Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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.

Yeah, thanks, I thought it was done and so did memphis, and perhaps b33 and angus, but I can't tell.

[Torie]

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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[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!!! 

[angus]

I thought it was done and so did memphis, and perhaps b33 and angus,

I didn't think anything was done other than a poster saying we should shun another poster.  That's all I responded to.  I have not claimed to know one way or the the other how muon2 will vote on this issue.  I only say that however he votes, he is a good poster and I will not shun him.

[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.

[Sbane]

This pretty much sums up my opinion of most anti-gay rights people and where they are coming from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b92vAucJg2Y

[angus]

Anyone who uses religion as shield or a staff to oppose granting rights to their fellow man is weak.

No more less so than anyone who uses his personal moral philosophy as a shield to excuse his self-ordained privilege to punish those who don't vote the way he does.

What rights have their fellow man?  The right to vote his or her conscience?  Is that not a right?  The right to voice his or her objections to any policy?  In a transparent and democratic system, are these also not rights?  We should not confuse this issue with the travails of Oscar Wilde.  We are merely discussing a poster's right to have an opinion that differs from ours. 

If we are discussing a legislators duty to vote in a manner he feels is just, even if he does not vote the way we might vote on this issue, then we can discuss campaigning against him.  But we must not conflate a campaign against a legislator with the right to bully a forum poster.

[Gamecock]

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.

What people view as moral guides a lot of today's law, it's not somehow barbaric because you don't like what their morals lead them to conclude. I don't even see a "practical" reason for gay marriage, the only argument you can make for it is a moral one.

[Sbane]

Why don't you see a practical reason for gay marriage?

[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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

It is a popular opinion, which is sad, but I know plenty of intelligent people who oppose gay marriage for strictly religious reasons. Personally, I see no reason why gay marriage cannot be reconciled with Christianity. Even my Southern Baptist church officially supports it.

[Torie]

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 this 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.

[DemPGH]

Well, good for Illinois, and I hope the House passes it as well.

On this religious issue, people will have their reasons for voting however they do, but if we're in a  situation where elected people are voting this way or that way based overtly upon their religious beliefs (abortion, gay rights, etc.), that to me is very clearly a Church / State breach, and a grave one. It may, I stress may, also be a religious test breach. That practice should be censurable, and perhaps more, because a religion is much more than a belief system.

[Likely Voter]

not sure why this needs to be said, but...religion and morality are not the same thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

And what should be a "right"?  Should state-recognized marriage with state-enforced privileges, whether for straights or gays, be a right?  Is couplehood alone the only basis on which marriage should be recognized by the state?

My own personal view is that marriage generally receives too many state privileges these days as a hold over from the days when one of the pair involved was considered legally inferior to the other and thus those privileges served as a means of protecting the inferior member of the pairing.  I rather doubt that in your own marriage that either of you considers himself to be inferior to the other.

Since I doubt that the state will get out of providing benefits to married people anytime soon the next best thing from my own sense of morality is to have the state recognize a marriage between any two people.  However, I won't be so arrogant as to think that I'm not imposing my own sense of morality on others in doing so.

[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.

[Iosif]

The two Illinois house representatives from districts that include Wheaton are women...or am I looking at the wrong map?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

  I only say that however he votes, he is a good poster and I will not shun him.

I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person and see what he posts here....he's a good man, no matter how he votes.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

Would you have approved of "letting the people decide" on the Civil Rights Act in the South?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

Not even the Democrats deny that the Tea Party has done some good things.

[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.

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.