Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[memphis]

Is JCL trolling or serious? It's impossible to tell. It's a lot like the update. Sometimes you just have to play along.

[memphis]

How did muon vote? He needs some serious shunning if he voted against again.

[memphis]

Isn't he in the House?

I thought he was, yes.

My error. Anyhow, if he votes no, I will shun. I encourage others to do the same.

[memphis]

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.

Can I vote on the validity of your personal relationship? Furthermore, why bother having a legislature if all controversial votes are left to the public? And a major LOL@angus's suggestion that support for gay marriage would elect a member to my state House seat. It's overwhelmingly rich suburban Southerners. It's at least R+20, consisting mostly of country clubbers who hate a gay just as a poor. My senate seat is a much better fit. At least D+20. Much like TN-9, it's a mostly ghetto district that miraculously elects a white liberal without any trouble every time. Senator Kyle supports marriage in all but name. He's supports adoption, legal benefits, and all the rest. Theoretically, somebody with enough name recogniton among the blacks could knock him off in the primary, but it would probably take a major endorsement to get that far.

[memphis]

Being talented at math does not in any way negate injustice that muon has supported in the past. What other sort of heinous positions do people think mathematics can justify. Burkhas? Sexual slavery? Wrongful incarceration? Would we overlook any member's support for these policies because of a numbers talent?

[memphis]

This is not Saudi Arabia. Policy makers do not get to impose their religious beliefs on the public. If they cannot accept this, they have no business being policy makers in this great nation.  And voting against marriage equality is indeed heineous. Being muon's pal does not negate this. I'm sure he has many redeeming qualities. People are nothing if not complex. But, again who would defend a legislator protecting any of the other human rights issues I brought up? Those who defend him or deny the significance of the issue are just as guilty as he is.

[memphis]

This is not Saudi Arabia. Policy makers do not get to impose their religious beliefs on the public. If they cannot accept this, they have no business being policy makers in this great nation.

How is being opposed to same-sex marriage a religious belief and being in favor of it is not?  They are both religious beliefs memphis.  It just is that one of them is yours.

Opposing gay marriage need not be a religious based position. It's just that this is usually the reason given. If one feels this way because of non-religion induced spite toward gays, obviously my point does not apply. My grounds for supporting gay marriage have absolutely nothing to do with any religious principles. I support it because it is a just policy. Are you arguing that every political belief is a "religion?" That's a rather silly perversion of the term.

[memphis]

Religious precepts spill over into public policy decisions all the time, Memphis. Not all public policy issues of course, but that certainly is the case with the gay marriage issue, just like abortion, where many, based on religious leaps of faith, vest a fetus with full human status and rights at conception.

And that is also an inappropriate act by policy makers. Our legal code is not a religion and it should not aspire to follow one. And I think it is particularly amusing that you, of all people, are carrying your party's water on the issue. A chicken defending Col Sanders. Politics has certainly given you a strange bedfellow.

[memphis]

My grounds for supporting gay marriage have absolutely nothing to do with any religious principles. I support it because it is a just policy. Are you arguing that every political belief is a "religion?" That's a rather silly perversion of the term.

If you're arguing for a particular position because it is the moral thing to do, then yes, you are inserting religion into it.  I'm not saying that morality should be kept out of politics.  Even if such a thing were possible, I don't think I'd care to live in a country that did.  I have no problem with you basis your politics on your sense of morality, so long as you don't bash others for doing the same. Go ahead and bash what you view as a warped sense of morality, but not that they are using it.

I'm very pleased that you have deemed all of my political positions a "religion." I'll keep that in mind when I file my taxes next year. Apparantly, I'm the head of a religion of one. And I haven't been reaping the financial dividends. I'll be sure to file suit against the government every time they do something I don't like with my tax money. Locking up non violent drug offenders sincerely goes against my principles. Attack on my religion of one! Call the ACLU!!! 

[memphis]

Religious precepts spill over into public policy decisions all the time, Memphis. Not all public policy issues of course, but that certainly is the case with the gay marriage issue, just like abortion, where many, based on religious leaps of faith, vest a fetus with full human status and rights at conception.

And that is also an inappropriate act by policy makers. Our legal code is not a religion and it should not aspire to follow one. And I think it is particularly amusing that you, of all people, are carrying your party's water on the issue. A chicken defending Col Sanders. Politics has certainly given you a strange bedfellow.

Sorry, we will just have to disagree on this one. I agree with True Federalist's point of view here, which he has elucidated quite well I think. I do admit that I have a bias against demeaning folks for their beliefs held in good faith. It takes a lot for me to go there. There but for the grace of God go I, as it were. Hopefully a fundamentalist Christian or whatever, will in turn not demonize me personally because I favor gay marriage. It goes both ways. It is all about civility really.

I have demeaned nobody, and I rather take exception to your claim that I have. Demeaning somebody is an ad hominem attack.  All I have done is point out the inconsistencies of selectively using religion as a tool with which to persecute others. And doing so is not contrary with a basic sense of civility. You seem to imply that any belief is ok with you, even when it strongly impacts the lives of others, so long as it is strongly and sincerely held. And we all know that is an absurdity.

[memphis]

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.

Why is it any less legitimate than your moral support for homosexual marriage? I assume you support it because you find if morally wrong to deny "equal" rights to others. Religion guides the morals of many people and should not make them morally inferior or "weak" to those that oppose them.

I can't answer for Andrew but religion is fundamentally a less legitimate reasoning for a legal debate because we do not live in a theocracy. But assuming the Bible were the guiding legal basis, should all commerce be illegal on the Sabbath as well? Should the government tell every business owner in America than any transactions he makes on the sabbath are legally void? The same religious texts are pretty clear that going shopping on the seventh day (though it's never clear which day is the seventh) is grave violation, much more so than issues of marriage, which in Biblical times was between a man and as many women as he could afford to collect.

[memphis]

Religious precepts spill over into public policy decisions all the time, Memphis. Not all public policy issues of course, but that certainly is the case with the gay marriage issue, just like abortion, where many, based on religious leaps of faith, vest a fetus with full human status and rights at conception.

And that is also an inappropriate act by policy makers. Our legal code is not a religion and it should not aspire to follow one. And I think it is particularly amusing that you, of all people, are carrying your party's water on the issue. A chicken defending Col Sanders. Politics has certainly given you a strange bedfellow.

Sorry, we will just have to disagree on this one. I agree with True Federalist's point of view here, which he has elucidated quite well I think. I do admit that I have a bias against demeaning folks for their beliefs held in good faith. It takes a lot for me to go there. There but for the grace of God go I, as it were. Hopefully a fundamentalist Christian or whatever, will in turn not demonize me personally because I favor gay marriage. It goes both ways. It is all about civility really.

I have demeaned nobody, and I rather take exception to your claim that I have. Demeaning somebody is an ad hominem attack.  All I have done is point out the inconsistencies of selectively using religion as a tool with which to persecute others. And doing so is not contrary with a basic sense of civility. You seem to imply that any belief is ok with you, even when it strongly impacts the lives of others, so long as it is strongly and sincerely held. And we all know that is an absurdity.

Torie: "It takes a lot for me to go there."

I am going to criticize you on this Memphis. You just don't read texts very closely. I chose my words quite carefully. I usually do. I get paid a lot for fashioning them. Sure, if someone held sincere beliefs that I find beyond the pale, malum per se, such as say, to be extreme, re-instituting slavery, etc., or course that reflects negatively on the character of the person.

To suggest that close to half the nation, often due to the views of mainstream religions, whose guidance they take seriously, on an issue where the status quo has gone their way since rocks cooled, are morally execrable and should be shunned, is at once intolerant and does not comport at all with a civil society in my opinion. And it about just the worst way possible to win friends and influence people. They will get their back up, and before you know it, it is more about the advocate's style or actions than the issue itself.

Oh, and you don't think advocating shunning someone as beyond the pale on this issue, if he votes "wrong," in t
his case a legislator who is held in about the highest possible regard on this forum by most, for good reason, is anything other than but demeaning? OK, whatever. I do.

I'm done. You get the last word.

Do you not think that slavery also has existed since rocks cooled? And was supported by half the nation? Also on the basis of mainstream religious beliefs? And none of those things made it right. And I absolutely would advocate shunning somebody who voted in a legislature to maintain slavery even if he were a buddy. That doesn't make me a follower of a religious belief. It makes me a person of independent moral judgement, which is the exact opposite of religion. I will not be intimidated into giving implied approval to those who cause real harm to others. And I'm very well aware that you are well paid. You do so enjoy reminding the masses of that critical fact.

[memphis]

I don't see anybody objecting to same sex marriage on moral grounds. Instead people are saying it's against my religion. Those are not even close to the same argument. Should divorce be illegal as well? The Bible is very clear about its immorality. Commerce on the Sabbath? Adultery? If you want to give a plausible explanation for how allowing gays to wed will harm people, then you have something. Until then, you're just trying to impose shariah on the rest of us. In a way that is absurdly selective and arbitrary.

[memphis]

This is going down the path of "you're intolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance."
The two situations are not comparable.

It is kind of a matter of degree isn't it?  The more issues where one side views the other as vile, the more dysfunctional and caustic we become. I must admit that as I age I am getting more tolerant. I guess it is a function of life experience or something. I am just more relaxed when folks take the other side of issues from me. Sure, defeat them at the polls, but I don't loathe them.

You keep reading personal attacks where none exist. This is a matter of a public policy loophole causing individuals great harm, but nothing else. It sincerely looks as if you're creating the strawman just to make yourself look wise and noble in comparison. I'm sure we're all very impressed. 

[memphis]

I find your notion that morality and religion must be innately conjoined both puzzling and offensive. Just to be clear, you are saying that those who chose not to affiliate are, by definition, immoral? Morality need not be objective but, to be at all meaningful, must be based on some sort of cognition. Blindly accepting an institution like religion (which does see morality as objective) is a completely amoral act (though not necessarily an immoral one). There's no ethics involved. It's just a statement of faith, neither good nor bad. But, again, all of this matters little to our nation"s laws, which, if imperfectly so, are grounded in reason and debate, not institutionalized belief systems. Otherwise, why have a government at all. Just give it all to the Pope or the Ayatollah or whoever and let him handle it all. Would be a lot simpler and tidier. As for your suggestion that adultery be made a crime, I salute your attempt to be consistent in your quest for Divine Right Christianism, but I think you'll find it unsuitable in practice. The public has become much accustomed to their limited freedom from your institutionalized belief system, and would not take on that yoke again. In any case, the adulterers are so numerous that they would overwhelm the legal system, which is already quite overloaded. As for California's law, it makes little difference to me, how the create their wage system so long as it is applied equally to all people. I'm certainly not opposed to days off But I would object if the reason for its existence were a thin religious veil, conveniently used to hurt people. This is obviously not the case.