Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[afleitch]

Wonderful news Hope it passes the House.

[afleitch]

Anyway, that's not how it works.  If you don't like the way an assemblyman votes, then vote him out.

On a forum where he chooses to engage with people and acknowledge his public office, those people are welcome to engage with him and return and disapprove of his votes. That is "how it works," too.

That said, his district includes Wheaton College. I expect he will vote against marriage equality, I don't know or care whether it is out of conviction or so not to pick a pointless fight with his primary voters, and because I value his contributions on apolitical matters, I would be happiest just not thinking about how he makes his public stand on the issue.

As you said, he's responsible to his voters and not to us on his views. He can stand by that. I just hope that if he chooses to discuss this vote here, he doesn't cite arguments about fraud that are beneath him. And if he doesn't think he can have a constructive conversation here about his vote, not to engage on the issue.

I tend to agree. If he votes against it, for whatever reason, I'd rather he doesn't discuss it here because the last time he tried to justify his vote against the civil union bill he sounded both irrational in reasoning and too much like a politician for comfort!

[afleitch]

Uh-oh… this is not good.  Why not let the people vote?  And this is a classic example of how ideology hacks in the GOP, including the Tea Partymovement, have damaged America.   If it weren't for them nominating an unelectable candidate like Bill Brady to run against Quinn, Jim Ryan would be governor today, and although he's more liberal/moderate on social issues, he might have vetoed this bill.

Once 'putting it to a vote' stops getting the result you want (which is starting to happen already) what will you be advocating then? You also know that at the time of Loving v Virginia support for interracial marriage according to Gallup was around 20%. Should inter-racial marriages have been put to a vote?

[afleitch]

On the question of religion in general, though this is going wildly off topic. Anyone who uses religion as shield or a staff to oppose granting rights to their fellow man is weak. It's a weak argument used by weak men particularly when faced with people they know who loose out because of this every day. There's no strength or courage there and I can never respect it.

[afleitch]

Uh-oh… this is not good.  Why not let the people vote?  And this is a classic example of how ideology hacks in the GOP, including the Tea Partymovement, have damaged America.   If it weren't for them nominating an unelectable candidate like Bill Brady to run against Quinn, Jim Ryan would be governor today, and although he's more liberal/moderate on social issues, he might have vetoed this bill.

Once 'putting it to a vote' stops getting the result you want (which is starting to happen already) what will you be advocating then? You also know that at the time of Loving v Virginia support for interracial marriage according to Gallup was around 20%. Should inter-racial marriages have been put to a vote?

Loving v. Virginia didn't change the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, either.  Give homosexuals the rights, but don't define something as a marriage that my religion says is not.

Why should your religion affect public policy to stop me being being able to join my husband in America when neither of us subscribe to it?

[afleitch]

But afleitch wasn't arguing that we should recognize same-sex marriage because a majority support it.  Both he and memphis are arguing that the moral thing to do would be to have the government recognize same-sex marriage while at the very same time decrying that those who are objecting to the policy on moral grounds.  Since I don't think they have been consciously realizing what they have been doing here, (Indeed, it seems memphis still doesn't.)  I would characterize their thoughts there as irony rather than as hypocrisy. They are doing the very same thing they are castigating the opponents of their position of doing, treating their morality as objective reality. It's their method of castigation I'm opposing here, not the policy they want.

I don't actually mind if people object to gay marriage. I just disdain at them wishing public policy to reflect their opposition to it rather than allowing it to co-exist. Many faiths have issues against divorcees remarrying and do not allow it, yet the state does. 14% of Americans still oppose interracial marriage; a sizeable minority. They can still choose personally not to marry or to recognise them, but the state does. Those are examples of differing and in one example abhorrent views on marriage still being allowed to exist within a larger system. Now we have same sex couples who are attracted to their same sex partner in the same manner as opposite couples are attracted to their partner and they wish to marry to express their love and to be granted the same rights as other couples. Many religious groups want to be allowed to celebrate those marriages too and provide a sense of stability to people's lives.

On the matter of immigration, I don't want to 'jump the queue'; I have no desire to move to the USA at present but I want to be able to do so under the same conditions as a man and a woman can, that is all.