DISQUS

Slash · 3 years ago

I will vote for the ban.

I don't think it is right not to include people who want to have multiple spouses.

If you want my vote, you are going to have to re-write the proposal so that it doesn't discriminate against ANYONE, regardless of their personal lifestyle preferences.

Discrimination is wrong.

VanillaMan · 3 years ago

Until gay sex results in pregnancy, marriage is not a option for gay couples. We would be wasting our societal resources propping up a fraud that cannot be biologically sustained.

Supporting gay marriage is fashionable, but foolish.

I will vote to support the ban.

NW burbs · 3 years ago

VanillaMan wrote: "Until gay sex results in pregnancy, marriage is not a option for gay couples."


Vanilla, Are you also against condom sales? Same effect.

Are you also against The Pill? Same effect.

Are you also against infertile hetero couples? Same effect.

...Besides, ever heard of adoption? It would solve that whole how-do-we-provide-for-frozen-embryos problem conservatives have.

I would vote against intolerance, bigotry and oppression and in doing so, I would be voting for love and lifetime commitments of compassion.

I would vote no. My wife and I (and our kids too!) are doing just fine after Massachusetts was brave enough to lead our nation by example, thank you very much.

ZC · 3 years ago

No. Procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage, in this day and age. I believe that commitment to another person, through thick and thin - and _one_ other person - is at the core of marriage, and I've never seen the difficulty in drawing a distinct line between homosexual unions and polygamy. And while gay marriage takes up some resources, I think it actually contributes more to society than it takes away. Mayor Daley figured this out to his credit when he realized how gay couples were rehabbing and rebuilding previously sketch neighborhoods in Chicago. Gay couples are willing to take a chance on trying to restore a dicey neighborhood precisely in part because they _don't_ have kids.

I respect the views of people who believe otherwise, especially those who are worried about some unproven psychic harm to gay-adopted kids. They have the right to vote their convictions, and I'd certainly abide by the majority opinion. I can wait; I believe time is on my side. I will be around Illinois for 15-20 more years, and by that time a more gay-tolerant generation will be ready to repeal this silly referendum, should it pass.

Yellow Dog Democrat · 3 years ago

I'm waiting for the constitutional amendment in defense of driving by limiting drivers licenses to between one driver and one passenger vehicle.

The very fabric of our society depends on preserving the passenger vehicle. Motorcycle riding is a deviant and self-indulgent behavior that is ant-family. Whoever heard of anybody taking the kids to soccer practice on a motorcycle? I don't want to see my tax dollars being used to support a cycling lifestyle.

ZC · 3 years ago

If only they would try to join those two causes together, YDD. I could see the lobby group formed to oppose those measures; they'd call it GAYBATE.

Niles Township · 3 years ago

I am against gay marriage, but I also think this issue along with flag burning etc. are being used to distract the masses from the important issues of the day...a real war on terrorism which should be fought much harder than we are rather than a war on Iraq, a new energy policy, an environmental policy, medicare, social security, corruption at the federal, state & local level, civic apathy etc. Much easier to yell about gay marriage and flag burning. So even though I am against gay marriage, I would vote against the ban.

zatoichi · 3 years ago

Of the gay couples I know, several have kids through adoption and from former marriages. Kids all seem to be doing just fine. If a marriage has to be biologically sustainable guess my brother and his wife better get a divorce because they can't have kids. I'll be voting against this type of prejudice based referendum.

voice of reason · 3 years ago

I would vote against the ban, because it is unnecessary AND a distraction from more important fiscal issues facing both this state and the federal government.

If we do address marriage, I propose we separate church and state, providing civil unions for any couples (opposite or same-sex), and allowing churches to preside over only those unions that fit within their theology.

Levois · 3 years ago

I agree with voice of reason and disagree with those who believe that not allowing same-sex couples the right to marry. I'm uneasy about using a document whether that is the US Constitution or the state constitution to enforce some form of social policy such as marriage. The best way to answer those who believe that only allowing male-female couples is discriminatory is to get government out of marriage completely. That should be an amendment to the constitution if not a state law. I have yet to decide how to vote however.

Ashur Odishoo · 3 years ago

I do not have strong feelings about "gay marriage". I think civil partnerships should provide for civil rights, but the union should not have to be sanctions as sacred by Churches.

What concerns me is the direction of this legislation. Already the Mormons are trying to define marriage with multiple spouses. This was originally considered a joke, now it is real.

Crazies are also having ersatz weddings with their pets. At what point will this stop?

Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District

Anon sequitur · 3 years ago

No.

The "Voice of Reason" gives a very reasonable and compelling argument on the difference between a legally binding "civil" marriage and a consecrated marriage in a Church. They are very different, yet both legal.

Anon · 3 years ago

The only problem is that the uber-left and uber-right won't agree to such a simple proposition. The waaay left wants the social connotations of the word "marriage"; the faaaar right refuses to admit that homosexuals are deserving of any rights.

doubtful · 3 years ago

I'd vote against the ban. Successful marriages are good for society. They encourage big ticket purchases like homes and cars. It would have no effect on my marriage; it would still be as strong and as meaningful as the day we took our vows.

Carl Nyberg · 3 years ago

Are all the supporters of banning gay marriage kooks? Or just the ones who post to blogs?

What's the public policy problem the ban is trying to address? Do gay marriages cause divorce? What social ill is caused by gay marriage?

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

Shouldn't they first have to amend the Constitution to give government the power to license and define marriage before they use the Constitution to define marriage? As if our State Constitution means much anyway or is enforced.

"All elections SHALL be free and EQUAL" - Article III, Section 3

I'm voting no. Our founders didn't need a government license to get married and neither should we. Government marriages are an entirely new concept in the history of the world. Government licenses for marriage only exist because they were seen as a revenue stream and a way to keep races from mixing. That's really weak. We made it to today just fine when religions and communities and societies defined marriage, not government. We don't need no stinkin' license to love.

Uncle Slappy · 3 years ago

Persecuting gays (or anyone else) is a bad thing. Pandering to them politically by giving them "rights" they never had to begin with is another (bad) thing. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (within legal limits, of course) is their own business; however, "marriage" is a union between "husband and wife", not "husband and husband". C'mon with this silly crap, already. If we want a "society" without laws or social structure, let's just regress back to the Stone Age now and be done with it. If some guy wants to have relations with another guy, who am I to say he can't. By the same token, who is HE to tell me I have to pay increased insurance premiums, for example, because his and all their "husbands" are now getting into the plan? We should not be allowed to persecute their lifestyle choice, but by the same token, they should not be allowed to shove it in our faces and make us pay for them, to boot. Good Lord, this country has gone from one extreme to the other in half a century! Perhaps we'll be run by Quakers and Puritans in 2050?

anonymous · 3 years ago

P.S. Obviously I'll be voting no on this hateful referendum, IF it gets on the ballot. And based on my own experience reviewing the signatures on the hate referendum petitions, it won't be.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Anyone on here saying the referendum effort is hateful or bad, let's see your letters to the editor (with your real names) advocating repeal of the current statutory ban on gay marriage. If an Amendment is wrong on "intolerance" grounds, then the law has to be too. Talking about the law currently on the books that Governor Edgar signed years ago.

All a Constitutional Amendment would do is provide additional support to an already existing law. A law which due to the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution could be overuled at any time, with zero notice to residents here.

In other words, if you're for gay marriage or polygamy or whatever, stand up and say so. But don't criticize the people who are standing up on the other side of the debate.

Big Al · 3 years ago

I will definately be voting No. discrimination in any context is wrong, but that is not the only reason. Let's not forget that Illinois is an insurance company's dream state. a major reason behind the marriage ban is the insurance and health care lobby, who wants common law couples to continue paying for two policies. the answers normally are counted in dollars and cents not right and wrong.

Carl Nyberg · 3 years ago

Anon 3:08,

Just because people don't want to pass the referendum you want, doesn't mean you get to set their priorities.

Legislating gay marriage isn't something most of the people want the government spending time on.

So, you argument is stupid.

And your demand people put their names to their opinions seems completely hypocritical since you don't even post under a pseudonym.

Why don't you put your bigotry under your name so we can embarass your children and grandchildren? Or can't you find a woman willing to have your children?

Strawberry Pistachio Man · 3 years ago

First off, has Vanilla Man said a single intelligent thing on this Blog? I'm a total supporter of the free market, but I have never and probably will never vote for Republicans because I don't want people with his mindset in power (I'll probably vote for Rod out of schaudenfreude). Not to mention that Bush has governed as a socialist.

I'm gonna vote against it, and I will be joined by a majority of Illinoisans.

Dave Clarkin · 3 years ago

Anonymous -

The current statutory ban is idiotic too, but I don't expect Republicans to recognize that, yet, and the best sensible people can do right now is hope to stem the tide of bigotry.

Hell, George Bush can't even admit global warming is real, despite wide concensus in the scientific community, massive hurricanes, ackowledgment from property insurers, and a recent report from his own scientists that the earth is the warmest it's been in 400 years.

Objective Dem · 3 years ago

There are so many reasons to vote against this ammendment. The only reason to vote for it is ignorance and an unwarranted fear of homosexuality.

This is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to impose their views on people who do not share their beliefs. There is no evidence that gay marriage will do harm to the society and therefore no reason for the state to ban it. No one will force the fundamentalist to allow it in their church, but likewise they can't dictate my personal relationships.

Society will benefit by stablizing gay relationships. They will provide positive role models for younger people and their peers. Contrary to the conservative viewpoint, positive role models won't convert people to the gay lifestyle. The temptation of quick easy sexual release is more tempting to "straight" men and provides more ability to experiment than the temptation of getting married to another man.

On an economic front, there is strong evidence that cities prosper by creating an atmosphere that attracts the "creative class" and knowledge workers. It is one reason Chicago is thriving and St. Louis is struggling. Voting for this ban, sends the signal that Illinois is regressive and will discourage some of the best and brightest from moving to Illinois.

Gay parent · 3 years ago

I am gay and have a daughter. My 12 year old had read about this in the papers. Wanna know what she said? "Mom , Why do these people hate our family"? Out of the mouths of babes people. Wake up!

Skeeter · 3 years ago

Jeff Trigg got it right.
I wasn't married by the State of Illinois. I was married by the Roman Catholic Church. Marriage is a religious event, between my Church, my wife, and myself. It is none of the government's business.

Gay parent · 3 years ago

non gay parent....God help your child your raising. I'll pray for you.

Old Elephant · 3 years ago

I go back and forth on this. Here is why I might support a ban: I see this as part of the whole societal problem we have in this country of placing the individual's wants ahead of society's needs.

Marriage was established to foster a more stable society in which to protect and raise children. Adults don't need marriage, but children do. It establishes legally-enforcable requirements that assure that the child is cared for in some minimal fashion (granted there are lots of so-called "parents" today who don't meet those minimums, but at least the legal principle is there)

In most, but not all, cases, Gay Marriage is about the individuals, not about creating a stable home for children (yes, I know many Gay couples either adopt or have children from previous relationships, but that's a small minority, while for the vast majority, it's about themselves, not about children)

Granted, we're not living up to that ideal with all the rampant divorce, cheating, etc. we see and glorify today. But, is that a good reason to surrender?

It the same problem that I have with rampant litigation -- which can place the financial gain of one individual over what is best for society as a whole.

We've "dumbed down" our educational system to benefit individuals at the expense of society as a whole.

We've created massive new classes of "victims" so individuals can benefit, again at huge cost to the overall society.

Although we have thousands of years of history to prove that a common language is needed to glue a society together, we've decided to sacrifice that bond because we don't want to offend individuals.

On the other hand, my own clasical liberalism (read respect for individualism) is such that I really don't personally care if gays want to get married. Like the punchline says: "Why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us." (that's a joke, people)

There seems to be nothing but anger and hatred on this subject today (coming from both sides) so it's probably futile to attempt a reasoned discussion, but I thought I'd try anyway.

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Non gay parent- I bet I know what the result of your sicko post will be. You need to be banned from this site. Rich handle it.

Yellow Dog Democrat · 3 years ago

Non Gay Parent -

Thanks for making my point for me. Just keep telling yourself and your kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, global warming is not real, and the Chinese will never surpass good-old fashioned American know-how. Oh yeah, and keep shopping at Wal-Mart: They're Good for America.

Gay Parent -

Thanks for trying, but God does not waste time on people filled with so much hatred. Every day I wonder how many Americans will die in Iraq before folks like Non Gay Parent will wonder whether it was such a good idea for the military to discharge so many Arab-speaking translators for being gay. Maybe in 6 or 8 years when it's Non Gay Parent's son returning from the Middle East in a body bag. But I'm not holding my breath.

anon · 3 years ago

Objective Dem said-

"This is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to impose their views on people who do not share their beliefs."

Give me a break.... Why is it that God fearing Christians who believe in the bible's teachings might be forced to accept gay rights and obey all these silly laws but then go to church and have faith in their religion that opposes homosexuals?

Talk about having extremists imposing their views on people who do not share their beliefs!

bbishere2 · 3 years ago

I will vote for it, not out of ignorance or fear of homosexuality per "Objective Dem" - Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice of deviant sexual behavior and as such, should not be put in the same category of marriage as in a man and a woman. Therefore I also believe that if two consenting adults want to live that lifestyle, it's their choice but they should not be allowed to adopt children and raise them in their supposed "normal" environment. It is far from that. There are other numerous reasonable objections to it including a plethora of financial and insurance-related reasons that would burden not only private industry but the government as well.
As far as morals and religious reasons - yes it is wrong. You people out there claiming to be Christian had better stand up and take a stand because the liberal left wing agenda is doing everything in their power, including the brainwashing of our school kids to breakdown not only the family environment but this country as a whole.

todd · 3 years ago

I will vote for the ban. Remember the bible.

Bridget Dooley · 3 years ago

Not in a million years would I vote to add discrimination to the constitution! This is hate and ignorance at its very worst.

I am surprised that more people have not mentioned the harm that this will cause unmarried, straight couples.

I am 100% behind the idea of the state issuing civil unions to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The government shouldn't be in the business of authorizing religious traditions.

For those of you who are against gay marriage, do you not realize that gay people have lifetime partnerships and are having families anyway? The only thing you would be voting against is to deny these people basic human rights.

Rights such as the right to see a loved one in the hospital when he/she is on his/her deathbed.

Rights like allowing a family to share a health insurance policy in a country where the cost of healthcare is already far too high.

Russ Feingold had it right when he spoke of Wisconsin's gay marriage referendum: it's MEAN, plain and simple.

Lovie's Leather · 3 years ago

Stop with this "hate and ignorance" talking-point crap. I am sick of hearing it. When cities ban smoking in bars, is that out of hate and ignorance? When the government sets a speed limit, is that out of hate and ignorance? When Bill O'Reilly critizes these judges that give serial child molesters 30 days in jail, is that out of hate and ignorance. Some people say, "You can't legislate morality." I would argue, morality is the only thing you can legislate. It is what Locke and Hobbes called a "social contract." We the people have decided that people have a right to life, liberty, and property. You can be as gay as you want in this country, that is your right, but does that mean that I am a hate-filled monster for not wanting two gays to get married? No, it is just my perogative that they probably shouldn't be allowed to get married (though still undecided on how I will vote). It is the same thing from the same crowd... they like to say, "Do not judge me," while they condemn me. It's MEAN, plain and simple (sarcasm).

Strawberry Pistachio Man · 3 years ago

You shouldn't legislate morality beyond don't do anything to somebody or their property without their consent. That's it.

Also, I agree that not all people against gay marriage are hate-filled. Some are just dumb or ignorant.

smh · 3 years ago

This is the strangest group of bloggers I've seen since yesterday's Pantagraph.

I made the "voice of reason" argument with my daughter and her husband about a month ago. They both agreed with me. Unfortunately, they live in a red state.

If it ever gets to the ballot, I will vote no. Let the state regulate civil issues and let churches decide who's unions can be blessed. I was married at the sangamon county courthouse and it wasn't blessed by any church.

Burn · 3 years ago

Hey Slash, using your reasoning you would vote AGAINST an amendment banning slavery of Africans, on the rationale that it did not ban slavery of, say, Serbian- or Czech-Americans. Nicely said.

Jethro · 3 years ago

If Gay Marriage is allowed, does this also mean that I get the right to marry two women if I choose? And they could both marry other men? And those men could marry other women as well?

Can I marry 19 women if I choose? If Gay Marriage is allowed, polygamy must also be allowed!

Also, could I marry my sister? or my mother? how about my grandmother? It is the same concept as gay marriage isn't it?

steve schnorf · 3 years ago

I probably won't vote to trifle with the Constitution.

ZC · 3 years ago

"If Gay Marriage is allowed, polygamy must be allowed!"

Err - why exactly?

Suppose in the 1940s and 1950s, somebody said, "If interracial marriage is allowed, then interspecies marriage must be made legal too!"

I think we'd all agree that's just an offensive and incorrect statement. The gays - polygamists link also seems incorrect and offensive to me. It seems more like a rhetorical strategy to scare people than a real argument with any coherent force. One moral core of modern-day marriage has always been the mutual commitment between two individuals. You could easily keep that essence, and just agree to let gays legally partake of it.

ZC · 3 years ago

Or to clarify: of _course_ law is all about morality. It seems to be the fear of opponents to gay marriage that, to permit gay marriage means that marriage no longer has a basis in morality, and thus everything has to be permitted, including polygamy.

The flaw in this argument lies in assuming that you can't draw a moral circle that includes gay marriage but that excludes polygamy. For the people who really consider homosexuality a sin something close to murder, I can see why they can't imagine this diagram. But that's a minority of the population, and an ever-shrinking one.

Lincoln Lounger · 3 years ago

I'm a Republican and not sold on gay marriage, but I think equal protection through civil unions or domestic partnerships is OK. Knowing who is behind it -- Roeser's band of malcontents, idiots, and bottom feeders -- I will vote against tinkering with the Constitution WITH RELISH in order to stick it to Jack Roeser, Peter LaBarbera, Doug Ibendahl, and all the other self- appointed God Squad who make the GOP look frightening and narrow to the typical Illinoisan.

Budget Watcher · 3 years ago

I'd like to see this amendment debate go away so I don't have to hear anymore from the self-righteous on one side and bigots on the other. Bigots are easy to dislike, while those who tell us how tolerant and compasionate they are - they just irritate me.

Jethro · 3 years ago

Now, why is gay marriage okay and not polygamist marriage? Why must you spread this hate? Being a polygamist is a lifestyle, just like being a homosexual.

It's not just an argument used, it's the truth. If you allow gays to marry, you must allow polygamists to marry... it's my right, right?

Disgusted · 3 years ago

For all you supporters of this ban on the belief that homosexuality is something new to the 20th and 21st centuries, don't bet the farm on that. It's been around since the beginning of recorded history and it also occurs in animals. If it's not hurting you in any way, leave it alone. It has nothing to do with the condition of or the future success of your marriage. That depends on you.

Also,Strawberry Pistachio Man, I also will not be voting for Repubs because of the condition they have this country in, but don't you see that Blago has the state in the same, if not worse, condition? Both men are egotistical, not very bright, money-grubbers, who surround themselves by some of the worst personalities in this country. And it appears that none of them saw a need to serve this country militarily, while, particularly in the case of the federal administration, having no problem sending other mothers' sons and daughters off to be killed. Add hypocritical to those descriptions, along with unethical.

Strawberry Pistachio Man · 3 years ago

Jethro, please stop being a moron.

The fact that an income tax exists doesn't mean 100% of income is taxed.

zatoichi · 3 years ago

"Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice of deviant sexual behavior and as such, should not be put in the same category of marriage as in a man and a woman." Genetic research is pointing a different direction. Still, there are millions of straight couples who engage in the exact same behaviors as gay couples. Are they equally deviant? Is the assumption that ALL gays are wildly out of control in their behavior while the high number of heteros doing the exact same behavior is acceptable. I guess the huge numbers of people who simply go about their lives, treat people decently, work hard, love their families, attend church, and support their communities can only be non gay. What someone does in their home with consenting adults is their business. I know, read my Bible for proper guidance. The stonings will start at 6:00pm and slavery is reinstated beginning Saturday.

NW burbs · 3 years ago

Anon wrote: "anon - Tuesday, Jun 27, 06 @ 7:32 pm:

Objective Dem said-

“This is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to impose their views on people who do not share their beliefs.”

Give me a break…. Why is it that God fearing Christians who believe in the bible’s teachings might be forced to accept gay rights and obey all these silly laws but then go to church and have faith in their religion that opposes homosexuals?

Talk about having extremists imposing their views on people who do not share their beliefs! "



Where in the Constitution does it indicate one American's religion trumps another's?

Not all religions practiced in the US -- indeed, not all Christian denominations -- believe in intolerance against gays.

Have you read the books of the Bible in their original Greek, Latin, etc texts? In context many of the passages referring to "homosexuality" in the modern English versions originally discussed prostitution.

Besides, if your church doesn't want to accept gays or marry gays nobody's saying they have to. That's a red herring if ever there was one.

But considering non-religious justices of the peace can also marry two people ... discriminating against gay marriage becomes a moot point.

-----

Jethro -- We're talking about marriage between two people who have committed to each other for the rest of their lives out of love.

Polygamy involves more than two people and it's clear there is no way for all the members of a polygamist relationship to be held equally in the relationship (unlike in a couple where the relationship's members are co-equal).

Completely different argument and your rants make no sense. In fact, since so many of the people against gay marriage are against it purely out of intolerance for the homosexuality involved, maybe that's why you're into heterosexual polygamy Jethro to, ya know, spread the hetero love.

----

All -- I found this Tribune article on a KKK reenactment in McHenry to be very interesting for this passage:

"A retired high school history teacher portrayed a local Klansman making a fictitious appearance before the Seneca Township Board in 1922. During last week's performance in front of an audience dressed in period clothing, the man sought permission for a meeting to recruit white, Protestant, native-born Americans into the KKK.

Enhancing the authenticity of what might have happened, the actor used a real prop, passing around a petition once circulated in McHenry County that supported a ban on interracial marriages.

Historians agree that confronting the unpleasant events of the past is one way to draw parallels to the present." (emph. added)

Hmm... what goes around comes around I guess.

T.J. · 3 years ago

For those of you who are against gay marriage, do you not realize that gay people have lifetime partnerships and are having families anyway? The only thing you would be voting against is to deny these people basic human rights.

No, the only thing I would be voting against is to deny them taxpayer subsidies.

Left Leaner · 3 years ago

I still can't understand why (the reasons) people are scared that gay marriage will tear apart American society? No one, in my opinion, has ever leveled a good, defensible position on this topic. In the end, it boils down to you're a bigot, or your not. There is no grey area on this.

NW burbs · 3 years ago

TJ, what subsidies? I'm married -- what subsidies do my wife and I enjoy?

What are you even talking about?

T.J. · 3 years ago

They can get a church ceremony and live together forever. The only thing missing is legal benefits, most of which are about tax.