Chicagoist: Will Illinois Get a Gay Marriage Amendment?

prsteve11

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:58:30 -0600

I sure hope this advisory referendum gets enough signatures to be on the ballot. The people NEED to weigh in on this important issue. I know that many liberals in Chicago won't like it but it's only right that we put it to a vote. We can't trust the politicians or the judges on this issue and the Democratic-controlled Illinois government (which is terrifically lame) refuse to put it to the voters in their own right. Therefore, let's be sure to let the voters weigh in on the issue!

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:37:01 -0600

"Where is the party of the socially centrist and fiscally conservative person?" The question that I, and many of my friends and coworkers, have been asking for years. And you are right, unfortunately, about the Dems being the best bet on this front right now--as sad as that fact is. God help us. Try this: The conservatives of the last 8 years are really radical reactionaries, or reactionary radicals, or something like that.

dopplerd

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:23:02 -0600

Spav1: You've articulated exactly my point (better infact). There are a lot of people who call themselves "Republicans" (I think it is fair to bring them in since the web site for this group lists the IL Republican party as one of its sponsors) but their party has left them. Where is the party of the socially centrist and fiscally conservative person? I'd argue that the Dems fit the bill much better than the current republican leadership. Also I just like pointing out the hypocrisy in the current conservative thinking.

plumbum82

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:01:44 -0600

Weirdly enough, there are quite a lot of democrats who support stuff like this. Such as the guy sponsoring the bill, apparently. I used to work for a congressional candidate in Nevada who was pretty liberal (for Nevada) and still had a central campaign platform of a constitutional amendment to "protect marriage". He lost. Thank god. He would have been terrible. But I'm just a lowly political mercenary.

Slaphappy

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:55:16 -0600

I am 100% in support of legalizing gay marriage. Marriage is nothing more than a legal partnership that affords the two people in said partnership certain rights and privileges -- including, but not limited to, access to spousal benefits and spousal privilege in court. Defining the genders of the two people is inherently discriminatory -- imagine the outcry if business partnerships had to adhere to this same idea. The main argument, if you can call it one, that I hear from people against my way of thinking goes along the lines of "well, what about polygamy? or marrying a child? or a dog?", which any reasonable person would see is blind hysteria masked as a valid point. Polygamy is out of the question because it's no longer a partnership. Limiting a partnership to two people is not discriminatory. Children don't have legal authority to consent to marriage, so that argument also doesn't hold up. And an animal? Surely, one must be joking. And when it comes to raising children, there's never been a shred of proof that children raised by gay parents turn out any different, sexually or otherwise, than straight parents. But sadly, if this amendment were put up to popular vote, it would absolutely pass, because gays and lesbians aren't respected in this country.

dopplerd

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:54:42 -0600

Sorry Matilda, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. The anti-gay marriage people always couch their anti-gay marriage rhetoric in down-the-slippery-slope terms. Thought I'd see how that played here. Ward Up: Michigan passed a similar constitutional amendment to the one proposed here a few years ago so things like this are not limited to the deep south. I know MI is not IL but there are many similarities especially out side of Chicago.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:47:31 -0600

@Dop: "Aren't conservatives the ones always harping for less government intrusion into our lives?" You are thinking pre Bush v. Gore (2000) my friend. That decision turned the paradigm on its head. GOP arguing for federal intervention into a state issue, Dems arguing that the state re-count should go on as long as possible. It's nuts. And not with Bush's preemption doctrine, "conservatives" will be able to whip up any number of reasons to tax and spend.

Pinko

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:29:15 -0600

...and for future generations of children. I think the wise and venerable Jack Handey said it best when he opined: "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex."

Kevin Robinson

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:27:47 -0600

dopplerd: Amen about the eye of a needle. Maybe a constitutional amendment ending the death penalty?

Ward Up

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:27:37 -0600

Far-right Republicans are doing this. However, Illinois has many moderate Republicans (including me) who see these Bible-thumpers as silly and pathetic. Thus, there's no way this will never pass. Did they forget that this is Illinois and not Alabama?

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:23:44 -0600

"Next they will be calling to fire up the sewing machines and the pink triangles." Give me a fucking break--you really expect a situation that involves death camps operated by the federal governement and laws barring gays from holding jobs or appearing in public after certain hours? That's idiotic melodrama.

1905B

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:14:49 -0600

"...for future generations of children..." Nothing better than the focus-group-approved use of children to put forth an argument.

dopplerd

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:12:49 -0600

One more thing: Aren't conservatives the ones always harping for less government intrusion into our lives? Next they will be calling to fire up the sewing machines and the pink triangles.

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:12:45 -0600

Plum: No problem. I guess tone can be hard on the Internet, especially when I am usually trying to bite someone's head off. I was simply curious, that's all.

plumbum82

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:08:09 -0600

@Matilda: Nevermind, I take it back.

dopplerd

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:06:54 -0600

As a Christian things like this send me through the roof. Who is Ms. Deutsch (I think the "t" a typo) to define what a marriage is? Jesus never married, in fact he spent his whole adult life hanging out with a bunch of guys! When I read the Bible it is pretty explicit about the whole not murdering thing but the conservatives love going to war. They must have to find another way to clear their conscience. There is also some thing about the eye of a needle, but I digress... People who are currently married (and presumable not gay {Larry Craig I'm thinking of you}) are doing a fine job of desecrating the institution of marriage with all of the cheating and abusing their spouse that goes on now. My two favorite quotes on this topic are: "Who is worried that I'm going to see a gay married couple walking down the street, say 'I've got to get me some of that,' divorce my wife and marry a man?" Al Franken "If religious folks really want gays to stop having sex, let them get married." Dan Savage

simplecreature

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:06:34 -0600

*Sniff* Smell that kids? Election season in the breeze. The conservatives are terrified they're going to lose more seats in congress, need to stir up the base, get that hateful, homophobic blood flowing. Anyone supporting this would do well to go read some of the articles regarding "race-mixing" from decades past. Same arguments being used. http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html Fucking breeders.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:06:00 -0600

Plum: She wasn't disagreeing with me, she was attempting to draw me out further on an issue which she maybe didn't totally grasp my stance on, I explained and she appreciated the effort. Duh, today is an even day, which means I am agreeing with Matilda.

plumbum82

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:55:08 -0600

@Matilda: Are you just disagreeing with Spav just because its Spav? You're on the same side of the fence on this issue, let it go... @Pinko +1

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:53:24 -0600

Spav: Thanks. Interesting points. Just curious.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:48:56 -0600

I think they made the amendment process rigorous and difficult for a reason, such as. I think it is just generally not a good idea to add on, look at the Pandora's Box the Reconstruction Amendments unleashed. So yeah, while they ended slavery, they also planted the seeds for every privacy case ever argued before the Court, culminated 100 yrs later in Roe v. Wade. Unintended consequences. Also: studies have been shown that the longer textually Constitutions are, the shorter their effective duration. Our Constitution has only 4400 words, making it one of the shorter documents in the world.

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:30:43 -0600

"you NEVER fuck with Consitutions unless the Supreme Court MAKES you." This just a side note, but does this mean you don't agree with the amendement process as set forth in various constitutions, including the federal one?

peteypants

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:20:27 -0600

it's cool to hear how people on chicagoist are so against this group. why couldn't the post included a better photo than those lame flowers, though. two guys in wedding dresses making out, perhaps?

matilda

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:14 -0600

Simple solution: If you don't like gays, don't live by them or associate with them. No one forces you to live in Boys Town. Or to watch Bravo. (That said, gays and their friends must accept that people are free to hate gays and/or homosexuality as long as no crimes are involved. That will never go away, as gays will always be a minority.) I'm still waiting for a divorced person to come forth and claim he or she couldn't remain married anymore because those darn homos up and ruined the glorious institution of matrimony. Anyone? Fucking religious nuts.

Spav1

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:16:06 -0600

@Pinko: hahaha. Seriously though, the problem with using language like that, that is so parochial, is that legally, it isn't specific enough. "One man and one woman", how does that treat transgender people who have had sex reassignment? Or what about a man who wants to marry a female horse? I mean really. Do we want to amend our constituion so that it reads: "Marriage can only exist between one human man and one human woman, who were legally born as such, and not including relatives or other species." Seriously retarded. I am going to my baseline on this: you NEVER fuck with Consitutions unless the Supreme Court MAKES you. Unless of course we are talking about slavery, or prohibition.

Pinko

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:10:48 -0600

We let gay people vote??

ThisGuy

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:03:15 -0600

Hell, while we're at it why don't we just take away the gays right to vote? then we can pass this no problem. What a stupid idea.

plumbum82

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:34:08 -0600

I totally want marriage to only be between a man and woman! Also, I think we should bring slavery back, prohibition was a good idea, and when someone takes my picture, the camera steals a little bit of my soul.

Dig

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:34:04 -0600

"What does Big Daddy always say?" "Bull, Big Momma. He says bull"

AvidMilkDrinker

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:20:14 -0600

What a sad waste of time and effort. With all the real problems we have as a country these people are running around scared of gay people. God forbid we tolerate homosexuality lest we catch The Gay ourselves!