* From yesterday’s Tribune debate…
Tribune - Why should people, if you are being so vague on so many issues, not assume maybe there’s another agenda there?
Rauner - I’ve been crystal clear on my agenda, crystal clear.
Tribune - Where are you on the Illinana Expressway?
Rauner - That’s one project out of many we need to do.
Tribune - Where are you on same-sex marriage?
Rauner - It’s the law. I’m comfortable with the law. I do not support advocating a change in the law.
Tribune - Two key issues you wouldn’t tell us a position on.
* Despite saying he’s now “comfortable” with the gay marriage law and doesn’t support changing it, Equality Illinois today blasted away…
Bruce Rauner again refuses to change his position on the new Illinois marriage equality law, trying to gloss over his stated preference to veto it, prompting the Chicago Tribune Editorial Page Editor R. Bruce Dold to tell him it is one of the “key issues you wouldn’t tell us a position on.”
Rauner, the Republican nominee for governor, appeared before the editorial board in a debate with his opponent, Gov. Pat Quinn, who campaigned for the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act and signed it into law last year.
Sitting beside Rauner was the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, Evelyn Sanguinetti, an avowed opponent of the freedom to marry, who said she and Rauner are “like-minded” on issues. Stating that his agenda is “crystal clear,” Bruce Rauner refused to take back his position expressed as recently as June that he would be open to repealing the marriage equality law.
“Bruce Rauner is again trying to have it both ways, acknowledging that the freedom to marry is now the law in Illinois but not taking back his well-established and repeated opposition to it or explaining why he chose an apparently “like-minded” running mate who ardently opposes it,” said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, the state’s oldest and largest advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Illinoisans.
“Once again he refused the opportunity to take back his opposition to the right of loving same-sex couples to be recognized equally under the marriage laws of Illinois and give their families the same access to the rights and benefits of marriage,” Cherkasov said. “That’s not the leadership that Illinoisans deserve.”
Tuesdays exchange on the marriage issue began when the Tribune’s Dold challenged Rauner why he would not answer directly on another issue, whether the Illiana Expressway should be built
Fair hit or not?
- econ prof - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:53 am:
Are these advocacy groups ever satisfied? Shouldn’t they be celebrating the fact that the Republican nominee for governor is okay with gay marriage and has no desire to change or repeal the law? I mean, we’ve come a very long ways here in a very short period of time.
- Ike Rubinos - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:55 am:
No. They are grasping for relevance now that the debate is over on SSM. Rauner took the issue off the table. He doesn’t like it, but won’t advocate repealing it. Next question.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:55 am:
Fair hit.
Rauner has clearly stated what he would have done and that is veto marriage and put human rights on the ballot. That is not courage or virtue, it is cowardice and poltroonery.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:56 am:
When you are a single-issue group, whether it be pro or anti ssm, gaming, abortion, guns, and so on, your purpose is to constantly push your agenda and pressure public officials to support it.
From that point of view, I am certain they believe their hit is a fair one. Even if they do not, it’s unlikely they would issue a press release saying “Mission accomplished. We’re scaling back our fundraising efforts and operations.”
From the point of view of most others, Rauner’s answer is pretty darn clear, making it an illogical and “unfair” hit.
- Emanuel Can't - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:58 am:
Not. Obama was once opposed to SSM and now he’s not. Why the double standard?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 9:58 am:
Fair enough. When the issue was in play, he was all weasel-word, but definitely tilted to opponents.
Doesn’t matter who you are or what the issue is, you remember who was with you when it counted and you act accordingly.
- Jaded - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:00 am:
No, but 90% of the population doesn’t care what equality Illinois thinks so no big deal.
- Frenchie Mendoza - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:00 am:
—
Shouldn’t they be celebrating the fact that the Republican nominee for governor is okay with gay marriage and has no desire to change or repeal the law?
—
Except that, like Scott Walker, he’ll say one thing (or say nothing) before the election and then unveil his actual agenda *after* the agenda.
Of course, Rauner is opposed to gay marriage. Of course he is. The fact that he’s “comfortable” with it means nothing — and is, most likely, code for, “How many times will I need to say this before the election. Here’s the hand. Talk to the hand.”
I’m comfortable with spending $50 on a bottle of good whiskey. That doesn’t mean that if I were the god of whiskey pricing, I’d keep paying the same price. I’d lower it. I’d change it. Rauner expects to do the same. He just can’t do it now — and he won’t say it now.
To expect any other outcome with a guy that can’t articulate a coherent position on any serious issue is delusional.
- PolPal56 - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:01 am:
Uh, EI, the issue is indeed a done deal in Illinois, and is on the way to being a done deal nationwide (hurrah for equal rights!). It doesn’t really matter what BR thinks - his personal opinion on this, if in reality negative, goes nowhere in this state. Having him pinned down to lukewarm support is fine with me.
Besides, if he IS elected, he has already created so many economic problems for himself that the last thing he’ll be concerned about stirring up is a decided social issue such as this.
- too obvious - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:01 am:
Good for Equality Illinois.
Rauner said all during the primary he would have vetoed gay marriage.
He hasn’t apologized for that or said he was wrong.
So absolutely a fair hit.
- PolPal56 - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:03 am:
Perhaps lukewarm willingness to ignore the issue would bemore accurate…
- LincolnLounger - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:04 am:
Well, Rauner deserves some of what he gets here. He pandered for the primary voters (Dillard was even more shameless.) Rauner can’t have it both ways, but Equality Illinois does the same thing.
We all know it’s the law, and it isn’t going anywhere. Equality Illinois sends out breathless fund-raising emails warning that marriage equality could be “taken away” because of a few “key” legislative races and/or by Bruce Rauner. Neither is happening, and they know it. In fairness to them, they should be helping Quinn. He was with them every step of the way.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:05 am:
===“Bruce Rauner is again trying to have it both ways, acknowledging that the freedom to marry is now the law in Illinois but not taking back his well-established and repeated opposition to it or explaining why he chose an apparently “like-minded” running mate who ardently opposes it,” said Bernard Cherkasov…===
More than fair.
Let’s be clear;
“If I were governor, I would veto it” - Bruce Rauner on SSM Bill signed.
Bruce Rauner, with a banner hanging and reminding all those attending the Pride Parade, which Bruce Rauner, “that day”, feels about SSM, unless flip-flopping can work.
Slip and Sue agrees with Bruce. They are “like-minded”, or is Slip and Sue sharing that mind to embrace SSM, or sharing that mind of vetoing SSM?
If the LGBT Community wants to show their strength and support for those who stood up for them when it mattered most, it would be a no-brainer to see “like-minded” candidates pandering, all the while just as “comfortable” vetoing your landmark legislation, because it meant more votes in the Primary.
It saddens me to no end; 4-62 haunts me, and the nominee of My Party, the pandering is all about the winning, not about helping My Party expand. I don’t fault Rauner for that, I fault Rauner for thinking people are gullible to the tact. That’s the rub, and that is the education by those reminding who Bruce and Slip and Sue are.
- Chi - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:06 am:
Yes it’s fair. It’s easy to say something like “it’s not an issue I’m focused on”, “that’s the law of the land”, “changing it is not on my agenda”, but all of those are easily side-stepped: “Now I’m focused on it”, “It was the law of the land but it’s not anymore”, “it is now on my agenda”…
Weasel words, all of it. He’s great at weasel words.
- Jimmy - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:06 am:
Given Illinois’ massive debt, it is responsible journalism to pin both candidates down on how they will deal with this critical issue. Being straightforward and direct on other issues is a good first step for Rauner. Pointing out that he’s dodging answers on the Illiana Expressway and Gay Marriage is a very fair criticism of Rauner by the Tribune. Voters have a right to know if a candidate’s fiscal policies may end up moving the state further into debt via another pension holiday, default and then an attempt at BK. The strategy, if successful, could also end up costing retirees a big chunk of their pensions and healthcare. Moreover, it’s not an unrealistic strategy for Rauner, given the fact that this is exactly how hedge funds shed debt in the private sector by “turning around” a company to make it profitable.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:06 am:
Absolutely fair. The guy owns 9 houses and a billion dollars, but he can’t own anything he’s ever said?
He’s a liar, and a coward. He should be exposed as such.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:08 am:
No single issue advocacy group will ever be satisfied, even if Rauner divorces his wife and marries a male. Their reason for existing is fading and they need to be unreasonably strident to keep themselves relevant. By doing so, their relevance continues to fade.
- Del Clinkton - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:10 am:
So this means that Bruce supports “traditional marriage”? Where at least half wind up in divorce when “dad” finds the secretary who “understands”?
Do I understand his point on this issue correctly?
- BMAN - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:14 am:
I too question Rauner’s intentions. His statements are sufficiently vague or misleading. Where does this robber baron really stand?
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:14 am:
I would say the hit is a bit unfair, because Rauner accepts gay marriage now.
I totally understand the reservations and frustration Equality Illinois has with Rauner. Rauner changed his position on the minimum wage and might be doing it again to some degree, just to cool the issue down politically.
Rauner says he’s an outsider, but he changes positions and flip flops with the best of them.
I totally understand Equality Illinois’ lack of trust of Rauner. I share that lack of trust, but in other ways, like when Rauner used state workers and public unions as punching bags, after managing their pensions for years. Yesterday at the candidate forum he bragged about how much money he made for the TRS fund. He’s on video essentially calling public unions tumors while his firm managed teachers’ pensions.
There is a huge difference between Quinn and Rauner on gay marriage, because of Quinn’s outspoken support of it and Rauner’s past opinions.
- Gooner - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:15 am:
It is fair and it goes to a broader issue.
Rauner made some pretty far right statements before the primary (minimum wage and this come to mind) and now he’s trying to back off and appeal to moderates.
He’s in a tough position. A moderate cannot win a GOP primary, and a right winger cannot win a general election.
He did what he had to do, but they are right to point it out.
For what it is worth, I have no idea what he thinks on either SSM or marriage. He claims he would veto SSM and now claims he would leave it alone. He gives himself the “pro-choice” label but refuses to state whether he favors any particular restrictions on abortion.
As long as he can make this election about Quinn’s record that will be OK, but if the spotlight is turned on Rauner, he’s going to have major problems.
- Empty Suit - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:21 am:
Illinois is drowning in red ink and that’s what they want to talk about? Good Grief!
- Lord Stanley's Cup - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:22 am:
Fair but weak sauce. The voters Bruce needs to reach in my area in suburban cook would be absolutely fine with that answer.
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:23 am:
@Too obvious is absolutely right. He said over and over again he’d veto the legislation, then he said he was open to a referendum repealing it. Rauner tells people want they want to hear, or what he thinks they want to hear at any given moment. At some point, he will have to tell people what he really believes on this issue. Does he think marriage is a fundamental right? A civil right? If he does, should such a right be put to a popular vote?
- Anon - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:23 am:
While he may say he doesn’t have a social agenda during his campaign, the social agenda will come to him as governor. I think he needs to express where he stands on these issues, regardless of whether or not he plans to drive these issues as governor.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:23 am:
It is more than fair.
Rauner and Cross want to have it both ways.
On this issue, like some others, there is no middle ground.
Why Team Rauner can’t figure that out is beyond me, but I think it tells you how truly beholden Rauner is to the right wing of his party.
Maybe he is too rich for them to buy or bribe him, but they sure have him cowered and on a short leash.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:25 am:
===Illinois is drowning in red ink and that’s what they want to talk about? Good Grief!===
It’s an issue-driven organization. The issue is SSM. What, all groups who aren’t focused on “red ink” shouldn’t have a voice to tell their own constituency how candidates see their issues?
Yikes.
- Chi - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:25 am:
“Illinois is drowning in red ink and that’s what they want to talk about? Good Grief!”
Funny how civil rights are important to people…
- Anonymoiis - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:27 am:
Fair? No, his answer seemed pretty clear if someone looks at it on its face. They need the issue to stay alive in order to get people to donate to them so that they themselves can stay alive and as relevant as possible.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:27 am:
“I’m comfortable with the law. I do not support advocating a change in the law.”
No, not fair, but only because of how they crafted this. Had they said, “it’s great to see the candidate finally settle on a position supporting our families despite his constant prevarication on the issue,” I’d say it was fair. But at this point, his language is pretty clear and nobody believes he’d try and roll it back.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:29 am:
“Illinois is drowning in red ink and that’s what they want to talk about? Good Grief!”
Imagine what would happen if one of them took at staunch gun control position? Like Chi @ 10:25, said…funny how that works.
- Jay Dee - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:30 am:
The paradox of special interest groups is that if the issue they advocate for or against is resolved, they lose their reason to exist. This applies to all groups and not just Equality Illinois; CC is legal in all 50 states, firearms are plenty available, yet the NRA still isn’t happy.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:31 am:
When it mattered most…
“If I were governor, I would veto it” - Bruce Rauner on SSM Bill signed.
Governor Pat Quinn signed the Bill, made it Law.
You dance, …with the one who brung ya.
That…is what makes it more than fair.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:35 am:
Come on? How can anyone say this isn’t a fair hit?! The guy has staked out more positions than the kama sutra for crying out loud. He was against gay marriage before he was for it. John Kerry would be proud.
- Percival - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:41 am:
Not fair. He opposed the law and did not want it implemented. But now that the law is passed, things have substantially changed in that a lot if people are now married under it, and changing the law would be a legal mess. So he is accepting the change, and does not favor repeal, etc. I don’t see the massive contradiction, though anti-Rauner folk will seize on anything.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:42 am:
***“If I were governor, I would veto it” - Bruce Rauner on SSM Bill signed.***
I forgot that Rauner actually said this, so I revise my answer to yes, very fair.
- VM - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:44 am:
I guess the acid test for whether it’s fair or not is whether Rauner would give the same answer — “I’m comfortable with same sex marriage” — to the Illinois Family Institute or Illinois Review. If so, the attack is unfair.
But the thing is, I don’t think he says he’s comfortable with same sex marriage to those groups. And that’s the rub here.
- fair and balanced - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:49 am:
It’s a fair hit I agree,
but he also stated very clearly yesterday:
…Tribune - Where are you on same-sex marriage?
Rauner - It’s the law. I’m comfortable with the law. I do not support advocating a change in the law….
so there SSM is a law, years of lobbying complete, mission accomplished. it’s the law.
what are we crying over now?
- Leprechaun - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:52 am:
They are just looking to pick off some votes for Quinn from the far far right. Those 20 or so people who read the Illinois Review.
He said he wouldn’t object to it , case over.
- Paul - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:53 am:
Where was all this outrage when Obama’s position on marraige equality was “evolving”?
Unfair and desperate hit. Rauner is going to win precisely because he wants to focus on government reform and making Illinois economically competitive, not focusing on social issues. Of course a single issue organization like EI doesn’t like that strategy.
- walker - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:54 am:
The Tribune editorial board leader’s comment attacking Rauner’s continual evasion is clearly fair.
Rauner apparently did a 180 on same-sex marriage in less than 60 days. Likewise on tax increases, and pension reform for current retirees. Or at least he’s trying to give someone the impression that he has.
We’re supposed to believe him?
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:55 am:
@Paul
Agreed. Rauner stinks, Obama stinks. Happy?
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:56 am:
@Ducky LaMoore for the Win, with “The guy has staked out more positions than the kama sutra.”
- Reader - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 10:59 am:
Its not enough for Rauner to tolerate and accept that gay marrigage is now a legal right, he must fully embrace and celebrate it or he will be cast as an evil bigot?
Get over yourselves!
- Jerry Hubbard - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:02 am:
Of all the issues facing Illinois, SSM is certainly not on the front burner. So whether this is a fair criticism from E.I. or not, it doesn’t matter for at least 90% of Illinois voters.
Jobs and the Economy, and who would be the better Governor to create a climate to grow Illinois’ economy and job opportunities: the guy that’s been in there 6 years who hasn’t been able to get the job done, or the businessman that’s willing to try a different approach (and by the way, this guy has been very successful when he puts his mind to something).
The definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting a different result. Got to give Rauner a try.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:02 am:
–No single issue advocacy group will ever be satisfied, even if Rauner divorces his wife and marries a male.–
Louis, I’ll have what you’re having. That’s some crazy kind of spin.
But as a political animal, I’m sure you understand the concept of rewarding those who were with you and punishing those who were against you.
Oldest practice in politics, all the world over.
- Illinoise - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:09 am:
I think that anybody who follows Illinois politics expected Bruce Rauner to pivot on several of the social issues after the primary, including public unions, minimum wage, and gay marriage. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t still be held accountable. He should.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:09 am:
===Get over yourselves!===
Well, that’s one way to rationally counter a special interest group pointing out one candidate doesn’t have their interest at heart.
Thanks for the insight.
- MrJM - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:11 am:
“It’s the law. I’m comfortable with the law. I do not support advocating a change in the law.”
If Rauner had said that about the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating anti-miscegenation laws would anyone doubt the fairness of blasting him for it?
– MrJM
- Touree's Latte - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:12 am:
Equality Illinois can hurt Rauner more than they can help Quinn. They know that.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:12 am:
Some of you guys crack me up.
You think the NRA is going to forget that Quinn vetoed c-c, and let bygones be bygones?
Is that the way politics works on your planet?
- Arizona Bob - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:12 am:
It is an Illinois political tradition not to let your real agenda out before the election, and then just do what you want afterwards.
Jim Edgar skewered Dawn Clark Netsch about her support of making the income “surtax” permanent, then did exactly what Netsch had proposed after he was elected. Try to spin THAT, Mr Schnorf!
Madigan didn’t want his candidates burdened with a plan to massively increase income taxes for the fall election, so he sprung it on the people during the veto session AFTER his people were elected.
The fact is that Illinois voters don’t select candidates for whom to vote based upon reasoned solutions to tough problems, honesty, integrity, or corruption. They vote based upon party affiliation, ethnicity, and a few vague comments from candidates and special interest issues.
Both Rauner and Quinn understand this, which is why we’re having perhaps the least substantive gubernatorial campaign in Illinois history.
The African American community in Illinois will overwhelmingly vote for the Dem candidate, IF they go to the polls. The only way around this is if their clergy supports the opposition. This is why Rauner is reaching out to the AA clergy.
Hispanic votes are solidly Dem.
Irish voters will substantially favor the Irish candidate, regardless of party or policy.
The “gay” issue simply doesn’t have traction anymore. What these “pro-gay” groups are lookiong for is candidate groveling to give them even more than they have. Promotion of gay lifestyles in public schools is where they’re focusing now. That’s the only way to keep their groups funded.
Both gubernatorial candidates are giving general postions, without the details, because they’re developing “brands” they think will get them elected. Details create scrutiny, and scrutiny results in a negative brand.
This is what voters in Illinois support and accept, which is why the quality of governance there is so dysfunctional.
Sad but true.
- fair and balanced - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:24 am:
Arizona Bob…
well said and stated “political” practicalities!!!
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:30 am:
@word, I deal with groups like this daily on my side of the fence. Your NRA example was also spot on. My state senate candidate two years ago was attacked by single issue groups who were pro-life AND pro-choice. When I see one of these type of groups actually declare victory and fold their tent, I will then fold my GOP tent and become a . . . Libertarian!
Don’t see that ever happening in our lifetimes!
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:47 am:
–I will then fold my GOP tent and become a . . . Libertarian!
–
Louis, that’s pretty good.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:53 am:
I think it’s fair. Rauner not only refuses to state his position, he believes he shouldn’t have to. But, he was more than happy to tell others he would “veto” and “repeal” the law when it suited him.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:59 am:
Word is right - you reward those who supported you and work against those who didn’t, even if an issue is settled.
And, MrJM beat me to the punch on the SC’s anti-miscegenation ruling. I’m not comfortable supporting any candidate who is “comfortable” with a “settled” issue that is still quite controversial. I want to know where they stand.
Luckily, I can remember what Rauner said and nothing he’s said since has walked back the veto or referendum talk. Don’t claim he’s evolving either, he isn’t. He’s obfuscating.
- Keyser Soze - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 11:59 am:
How do two done deals, both seemingly irreversible, become relevant?
- OldSmoky2 - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
==Promotion of gay lifestyles in public schools is where they’re focusing now.==
So, Bob, perhaps you could enlighten us by explaining what a “gay lifestyle” is? I mean, I know gay teachers, gay firefighters, gay doctors, gay soldiers, gay clergy, gay police officers, gay business owners, gay judges, and on and on. So far as I can tell, their “lifestyles” are as varied as the “lifestyles” of everyone else. But maybe you could fill us in on what we’ve missed.
As for Rauner and EI, he had plenty of opportunities in the primary to make this a non-issue by stating firmly and clearly that he supports full equality for all Illinoisans, as Gov. Quinn did. Rauner chose to make this an issue by pandering to the far right. He deserves to be called out on the positions he’s taken.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 12:05 pm:
So Mr. Rauner, exactly how did you personally feel when Illinois recognized same-sex marriage? Not that you support it now - but, what did you really think? We know there has to be something we can complain about. Help us find out what that is, OK?
This issue is over.
NEXT!
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 12:11 pm:
Does Equality Illinois also have a statement concerning today’s reports in the Windy City Times about one of their main issues? An issue that is going to affect many people?
== Agencies push state to release HIV/AIDS funds ==
== In July, the Illinois Department of Public Health ( IDPH ) informed 20 service providers that money awarded to those agencies for FY 2015 through the African-American HIV/AIDS Response Act would not be allocated to them. Those agencies were awarded the money through a request for proposal process, and most made budgeting decisions based on those awards, so the sudden reversal could have potentially devastating effects. ==
== Without the grant money coming through, Spinks is faced with the prospect of having to shut down. “That money was my entire budget,” he said. “I am exploring other grant options, and using my personal money, and I let my contractors go. But if nothing comes through in the next few months, I’m going to have to close my doors.” ==
- Chad - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
Abortion zealots, gay rights zealots, gun zealots, helmet zelots, whatever. When these folks win something, it is best for them to move forward. Pretty foolish to make enemies in advance of your next quest.
- Under Further Review - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 2:53 pm:
It is a total non-issue. Rauner is not going to have an opportunity to veto the bill. It passed. It is law. Equality Illinois won, so move on already.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 3:36 pm:
==- Under Further Review - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 2:53 pm:==
And the 14th and 15th amendments were total non-issues just because they were the law too. Oh, wait.
- Inkyatari - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 5:06 pm:
Hey Louis Atsaves, tells us about how you’re now trying to make votes for Libertarians not count again?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Sep 10, 14 @ 5:57 pm:
“I am comfortable with the law” is not the same as “I support the law.”
“I do not support advocating a change in the law” does not mean the same thing as “I do not support advocating a change in the law” or “i do not advocate a change in the law.”
I see a phrase that could also be interpreted as “I can live with the law for now, because I think we have to be laser-focused on job creation for the next four years.”
- Arizona Bob - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 7:32 am:
@oldsmoky2
=So, Bob, perhaps you could enlighten us by explaining what a “gay lifestyle” is?=
Pretty simple, oldie. A sexual relationship with someone of the same biological sex. Schools are being lobbied to include the “Heather has Two Mommies” message at very young ages to make homosexual relationships appear “normal” or even desirable. At older ages, when kids are discovering sexuality and trying to understand themselves, the message the gay lobby is trying to interfere with curriculum to “market” becoming gay. I consider that similar to what the cigarette companies used to do market messages to teenagers to entice them to become smokers before they had the experience to make a sound decisions on the matter.
The lobby is also pushing for schools to eliminate all the negatives that come from gay contacts, and only give the “positives”.
Try mentioning that AIDS was the first communicable disease in the US in which the government refused to enact quaranteens, and that the spread of the disease was due to unwillingness of the drug using and gay communities to stop high risk behavior, and the gay lobby will be all over you.
The gay lobby has secured most of the legal privilege they sought in Illinois. They’re now in the expansion and recruitment of the young stage. That’s where the covert battle is happening now.
Do some googling on the way the Massachussets public education system is catering to the gay lobby, and you’ll see where Illinois is headed.
- Gooner - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 7:41 am:
Arizona Bob,
If you think kids will become gay because they hear in school that it is OK, that says more about you than about them.
It is always people like you who are most upset about gay people. People who are comfortable as either gay or straight have much less of a problem with acceptance of others.
Bob, if you are not really comfortable with your sexual identity, that’s OK. But don’t impose your fear of your nature on others.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 8:30 am:
@Bob:
You are absolutely ridiculous. Market becoming gay? Are you serious? You don’t convert people to become gay with marketing strategies and you don’t convert people to being gay. You either are gay or you aren’t. “Marketing” doesn’t make you gay. People aren’t converted to being gay. That is perhaps the dopiest comment on the gay issue I have ever read. I really feel sorry for you Bob if you truly believe this because it indicates a level of ignorance on the issue that is astounding.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 8:32 am:
==I consider that similar to what the cigarette companies used to do market messages to teenagers to entice them to become smokers ==
I missed that little gem of nonsense. Yeah, the smoking campaign is exactly the same as the gay thing. Your ignorance is amazing.
- Anon - Thursday, Sep 11, 14 @ 7:17 pm:
It is always a treat to hear disaffected people talk about how civil rights organizations are irrelevant once they achieve their primary goal. Of course we know that once laws change African Americans no longer have to worry about equal treatment under those laws. Same with women’s rights. We know that laws render the advocacy organizations irrelevant. Like George Bush claiming “mission accomplished” in Iraq, the reality is that the fight is only beginning. Hats off to equality illinois for holding Rauners feet to the fire. He had many chances to do the right thing but instead made the calculated decision that not doing so would fire up the conservative Republican primary base. He will now sink or swim in the general, and I’m guessing he will lose by the same razor thin margin Brady did.