Illinois Senate Passes Same-Sex Marriage

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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 does your religion get veto power over legal decisions?

[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.

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.

[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?

[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.

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?

That, my friend, is why I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will find all marriage laws unconstitutional in the next session.

[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.

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?

That, my friend, is why I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will find all marriage laws unconstitutional in the next session.

LOL.  Keep dreaming.

Also, you didn't answer the question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

Why should America be required to subscribe to the POV that same-sex marriage is good public policy?  Also, even if same-sex and opposite-sex marriage were treated the same here, why should the fact that you've married an American give you priority in immigration to this country?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

His district definitely doesn't include Wheaton, though it might've prior to redistricting, hence the confusion. The current district is basically the area that sits between Aurora and Elgin, straddling the DuPage/Kane border on both sides.

[Sbane]

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

His district definitely doesn't include Wheaton, though it might've prior to redistricting, hence the confusion. The current district is basically the area that sits between Aurora and Elgin, straddling the DuPage/Kane border on both sides.

Is it that socially conservative out there?

[Benj]

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?

Why should America be required to subscribe to the POV that same-sex marriage is good public policy?

Because there is literally zero evidence otherwise and a ton of evidence in favor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Totally unrelated debate? (Also, it's pretty obvious why--even if we don't care about the foreign member of the couple as such, we should pretty clearly support the relationship of the US citizen member of the couple by allowing unification of the couple.)

[Ebowed]

Why should America be required to subscribe to the POV that same-sex marriage is good public policy?

Because a majority of Americans support it?

I'm kidding, of course, in regards to the validity of that as a sound argument, but once you lose the cajones of having the popular opinion against same-sex marriage, that line of reasoning becomes antiquated.

Obviously, America 'subscribes' to whatever point of view the federal government provides it, and we only argue against the fashion in which it is prescribed (i.e. centrally) when we have no remaining credible defense.  Otherwise, we are left to pretending that the countries and states which have already adopted this policy are suffering from some type of catastrophic ruin.

[politicallefty]

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.

For many states, it did change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage in 16 states at the time was essentially that marriage was forbidden for mixed-race couples. Loving eliminated marriage laws on account of race. Even if you don't agree with constitutional protections when it comes to sexual orientation, same-sex marriage bans can easily be overturned on account of sex/gender discrimination. It is a completely fictional notion that marriage over the past couple thousand years has only been that of one man and one woman. If you think otherwise, you need to take some history and sociology classes.

[Brittain33]

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

His district definitely doesn't include Wheaton, though it might've prior to redistricting, hence the confusion. The current district is basically the area that sits between Aurora and Elgin, straddling the DuPage/Kane border on both sides.

I was looking at the IL house GOP vanity site and they must have had pre-redistricting maps.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why should America be required to subscribe to the POV that same-sex marriage is good public policy?

Because a majority of Americans support it?

I'm kidding, of course, in regards to the validity of that as a sound argument, but once you lose the cajones of having the popular opinion against same-sex marriage, that line of reasoning becomes antiquated.

Obviously, America 'subscribes' to whatever point of view the federal government provides it, and we only argue against the fashion in which it is prescribed (i.e. centrally) when we have no remaining credible defense.  Otherwise, we are left to pretending that the countries and states which have already adopted this policy are suffering from some type of catastrophic ruin.

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.

Also, even if same-sex and opposite-sex marriage were treated the same here, why should the fact that you've married an American give you priority in immigration to this country?

Totally unrelated debate? (Also, it's pretty obvious why--even if we don't care about the foreign member of the couple as such, we should pretty clearly support the relationship of the US citizen member of the couple by allowing unification of the couple.)

Why is it pretty clear?  A policy to oppose such relationships would be a way to end the practice of mail-order brides.  So long as we choose to have a limited amount of immigration, might there not be ways more productive to our country to choose who we allow to immigrate than who wins the lottery of love?  Indeed, if we ended marriage preferences and went by skills and aptitudes, it sounds like afleitch would likely already have his green card.  And of course, if we didn't have numerical limits on immigration (or at least no limits on those who speak English) then he'd have no problems at all coming here.

[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.

[Brittain33]

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

[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.

[Torie]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

Well I was thinking of the argument that "legalizing gay marriage imposes on my rights to define marriage just like my banning gay marriage for religious reasons imposes on your rights, it's all the same" rather than being ok with people who disagree with you... 

[Torie]

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.

Well I was thinking of the argument that "legalizing gay marriage imposes on my rights to define marriage just like my banning gay marriage for religious reasons imposes on your rights, it's all the same" rather than being ok with people who disagree with you... 

Yes, well that argument does leave something to be desired doesn't it?  I certainly agree of course that the issue of legalizing gay marriage is not a close case from a public policy perspective. It's not like the issue of how best to effect health care services in this country.

[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. 

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

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.

Huh.  I thought you did move to the US.  I was wondering why you'd choose Pennsylvania of all places.

[Torie]

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. 

Yes, you (well I see you used the royal "we"), see right through me Memphis. Of course that is what I was chatting about with Brittain33. Of course! Have a nice day.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.  What you are arguing for is that same-sex marriages be given the same state privileges that opposite-sex marriages are, and only a few states do that at present.  Of course I come at this from the perspective of someone who rejects the concept of "positive rights" that is, that the state is morally obligated to do certain things on behalf of its citizens.  The actions associated with the so-called positive rights are generally good public policy, but I don't consider them rights as I do what are often called the negative rights which involve the government leaving people alone to do their own thing.

At most, one can argue that government should offer the same benefit levels to both same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages, but that presumes that marriage is solely a relationship contract between two adults and hence it is impossible for there to be a substantial difference between the two that would create a valid state interest in treating the two differently.  By and large opponents of granting same-sex marriages the same benefits as opposite-sex marriages reject that presumption, tho the way opposite-sex marriage is treated under the law these days, that is a difficult argument to make.  However, to be fair, those opponents generally would like to revert the marriage laws to the days when that argument could be fairly made.

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.

To paraphase an old song concerning marriage, "Morality and religion, you can't have one without the other."  But then it is clear you see morality as an objective truth and that any religion that does not share your morality cannot possibly be moral.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I'm all for returning to more generally treating adultery as a crime.  If you want to engage in a relationship either side can abandon at will without cost, well then that's not a marriage as far as I'm concerned and it certainly should not get the state benefits that are provided marriage. (Just to be clear, since there are varying definitions of adultery, my definition requires one of the participants be married. Fornication between consenting adults should not be a crime.)

There are also some solid social benefits to having a day on which non-essential work is not done, tho I will agree that stoning is an excessive penalty for not doing so. Tell me, does your opposition to sabbath laws include an opposition to California's law mandating that employees be paid time-and-a-half overtime for working on a seventh straight day, even if their total work week remains under forty hours, or are you selectively anti-sabbath?

Also to be fair, in those Biblical days of weak state authority, social sanctioned mob violence probably was the only way such socially desirable goals as preventing adultery or keeping people from working excessively could be achieved. This doesn't bother me too much, since I don't worship a book as if it were God and thus consider the Bible to be a work of ethnic and religious history written by men rather than an inerrant and unchanging set of guidelines for how human society should be organized for all time.

[Brittain33]

Ever since Lawrence v. Texas. everyone throughout the United States has had the right to be in a same-sex marriage.  So the right to be married is not what you are arguing for.

That is an absurd semantical argument. You define marriage a certain way, but many of us as well as the various U.S. legal codes define it another way, and the latter definition is what matters for public policy.

Besides, I do not have the right to be in a same-sex marriage according to the Catholic definition of marriage, and I am not fighting for that right.

[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.