Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[Nhoj]

Only one republican senator voted in favor, strangely hes not from the burbs but rather that rural area between the burbs and interstate 74. It dues include the college town of normal though.

[Benj]

Only one republican senator voted in favor, strangely hes not from the burbs but rather that rural area between the burbs and interstate 74. It dues include the college town of normal though.

IDK. He's fairly young, though (37). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Barickman

[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!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[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.

[angus]

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.

Registering disapproval is probably not as highly evolved as simply registering disagreement and rationally debating, but even that would be socially acceptable.  Shunning, on the other hand, is the sort of narrow-minded reactionary tactic that really hasn't any effective purpose on a board meant to stimulate political discussion and debate.

[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?

[Brittain33]

Registering disapproval is probably not as highly evolved as simply registering disagreement and rationally debating, but even that would be socially acceptable.  Shunning, on the other hand, is the sort of narrow-minded reactionary tactic that really hasn't any effective purpose on a board meant to stimulate political discussion and debate.

True, but conversely, as a legislator his opinions have far more of an impact on the lives of people with whom he disagrees, which means it's not a discussion of equals.

[angus]

Why not let the people vote?  ...

Can I vote on the validity of your personal relationship? ...

Well, if you're into Ross Perot's idea of direct democracy, then yes.  I'm actually not a fan.  I prefer the representative sort.  The whole point of having a legislature is so that we don't have to be bothered with this sort of thing.  The lege, in principle, has the time and resources to command studies of outcomes before voting on bills whereas the great unwashed masses often don't understand what they're voting for.  Still, in Maryland, for example, the binding referendum worked out to allow same-sex marriage.  I think there are good arguments for and against the binding popular referendum, in general, but I think that there are more good ones against it and in favor of having a legislative body, responsible to the voters every couple of years, to make law.

[Torie]

Hopefully Muon2 will take the time to explain his vote here, now that it is a matter of public record. Was it based on religious grounds, or some secular public policy ground, or just a reflection on the wishes of his constituents on a divisive social issue?

It will be interesting, because other than religion or political imperatives, it is hard I think for many of us to fathom just how someone so smart, analytical, and erudite, which a well developed "judicial temperament" and sense of fairness, would endorse second class status for gays on something so intimate and important to them.

In other words, it is just not a close case for us, yet the Muon we so respect and admire voted "wrong." It's puzzling. Hopefully Muon respects us enough to explain himself, and we should be courteous if and when he does I would hope.  

By the way, I searched the internets for some statement or quote from Muon on this, and came up empty. So it does not seem he was a high profile player on this. He may well have wished he had the flu on the day of the vote.

[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?

[TNF]

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.

Because human rights shouldn't be put to a vote. It's funny that you're with Stephen Douglas on the issue of letting people vote on someone else's human rights, Oldies.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hopefully Muon2 will take the time to explain his vote here, now that it is a matter of public record. Was it based on religious grounds, or some secular public policy ground, or just a reflection on the wishes of his constituents on a divisive social issue?

Are any of those reasons "wrong"?  Plus you fail to consider the legislation may have been poorly written.

I'm in favor of the bill, by the way.

[Torie]

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?

I know Muon2. He is a friend of mine. Muon2 has a lot more to offer than just being good at numbers.  And not that you said this, but not all positions with which you disagree are objectively "heinous."  Maybe having tolerance for others, and their opinions, with which you disagree, is a learned skill or something.

[Torie]

Hopefully Muon2 will take the time to explain his vote here, now that it is a matter of public record. Was it based on religious grounds, or some secular public policy ground, or just a reflection on the wishes of his constituents on a divisive social issue?

Are any of those reasons "wrong"?  Plus you fail to consider the legislation may have been poorly written.

I'm in favor of the bill, by the way.

Not to me, although on a issue of this importance, unless it would be political suicide, I would like to think that Muon2 would vote his conscience rather than politics, if that was what it was about. I respect religious convictions. 

Anyway, hopefully Muon2 will let us know, and that will be that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hopefully Muon2 will take the time to explain his vote here, now that it is a matter of public record. Was it based on religious grounds, or some secular public policy ground, or just a reflection on the wishes of his constituents on a divisive social issue?

Are any of those reasons "wrong"?  Plus you fail to consider the legislation may have been poorly written.

I'm in favor of the bill, by the way.

Not to me, although on a issue of this importance, unless it would be political suicide, I would like to think that Muon2 would vote his conscience rather than politics, if that was what it was about. I respect religious convictions. 

Anyway, hopefully Muon2 will let us know, and that will be that.

Agreed.  He'll tell us, but if he voted his convictions, I respect that, whether I agree or not.  A person who sticks to their principles is something refreshing in politics.  We'll find out, I'm sure.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Sadly and scarily, he's completely serious.

I'm sure one day he'll get kicked by a mule again and his brain will return from the 1650s.

Seriously, excessive stupidity should be an infractable offense.

AHR MA GOD somebody disagreed with me, 'dey must be stooooppppiiiidddd.

LOL. Did you read JCL's post, for Christ's sake?

I did. That is a legitimate opinion that I disagree with.

[Bacon King]

Wait, the IL House has already voted on this?

[Gamecock]

Somebody in an elected office posts here? Cool!

[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.

[Torie]

Wait, the IL House has already voted on this?

I just called Muon2's office to inquire, and Muon2 has not taken a position on the gay marriage bill, and will await the final product on which he will be asked to vote in the House (which may per whom I spoke fiddle with the language a bit) before making a final decision. I told the nice lady with whom I spoke the reason that I was inquiring, and she asked if I wanted to let Muon2 who was calling, and I gave her my name, and asked her to give to let him know that I called, and that I said hi.

So much of this is premature speculation. I do get the sense that Muon2 is just not chomping at the bit to have to vote on this puppy.  We shall see whether or not he becomes a "profile in courage" or not on this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Bacon King]

Wait, the IL House has already voted on this?

I just called Muon2's office to inquire, and Muon2 has not taken a position on the gay marriage bill, and will await the final product on which he will be asked to vote in the House (which may per whom I spoke fiddle with the language a bit) before making a final decision. I told the nice lady with whom I spoke the reason that I was inquiring, and she asked if I wanted to let Muon2 who was calling, and I gave her my name, and asked her to give to let him know that I called, and that I said hi.

So much of this is premature speculation. I do get the sense that Muon2 is just not chomping at the bit to have to vote on this puppy.   We shall see whether or not he becomes a "profile in courage" or not on this issue.

Ah, I was a bit confused because your last post seemed to indicate that he'd already voted against the bill.

Don't forget, of course, it's also entirely possible he'll just vote "Present"; I believe it's a bit of a tradition for Illinois legislators facing difficult votes.

[Torie]

FWIW, he seems to belong to a quite liberal Protestant sect. That is all I will say on that one.
Yes, I thought it was a done deal at first, from making erroneous inferences from other posts. So I thought I had better get the facts straight, and sooner rather than later. And I am rather skilled at trawling for facts.

[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.