95 Comments - steve schnorf - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:23 am: Its a distraction from attention to real issues facing us, and a diversion from our party’s lack of substantive solutions to those real problems - Esteban - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:23 am: Why waste all of that time, energy, and money on an advisory referendum? An informal poll of shoppers at White Oaks Mall would carry the same amount of weight with the politicians. - Anon - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:24 am: My 18 year old son, who was back home from college this weekend, and I had a very heated discussion on this issue this weekend. He said “Love is love. What if someone told you that you couldn’t marry mom?” “How would that make you feel?” I really didn’t have much to say after that. - Anon from BB - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:30 am: Call them all - heterosexual and homosexual relationships - civil unions in the eyes of the law and let God sort it out. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:30 am: I think gay people have suffered enough. I don’t think you should make them get married, too. - Bruno Behrend - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:31 am: Advisory referenda are a waste of time and money. While there may be some electoral benefit by increasing pro-marriage turn-out, there are plenty of other projects that could benefit the right and center-right. (finding and funding candidates is always a plus) Why divert resources to a referendum with no force of law. - Phil Collins - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:32 am: If gay marriage becomes legal, the weddings should only be performed by judges. If a Christian church performs a gay wedding, it would be disobeying the Bible. - Boscobud - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:32 am: I think if two gay people want to live together that is fine, but I think marriage should be between a man and woman. And if that gay couple want health insurance together than that is fine, but marriage should be between a man and woman. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:34 am: ===it would be disobeying the Bible. === So, do you want legislators telling churches what they can and cannot do? That would seem to be a profound attack on the constitution. - Obama's Puppy - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:36 am: If two people (regardless of gender) love each other and want to ruin by getting married then let them. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:37 am: I think Gov should get out of the marriage licensing biz all together. Ron Paul was right on this one. - kimsch - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:38 am: When I got married the first time it was in Germany. Legal marriages are the civil ones. Clergy can not legally marry anyone. Couples generally have two ceremonies, the legal one in the clerk’s office with your witnesses (very nice, the clerk wears a special robe, there are flowers…) and then a Church ceremony with all the family and friends with a reception to follow. That’s the way it should be. Civil ceremony for legal reasons, church, synagogue, mosque, what have you, ceremony for religious reasons. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:39 am: …using the issue as a wedge to drive African-Americans away from Democrats.. The GOP ought to look at crime and education e.g. the Meeks Gidwitz plan as the wedges. Look at the poll from a while back Rich on the perceived security among AA’s and whites in Chicago. - Bluefish - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:42 am: The biggest fear the anti-gay marriage advocates have is that if you allow gays to marry then they may end up having a much lower divorce rate than straight people. Who has one of the highest divorce rates in the country? Southern Baptists and they are very anti-gay marriage. If these folks really wanted to “strengthen marriage” then they would push for banning divorce rather than this sham. - South Side Mike - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:47 am: Gays and lesbians already have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have: a man and a woman may marry. If marriage is simply love between two people, then the slippery slope argument regarding why only two (polygamy) becomes legitimate. Marriage is based on basic human physiology, modern scientific discoveries notwithstanding. The natural order is a woman and man raising their children. That the natural order is not considered politically correct in the elite circles doesn’t lessen its truth. With that said, the expense and energy that would be spent gathering signatures for an advisory referendum that would be summarily ignored would be better directed elsewhere. If the referendum would amend the Constitution or otherwise bind the law in Illinois, I might think differently. - Y2K - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:53 am: “Call them all - heterosexual and homosexual relationships - civil unions in the eyes of the law…” +1 - anon sequitor - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:53 am: Kimsch has the logical solution - it takes churches/ministers out of the legality of marriage debate - and lets churches/ministers perform only those marriages that are recognized by their religion. No minister or church would thus be forced to bless or perform a marriage it does not approve. - HearMeRoar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 10:55 am: I believe that gays should absolutely be allowed to marry. Those Protect Marriage folks need to find a new hobby, preferably a productive one that does not discriminate against others. - phocion - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:07 am: This would be more likely a wedge issue to drive gays into the Republican Party. And until the chest thumpers there knock it off, that’s not likely to happen either. And not to sound too callous, but anything that expands eligibility on already stressed pensions, we should all consider the fiscal implications. Then again, I’m all in favor of the institution of marriage and the stability it affords. Expanding it to gay couples could have broad ranging benefits for society. - Ken in Aurora - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:08 am: What kimsch said! - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:15 am: –This would be more likely a wedge issue to drive gays into the Republican Party.– That’s an interesting idea. What could stop a well-organized, enthusiastic group of gay activists from taking over the machinery of the Chicago and Cook County Republican organizations? Or a number of GOP State Committee slots based in the city and suburbs? I was a reporter in Iowa when Pat Robertson ran for president. He finished second to Bob Dole in the caucuses. Within a year, the evangelical Robertson supporters rolled the Main Street bankers and lawyers and farmers who had run the Iowa GOP forever and took over. They still have it, too. - Captain America - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:17 am: Personally, I am not opposed to gay marriage. However, it the anti-gay marriage amendment was successful in Calfifornia then there are very few states in the U.S. where gay marriage is politically feasible at the current time. Civil union laws will have to suffice for now to avoid a cultural/political backlash that would benefit the culture warriors and the Republican Party. As far as I am concerned civil unions are de facto marriages. - philoking - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:20 am: For those of you who missed it, there was a 150 people rally and march against prop 8 in Springfield that started on the footsteps of the IL Supreme Court. - Rick - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:21 am: Even if most African Americans are against Homosexual or same sex marriages that does not mean or at least not necessarily mean that they will leave the Democratic party. African Americans on some issues, Hispanics generally, and many “White Ethnic” Democrats are more conservative on social issues (usually for religious or cultural reasons) than some of the national leaders or even local leaders but that does not translate into non-support of their leaders at the ballot box. An example: My alderman had 10 to 1 calls in the 25th ward against domestic partners (including his own staff) but the alderman (Danny Solis) voted for it anyway. There was no retribution in the next election and it was not an issue. There is no connection between opposition on a particular social issue (abortion, homosexuality as two examples) and support or non support for a particular candidate in minority communities. So it is probably true that a majority of African Americans and/or Hispanics are against (or do not support) homosexual marriage but it is not a voting issue for them and they won’t vote against their Congressman, State Senator, State Rep, Alderman who do support homosexual marriage, homosexual rights, domestic partners etc. The other trend is with younger voters, so younger Hispanic voters voted with homosexual marriage while older and middle aged Hispanics did not. Same with African Americans. So as time goes on (assuming no cyclical trend towards the right) the younger voters (inculturated at School, MTV etc) more voters (Minority and Majority) will be in favor of homosexual marriage. So, those that opposse it are against the clock at least if current trends continue. But the bottom line is socially conservative and religious African Americans who are against homosexual marriage are not joining the Republican party. - Levois - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:21 am: I don’t personally agree with gay marriage but I have a problem with people trying to codify who can or can’t get married in a constitution. I suppose I’m of the idea that things like this should be out of a constitution. If it was up to me though my answer would be to eliminate all marriage laws from the books. I kno that would be extreme, but I would say that it should be up to private instutition who can or can’t get married. It’s either that or everyone should be able to get a civil union. I hope that this wouldn’t require a license just a registration or a certification. Whatever that entails. - Heartless Libertarian - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:22 am: The fact that everyone cares about such a tertiary issue, (you can still do whatever the heck you want, but you are letting the government stand in your way?), drives me insane. The idiots: We must pass a symbolic bill… that will protect marriage. The other idiots: We must pass a bill to let gays get married… that will change everything about society and we will all be magically happy. Just live your lives, people. - doubtful - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:31 am: If a Christian church performs a gay wedding, it would be disobeying the Bible. -Phil Collins The bible also says not to eat shellfish, so I assume you’ll also support a referendum banning Red Lobster, those Godless heathens. Or does your Bible have all the parts you don’t agree with redacted? Long term marriages are good for the economy. It leads to more cars and houses being purchased, more stable tax payers, and just maybe gay couples will adopt and help out an orphaned child with opportunities like college. So I’m against spending money that could be used to actually help people fighting against something that, when all the teens and twenty somethings are grown up will be legal and normal anyway. No amount of cash will stop the demographic shift. The natural order is a woman and man raising their children. -South Side Mike So you’re saying the natural order has no room for homosexual relationships? Modern biology disagrees with you, as examples are occurring all the time. - Boscobud - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:33 am: Is it common law that when a couple live together for 10 years that they are married? Heck, I would do that if I were gay. Who needs the big wedding with the big bills. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:36 am: I think Gov should get out of the marriage licensing biz all together. Ron Paul was right on this one. Philosophically, I’m with Bill on this one, but the government has got its fishhooks into marriage so far for the last few hundred years that it would probably take 10 years and millions of $ to find and untangle all of them. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:37 am: Bosco- IL is not a state that recognizes common law marriage. There are several that do. - VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:39 am: We live in a democracy. And I believe in the power of a majority vote. While I recognize that some cultural barriers, such as inter-racial or inter-religious marriages would be enforced longer than biology dictates, eventually biology wins out - and that is my point. Eventually biology wins. It is science. We can’t fight what we are biologically. Either you procreate and pass on your genes to the next generation and survive - or you die out when you die. Societies culturally change. Marriage between men and woman of different economic status became acceptable because men and woman biologically don’t give a fig. Same with marriage between men and women of different faiths and races. We know that in some parts of the world, one cannot marry outside their faith - but America has always been open to all religions and this culture has mostly accepted these marriages. Race is more difficult, but eventually biology wins out. Men and woman don’t always care about racial differences, and children are born. Culture is forced to either outlaw or change. And science usually wins out. What is the evolutionary benefit for being gay? Nothing we have found yet. Some claim a “gay gene” exists, and this is possible. But if it is, and two men don’t make children, then how will a gay gene be passed on to the next generation? Won’t gay marriage actually reduce the number of gays that would have been born? I’m just trying to be practical. I don’t see evolution favoring gay marriage. If our culture takes extra steps to counter biology by spending resources on gay marriages, then what will happen when those resources dry up? We know societies get hit by outside factors exterminating them. History is full of lost societies. We’ve seen gay marriage tried in history without success. Is this why? Perhaps we are witnessing a moment where culture is trying to fight nature, not change because nature demands it. So let nature decide as it will in the end. Importantly, let democracy reign, let these people do what they are allowed by law to do and give them the ballot. We can accept how voters decide. And it is high time to start respecting each other. Stop the insults at those of us who don’t embrace every fad or buy into ideas that try to sell themselves as “rights”. I do not like seeing idols elevated so high that questioning them condemns the questioner. This is always wrong and highly dangerous. - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:44 am: I’m with those who think we should take government out of the marriage business entirely. It causes more problems than it’s worth to legislate. Then everybody can pick their church according to their beliefs about what marriage is or should be, and we stop paying government agents to peer into other people’s windows and tell them what to do in their own homes. At least, on one issue. The commenters who brought up the “natural childrearing” arguments make me laugh. If producing children were actually the basis of marriage, we would automatically nullify marriages between men and women who suffer fertility problems. Anyway, if the only reason you have sex is to produce offspring, you’re missing out. Some of us have noticed that it’s not only a great way to build a deep and meaningful relationship with another adult. (Not to mention, it’s fun!) Having kids is great, but that’s only part of what is provided to us by nature or God or whoever you pray to. - zatoichi - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:46 am: Protect Marriage from what? Is it failing? Is it in danger of going away? Why don’t these groups start putting the same effort into lowering the current divorce rate and getting help for single parents. If they wish to declare the sacredness of marriage, how about pushing the importance of following and living the vows two people promise each other on a wedding day whether in a church, chapel, courtroom or backyard. Seems the validity of those promises get thrown out pretty easily when they are no longer convenient. Prohibiting gay marriage, while letting straights make a shamble of the supposedly ideal model, makes little sense to me. - Fitzy - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:56 am: I attended the rally and found it to be amazingly inspiring. One of the speakers made a great comment about gays and religious opposition. The crux of it was that if you think gays are going to hell, fine, in your mind send them there - but treat everybody the same under the law while they are alive. Two of the couples I went with have one partner who is not a U.S. citizen (both are here legally on work visas). If they were legally allowed to get married, they would. Instead they are scared that they could be separated by deportation as the economy collapses. Some things are right no matter how many people vote against it. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:56 am: States got into the marriage business because marriage is seen as a stabilizing force in society and in the rearing of children. Therefore, the state claims a vested interest in marriage. Whether that is a valid claim is debatable. However, if government is to be in the marriage business, then its definition should be left to the various states (no federal laws or court decisions). - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:06 pm: Yes, zatoichi reminded me of something else. Marriage doesn’t happen in a vacuum, it often succeeds or fails depending on how much the society around it supports the institution and the individuals in it. Case in point - the evangelical Christians who are so interested in telling gays what to do can’t keep their own membership from adultery and divorce at far higher rates than the general population. As I recall, Jesus himself never mentioned anything about the sanctity of marriage, but rather prominently pointed out the need to remove the beam from one’s own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s. Christians would be so much easier to tolerate if they actually did what Jesus suggested. I have never understood how it is that Jesus brought this New Covenant that emphasizes love above all, and yet we still get quoted all the angry Old Testament crap. All that angry stuff was the Old Covenant, right? Which Jesus demolished and replaced? Very confusing to me how people don’t listen to what He said. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:07 pm: States got into the marriage business because marriage is seen as a stabilizing force in society and in the rearing of children. Or to enforce miscegenation laws? We’d be much better off getting Government out of business of discriminating you and you cannot marry e.g. in most Illinois counties first cousins under 50 can’t, over 50 can. Benefits that need to be allocated on the basis of a spousal relationship, should be changed. If the only reason to license marriage is to create social stability, that’s been a bust… best bet now a days is the libertarian line. Get Government out of it. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:08 pm: I mean Who, not you… - Highland, IL - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:08 pm: Here we go! The GOP got whooped so they’re overeacting hard to the right. - My Opinion - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:09 pm: Gay people should be allowed the same rights as everyone else. Gays didn’t choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be straight. It is wrong to keep from one group of people what we allow another. It truly makes me sad that it is even an issue. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:11 pm: Christians would be so much easier to tolerate if they actually did what Jesus suggested… David Orr issues license in Cook County. Not Jesus.. keep Jesus out of it. If marriage were a right, David Orr would issue a license to anyone who walks in the door. He doesn’t. If you think he should. Say so. If not, say what the criteria should be. But dragging Jesus into the mix… doesn’t contribute much. He’s judging at a different grade level. - Leroy - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:15 pm: All you people saying “If two people love each other….” are missing the point. Why not three? or four? or N? People who want to write a law that says “Two people…” are being just as discriminatory as the “Man and Woman” crowd. If we fix this problem, we should fix it for everyone. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:18 pm: Does the GOP think gay marriage is a priority issue? Here’s the angle I see being useful. The GOP can raise money from the true believers and pay organizers to get signatures. If this is combined with some sort of party building it might be useful. But, I don’t see Blacks, Catholics, Latinos or anyone else being pealed away from the Dem coalition on this issue. They may vote against gay marriage, but gay marriage isn’t that threatening anymore. The economy and cuts in government services are real threats. If the GOP wants to brand itself as “gay marriage is out top priority” I think that’s dumb politics. It’s so dumb I would sign the petition to put the question on the ballot. I doubt I would have signed if asked in earlier election cycles. And another thought: if the GOP needs a non-binding referendum on gay marriage to get evangelical Protestants to the polls, that’s sorry. Note to Republicans: if you make it too obvious you’re not doing anything for the base they might figure out your party is playing them for chumps. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:20 pm: People who want to write a law that says “Two people…” are being just as discriminatory as the “Man and Woman” crowd. If we fix this problem, we should fix it for everyone. That’s the goofiness of this whole marriage equality frame. A license is discrimination by definition. As long as you cede the right to license marriage, you get stuck in defining the requirements. And in Illinois they can vary by county. The minister who performs the required service has to sign the license and make damn sure it’s mailed from within the county it was issued. As long as you buy off on the Government’s right to discriminate like this, you really can’t go around talking about a right to marry. The best solution these days, given the divorce rates, and variety of family configs, is simply pull the government out of it, and seek other ways to promote welfare and the interest of children. Marriage is really not a good tool for that anymore. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:24 pm: Does the GOP think gay marriage is a priority issue? Carl, when Democrats talk about a wage at a level a worker can raise a family on, what can of family to they have in mind: mom, dad, two kids, and a dog? Democrats may be more stuck in the past than the GOP who at least realize families are often broken. The reality is you can but this social order back together and had best come up with solutions that recognize now a days most Americans will live alone the majority of their life span. Divorce, survivorship and age, single parent hood… that’s the reality for most people and the whole system has to adjust to it. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:25 pm: you can’t put it back… eating a sandwhich while typing…sorry - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:26 pm: Rich, if Illinois Republicans want to make an anti-gay marriage referendum their central organizing tool, do I get to start asking about which Republicans like to engage in homosexual sex on your blog? If Congress is any indicator, there are a bunch of Republican elected officials who like anal sex and giving fellatio who tap into outrage about gay sex to get elected. Rumor has it some Illinois Republicans are among those who vote against gay rights as legislators and enjoy gay sex on the side. Rich, you can argue that you are elevating the level of discourse, but you’re also enabling the hypocrisy. Republican politicians clearly benefit from your “no outing the gay politicians” rule. And at the same time these same politicians want the right to tap into anti-gay bigotry to get out the GOP base. - Speaking At Will - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:27 pm: Heres the solution to the budget. Legalize gay marriage in Illinois and then sell the licenses for $2000 each. Put together an ad campaign in all 50 states promoting Illinois as the gay marriage capitol of the world and get the printing presses fired up! We could even start a new Department for more patronage hires. Call it the Department of Gay Marriage and Transgender development. Maybe get Barney Frank to oversee the whole thing. Hopefully my snark on this hotly debated issue will be allowed. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:29 pm: Carl, my policies are based on my rules, not someone else’s alleged hypocrisy. - train111 - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:31 pm: Where is the non-binding referendum to prevent unmarried people from having sex and procratings. Seems to me that this is a far more present danger to the traditional institutions of family and marriage than gays who number much less. Isn’t that the ‘big reason to be opposed to gay marriage?? The way I see it, gays are only a few percent of the voting population, so politicians can afford to discriminate against them because they gain votes from the right-wing conservatives. Unmarried people living together, having sex, or procrating are a far larger percentage of the voting population so politicians aren’t willing to risk the backlash. The whole ‘protection of the family’ schtick is a total steaming pile of horse crap in my opinion. All hypocrisy in my opinion. train111 - VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:31 pm: The groups that are collecting signatures for their non-binding referendum are not being allowed to get their voices heard. But those who lost Prop 8 in California seem to be shouting the loudest in cities not in California. This doesn’t seem right. One group is trying to work within democratic guidelines while the other is trying to work around democratic guidelines. It is as though these folks believe they are entitled to circumvent democracy. If they supported it, they would be demanding that a pro-gay marriage amendment appear on the next state ballot. But they won’t - and we know why. It is because it would be voted down. So, they scream, march and complain about how intolerable the majority is and try to heckle, insult and drag the majority down. This isn’t right - and while they may be getting applause from Hollywood and media, they are not doing the right thing if they want to win over the rest of the world. What we have seen is that when laws are made by judges and courts, these laws are not accepted. Trying to find a legal means to circumvent the democratic majority will not end this debate. Take it to the voters, and let them decide. Denying this group their rights to a ballot proposal isn’t making the issue go away either. Insulting voters who base their decision on this issue on their interpretation of religious tenants is too insulting to win any argument. Insults just don’t work. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Respect is what these people are demanding - show it by listening to them and empowering them to put their beliefs on our ballots. - Speaking At Will - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:32 pm: == If Congress is any indicator, there are a bunch of Republican elected officials who like anal sex and giving fellatio who tap into outrage about gay sex to get elected. == Mr. Nyberg, with all due respect, this seems just a bit over the top. - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:33 pm: Thomas said: Christians would be so much easier to tolerate if they actually did what Jesus suggested… Bill Barr said: David Orr issues license in Cook County. Not Jesus.. keep Jesus out of it. Yeah, you and I are in agreement, I think. This is the intersection of three issues: government, coupling, and religion. The “protect marriage” people, in my experience, come from a socially conservative Christian religious perspective that wants to keep government involved in regulating how people couple up, so that they can enforce their idea of the “right” way to physically love one another. So, their position is to keep government, religion, and coupling all bound together in this institution of legal marriage. So I think we agree in that way - pull the fundamentalist concept of marriage out of government and put it where it belongs: in fundamentalist churches. They can restrict their own behavior to their heart’s content, and I’ll be Patrick Henry for them and fight to the death for their right to do that in the privacy of their own church, same as I would do for the Unitarians to marry two women, six men, and a bag of cookies. Unlike Leroy seems to be saying, I don’t fear the idea of people making marriage what they want it to be, at least amongst consenting adults. That’s the point, to stop using governmental resources to control things that don’t need to be controlled. The same groups that are most fervently sure they know what how I am supposed to conduct myself sexually have the highest rates of adultery, divorce, teenage pregancy and STD transmission. Obviously, either Christians have nothing to teach me, or if they are the messengers of Jesus… Well, I won’t finish that sentence because it’s probably more inflammatory than is needed. Suffice to say that, when I look around at what people manage to accomplish, I don’t think anyone has such a lock on the best way to have a loving relationship that they should be allowed to use governmental resources to force everyone else to do the same. - train111 - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:33 pm: procrating should be procreating Sorry all!! Monday ugh!! train111 - Paul Richardson - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:40 pm: VanillaMan, I appreciate your attempt at honest discourse on the issue; its rare. But your evolutionary logic fails because it based on an assumption that is incorrect. Your entire explanation is prefaced on the idea that: marriage = procreation. Not so. I would argue that the underlying purpose of marriage in today’s society is a combination of factors that cannot be be boiled into any single morsel. However, if you wanted to try to boil down the purpose of marriage into a single, identifying goal, it would involve NOT the “creation of children” but the “rearing of children.” And evolution shows us that gays are just as capable of raising children as straight couples. In other words, even though I do not agree that this issue should default to evolutionary factors, even if I did buy, I still don’t see how it endorses a ban on gay marriage. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:42 pm: Thomas… families are critical economic units. Liberalism wants workers to have wages that can support a family. Problem is the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s demolished families as we knew them. For a whole host of reasons we aren’t going to see anything like them again. The majority of us will no longer live that way. Credit the social conservatives and a good many others for seeing that… the problem is going back to the past is no longer the solution. Dismanteling a whole system that allocates benefits on the assumption of a traditional family though is part of what has to be changed. When Oak Park created a civil registry for domestic partnerships to allocate healh insurance benefits, the one employee who really needed it was the woman who tried to claim her disabled mother as a domestic partner. Oak Park refused here but granted it to the balance of people seeking a largely symbolic benefit (both partners worked with jobs with benefits). Like I wrote Carl, the left is in a bigger time warp on family issues than social conservatives. - Kuz - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:46 pm: When PMI tried this in 2006, they collected more than 400,000 signatures. What they used as an organizing effort quickly became just as important an organizing effort for GLBT groups, progressive churches, and Dems. I was part of the team that checked those petitions one by one. 65,000 petition pages. There were so many signatures from non-registered voters that the whole thing was thrown out. If PMI wants to do it again, go ahead, let them waste their money. - HELP! I need somebody. HELP! Not just anybody. - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:47 pm: ===So, do you want legislators telling churches what they can and cannot do? That would seem to be a profound attack on the constitution.=== Rich, the state already does that. The state licenses clergy men to issue a legal marriage certificate and tells them who they can and can’t marry legally. Most people confuse religious marriages with legal ones. The gays probably don’t care about the religious version, they just want the legal one for the legal protections and tax benefits. - Paul Richardson - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 12:48 pm: VM- “What we have seen is that when laws are made by judges and courts, these laws are not accepted. Trying to find a legal means to circumvent the democratic majority will not end this debate. Take it to the voters, and let them decide.” 1. I think there is much in common law that the public accepts. Your sweeping generalization is a bit much. 2. Do you think anything should be kept out of vote of the majority? - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:06 pm: You make some really good points, Bill. I’m not sure exactly what is meant by families being “critical economic units,” but maybe your point is that government is structured to assume that most or all people are part of a traditional husband-wife-and-kids family? And further your point is that it’s not sensible just to take government-regulated marriage out of the equation, we have to go further and restructure the entirety of government to bring it more in line with the fact that vast numbers of us don’t fit that mold? That makes a lot of sense to me. However, I think that’s a bit of a divergence from what I was saying. I don’t see the “protect marriage” types engaging in that kind of dialog, thinking openly and freely about how best to restructure government to have it make sense. All I see is a bunch of zealots trying to use government to control other people’s behavior. What you’re saying makes sense - government works best when it fits what people actually do. When people’s behavior changes, government has to adapt, or else it creates massive waste and injustice. The logical extension of that would be that if large numbers of Americans became the kind of Muslim who has multiple wives, we would need to shape government to fit that behavior, too. What I understand the “protect marriage” people to be saying is quite different - they see themselves as “right,” everyone else is “wrong,” and they are entitled to use government to force everyone else to behave the way they think God told them to behave. So I guess what I’m really saying is this: What you’re saying makes sense to me, but I can’t tell if you’re attributing your reasonable position to the Christians. I think you have a good point about needing to reform government so that it best serves people today. But if you’re saying that’s what the fundamentalist Christians who are the driving force behind these “protect marriage” concepts, I think you’re wrong about that. The only governmental reform they’re looking for is restoring the governmental to start burning gays at the stake again. In strict accordance with Jesus’ love, of course. - plutocrat03 - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:15 pm: Everyone wants, or should want fairness and equality for all. Change is difficult, but should occur over the long run naturally. The devil is in the details. What kinds of unions should the government sanction if any? Outside the traditional man/woman union, do we include any other variants that will be challenged? Will government be allowed to discriminate for reasons of age, or genetic closeness? The standard of two or more individuals who ‘love each other’ will be more difficlt than ever to codify. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:23 pm: …but maybe your point is that government is structured to assume that most or all people are part of a traditional husband-wife-and-kids family? And further your point is that it’s not sensible just to take government-regulated marriage out of the equation, we have to go further and restructure the entirety of government to bring it more in line with the fact that vast numbers of us don’t fit that mold? That makes a lot of sense to me. Exactly And my frustration with the social conservatives is they see the damage but don’t offer a solution. I share their indignation at judges dictating things, but they don’t have good solutions for repairing families. The left just constructs a right which is pretty arbitrary e.g. ok for same sex and opposit sex but they’ll just ignore plural marriages or the whole host of other reasons government will discriminate when issueng a marriage license. So I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul on this one. Modern world way to complex for government to try and sort out what is a marriage and by extension a family. Best to to construct a relation between gov and indiviuals and forget linking anything to marriage status, because if you look at the census data most of us are going to live a big chunk of our lives as singles whether due to divorce, survivorship, or marrying late in life. Further, when liberals talk about a wage a family can live on, they need to recognize families are no longer two adults and kids… All of this has very bad consequences for kids, but we’re not serious if we don’t acknowledge it and work on a society that recognizes this. In that sense social conservatives have a better handle on the problem. I fear the left just looks on Gays as fodder e.g. Rich Daley said you take a constituentcy seriously when it controls 5% of the vote in a ward. That’s why they could remain silent on Farrahkan’s rep on the hate commission… ’cause there’s another 5% constutent. Just like the best way to get rid of lobbying is to get rid of government intervention to lobby on… best way to get past this issue, is get gov out of licensing marriage. - Thomas Westgard - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:39 pm: Bill - I think what is most useful about what you’re saying is that, if we’re going to have a conversation about redefining marriage, then let’s take a look at how that affects society in a larger way. You’re right, government kind of hijacked the religious institution of marriage as a way to organize people. Now that people’s use of marriage and religion has changed so much, we really need to fundamentally rethink, not just what marriage is, but what government is, now that marriage can no longer fulfill the governmental role it once had. (I suppose one could point out that it never worked perfectly, but the point here is that it works even less well now). On a practical level - Both the left and the right are proposing very limited “solutions.” Neither side is proposing something that helps people who, for example, have no interest in marriage or children, but want to provide elder care to a sick parent. Or really takes into account the many thousands of kids whose parents are gone for one reason or another, and live with a grandparent or other extended family. It’s interesting that the erosion of marriage has revealed how much we still live in extended-family tribal units, where our relatives outside the nuclear family step up to fill the gap left by absent parents. For some reason, the discussion has been around punishing the bad parents who don’t care for their children. Maybe it would be better to take note of who is stepping up to do the work, and find ways to make government honor that relationship more expressly. We already have elaborate legal precedent to determine who is related to whom and in what degree - this is done for inheritance and intestate succession all the time. That precedent could be a good starting point for thinking through a way of allocating resources and responsibility when the nuclear dad-mom-kids concept falls apart. Hmm. Anyway, Bill, thanks for the interesting thoughts! - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:49 pm: Thank you for the reply and maybe organizing my thoughts for me better than I do…. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 1:52 pm: How can (presumably the left) “demolish families as we knew them” AND be “in a bigger time warp on family issues than social conservatives.” Where have I been time-warped to? The anti-gay marriage crowd has to be intellectually honest with itself and admit that they are intolerant of homosexuality. Then the conversation can begin. I’m calling BS on bringing Jesus or “traditional marriage” or “the left caused this” into the debate. Those are strawmen. It’s either restructure the legal benefits of marriage to include gays or get government out of the marriage business. I choose the first one. And I must say that I live in a beautiful neighborhood, and so do all of my family, friends, and co-workers, with one-parent, 2-parent, gay-parent, and hetero-parent households. I had no idea they were all “demolished.” - New play by Jay Paul Deratany can shed some light on human rights - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:19 pm: http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-22122378 71378380200&hl=en - steve schnorf - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:19 pm: Aarrrggghhh! - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:26 pm: How can (presumably the left) “demolish families as we knew them” AND be “in a bigger time warp on family issues than social conservatives.” Where have I been time-warped to? When I belonged to the left in the 60’s we were with Emma Goldman calling marriage a sort of slavery for women. Now the left says marriage is a right. The left is arbitrary. Check Brink Lindsey’s Age of Abundance for how the history of the last 30 years. Yes indeed you live in a beautiful neigborhood with a diversity of family constellations and the incomes to support the experiement. As Lindsey points out, the liberation of the 60s without the income to support such liberation spelled disaster for those at the margins of Americas abundance. Your neigborhood more the exception Lefty Lefty than today’s norm which characterized more by single working moms. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:29 pm: Let’s get over the 60s, please. It’s the 21st Century, for crying out loud. - Rich Miller - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:33 pm: Seriously, if the recent presidential race was a referendum on anything, it was a resounding: Get over the stupid, decades old arguments already! Who won? Who was right? Who was wrong? Who cares, navelgazers! heh - steve schnorf - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:38 pm: Right on, Rich, unless I’m forbidden to use 60s expressions. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:40 pm: Read Lindsey Rich. A right and left arguing about trends started thirty years ago and the buld of America today in a great Libertarain center. The party that gets that holds the future. Getting Gov out of the marriage licensing business acknowledges that center. Talking about Obama as the new FDR and bringing back the new Deal or RE’s update on CCC camps for today probably more stuck in the past than anything we’ll hear from the GOP. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 2:40 pm: and the bulk of America….I mean… - train111 - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:00 pm: Rich Thanks for your comment. One thing that this Presidiential Election has hopefully put to rest forever is the American fetish over what a prospective President was doing between say 1965 and 1973–the Vietnam War era. Hopefully, there will never be another TV commercial, another accusation of draft dodging, another swiftboating or any of the other nonsense associated with the 60’s. Good Riddance!! I was born in 1969–I do not care what any of them were doing then!! train111 - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:08 pm: Oh Rich, you are full of mischief today! Flip the switch, and here they come! It was worth it, just to hear the gears grinding about “evolution” and “economic stability” to rationalize viewpoints regarding homosexuality. I’m a heterosexual (not that there’s anything wrong with it) and married (it must have seemed like a good idea at the time). What’s beyond me is with everything else going on in the world, how this is an issue? Who cares? The only rational thing I heard was getting government out of the marriage business. And if I can paraphrase the great Barry Goldwater, get government out of the bedroom, too. That should work for self-described Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives, right? The less government in the matter, the better? - VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:17 pm: ==However, if you wanted to try to boil down the purpose of marriage into a single, identifying goal, it would involve NOT the “creation of children” but the “rearing of children.”== We have a very long string of history that disproves this. What we know about families is that the old myths aren’t so old. Child abuse is higher between parents and children who are non-biological. Children are murdered at higher rates by non-biological guardians than biological parents. The fairy tales of evil step-mothers and step-fathers could have a base in biology. So your single-identifying definition isn’t accurate. I also get mocked by those who claim that the biological connection isn’t supported when couples do not have children, are old, or already have children from previous spouces. Often I have been mocked - “So you think these people shouldn’t be allowed to marry?” Of course they should be allowed to marry, regardless of whether they intend to become parents to children they conceive. Naturally we allow post-menopausal women to marry. Naturally we allow women and men unable to conceive children to marry. The reasons for this is that we know more today about conception than we did then. A tradition was established long before medical science understood the hows and whys of conception. So, no - while we today consider these couples as an exception to the biologically-based theory I explore, this was not the case previously. This mocking question denies history itself. Also please recall that being barren in marriage was a strong basis for divorce in many cultures over many centuries. Ask King Henry VIII’s wives what happened when they couldn’t produce a male heir. Marriage and bearing children have a stronger relationship than marriage and a societal conception of love. But that was so long ago, right? Well, when we dilly-dally around and pretend that these tenants that support an institution such as marriage do not exist, we fail to fully appreciate what it is that marriage does. Not fully understanding marriage is one of the reasons we are even considering it possible for two individuals of the same sex to have a wedding. The very idea is alien and strikes many of us as basically impossible. Hense the difficulties conservatives have in their position. (I also cannot tell you why household pets shouldn’t have the right to vote either, should someone challenge me on that in the future.) Why can’t we change the color of the sky to green? We can now have the technology to do that, right? Well, instead of forcing those of us who wish to see a green sky to wear green-tinted sunglasses, we now demand the right that the sky be turned green. It won’t hurt anyone else, right? No one will be bothered! Why can’t we? Arguments like this are a challenge because the very basis of them isn’t something a lot of folks have given a great deal of thought to. Claiming that blue-sky people can’t justify why the sky can’t be green because they are holding onto outdated beliefs doesn’t recognize what could be a very basic biological need, so deep, we haven’t tapped into it. Evolution can point out an evolutionary purpose for homophobia, but it still cannot point out an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. We just don’t know. And this makes it more difficult for those who believe in proven traditions to have a legal language to counter-argue why their tradition should continue to exist in face of those who demand change away from tradition. That doesn’t make them wrong. It just makes the discussion more difficult, as we see. - steve schnorf - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:17 pm: I could hardly have forecast how prophetic my first comment would be proven to be, right here, right now, real-time. - Anonymous - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:19 pm: ==enthusiastic group of gay activists from taking over the machinery of the Chicago and Cook County Republican organizations?== Haven’t they already done that? - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:20 pm: Bill Baar, what don’t you like about CCC camps? Look up the history. Didn’t cost much, did good, lasting work, and got unemployed young men off the corners, and taught them basic life skills and the value of a good day’s work. Oh, forget it. I think AIG needs another $40 billion. The execs are planning their Super Bowl party. - VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 3:21 pm: ==Do you think anything should be kept out of vote of the majority?== Probably, but why should this be something voters are not allowed to decide? We are one community of citizens, right? We support one another, right? So why should this issue be allowed to circumvent public acceptance via democracy? Why are we letting the activist claim that not only are we wrong, we are not even capable of understanding the issue enough to vote on it!? This is simply not a way to unite people. It won’t work this way. Get a majority to favor gay marriage so that we won’t be dealing with this issue for the next fifty years like we’ve been arguing over Rowe v. Wade since 1972. People are not as stupid as the activist claim we are. - doubtful - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 4:29 pm: Evolution can point out an evolutionary purpose for homophobia, but it still cannot point out an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. -VanillaMan So because we lack the capacity to understand the science behind homosexuality, we’re justified in discriminating against them? Good thing we understand why there are various races, or we could use that to justify, oh let’s say slavery or genocide. The fact is, nature has shown homosexuality in various populations from insect to animal. Just because we don’t understand why, and hell, even if we did, it is not a valid reason for discrimination. Regardless, as I said before this argument will be moot in 10 years or less. Just look at the demographics on Prop 8. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 4:44 pm: Doubtful, be careful not to fall into a trap and treat any of VMan’s rants as having any basis in “evolution” or “science.” He also referenced to “common sense,” which will guide you directly to where he’s coming from. - Bill Baar - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 4:46 pm: Bill Baar, what don’t you like about CCC camps? Visit the CCC museum in Rhinelander. I was at a Church Social Jusitce Committee meeting which began with no one volunteering to take minutes, which was followed by a discussion of no one volunteering to do coffee hour after church, which was followed by how we can all support Obama’s call to service, and I said you mean RE’s CCC camp proposal which all thought was a very good thing indeed…. …just waiting to see how many of my Liberal Religous Unitarian friends can chop trees. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 4:59 pm: Bill, I’m not making the connection with the CCC and your church friends. There certainly are lazy people in and out of church, and everywhere on the political spectrum. If you want a chance to visit a lasting legacy of the CCC, I suggest Ludington State Park in Michigan. - Lefty Lefty - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 5:01 pm: Oh jeez, I get back here and I find out I’m stuck in the 60s? Bummer. I was hoping for the 80s again–better weed. Here are some leftists I know: an insurance claims adjuster who owns a gun. A lesbian Comcast sales manager. A lawyer. A few scientists, some who (gasp) still ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN GOD. That broad brush you use is pretty much out of paint these days. So the “left” that you were a member of in the 60s thought marriage was slavery, and the “left” that you read about in think tank books these days says marriage is a right, and this makes these “left” people arbitrary? What does that make you, Former Leftist-Libertarian Guy? Leave the labels for Campbell’s. Let’s fix stuff. - thinkin - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 6:21 pm: I find it funny “some” blacks want to ban gay’s from marriage when it wasn’t too long ago it wasn’t legal for them to marry whites. How soon we forget. - Paul Richardson - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 7:55 pm: VM- I appreciate your thoughts. But, to be honest, I cannot see any coherent argument being made. You lost me. Here is what I pulled from your last post: -Gay couples raising children may be more likely to abuse them. -We allow post-menopausal couples to marry because we know the biological factors of meopause. But we cannot make the same exception for gay couples because we don’t know conclusively the biology of homosexuality. -Arguing against gay marriage is like trying to argue against dogs being able to vote. -Gay couples asking for the right to marry is akin to someone asking to turn the sky green. -There are evolutionary benefits for be homophobic. I mean, huh? What am I missing here? Most of these statements are patently ridiculous. I fail to see a logical connection. And re: tradition. I do not think anyone is automatically assuming that something is wrong because it is traditionally. But you must see the inherent weakness for a position if its only basis for support is that fact that that is how it has always been. Your post seems to say that “Arguing my side is really hard.” If that is the case, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the argument. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:39 pm: Carl, I must have missed something, but Protect Marriage Illinois are not the GOP. - wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 08 @ 11:58 pm: Paul Richardson, welcome to the wonderful world of the VMan. As always, he was prolific, if not coherent. By the way VMan, you’re right, evolution is biology. But unless you know something I don’t, all of us homo sapiens (not that there’s anything wrong with it) are all equally equipped, depending on our chromosomes. In other words, we’ve evolved the same. What you do with the equipment has nothing to do with evolution. We’re all equipped to do this that or the other thing. — or any combination thereof. And obviously, as anyone who has been to a fertility clinic will tell you, there are ways to carry on the species beyond a joint male/female biting of the lips every other Friday after a couple of Appletinis at TGIF. People argue whether what you do with the equipment is a matter of choice or an inherent disposition. But there is no SCIENCE either way (look up the definition of the word). Like anything to do with affairs of the heart, it’s unknowable. God knows there are libraries filled with great fiction, heartbreaking songs, and beautiful poetry that have tried to make sense of our crazy old hearts. But it eludes us, and always will. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 1:00 am: VanillaMan, if you trust people with the vote (which you obviously do), then why not trust them with their love? - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 2:24 am: Ahem, Google “Protect Marriage Illinois”. Scroll down. On the right hand side it says “affiliate groups”. Under “affiliated groups” it lists the Illinois Republican Party. So, other than being wrong, you have an excellent point. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 7:45 am: Thanks for pointing that out, Carl. If that’s what it says, that’s what it says. I guess I stand corrected. A shame, though. While I’m not taking a stand on Gay marriage one way or the other because I’m conflicted, I guess I am disappointed that the IL GOP would be so publicly affiliated with Protect Marriage Illinois when there are so many more pressing issues to deal with. Sounds like, as a Republican, they want to make the decision for me. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 9:26 am: ==VanillaMan, if you trust people with the vote (which you obviously do), then why not trust them with their love? == Because we are discussing marriage. Love is an important part of marriage in modern society, but marriage is more than a love commitment. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 9:27 am: ==What you do with the equipment has nothing to do with evolution.== That’s nonsense. Take a few classes on evolution. Pingback Protect Marriage Illinois Targets 2010 | Ora et Labora - Tuesday, Nov 18, 08 @ 9:43 am: […] Protect Marriage Illinois fell short of the 270,000 signatures necessary to place the question on the November ballot.  Their effort in 2006 met a similar demise, but Rivera says lawmakers still need clear direction from Illinois citizens on the issue. “There’s a real threat, and it’s because you have activist courts that find things in the constitution that don’t exist,” Rivera said of judges’ rulings in other states that have legalized gay marriage. […] Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.