Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sheila Simon roundup
Next Post: Stupid and/or arrogant and/or hiding something
Posted in:
* Another poll result from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute. Click the pic for a larger image…
* From the Institute…
“I think it is widely believed that Illinois is a fairly liberal state on the social issues front and these results certainly provide some empirical support for that perception,” said John S. Jackson, visiting professor at the Institute.
“The additional perception is that Chicago and the suburban collar counties are more liberal than downstate and our results also tend to support that view although even downstate provided a plurality or a majority in favor of the liberal position on all of these issues [abortion, gaming, medical marijuana] except gay marriage, where the most popular response downstate was in favor of civil unions,” he said.
* Gay marriage is up for a vote in the Senate today, where it’s expected to pass (keep an eye on the live session blog post for updates).
But some Downstate Democrats are trying hard to distance themselves from their party’s position. From a press release…
State Sen. Bill Haine (D-Alton) and state Rep. Dan Beiser (D-Alton) each filed an amendment to the Illinois Constitution, that would only allow marriage to be between a man and a woman.
“The family unit is the most important part of our community,” said Haine. “Strong families make sure that their children are taught good manners and are given the tools they need to succeed. Our community understands and values the traditional family, and I will continue to defend the values we hold dear.”
Haine introduced Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 8 and Beiser introduced House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 4, both stipulate that only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in Illinois. Either SJRCA 8 or HJRCA 4 would need to pass both the Senate and the House of Representatives before it will be placed put on the ballot in the next general election. To be added to the constitution, the amendment must be approved by 60 percent of voters and would become effective as soon as it is approved.
“There is a lot of discussion right now about changing the definition of marriage in Illinois, which would fundamentally alter communities across the state,” said Beiser. “Such a big change should not be pushed on the people on Illinois, unless they demonstrate that they want it. That is why I believe this issue must be brought before every voter. We must stand together and defend our values.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 10:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sheila Simon roundup
Next Post: Stupid and/or arrogant and/or hiding something
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==“There is a lot of discussion right now about changing the definition of marriage in Illinois, which would fundamentally alter communities across the state,” said Beiser.==
How, exactly would this fundamentally alter any community? I don’t get it.
I think the reason that same sex marriage is gaining support is because this statement is simply not true.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 10:56 am
–“Strong families make sure that their children are taught good manners and are given the tools they need to succeed. Our community understands and values the traditional family, and I will continue to defend the values we hold dear.”–
Some would consider it bad manners to implicitly accuse folks you don’t even know of not being able to raise their kids properly.
Perhaps things are different in Alton, but in my lifetime, I haven’t noticed that “traditional” families are always free from challenges, dysfunction, or tragedy.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 10:58 am
This story is so confusing … is State Sen. Bill Haine “On” or “Off” his High Horse.
I am so confused…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:04 am
===Haine introduced Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 8 and Beiser introduced House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 4, both stipulate that only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in Illinois.===
Shameless pandering to appease conservative voters. Haine and Beiser have been around long enough to know these bills will never pass, but this cowardly attempt to further discriminate means they’ll have some political cover. Just vote no on the marriage bill if you are opposed. Attempting to enshrine bigotry in the state Constitution is too much.
Sad and pathetic. But not surprising.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:05 am
I think the communities are already damaged. History does show that government sanctioned homosexuality is a precursor to the demise of society. Is is devolution, not evolution. You can argue the actual relationship, but the fact is societies who enorse immoral behavior tend to be on the downward spiral not the upswing.
IL has become the all things to all people state. The problem is, we can’t afford it. I wonder what this poll and the MJ poll would show if you tied it to the increase healthcare costs on business and taxpayers. We can’t afford to keep creating rights that cost money.
But that ties to my first point. IL is clearly on the downswing, not the upswing.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:08 am
Exactly, Patriot. The states and countries that have already enacted marriage equality have all gone straight to hell. Fallen apart. Decayed into ruin. Heaven help us all!
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:13 am
- History does show that government sanctioned homosexuality is a precursor to the demise of society. -
Please do share your sources on that. Remember, repeating things Ron Stephens says doesn’t make them “history”.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:14 am
“societies who enorse immoral behavior tend to be on the downward spiral not the upswing.”
- - - - - -
I don’t see legalizing same sex marriage as endorsing “immoral behavior”. Sadly, there is plenty of immoral behavior, whether exhibited by gay or straight, or allegedly celibate people.
Comment by Waldi Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:41 am
Weren’t we already going to hell because of civil unions? We may as well do it up right.
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:47 am
== History does show that government sanctioned homosexuality is a precursor to the demise of society. Is is devolution, not evolution.==
The Israeli military is an excellent example of this; they have allowed homosexuals to serve for years and they cannot fight their way out of a paper bag. And, look at Iowa, the place is an anarchic wasteland since they allowed same sex marriage.
Seriously, it is the LACK of negative consequences that is resulting in the rise of support. If anything leads to the demise of society it is a lack of respect for the rights of others.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:52 am
Patriot, I live across the river from Iowa where marriage equality has been around for a while. I have not noticed rampaging immorality when I visit friends across the Mississippi River. There haven’t been any homosexual recruitment drives. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are not currently parked in my driveway.
I am far more concerned about the impact of climate change on the farms in my county than what gay marriage would do. Though all those potential weddings will blow my budget with the gifts I’d have to buy.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 11:57 am
Human rights are not to be voted on by a populous. That’s why they are RIGHTS.
Comment by Midwest Mom Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:11 pm
Patriot
Do you rail against gay marriage because of the increased costs to healthcare, but then also rail against the government putting limits on ingredients in school lunches, or limiting the sizes of sodas that convenience stores can sell?
I hear alot of Fox News guys rail against that type of ‘government control’ over our lives even though those controls also lead to lower healthcare costs.
I’m tired of those who like government control when it appeases their personal feelings and then hate government control when it goes against their personal feelings.
train111
Comment by train111 Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:13 pm
- Midwest Mom - Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:11 pm:
“Human rights are not to be voted on by a populous. That’s why they are RIGHTS.”
c.f. Guns…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:30 pm
==You can argue the actual relationship, but the fact is societies who enorse immoral behavior tend to be on the downward spiral not the upswing.==
That’s the kind of talk that makes me fight all that much harder on this issue. It’s extremely insulting to gay people when you holier-than-thou people become the morality police and proclaim to the world that love is immoral. I would dare you to find once instance where gay marriage has caused the demise of society beyond that which exists in your little brain. The fact is that it is absolutely none of your business. Instead of sitting in judgement of people and proclaiming your particular brand of morality is the only way to go, you could live your life and let others live theirs. And, from what I gather from your comments, you are a conservative who is generally against government intrusion. Your stance on this issue is inconsistent with that belief. Keep your bigotry to yourself.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:32 pm
==There is a lot of discussion right now about changing the definition of marriage in Illinois, which would fundamentally alter communities across the state==
Exactly how would gay marriage alter communities? Those are the words of hysterical anti-gay people.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:33 pm
So Sen. Dan Duffy thinks this isn’t an important bill to talk about. However, he does feel that we shold focus on yellow traffic lights.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=1527&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=72282
Comment by SpfldCatholic Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 12:45 pm
–“Human rights are not to be voted on by a populous. That’s why they are RIGHTS.”
c.f. Guns… –
Is there an upcoming referendum, somewhere, (wouldn’t be Illinois) on guns?
If they are a human right, it would seem it’s being exercised rather commonly, what with 300 million of them in private hands.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:11 pm
Patriot…what a load of crap.
The state that has the lowest divorce rate? Massachusetts. The state that first allowed marriage equality? Massachusetts. Marriage equality is hardly the death nell to marriage that your side is so fond of claiming it is.
Furthermore, while I strongly disagree with your characterizing homosexuality as “immoral behavior” I will challenge your assertion that a society that condones immoral behavior is doomed to failure. The United States permitted slavery (which most people consider immoral, and I would even go as far as to assume that you do as well) longer than any other western civilized society, and yet has served as a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world for all of its history—and it still does as evidenced by our current immigration issues.
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Does Senator Righter not get that a church is a church is a church. Just vote and be on the wrong side of history Senator. No reason to hold this up longer.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:18 pm
Exactly what is the government’s interest in marriage at all? Stable homes for raising children. An honest discussion about the role of government is not present in the debate.
Comment by Liberty_First Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:23 pm
As long as it’s government entities issuing marriage licenses, and collecting the fees, religious connotations are moot. It’s a legal contract that sometimes has a religious component to it, not the reverse.
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:26 pm
“Exactly what is the government’s interest in marriage at all? Stable homes for raising children.”
So you propose barring the infertile or no-longer-fertile from marrying? Should marriages dissolve once the kids are raised? No, because society gets other benefits from mutually supporting couples. When my partner has been out of work, he doesn’t go on food stamps; I support him. He supported me when I was in law school, and I didn’t look to the state. I pay for his health insurance and the state doesn’t have to. The state benefits, and I should be given the ability to call him my spouse as my straight friends have with theirs.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:31 pm
–”Exactly what is the government’s interest in marriage at all? Stable homes for raising children.”–
The two dudes across the street raising the little girl seem very stable to me. The two ladies down street who raised two children now in college on academic scholarships are pillars of the community.
I guess government has an interest in seeing that they get properly hitched.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:35 pm
- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
–”Exactly what is the government’s interest in marriage at all? Stable homes for raising children.”–
“The two dudes across the street raising the little girl seem very stable to me.”
All marriage/civil unions are (with respect to the state) is a short hand method of defining a series of legal/property/tax arrangements. How about removing ALL tax breaks for adults (corporations too), and moving the government monies to children instead. With suitable restrictions about people having children for no other reason than the government money, our tax system would focus on the future, not ourselves.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 1:53 pm
–How about removing ALL tax breaks for adults (corporations too), and moving the government monies to children instead. With suitable restrictions about people having children for no other reason than the government money, our tax system would focus on the future, not ourselves.–
Speaking from only my experience, having children is no sweet tax dodge. Any tax breaks I get for my kids are gone in a hurry.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Exactly, word. Especially since I think we may agree that the tax code is really an instrument of social policy.
I think we should shift that policy toward the future as defined by our kids (those rascally future taxpayers) and away from such deductions such as mortgage interest and breaks to certain favored corporate entities.
I would rather that we rethought things and instead of giving a break for a house or bullet train, give a set (or maybe floating amount based on income) number of dollars per kid to be used as a parent sees fit. Education, living expenses, savings whatever.
Those tens of thousands of pages of tax code are about the single most unfair thing I can image, especially in a country so insistent on fairness.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 2:53 pm
==Those tens of thousands of pages of tax code are about the single most unfair thing I can image, especially in a country so insistent on fairness. ==
What would happen to all of the accountants and lawyers if we didn’t have those thousands of pages?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 3:16 pm
Cincy -
When so-called ‘conservatives’ introduce a bill that provides equality by removing the ’series of legal/property/tax arrangements’ and tax breaks afforded to opposite sex couples and corporations, I will lobby my legislator to vote for that bill.
Until that time, I see no reason to deny the same arrangements and tax breaks that my wife and I have to same-sex couples.
Comment by late to the party Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Kudos to my State Senator, Jason Barickman, for being the only Republican to vote for marriage equality today!
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 4:37 pm
–Kudos to my State Senator, Jason Barickman, for being the only Republican to vote for marriage equality today! –
Only one? I know that they’re scared of the right flank, but that’s still pretty surprising, especially from the suburbanites.
What does kowtowing to the right get you, other than 19?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 4:52 pm
===What does kowtowing to the right get you, other than 19? ===
These 19 seats were the 19 safest seats drawn for Repubs (Snark!) Plus the others are afraid Oberweis, who said not ONE WORD on the bill he wanted to oust Brady on, will rent a room for a “couple hundred bucks” and try to oust them next.
I call it the “Milk Bottle Deposit Oust-It”
Congrats you 18, you just shrank our ranks to be as few as you guys! Yeah!
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 14, 13 @ 5:05 pm