Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17562 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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11835 Oct 26, 2013
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.

Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.

Same sex marriage harms everyone.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#11836 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, gay rights are human rights; not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone or to expel a student for her religious beliefs.
While all the little Red states keep rewriting their little constitutions to define marriage.

They know it's not going to work and yet they keep doing it.

Keep voting. it's not going to get any better for your but keep voting.

That's the spirit...

You crack me up, Brian.

:-)
This And That

Livermore, CA

#11837 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
How were those three Christian's marriages impacted with fines and court summons because they refused to participate in same sex marriage rituals? Would you defend atheists who refused to participate in a same sex wedding?
Same sex marriage harms everyone; that's why we protect marriage as one man and one woman.
That's why we protect marriage Btian? Well it would seem not anymore,equality and the Constitution marches on! It would seem you just don't have the intelligence to comprehend the 14th amendment and why your side is losing badly in court with simple logic and critical thinking on the equality side! Oh,by the way,congratulations New Jersey for joining the ranks of marriage equality! And I'm willing to bet a couple more states in the coming year! Besides bumper sticker Bri,you live in Germany anyway! Do they have SSM in Germany Bri? LOL

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#11838 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
WW asked where same sex marriage harms "anyone's existing marriage" and when I give three examples, calls the harm: drivel.
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Same sex marriage harms everyone.
That because your so called examples are pure B.S. Brian. You can't come up with a single reasonable reason why anyone's marriage is harmed by marriage equity. All three of your so called examples are straw man arguments and have nothing to do with marriage equality.
1 post removed

“HAVE A HAPPY 4TH OF JULY”

Since: Aug 08

WEEKEND:-)

#11840 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Right, gay rights are human rights; not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone or to expel a student for her religious beliefs.
You might want to read that again......it's not the university that sets the requirements for Counseling programs, it's the APA I believe and though it appears that this woman won, 2 others lost because they refused to follow the guidelines of the Masters Counseling programs at other universities!!!

Again, one can maintain their religious beliefs, but one can not force them on others who believe differently and that includes Gays and Lesbians!!!

“HAVE A HAPPY 4TH OF JULY”

Since: Aug 08

WEEKEND:-)

#11841 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Want to know how same sex marriage harms existing marriages, ask Elane Huguenin and her husband Jonathan jointly own their family business, Elane Photography who were sued for refusing to participate in a same sex wedding ritual.
Sorry but the legal marriages of Same-Sex Couples DIDN'T harm Elaine or her husband......they HARMED the Same-Sex Couple who simply asked them to take pictures of a COMMITMENT Ceremony......this could have been avoided had the photographer simply asked some a question regarding when the ceremony was to be held and stated she was booked for that day........but instead, booked them, took their money and AFTER she found out what the event was, then tried to cancel it based on her religious beliefs....which by the way.....DOESN'T give her the right to discriminate!!!

By the way Brian......how has my marriage personally affected you or any other person or business in the last 5 years? I can tell you...ZIP, NADA, ZILCH..........why? Because we DIDN'T have anyone at our wedding providing a service who DIDN'T actually want to be there!!!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11842 Oct 26, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti-miscegenation laws didn't forbid men and women from marrying.
Was Mildred Loving a woman?
Was Richard Loving a man?
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11843 Oct 26, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Law? WTF???
Research it for yourself. It's a pavilion on the boardwalk in Ocean Grove. The organization that owns the property was given a tax exempt status by the State in exchange for equal public access. By refusing the gay couple, it violated it's agreement with the State and lost its tax exempt status.
You are such an asshole. If they dipped you in Preparation H you would disappear altogether.
"The organization that owns the property"
How can this 'organization' own public property?

Can you refer me to that deal, you know, the exchange tax exempt for equal public access? I'm sure there must be a public record. You never say anything you can't back up. BWAHAHAHA!

“HAVE A HAPPY 4TH OF JULY”

Since: Aug 08

WEEKEND:-)

#11844 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
Yes, it did at least in Virginia....that's why they were arrested and filed a lawsuit......the district Judge told them that if "God had intended to mix the races He would have done so".

The ruling in Loving vs Virginia was about removing the color barrier......Richard was a white man and Mildred was a Black woman!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#11845 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
1.Was Mildred Loving a woman?
2.Was Richard Loving a man?
3.Did the law forbid them from marrying?
1.Yes

2.Yes

3.No.

They each could have married another person of their same race. Which was the state's legally enacted law at the time, equally applied to all citizens. The law only forbid them from marrying each other, not another man or woman of the appropriate race.

Isn't that the standard that you and Pietro keep trying to apply to same-sex couples. That those seeking a same-sex marriage are not denied the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the appropriate gender according to state law which is equally applied to all.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#11846 Oct 26, 2013
River Tam wrote:
While all the little Red states keep rewriting their little constitutions to define marriage. They know it's not going to work and yet they keep doing it. Keep voting. it's not going to get any better for your but keep voting. That's the spirit... You crack me up, Brian.:-)
Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female. The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.

Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts. Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.

Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11847 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Before the 21st century, all custom and law defined marriage as male/female.
And? Before 1920, women were not allowed to vote. Historical precedence is not a valid reason to deny rights.
Brian_G wrote:
The 30 states that wrote laws institutionalizing the custom of one man and one woman marriage did that in response to court challenges from same sex marriage supporters.
You have yet to offer a compelling governmental interest served by these amendments that would render them constitutional.
A competent person could support the argument they were advancing.
Brian_G wrote:
Let the people decide, not unelected and unaccountable courts.
The will of the people is not always relevant.
"One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
I think that you are stupid and annoying, should I be allowed to put your free speech to a vote and limit your ability to speak freely if a majority feels that you are an annoying and stupid person?
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage came to the USA by court decision, not by vote. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
Once again, the will of the public is irrelevant where equal protection of the law is concerned.

You have yet to advance a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would a) render such a restriction constitutional, b) render your argument relevant, and c) prove that you are not a complete imbecile.
Brian_G wrote:
Many gay conservatives actively oppose courts imposing their morality without the consent of the governed.
Many intelligent people realize that the will of the public is not applicable to fundamental rights. Marriage has been adjudicated to be one such right on 14 separate occasions by the US Supreme Court.

These facts have been pointed out to you time and time again, yet you seem not to absorb them. One could infer that you are simply stupid.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11848 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Mildred Loving a woman?
Was Richard Loving a man?
Did the law forbid them from marrying?
Actually, I've explained this to you before. But you insist on playing the idiot.

Mildred could have married any black man she wanted, giving her a rather large pool of potential life partners to which she could be intimately attracted. Richard could have married any white woman, again providing a large pool of potential intimate life partners. But telling a strictly gay man that he must choose a woman denies him ANY opportunity to choose a life partner to which he is intimately attracted.

So the case for supporting same sex marriage is actually STRONGER than the case against miscegenation.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11849 Oct 26, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
"The organization that owns the property"
How can this 'organization' own public property?
As far as I know, the only,organization that can own public property is the government (I.e., the public). What are you? An idiot?
Can you refer me to that deal, you know, the exchange tax exempt for equal public access? I'm sure there must be a public record. You never say anything you can't back up. BWAHAHAHA!
You could sit on your laze ass and google it yourself. But since you insist on, instead, displaying your ignorance as proudly as possible, I will do it for you when I get a chance.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11850 Oct 26, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil marriage laws require equality.
Exactly, each sex be equally represented.
How would anyone's existing marriage impacted by marriage equality Brian? You are making a fool of yourself with this silly banter.
Marriage as defined by the state, or the individuals?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11851 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, each sex be equally represented.
What state interest is furthered by such a restriction? Without such an interest, that restriction is unconstitutional. Do you have an answer, are are you conceding that you aren't terribly bright?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage as defined by the state, or the individuals?
It is defined by the state, however that definition must conform to the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law for all persons within a state's jurisdiction.

Have you come up with a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render your argument valid?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#11852 Oct 26, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
1.Yes
2.Yes
3.No.
They each could have married another person of their same race. Which was the state's legally enacted law at the time, equally applied to all citizens. The law only forbid them from marrying each other, not another man or woman of the appropriate race.
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
Isn't that the standard that you and Pietro keep trying to apply to same-sex couples. That those seeking a same-sex marriage are not denied the right to marry, they just need to marry someone of the appropriate gender according to state law which is equally applied to all.
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.

Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11853 Oct 26, 2013
Xaviers Breath Mint wrote:
<quoted text>
Frustrated much? Resorting to weak profane insults....sad.
Giving the facts of the lawsuit is resorting to weak profane insults? Gee... why aren't you jumping all over the other poster for LYING?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#11854 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
It was addressed in 1967, bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional. Period, end of story. There was no need to address the issue on a race by race basis.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Of course, the fundamental problem with your argument is that you still lack the ability to offer a compelling governmental interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional, and render your argument valid.

When you advance such an argument absent any such interest, you merely succeed in making yourself look like a fool.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#11855 Oct 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Was every race addressed or defined? Could blacks marry Asians? Were whites barred from marrying blacks but not Indians? How did the law apply to mixed race individuals?
<quoted text>
The problem with your comparison to bans on interracial marriage is that it ignores the obvious. Marriage of interracial couples were still viewed as marriage as it was understood throughout American history, the union of one man and one woman, as husband/man and wife. The issue was not whether their union formed marriage, but whether or not they should be allowed to. Remember interracial marriage did exist in various parts of the country, at various times, including mid 19th century NYC when black men married white Irish and Scottish immigrant women. Not so with same sex unions. Not everyone agrees a same sex union is "marriage", nor was it legally designated such until 2004, in any state.
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping the races apart, and preventing mixed race babies. SSM is about keeping the sexes apart, and no babies.
Saying that SSM is about keeping the sexes apart is about as stupid as it gets. Marriage is about the two people involved in the contract.

I know your feelings are hurt because you are losing this fight. Did you ever stop to think about why you are losing, and why your arguments are rejected by the Courts?

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 Meet the Candidate: Carly Fiorina 3 min LeDuped 754
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min woodtick57 1,251,474
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Jacques Ottawa 192,234
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min LeDuped 186,354
News A glimpse at Hillary Clinton's e-mails, from ce... 4 min RustyS 2
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 6 min Synque 651
News Conservative Republicans question what's next a... 7 min LeDuped 154
News Donald Trump surges, and Democrats cheer 29 min LeDuped 72
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 50 min Coffee Party 332,930
More from around the web