41 Comments - Big Muddy - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:12 am: Opposing SSM based on religious freedom? Oh I get it, religious freedom for those that think like “us.” For those that have a differing viewpoint well, no religious freedom for you!! You must conform to OUR standards. - Aldyth - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:13 am: The Flat Earth Society convenes. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:14 am: Looks like fun! Will the IFI Will the Whackjobs be marrying off some children that day to protect them from “homosexual activists”? Little confused why the whacksj’s think kids and religion are in trouble - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:16 am: Is it possible to support religious freedom and oppose the government recognizing the marriage of two people (who happen to be the same sex) based on religious beliefs? Their action alert is just filled with so much hypocrisy it’s sad, although I’m sure they will never see it. Also, what about the parental rights of gay couples? Shouldn’t they be protected equally as non-gay parents? - Levi - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:17 am: They’re like the boy who cried wolf. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:17 am: What’s a “prayer watch?” - Mouthy at a remote location - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:18 am: Who’s going to save us from IFI? - Soccermom - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:20 am: Okay. I can understand why anti-abortion activists get so heated about that issue. If you honestly believe that abortion is infanticide, then you have a moral duty to oppose it as hard as you can. I don’t agree, but I get it. However — if you oppose gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. I have yet to hear how SSM harms straight married people in any way. The whole “religious freedom” thing is nonsense; are religions that don’t allow remarriage after divorce heading down to Springfield every week to ban divorce for everybody else? I don’t see a lot of Orthodox Jews protesting the legal sale of pork and seafood. Sheesh. - olddog - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:25 am: Who’s “redefining” marriage? If we’re going to “redefine” it, let’s “redefine” it as one man, 700 wives and 300 porcupines! - And I Approved This Message - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:33 am: 47th - A “prayer watch” is a thing that goes on your wrist and every hour on the hour it goes off and recites the Our Father. They make lovely Christmas presents. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:33 am: I assume this announcement was posted for the sake of ridicule. Must really be a light posting day. - S - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:38 am: Can we discuss how the Southern Poverty Law Center lists IFI as a hate group? Do klan press releases get shared too? The best way to make these goose-steppers irrelevant is to ignore them - hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:48 am: Exactly what role does the GA play in “God-ordained marriage”? Or does the divine right theory apply to state legislators now? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 11:55 am: –What’s a “prayer watch?” – Yeah, that’s a new one. Maybe it’s like “watch us pray?” Matthew 6:5-6 “5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” Rewarding, but not nearly as fun. “Join IFI and Illinois families from around the state to take a stand to protect marriage” from those who wish to be married… “religious freedom” of only those who think like us… “parental rights” except for the ‘wrong’ kind of parents…. “and the innocence of our children” and to hell with those other children. Sounds like a swell time. The two dudes with the little girl across the street from me must not be doing it right. Because my marriage is not threatened, my religious freedom is intact and my kids are not corrupted. My only beef with them is that they’ve been putting a lot of money into their house and landscaping and are making me look bad. But it’s prodding me to do more, so it’s good for everyone’s property values in the neighborhood. They buy a lot of Girl Scout cookies, too. Really raising the bar. - SirLankselot - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:12 pm: What is the purpose of posting IFI’s press release other than as flamebait to pro-SSM supporters? It doesn’t strike me as news as to what they do. - Wonderful World - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:14 pm: Wordslinger, thank you. You said it perfectly… - Civic Minded - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:15 pm: These are not my religious beliefs from these christians or family activists. I don’t understand why they should have control over my beliefs or others that I respect. Besides, in the other states that do have same sex marriage - the only effects I’ve heard about are that it has helped improve the economy. - AFSCME Steward - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:21 pm: Soccermom The catholic church had to get out of the adoption business because the state wouldn’t allow them to practice their religious freedom regarding same sex adoptions. “However — if you oppose gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. I have yet to hear how SSM harms straight married people in any way. The whole “religious freedom” thing is nonsense; are religions that don’t allow remarriage after divorce heading down to Springfield every week to ban divorce for everybody else? I don’t see a lot of Orthodox Jews protesting the legal sale of pork and seafood. Sheesh.” - Aspects - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:22 pm: I think “parental rights” are they believe every child has a right to a father and a mother. I think the “innocence of our children” is they believe that same-sex marriage is child abuse by backing Robert Oscar Lopez, who blames his lesbian moms for his problems growing up and his problems in life now being ex-gay. In my thinking if one’s main arguments are that you are for protecting marriage, religious freedom, parental rights and the innocence of children, then you should be for same-sex marriage. - Aspects - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:27 pm: I notice that they are also pushing their followers to call Pat Quinn to veto two “anti-family bills” (my quotation marks), “comprehensive” sex education and “medical” marijuana (their quotation marks). - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:30 pm: Wordslinger great Bible dart! Right between the eyes - AFSCME Steward - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:43 pm: Thou Shalt not lie with mankind as with womenkind, it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 Another great Bible dart ???? Circular “Wordslinger great Bible dart! Right between the eyes” - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 12:51 pm: I guess these people took their cue from ISRA posts. They must figure hysteria with a little paranoia on the side works. - LincolnLounger - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 1:26 pm: Be careful throwing around Leviticus. By the same thinking, I presume these people consider eating pork and shellfish and abomination, sex during a menstrual cycle deserves exile, and charging interest on a loan to merit the death penalty? The fact of the matter is that marriage was around long before the Bible, and Christians are the ones who actually “redefined” it.. - girllawyer - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 1:28 pm: That’s a weird use of the term “parental rights” which everywhere else means the rights of parents, not the rights of children. Not getting the connection to this issue. I guess if gay marriage is a threat to marriage then gay parental rights would pose a threat to other parental rights. - Skeptic - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 2:01 pm: “I think “parental rights” are they believe every child has a right to a father and a mother.” Unlike all the kids that are being raised by single moms and dads of course. Or aunts and uncles. Or grandparents. Or fosters. - too obvious - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 2:02 pm: “God-ordained marriage” God must change his mind a lot given the number of people who get remarried. Actually IFI, it is inevitable. Any honest person can see that. But raise money on the issue while you can and give good people false hope. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 2:17 pm: “The fact of the matter is that marriage was around long before the Bible, and Christians are the ones who actually “redefined” it..” Not sure what “redefined” means in that context, but Leviticus pre-dates Christainity by many generations. - reformer - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 3:00 pm: AFSME Long hair on men is also called an “abomination,” and that’s in the New Testament. (1 Cor. 11:14) - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 3:07 pm: ==Can we discuss how the Southern Poverty Law Center lists IFI as a hate group? Do klan press releases get shared too? The best way to make these goose-steppers irrelevant is to ignore them== The Ku Klux Klan does not have any discernable political power in Illinois, unlike the IFI, which, sadly in my opinion, does have some. ==The catholic church had to get out of the adoption business because the state wouldn’t allow them to practice their religious freedom regarding same sex adoptions.== Private/non-profit/religious organizations are not allowed to engage in discriminatory behavior on the state’s teat. @AFSCME http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/jason-collins-bible-verses-and-the-truth-about-gods-word_b_3191669.html - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 4:50 pm: Hi. We’re the IFI. Some of you may know us as the bigots down the street. Hatemonger is another moniker we go by. We would like you to know that the world will end if gay marriage is allowed. They will come for our children and they will prevent us from practicing our religion. Gay marriage will be the end of our religious liberties as we know it. There. I wrote a press release for them. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 4:56 pm: ==The catholic church had to get out of the adoption business because the state wouldn’t allow them to practice their religious freedom regarding same sex adoptions.== Bull. They didn’t HAVE to get out of the business. They just couldn’t have a state contract anymore because they wouldn’t follow the state’s rules. They aren’t entitled to a contract. NOBODY prevented them from practicing their religion. NOBODY. I get tired of hearing that argument because it’s patently false. - AFSCME Steward - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 7:59 pm: Demoralized This is nonsense. The state could have allowed the church to continue to manage adoptions in accordance with its conscience & belief systems. There are other avenues to go for same sex couples to adopt. The law is discriminatory against the church’s beliefs, and violates the church’s constitutionally protected religious freedom. Hopefully this law will be overturned. “Bull. They didn’t HAVE to get out of the business. They just couldn’t have a state contract anymore because they wouldn’t follow the state’s rules. They aren’t entitled to a contract. NOBODY prevented them from practicing their religion. NOBODY. I get tired of hearing that argument because it’s patently false.” - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 9:38 pm: ==The state could have allowed the church to continue to manage adoptions in accordance with its conscience & belief systems. There are other avenues to go for same sex couples to adopt.== If the church wants to start a private adoption agency with its money and its rules, fine. The state of Illinois does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and it should not bend over backward to accommodate vapid moral hypocrites who believe they are entitled to the state dole. - Downstater - Tuesday, Jul 23, 13 @ 10:51 pm: Many have raised the question of harm caused by the allowance of marriage between persons of the same sex. The allowance may seem reasonable. The problem this raises is that this makes the question entirely one of power; namely the power of majority will. The trouble raised by having matters involving family to be determined by popular will and the engaged parties’ personal consent and happiness, there can be no logical prohibition on any number and combination of association between persons. It would be wrong to prevent more than two people from engaging in a civil marriage together with each other. - Just Me - Wednesday, Jul 24, 13 @ 1:07 am: So Downstater: You don’t want to support equal marriage between two same-sex couples because you are afraid of what type of marriage will be approved after that? Yeah, please show me the man that married his dog or cat in Massachusetts or Iowa. - Howell - Wednesday, Jul 24, 13 @ 8:59 am: ==If the church wants to start a private adoption agency with its money and its rules, fine. The state of Illinois does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and it should not bend over backward to accommodate vapid moral hypocrites who believe they are entitled to the state dole.== But the state of Illinois can engage in religious bigotry and discrimination so it can bend over backwards to accommodate those who self-identify by their sexual behavior? Our first freedoms trumped by a phenomenon “newer than cell phones or the Internet?” - Downstater - Wednesday, Jul 24, 13 @ 11:51 am: To date, nobody has been able to say why this change in what constitutes a civil marriage would be the last word on change. Traditions and precedents are more than just an acceptance of things as they are, but are at some level a recognition that there is some logic or reason that promotes some manner of good that went beyond what was in the written, legislated law. For all recorded history, marriage has been understood as it has because those who came before us saw that good. However, to take it in the sardonic vein of your comment, I suspect if the man can find a cat or dog that could offer their consent to the arrangement, I fail to see how the state can reasonably justify not allowing it. - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Jul 24, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Howell, this is a civil society, not a theocracy. Move to Iran if that’s what you want. The rest of your comments are just a nonsensical straw. - Howell - Wednesday, Jul 24, 13 @ 4:24 pm: Your words to justify religious bigotry is telling Precinct Captain. I supposed you would do away with the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment? The First Amdendment, by the way, does not set up a “theocracy,” but establishes civil rights protections for individuals — and specifically protects religious civil rights — from governmental tyranny. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Jul 25, 13 @ 10:56 pm: Howell, you are arguing for de facto government establishment of religion. The Catholic Church is not entitled to state contracts to help provide adoptions. If they want to act as a contractor on behalf of the state of Illinois then they have to follow the laws, rules, and regulations of the state of Illinois. If I am a principal and you are my agent, you follow the rules I set out. ==But the state of Illinois can engage in religious bigotry and discrimination so it can bend over backwards to accommodate those who self-identify by their sexual behavior? Our first freedoms trumped by a phenomenon “newer than cell phones or the Internet?”== There is no religious bigotry. What you are arguing for is de facto theocracy in which the Catholic Church is entitled to state funds and to apply public functions using religious rules devised by religious figures. If the Catholic Church wants to operate a private adoption agency with rules guided by the Church then it is free to do so. The idea that there are “first freedoms” is nonsense. Constitutionally-derived freedoms are equal in weight no matter what order they come in. Again, your last comment, that somehow gay couplings are newer than cells or the internet is factually untrue and nothing more than a buzz phrase to try to distract from your bigotry. ==Traditions and precedents are more than just an acceptance of things as they are, but are at some level a recognition that there is some logic or reason that promotes some manner of good that went beyond what was in the written, legislated law.== No traditions are just traditions. Just because it has always been done some certain way does not make that way right. Racist chattel slavery was tradition in the Americas for centuries and it was never correct in any moral sense despite all manner of attempts to justify it by Christians and quack scientists. The idea that a tradition “promotes some manner of good” just because it sticks is simply a fallacy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.