If Dillard makes it through the primary, he will regret that photo of him speaking at that rally with the sign behind him saying, “Homosexual marriage is an abomination.” Talk about looking backward and intolerant.
There was a time that such speech would repel all Americans.
There was a time that differences were not rooted in hate, but rooted in both sides making an arguement, and trying to make the best arguement to sway those with honest questions for both sides.
There was a time that the Middle scoffed at the Left and the Right.
Now. Now is the time that such speech rallies citizens of both the Left and the Right like moths to Light, so the echo chambers make those who speak in those tones feel better.
Now. Now, if your arguement is not rooted in a distain towards someone or some group, then you are not making any arguement valid, no matter how the facts make them so.
Now. Now, The Left’s and the Right’s anger towards the middle reminds me of the poilitcal spectrum that shows the Far Right and the Far Left almost “touch” in that cirualar Prism, and neither can see how their similar tactics for different “ends” make the Middle completely sick.
The worst of this issue in the last two days has been on display. That is the most disappionting of all.
1. It’s too bad Dillard gave up trying to win an election in November. I won’t be voting for him in the primary since his double down against equality.
2. Just because some people don’t think an issue is a civil rights issue doesn’t mean they are right. You have the fundamental right to be against gay marriage, to be gay and then not be gay and the right to just be confused in life. You do not have the right to use the government to oppress people for your religious beliefs.
3. Mark Johnson has a weird sense of what love is. Love is patient, love is kind, love denies equal rights…
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
=== I would have voted for Dillard in 2010 if he’d been on the general election ballot. This year, he has totally and irredeemably lost my respect. ===
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 12:57 pm:
sad to see D-Lard grow to be such a bigot
Does SOS count all the kids who got dragged down here as if they were adults? There are about 600 over 21 haters in the building. And a lot of bewildered children
The vile rhetoric merely shows how desperate they are becoming as they fight to convince themselves they have not already lost what they perceive as a war. They continue to fight battles, but the tipping point has passed, and all they have left is hot air and futile lawsuits.
I doubt Dillard expects his position will help him in the general election. I think he understands it would not. Instead, he’s trying to make it through the primary where this kind of intolerance can help him. It’s a reflection of who takes GOP primary ballots.
Seriously. This is 2013. Our society has advanced in so many areas including human behavior and scientific understanding of our species (both our species and understanding have long evolved to be different then previous ages). The beliefs proclaimed by today’s demonstration sounds like they belong to some long lost tribe in the Andes or the down-under Outback.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 1:21 pm:
D-Lard’s position will not help him in the primary
Brady has cornered the haters already
D-Lard just struck out with moderates and crossovers
It is a sad decline
==Instead, he’s trying to make it through the primary where this kind of intolerance can help him. It’s a reflection of who takes GOP primary ballots.==
True. Because with 4 candidates, the GOP winner will likely emerge with around 30% of the vote. If he wins, he thinks he can smooth over his statements and evolve into a less extreme candidate. Won’t happen.
D-Lard thinks that same sex marriage is unconstitutional but abrogating pension contracts with public employees is not.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
Very disappointed in Dillard.
Mr.JM, OTOH, just keeps knocking them out of the park.
- Former State Employee - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 1:42 pm:
I left the Capitol around 11:30 today, and was amazed at the number of young children (who greatly outnumbered adults). I guess it’s OK to skip school if you are used to promote the family bigotry values.
skip school? I would assume this is the same lot as the home-school crowd.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
Wow! 2,500 folks out to rally on a cold day in late Fall?! That’s WAY more than yesterday’s pro-vote gathering! Just goes to show that when we hear the pro-forces are a “few votes short,” that’s “no phony baloney” THERE! (It also points to the serious practicality/argument many have espoused of holding-off on pushing much further on FORCING some failed tally until at LEAST next year at some point)…!
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 2:05 pm:
Religious school field trip to Springfield may explain the number of children at rally.
==There was a time that differences were not rooted in hate==
I’m 65 and that time must have been before my time. The McCarthy hearings, the treatment of civil rights activists, the sometimes vicious behavior of abortion (pro and con) activists . . . all seem rooted in hate and intolerance. If there was a golden era of compromise not preceded by some violent expression of bigotry, it would be welcome news to me.
You know what? your side tries this nonsense over and over and over, and fortunately for us, your side does not get its own set of facts.
I hope you are one of the people who won’t be able to admit you were on the wrong side of history in a few years. It’ll be like the opposite of Disco Demolition–instead of more people claiming to have been there than could have fit in the old ballpark, your side will say they’ve always been for civil rights for everyone.
I suppose if same sex marriage is unconstitutional for “violating” freedom of religion, then it would also be unconstitutional for the state to recognize marriages involving someone that is divorced, since it “forces” Catholics to “recognize” something there religion prohibits or marriage between a muslim women and non muslim man, since that “violates” the freedom of religion for Muslims by forcing them to “recognize” something their religion prohibits.
Oh, Senator Dillard. There is absolutely no point to winning the GOP primary if you have irretrievably offended the majority of the electorate. This was a sorry issue to hang your hat on.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Oct 23, 13 @ 3:06 pm:
Gee–all sorts of defensiveness out there today. Just saw the SOS police estimate of 3000 for yesterday, although what I read YESterday was “hundreds” (per Chicago Sun-Times) and “over 1000″ (per SJ-R). So be it. But to Mr. Chavez@ 2:45 pm: so sad to read you stooping to lower ground with your “nonsense” swipe about my choice of words: you are entitled to your opinions/comments as I am mine–don’t always jump to impulsive, inaccurate conclusions and assumptions about me/my views being on one “side.” I’ve fought the good fight for people’s “civil rights” hundreds of times.
And as to numbers there today, anyway you shake it, 2500 is a good chunk of people, although I AM more curious than ever as to what the Sun-Times and State Journal Register’s Estimates for toDAY’s Rally are…?!
A March survey of nearly 1,000 white evangelicals by the Public Religion Research Institute found half of those under 35 favored same-sex marriage. If that’s true even among younger evangelicals, it’s clear Dillard’s position is not designed to attract younger adults to the GOP banner.
I am not arguing who won, or why an argument was won. I’m just wondering when it was that differences were not “rooted in hate”. The “win” may make acting in a hateful manner unlawful, but it does little to erase the hate that engendered the law.
Lots of hating on Dillard on this thread. Kinda thought the gay marriage proponents were lovers and not haters.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think any of the four GOP candidate support the gay marriage bill, which means you weren’t going to vote for any of them in the first place.
If you are not going to vote for Dillard because of his stance on same sex marriage, you either: 1) Were not going to vote for him in the first place: or 2) you are one of those wacko single issue voters. That puts you in league with the Paul Caprios of the world who are opposing great republican state reps because they are voting for the bill. Either way, you’re a hypocrite.
== in that they’re being forced to recognize something their religion prohibits==
It does no such thing. No church is being forced to recognized a gay marriage. It’s this type of falsehood that people latch onto. Religious people can object to same sex marriage on religious grounds if they want to. I’m fine with people holding whatever opinion they want. But they don’t need to lie about things. What annoys me the most about this “it violates my 1st amendment rights” garbage is that people actually believe it. I would argue it’s a violation of others rights that they think their religious beliefs trump everything else. As long as nobody is forcing a church to do anything then they have zero argument.
“snarling, incoherent rage of the Democratic lizard brain?”
I don’t know if I want gay marriage legislation to pass so that people have equal rights, or if I want it to pass so I don’t have to see as many newsposts with the banter between both sides on them.
Probably both equally.
This seals the deal- Dillard’s candidacy is now officially a joke. Not that it wasn’t last week, but to pander to the right wingers on this type of issue is not what you would expect from Former Chief of Staff to Governor Jim Edgar. I never cared much for Edgar but at least he had the good sense to stay clear of the right wingers.
@Demoralized: I totally agree. I wasn’t arguing that SB10 was unconstitutional (in fact it has my 110% support), I was merely pointing out to the other commenter what the perceived “unconstitutionality” was.
So much pointless anger and an insufficency of cogent responses can found here. To date, I still have not found anyone supportive of amending the marriage laws who can tell me or anyone else if one changes marriage’s traditional definition, then how can marriage to be clearly defined and from there how can it be successfully regulated by the state?
–To date, I still have not found anyone supportive of amending the marriage laws who can tell me or anyone else if one changes marriage’s traditional definition, then how can marriage to be clearly defined and from there how can it be successfully regulated by the state?–
Huh? Defined by law, regulated through licensing. Just like now.