of the same sex?
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
What difference does it make?
Same sex couples are getting married in California and the Federal government grants them the same rights as opposite sex married couples.
What a great country, right?
I know, pretty soon marriage equality will include polygamists, and men can be lesbians too!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11655 Oct 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.
Oh don't be silly.....Terry just couldn't wait to find it, makes him feel like how accomplished something.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11656 Oct 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what Terry wrote. The flaw, is that gays already had the "fundamental right to marry", as it was understood, a union of husband and wife. My question is, Did the CA Supreme Court actually rule that gays had a fundamental right to marry some one of the same sex?
<quoted text>
I know, pretty soon marriage equality will include polygamists, and men can be lesbians too!
Polygamy will NEVER be legal. Lesbians are women, by definition.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11657 Oct 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The flaw, is that gays already had the "fundamental right to marry", as it was understood, a union of husband and wife.
Of course, the flaw in your logic is that you cannot provide any state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a husband and wife that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11658 Oct 20, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Lesbians are women, by definition.
How about if she's a man trapped in a woman's body and is sexually attracted to women?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11659 Oct 20, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, you had no idea whether or not those actually WERE the exact words used.
(You're trasnsparent.)
Sorry, but you'd be wrong.......I've read the entire ruling......I know what they said and just because I wanted him to do his own research......doesn't mean I didn't know......dumbazz!!!
1 post removed

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#11661 Oct 20, 2013
Wise_Crack_er wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, I "WOULD" be, if I didn't say exactly what I did.
Again, you ARE wrong and you ARE clueless!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11662 Oct 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh don't be silly.....Terry just couldn't wait to find it, makes him feel like how accomplished something.
On the contrary, since I'd already told you what the California Supreme Court had ruled, I didn't have to "find" anything. And that ruling systematically demolishes every one of the ignorant and uninformed arguments you've ever put forth on the subject.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11663 Oct 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Note how it grows by court order instead of legislation; same sex marriage started by court order, without the consent of the governed.
Most civil rights gains by discriminated against minorities start with legal victories, Brian. If the majority was prejudiced against the minority o start with, they wouldn't enact the legislation that causes discrimination. Duh. Further, the judiciary is a constitutionally established branch of government and therefore is explicitly a manifestation of the consent of the governed who established the constitution.
Brian_G wrote:
That's why they sue Christian's who don't consent to attend their religious same sex marriage celebrations.
They aren't being sued for refusing an invitation to attend a wedding, Brian. They're being sued for breaking the law for refusing to provide goods and services to a member of the general public as all businesses that are deemed public accommodations are required to do.

Why do you lie?
Brian_G wrote:
They don't want tolerance, they want celebration.
Aren't most weddings a celebration? Why would you stupidly think a same sex wedding would be any different than an opposite sex wedding? And to be clear, unless a business owner happens to be a close friend of the wedding party, they are neither invited to attend or "celebrate" at the wedding reception; they're merely being asked to provide goods and services that enable the invited guests to do so.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage is antidemocratic elitism.
On he contrary, you want Christians o be above the law; shove your Christian dominionist claptrap up your ass, Brian. It has no place in a constitutional republic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11664 Oct 20, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the flaw in your logic is that you cannot provide any state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a husband and wife that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist. Your brain is a fantasy land.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11665 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How about if she's a man trapped in a woman's body and is sexually attracted to women?
Do you have some confusion about women and females?

What if YOU were a retard trapped in a retard's body, and are sexually attracted to your hand?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11666 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist. Your brain is a fantasy land.
<rolls eyes>

Make it up as you go along, dummy.

And yes, we realize that arithmetic is a fantasy in your world.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11667 Oct 20, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy will NEVER be legal.
That was once said about SSM. Many of the same arguments can be used to advocate for polygamy. Besides, why does it matter if it is?
Lesbians are women, by definition.
Not anymore, men can be lesbians too. Google it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11668 Oct 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That was once said about SSM. Many of the same arguments can be used to advocate for polygamy. Besides, why does it matter if it is?
<quoted text>
Not anymore, men can be lesbians too. Google it.
Perhaps you should read what you Google and you wouldn't make these erroneous assertions and stupid mistakes, small Peter.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11669 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Have you met Curteese?
2. You are the poster boy for ignorance. It's ok though, it's very entertaining.
Getting your ass handed to you is entertaining to you?

That explains why you're here at least.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11670 Oct 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what Terry wrote. The flaw, is that gays already had the "fundamental right to marry", as it was understood, a union of husband and wife. My question is, Did the CA Supreme Court actually rule that gays had a fundamental right to marry some one of the same sex?
<quoted text>
I know, pretty soon marriage equality will include polygamists, and men can be lesbians too!
What do you have against polygamists?

Do you want to control everybody's life?

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11671 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How about if she's a man trapped in a woman's body and is sexually attracted to women?
What?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#11672 Oct 20, 2013
Wondering wrote:
The flaw in your 'logic' is that you believe a state doesn't already apply equal protection of the law. They do. Then there's that absurd triple and quadruple protection that you dreamt up, that's hilarious. It doesn't exist
On the contrary, it's you who conflate equal application of the law with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to blacks and whites but that didn't save them from being ruled unconstitutional.
Wondering wrote:
Your brain is a fantasy land.
You haven't really demonstrated that you have a brain.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11673 Oct 20, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should read what you Google and you wouldn't make these erroneous assertions and stupid mistakes, small Peter.
sarcasm escapes him.

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) 3 min sonicfilter 1,684,674
News What will Republicans say to justify condoning ... 3 min Just Saying 69
News Trump: a year since his election, how do voters... 5 min holy moly 1,185
News Republicans' Schumer Poster Rankles Dems, Promp... 5 min Tie Your Mother Down 3
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 6 min Chilli J 52,799
News Conservatives balk at GOP plan to avert governm... 8 min youll shoot your ... 164
News Across the globe, rallies against Trump, sexual... 8 min Erl 15
More from around the web