“Gay people have the same right as everyone else to a spouse of the opposite sex.”
- ste_with_a_v_en - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:55 pm:
“It’s a completely disordered relationship and when you have a disordered relationship you don’t ever get order out of that so I’m more than happy to take a ‘no’ vote on the issue of homosexual marriage.”
Lest we forget
–The LGBTQ community have the same rights as everyone else, and I will protect those rights.–
Based on her past record and rhetoric, I’m not sure Rep. Ives fully appreciate what that means, but she obviously knows that it’s what we should aspire to.
So good on you, Rep. Ives — that’s a marker. They are magnificent things.
Back in the day, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Judged by his actions, before and after he wrote those words, Jefferson didn’t really believe a word of it, not in a sense that would include the great majority of humanity.
But what a marker. You can’t walk it back, once you’ve revealed what you truly should aspire to.
Is marrying your fiancé a special right? Is adopting a child a special right? Is being able to rent an apartment, or hold down a job despite whomever you love a special right?
Yeah, it’s code for everyone has a right to procreative straight sex whether they like the opposite sex or not. What’s great is that the dog whistle didn’t even work in her mentions.
It’s tiring to hear supposed experts make a dubious claim that a congressional race between two new candidates is relevant to a presidential race held almost two years earlier with completely different candidates.
Our world would be a better place if we can accept a good statement coming from a candidate without unloading partisanships, biases, “dog whistles” and assorted paranoias on it.
Just accept it for what it means and enjoy the moment of agreement.
–It’s tiring to hear supposed experts make a dubious claim that a congressional race between two new candidates is relevant to a presidential race held almost two years earlier…–
No, it’s relevant to the the election coming up in November as a gauge of the off-year trend.
Just as it would have been in any off-year election.
It’s a lousy gage.
Worse, it can be very misleading.
- People Over Parties - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:58 am:
Oh, please. If she felt this way then that ad never would have gone up. Maybe she’s looking to take the issue off the table? But then why would you do that with a week to go? Strange.
Ron, Ives statement does not mean what it appears to mean. She most likely means “special right” to mean any law that is proposed that specifically protects LGBTQ individuals from some specific act (for example, the extension of prior anti-discrimination laws to LGBTQ based discrimination).
I take this to mean that Ives has recognized that she’s hit her ceiling in rounding up the rabid right. The statement is nuanced enough that she could always clarify later that she meant no “special” or “additional” rights.
====For too many folks here, even saying the right thing isn’t enough.
There’s being open minded and then there is letting your brain fall out of your ears. Do you actually think I’m wrong in my interpretation of what she is saying? It’s a long used trope by conservative opponents of LGBTQ rights.
- Chicago - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:36 pm:
That would be classic in this wacky election cycle to see Equality Illinois endorse her now!
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:39 pm:
Four GOP members of the GA voted for SSM.
Only three in the House.
Ives wasn’t one of them.
Then again, Oberweis saw the light running for US Senate after the SSM vote…
Crazy times.
- Keyrock - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:40 pm:
This is too weird. Blame Madigan?
- BlueDogDem - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:40 pm:
To a previous post. That would be a move to the middle.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:47 pm:
Well they should not have any special rights just equal rights
- LXB - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:52 pm:
“Gay people have the same right as everyone else to a spouse of the opposite sex.”
- ste_with_a_v_en - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:55 pm:
“It’s a completely disordered relationship and when you have a disordered relationship you don’t ever get order out of that so I’m more than happy to take a ‘no’ vote on the issue of homosexual marriage.”
Lest we forget
- A Jack - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 9:59 pm:
See how easy that was, Erica Harold?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:05 pm:
Not sure I get the headline here
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:16 pm:
–The LGBTQ community have the same rights as everyone else, and I will protect those rights.–
Based on her past record and rhetoric, I’m not sure Rep. Ives fully appreciate what that means, but she obviously knows that it’s what we should aspire to.
So good on you, Rep. Ives — that’s a marker. They are magnificent things.
Back in the day, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Judged by his actions, before and after he wrote those words, Jefferson didn’t really believe a word of it, not in a sense that would include the great majority of humanity.
But what a marker. You can’t walk it back, once you’ve revealed what you truly should aspire to.
- Just Me - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:35 pm:
Is marrying your fiancé a special right? Is adopting a child a special right? Is being able to rent an apartment, or hold down a job despite whomever you love a special right?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:41 pm:
- Anonymous - Not sure I get the headline here
Then you are not paying attention
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:43 pm:
Looking at the vote out of the Pitt burbs tonight, someone might want to revive that Obama Voters for Roskam website.
+20, gone in 15 months.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 10:53 pm:
Yeah, it’s code for everyone has a right to procreative straight sex whether they like the opposite sex or not. What’s great is that the dog whistle didn’t even work in her mentions.
- illinois manufacturer - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 11:36 pm:
Its more than Roskum gone word. Its half of all gop seats in the house. Rauner is going to be the only republican wasting money in Illinois this year.
- illinois manufacturer - Tuesday, Mar 13, 18 @ 11:43 pm:
Cnn highlighted La hoods district as similar
- Suburban Mom - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 12:33 am:
Hard to believe she means it after her viciously bigoted anti-trans ad
- Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 7:00 am:
Yes indeed. Conservative Democrats can win in this country. If only we had one running as a Dem candidate in Illinois…
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:18 am:
It’s tiring to hear supposed experts make a dubious claim that a congressional race between two new candidates is relevant to a presidential race held almost two years earlier with completely different candidates.
It’s interesting, but completely bogus.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:23 am:
Our world would be a better place if we can accept a good statement coming from a candidate without unloading partisanships, biases, “dog whistles” and assorted paranoias on it.
Just accept it for what it means and enjoy the moment of agreement.
- Ron - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:25 am:
What is a special right?
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:30 am:
A special right is when you use discrimination to address a discrimination?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:37 am:
–It’s tiring to hear supposed experts make a dubious claim that a congressional race between two new candidates is relevant to a presidential race held almost two years earlier…–
No, it’s relevant to the the election coming up in November as a gauge of the off-year trend.
Just as it would have been in any off-year election.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:51 am:
It’s a lousy gage.
Worse, it can be very misleading.
- People Over Parties - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:58 am:
Oh, please. If she felt this way then that ad never would have gone up. Maybe she’s looking to take the issue off the table? But then why would you do that with a week to go? Strange.
- anon - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 8:59 am:
Ron, Ives statement does not mean what it appears to mean. She most likely means “special right” to mean any law that is proposed that specifically protects LGBTQ individuals from some specific act (for example, the extension of prior anti-discrimination laws to LGBTQ based discrimination).
- Pundent - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 9:03 am:
I take this to mean that Ives has recognized that she’s hit her ceiling in rounding up the rabid right. The statement is nuanced enough that she could always clarify later that she meant no “special” or “additional” rights.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 9:03 am:
We are in the Upside-down.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
For too many folks here, even saying the right thing isn’t enough.
Talk about being closed minded.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Mar 14, 18 @ 1:17 pm:
====For too many folks here, even saying the right thing isn’t enough.
There’s being open minded and then there is letting your brain fall out of your ears. Do you actually think I’m wrong in my interpretation of what she is saying? It’s a long used trope by conservative opponents of LGBTQ rights.