83 Comments - too obvious - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:26 pm: Might as well. It’s inevitable. Just a matter of time. Even most conservatives have thrown in the towel. Too afraid to fight for anything. A few might light some candles and say they’re praying about the issue, but no serious opposition. Few care about the issue anymore. Let gay folks have it. They’ve worked hard and won. - G'Kar - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:27 pm: It seems to me that a marriage is simply a contract and should be governed by such. If some religious institutions do not want to preside over a same-sex marriage, that is their right. However, to ban same-sex marriage from a civil ceremony is simply wrong, imho. - illilnifan - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:27 pm: Really why not. We have already taken a big step by allowing civil unions, why not take the next small step to marriage and provide all the benefits as well as all the problems. Giving rights to others does not change or impede on my rights, so what is the big fuss. If religious organizations do not want to perform a marriage that is their right so this issue should never be one of religious beliefs. The marriage can be in a faith that will support same sex marriages, or a civil ceremony. - JustaJoe - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:29 pm: I voted NO. If Civil Unions don’t provide the same governmental coverage as Marriage, fix that. If the term “Civil Unions” isn’t satisfactory, change that to something other than “Marriage”. But leave Marriage alone. - mokenavince - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:29 pm: Let’s get it done. If someone wants to get married that bad let’m. - Way South of I-80 - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:30 pm: Agree it is inevitable - voted yes. - NIref - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:31 pm: I voted yes. This is a matter of equality. Everett Dirksen, in speaking about crossing the line to vote for racial equality, said he disagreed with integration, but it was a matter of what is right and fair. Civil Unions are not on par with marriage. Couples in civil unions can still be denied protection that marriage guarantees. As for the religious aspect, the State is not the church. The state has an interest in protecting the rights of man, not in pursuing morality. The church is within its right to not formally recognize a marriage. For example, the Catholic church still does not condone divorce, and yet Catholic couples get divorced. The state is obligated to recognize the split, even though the church does not. Policy is not dictated by religion. - Why Not?.- - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:33 pm: Let them be a miserable as anybody else who is married - wordslinger - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:34 pm: Sure, why not? It’s not my business whatsoever if two consenting adults wish to draw up a civil contract, toss a couple of millstones around their necks and ties themselves up in knots legally. Fact is, it seems gay people are about the only folks who want to be married these days. My gay neighbors who have adopted kids would very much like to get married. To that, I can only say, salud. http://www.divorcerate.org/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011/05/30-in-US-have-never-married-Census-says/47309028/1 - OneMan - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:36 pm: As long as you don’t force churches do to any weddings besides the ones they want to I am ok with it at this point. - ChicagoR - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:37 pm: “If the term “Civil Unions” isn’t satisfactory, change that to something other than “Marriage”.” As long as there are different terms, it won’t be satisfactory. In the 60s and before, it wasn’t that the “blacks only” water fountains were always worse - the water tasted the same. - Wensicia - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:44 pm: I believe the passage of civil unions broke the dam, marriage is the inevitable next step. I don’t think it will be long before this happens. - kerfuffle - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:48 pm: Why do we care if two people who want to commit themselves to a union are of the same or different sexes? Don’t we have more important issues to deal with than gay marriage? - Rich Miller - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:49 pm: ===the water tasted the same. === Only if you think constant public humiliation didn’t effect the taste. Also, I doubt they were cleaned as much as the white fountains. - Mom - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:51 pm: Since marriage has legal consequences, then of course it should be an option to any two adult people regardless of their gender. It makes no more sense to bar gays from marriage than it does to bar gays from any other contractual undertaking. That being said, I believe states should remove themselves from the business of marriage all together and return it to the venue of religious institutions. From the state’s perspective, a marriage performed as a religious rite would carry no legal protection or obligation for couples entering into matrimony. Religious institutions would have the right to bar or confer the rites of matrimony on whomever they pleased. Instead, the state should offer partnership instruments to couples, which would enumerate specific terms and conditions that would be enforceable by law. A discussion of expectations, obligations and consequences before unions are formed would likely create an atmosphere where people enter into partnerships with a more rational and mature attitude and would contribute to less contentious termination of unions. Anything that erodes the fairy tale aura of marriage would promote it as a serious adult undertaking. - ChicagoR - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:52 pm: Rich, I’m sure you’re right. But even if they were as clean as the white fountains, it was never “satisfactory” to those impacted. - Esquire - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:52 pm: There has already been some fallout from the Civil Unions legislation — apparently the exemptions for religious organizations were not as iron clad as promised when State Representative Greg Harris was seeking votes. Truthfully, I would prefer to see the marriage issue put before the voters in Illinois. I doubt that the political ruling class will allow such a referendum and Illinois known as a state in which it is notoriously difficult for citizens to place questions of public policy. I think that the politicians do not want to risk having a ban on same sex marriages gaining the support of a majority of Illinois voters. I have seen polls all over the place on this topic, but I think that thirty-two states, including California, have opposed same sex marriage when the voters were allowed to choose. - Chevy owner/Ford County - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:54 pm: Yes. Ideally this will be handled in the same fashion as interracial marriages were recognized across the nation by a Supreme Court ruling. A patchwork of marriage laws, although preferrable to simply making gay marriage illegal, is not ideal. If a couple is married in Iowa, their status should be recognized in all 50 states, DC and by the federal government….short of that though, Illinois should certainly jump on the bandwagon… - Pleading the Fifth - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:54 pm: If you love someone, you love someone. It should not be left up to our government to decide who we love. The gay marriage issue is not political. Politicians have decided it is political. - Anonymous - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:55 pm: No. As with civil unions, I don’t personally care if gay couples “marry”. However, I fear that once a law is passed, churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies or risk losing their nfp status with the IRS, similar to the adoption battle that virtually ran off a great agency helping kids in an attempt to foist societies “morals” inside the ministry of a church. You can cry “paranoid” all you want, but these are the same proponents that a few years ago assured us civil unions weren’t a stepping stone to legalising gay marriage. My church is more important to me than being politically correct. I fear we will be the next target on the agenda of gay activists, so I will oppose it. - Bill - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 1:57 pm: Yes. I don’t see why anyone cares. - one day at a time - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:09 pm: it is called: equal rights for all - Capitol View - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:10 pm: let’s change the legal term for all wedlock to Civil Unions. Let those who want a religious ceremony arrange theirs at a religious institution or by a religious official authorized to do so. The public interest in such personal arrangements relates to property ownership, shared access to bank accounts without forming partnerships, letting spouses visit patients in hospitals, etc. Informally call all wedlocks marriages, if the couples and their families prefer, but use the legal term Civil Unions in all statutes and ordinances. - Earnest - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:12 pm: Yes. It’s the right thing to do. Though we get caught up in churches that are anti, there is a gradually increasing number that will perform gay marriages and see it as a social justice issue. - illilnifan - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:26 pm: Why not do like some Latin American countries and European where the religious ceremony must be held separately from the required civil ceremony. And let’s get over this issue that gay marriages have never existed….they did exist in ancient Greece, Rome and periodically during different periods in European history. It is time to move on and see this as a civil rights issue. - Demoralized - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:31 pm: @Esquire: Voters should never be given the chance to “vote” on somebody’s rights. It’s the most absurd phenomenon I’ve ever seen and I hope the Supreme Court one day tells those states how absurd it is to legislate inequality into the law. ******** I voted yes. It’s none of anybody’s business who I marry. It doesn’t affect anyone else. It’s fine if a Church doesn’t want to have a ceremony but give people the equality they deserve. - LIberty_first - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:37 pm: I voted no because, while I’m for free relationships and contracts, I’m against redefining social norms at whim. When I say whim, some of you will object to the term whim but when you loose the foundation of an institution there is nothing left to define it. Love, companionship, comittment? Those are all characteristics of plural marriage as well. - Jade_rabbit - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:42 pm: It’s none of anybody’s business who I marry. It doesn’t affect anyone else. ____________________________ I think it does. Insurance benefits, tax deductions, death benefits, and death tax all impact revenue for our society as a whole. I would agree with your statement if Government had no rules that benefit a married individual differently than a single individual. But we know that is not the case. We also know that this goes beyond a personal choice. I don’t know where this takes our society. Are we moving backwards towards a primal society similar to that of the Roman Empire? Government only has an interest in Marriage to prevent unhealthy reproduction. What is the role of Government in a same sex marriage? To what end is this path hoping to accomplish? - Lakeview - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:44 pm: I don’t care if two adults want to get married. Why should I? As it is now, Catholic priests don’t have to marry divorcees and Jewish rabbis don’t have to marry interfaith couples, so no one’s religion gets trampled. Meanwhile, those of us who belong to denominations that recognize gay marriage will be able to fully express our faith. - Conservative Republican - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:44 pm: No. Heterosexual marriage has been a building block of civilization for over 5,000 years. “Gay marriage” has, relatively speaking, no history at all and is merely a political construct of a left-wing political interest group. Legalization of gay marriage would simply open the floodgates for efforts to legalize other “alternative” sexual arrangements as marriages, including polygamy, polymary, etc. - Conservative Republican - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:47 pm: PS, this is really a “government benefits” issue: i.e., social security, death benefits, employment benefits, tax deductions, etc. If none of this was implicated at all, gay marriage wouldn’t raised as an issue at all….or supported so strongly by the Democrats. - Colossus - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:47 pm: Yes, in that it should be legal, but Illinois shouldn’t have to legalize it, civil rights are things that aren’t up to popular opinion. To those voting no: You know that uncle who comes to Thanksgiving and says incredibly racist things in an offhand way that makes everyone else uncomfortable but they all write it off as “he’s from a different time”? That’s you in 20 years. - Cheryl44 - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:48 pm: ++That being said, I believe states should remove themselves from the business of marriage all together and return it to the venue of religious institutions. ++ I’m an atheist. I’m not allowed to marry? - Rich Miller - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:49 pm: ===Heterosexual marriage has been a building block of civilization for over 5,000 years.=== Uh, you ever heard of ancient Greece and Rome? - I don't want to live in Teabagistan - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:51 pm: A while back on the economics blog Marginal Revolution there was a post that made the point that from and economic perspective you can make an argument in favor of racism or sexism: the pie is only so big and if you let more people get a slice, your potential slice gets smaller. However, the argument for discriminating against gays and lesbians is that you are a stone cold [expletive deleted]. I am paraphrasing. - Jade_rabbit - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:53 pm: Beyond the goal of equal inclusion, I ask again. What is the role of Government in a same sex marriage? To what end is this path hoping to accomplish? - ChicagoR - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 2:59 pm: “What is the role of Government in a same sex marriage? ” What’s the role of government in a marriage between two people who are told old to procreate or are otherwise incapable of doing so? I assume you are working as hard to deny those folks the right to marry as you are to deny it to me. - OurMagician - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:01 pm: Government should issue civil unions to hetero/gay/multiple couples. Churches do the marrying in their own ways. If I’m baptized Catholic, the government doesn’t give me a certification so I can prove a baptism elsewhere, why should they for marriage? - justbabs - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:03 pm: Jade_ What goal beyond equal inclusion is necessary? - gathersno - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:03 pm: This is a private matter and government should stay out of it. - anon sequitor - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:06 pm: Yes. Legal marriage, or civil marriage, is the legal contract couples enter into in a ceremony conducted by an authorized representative of the state, and which is recorded through a marriage license/certificate. There is no theology attached to this marriage, it is just a contract that is governed by the laws of the state. Religious marriage, however, is one performed by an authorized representative of a faith, congregation, etc. Each faith or congregation is free to determine the requirements of that religious union based on their teachings, tradition, theology, etc. The question now is whether religious representatives should be authorized representatives of the state for the purposes of performing civil marriage. Can someone be married in a church and not be legally married? Should a priest, minister, rabbi, etc. be agents of the state? - Colossus - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:06 pm: Rich - “homosexuality” in classical times was not really comparable to what we have today. While there were two dudes engaged in sexual activities, that’s pretty much the end of the similarities. Kind of like how hetero marriages from 5,000 or 500 years ago are nothing like the marriages we have now. The better response to the “building block of civilization” argument would be to point out that the narrow scope of “man works, woman raises kids” is an incredibly recent development in human history, and arguing for the “timelessness” of 1 man/1 woman marriage is to argue from a false position from the getgo. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:07 pm: ==It seems to me that a marriage is simply a contract and should be governed by such. If some religious institutions do not want to preside over a same-sex marriage, that is their right. However, to ban same-sex marriage from a civil ceremony is simply wrong, imho.== Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this. =Heterosexual marriage has been a building block of civilization for over 5,000 years.== CR: You are obviously no historian or anthropologist. There’s been plenty written about this fallacy, I won’t waste time or electrons repeating it all. Suffice to say, marriage as we know it has been around for a couple hundred years at most, and even that only in a few places on the planet. - Anonymous - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:15 pm: I voted no. I am tired of all this gaity! - Not for Nuttin' - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:25 pm: Let’s treat everyone the same under the laws of our land and let the creator do the judging. - veritas - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:33 pm: G’Kar has said it best - nicely stated: “It seems to me that a marriage is simply a contract and should be governed by such. If some religious institutions do not want to preside over a same-sex marriage, that is their right. However, to ban same-sex marriage from a civil ceremony is simply wrong.” - Shore - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:37 pm: No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This issue is a waste of time. People have no interest in culture wars anymore. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 3:52 pm: === Heterosexual marriage has been a building block of civilization for over 5,000 years. === LOL. Historically, “heterosexual marriage” was a legal and later religious instrument to claim a woman as your property. Just like that other great “building block of civilization.” - Robert - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:00 pm: Yes, certainly for equality of opportunity’s sake. But even if you personally think marriage should be between a man and a woman, you still should ask whether our state should restrict this. Think of this purely from the standpoint of economic competitiveness. By showing we’re a state friendly to gay folks, we can also poach tax dollars (from weddings and/or permanent moves) from neighboring states. - Robert - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:01 pm: ==People have no interest in culture wars anymore.== People only had interest in culture wars back when the majority was on my side. - Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:07 pm: Chevy owner: Have to disagree with you. Much better that the GA alters state statue to permit same sex marriage than that a court orders the change. The first is the product of a democratic process, demonstrating that the change is the will of the people; the second pours fuel on the culture wars fire. - amalia - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:15 pm: uniting two people who want to be legally tied together is good for society. It is not about religion or children. committing to another person is about love. and the more we have two people committing to love each other, the better. perhaps we can so it like the French do, a civil ceremony required, then you can have some religious ceremony, or not. call the union whatever you want, but one kind of union for any two people who want to unite, marriage for all, or civil unions for all. separate is not equal. - WAK - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:19 pm: I voted no, not because I’m against gay marriage… I voted no because I think the state/government should get out of the business of recognizing marriages at all. Marriage is a religious institution. Civil unions should be the only state sanctioned or recognized domestic partnership. - Huh? - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:25 pm: I have never understood why it is so important that people have to announce their sexuality. I have a lesbian sister who was married last winter. She and her wife were married in Iowa and held a civil union ceremony in Illinois. They are a loving and beautiful couple. To those who claim that marriage is for hetrosexuals only, please review the incidence rates of battered spouses, child abuse etc inflicted by a hetrosexual member of the marriage. Given my childhood, I would much rather have been raised by a loving homosexual couple than the sometimes physically and mentally abusive hetrosexual couple, who by virtue of biology, were my parents. - Jade_rabbit - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:30 pm: Jade_ What goal beyond equal inclusion is necessary? _____________ With that rational we shoudl all be taxed at the same rate. Regardless of weather we are poor or not. If we believe that we all should be treated equally just for the sake of inclusion, I would argue that Communism would be a better government for you. I just think that Marriage has benefits to offset the cost of reproduction. Our society has provided benefits to single unwed mothers that has underminded the need for those benefits through marriage. I have to agree that we’re coming to a point where marriage has less and less value in our society. Divorce carries little stigma and our children are taught in schools that all families are normal and acceptable. So back to the issue. What’s the point of government supported same sex marriage? (Not a loaded question, I just can’t figure out how the government benefits from this contract, it seems one sided where the same sex members benefit more than our society.) - Huh? - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:31 pm: This issue is a waste of time. People have no interest in culture wars anymore. This is a replay of the racial movement 50 years ago. Now the second class citizen is lesbian, gay, or transgendered. - Sinequanon - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:32 pm: Can we not simply leave the word marriage to mean a social contract between two individuals? Marriage is then further defined or refined by the state as a civil union while, at the same time, marriage is also further defined or refined by the church as a consecrated union. Marriage via civil union as defined by whatever state you reside in is the legal contract entered into by whomever the state defines as capable parties–man/woman; woman/woman; man/man; man/woman/woman; man/woman/goat - - whatever. Marriage via consecrated union as defined by whatever church/faith you follow is also a holy contract entered into by whomever the church defines as capable parties. A civil union is not a consecrated union. A consecrated union is not a civil union. Yet, both are a form of Marriage. If it helps to further distinguish the two “controlling” authorities here by providing a civil marriage and a consecrated marriage so be it. There you have marriage –defined as an institution in two separate and unequal contracts, which is what it has been all along. Unto Caesar and unto God, separate and unequal. - Jade_rabbit - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:33 pm: Not to beat a dead horse, but is the debate in favor of same-sex marriage a case where our society as a whole is accomodating the few? Is this about individual rights expanded by society or is this a fundamental part of human nature that needs to be recoginized as inalienable? - Jade_rabbit - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:34 pm: Can we not simply leave the word marriage to mean a social contract between two individuals? __________________________________________ No. I don’t think it can stay that simple. You would have to eliminate laws that prevent insest. - ChicagoR - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:41 pm: “(Not a loaded question, I just can’t figure out how the government benefits from this contract, it seems one sided where the same sex members benefit more than our society.)” Solid, long-term relationships are good for society, whether or not they involve procreation. By way of example, I’ve been with my partner for 21 years. When i was a student, he supported me, and I didn’t have to rely on food stamps or other government benefits. When he was out of work for a year, I supported him, and he didn’t turn to the government. When either of us had surgery or were sick, we helped each other, rather than turning to benefit programs or insurance for nursing care. When his sister and her husband were going to lose their house, we together gave them money. The list goes on. And we did this all while being taxed extra by the government because my health insurance benefits are taxable to my “domestic partner” while they wouldn’t be taxable if he were my spouse. So society benefits, and at present, I get taxed extra as thanks. - D. P. Gumby - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:49 pm: Yes…only because I don’t see the more rational progress of taking marriage totally out of the statutes and replacing it w/ civil unions for everyone under law and leaving “marriage” to religions. As the Mass. S.C. said, from a governmental perspective, all the law is is a civil union–the rest is an unnecessary mixture of government and religion. - titan - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 4:51 pm: I said no. I view marriage as a religious institution that found its way woven into law. I we are going to separate church and state in this area now, then all the government should do is “civil unions” (i.e. turn all current legal marriages into legal civil unions - and leave marruiages to the religious institutions). - Demoralized - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 5:12 pm: Jade: Incest? Really? That is the ridiculous road all bigots take when opposing this kind of stuff. And the rights of the few are ALWAYS what this country is about protecting. Since when did we ever say that it is only the majority who’s rights matter. The whole point of the Constitution is to protect those things the majority might disagree with. - Chevy owner/Ford County - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 5:37 pm: Ivory, I’m not sure that “the will of the people” is the best place to determine issues relative to civil rights. Keep in mind, that had the “will of the people” been foundational to interracial marriage, well, I’m not sure it would be legal yet in some of the southern states. The only “will of the people” that is (or should be) pertinent to this discussion is the will of the two seeking wedded bliss… As to the red herring that churches will be forced to perform these ceremonies, I would remind folks that athiests are permitted to be married (yet no church is forced to wed them) and there are numerous churches that set their own standards for determining if they will perform marriage ceremonies…for instance, divorced folks are not permitted to be married in a Catholic Church even though the government recognizes them. - reformer - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 6:03 pm: No one will be forced to have a same-sex marriage. Why should those who want such a marriage, however, be prevented from choosing one? - wordslinger - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 7:20 pm: –In the 60s and before, it wasn’t that the “blacks only” water fountains were always worse - the water tasted the same. – Mister, either you’re really missing the point, or you’re really missing the point. Two steps forward, one step back. At the tone, your time will be 2012. - wordslinger - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 9:19 pm: –I don’t know where this takes our society. Are we moving backwards towards a primal society similar to that of the Roman Empire?– Primal? Roman Empire? Say what? –Government only has an interest in Marriage to prevent unhealthy reproduction.- I was usually twisting up a number with my crew behind the dugouts during high school health, but I’m pretty sure, based on my public school education, that gay marriage won’t promote “unhealthy reproduction.” And I thought I was stoned back in those days. –No. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This issue is a waste of time. People have no interest in culture wars anymore. – Thanks, Shore. Case closed. All of you go back to your business. –PS, this is really a “government benefits” issue: i.e., social security, death benefits, employment benefits, tax deductions, etc. – Not that I’ve seen. I’m a pretty lucky first-generation Norwegian white dude, so I don’t have much of a squauk about my opportunities and standing in this country. My gay couple neighbors and their kids aren’t looking for tax deductions. Just, openly, the same equality and respect we expect from the greater community, under the law. - Demoralized - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 9:46 pm: Wow. I think Rich is gonna ban another person for life. Way to go Quinn. That’s the second one recently I think. - wordslinger - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 10:00 pm: –No. Heterosexual marriage has been a building block of civilization for over 5,000 years.– Like they say in Missouri, show me, starting from 5,000 years ago. – “Gay marriage” has, relatively speaking, no history at all and is merely a political construct of a left-wing political interest group.– Right. Tell Alice and Gertrude. Tell lefties Dick Cheney and Gerald Ford. Gay people have not lived in life-long relationships until Moveon.org came along? Where do you do your research, Monkey Wards? –Legalization of gay marriage would simply open the floodgates for efforts to legalize other “alternative” sexual arrangements as marriages, including polygamy, polymary, etc.– Don’t worry about those floodgates — Moses (three wives, simultaneously) will fix them with his staff. Abraham, father of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, had three wives simultaneously. King David had at least 18, plus another 10 on the side. And, swinging Solomon had 700 wives, plus another 300 on the side. The dude must have been exhausted. Look it up in The Bible. I’m ashamed to say it, but this issue didn’t register on my radar until a few years ago. I was at one of my boys baseball games at Lindberg Park in Oak Park when a couple of old ladies approached me to sign a petition to encourage Rep. Graham to support an Illinois civil unions bill. Stereotypes aside, even in Oak Park, a little league baseball game ain’t low-hanging fruit for gay rights. Those broads had some guts. But the old ladies were so sweet, and so earnest, that it caused even me to wake up and extract my bovine head from my largest cavity. My (their? our?) neighborhood is cool with gay couples with children, and have been for some time. This is a fast-moving train. Recent votes aside, in 10 years, gay marriages will be about as controversial the seat-belt law. - Democratic Yoda - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 10:54 pm: It continues to amaze me why people care about homosexuals getting married when the Divorce rate in this country among heterosexuals is 50%. Heterosexuals definitely haven’t mastered marriage so let’s let heterosexuals try it out. As one commenter put it, “Let them be miserable like the rest of us.” Also, throughout American history, when a certain group of Americans fights for their civil rights - they win. Finally, to those who look at this issue from the far right wing/fire & brimstone view - gay marriage has been passed in many states throughout the U.S. and the sky hasn’t fallen down and the world has not ended. Biggots and anti-homosexuals need to chill out. Maybe if we loosened the marijuana laws around the country, more people wouldn’t care if homosexuals got married. Let gays be happy! - Just Me - Monday, May 14, 12 @ 11:24 pm: I’ve never understood the “force the church to perform a gay wedding” argument. Are they forced to perform straight weddings? Can’t a priest or minister refuse a marriage request? - ChicagoR - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 5:25 am: Wordslinger: I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that the humiliation of being forced to use a different water fountain (or not being able to call your marriage by the same term as the “favored” class) is a problem. It’s just a rephrasing of “separate but equal is never equal”. - DMAC - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 6:47 am: Think of the billions of dollars infused into economy with wedding. - Louis Howe - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 8:11 am: Non-Issue…..I don’t care about other people’s sex lives. As long as two consenting adults agree to hook-up and expose themselves to another life form, it’s ok by me. Don’t care… Have at it. - Jade_rabbit - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 8:29 am: - Demoralized - Society grants rights. Slavery was a majority perspective of society. The same as taxing our country for the benefit of England. A minority wanted a monarchy. The constitution is about the same rights for everyone. Not about protecting a minority. - Jade_rabbit - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 8:30 am: And we did this all while being taxed extra by the government because my health insurance benefits are taxable to my “domestic partner” while they wouldn’t be taxable if he were my spouse. So society benefits, and at present, I get taxed extra as thanks. ___ I agree that there is a benefit to society. But do you think that benefit should be regulated by the government? - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 8:50 am: –The constitution is about the same rights for everyone. Not about protecting a minority.– The Bill of Rights is all about protecting individuals in the minority from the tyranny of the majority. That’s what prevents the majority, in the form of its representatives in Congress, from establishing a national religion, shutting down a free press, etc. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 8:55 am: ===Slavery was a majority perspective of society. === And yet you’re all about majority rights over the minority. Very telling. - Jade_rabbit - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 9:53 am: And yet you’re all about majority rights over the minority. Very telling. __________ Not quite. The point is that as society (the majority of our voting democracy) shifts so does inalienable rights. When the Bill of Rights and the constitution were formed, blacks and women were not represented there. If you asked the signers if these rules applied to those people, I imagine most of them would say no. Now our society has shifted the majority opinion through civil war, sufferage, etc… The spark that shifts the majority of society will always come from the minority. My personal issue with this is trying to define the portions of society that belong to the cultural side versus the government side. Politics will always blend the two, but they should have different goals. Our government should not drive our culture. If it does we start down a path that gives government too much power in our private lives. If our government follows our culture, we tend to be a stronger more unified nation. Reflected in compromise and progress. This is why we have such trouble currently. Our culture is devided with Tea-party extremists, Fiscal conservatives, Social Liberals and a mix of everything in the middle. Enough of society has shifted towards reducing deficit spendning, and that battle is just as telling. Most people want to have a job, house, family and some sense of secuirty. If that commonality in our society is broken, we have some significant unrest within the voting population. - Jade_rabbit - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 9:58 am: So to sum it up. If marriage is not something our society will continue to hold as a badge of success, then I don’t see the point of our government trying to regulate it. Our priorities as a society are currently fixed towards income inequality, housing foreclosures, Pension funding, and Medical Costs. Unless society has the focus to drive our elected officials towards our highest priorities, we’re going to have stagnation in our government. - Colossus - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 12:05 pm: Jade - As you pointed out, society and its views do shift. In the case of America, for the most part, that shift is toward broadening the scope of the basic rights laid out in the Bill of Rights and making sure that they are applied to all citizens. Slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, abortion, interracial marriage, all of these are allowing previously shut out minorities to have access to an institution that had previously been reserved for the majority - in short, getting the same rights for everyone. Yes, we have very pressing issues facing us as a state and as a nation, and those issues absolutely must be addressed immediately. It is my hope that they are being addressed by the elected officials who are entrusted to solve these problems. But if we want to continue to claim to be the Leader of the Free World, to be a shining beacon on the hill of what is possible when humans recognize the humanity and value of each and every person and their inalienable rights, then how can we ignore the second class citizens who are legally barred from participating in institutions that we consider to be vital to the continuation of our country? There are things that are clearly on the “cultural side”, as you put it. A church consecrating a relationship between two people is clearly in this column, the government has no right to tell the church who to bless. Flip that around, and you can see that tax benefits and legal contracts are clearly in the government column, the church has no right to tell the government who gets special treatment and who doesn’t. The word marriage has been used to represent both of these situations, and that is unfortunate because it leads us to this conversation. There is no reason to deny the tax benefits and legal contracts we refer to as marriage in the civil sense to homosexuals because there is no compelling interest the government can put forward that does not ultimately rest on religious beliefs or (for lack of a better term) “icky feelings”. The same type of objections that were raised about the issues mentioned before: slavery, women’s suffrage, interracial marriage, all of which are clearly civil rights issues once society can reflect with some neutrality after time. Civil rights aren’t fought for frivolously. History isn’t littered with causes that tried, failed, and never surfaced. The arc of this nation has been towards evening the rights between individuals for the benefit of all. While there have been fits and starts, these issues have continued and persevered until they triumphed because of the basic truth at the heart of these claims: in America, there are no second-class citizens. And absent a compelling interest to deny tax benefits and legal contracts to homosexuals when they are offered to heterosexuals, it creates a system whereby some citizens are relegated to second class status My 6 year old has been so proud since she learned the Pledge of Allegiance a couple of years ago. When we would go over it (and over it, and over it), I would break it down into chunks for her to repeat back. And I always would say “Now, here’s the most important one: With liberty, and justice for all. Not some people, not just people we like. For everyone.” - ChicagoR - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 1:09 pm: Colossus: Beautifully said. Thank you. - Jade_rabbit - Tuesday, May 15, 12 @ 3:21 pm: - Colossus - I completely agree. The next part of the discussion is what do we as a whole want our society to look like? This is where our generational and income differences may be dividing us more than our religious differences. “continue to claim to be the Leader of the Free World” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.