-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2006/05/09/will-the-gay-marriage-amendment-impact-november/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
The group's director is quoted in the Trib. calling gay people an "infection". Creepy!
You don't have to be an oh-so-cleverly titled drum major, but you do have to care about everyone. But then, maybe your conductor does not let you.
Their efforts may impact some lower ballot races, but more encouragingly, the political influence of what Andrew Sullivan calls the "Christianists" -- Fundamentalists Christians with a political agenda (like Islamists) is on the decline. The Fundamentalists who work in their churches to get signatures would better spend their time feeding and clothing the poor, helping the homeless find shelter, and learning to love thy neighbor -- even the gay and lesbian ones -- as thyself.
This ballot petition is both unfair and unkind. It seeks to write discrimination into the state's constitution. And I still do not understand how my brother's marriage is harmed by allowing my sister to marry her girlfriend. I do understand how the efforts of LaBarbera and his sort hurt Illinois gay and lesbian families.
The difference is this: Conservatives want to tell everybody what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes. The other side wants to basically be left alone but afforded the same rights as everone else. I'd like to see a referendum that requires conservatives to mind their own business. Now that's a petition I would sign.
Both parties are working their voters, and this is how the Republicans are doing it. The Democrats have had run of the state and have used our budget to pay off their voters. Both sides are doing what they are supposed to do.
The Democrats will try everything they can to kill this ballot proposal. They will belittle it, insult the voters proposing it, call them narrow minded, try to throw out every signature, use their media hacks to attack it's integrity, slander them in blogs, and call them every name.
What they don't want is democracy. They are afraid that the voters they consider ignorant, mouth-breathing, pimpled, gun toting, Bible thumping, gap toothed, bigots will not be convinced by their brilliantly logical minds.
They also know that if it is on the ballot, they will lose big.
When you are talking about an election you are not talking about equality you are talking about the majority. One vote more than the other side and you win. What are you afraid of. Surly everyone thinks liberal ideas in Illinois will win out? After all is this not a Blue state? You should be proud to put all of your liberal ideas out for this Blue state to support. Why even worry about christians voting, please be proud of what your side stands for and tell us all! You have the majority in this Blue state, right?
"When you are talking about families you are not talking about a sex act. When talking about “gays†you are not talking about families, you are talking about a sex act."
This is the most absurd thing I have ever read.
You are ignorant and scary. Blue state, red state, who cares state? All I know is that conservatives are haters and intolerants and that they want to tell everybody what is good for them. Get off your moral high horse and get a life, loser.
What the devil are you talking about? In most cases, to create a family requires a sex act. Gay people are talking about being treated with the same rights and dignities that all people should be afforded and you're talking gibberish.
"I have a job and very good at it…. defeating Liberals, log track record."
You obviously do not work in Illinois.
When talking about "conservatives" who support this mean-spirited referendum effort you are not talking about sane people, you are talking about ragingly incoherent bigots. Basic but simple.
Thats very American of you. I know children raised by two loving people would turn out a lot better than a those being raised by hate filled bigots.
Divorce,turning around and getting married soon again as possible is the problem.
How can a gay couple in a civil union hurt a union joined by God between a man and woman.
This is a red herring issue.
Many families have gay members should they stoned them next?
When did Christ speak of the problems of gay life style?
And, last I checked, intrusive government regulation in private life is not a tenet of conservatism or Republicanism, so let's stop calling it that and thereby maligning true conservatives.
Obviously, state election political maneuvering is at play here, not any consideration of the issue per se.
Considering the issue would involve thoughtful analysis of why the state regulates and supports marriage in its current form--what are the benefits to the public good? and what are the possible benefits/harms of marriage for gays and lesbians? NOT from a religious standpoint, but from the standpoint of whatever impact we think state legislated marriage has now.
Really, it's pathetic. Their really are serious issues facing the state and the country, and when the right wing advocates for these tactics and issues that their priorities are totally different than those of average people.
Wow, you mustnhave been captain of your high school debate team!
You say: "Considering the issue would involve thoughtful analysis of why the state regulates and supports marriage in its current form–what are the benefits to the public good? and what are the possible benefits/harms of marriage for gays and lesbians? NOT from a religious standpoint, but from the standpoint of whatever impact we think state legislated marriage has now."
Our state law already prohibits gay marriage. The "true conservatives", bless their fragile hearts lest we malign them, are the ones behind this, even thought they are being manipulated by the GOP strategists. I am just surprised that the "Pro-lifers" left their vigil outside Planned Parenthood long enought to get these signatures.
What?
As a Christian, and a (gasp) Lesbian, as well as a Citizen, I'll be sure to pray for you, and defend your right to your opinion, your vote, and even your hatred, as long as it does not result in actual violence against other persons.
Good luck to you in your fight against the God-hating bigots trying to run the state.
Just for the record, I am not upset that the marriage definition clarification is on the ballot. That is a legitimate expression of a democratic society.
I am more upset when overall public policy is informed more by untempored emotion, religious fervor, and personal fear than it is by reason, evidence, and concern for everyone in our democratic society.
But that's just life in politics.
I hope God does not strike me down for not agreeing with the Conservative.
But--"conservative", are you a Unitarian? That's the religion of most of the "founding fathers."
Well since you put it that way you are right, everything you say is right! By the way, since you know Jesus can I get an autographed picture for my collection?
I'm a Republican who's never missed an election. What I cannot figure out is the wingnuts preach about wanting government to leave them alone, but they are the first ones peeking in windows and legislating their perceptions of morality. The perfect example was Terri Schiavo.
In a way, I feel sorry for the Peter LaBarberas of the world. They feel the earth slipping from beneath their feet, and they know the end is near.
...and especially to "The Conservative" for providing so much ripe, low-hanging fruit...I'm only human and the temptation is great...
That said, I am a gay man, Illinois born-and-raised, gainfully employed in the electronic media, vehemently patriotic and absolutely committed to the defense of my country and our many blessed liberties.
I support the notion of putting this issue before my fellow citizens. In the days to come, it will be incumbent upon me and like-minded persons to make our case. So, in the spirit of democracy and fairness and basic humanity, is it really too much to ask of "The Conservative" or other like-minded reader to take a moment to make a case...one citizen to another...to support a vote in favor of the referendum, should it come before us?
My standards are high: your case must be free of churlish, ad hominem argument and vituperation. And since I don't recognize cultural proscriptions, thousands of years beyond their relevance and proper context, as a valid impediment to my full participation as a citizen...you can put down that copy of the Old Testament. I can recognize circular reasoning for what it is, thank you very much...
So, I challenge you. Persuade me.
Oh, and do you remember when conservatives used to believe in things like "that government governs best which governs least" and "no deficit spending"? I do. It's funny that runaway government spending and excessive government restrictions on our private lives are the legacy of people like you that call themselves "conservatives". Conservative, ptuey.
My understanding is that the number of petitions submitted wasn't much above the minimum needed to qualify to be on the ballot.
No matter how hard you try to collect signatures of validly registered voters, a significant percentage will be found invalid if carefully scrutinized and legitimately challenged.
I am looking forward to volunteering on the petition challenge effort instead of just talking about it.
Now, "Conservative", where do you go to church? Not saying means you know that your church violates tax laws.
Last but not least, you are afraid to tell anyone what church you go to -- quite a profession of "faith".
I'll pray for you; I think that you need it much more than anyone targeted by that hurtful petition.
Tell me, what differentiates you from an Islamist, other than that they worship Allah and read the Koran while you worship God and apparently read some version of the Bible that I haven't ever seen (thou shalt go forth and register voters - is this the Pat Robertson translation of the Bible?)?
What about the Mormons? They don't really consider themselves Protestants or Christians, do they?
And the Catholics, well, some had to be involved -- that would be part of the Conservative Hispanic vote, now wouldn't it?
Must be hard to be a "conservative" Republican in a state that chose Topinka to be the Republican nominee for Guv. I'll bet somebody like, say, Mitt Romeny or John Ashcroft would be more to your liking. Or maybe Alan Keyes?
On this issue, you are part of the opposition. That doesn't make you a bad person. But I generally do not understand what kind of person would deny another what I think is an important human right and religious sacrament. Look, I can be baptised, confirmed, take communion in and be buried by just about any church that I would chose to join. And they will all take my money, trust me. But there are a lot who would not allow me to marry the partner of my choice.
And some churches are taking it a step further by doing things like passing this petition around. It's in my interests to know who those churches are, and what are their ties to politicians.
Thanks for the chat.
Yes, I might get kicked out of some churches after a period of time. I guess some believe that they are without sin and justified in pointing the finger and punishing those whom they believe to be sinners.
Some take it one step further and say that because you are gay, you cannot marry, and because you cannot marry, you cannot be sexually active. So, either be chaste and repent and join our church (ala ex-gay movement and gay bar visitor Jon Paulk), or burn in hell. All of that seems terribly inconsistent with the kind and loving God that I know, and the command that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Not letting same-sex couples marry seems to me to be denying them a basic political freedom and religious sacrament. As Dick Cheney said, "Freedom means freedom for everybody", and on that point, he is right.
Nice chatting with you. Now I REALLY must go.