The referendum should not pass. Its bigotry plain and simple. Being against gay marriage for religous is one thing, supporting and voting for a Constitutional Amendment to ban it is another thing, its bigotry. When we start writing discrimination into the Constitution we start to violate the very principles that we proclaim to embrace. This crap about gay marriage threatening the institution of marriage is just BS.
anon
· 3 years ago
That’s the standard Lib. media strategy run a poll that is suspect so that you they can undermine their enemy. A poll that is just 600 registered voters isn't very accurate. What was the methodology? Of course the news media isn’t bias even though they have not written one article that was neutral let alone positive. If no one supports the resolution why fight putting it on the ballot people won’t vote for it anyway?
Ravenswood Right Winger
· 3 years ago
The referendum won't pass and IMHO Judy's annual marching in Chicago's Gay Pride Parade will be enough of a buffer.
The Conservative
· 3 years ago
The Referendum will pass, however it will not help JBT with votes.
Peanut Gallery
· 3 years ago
Anon 7:24 - The poll looks about right to me. I don't know why you and wndycty have to both assume that the opinions on this issue are so polarized.
A case in point: this interesting couple of posts from a stay-at-home mom on the blog she runs with her husband. I tend to think that both of them get an awful lot wrong, but this looks like a pretty well-thought-out rationale for the middle ground to me.
If I had to bet, I would say it passes based on the experiences in other states.
But there have been same sex couples living together over the centuries. It's not something new. Everyone probably knows some. The trend is for people to be more accepting and open of them.
But a lot depends on how the advocates play this one. If there is a lot of talk about bigotry it creates a backlash because of all the troubles families face.
When the Judges in Mass allowed same sex marriages, the Wed Journal in Oak Park published pictures on the front page of these same sex couples and their kids. The first thought that crossed my mind looking at those men (and they were all male couples save one female) was are their moms dogging these guys for Child Support?
I don't think it's bigotry to wonder about that either.
Same goes with propenents of this. If they talk about the decline of Western Civilization, they lose... too many people have gay friends and family memembers and they just look like lunatics. But if they make a sensible case citing examples like Catholic Social services getting out of the adoption business in Mass they're in a stronger position.
Families are fundamental to Humprhy's moral test: how we care for the young, the infirm, and the aged. You can make a case for same sex marriage supporting those ends. And you can make a case they undermine them because those guys are in fact dodging some responsiblity.
I like to think not, but this is really going to depend on how advocates on both sides argue it.
Sideline Sage
· 3 years ago
I don't know how JBT has managed to leave her right flank this unprotected. It may be true that they don't have anywhere else to go besides her ticket, but it strikes me as bad politics for her to be this blatant about it.
She needs to do something to show conservative republicans that she actually wants their votes. She doesn't have to "pander" (a verb that seems to be primarily used and defined by the opponents of whoever is allegedly "pandering"), but she should try a little harder to be noticed listening to these groups (last time I checked, citizenship and voting rights didn't depend on having the same view about a hot-button issue as the cultural elite).
DOWNSTATE
· 3 years ago
All the JBT haters keep saying Judy.What about the Gov.if I remember right under the decree he signed he has already gve them the same rights that married couples have.
Johnson Q.
· 3 years ago
I hope the same sex marriage ban doesn't pass. A ban is bigotry, plain and simple. We should embrace same sex couples with the same rights we afford everyone else.
But we do need a law preventing a man marrying multiple wives, or an older man marrying an underage girl. Those people are sick freaks & need help.
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
Nice to see the public respects our Constitution, committment to freedom, and minority views even if it's disagreeable to many.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Bill, please clarify your post. I read it three times and it makes no sense.
Why would mothers expect child support from their adult children?
What responsibilities are gay men (or women) avoidng by marrying the person they love and are committed to (including all the responsibilities a marriage or civil union entails)?
-----
Anon 6/15 9:01am wrote: "Nice to see the public respects our Constitution, committment to freedom, and minority views even if it’s disagreeable to many."
DITTO.
-----
Considering how weak the Dem Party of Illinois is (often talking past each other through the press) the measure may just pass by 50.5/49.5 or so...
But it won't mean a thing because the gov (whether Blago or JBT) and the lege will ignore it.
It's just not a big issue in Illinois -- we are, for the most part, a pragmatic people based in reality and about the only people truly interested in this are the ones who paid for the petition circulating (couldn't even get enough volunteers) and those who are now opposing the petitions by reviewing them. Relatively small groups on either end. (Add to this the fact it's **non-binding** even if it gets on the ballot -- makes it all moot.)
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Missed one...
anon - Thursday, Jun 15, 06 @ 7:24 am --- How much do you know about scientific polling? This isn't some biased partisan push poll trying to selectively find support for an issue... But I suppose if you don't like the results you kill the messenger, doncha?
Levois
· 3 years ago
I don't support gay marriage and I don't thinks it's bigotry to raise an objection. Besides I really don't think a constitutional amendment is the right way to rectify the situation. I would just assume that gov't stays out of marriage. Gov't needs to get out of that business and let the churches or someone private handle it.
VanillaMan
· 3 years ago
You guys are such Care Bears. While it is fashionable to be pro-gay, when voters get in the booth, fashion doesn't matter. So, this thing will pass.
Believe me, if some pollster asked me these questions, I'd know HOW I am supposed to answer them to keep from looking like a meanie. Everyone knows the fashionable statement, it gets drilled into our heads repeatedly: Gay Marriage? "Love it!" :)
A lot of you guys fell for this crap. "Its bigotry!" Get real people - gay sex isn't anything new. But demanding rights based on your sexuality is. I don't mind my friends having gay sex, but I do mind when they start demanding that I change everything because they want to live through their sexuality.
Instinctively, (called evolution - don't you know), people are supposed to pro-create. But a bunch of people now claim that people are born gay? Yeah, right. It is fashionable to be anti-homophobic, but I suspect that there are more naturally occuring homophobic parents than gay ones.
OOops! There goes that reality again! Let's keep pretending that anti-gay marriage people are just ugly backwards people who wear funny clothes and mullets. Chin up! Stay smug!
Anonymous
· 3 years ago
So can we assume that Rick Garcia's group will be dropping its plans to file an objection seeking to keep the non-binding Protect Marriage Referendum off the November ballot?
If that was a legitimate poll, what would Garcia have to fear from letting the question go to the voters? Presumably the voters would give him a big win in November.
But Garcia is continuing with plans to try and keep the question off the ballot. Obviously the poll is suspect.
zatoichi
· 3 years ago
If gay marriage is a serious threat to straight marriage then straight marriages are not very strong. Got gay and straight friends/family in long term relationships. Some are strong while others are simply convenivence. Some have the maturity of a cheap soap opera while others face multiple adversities and keep moving along. Some straight friends/family are goofier and take part in more risky behavior than any stereotyped gay. Want to reject gay marriage based on religion go ahead, but remember Jesus was very inclusive in his teaching so if you feel smarter/more informed than Jesus be my guest. Maybe a Bible will be written about you. Is marriage "sacred"? Yes. I gave my word, promise, and trust to my spouse, in front of our families and those ideals transfered to our kids when they came. Now going on 26 years. How much more "sacred" can it get? Does a big church wedding make it "sacred"? Is a straight marriage that hits divorce after two years more "sacred" then two gays together for 30 years. Don't think so. Maybe we are just lucky. Do not see how gay marriage effects us in any way. Do not see any reason to get any level of bigotry into the law system. Let the religious zealots battle out who has the better connection/interpretation to what God thinks. Hopefully this proposed ban simply gets dropped. Leave religion at church and personal.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
sorry NW,
Two men, kids, there is a mother out there somewhere. I'm guessing she has custody in most cases. She needs money to raise kids and the Dad owes it to her.
I've worked with so many single mothers now I take it for granted that's America's normal family.
I'm not saying Gay Marriage at all responsible for that. But when you see same sex couples with kids, you know there must one one other biological parent out there and you wonder.
In my case, I wonder about money and financial support.
Daley, and others, responded when the Judges were granting marriages, that American really has a divorce problem and not a problem with same sex couples.... sure that's true, but these issues are tightly woven together and many people have a hard time untangling them.
When you look at same sex couples with kids and wonder about the dangling biological partner out there you wonder... same issue happens with any foster child arrangement.
anon
· 3 years ago
If 2000 respondents can give a fairly reliable national sample, 600 seems like a fair number for a statewide poll.
Conservative Republican
· 3 years ago
If the advisory referendum question stays on the ballot (an uncertain outcome given the funded opposition), it probably will pass. The bottom line is that every poll in IL historically shows majority oppositon to legalizing gay marriage. That majority will be energized to express that view at the polls, spurred by the notion that the courts remain a likely avenue for the legalization of gay marriage (the whole reason why the movement for a consitutional amendment exists.)
However, the Glengarrif poll suggests the possibility that this advisory referendum could prevail with only a slight majority. That would spur the gay-rights opposition to contend that there is not a sufficiently strong majority to justify a constitutional amendment and that therefore the legislators should be "advised" to take no action.
Judy will just ignore this whole debate. She has already staked out her position: opposed to gay marriage as shown by her support for past legislation but opposed to a constitutional amendment because past legislation is enough (dodging the question about the unpredictability of decisions by liberal-trending courts). The referendum will have not impact on her campaign.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
So Bill, the kids couldn't have been nephews and nieces?
Or perhaps they are indeed kids from a heterosexual marriage that ended in divorce (for likely obvious reasons) ...was it an amicable divorce? ...is there joint custody or sole custody? ...couldn't the ex-wife be the one to owe child support for some reason?
Maybe it wasn't a divorce at all, but perhaps they are adopted children or biological children via in vitro with sperm from one of the men and either a purchased egg or one donated from a friend...
Do you know?
Where in the article did it say someone was not paying child support?
More to the point... Why are you bringing up this minor, esoteric point if not to lay down some negativity over the situation?
There's a name for that: Negative Nelly...
Let's be honest -- haven't you simply jumped to the conclusion that these gay men are deadbeat dads conclusion out of some sort of bias?
By the by, if you take it for granted that America's normal family is a single mom with kids... wouldn't two parents (even if two dads or two moms) be better than one? Heck, there are movies and tv shows with not just one or even two but, count 'em, three dads (granted, they're roommates, but still).
Welcome to 2006, it ain't 1956 anymore.
---
Levois, conservatives in the middle of the last century didn't think it was bigotry to demand bans against interracial marriages, or even dating for that matter.
Heck, there are still conservatives this very day who don't think they're bigoted by demanding that different races don't mix. Surely you've heard of Bob Jones University.
Gish
· 3 years ago
Bill-
I think to answer your question:
1) Many gay marriages that involve children are adoptions of domestic children who have had parental rights severed or foreign-born children who have had parental rights severed.
-or-
2) Couples sharing joint custody with the likelihood that the father pays his share of child support.
Your wonderment smacks of a red herring. Unless of course, you make the same generalized statement about every divorced man.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
They were biological children of one parters.
They had family stories inside on each couple.
No mention of the other biological parent or if the children lived with the male same-sex partneres or the mother.
Don't get me wrong. I'll vote against the amendment. I would allow same sex marriages and favor them over civil unions. I like the idea of people making vows in a solmenized union before God which is what marriage is.
But I've worked with so many single moms, and worked with so many well off male gay couples (I lived in Oak Park for a long time) that I'm troubled by the trends.
The religous right gets it right when the focus on all the troubles facing families. The left hasn't gotten it right since we lost Pat Moynihan.
Solutions aren't in things like banning gay marriage, but I sure hold off calling people who worry about families bigots... because I don't think the solution is in gov programs... it goes deeper than that.
It hits me when I read the Wed Journal story which was a celebration of families with same-sex partners.
I'm ok with it, but I didn't feel like celebrating either. I just saw some kids who --for one reason or another, for better or for worse-- are seperated from a family with two biological parents. (And I thought it noteworthy these guys talked all about themselves and not about their kids).
I know too many single parents and the struggle it is raising kids even one the other partner does a good job of finacial and emotional support. It's a tough situation.
Left Leaner
· 3 years ago
Sadly, the referendum would probably pass. Getting these referendums on ballots throughout the country was part of the Republican strategy for 2004. Like it or not, you can thank Karl Rove for that. Republicans will use the same or similar strategies this year. But I doubt they'll do it in Illinois this year because it would "Jimmy Superfly Snuka" the Topinka campaign.
Little Egypt
· 3 years ago
IT WILL PASS!
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
First of all, I think the assumption this will be on the ballot is a big one. From what I understand, the challenge look-up is going very well, and they will be wrapping up their work in Cook County tonight.
That said, in order to know how it might impact turn-out for the election this fall, it would be helpful to know how many folks were strongly opposed v. strongly supported.
My guess is that it would fuel a huge voter registration drive in Chicago. Contrary to popular opinion, the gay community is not over-represented in Chicago and Illinois politics. Voter registration tends to be much lower among young, openly gay progressives, specifically for the reason that they are young and still changing addresses a lot.
Whether Blagojevich would benefit is another question. Topinka has already taken a hit from conservatives, and the Keyes Republicans won't be supporting her, regardless of whether this thing makes the ballot.
However, there is a rumor going around that the Blagojevich campaign has cut a deal with the far right to stay out of the referendum fight. That, so the rumor goes, is why Feigenholtz, Tunney, Quigley, and others are funding the FAIR Illinois challenge but the Blagojevich campaign hasn't been helping.
If the measure makes the ballot and Blagojevich fails to come out and take a really strong public stand against the referendum, he could face a tsunami backlash from Boystown.
doubtful
· 3 years ago
I don't think a ban would pass, but I think it will be close either way. It's existence on the ballot would not likely bolster any candidate for governor, though, because I think turnout will already be high overall. Referendums usually have more of an impact when turnout is low.
Bill Baar
· 3 years ago
YDD, I don't know about the inside stuff, but I'm guessing you hit the nail on the head.
Topinka takes a principled stand (as principled as she can get) and takes a hit from her right.
Blagojevich takes these waffling positions trying to appease all and he'll get whacked by all of his constituents from both sides.
PinkVoter
· 3 years ago
Question for the liberals commenting here... If Republicans/conservatives seeking a constitutional ban on gay marriage are bigots, then is the state Democratic Party, which controls Illinois government, and has done nothing to bring state-wide gay marriage, gay unions, or gay adoption? Not a single vote on those since the Democrats took over. Not one. The Democratic leaders seem quite content to leave gays as second-class citizens in this state, otherwise they would have been proactive on any of those issues. Democratic politicians in Illinois are treating the gay community the same way they treat the black community. They want their money, they want their votes, then they want them to sit down and shut-up.
Levois
· 3 years ago
Pink voter you have said a very honest thing. Thank you for that.
the Other Anonymous
· 3 years ago
I doubt the referendum will pass. Even if it gets a majority, it will be close -- and that's a huge setback for the folks opposed to equal treatment of gays. Remember, changing a constitution requires a supermajority, not a bare majority.
As for how it will affect the Governor's race: dunno. An initiative will drive turnout by conservatives, who will be encouraged to vote for Blagojevich. But will they? On the other hand, the initiative also drives up voting on the Chicago Lakefront. Lakefront voters should vote for Rod, but JBT has a certain appeal on the Lake. If Rod continues with his run of bad press and ethics challenges, my guess is she makes inroads with these voters.
It is easy being Green
· 3 years ago
WHITNEY CALLS FOR BAN ON MARRIAGE BETWEEN CORPORATIONS AND GOVERNMENT
Illinois Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney has called for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage between government and corporations. "President Bush has called for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage on the basis that it hurts the family, and Illinois is holding a referendum on the same question," said Whitney. "But which kind of 'marriage' poses the real threat to the families of Illinois?"
Green Party Candidates claim that the unnatural union between government and big corporations is a loveless marriage of convenience designed to mutually benefit both parties. It can also be an incestuous relationship, given the current revolving door policy between corporate offices and government positions. "Just look at our current vice-president, and former president of Haliburton, Dick Cheney," Whitney said.
Whitney added that he is seriously studying the text of a proposed state constitutional amendment to redefine corporations in a way that would strip them of their rights as legal 'persons'. It would require them to meet social responsibilities to the communities, employees, and the environment in which they operate. It would also limit the ways government and corporations can interact.
Rich Whitney has made a commitment to Illinois voters to refuse corporate campaign contributions. "In a healthy democracy, elected officials should represent people, and not be the servants of deep pockets and multinational corporate interests. I am determined to represent the interests of Illinois citizens." Whitney said.
"One thing is certain," Whitney said "When corporations and governments climb into bed together, it is the voters that end up being screwed."
grubnednarb
· 3 years ago
Despite the Glengariff poll,I think the referendum would pass if it gets on the ballot.
But I predict it won't be on the ballot because FAIR Illinois has identified enough invalid signatures to keep it off.
If it were on the ballot, I think it's a wash in terms of the outcome of the gubernatorial election. It could help some downstate Republican legislative candidates by attracting more conservative voters to the polls.
Lovie's Leather
· 3 years ago
51 percent support it... “Illinoisans may not support recognition of same-sex marriages but they don’t want to be mean about it,†When Illinoisans get into the ballot box, it is them and God. It passes 51/49 if everybody goes and votes. Honestly though, this might get the liberals out to the ballot box. Who knows?
Pink Like Me
· 3 years ago
This is a transparent ploy by the religious right and ultracons to activate a base using fear and prejudice, hoping that by flocking to the polls to vote on this, they will stick around and also vote for the conservative republican slate attached to that ballot. And all the rest of their agenda.
I'm not a single-issue voter, I think only the most feeble-minded citizens are. My guess is, they will raise more active opposition than support, and the American Talibans will recede further.
Judy would be smart to stay away from their "help".
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 3 years ago
Pink Voter -
If you think anyone on this site thinks you're anything more than a Republican troll, think again. I've been an outside agitator for too long not to recognize your play acting. If you're gay, I'm a Republican.
The fact is, it's the Democratic majority in the Illinois Senate that finally brought up the Human Rights amendment for passage and a vote. It was the Republican Senate President that stood in the way for too many years.
It's also a fact that most gay Illinoisans don't rank the right to marry very high on their agenda. That's why you don't see any folks down in Springfield lobbying for the right to gay marriage.
What they care much more about is not being fired from their jobs for who they are, told they can't rent an apartment, told they're not welcome in a hotel or a restaurant. They want full visitation rights with their loved ones in the hospital, to be able to pass on property to their children, and they want to enjoy the same taxpayer-funded benefits that other loving couples do -- benefits they help pay for. Those are battles that Democrats have either won or are still fighting.
Beyond that, what most gay Americans want is what most Americans want: to be left alone, most of the time. That used to be something conservatives were for. But not any more.
Now, what the conservative wing of the GOP wants to do is put them on a meat hook and use them as political bait: as a fundraising tool, as a voter registration and get-out-the-vote tool, as a distraction from other issues of great importance, like 1200 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ.
I guess if neo-conservatives actually stood FOR something besides making the rich richer, they could present a positive agenda to the American people. But since Halliburton, Exxon, and the rest of Dick Cheney's pals are busting at the seams, and they've run the federal budget so far into the red you need infra-red goggles to read it, all they can focus on now is what they are against.
Protecting Marriage? Protecting their own political arses is more like it. Financial troubles are the numero uno cause of divorce. Health care problems are the top cause of bankruptcy. The GOP is the reason 41 million Americans (and rising) have no health care insurance. Tens of millions of more are under-insured. The whole "Protect Marriage" movement is nothing more than a strawman to distract us from the fact that it is GOP policies that are destroying our families.
As for whether or not African Americans are represented in the Democratic Party's agenda, I'd say they have a strong voice. In Michigan, Democrats are fighting conservative efforts to end affirmative action. In Illinois, Democrats have reformed the death penalty, created a second chance for ex-offenders, expanded the earned income tax and made it permanent, expanded child care, health protections for children and working parents, raised the minimum wage, and cracked down on racial profiling and required video-taping of police interrogations. That's pretty good for less than four years.
And, that's a heckuva lot more than George Bush has accomplished for the pro-life wing of his party. Talk about sheep.
disgusted
· 3 years ago
All referendums will appear at the end of the ballot. In the county of Cook, that means after the 75 judges up for retention. Since a sizable proportion of voters stop before they finish with the judges, a large chunk will skip referendums as well.
disgusted
· 3 years ago
wndycty: If it's "bigotry" to oppose same-sex marriage, then isn't John Kerry a bigot?
It is easy being Green
· 3 years ago
Well said Yellow Dog Democrat!
Gay parent with children
· 3 years ago
If the undecided or fence sitters need a visual think about how our children are suffering without the protections of straight folks enjoy.
NW burbs
· 3 years ago
Bill wrote, "(And I thought it noteworthy these guys talked all about themselves and not about their kids)."
And again your bias shows (whether subconcious or not).
Why is it that the far-right is always complaining that the media is liberal? Because they claim the media doesn't tell their side (ie, doesn't tell the full story).
Couldn't it be entirely possible that, since this article was focused on the gay couples and their marriages, the author or editor cut out anything related to any kids????
All Comments
A case in point: this interesting couple of posts from a stay-at-home mom on the blog she runs with her husband. I tend to think that both of them get an awful lot wrong, but this looks like a pretty well-thought-out rationale for the middle ground to me.
http://eastvold.blogspot.com/2006/05/sacred-mar...
http://eastvold.blogspot.com/2006/05/sacred-mar...
But there have been same sex couples living together over the centuries. It's not something new. Everyone probably knows some. The trend is for people to be more accepting and open of them.
But a lot depends on how the advocates play this one. If there is a lot of talk about bigotry it creates a backlash because of all the troubles families face.
When the Judges in Mass allowed same sex marriages, the Wed Journal in Oak Park published pictures on the front page of these same sex couples and their kids. The first thought that crossed my mind looking at those men (and they were all male couples save one female) was are their moms dogging these guys for Child Support?
I don't think it's bigotry to wonder about that either.
Same goes with propenents of this. If they talk about the decline of Western Civilization, they lose... too many people have gay friends and family memembers and they just look like lunatics. But if they make a sensible case citing examples like Catholic Social services getting out of the adoption business in Mass they're in a stronger position.
Families are fundamental to Humprhy's moral test: how we care for the young, the infirm, and the aged. You can make a case for same sex marriage supporting those ends. And you can make a case they undermine them because those guys are in fact dodging some responsiblity.
I like to think not, but this is really going to depend on how advocates on both sides argue it.
She needs to do something to show conservative republicans that she actually wants their votes. She doesn't have to "pander" (a verb that seems to be primarily used and defined by the opponents of whoever is allegedly "pandering"), but she should try a little harder to be noticed listening to these groups (last time I checked, citizenship and voting rights didn't depend on having the same view about a hot-button issue as the cultural elite).
But we do need a law preventing a man marrying multiple wives, or an older man marrying an underage girl. Those people are sick freaks & need help.
Why would mothers expect child support from their adult children?
What responsibilities are gay men (or women) avoidng by marrying the person they love and are committed to (including all the responsibilities a marriage or civil union entails)?
-----
Anon 6/15 9:01am wrote: "Nice to see the public respects our Constitution, committment to freedom, and minority views even if it’s disagreeable to many."
DITTO.
-----
Considering how weak the Dem Party of Illinois is (often talking past each other through the press) the measure may just pass by 50.5/49.5 or so...
But it won't mean a thing because the gov (whether Blago or JBT) and the lege will ignore it.
It's just not a big issue in Illinois -- we are, for the most part, a pragmatic people based in reality and about the only people truly interested in this are the ones who paid for the petition circulating (couldn't even get enough volunteers) and those who are now opposing the petitions by reviewing them. Relatively small groups on either end. (Add to this the fact it's **non-binding** even if it gets on the ballot -- makes it all moot.)
anon - Thursday, Jun 15, 06 @ 7:24 am --- How much do you know about scientific polling? This isn't some biased partisan push poll trying to selectively find support for an issue... But I suppose if you don't like the results you kill the messenger, doncha?
Believe me, if some pollster asked me these questions, I'd know HOW I am supposed to answer them to keep from looking like a meanie. Everyone knows the fashionable statement, it gets drilled into our heads repeatedly: Gay Marriage? "Love it!" :)
A lot of you guys fell for this crap. "Its bigotry!" Get real people - gay sex isn't anything new. But demanding rights based on your sexuality is. I don't mind my friends having gay sex, but I do mind when they start demanding that I change everything because they want to live through their sexuality.
Instinctively, (called evolution - don't you know), people are supposed to pro-create. But a bunch of people now claim that people are born gay? Yeah, right. It is fashionable to be anti-homophobic, but I suspect that there are more naturally occuring homophobic parents than gay ones.
OOops! There goes that reality again! Let's keep pretending that anti-gay marriage people are just ugly backwards people who wear funny clothes and mullets. Chin up! Stay smug!
If that was a legitimate poll, what would Garcia have to fear from letting the question go to the voters? Presumably the voters would give him a big win in November.
But Garcia is continuing with plans to try and keep the question off the ballot. Obviously the poll is suspect.
Two men, kids, there is a mother out there somewhere. I'm guessing she has custody in most cases. She needs money to raise kids and the Dad owes it to her.
I've worked with so many single mothers now I take it for granted that's America's normal family.
I'm not saying Gay Marriage at all responsible for that. But when you see same sex couples with kids, you know there must one one other biological parent out there and you wonder.
In my case, I wonder about money and financial support.
Daley, and others, responded when the Judges were granting marriages, that American really has a divorce problem and not a problem with same sex couples.... sure that's true, but these issues are tightly woven together and many people have a hard time untangling them.
When you look at same sex couples with kids and wonder about the dangling biological partner out there you wonder... same issue happens with any foster child arrangement.
However, the Glengarrif poll suggests the possibility that this advisory referendum could prevail with only a slight majority. That would spur the gay-rights opposition to contend that there is not a sufficiently strong majority to justify a constitutional amendment and that therefore the legislators should be "advised" to take no action.
Judy will just ignore this whole debate. She has already staked out her position: opposed to gay marriage as shown by her support for past legislation but opposed to a constitutional amendment because past legislation is enough (dodging the question about the unpredictability of decisions by liberal-trending courts). The referendum will have not impact on her campaign.
Or perhaps they are indeed kids from a heterosexual marriage that ended in divorce (for likely obvious reasons) ...was it an amicable divorce? ...is there joint custody or sole custody? ...couldn't the ex-wife be the one to owe child support for some reason?
Maybe it wasn't a divorce at all, but perhaps they are adopted children or biological children via in vitro with sperm from one of the men and either a purchased egg or one donated from a friend...
Do you know?
Where in the article did it say someone was not paying child support?
More to the point... Why are you bringing up this minor, esoteric point if not to lay down some negativity over the situation?
There's a name for that: Negative Nelly...
Let's be honest -- haven't you simply jumped to the conclusion that these gay men are deadbeat dads conclusion out of some sort of bias?
By the by, if you take it for granted that America's normal family is a single mom with kids... wouldn't two parents (even if two dads or two moms) be better than one? Heck, there are movies and tv shows with not just one or even two but, count 'em, three dads (granted, they're roommates, but still).
Welcome to 2006, it ain't 1956 anymore.
---
Levois, conservatives in the middle of the last century didn't think it was bigotry to demand bans against interracial marriages, or even dating for that matter.
Heck, there are still conservatives this very day who don't think they're bigoted by demanding that different races don't mix. Surely you've heard of Bob Jones University.
I think to answer your question:
1) Many gay marriages that involve children are adoptions of domestic children who have had parental rights severed or foreign-born children who have had parental rights severed.
-or-
2) Couples sharing joint custody with the likelihood that the father pays his share of child support.
Your wonderment smacks of a red herring. Unless of course, you make the same generalized statement about every divorced man.
They had family stories inside on each couple.
No mention of the other biological parent or if the children lived with the male same-sex partneres or the mother.
Don't get me wrong. I'll vote against the amendment. I would allow same sex marriages and favor them over civil unions. I like the idea of people making vows in a solmenized union before God which is what marriage is.
But I've worked with so many single moms, and worked with so many well off male gay couples (I lived in Oak Park for a long time) that I'm troubled by the trends.
The religous right gets it right when the focus on all the troubles facing families. The left hasn't gotten it right since we lost Pat Moynihan.
Solutions aren't in things like banning gay marriage, but I sure hold off calling people who worry about families bigots... because I don't think the solution is in gov programs... it goes deeper than that.
It hits me when I read the Wed Journal story which was a celebration of families with same-sex partners.
I'm ok with it, but I didn't feel like celebrating either. I just saw some kids who --for one reason or another, for better or for worse-- are seperated from a family with two biological parents. (And I thought it noteworthy these guys talked all about themselves and not about their kids).
I know too many single parents and the struggle it is raising kids even one the other partner does a good job of finacial and emotional support. It's a tough situation.
That said, in order to know how it might impact turn-out for the election this fall, it would be helpful to know how many folks were strongly opposed v. strongly supported.
My guess is that it would fuel a huge voter registration drive in Chicago. Contrary to popular opinion, the gay community is not over-represented in Chicago and Illinois politics. Voter registration tends to be much lower among young, openly gay progressives, specifically for the reason that they are young and still changing addresses a lot.
Whether Blagojevich would benefit is another question. Topinka has already taken a hit from conservatives, and the Keyes Republicans won't be supporting her, regardless of whether this thing makes the ballot.
However, there is a rumor going around that the Blagojevich campaign has cut a deal with the far right to stay out of the referendum fight. That, so the rumor goes, is why Feigenholtz, Tunney, Quigley, and others are funding the FAIR Illinois challenge but the Blagojevich campaign hasn't been helping.
If the measure makes the ballot and Blagojevich fails to come out and take a really strong public stand against the referendum, he could face a tsunami backlash from Boystown.
Topinka takes a principled stand (as principled as she can get) and takes a hit from her right.
Blagojevich takes these waffling positions trying to appease all and he'll get whacked by all of his constituents from both sides.
If Republicans/conservatives seeking a constitutional ban on gay marriage are bigots, then is the state Democratic Party, which controls Illinois government, and has done nothing to bring state-wide gay marriage, gay unions, or gay adoption? Not a single vote on those since the Democrats took over. Not one. The Democratic leaders seem quite content to leave gays as second-class citizens in this state, otherwise they would have been proactive on any of those issues. Democratic politicians in Illinois are treating the gay community the same way they treat the black community. They want their money, they want their votes, then they want them to sit down and shut-up.
As for how it will affect the Governor's race: dunno. An initiative will drive turnout by conservatives, who will be encouraged to vote for Blagojevich. But will they? On the other hand, the initiative also drives up voting on the Chicago Lakefront. Lakefront voters should vote for Rod, but JBT has a certain appeal on the Lake. If Rod continues with his run of bad press and ethics challenges, my guess is she makes inroads with these voters.
Illinois Green Party gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney has called for a constitutional amendment to ban marriage between government and corporations. "President Bush has called for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage on the basis that it hurts the family, and Illinois is holding a referendum on the same question," said Whitney. "But which kind of 'marriage' poses the real threat to the families of Illinois?"
Green Party Candidates claim that the unnatural union between government and big corporations is a loveless marriage of convenience designed to mutually benefit both parties. It can also be an incestuous relationship, given the current revolving door policy between corporate offices and
government positions. "Just look at our current vice-president, and former president of Haliburton, Dick Cheney," Whitney said.
Whitney added that he is seriously studying the text of a proposed state constitutional amendment to redefine corporations in a way that would strip them of their rights as legal 'persons'. It would require them to meet social responsibilities to the communities, employees, and the environment in which they operate. It would also limit the ways government and corporations can interact.
Rich Whitney has made a commitment to Illinois voters to refuse corporate campaign contributions. "In a healthy democracy, elected officials should represent people, and not be the servants of deep pockets and multinational
corporate interests. I am determined to represent the interests of Illinois citizens." Whitney said.
"One thing is certain," Whitney said "When corporations and governments climb into bed together, it is the voters that end up being screwed."
But I predict it won't be on the ballot because FAIR Illinois has identified enough invalid signatures to keep it off.
If it were on the ballot, I think it's a wash in terms of the outcome of the gubernatorial election. It could help some downstate Republican legislative candidates by attracting more conservative voters to the polls.
I'm not a single-issue voter, I think only the most feeble-minded citizens are. My guess is, they will raise more active opposition than support, and the American Talibans will recede further.
Judy would be smart to stay away from their "help".
If you think anyone on this site thinks you're anything more than a Republican troll, think again. I've been an outside agitator for too long not to recognize your play acting. If you're gay, I'm a Republican.
The fact is, it's the Democratic majority in the Illinois Senate that finally brought up the Human Rights amendment for passage and a vote. It was the Republican Senate President that stood in the way for too many years.
It's also a fact that most gay Illinoisans don't rank the right to marry very high on their agenda. That's why you don't see any folks down in Springfield lobbying for the right to gay marriage.
What they care much more about is not being fired from their jobs for who they are, told they can't rent an apartment, told they're not welcome in a hotel or a restaurant. They want full visitation rights with their loved ones in the hospital, to be able to pass on property to their children, and they want to enjoy the same taxpayer-funded benefits that other loving couples do -- benefits they help pay for. Those are battles that Democrats have either won or are still fighting.
Beyond that, what most gay Americans want is what most Americans want: to be left alone, most of the time. That used to be something conservatives were for. But not any more.
Now, what the conservative wing of the GOP wants to do is put them on a meat hook and use them as political bait: as a fundraising tool, as a voter registration and get-out-the-vote tool, as a distraction from other issues of great importance, like 1200 DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ.
I guess if neo-conservatives actually stood FOR something besides making the rich richer, they could present a positive agenda to the American people. But since Halliburton, Exxon, and the rest of Dick Cheney's pals are busting at the seams, and they've run the federal budget so far into the red you need infra-red goggles to read it, all they can focus on now is what they are against.
Protecting Marriage? Protecting their own political arses is more like it. Financial troubles are the numero uno cause of divorce. Health care problems are the top cause of bankruptcy. The GOP is the reason 41 million Americans (and rising) have no health care insurance. Tens of millions of more are under-insured. The whole "Protect Marriage" movement is nothing more than a strawman to distract us from the fact that it is GOP policies that are destroying our families.
As for whether or not African Americans are represented in the Democratic Party's agenda, I'd say they have a strong voice. In Michigan, Democrats are fighting conservative efforts to end affirmative action. In Illinois, Democrats have reformed the death penalty, created a second chance for ex-offenders, expanded the earned income tax and made it permanent, expanded child care, health protections for children and working parents, raised the minimum wage, and cracked down on racial profiling and required video-taping of police interrogations. That's pretty good for less than four years.
And, that's a heckuva lot more than George Bush has accomplished for the pro-life wing of his party. Talk about sheep.
And again your bias shows (whether subconcious or not).
Why is it that the far-right is always complaining that the media is liberal? Because they claim the media doesn't tell their side (ie, doesn't tell the full story).
Couldn't it be entirely possible that, since this article was focused on the gay couples and their marriages, the author or editor cut out anything related to any kids????