* The other day, Mark Brown defended Republican US Senate candidate Congressman Mark Kirk against attacks on his immigration stance. Today, Brown gives an approving nod to Democratic US Senate hopeful Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias’ proposal to require states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states…
Under Giannoulias’ view, a same-sex couple from Illinois who get married in Iowa, where gay marriage became legal earlier this year, would have the same rights here as a married heterosexual couple.
Giannoulias said that would give them inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.
“I don’t think we’re asking for special rights,” Giannoulias said. “They’re equal rights.”
Informed of Giannoulias’ comments, a spokesman for Kirk offered a succinct response: “Congressman Kirk opposes gay marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and agrees with President Clinton’s policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
Brown calls the idea politically risky, and he’s most likely right about that. Your thoughts?
Tipsville: Sneed is told that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has definitely, positively decided not to enter the fray for President Obama’s old seat in the U.S. Senate.
•It’s for the usual reasons: the need to raise boatloads of campaign cash, raising five kids — and not wanting to give up a secure job.
* Speaking of Kirk, I haven’t had much on the blog about Dick Green, a wealthy Republican who is gearing up to run in Kirk’s Congressional District. That’s a mistake. We should probably keep a close eye on him. Here’s an excerpt about Green filed a while back by ABC7’s Charles Thomas…
“We’re going to raise the money necessary to compete and we’re going to do everything necessary to win this race.” ]…]
Mr. Green, a multi-millionaire financial consultant, would not answer when asked if he planned on using his own money. He would only say that he’ll have enough to run the race until the finish.
* Related…
* Halvorson to host 2nd telephone town hall on health care
If that is an accurate representation of Kirk’s position on gay rights issues (“Congressman Kirk opposes gay marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and agrees with President Clinton’s policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”), why the hell has he been endorsed by The Human Rights Campaign in each of his re-election bids? Sounds to me like he’s shifted to the right to run statewide….
every millionaire on the north shore thinks that because of his money, business success, and the 2 doors he knocked on for Mark Kirk/John Porter, he/she can be congressman, they didn’t fare well in 2000, and have a pretty bad record (mcsweeney, greenburg, hochberg, donnelly) of setting high expectations and coming up short. the only one that has ever had success was peter fitzgerald-but he had run for statehouse before.
–Giannoulias said that would give them inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.–
Pretty radical stuff. I can feel Western Civilization crumbling all around me.
I’m not a big Alexi fan, but I give him points for doing the right thing here. I doubt if it will hurt him: the strong anti vote wasn’t going to go for him anyway.
I’m a mind-your-own business kind of guy, so I never really gave this issue that much thought before. In my elementary school, there are a number of gay couple parents with adopted kids, and it’s no big deal.
But I was at one of my kids baseball games earlier this summer where a couple of elderly ladies approached me to sign a letter to Rep, Graham on some domestic partnership legislation.
That stung me. Here I was on a beautiful day, in a park, with my family, and two sweet old ladies were asking, in essence, to give my approval, as a citizen, to their relationship and their family.
Well, who the hell am i? The fact that they even had to ask made me ashamed. Live and let live, then mind your own business. Good on you, Alexi.
Poshard got skewered for his stance on the gay issue(s) at the time as well as his pro-gun stance. Any opponent of Kirk’s will likely try to use that statement against him as well. If Kirk were to state he is for domestic partnerships it could blunt the attacks.
Much as I love him, Kirk needs to be held accountable for his positions.
He’s been at 85,75 and 88 in human rights campaign ratings on gay marriage in the last 3 congresses, which is a big deal considering I doubt that most republicans do better than 0.
We have real issues to discuss for this US Senate campaign. Gay marriage has fallen far down on the list of issues. Giannoulias’ stand regarding this issue helps him collect campaign dollars from the special interest groups working to change marriage laws.
Kirk’s stand is also not surprising.
If this becomes a big deal, Kirk has the edge with voters who believe in keeping marriage laws as they currently are.
But on a top ten list of Illinois concerns, gay marriage doesn’t even make it. This doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue, but we have other issues to discuss that effect Illinoisans more than this.
Giannoulias said that would give them inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.
Giannoulais needs to check the law. Gay couples have all of this already. Gay couples that I know have everything already worked out regardling these issues. They don’t need state acceptance of their relationships in order to attain these rights. They already have it.
In a contested Dem primary promising the GLBT voters something they want is about as shocking as the candidate telling Jews s/he supports Israel.
I’m not a typical voter, but…
If Hoffman (or Robinson Jackson) wants to portray Giannoulias as a policy lightweight (a potential vulnerability) then D-Hoff and C-Rob-Jack need to have some specific policy ideas that make sense and reflect some thought.
Who has some insights or ideas on foreign policy? Re-regulating the financial sector? Creating an economy that provides good-paying jobs?
So far, Sexy Alexi, D-Hoff, C-Rob-Jack and Kirk all look like ticket punchers who want to campaign on their resumes. All of them look like they are policy lightweights. I question if any of them have a vision.
OK, I suspect Kirk has a vision. Give 50% of his votes to the abortion rights crowd and oppose goofy NRA legislation and otherwise do what Mitch McConnell tells him. Oh, and continue to drill with the reserves.
Neither Kirk nor Alexi’s positions are going to be game changers. As was rightly pointed out, this is not high on most voters’ priority lists and is only vital to activists on the fringes. It will help Kirk to some extent with social conservatives (not enough to asuage some of course), but it’s really not going to impact a sizable number of independents who will decide this election.
–* The other day, Mark Brown defended Republican US Senate candidate Congressman Mark Kirk against attacks on his immigration stance. –
Rich, I don’t think the issue was immigration, legal or otherwise. Kirk was speaking in support of family planning funding. He made a rather curious connection to illegal immigration, and that’s where he got wacked.
VanMan, speaking as a member of one of those gay couples you’re talking about, you couldn’t be more wrong about my need for ’state acceptance’ to make me equal to you under the law. While I am able to leave my property to my partner, the tax code (both state and federal) does not treat me the same as it does you. And I can only get him health insurance coverage if my employer takes the extra step of allowing it (and his benefit is taxable to me while your wife’s isn’t to you). It is a fallacy that gay people can just ‘contract around’ the many rights that are automatically given to straight couples.
Kirk can outsmart himself on comments, there was a thing on profiling at northwestern a few years ago. There were rumors yesterday that Stevens is not hiring law clerks for 09-10, and the question being if he would step down. I’m sure one of the questions that kirk will get asked will be on judges-if he’d have supported alito and roberts-I doubt alexi would have.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:05 am:
Andrew Sullivan and some other gay marriage rights activists disagree with Giannoulias — they are all about “federalism” and that states should be allowed to chose for themselves (remember during the George W. Bush administration there was support for an amendment to the Constitution that arguably would have reversed some state marriages since they were by court ruling and not legislation — it was hard to pin down proponents of the amendment on that point). I’m all for gay marriage but this is odd: we don’t even have civil unions in our state — why not work on that rather than “legalizatin via quickie marriages in Iowa that we’d then have to recognize”?
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:14 am:
“We have real issues to discuss for this US Senate campaign.”
So now the civil rights of 4-10% of our population do not count as a “real” issue?
“But on a top ten list of Illinois concerns, gay marriage doesn’t even make it.”
I suspect that your many gay friends may rank the issue somewhat higher on their lists.
I think I agree with you to the extent that you’re saying this is a wedge issue that gets trotted out at election time, to the detriment of discussion of other important issues.
It would be terrific if right-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as boogeymen in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people. Fortunately, public opinion continues to shift on this issue, and before too long they’ll find themselves all alone on the fringes, where they belong.
- Speaking at Will - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:18 am:
I will go along with Alexi and his pathetic pandering to the GLBT crowd on Gay Marriage if he will also support recognizing “right to carry” permits issued by other states here in Illinois. Oh, thats right, he wont do that, not as politcally tastefull in liberal Illinois.
I think I agree with you to the extent that you’re saying this is a wedge issue that gets trotted out at election time, to the detriment of discussion of other important issues.
Right.
Alexi supports changing marriage laws.
Kirk doesn’t.
This can’t be a surprise. Now, can we move on and choose between these two on more important issues than this?
I suspect that your many gay friends may rank the issue somewhat higher on their lists.
Of course they would. Everyone has special interests.
It would be terrific if right-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as boogeymen in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people.
It would be terrific if left-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as ignorant people in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people?
“So then should someone who got married in another state in order to avoid some other condition of marrage in Illinois (such as minimum age) or first cousins (in Illinois one has to be over 50 or unable to reproduce) be able to have the marriage reconized in this state”.
If not, then why not force standardization accross the nation since the most liberal values for age, relationship, etc. set by any state would stand. Assuming someone could hop in a car or get on a plane and get there”
For example
Mississippi: Parental consent is needed if under 21 years of age. If parents or guardians do not give consent at time of application, they will be notified via certified mail. The marriage application will be held for three (3) days. Marriage licenses cannot be issued to males under 17, or females under 15 years of age. If the clerk receives a signed authorization from the parents, this minimum age requirement can be waived.
Should Mississippi be forced to accept the marriage of a couple who went to Illinois to get married at 18?
Should Illinois be forced to accept the marrage of a 14 year old who got parental permission and got married in Mississippi even though you have to be at least 16 to get married in Illinois?
Also some states allow you to get married younger than 18 without parental ok if the bride is pregnant but Illinois does not?
So would every state have to accept every other states marrages? If so why not make marriage a federal thing and not a state thing?
Gays still ahve to shell out $ to lawyers, etc. to get the equivalent rights (and they may never be exacttly the same).
LCD,
Alexi isn’t violating any federalist positions since he isn’t apparently saying each state has to allow gay marriage, he’s being a traditionalist by imposing the concept of “full faith and credit” in requirng states to recognize the legal actions of other states. sure it erodes the prohibition, but that’s the point.
Why doesn’t the republican party (of Ensign, Sanford, et al)suggest a defense of marriage act the prohibits adultery; that seems to f%&$# up more marriages than unrelated gay parties getting hitched.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:45 am:
Sorry VanMan, but anyone who thinks there is a gay scourge that needs to beaten back and casts his or her vote on that basis *is* ignorant. What would you call such a person? Hateful? Irrational? Those adjectives work too.
Just calling a spade a spade, no demagoguery required. I’m sure you would never ever dare suggest that any of your fellow citizens are ignorant, because obviously the State of Illinois is populated by nothing but intelligent, well-informed people, right?
Gay rights, Abortion rights, 2nd Amendment rights-why can’t we have major candidates who support all of these as INDIVIDUAL Rights? Instead, we have people who take these issues and separate them, supposedly as “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” positions.
I have never understood liberals who say that freedom of speech and religion are okay, but freedom to own guns is not; on the other hand, how can conservatives say that we can limit a woman’s right to abortion, but not limit guns…
it just doesn’t make sense to me.
Just calling a spade a spade, no demagoguery required. I’m sure you would never ever dare suggest that any of your fellow citizens are ignorant, because obviously the State of Illinois is populated by nothing but intelligent, well-informed people, right?
People who make claims similar to yours, really are just smearing people with diverse opinions than theirs. Illinois is populated by people who care as much as you do. The fact that they disagree with you requires you to reconsider how your present your political positions. Name-calling doesn’t work. You cannot win people over by suggesting that they are ignorant, irrational, hateful or however you wish to label them because of your frustrations.
You need an open mind in order to reach those who differ from you. If you were in China, you would respectfully adapt. If you were in Saudi Arabia, you would respectfully adapt. You need to respectfully adapt to the differing opinions around you, especially those supported by a majority of voters.
Proven traditions have to be respected and understood before they can be changed. No one listens to a heretic.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
@VanMan: Who’s trying to “win over” this ever-shrinking segment of the population? They are slowly dying out without any help from me.
If I were in China or Saudi Arabia and failed to “respectfully adapt,” I would be made to do so at the end of a bayonet. Here, we have free speech and I choose to exercise that right. If some gay-fearing person doesn’t like it, tough toenails.
From just a practical standpoint your post only inflames the opposition. How does that help your cause? It might make you feel better but you ain’t gonna change minds by demonizing thoughtful people who don’t share your opinion. Or do you not believe that thoughtful people can have an opinion different than yours?
If my state has to accept every other state’s marriages even if they don’t meet our age and permission requirements, then Illinois needs to let folks from outside the state who have conceled carry permits carrly conceled?
Yes I know it’s different if your point is that if a state is too whatever.. ‘ignorant, behind the times, etc’ on this issue, then how about an issue where almost 40somthing states agree with in part. It would seem to me using that logic Illinois is ‘ignorant, behind the times, etc’ on conceled cary.
How about something else only some states allow it doesn’t have to be conceled carry, that is the one that popped into my head.
For what it is worth btw, I don’t recall Alexi really doing anything public related to this issue before.
===It might make you feel better but you ain’t gonna change minds by demonizing thoughtful people who don’t share your opinion.===
In CIC’s defense, a lot of us liberals are, for lack of a better term, angry at some of our fellow Democrats. Don’t get us wrong, we’re mad at the people that disagree with us too. But try looking at it from this perspective: it is 2009, 45 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and there is still a segment of our population that the Government can legally discriminate against. So yeah, some of us are a little upset about the lack of progress.
This issue shouldn’t be seen as adversarial, it should be seen as an hour glass full of sand. Eventually gay rights are going to be recognized nationally. Maybe it will be next year, maybe it will be in 50 years. The question is, how much time do you want to spend on the ship that is sinking before you bail?
===If my state has to accept every other state’s marriages even if they don’t meet our age and permission requirements, then Illinois needs to let folks from outside the state who have conceled carry permits carrly conceled?===
Are you really equating a loaded firearm with a gay couple in that analogy? Really?
This thread has sort of gone off the rails into gay marriage policy and morality and away from politics. Back to the point. Alexi may be utterly sincere in his position, OR he may be trolling for campaign cash from the GLBT community and others. His motive is mostly irrelevant. Clearly, no matter how noble the goal, should he win, as the junior senator from Illinois he is going to have about zero influence and success on getting the legislation he proposes drafted and passed in Washington. Hopefully, his financial supporters on this specific issue are savvy enough to understand that he will not be able to deliver, and realize they are ultimately going to be disappointed. Have his handlers thought through why this statement was politically risky on several levels?
=how can conservatives say that we can limit a woman’s right to abortion, but not limit guns=
One of these rights is written down. The other is read into law. I’d prefer if on both of these issues there was more effort shifted in debating Griswold. I don’t think Griswold packs near the punch we think it does to protect individual privacy.
No not really, but it is the easiest example of something I came up with that some (actually almost all) allow that a few don’t.
I am open for a better exmaple.
How about window tiniting. Should Illinois be unable to write a ticket for a guy who’s windows are tinted to a level not acceptable in Illinos but was acceptable in the state the car was first registered in?
Responsa, I would say that both of your initial possibilities could be true: he could sincerely be pro AND be trolling for cash. Being pro doesn’t mean he comes out with it, he must see something in their numbers to permit it.
Alexi will lose and it will have nothing to do with gay rights.
Who will the national Dems recruit next in their anyone-but-Alexi campaign? I guess it’s too late. But why not someone nutty like Ozzie Guillen or Paul Simon’s skeletal remains — I think either could be Alexi.
Tom Dart needs a history lesson. Never pass a chance to get out of the Cook County Sheriff job.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:18 pm:
@dupage dan:
I know thoughtful people can have opinions different from mine. However, as my previous posts indicate, I do not consider one-issue voters who get more riled up about stopping gay marriage at any cost than any other issue, or the politicians who pander to them, to be “thoughtful.” Quite the opposite, in fact.
===I was shocked to read that Giannoulias advanced the claim that the Framers of the Constitution considered same sex marriage a fundamental right.===
It would be so hilarious if that was true!
Let me tell you what is about to happen. The Founding Father are meeting in Philadelphia right now in a warm, stuffy meeting room.
The date is May 29th, 1787. And YOU ARE THERE!
This is Walter Cronkite. These distinguished gentlemen, wearing the finest silk suits, puffy hankerchiefs and frilly wigs represent each state within the new country of the United States. Except for Illinois, because, well, it hasn’t become a state yet, and the Daley Machine hadn’t yet decided which of their syncophants paid enough cash to represent them in Philadelphia. But the other guys are here…All things are as they were then, except… You Are There!
James Madison: “So how YOU doin’? Take a look at the cut of these new pants! They’re HOT baby!”
Gouverneur Morris: “HELLO! Can’t you see we’re talking here, Jimbo?”
James Madison: “OOoh! Aren’t WE Catty! - MEEEOW!”
Alexander Hamilton: “Yeah Dolly-Man! We’ve been, like, SLAVIN’, over this new gay marriage idea Franklin has been presenting. So don’t go rompin’ around this room, faunting you naughty bits while we’re trying to have some quality time, doing, you know, LAW STUFF ‘N ALL!”
James Madison: “Well, if you don’t like what I’m wearing - then just SAY IT! You don’t have to get all up in my grill, like you’re Queen or something!”
AH: “Oh! Hhmmph! You’re right Jimmy. I owe you some face time, and I feel so stressed right now!”
JM: “I told you to change hair dressers, didn’t I? Look at your wig! Dolly wouldn’t be caught dead in a Stallone movie wearing that ratty thing!”
AH: “C’Mon! You know I’m no good at conflict! This weather is wrecking HAVOC, and if I have to listen to Ben Franklin tell another one of those putrid sob stories…”
George Washington: “GENTLEMEN - and that means you too Hamilton and Madison - we are here to discuss Ben Franklin’s proposal granting gay marriage rights in this new constitution. I say we go for it, because ya know, it would be so fair, right? It’s not like we’re discussing all the black slaves and their rights - we’re talking white guys who own property being able to get their groove on if they so desire!”
All Men: “Hear! Hear!”
Walter Cronkite: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
VM that was very funny.
However, the Iowa opinion is worth the read if one is really interested in this topic. And more importantly what is not happening over there. In typical Iowa fashion everyone is just living thier lives and minding their own business. Neither the DesMoines Register nor the Quad Cities Times has had much to say after the initial ruling. The fact that it seems to be of so little conern I believe there may be a whole younger generation who just do not see this as a significant issue. Infact most of the college kids I know really think that gay marriage is already permited.
I really dont understand why in Illinois with all its Democratic officeholders that we are still so far away from putting this to rest. As usual lack of leadership seems to come to mind.
Then you must not know any gay guys. They come in every shape, color, age, interest, dress, undress, proclivity, and manner of speech, and find this humor as hilarious as anyone else - hence the popularity of Will and Grace.
You are confusing political correctness with real life.
VM, as noted above, I actually AM one of those gay guys. And my gay friends don’t go around saying “MEEOW!” I agree that the gay community comes in all shapes and sizes, but portraying all gays as flaming is just stereotyping, not “hilarious” as you say.
Perhaps you can next do a parody of discussions about civil rights, imagining the founders as black - you could play them all as drug-dealing gangbangers. That would be a hoot.
The fact that I don’t find blatant stereotyping as “hilarious” as you do doesn’t mean I lack a sense of humor. I’d write a show about you, but it was already done. I think they called it “All In The Family”.
- PinkGirl - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 9:55 am:
Alexi sounds an awful like Obama, we’ll see what he really does.
- Mountain Man - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:11 am:
If that is an accurate representation of Kirk’s position on gay rights issues (“Congressman Kirk opposes gay marriage, supports the Defense of Marriage Act, and agrees with President Clinton’s policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”), why the hell has he been endorsed by The Human Rights Campaign in each of his re-election bids? Sounds to me like he’s shifted to the right to run statewide….
- Shore - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:11 am:
every millionaire on the north shore thinks that because of his money, business success, and the 2 doors he knocked on for Mark Kirk/John Porter, he/she can be congressman, they didn’t fare well in 2000, and have a pretty bad record (mcsweeney, greenburg, hochberg, donnelly) of setting high expectations and coming up short. the only one that has ever had success was peter fitzgerald-but he had run for statehouse before.
It’s not as easy as it looks.
- Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:13 am:
let the pandering begin!
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:20 am:
–Giannoulias said that would give them inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.–
Pretty radical stuff. I can feel Western Civilization crumbling all around me.
I’m not a big Alexi fan, but I give him points for doing the right thing here. I doubt if it will hurt him: the strong anti vote wasn’t going to go for him anyway.
I’m a mind-your-own business kind of guy, so I never really gave this issue that much thought before. In my elementary school, there are a number of gay couple parents with adopted kids, and it’s no big deal.
But I was at one of my kids baseball games earlier this summer where a couple of elderly ladies approached me to sign a letter to Rep, Graham on some domestic partnership legislation.
That stung me. Here I was on a beautiful day, in a park, with my family, and two sweet old ladies were asking, in essence, to give my approval, as a citizen, to their relationship and their family.
Well, who the hell am i? The fact that they even had to ask made me ashamed. Live and let live, then mind your own business. Good on you, Alexi.
- Craigz List - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:24 am:
Wonder how those North Shore people are going to react to Coulson’s hiring of Dan Proft’s hard right consulting firm to help her campaign?
- dupage dan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:29 am:
Poshard got skewered for his stance on the gay issue(s) at the time as well as his pro-gun stance. Any opponent of Kirk’s will likely try to use that statement against him as well. If Kirk were to state he is for domestic partnerships it could blunt the attacks.
- Shore - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:30 am:
Much as I love him, Kirk needs to be held accountable for his positions.
He’s been at 85,75 and 88 in human rights campaign ratings on gay marriage in the last 3 congresses, which is a big deal considering I doubt that most republicans do better than 0.
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/your_elected_officials.asp?state=IL&x=7&y=3&view=myofficials&zip=
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:30 am:
We have real issues to discuss for this US Senate campaign. Gay marriage has fallen far down on the list of issues. Giannoulias’ stand regarding this issue helps him collect campaign dollars from the special interest groups working to change marriage laws.
Kirk’s stand is also not surprising.
If this becomes a big deal, Kirk has the edge with voters who believe in keeping marriage laws as they currently are.
But on a top ten list of Illinois concerns, gay marriage doesn’t even make it. This doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue, but we have other issues to discuss that effect Illinoisans more than this.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:33 am:
Giannoulias said that would give them inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits and all other legal protections granted married couples.
Giannoulais needs to check the law. Gay couples have all of this already. Gay couples that I know have everything already worked out regardling these issues. They don’t need state acceptance of their relationships in order to attain these rights. They already have it.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:34 am:
In a contested Dem primary promising the GLBT voters something they want is about as shocking as the candidate telling Jews s/he supports Israel.
I’m not a typical voter, but…
If Hoffman (or Robinson Jackson) wants to portray Giannoulias as a policy lightweight (a potential vulnerability) then D-Hoff and C-Rob-Jack need to have some specific policy ideas that make sense and reflect some thought.
Who has some insights or ideas on foreign policy? Re-regulating the financial sector? Creating an economy that provides good-paying jobs?
So far, Sexy Alexi, D-Hoff, C-Rob-Jack and Kirk all look like ticket punchers who want to campaign on their resumes. All of them look like they are policy lightweights. I question if any of them have a vision.
OK, I suspect Kirk has a vision. Give 50% of his votes to the abortion rights crowd and oppose goofy NRA legislation and otherwise do what Mitch McConnell tells him. Oh, and continue to drill with the reserves.
- Tony - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:35 am:
Politically risky? Yes. But it’s the right thing to do.
- Abe Froman - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:36 am:
Neither Kirk nor Alexi’s positions are going to be game changers. As was rightly pointed out, this is not high on most voters’ priority lists and is only vital to activists on the fringes. It will help Kirk to some extent with social conservatives (not enough to asuage some of course), but it’s really not going to impact a sizable number of independents who will decide this election.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:39 am:
–* The other day, Mark Brown defended Republican US Senate candidate Congressman Mark Kirk against attacks on his immigration stance. –
Rich, I don’t think the issue was immigration, legal or otherwise. Kirk was speaking in support of family planning funding. He made a rather curious connection to illegal immigration, and that’s where he got wacked.
- Rick - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:47 am:
VanMan, speaking as a member of one of those gay couples you’re talking about, you couldn’t be more wrong about my need for ’state acceptance’ to make me equal to you under the law. While I am able to leave my property to my partner, the tax code (both state and federal) does not treat me the same as it does you. And I can only get him health insurance coverage if my employer takes the extra step of allowing it (and his benefit is taxable to me while your wife’s isn’t to you). It is a fallacy that gay people can just ‘contract around’ the many rights that are automatically given to straight couples.
- Shore - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:48 am:
Kirk can outsmart himself on comments, there was a thing on profiling at northwestern a few years ago. There were rumors yesterday that Stevens is not hiring law clerks for 09-10, and the question being if he would step down. I’m sure one of the questions that kirk will get asked will be on judges-if he’d have supported alito and roberts-I doubt alexi would have.
- David Ormsby - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 10:52 am:
Giannoulias’ stand: risky, right.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:05 am:
Andrew Sullivan and some other gay marriage rights activists disagree with Giannoulias — they are all about “federalism” and that states should be allowed to chose for themselves (remember during the George W. Bush administration there was support for an amendment to the Constitution that arguably would have reversed some state marriages since they were by court ruling and not legislation — it was hard to pin down proponents of the amendment on that point). I’m all for gay marriage but this is odd: we don’t even have civil unions in our state — why not work on that rather than “legalizatin via quickie marriages in Iowa that we’d then have to recognize”?
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:14 am:
“We have real issues to discuss for this US Senate campaign.”
So now the civil rights of 4-10% of our population do not count as a “real” issue?
“But on a top ten list of Illinois concerns, gay marriage doesn’t even make it.”
I suspect that your many gay friends may rank the issue somewhat higher on their lists.
I think I agree with you to the extent that you’re saying this is a wedge issue that gets trotted out at election time, to the detriment of discussion of other important issues.
It would be terrific if right-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as boogeymen in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people. Fortunately, public opinion continues to shift on this issue, and before too long they’ll find themselves all alone on the fringes, where they belong.
- Speaking at Will - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:18 am:
I will go along with Alexi and his pathetic pandering to the GLBT crowd on Gay Marriage if he will also support recognizing “right to carry” permits issued by other states here in Illinois. Oh, thats right, he wont do that, not as politcally tastefull in liberal Illinois.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:28 am:
I think I agree with you to the extent that you’re saying this is a wedge issue that gets trotted out at election time, to the detriment of discussion of other important issues.
Right.
Alexi supports changing marriage laws.
Kirk doesn’t.
This can’t be a surprise. Now, can we move on and choose between these two on more important issues than this?
I suspect that your many gay friends may rank the issue somewhat higher on their lists.
Of course they would. Everyone has special interests.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:30 am:
It would be terrific if right-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as boogeymen in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people.
It would be terrific if left-wing demagogues didn’t feel the need to paint their fellow citizens as ignorant people in order to scare up a few votes from other ignorant people?
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:35 am:
Well a question for Alexi would be…
“So then should someone who got married in another state in order to avoid some other condition of marrage in Illinois (such as minimum age) or first cousins (in Illinois one has to be over 50 or unable to reproduce) be able to have the marriage reconized in this state”.
If not, then why not force standardization accross the nation since the most liberal values for age, relationship, etc. set by any state would stand. Assuming someone could hop in a car or get on a plane and get there”
For example
Mississippi: Parental consent is needed if under 21 years of age. If parents or guardians do not give consent at time of application, they will be notified via certified mail. The marriage application will be held for three (3) days. Marriage licenses cannot be issued to males under 17, or females under 15 years of age. If the clerk receives a signed authorization from the parents, this minimum age requirement can be waived.
Should Mississippi be forced to accept the marriage of a couple who went to Illinois to get married at 18?
Should Illinois be forced to accept the marrage of a 14 year old who got parental permission and got married in Mississippi even though you have to be at least 16 to get married in Illinois?
Also some states allow you to get married younger than 18 without parental ok if the bride is pregnant but Illinois does not?
So would every state have to accept every other states marrages? If so why not make marriage a federal thing and not a state thing?
- corvax - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:40 am:
VanMan,
Gays still ahve to shell out $ to lawyers, etc. to get the equivalent rights (and they may never be exacttly the same).
LCD,
Alexi isn’t violating any federalist positions since he isn’t apparently saying each state has to allow gay marriage, he’s being a traditionalist by imposing the concept of “full faith and credit” in requirng states to recognize the legal actions of other states. sure it erodes the prohibition, but that’s the point.
Why doesn’t the republican party (of Ensign, Sanford, et al)suggest a defense of marriage act the prohibits adultery; that seems to f%&$# up more marriages than unrelated gay parties getting hitched.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:45 am:
Sorry VanMan, but anyone who thinks there is a gay scourge that needs to beaten back and casts his or her vote on that basis *is* ignorant. What would you call such a person? Hateful? Irrational? Those adjectives work too.
Just calling a spade a spade, no demagoguery required. I’m sure you would never ever dare suggest that any of your fellow citizens are ignorant, because obviously the State of Illinois is populated by nothing but intelligent, well-informed people, right?
- Downstate Commissioner - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:46 am:
Gay rights, Abortion rights, 2nd Amendment rights-why can’t we have major candidates who support all of these as INDIVIDUAL Rights? Instead, we have people who take these issues and separate them, supposedly as “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” positions.
I have never understood liberals who say that freedom of speech and religion are okay, but freedom to own guns is not; on the other hand, how can conservatives say that we can limit a woman’s right to abortion, but not limit guns…
it just doesn’t make sense to me.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 11:54 am:
Just calling a spade a spade, no demagoguery required. I’m sure you would never ever dare suggest that any of your fellow citizens are ignorant, because obviously the State of Illinois is populated by nothing but intelligent, well-informed people, right?
People who make claims similar to yours, really are just smearing people with diverse opinions than theirs. Illinois is populated by people who care as much as you do. The fact that they disagree with you requires you to reconsider how your present your political positions. Name-calling doesn’t work. You cannot win people over by suggesting that they are ignorant, irrational, hateful or however you wish to label them because of your frustrations.
You need an open mind in order to reach those who differ from you. If you were in China, you would respectfully adapt. If you were in Saudi Arabia, you would respectfully adapt. You need to respectfully adapt to the differing opinions around you, especially those supported by a majority of voters.
Proven traditions have to be respected and understood before they can be changed. No one listens to a heretic.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
@VanMan: Who’s trying to “win over” this ever-shrinking segment of the population? They are slowly dying out without any help from me.
If I were in China or Saudi Arabia and failed to “respectfully adapt,” I would be made to do so at the end of a bayonet. Here, we have free speech and I choose to exercise that right. If some gay-fearing person doesn’t like it, tough toenails.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:08 pm:
CIC,
From just a practical standpoint your post only inflames the opposition. How does that help your cause? It might make you feel better but you ain’t gonna change minds by demonizing thoughtful people who don’t share your opinion. Or do you not believe that thoughtful people can have an opinion different than yours?
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:22 pm:
How about this….
If my state has to accept every other state’s marriages even if they don’t meet our age and permission requirements, then Illinois needs to let folks from outside the state who have conceled carry permits carrly conceled?
Yes I know it’s different if your point is that if a state is too whatever.. ‘ignorant, behind the times, etc’ on this issue, then how about an issue where almost 40somthing states agree with in part. It would seem to me using that logic Illinois is ‘ignorant, behind the times, etc’ on conceled cary.
How about something else only some states allow it doesn’t have to be conceled carry, that is the one that popped into my head.
For what it is worth btw, I don’t recall Alexi really doing anything public related to this issue before.
- Obamarama - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:22 pm:
===It might make you feel better but you ain’t gonna change minds by demonizing thoughtful people who don’t share your opinion.===
In CIC’s defense, a lot of us liberals are, for lack of a better term, angry at some of our fellow Democrats. Don’t get us wrong, we’re mad at the people that disagree with us too. But try looking at it from this perspective: it is 2009, 45 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, and there is still a segment of our population that the Government can legally discriminate against. So yeah, some of us are a little upset about the lack of progress.
This issue shouldn’t be seen as adversarial, it should be seen as an hour glass full of sand. Eventually gay rights are going to be recognized nationally. Maybe it will be next year, maybe it will be in 50 years. The question is, how much time do you want to spend on the ship that is sinking before you bail?
- Obamarama - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
===If my state has to accept every other state’s marriages even if they don’t meet our age and permission requirements, then Illinois needs to let folks from outside the state who have conceled carry permits carrly conceled?===
Are you really equating a loaded firearm with a gay couple in that analogy? Really?
- Responsa - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:40 pm:
This thread has sort of gone off the rails into gay marriage policy and morality and away from politics. Back to the point. Alexi may be utterly sincere in his position, OR he may be trolling for campaign cash from the GLBT community and others. His motive is mostly irrelevant. Clearly, no matter how noble the goal, should he win, as the junior senator from Illinois he is going to have about zero influence and success on getting the legislation he proposes drafted and passed in Washington. Hopefully, his financial supporters on this specific issue are savvy enough to understand that he will not be able to deliver, and realize they are ultimately going to be disappointed. Have his handlers thought through why this statement was politically risky on several levels?
- Brennan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:52 pm:
This is play for volunteers. It will work.
=how can conservatives say that we can limit a woman’s right to abortion, but not limit guns=
One of these rights is written down. The other is read into law. I’d prefer if on both of these issues there was more effort shifted in debating Griswold. I don’t think Griswold packs near the punch we think it does to protect individual privacy.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 12:54 pm:
No not really, but it is the easiest example of something I came up with that some (actually almost all) allow that a few don’t.
I am open for a better exmaple.
How about window tiniting. Should Illinois be unable to write a ticket for a guy who’s windows are tinted to a level not acceptable in Illinos but was acceptable in the state the car was first registered in?
- old pol Mike - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:01 pm:
Responsa, I would say that both of your initial possibilities could be true: he could sincerely be pro AND be trolling for cash. Being pro doesn’t mean he comes out with it, he must see something in their numbers to permit it.
- l.w. - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:07 pm:
Alexi will lose and it will have nothing to do with gay rights.
Who will the national Dems recruit next in their anyone-but-Alexi campaign? I guess it’s too late. But why not someone nutty like Ozzie Guillen or Paul Simon’s skeletal remains — I think either could be Alexi.
Tom Dart needs a history lesson. Never pass a chance to get out of the Cook County Sheriff job.
- charles in charge - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:18 pm:
@dupage dan:
I know thoughtful people can have opinions different from mine. However, as my previous posts indicate, I do not consider one-issue voters who get more riled up about stopping gay marriage at any cost than any other issue, or the politicians who pander to them, to be “thoughtful.” Quite the opposite, in fact.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:41 pm:
I was shocked to read that Giannoulias advanced the claim that the Framers of the Constitution considered same sex marriage a fundamental right.
That is one hell of a stretch. I do not see how Alexi passed Con Law. He is a con man.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 1:54 pm:
===I was shocked to read that Giannoulias advanced the claim that the Framers of the Constitution considered same sex marriage a fundamental right.===
Where did you read that?
- Brennan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 2:42 pm:
So did Mark Brown get burned by the ICCIR? They are now running the same erroneus condom ads in english here at The Capitol Fax Blog.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 2:58 pm:
===I was shocked to read that Giannoulias advanced the claim that the Framers of the Constitution considered same sex marriage a fundamental right.===
It would be so hilarious if that was true!
Let me tell you what is about to happen. The Founding Father are meeting in Philadelphia right now in a warm, stuffy meeting room.
The date is May 29th, 1787. And YOU ARE THERE!
This is Walter Cronkite. These distinguished gentlemen, wearing the finest silk suits, puffy hankerchiefs and frilly wigs represent each state within the new country of the United States. Except for Illinois, because, well, it hasn’t become a state yet, and the Daley Machine hadn’t yet decided which of their syncophants paid enough cash to represent them in Philadelphia. But the other guys are here…All things are as they were then, except… You Are There!
James Madison: “So how YOU doin’? Take a look at the cut of these new pants! They’re HOT baby!”
Gouverneur Morris: “HELLO! Can’t you see we’re talking here, Jimbo?”
James Madison: “OOoh! Aren’t WE Catty! - MEEEOW!”
Alexander Hamilton: “Yeah Dolly-Man! We’ve been, like, SLAVIN’, over this new gay marriage idea Franklin has been presenting. So don’t go rompin’ around this room, faunting you naughty bits while we’re trying to have some quality time, doing, you know, LAW STUFF ‘N ALL!”
James Madison: “Well, if you don’t like what I’m wearing - then just SAY IT! You don’t have to get all up in my grill, like you’re Queen or something!”
AH: “Oh! Hhmmph! You’re right Jimmy. I owe you some face time, and I feel so stressed right now!”
JM: “I told you to change hair dressers, didn’t I? Look at your wig! Dolly wouldn’t be caught dead in a Stallone movie wearing that ratty thing!”
AH: “C’Mon! You know I’m no good at conflict! This weather is wrecking HAVOC, and if I have to listen to Ben Franklin tell another one of those putrid sob stories…”
George Washington: “GENTLEMEN - and that means you too Hamilton and Madison - we are here to discuss Ben Franklin’s proposal granting gay marriage rights in this new constitution. I say we go for it, because ya know, it would be so fair, right? It’s not like we’re discussing all the black slaves and their rights - we’re talking white guys who own property being able to get their groove on if they so desire!”
All Men: “Hear! Hear!”
Walter Cronkite: “What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times… and you were there.”
- Ill_will - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 3:04 pm:
VM
Whatever you do for a living, it is the wrong career1
That was too funny.
- Anon3 - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 3:44 pm:
VM that was very funny.
However, the Iowa opinion is worth the read if one is really interested in this topic. And more importantly what is not happening over there. In typical Iowa fashion everyone is just living thier lives and minding their own business. Neither the DesMoines Register nor the Quad Cities Times has had much to say after the initial ruling. The fact that it seems to be of so little conern I believe there may be a whole younger generation who just do not see this as a significant issue. Infact most of the college kids I know really think that gay marriage is already permited.
I really dont understand why in Illinois with all its Democratic officeholders that we are still so far away from putting this to rest. As usual lack of leadership seems to come to mind.
- Anon3 - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 3:46 pm:
Hey Rich how about them Sox!
- Rick - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 3:54 pm:
That’s a lot of offensive stereotypes for one post, VM.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 3:58 pm:
Then you must not know any gay guys. They come in every shape, color, age, interest, dress, undress, proclivity, and manner of speech, and find this humor as hilarious as anyone else - hence the popularity of Will and Grace.
You are confusing political correctness with real life.
- Rick - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 4:05 pm:
VM, as noted above, I actually AM one of those gay guys. And my gay friends don’t go around saying “MEEOW!” I agree that the gay community comes in all shapes and sizes, but portraying all gays as flaming is just stereotyping, not “hilarious” as you say.
Perhaps you can next do a parody of discussions about civil rights, imagining the founders as black - you could play them all as drug-dealing gangbangers. That would be a hoot.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 4:12 pm:
OR - I could write a parody of discussions about gay guys with no sense of humor!
- Rick - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 4:19 pm:
The fact that I don’t find blatant stereotyping as “hilarious” as you do doesn’t mean I lack a sense of humor. I’d write a show about you, but it was already done. I think they called it “All In The Family”.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 4:34 pm:
I’m laughing!
See?
That is how it’s done!
“All In The Family”
You’re killing me!
Oh - I better not say “kill”, should I? You probably find that offensive too - sorry.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 3, 09 @ 4:34 pm:
OK, enough. You two have made your points, over and over and over. Move along, please.