Decrying Gay Marriage, Black Pastors Join Legal Fight

[bodecea]

Nothing hypocritical about it. Fags are not a race...they come in every color and disgust anyone with a brain that functions with their attempts to ruin the lives of people who, if it weren't for the government-media complex trying to browbeat everyone into ACCEPTING their filthy lifestyle..we would otherwise never pay them no mind.

No...you stop trying to tell us how to think, and you can continue being a twink and everyone is better off.

Are you saying civil rights should only be based on race?

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

And legal marriage for gays is covered under gender.

 

[bodecea]

Nothing hypocritical about it. Fags are not a race...they come in every color and disgust anyone with a brain that functions with their attempts to ruin the lives of people who, if it weren't for the government-media complex trying to browbeat everyone into ACCEPTING their filthy lifestyle..we would otherwise never pay them no mind.

No...you stop trying to tell us how to think, and you can continue being a twink and everyone is better off.

Are you saying civil rights should only be based on race?

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

I already answered. We were legally married in CA.

 

[LockeJaw]

So? Last I checked, Chicago is not in Michigan...dumb ass. Lmao

Declaring "the fight is on," a formidable coalition of conservative Christian groups filed legal briefs in federal appellate court Wednesday supporting Michigan's ban on gay marriage.

Representing potentially millions of worshippers in the state, the Michigan Catholic Conference, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a national coalition of Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons and evangelicals led by Catholic bishops filed three separate briefs Wednesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The briefs back Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette in his efforts to defend the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, which was overturned earlier this year by a federal judge in Detroit.

Gay marriage would "destroy the backbone of our society," said the Rev. Stacey Swimp of Flint, Mich., at a Wednesday morning rally held by African-American ministers at First Baptist World Changers International Church in Detroit.

Decrying gay marriage, black pastors join legal fight

Which side will the subversives fall on....which one is the most immoral, unethical and unprincipled....

AFRICAN-AMERICAN CLERGY COME TOGETHER TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE
African-American clergy come together to support gay marriage | abc7chicago.com

 

[LockeJaw]

We are legally married in CA. Did we destroy your marriage by doing so?

Hahaha! Keep emphasizing the "legally" part because you damn sure ain't married in reality.

Of course we are. Did we ruin your marriage by getting married ourselves? Poor thing.

I don't think you understand the argument about gay marriage being harmful to the real institution of marriage, has nothing to do with fags & dykes ruining already established real marriages.. But no, it hasn't caused any problems in my marriage.

And no, you're not. Doesn't matter how much you wish that to be true. Like I said, you're playing house.

 

[bodecea]

Lol! Just as I thought....you've got nothing.

enough to make your eyes bulge darling

An they will continue to foam at the mouth, The Military allows gays, states are allowing gays to marry, The federal government recognizes gay marriage , company are giving gay marriage partners benefits even in the red bible thumping states. An all they can do is cower and pray to their jebus that it all goes away, they are even recruiting some token toms to their cause

It's looking more and more like:

 

[LockeJaw]

Not unless homosexuals and lesbians go to court and ask to be considered a different gender than male or female. Other than that, no. You fail.

Are you saying civil rights should only be based on race?

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

And legal marriage for gays is covered under gender.

 

[bodecea]

Hahaha! Keep emphasizing the "legally" part because you damn sure ain't married in reality.

Of course we are. Did we ruin your marriage by getting married ourselves? Poor thing.

I don't think you understand the argument about gay marriage being harmful to the real institution of marriage, has nothing to do with fags & dykes ruining already established real marriages.. But no, it hasn't caused any problems in my marriage.

And no, you're not. Doesn't matter how much you wish that to be true. Like I said, you're playing house.

Nope...I'm legally married. But by your conversation, it sure does appear that you are the one who is only playing house. Guess your marriage isn't really a true marriage. Sad, really.

 

[emilynghiem]

Like us...legally married. And I'm not the least bit sorry that our legal marriage has destroyed the marriages of those who claim it did.

Which of only three states where gay marriage is legal [see definition: Windsor v United States] were you married to your gay partner?

We are legally married in CA. Did we destroy your marriage by doing so?

I see no problem getting married through a private church or other ceremony,
over which the govt has no jurisdiction.

However, pushing a marriage policy through the state that imposes a bias or belief (either direction either for or against certain policies on marriage) violates religious freedom.

For all people in a state (or a nation) to have equal protection under law of beliefs,
then either all should agree on a policy so there is no imposition by the govt,
or the policy should be neutral and remain private for individuals to decide on their own.

The problem, Bod, is people on EITHER side imposing THEIR beliefs about marriage on others. Govt neutrality and equal inclusion/protection would treat these views as EQUAL
and NOT impose EITHER ONE on the other.

That IMPOSITION is what is ruining the name of religious freedom and Constitutional respect for equality. If both sides "push too far" in defending their views by IMPOSING ON or EXCLUDING the other, they are BOTH guilty of discrimination by creed.

if the issue is EQUAL rights, why aren't BOTH views/beliefs respected EQUALLY?
how can ANY court or law take sides without violating one belief for the other?
This conflict is a sure sign to keep this issue PRIVATE and out of govt altogether.

http://www.isidewith.com/poll/965633

Distribution of answers submitted by America.
61% Yes 6.3 million votes

27% No 3.08 million votes

4% Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision

4% No, allow civil unions for same-sex couples but don't call it marriage

3% Let each state decide

0% Yes, but allow churches the right to refuse gay marriage ceremonies

1% No, marriage should be defined as between a man and woman

3 Yes answers
3 No answers
1 overlapping answers

In this poll, I believe the YES voters should have their way equally as the NO voters.
So the laws should be neutrally written to accommodate both equally since these are religious views and not subject to the votes of other people.

So I end up voting to keep marriage beliefs out of govt and keep it private so both YES and NO voters can be accommodated equally without conflict.
I believe the laws can be written neutrally instead.

 

[bodecea]

Not unless homosexuals and lesbians go to court and ask to be considered a different gender than male or female. Other than that, no. You fail.

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

And legal marriage for gays is covered under gender.

Nope...you are wrong again. Discrimination against legal gay marriage is gender discrimination...So...again, sorry to hear that you don't have a REAL marriage. Truely.

 

[bodecea]

Which of only three states where gay marriage is legal [see definition: Windsor v United States] were you married to your gay partner?

We are legally married in CA. Did we destroy your marriage by doing so?

I see no problem getting married through a private church or other ceremony,
over which the govt has no jurisdiction.

However, pushing a marriage policy through the state that imposes a bias or belief (either direction either for or against certain policies on marriage) violates religious freedom.

For all people in a state (or a nation) to have equal protection under law of beliefs,
then either all should agree on a policy so there is no imposition by the govt,
or the policy should be neutral and remain private for individuals to decide on their own.

The problem, Bod, is people on EITHER side imposing THEIR beliefs about marriage on others. Govt neutrality and equal inclusion/protection would treat these views as EQUAL
and NOT impose EITHER ONE on the other.

That IMPOSITION is what is ruining the name of religious freedom and Constitutional respect for equality. If both sides "push too far" in defending their views by IMPOSING ON or EXCLUDING the other, they are BOTH guilty of discrimination by creed.

if the issue is EQUAL rights, why aren't BOTH views/beliefs respected EQUALLY?
how can ANY court or law take sides without violating one belief for the other?
This conflict is a sure sign to keep this issue PRIVATE and out of govt altogether.

Done that too...in fact, did that over 10 years before the secular government allowed legal gay marriage. I guess (for some) religion is ahead of the state when it comes to gay marriage recognition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Behaviors are not covered.

Only in la la land. The ability of a black to marry a white was a subset of that protection. So it will be with marriage equality.

 

[LockeJaw]

Not unless homosexuals and lesbians go to court and ask to be considered a different gender than male or female. Other than that, no. You fail.

And legal marriage for gays is covered under gender.

Nope...you are wrong again. Discrimination against legal gay marriage is gender discrimination...So...again, sorry to hear that you don't have a REAL marriage. Truely.

No it's not. A straight guy or gal cannot marry their best friend of the same sex either.

 

[LockeJaw]

Do you have children? And if so, are they your biological children or adopted?

We are legally married in CA. Did we destroy your marriage by doing so?

I see no problem getting married through a private church or other ceremony,
over which the govt has no jurisdiction.

However, pushing a marriage policy through the state that imposes a bias or belief (either direction either for or against certain policies on marriage) violates religious freedom.

For all people in a state (or a nation) to have equal protection under law of beliefs,
then either all should agree on a policy so there is no imposition by the govt,
or the policy should be neutral and remain private for individuals to decide on their own.

The problem, Bod, is people on EITHER side imposing THEIR beliefs about marriage on others. Govt neutrality and equal inclusion/protection would treat these views as EQUAL
and NOT impose EITHER ONE on the other.

That IMPOSITION is what is ruining the name of religious freedom and Constitutional respect for equality. If both sides "push too far" in defending their views by IMPOSING ON or EXCLUDING the other, they are BOTH guilty of discrimination by creed.

if the issue is EQUAL rights, why aren't BOTH views/beliefs respected EQUALLY?
how can ANY court or law take sides without violating one belief for the other?
This conflict is a sure sign to keep this issue PRIVATE and out of govt altogether.

Done that too...in fact, did that over 10 years before the secular government allowed legal gay marriage. I guess (for some) religion is ahead of the state when it comes to gay marriage recognition.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you saying civil rights should only be based on race?

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

I already answered. We were legally married in CA.

No, there has never been legal gay marriage in California. Prop 8 is still the law there. Check Windsor for details...

 

[I.P.Freely]

Are you saying civil rights should only be based on race?

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

I already answered. We were legally married in CA.

may I offer you and your partner congratulations from a couple of British "straight" married atheists.
Love concurs all, why do these christian imbeciles attempt to stop you expressing your public love and commitment for your partner through marriage. I would have thought these religious cretins would do all the could to support you in bringing some life into this failing institution.
divorce rate in america for first marriage is 41%
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" second """"""" is 60%
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" third"""""""""" is 73%

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bigots?

No, hypocrites. Nothing bigoted about opposing the fascist agenda of legal homo marriage. No potential for procreation with homos so no coercion to consider and therefore no need for legal involvement.
Hypocrites because so many blacks who are parishioners of these 'black' churches continue to create out-of-wedlock babies who go on to become feral children who bring down society. Yet these 'black' churches argue in support of hetero marriage.

You act as if black people don't decry what goes on within the marriages in which they have between men and women that are black, and that are failing also, where as they are decrying all the problems that go on in the black communities, as well as what comes at them from outside the black communities. Nice try you made there, but people aren't so simple minded as you might think they are. Blacks can handle more than one issue at the time, so go back and try your little small thinking some where else, because it failed here.

That was pretty incoherent.
Blacks make out of wedlock babies at a 70% rate. For black churches to be more vocal about opposing homo marriage while their parishioners are making babies that grow up to destroy society because they have no daddies is hypocritical.

 

[Asclepias]

Declaring "the fight is on," a formidable coalition of conservative Christian groups filed legal briefs in federal appellate court Wednesday supporting Michigan's ban on gay marriage.

Representing potentially millions of worshippers in the state, the Michigan Catholic Conference, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a national coalition of Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons and evangelicals led by Catholic bishops filed three separate briefs Wednesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The briefs back Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette in his efforts to defend the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, which was overturned earlier this year by a federal judge in Detroit.

Gay marriage would "destroy the backbone of our society," said the Rev. Stacey Swimp of Flint, Mich., at a Wednesday morning rally held by African-American ministers at First Baptist World Changers International Church in Detroit.

Decrying gay marriage, black pastors join legal fight

Which side will the subversives fall on....which one is the most immoral, unethical and unprincipled....

Here you go with your retarded OP's again. Black people are not monolithic. Some are against gay marriage while others like me could care less just as long no one is forcing me to marry a gay person. Personally i think its pretty stupid for Black people to be for any sort of denial of freedom. There is a reason Black people needed and amendment to the constitution to get our rights. Some of the arguments against gay people are the same they used in denying us our rights. It wasnt too long ago that getting married to a white girl would be illegal for a black guy.

 

[Asclepias]

No, hypocrites. Nothing bigoted about opposing the fascist agenda of legal homo marriage. No potential for procreation with homos so no coercion to consider and therefore no need for legal involvement.
Hypocrites because so many blacks who are parishioners of these 'black' churches continue to create out-of-wedlock babies who go on to become feral children who bring down society. Yet these 'black' churches argue in support of hetero marriage.

You act as if black people don't decry what goes on within the marriages in which they have between men and women that are black, and that are failing also, where as they are decrying all the problems that go on in the black communities, as well as what comes at them from outside the black communities. Nice try you made there, but people aren't so simple minded as you might think they are. Blacks can handle more than one issue at the time, so go back and try your little small thinking some where else, because it failed here.

That was pretty incoherent.
Blacks make out of wedlock babies at a 70% rate. For black churches to be more vocal about opposing homo marriage while their parishioners are making babies that grow up to destroy society because they have no daddies is hypocritical.

Only a retard would think out of wedlock = no daddies.

 

[Asclepias]

Civil rights as defined in the 14th are protected under "race", "religion", "country of origin" and "gender". Behaviors are not covered. In fact, the approval and regulation of human behaviors that run the gamut are regulated by a majority rule in the separate sovereign states.

So I'll ask again. In which of the three states only where gay marriage is legal per the definition of that legality and majority rule [Windsor 2013] were you married in?

I already answered. We were legally married in CA.

No, there has never been legal gay marriage in California. Prop 8 is still the law there. Check Windsor for details...

You are wrong. I remember there were a lot of marrigages a little while ago. I saw it on the news.

About.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8_n_3434854.html


How to Get Married in California

6/26/2013: The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 allows gay couples to marry in California.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Declaring "the fight is on," a formidable coalition of conservative Christian groups filed legal briefs in federal appellate court Wednesday supporting Michigan's ban on gay marriage.

Representing potentially millions of worshippers in the state, the Michigan Catholic Conference, the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a national coalition of Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons and evangelicals led by Catholic bishops filed three separate briefs Wednesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The briefs back Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette in his efforts to defend the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, which was overturned earlier this year by a federal judge in Detroit.

Gay marriage would "destroy the backbone of our society," said the Rev. Stacey Swimp of Flint, Mich., at a Wednesday morning rally held by African-American ministers at First Baptist World Changers International Church in Detroit.

Decrying gay marriage, black pastors join legal fight

Which side will the subversives fall on....which one is the most immoral, unethical and unprincipled....

Here you go with your retarded OP's again. Black people are not monolithic. Some are against gay marriage while others like me could care less just as long no one is forcing me to marry a gay person. Personally i think its pretty stupid for Black people to be for any sort of denial of freedom. There is a reason Black people needed and amendment to the constitution to get our rights. Some of the arguments against gay people are the same they used in denying us our rights. It wasnt too long ago that getting married to a white girl would be illegal for a black guy.

Then you need to be more vocal in your opposition to all things 'black'. You can start with black curriculum, congressional black caucus, NAACP, UNCF, BET, Jet, Ebony, Essence, etc.