“They have called this the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act,” said state Rep. David Reis, R-Ste. Marie, “but I think they should call it the Religious Persecution and Marriage Unfairness Act.
“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”
Reis urged those at the rally to tell legislators “to protect the institution of marriage in Illinois, and that they have civil unions and we don’t want any more.”
Pastor Richard Giovannetti of the Standing in the Word Ministries of Morris, told the crowd that “when we have gay marriage we are going to enslave millions of people back into a lifestyle that we know that God can set them free from.”
Pastor Linda Jernigan, who said she was “a former lesbian” who now operates a ministry in the Chicago area, asked repeatedly, “Did you know that God can deliver homosexuals?”
She said it was “a chosen behavior” and that “if you allow God, He can change your behavior.”
“Don’t believe the lie,” she said, “that homosexuality is a civil right. It is not a civil right. Homosexuality is a choice.”
Their concerns ranged from morality to intricate questions on religious freedom to the basic laws of human nature.
“It’s a plumbing issue, it comes down to basic plumbing,” said David Webster of Washington, as he stood outside Gordon-Booth’s office. He borrowed the plumbing idea from David Zietlow, an engineer and member of Grace Presbyterian, who wore a necklace of male and female pipe fittings.
Many insisted they had nothing against homosexuality, that they were there strictly to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. But Robert Stine, a retired Peoria doctor, inadvertently touched on how much attitudes have changed about homosexuality when he said, “In fifty years it’s gone from being a felony to political, legalized status.”
Brian Elsasser of Princeville, a Peoria County Board member who rode on one of the buses organized by the Peoria diocese, said, “I pray and I love all humankind, no matter what they do. But that doesn’t give us the right to take an institution, which was ordained by God, and change it in Illinois.”
* Meanwhile, the only Senate Republican to vote for gay marriage has been hit with robocalls…
State Sen. Jason Barickman’s vote last week to allow same-sex marriages in Illinois has infuriated some conservative groups, including Family PAC, a Chicago-based group that already is calling for his resignation.
In robocalls to constituents in Barickman’s conservative district north of Champaign, the group urged voters to call Barickman’s office to register their anger.
“Was Barickman representing you, or the Chicago homosexual community?” asked Sandy Rios of Family PAC in the automated call. “Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”
* But Barickman was actually doing opponents a favor…
Barickman, a 37-year-old attorney who joined the Senate in January after beating state Sen. Shane Cultra, R-Onarga, last year, said he decided to vote “yes” after helping draft an amendment to the legislation that is designed to protect churches from reprisals if Illinois becomes the 10th state in the nation to allow gays to marry.
“It’s a vote that I understand that some have varying opinions on, but I feel that I voted in the correct way,” Barickman said. “The language in the amendment preserves those religious liberties that are so important to so many people.”
* From a lobbyist who worked with Barickman on the bill’s rewrite…
The original bill that came out of [Senate Executive Committeee] in lame duck session provided that:
* No church or religious institution could ever be required to solemnize a marriage in conflict with its beliefs. (This provision remains intact in the new bill.)
* Churches/religious institutions did not have to make any facility available for a same-sex wedding if the facility’s “primary use” was for religious purposes.
A facility qualified for this protection if:
* It was only occasionally open to non-members and did not charge money for their admission, and
* It was never open to the general public.
SB10, as passed, provides that anything deemed a “religious facility” does not have to open its doors for a same-sex marriage. This means that under no circumstances can the following types of facilities be required to hold a same-sex wedding:
* Sanctuaries
* Parish halls
* Fellowship halls and similar facilities.
“Religious facilities” do not include:
* Hospitals
* Businesses
* Schools
* Social service organizations
If a building has multiple uses, the test is applied on a “room by room” basis. For example, a gay couple cannot be barred from a hospital. But if the hospital had a chapel, that chapel could not be forced to host a gay wedding.
State Representative Reis, US Representative Adam Kinzinger is on the line. He wants to have a word with you. Oswego Willy is on line 2.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:18 am:
Oh, and you know what isn’t protected by Barickman’s religious exemption?
Knights of Columbus halls (and similar for other denominations). Why would a gay couple want to have a marriage/reception in a KofC hall? To pick a fight.
Senator Barickman is learning the unfortunate reality that his intelligence and practicality on this issue provides ironic fodder for attack by the very folks he was trying to assist.
The ignorance of his detractors underscores one of the biggest impediments to finding common ground on controversial issues. Rep. Phelps and I saw this firsthand years ago when we negotiated language on the ‘Born Alive Infant Protection Act’, likely the only compromise bill touching on the issue of abortion to come out of Springfield.
If county clerks think divorce is immoral (and Jesus said plenty about the immorality of divorce, recall), is it religious persecution to force them to issue marriage licenses to previously-wed couples?
And DuPage Dan is right. This ties directly into yesterday’s discussion.
Kinzinger wants to focus on the volume and the tone.
However, no matter how nicely you say things, when you are saying that somehow gays are inherently immoral and second class you are not going to appeal to moderates.
Oh it’s the “Chicago homosexual community” that’s the enemy now? Way to play to the downstate crowd, Family PAC!
Get a life.
And Rep Reis: If a state police official found civilian gun ownership morally abhorrent, since guns take life, would it be “religious persecution” to require him to help issue FOID cards?
== They have civil unions ==
Rep. Reis voted NO on civil unions. Now he’s offering civil unions as a sufficient accommodation to same-sex couples. Does that mean he’s now in favor of them?
Not sure if a school if attached to a church and is a church school can not be considered a religious institution. For example if our teachers meet certain educational requirements they are considered clergy for tax purposes (and religious purposes) but other than that the change in the facility language seems logical and appropriate to me.
== –“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.” ==
That begs an interesting question, using that logic could (or should) a county clerk refuse to issue a license due to other marriage constraints set by faith and not by law.
For example should a clerk be allowed to not issue a license due to the fact one or more party had been married before and the marriage was not annulled? If the previous divorce was issues for a reason not recognized as valid by their faith?
Divorce!!! Where is the bill banning divorce from those claiming religious persecution? The hypocricy is unbearable!!
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:35 am:
So is a Catholic county clerk who has to sign a marriage license for a straight couple where one or both of the participants have been divorced being subject to religious persecution?
== a God-ordained institution ==
When Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other Biblical patriarchs took more than one wife at a time, was that ordained by God, too?
Been wondering that. I personally could care less whether a gay man gets married. what i do want is strong protections for faith groups. The fact that the K.C. isn’t covered is not a good sign. Personally i would prefer we stop issuing Marriage lisences to anyone gay or straight. issue a civil union liscense and then if you want a “marriage” talk to the faith of your choice. Maybe the time isn’t to make marriage open to all maybe it is time to get Gov’t out of the marriage business.
As to the county clerk sorry idjit you work for the Gov’t aka the public. you serve the entire PUBLIC. Therefore if you don’t like it get a job in a private business.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:39 am:
The plumbing reference is a disgusting argument put forth by individuals too dumb to think for themselves.
I bet there are some disabled, married veterans who would be outraged to hear these clowns tell them their marriage isn’t legitimate.
–“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”–
No it is not, you are free to practice any religion you want, you are not free to use your government position to impose your religious beliefs on others. No one is forcing you to be County Clerk, if you believe that strongly that your religious beliefs are being infringed you should resign. Or better yet feel free to move to Saudi Arabia where religion and the government are aligned together to oppress those who you disagree with.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:43 am:
== “But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.” ==
What about county clerks who have moral objections to NOT issuing same sex marriage licenses? It seems to me that Rep. Reis is arguing for the government endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. I wonder what the Constitution has to say about that.
“If Barickman was doing Christian conservatives a favor, why didn’t he consult the Catholic Conference, the Illinois Family Institute or Family PAC?”
Because none of them have supported any compromise at all, even on civil unions. If they want to be absolutists, they can sit out of compromise discussions.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:02 am:
Re: ChicagoR
So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?
Got it.
When can we expect that bill to revoke their tax exemptions?
(Passed out, woke to read the statement again while eating cannoli, choking, but was able to apply Heimlich to self using chair.)
Can I ask a really dumb question. When I think of Religious Persecution, I think of … jail … trials in courts … public stonings … Lions …Am I off in that?
I don’t admit any such thing, so don’t put words in my mouth. This doesn’t affect Christian institutions at all. They are specifically excluded from having to be involved in these weddings. It only keeps them from imposing their will on those who aren’t their members.
**So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?**
Huh?
ChicagoR is correct. None of the right-wing religious groups would have supported the bill, not matter what religious freedoms were included.
You don’t negotiate with groups that are never going to support the bill.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:17 am:
Knights of Columbus halls aren’t protected. Social service institutions and hospitals are explicitly designated as not protected.
And nothing in the law suggests that ministers who don’t follow the line will be permitted to continue solemnizing marriages, just that they can’t be affirmatively forced to.
a.k.a. exactly what happened to Catholic Charities even before the civil unions law went into effect.
You’ve peddled this line before. We know better now.
State Sen. Jason Barickman and the RoboCalls and all the Dopey things that are being done to the Senator reminds me, although Congressman Kinzinger is my hoe for the Party, others continue to show me the despair.
Anyone of those dopes also UNDERSTAND that state Sen. Barickman did them a favor? Nope. “Burn him. Cast him out! He is a RINO, not pure, not pure!!”
Well I am glad Senator McCarter’s gay friends know that there are some Republicans that they can agree with.
===“Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”===
Tolerance? A non-rigid Republican Party?
What is it with the Zelots who insist every 7 to 9 minutes if you don’t agree, then we must force you to resign, or we will rent rooms for your ouster!
===“Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”===
I am not embarrassed for you, I may mock you, but I am not embarrassed for you anymomre. If any Repubican turns their back on Senator Barickman they should feel some shame today. If Barickman votes “NO” as the other 18 Lemmings did, the bill passes anyway, and without that amendment to boot, probably. So what do you gain? Nineteen members who give NO reason for voters to look at SGOP nominees in 2014, “Look, remember ALL 19 GOP state senators voted no, against your sister, your brother, your sons and daughters. They have no time for your family, so why give them your vote so they van have no time …for Illinois.
No, apparently you don’t know better. K of C halls rent their facilities to anyone, regardless. Why should they be able to discriminate?
If they feel so strongly that they do not wish to host a same sex marriage reception, they are free to require that anyone wishing to reserve their space become members. They can freely discriminate in their membership, but not in public accommodations.
This really isn’t that complicated. If you are open to the public, you’re open to all of it. If you’re a private institution, you can choose whom to admit. But you can’t have it both ways.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:33 am:
Attn: Prospective County Clerk candidates. If you are going to have problems issuing marriage certificates to gay couples, consider a run for Recorder of Deeds instead.
I have no sympathy for Family PAC or IFI. They spent the last election cycle attacking Republicans for not supporting their positions, and leaving Democrats alone. This lead to the preposterous situation of Arie Friedman, Senate Candidate, being attacked by Personal PAC AND by Family PAC.
They reaped what they sowed. A Democratic controlled veto proofed majority. No Republican vote on this topic would have mattered thanks to the IFI and Family PAC.
Family PAC reminds me of the Chicago Cubs eliminating all the players who could play the game and losing 100+ game with rookies and washed up has beens.
As a Republican I would prefer they attack Democrats instead of focusing exclusively on Republicans. But they are part of the problem within the GOP these days. A political vampire group that attacks those who feed it money and support.
===If Barickman had let his voters know of this before his primary he would have lost===
“Senator” Rutherford voted for the Civil Unions, and I think he is still popular in that area … Rutherford appears to be quite strong …
Barickman won at over a 60% clip. Primary Barickman, and I will tell you one thing, if the SGOP does NOT assist Barickman in his race against these “Witch Hunters, with torches and pitchforks in hand”, I will wonder.
I will wonder what the “Moderate Jo Galloway”, who reminded us she is a woman, …but didn’t ‘play’ the gender card, …but played the gender card… to convince us ALL we need her to lead this SGOP caucus towards the middle. And… the SGOP Senior Policial Campaign Minds, the juggernaut of of the “19″, should I wonder if they won’t help Barickman? I won’t have to wonder long, and neither will the voters.
I will remember that. I am sure others… voters … will remember that too.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:49 am:
Exactly my point. We don’t like your stand, you’re opposed to what we want, so screw you. You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.
What a joke these folks are. Sorry, if a county clerk objects to an interracial marriage, and has to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, is that clerk being discriminated against because of their beliefs? Ridiculous. The law is the law. If the person who is the county clerk can’t stand anti-discrimination laws then they should find a different profession.
Quote: Exactly my point. We don’t like your stand, you’re opposed to what we want, so screw you. You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.
Um, I’m sure you know the difference between “free exercise” and “state subsidy,” right? Free exercise of religion does not mean an entitlement to a state contract.
–You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.–
What date does that kick in? Because I don’t want to get into trouble.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:53 am:
Attention: All people with religious conviction. If your values conflict with the state, you either comply with the state or you are longer allowed full participation in society.
Ok. Make your point. Knights of Columbus Halls, ok, what else …Hospitals …Ok, what else …
Is there room to work, or are you just a NO and be done with it, but if you are a NO, what legislative leg are you going to be your NO, and further, if someone like a Barickman who voted YES, and you agree with Barickman on every other issue but this, do you think Barickman can never get your vote back?
===Attention: All people with religious conviction. If your values conflict with the state, you either comply with the state or you are longer allowed full participation in society.
That is all.===
So … are you a “Take my ball and go home” type, or “hold my breath till someone notices” type.
Just so I know what step is after the “That is all” step.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:59 am:
Tony-
What’s your opinion of the groups going after Halvorson for her gun stand? Pretty much the same story here.
Outside groups try to influence public opinion, it happens all the time.
So, you admit that you don’t read what is written in replies and instead continue on your misguided crusade without acknowledging any cognitive dissonance in your own posts.
LA,
In all seriousness, are you on drugs?
Having hallucinations?
You seem to have a very difficult time distinguishing fantasy from reality.
Nobody is posting the things that you accuse them of posting.
Try reading. Or seek medical assistance.
Legal A, did you open the bar at the K of C Hall early today? Because you are having a very difficult time following straightforward written statements.
- Go Brown for Barickman - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
For every robocall or stunt the far right does, I am giving another donation to Jason Barickman. I hope you all join me.
===I am giving another donation to Jason Barickman. I hope you all join me.===
Well done.
Let’s see if “Moderate Jo Galloway, the gender card playing … but not playing … SGOP Leader helps Barickman like you and so many others should. I will wait… and watch … to see if Barickman GETS that support from the Caucus, but kudos to you, and I hope others follow suit.
“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”
- - - - -
So does this mean that Catholic county clerks have suffered religious persecution all these years because they issue marriage licenses to divorced people? This argument makes absolutely no sense.
==Pastor Linda Jernigan, who said she was “a former lesbian” who now operates a ministry in the Chicago area, asked repeatedly, “Did you know that God can deliver homosexuals?”==
And if you don’t get them in 30 minutes, they’re free!
Barickman may not get that support. Because with him its not about what he votes for its how he goes about it. From capital sources there has never been a freshman Republican senator who is more polarizing than him big Jim Oberweis included. Additionally, the 53rd District’s a pretty conservative place. While I grasp that many on here don’t agree with their beliefs; they are indeed their beliefs. I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude. Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another. Yes, the conservative groups probably act the same and didn’t(or wouldn’t have) come to the table, but is this how we want to run our government? Politics aside I think the approach to this issue and many others brings out the worst in people and as a citizen I would hope it would change, but I’m not holding my breath.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
- shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats -
The country and state have been gradually giving gay citizens the same rights as hetero citizens for the last half century. Actually, I’m pretty sure Illinois was the first to take a major step by repealing its sodomy laws in the early 1960s.
It’s not everyone else’s fault you haven’t been paying attention.
Sixty percent in the General, and with the support of the SGOP, Barickman should be in better shape than you may think. Plus, the more rigid we in the GOP look, the worse off we will be, and Jo Galoway better realize she needs more moderates, and less Lemmings
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
There is no compromise or discussion with the “I’d rather be right than win” crowd. They truly don’t care about anything except maintaining purity. If that means being the only one with a crown in a room of three people, that is fine. They reject the Reagan rule that somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend. Ronnie wasn’t good enough, it seems.
Oh, and places of worship should have to host weddings if they don’t approve of the couple marrying. If K of C halls want to opt out, they need to stop renting to one and all.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 3:31 pm:
“The ignorance of his detractors underscores one of the biggest impediments to finding common ground on controversial issues.”
“I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude.”
“Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another….Politics aside I think the approach to this issue and many others brings out the worst in people and as a citizen I would hope it would change, but I’m not holding my breath.”
Many discussions seem to now be following the “last word in” and “my buddies will jump all over you if you disagree with me” approach here, Greatplainser. I’d argue there’s a possibility that it’s tantamount to fighting a brutal war to help a country’s or region’s citizens, only to wind up getting attacked by them as attempts to restore peace are being made after the major battles.
The focus is not on “hearts and minds,” Greatplainser.
Many discussions seem to now be following the “last word in” and “my buddies will jump all over you if you disagree with me” approach here, –Greatplainser. I’d argue there’s a possibility that it’s tantamount to fighting a brutal war to help a country’s or region’s citizens, only to wind up getting attacked by them as attempts to restore peace are being made after the major battles.–
And just some unsolicited advice, Jason: Notice all the comments on other threads about getting rid of elected officials when their “usefulness” has waned. After all (according to some), that’s what the game is all about and if you don’t have the nerve….
I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.
–I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.==
Sorry, dude, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If it’s an issue of English as a second language, I understand. My folks learned English through
==I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.–
Sorry, dude, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If it’s an issue of English as a second language, I understand. My folks learned English by speaking it, but putting it down on paper could be rough.
===The focus is not on “hearts and minds,” Greatplainser.===
You keep that focus on the “Hearts and Minds” … because as you focus on that, the Super-Minorities will keep shrinking.
===I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.===
Uh, no one is excluding anyone, I think that is the point …
===Jason: Notice all the comments on other threads about getting rid of elected officials when their “usefulness” has waned. After all (according to some), that’s what the game is all about and if you don’t have the nerve…. ===
So, are you saying Senator Barickman should worry for himself, we should worry for OURselves, or shouls I just stop worring and make a ham sandwich?
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 7:08 pm:
Boy oh boyo–wait till the Debate hits the House Floor on THIS one! It’s gonna be a “Doozy!”
===While I grasp that many on here don’t agree with their beliefs; they are indeed their beliefs. I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude. Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another. Yes, the conservative groups probably act the same and didn’t(or wouldn’t have) come to the table, but is this how we want to run our government?===
If they don’t come to the table, the “base” wants only purity at the risk of becoming a Super-Minority, how is this ramming anything down the throats?
Ramming down the throats of Moderates that they must vote socially conservative at all times, or feel the wrath of the “base” regardless of what the polls or the population think is just as insane. Believe and follow that you want, heck vote, on conservative social issues only, but be ready to be in the Minority, and be ready if the Majority, especially a Democartic Super-Majority in both chambers votes against you, and that Democratice Governor … signs it.
I was going to let all this go, but here is the Rub that got me to think and post again to - Greatplainser -.
Do you think… honestly … a majorty of Republicans can win seats in either chamber… being only 100% socially conservative?
I will say this, MJM knows that he can not win a Democratic Majority being 100% liberal in social beliefs and guess what, MJM has one of the most diverse caucuses in recent memory, if ever. Same with Cullerton.
So as I explained about how the Dems KNOW that a 100% PURE socially liberal Democratic Caucus can never be, can you say the same about a GOP caucus in either chamber being a majority AND being 100% pure/socially conservative?
Not every district, not every legislatuor CAN be the same AND be a majority. But if the “base” keeps pushing both the 100% purity “must” and a GOP majority happening, “no surrender, no compromise”, how do we move forward to get ANY Dem seat held in a GOP leaning districct back in GOP hands?
You can’t “lead” when you don’t have the juice, and you don’t have the numbers. That goes for the 100% socially liberal agenda, “no retreat, no surrender”, and MJM and Cullerton seem to know that better then we in the GOP.
Take Barickman out, and you might as well tell the ILDems, “We will cut off our nose to spite our face for you ILDems, just watch us.”
Many will be watching the SGOP, and they better be backing Barickman, “100%, no retreat, no surrender”. Then we will know how far our party has come, and how much farther we need to go.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:12 pm:
Next thing you know, they’ll force clerks to issue birth certificates for the children of unwed mothers!
If all the energy spent harassing and haranguing against same gender marriage was spent on the pension issue or education issues, etc., it would be worthwhile, but this is such a waste of time. Hard to imagine how allowing people who love each other equal rights prompts such hate.
- dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:15 am:
State Representative Reis, US Representative Adam Kinzinger is on the line. He wants to have a word with you. Oswego Willy is on line 2.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:18 am:
Oh, and you know what isn’t protected by Barickman’s religious exemption?
Knights of Columbus halls (and similar for other denominations). Why would a gay couple want to have a marriage/reception in a KofC hall? To pick a fight.
And this law declares the gay couple the winner.
- Hon. John Fritchey - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:19 am:
Senator Barickman is learning the unfortunate reality that his intelligence and practicality on this issue provides ironic fodder for attack by the very folks he was trying to assist.
The ignorance of his detractors underscores one of the biggest impediments to finding common ground on controversial issues. Rep. Phelps and I saw this firsthand years ago when we negotiated language on the ‘Born Alive Infant Protection Act’, likely the only compromise bill touching on the issue of abortion to come out of Springfield.
Good for him for trying to do the right thing.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:24 am:
–“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”–
Funny, I thought much of religious persecution involved discriminating against a minority, just because you could.
Religious persecution isn’t what it used to be. No burning stakes. No cat-o-nine-tails. I guess you might get a paper cut issuing a license.
–“Was Barickman representing you, or the Chicago homosexual community?” asked Sandy Rios of Family PAC in the automated call. –
No gay couples outside of Chicago? I didn’t know that.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:24 am:
More proof that the ILGOP is not very good when it comes to the whole “politics” thing.
The big loser on that vote was Dilliard. It is going to make it very tough for him to appeal as a moderate if wants to run for gov. again.
- Just Me - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:25 am:
So if a county clerk is a Catholic can he refuse to issue any marriage license to non-Catholics?
- ZC - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:25 am:
If county clerks think divorce is immoral (and Jesus said plenty about the immorality of divorce, recall), is it religious persecution to force them to issue marriage licenses to previously-wed couples?
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:26 am:
And DuPage Dan is right. This ties directly into yesterday’s discussion.
Kinzinger wants to focus on the volume and the tone.
However, no matter how nicely you say things, when you are saying that somehow gays are inherently immoral and second class you are not going to appeal to moderates.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:29 am:
Oh it’s the “Chicago homosexual community” that’s the enemy now? Way to play to the downstate crowd, Family PAC!
Get a life.
And Rep Reis: If a state police official found civilian gun ownership morally abhorrent, since guns take life, would it be “religious persecution” to require him to help issue FOID cards?
- reformer - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:32 am:
== They have civil unions ==
Rep. Reis voted NO on civil unions. Now he’s offering civil unions as a sufficient accommodation to same-sex couples. Does that mean he’s now in favor of them?
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:32 am:
Two things…
Not sure if a school if attached to a church and is a church school can not be considered a religious institution. For example if our teachers meet certain educational requirements they are considered clergy for tax purposes (and religious purposes) but other than that the change in the facility language seems logical and appropriate to me.
== –“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.” ==
That begs an interesting question, using that logic could (or should) a county clerk refuse to issue a license due to other marriage constraints set by faith and not by law.
For example should a clerk be allowed to not issue a license due to the fact one or more party had been married before and the marriage was not annulled? If the previous divorce was issues for a reason not recognized as valid by their faith?
Seems to me the answer on both is no.
- anon - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:34 am:
Divorce!!! Where is the bill banning divorce from those claiming religious persecution? The hypocricy is unbearable!!
- Chevy owner/Ford County - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:35 am:
So is a Catholic county clerk who has to sign a marriage license for a straight couple where one or both of the participants have been divorced being subject to religious persecution?
- reformer - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:37 am:
== a God-ordained institution ==
When Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and other Biblical patriarchs took more than one wife at a time, was that ordained by God, too?
- Mason born - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:39 am:
legal
Been wondering that. I personally could care less whether a gay man gets married. what i do want is strong protections for faith groups. The fact that the K.C. isn’t covered is not a good sign. Personally i would prefer we stop issuing Marriage lisences to anyone gay or straight. issue a civil union liscense and then if you want a “marriage” talk to the faith of your choice. Maybe the time isn’t to make marriage open to all maybe it is time to get Gov’t out of the marriage business.
As to the county clerk sorry idjit you work for the Gov’t aka the public. you serve the entire PUBLIC. Therefore if you don’t like it get a job in a private business.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:39 am:
The plumbing reference is a disgusting argument put forth by individuals too dumb to think for themselves.
I bet there are some disabled, married veterans who would be outraged to hear these clowns tell them their marriage isn’t legitimate.
Shameful.
- promises promises - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:40 am:
If Barickman had let his voters know of this before his primary he would have lost
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:40 am:
–“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”–
No it is not, you are free to practice any religion you want, you are not free to use your government position to impose your religious beliefs on others. No one is forcing you to be County Clerk, if you believe that strongly that your religious beliefs are being infringed you should resign. Or better yet feel free to move to Saudi Arabia where religion and the government are aligned together to oppress those who you disagree with.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:43 am:
== “But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.” ==
What about county clerks who have moral objections to NOT issuing same sex marriage licenses? It seems to me that Rep. Reis is arguing for the government endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. I wonder what the Constitution has to say about that.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:43 am:
===If Barickman had let his voters know of this before his primary he would have lost ===
Maybe. But he defeated his opponent with 62 percent of the vote. So, maybe not.
Also, it was up to his opponent to press him on that. He didn’t. Tough luck.
- Howell - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:46 am:
If Barickman was doing Christian conservatives a favor, why didn’t he consult the Catholic Conference, the Illinois Family Institute or Family PAC?
He was at best a lone ranger on this.
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:56 am:
“If Barickman was doing Christian conservatives a favor, why didn’t he consult the Catholic Conference, the Illinois Family Institute or Family PAC?”
Because none of them have supported any compromise at all, even on civil unions. If they want to be absolutists, they can sit out of compromise discussions.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:02 am:
Re: ChicagoR
So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?
Got it.
When can we expect that bill to revoke their tax exemptions?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:07 am:
===Oswego Willy is on line 2.===
(Passed out, woke to read the statement again while eating cannoli, choking, but was able to apply Heimlich to self using chair.)
Can I ask a really dumb question. When I think of Religious Persecution, I think of … jail … trials in courts … public stonings … Lions …Am I off in that?
Did I miss that?
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:08 am:
I don’t admit any such thing, so don’t put words in my mouth. This doesn’t affect Christian institutions at all. They are specifically excluded from having to be involved in these weddings. It only keeps them from imposing their will on those who aren’t their members.
- dave - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:09 am:
**So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?**
Huh?
ChicagoR is correct. None of the right-wing religious groups would have supported the bill, not matter what religious freedoms were included.
You don’t negotiate with groups that are never going to support the bill.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:17 am:
Knights of Columbus halls aren’t protected. Social service institutions and hospitals are explicitly designated as not protected.
And nothing in the law suggests that ministers who don’t follow the line will be permitted to continue solemnizing marriages, just that they can’t be affirmatively forced to.
a.k.a. exactly what happened to Catholic Charities even before the civil unions law went into effect.
You’ve peddled this line before. We know better now.
- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:17 am:
If you need to be that protected from perceived or real sin from the secular world might I suggest building a compound or a commune…
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:19 am:
To the Post,
State Sen. Jason Barickman and the RoboCalls and all the Dopey things that are being done to the Senator reminds me, although Congressman Kinzinger is my hoe for the Party, others continue to show me the despair.
Anyone of those dopes also UNDERSTAND that state Sen. Barickman did them a favor? Nope. “Burn him. Cast him out! He is a RINO, not pure, not pure!!”
Well I am glad Senator McCarter’s gay friends know that there are some Republicans that they can agree with.
===“Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”===
Tolerance? A non-rigid Republican Party?
What is it with the Zelots who insist every 7 to 9 minutes if you don’t agree, then we must force you to resign, or we will rent rooms for your ouster!
===“Call Barickman today and tell him you’ve cast your last vote for him, and ask him to resign.”===
I am not embarrassed for you, I may mock you, but I am not embarrassed for you anymomre. If any Repubican turns their back on Senator Barickman they should feel some shame today. If Barickman votes “NO” as the other 18 Lemmings did, the bill passes anyway, and without that amendment to boot, probably. So what do you gain? Nineteen members who give NO reason for voters to look at SGOP nominees in 2014, “Look, remember ALL 19 GOP state senators voted no, against your sister, your brother, your sons and daughters. They have no time for your family, so why give them your vote so they van have no time …for Illinois.
Hang in there, Sen. Barickman.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:21 am:
===Congressman Kinzinger is my “Hope” for the Party, others continue to show me the despair.===
Apologies
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:21 am:
–So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?–
LOL, is that what he wrote?
It’s in front of you, dude, you can read it once, you can read it twice if you don’t get it. Three times if it’s really difficult.
But there’s no way that you can read what Chi R wrote that supports your interpretation.
And don’t write “naked.” It offends my sensibilities.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:24 am:
===We know better now.===
No, apparently you don’t know better. K of C halls rent their facilities to anyone, regardless. Why should they be able to discriminate?
If they feel so strongly that they do not wish to host a same sex marriage reception, they are free to require that anyone wishing to reserve their space become members. They can freely discriminate in their membership, but not in public accommodations.
This really isn’t that complicated. If you are open to the public, you’re open to all of it. If you’re a private institution, you can choose whom to admit. But you can’t have it both ways.
- Just Observing - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:33 am:
Attn: Prospective County Clerk candidates. If you are going to have problems issuing marriage certificates to gay couples, consider a run for Recorder of Deeds instead.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:41 am:
I have no sympathy for Family PAC or IFI. They spent the last election cycle attacking Republicans for not supporting their positions, and leaving Democrats alone. This lead to the preposterous situation of Arie Friedman, Senate Candidate, being attacked by Personal PAC AND by Family PAC.
They reaped what they sowed. A Democratic controlled veto proofed majority. No Republican vote on this topic would have mattered thanks to the IFI and Family PAC.
Family PAC reminds me of the Chicago Cubs eliminating all the players who could play the game and losing 100+ game with rookies and washed up has beens.
As a Republican I would prefer they attack Democrats instead of focusing exclusively on Republicans. But they are part of the problem within the GOP these days. A political vampire group that attacks those who feed it money and support.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:41 am:
===If Barickman had let his voters know of this before his primary he would have lost===
“Senator” Rutherford voted for the Civil Unions, and I think he is still popular in that area … Rutherford appears to be quite strong …
Barickman won at over a 60% clip. Primary Barickman, and I will tell you one thing, if the SGOP does NOT assist Barickman in his race against these “Witch Hunters, with torches and pitchforks in hand”, I will wonder.
I will wonder what the “Moderate Jo Galloway”, who reminded us she is a woman, …but didn’t ‘play’ the gender card, …but played the gender card… to convince us ALL we need her to lead this SGOP caucus towards the middle. And… the SGOP Senior Policial Campaign Minds, the juggernaut of of the “19″, should I wonder if they won’t help Barickman? I won’t have to wonder long, and neither will the voters.
I will remember that. I am sure others… voters … will remember that too.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:49 am:
Exactly my point. We don’t like your stand, you’re opposed to what we want, so screw you. You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.
- Tony - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:50 am:
What a joke these folks are. Sorry, if a county clerk objects to an interracial marriage, and has to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, is that clerk being discriminated against because of their beliefs? Ridiculous. The law is the law. If the person who is the county clerk can’t stand anti-discrimination laws then they should find a different profession.
- B2Chicago - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:52 am:
@alegalanalysis:
Quote: Exactly my point. We don’t like your stand, you’re opposed to what we want, so screw you. You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.
Um, I’m sure you know the difference between “free exercise” and “state subsidy,” right? Free exercise of religion does not mean an entitlement to a state contract.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:52 am:
–You don’t get to have free exercise of religion anymore.–
What date does that kick in? Because I don’t want to get into trouble.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:53 am:
Attention: All people with religious conviction. If your values conflict with the state, you either comply with the state or you are longer allowed full participation in society.
That is all.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:54 am:
- A legal analysis -,
Ok. Make your point. Knights of Columbus Halls, ok, what else …Hospitals …Ok, what else …
Is there room to work, or are you just a NO and be done with it, but if you are a NO, what legislative leg are you going to be your NO, and further, if someone like a Barickman who voted YES, and you agree with Barickman on every other issue but this, do you think Barickman can never get your vote back?
So I am clear on where you stand…
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:58 am:
===Attention: All people with religious conviction. If your values conflict with the state, you either comply with the state or you are longer allowed full participation in society.
That is all.===
So … are you a “Take my ball and go home” type, or “hold my breath till someone notices” type.
Just so I know what step is after the “That is all” step.
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 11:59 am:
Tony-
What’s your opinion of the groups going after Halvorson for her gun stand? Pretty much the same story here.
Outside groups try to influence public opinion, it happens all the time.
- B2Chicago - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
Who knew full participation in society meant an entitlement to a state contract?
- A legal analysis - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
B2Chicago-
So, you admit you support revoking tax exemptions of churches if their doctrine is not inline with state mandates.
Got it.
- B2Chicago - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
@alegalanalysis:
So, you admit that you don’t read what is written in replies and instead continue on your misguided crusade without acknowledging any cognitive dissonance in your own posts.
Got it.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
===So you admit that this was a naked attack on Christian institutions then?===
===When can we expect that bill to revoke their tax exemptions?===
===So, you admit you support revoking tax exemptions of churches if their doctrine is not inline with state mandates.===
My tin foil hat might not be on quite right today … can you show me WHERE all “that” is in the bill. or the analysis?
I get confused pretty easy, so you may have to go slow so I can take notes …
- Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
LA,
In all seriousness, are you on drugs?
Having hallucinations?
You seem to have a very difficult time distinguishing fantasy from reality.
Nobody is posting the things that you accuse them of posting.
Try reading. Or seek medical assistance.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
Legal A, did you open the bar at the K of C Hall early today? Because you are having a very difficult time following straightforward written statements.
- Go Brown for Barickman - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
For every robocall or stunt the far right does, I am giving another donation to Jason Barickman. I hope you all join me.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 12:30 pm:
===I am giving another donation to Jason Barickman. I hope you all join me.===
Well done.
Let’s see if “Moderate Jo Galloway, the gender card playing … but not playing … SGOP Leader helps Barickman like you and so many others should. I will wait… and watch … to see if Barickman GETS that support from the Caucus, but kudos to you, and I hope others follow suit.
- Waldi - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
“But when you’re a county clerk and you don’t believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that’s religious persecution.”
- - - - -
So does this mean that Catholic county clerks have suffered religious persecution all these years because they issue marriage licenses to divorced people? This argument makes absolutely no sense.
- Darienite - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
“Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, render to God what is God’s”. Anyone remember who first said that line?
- TooManyJens - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
==Pastor Linda Jernigan, who said she was “a former lesbian” who now operates a ministry in the Chicago area, asked repeatedly, “Did you know that God can deliver homosexuals?”==
And if you don’t get them in 30 minutes, they’re free!
- Greatplainser - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:41 pm:
Barickman may not get that support. Because with him its not about what he votes for its how he goes about it. From capital sources there has never been a freshman Republican senator who is more polarizing than him big Jim Oberweis included. Additionally, the 53rd District’s a pretty conservative place. While I grasp that many on here don’t agree with their beliefs; they are indeed their beliefs. I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude. Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another. Yes, the conservative groups probably act the same and didn’t(or wouldn’t have) come to the table, but is this how we want to run our government? Politics aside I think the approach to this issue and many others brings out the worst in people and as a citizen I would hope it would change, but I’m not holding my breath.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
- shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats -
The country and state have been gradually giving gay citizens the same rights as hetero citizens for the last half century. Actually, I’m pretty sure Illinois was the first to take a major step by repealing its sodomy laws in the early 1960s.
It’s not everyone else’s fault you haven’t been paying attention.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
- Greatplainser -,
Really? Bigger than Oberweis?
Sixty percent in the General, and with the support of the SGOP, Barickman should be in better shape than you may think. Plus, the more rigid we in the GOP look, the worse off we will be, and Jo Galoway better realize she needs more moderates, and less Lemmings
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
There is no compromise or discussion with the “I’d rather be right than win” crowd. They truly don’t care about anything except maintaining purity. If that means being the only one with a crown in a room of three people, that is fine. They reject the Reagan rule that somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend. Ronnie wasn’t good enough, it seems.
I call it the “rage of the drowning man”.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
Oh, and places of worship should have to host weddings if they don’t approve of the couple marrying. If K of C halls want to opt out, they need to stop renting to one and all.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 3:31 pm:
“The ignorance of his detractors underscores one of the biggest impediments to finding common ground on controversial issues.”
“I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude.”
Is this 2013 or 1862 here in the Land of Lincoln?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 3:56 pm:
“Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another….Politics aside I think the approach to this issue and many others brings out the worst in people and as a citizen I would hope it would change, but I’m not holding my breath.”
Many discussions seem to now be following the “last word in” and “my buddies will jump all over you if you disagree with me” approach here, Greatplainser. I’d argue there’s a possibility that it’s tantamount to fighting a brutal war to help a country’s or region’s citizens, only to wind up getting attacked by them as attempts to restore peace are being made after the major battles.
The focus is not on “hearts and minds,” Greatplainser.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:02 pm:
Many discussions seem to now be following the “last word in” and “my buddies will jump all over you if you disagree with me” approach here, –Greatplainser. I’d argue there’s a possibility that it’s tantamount to fighting a brutal war to help a country’s or region’s citizens, only to wind up getting attacked by them as attempts to restore peace are being made after the major battles.–
Yeah, it’s just like that, whatever that means.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
And just some unsolicited advice, Jason: Notice all the comments on other threads about getting rid of elected officials when their “usefulness” has waned. After all (according to some), that’s what the game is all about and if you don’t have the nerve….
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:08 pm:
=Yeah, it’s just like that, whatever that means.=
I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.
- x ace - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
Believe Rep. Reis’ Turf includes the only 3 Counties that Alan Keyes carried in the 2004 US Senate race. That oughta tell us something.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:14 pm:
–I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.==
Sorry, dude, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If it’s an issue of English as a second language, I understand. My folks learned English through
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 4:17 pm:
==I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.–
Sorry, dude, I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
If it’s an issue of English as a second language, I understand. My folks learned English by speaking it, but putting it down on paper could be rough.
No snark.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
===The focus is not on “hearts and minds,” Greatplainser.===
You keep that focus on the “Hearts and Minds” … because as you focus on that, the Super-Minorities will keep shrinking.
===I hope our Country and State never has an opportunity to truly understand what that means on its own soil, word. However, I do worry when some citizens believe that exclusion is a good solution to exclusion.===
Uh, no one is excluding anyone, I think that is the point …
===Jason: Notice all the comments on other threads about getting rid of elected officials when their “usefulness” has waned. After all (according to some), that’s what the game is all about and if you don’t have the nerve…. ===
So, are you saying Senator Barickman should worry for himself, we should worry for OURselves, or shouls I just stop worring and make a ham sandwich?
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 7:08 pm:
Boy oh boyo–wait till the Debate hits the House Floor on THIS one! It’s gonna be a “Doozy!”
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 9:44 pm:
===While I grasp that many on here don’t agree with their beliefs; they are indeed their beliefs. I am kind of scared by some of the comments on here about shoving legislation and major social change down people’s throats with such a cavalier attitude. Having a discussion about that is one thing telling people to just deal is another. Yes, the conservative groups probably act the same and didn’t(or wouldn’t have) come to the table, but is this how we want to run our government?===
If they don’t come to the table, the “base” wants only purity at the risk of becoming a Super-Minority, how is this ramming anything down the throats?
Ramming down the throats of Moderates that they must vote socially conservative at all times, or feel the wrath of the “base” regardless of what the polls or the population think is just as insane. Believe and follow that you want, heck vote, on conservative social issues only, but be ready to be in the Minority, and be ready if the Majority, especially a Democartic Super-Majority in both chambers votes against you, and that Democratice Governor … signs it.
I was going to let all this go, but here is the Rub that got me to think and post again to - Greatplainser -.
Do you think… honestly … a majorty of Republicans can win seats in either chamber… being only 100% socially conservative?
I will say this, MJM knows that he can not win a Democratic Majority being 100% liberal in social beliefs and guess what, MJM has one of the most diverse caucuses in recent memory, if ever. Same with Cullerton.
So as I explained about how the Dems KNOW that a 100% PURE socially liberal Democratic Caucus can never be, can you say the same about a GOP caucus in either chamber being a majority AND being 100% pure/socially conservative?
Not every district, not every legislatuor CAN be the same AND be a majority. But if the “base” keeps pushing both the 100% purity “must” and a GOP majority happening, “no surrender, no compromise”, how do we move forward to get ANY Dem seat held in a GOP leaning districct back in GOP hands?
You can’t “lead” when you don’t have the juice, and you don’t have the numbers. That goes for the 100% socially liberal agenda, “no retreat, no surrender”, and MJM and Cullerton seem to know that better then we in the GOP.
Take Barickman out, and you might as well tell the ILDems, “We will cut off our nose to spite our face for you ILDems, just watch us.”
Many will be watching the SGOP, and they better be backing Barickman, “100%, no retreat, no surrender”. Then we will know how far our party has come, and how much farther we need to go.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 21, 13 @ 10:12 pm:
Next thing you know, they’ll force clerks to issue birth certificates for the children of unwed mothers!
Road to Perdition!
- D P Gumby - Friday, Feb 22, 13 @ 10:17 am:
If all the energy spent harassing and haranguing against same gender marriage was spent on the pension issue or education issues, etc., it would be worthwhile, but this is such a waste of time. Hard to imagine how allowing people who love each other equal rights prompts such hate.