Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Chaos is not a plan
Next Post: A little quick Rauner oppo
Posted in:
* Lynn Sweet writes about Sen. Mark Kirk’s endorsement of gay marriage…
Curiously, Kirk, the top Republican in the state, did not use the occasion to explicitly call on the Illinois House to pass a pending gay marriage bill the state Senate already approved.
He did, however, mention the bill in an interview with the Illinois Radio Network…
“I think from what I’ve seen in my talks with Chris Radogno, it would appear that it’s coming soon,” he said in the radio interview. “I do prefer states doing this. I would hope we would restrain our appetite for power in Washington and not take over marriage law for the whole country.”
I’ve said before that Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady’s support of gay marriage might have more to do with distracting from the few actual GOP votes for the bill than convincing Republicans to vote for it. Just one Senate Republican voted for gay marriage, yet Radogno is predicting ultimate passage. Just one House Republican has announced his support for the bill so far, but there appear to be a small handful of others waiting in the wings.
What Brady’s and Judy Baar Topinka’s - and now Kirk’s - endorsements do is attach high profile faces to a proposal that enjoys broad support, particularly among the young. Yes, it could give cover to some Republicans and let them vote for the bill, but the vast majority of votes for this thing will be Democrats.
Don’t get me wrong. This is a smart play by the GOP. They can have their cake and eat it too, as long as the bill becomes law.
* Meanwhile, I’ve been thinking lately that the “Lincoln” movie was somewhat of an allegory about the modern-day legislative push for gay rights. Sen. Kirk apparently saw the same message…
“I must say I was pretty influenced by the latest movie by Steven Spielberg about Abraham Lincoln. You just think as a Republican leader, my job is to make sure that each generation is more free and has more dignity as an individual which is a unique gift of the United states to the world. The thought of treating a whole bunch of people just because of who they love differently is in my view against that Lincoln tradition, which was brought so well to life by the movie,” Kirk said, according to audio of the interview IRN provided to the Sun-Times.
“I thought the country was ready for it,” Kirk said. “The gay community is larger than it ever has been before. And it’s not in the 1950s closet, so most of of us have gay acquaintances at work or at church and we know them. And the thought of discriminating against our own friends and coworkers is an anathema to me.”
* And as you might imagine, Illinois Family Action is not pleased with Sen. Kirk…
Kirk and U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady can hide behind the utterly false rhetoric of equality and compassion and thus conceal from America and perhaps themselves their complicity in the destruction of this once great nation.
And what will this mean for America? Diminished religious liberty, diminished speech rights, diminished parental rights, increasing numbers of children denied their inherent right to know and be raised by their biological mother and father, and the ultimate destruction of marriage.
Wait a second. IFA is definitely a strongly pro-life group, and yet they’re bemoaning adoption? What the heck? I thought they were proponents of adoption? I mean, this is from their website…
(T)he truth is that conservative Christians lead the way in worldwide humanitarian relief efforts, they continue to build hospitals and orphanages and schools in many nations, they are active in drug and alcohol rehab programs in the inner cities of America, and they are at the forefront of the pro-life, pro-adoption movement. [Emphasis added.]
Dissing adoption just doesn’t make sense from the pro-life crowd. Seriously, if you totally believe that abortion is murder, then why quibble with who adopts those children and saves their lives as long as they’re law-abiding, loving parents?
* Related…
* Harris: ‘We’ll have marriage equality in Illinois by summer’
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Chaos is not a plan
Next Post: A little quick Rauner oppo
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–Kirk and U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady can hide behind the utterly false rhetoric of equality and compassion and thus conceal from America and perhaps themselves their complicity in the destruction of this once great nation.–
Gee, why would they want to do that?
Sorry folks, this is still a great nation and will be an even “more perfect union” when gay marriage is the law of the land. It’s called progress.
And ten years from now, folks who traffic in this sort of hysterical rhetoric will be saying “oh, yeah, I was for it all along,” just like it went down with black civil rights. Everybody was for that, remember?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:16 am
Beyond his personal views, Kirk has always been a superb political operative. He has proven impossible to beat in a very competitive district for years. He knows which way the winds are blowing for him and his party.
I know the Senator has reported some energy and time challenges as he recovers, but I’d love for him to take a more active role as sort of a “boss” of the Illinois GOP. We all could use a more effective party.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:17 am
The IFA is complaining about “diminished speech rights.” If that means, they are complaining that increasingly other people will say mean things about the IFA and it’s religious views - if that’s it - they’ve got the First Amendment backwards.
We all have the right to offend and say uncharitable things about others who don’t share our views. We hopefully should try and phrase it civilly, but still. That’s what a marketplace of ideas means - necessitates, at times.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:17 am
We have two Democratic houses and the republicans need every kind of cover for an issue that polls well, is inevitable, and frankly avoids the heart of our states problems?
Courage anyone? What brought you people to government? Did you take polls in high school to make sure you didn’t say anything to affect your popularity? Dont worry, if you are a Democrat, then madigan will keep you safe. And if you are a republican, then Kirk and Brady will be the distraction you need.
Comment by state worker Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:18 am
===need every kind of cover for an issue that polls well===
The problem is with GOP primary voters, not general election voters. And it’s a real problem on this issue. Make no mistake.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:26 am
Kirk came out in support of gay marriage for the same reason Obama did; it’s now politically advantageous to do so. To imagine it’s more than politics would be wrong.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:27 am
The criticism of adoption lurks beneath the surface of some of these religious conservative groups with certain people for whom their participation in the religious right is more to do with controlling people’s sex lives than reducing abortion.
This comment just reminds me of that National Organization for Marriage spokesperson who commented that Chief Justice John Roberts having children through adoption was him exercising the “second-best option” of parenting.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:34 am
@Wensicia - Well, technically Obama came out for gay marriage when he did because Joe Biden’s big mouth forced him to come out for gay marriage when he did. It only started to poll as well as it does now AFTER Obama came out for it and consolidated Democratic Party establishment behind it. But at the time Obama came out for gay marriage, a gay marriage ban had just passed in North Carolina, a state his campaign was very much contesting in the 2012 election.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:36 am
I’m with Wensi on this—what else could a GOPer US Senator do representing a deep blue state like Illinois. Kirk never struck me as being much of a social-con anyway, and his comment on this issue in ‘10 is much like the one quoted above.
In ‘10 Kirk said:
“I oppose gay marriage and I support civil unions. But I also don’t think we should have a federal takeover of all marriage laws in the United States. I think the federal government is already trying to take over too much.” Kirk is a much more convincing federalist than Obama was when he “evolved” on this issue. lol
Basically all he changed was he now supports “civil marriage” rather than civil unions.
Very smart politics. Voting for Kirk in ‘10 was one of the best things I ever did as an Illinois-American.
But then, what was the alternative? Rezko’s Banker? lol
Comment by qcexaminer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:47 am
I’m not sure why the IFI believes the nation is being destroyed or that religious liberty and free speech is going away. They seem to be doing a pretty good job at exercising that free speech thing. And I haven’t seen anybody being put in jail or churches shut down. And I’m looking out the window and the world seems to be going on just fine. And as a gay father I’m offended by their continued ranting about children being negatively affected by this. Heaven forbid a child should be in a loving home. And this baloney about marriage being destroyed gets on my nerves. I’ve not heard of one instance of somebody’s marriage falling apart because they let the “gays” marry. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the IFI is a hate group plain and simple.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:51 am
I think the diminished speech they’re referring to might be more along the lines of being able to openly discriminate. Not that that should change in any meaningful way given that sexual orientation is already protected. That or they think societal pressure will diminish their free speech, not that that is what the first amendment addresses.
On the adoptions, I think they’re not dogging on adoptions in general, just adoptions by gay parents. But you’re absolutely right that adoption to gay parents should still be preferable to abortion. For that matter, contraception should be preferable to abortion. It doesn’t have to be an absolute of abstinence or married biological parents. It should be a continuum with options better than others but understanding that not everyone will achieve the ideal goal.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 10:57 am
Thinking of “Lincoln,” I see very little in common between the “right” of two people to gain legal recognition of what they are already doing and the right of people to not be enslaved.
I see much more similarity between abolitionism and the pro-life movement than the pro-gay-marriage cause. In the case of both slavery and abortion, fundamental rights (basic freedom and life, respectively) were being denied because of the convenience/economic interests of others – and justified by an alternate set of “rights” (property rights and reproductive rights, respectively).
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:01 am
To those that support SSM, could you find in your logic a way to support multiple marriages that could include one woman and two or three men?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:01 am
@hisgirlfriday,
Obama did have to worry about bringing out his base (though I agree Biden was the trigger). This decision did please the left, many of whom felt Obama had deserted them.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:09 am
===To those that support SSM, could you find in your logic a way to support multiple marriages that could include one woman and two or three men.===
No, I think we’re talking about uniting two people in a mutually accepted contract. What you are describing would create unequal, multi-lateral obligations and rights, and is far different from a spousal relationship.
And before you get there, animals or inanimante objects can’t give informed consent, so that’s also a nonstarter.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:19 am
I posted this yesterday …
===My hope for My Party, is that the SCC will look at a “Mark Kirk” as a Republican, and not “unpure to the platform and beliefs of the GOP and the ILGOP platform”.
Can’t we get a quote from Oberweis on the Kirk statement? Please???
Well done, United States Senator Mark Kirk. Help our Party, sir, understand the Reagan Rule of 80% is far more important than the “Purity” those “Non-RINOs” crave.===
This is the Party’s “moment”, the HGOP’s “moment”, and a chance to be, as in Lincoln, that the realities of the Day, and the Future are “now”, and with this cover, it’s time to show we in the ILGOP are inclusive, and willing to LIVE the Reagan Rule of 80%, and not “living” the Litmus Tests and Blood Oaths of the “Slytherin House” wing of the ILGOP.
Sen. Kirk served up the pass, will the ILGOP and the HGOP shoot and score?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:20 am
–To those that support SSM, could you find in your logic a way to support multiple marriages that could include one woman and two or three men?–
What does gay marriage have to do with polygamy?
But if you are looking for support for polygamy, just read your Bible.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:25 am
–what else could a GOPer US Senator do representing a deep blue state like Illinois.–
Deep blue state — keep telling yourself that. I’m sure it eases the pain of chronic loss.
To borrow from Reagan, a lot of folks didn’t leave the Illinois GOP — it left them.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:28 am
Children also can’t give consent. Marriage has indeed changed in the last couple of thousand years. We don’t not allow marriage between people who can’t or won’t reproduce, and we don’t test couples to see if they’re really in love or at least attracted to one another but just marrying to take advantage of one partner’s job perks.
Have 47th and I missed any of the arguments the antis have put up recently?
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:31 am
Really word? You’re saying Illinois isn’t a deep blue state?
Just the sort of mindless knee-jerk negativity you do so well.
Well played! Bravo!
FYI I left Illinois in 2011—Illinois didn’t leave me. lol
Comment by qcexaminer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:37 am
===Marriage has indeed changed in the last couple of thousand years.===
It sure has. For the better.
We don’t require dowrys. We don’t force anyone into an arranged marriage. We don’t allow husbands to treat their wives like property. Wives have inheritance rights. Either husband or wife can initiate divorce, which we also allow.
None of these were the case for most of the known history of marriage. It’s called progress.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:41 am
Concerning DOMA, how will the current US Supreme Court distinguish its own decision in Reynolds v. the United States, which upheld a Congressional statute banning bigamy and polygamy in the territories?
Maybe the lawyers and judges will just ignore the case as inconvenient. Sort of like the Second Amendment.
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:45 am
I have absolutely no idea why my comment was deleted but I’ll try this again.
The IFI said:
* The nation is being destroyed. Funny, I’m looking out my window now and things seem to be going just fine.
* Diminished religous liberty. This is a false argument. Nobody is denying anybody their religous liberty. Religous people can worship as they please, believe what they want, and churches can continue to not peform same sex marriages.
* Dimished speech rights. I’m not even sure what that even means as it relates to gay marriage. But the IFI seems to be doing pretty well exercising those rights.
* Dimished parental rights. Gay marriage is all of a sudden going to cause kids to be taken from their families? Gays will have the upper hand in getting the kids? I don’t know what this means.
* Destruction of marriage. This is the silliest argument of all. I haven’t heard of one instance of somebody’s marriage being destroyed because we allowed gay marriage. If your marriage is impacted by what others do then I think you have other problems in your marriage.
It’s one thing to be against gay marriage. It’s another to use the garbage the IFI uses to do so.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:11 pm
===You’re saying Illinois isn’t a deep blue state?===
If Illinois was completely blue, how do you explain the 2010 elections of Mark Kirk, Judy Baar Topinka and Dan Rutherford? Last I checked, all three were Republicans.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:18 pm
==why quibble with who adopts those children and saves their lives as long as they’re law-abiding, loving parents?==
Excellent question. I guess they’d prefer more kids put into the foster care system (a system which they probably also support cutting state spending to!), or with parents who don’t want them, rather than kids being adopted by law-abiding, loving gay parents.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:28 pm
===Really word? You’re saying Illinois isn’t a deep blue state?===
Maybe you are confusing that Illinois Voters, … are not Litmus Testers and Social Police Officers and refuse to back that kind of candidates who present themselves that way, 100% of the time and expect others to be the “same”…
Maybe … that is YOUR mistake.
4 votes a precinct in Suburban Cook & Chicago, you have Governor Brady … with Comptroller Topinka … AND … Treasurer Rutherford …and Lt. Governor Jason Plummer, but I digress …
We as a Party must not reduce the pool of voters by requiring them to be in 100% compliance with a “Platform”.
That … is what is real here.
Red, Blue, …Purple … they are but colors Litmus Testers “love” to show…show a division, not what can unite My Party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:30 pm
—Concerning DOMA, how will the current US Supreme Court distinguish its own decision in Reynolds v. the United States, which upheld a Congressional statute banning bigamy and polygamy in the territories?
Territories are administered by the federal government with no authority reserved to them other than by statute. States have power and authority reserved to them in the Constitution which has traditionally included regulation of marriage.
This is why when Utah wanted to be a state, the federal government didn’t outlaw polygamy nationally, but told Utah’s politicians that they had to make polygamy illegal or statehood wouldn’t be granted. Utah made the decision ultimately.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:36 pm
==fundamental rights (basic freedom and life, respectively) were being denied because of the convenience/economic interests of others – and justified by an alternate set of “rights”==
Well put. I think the parallels to SSM are actually made pretty clear in your statement. To paraphrase: Same sex couples are denied the fundamental right to enter into marriage because of the convenience/religious interests of others - and this is justified by an alternate set of “rights” (in this case civil unions not recognized by the federal gov’t and many businesses).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:40 pm
The senators health will be much more of a deciding factor in his 2016 prospects than this issue or any other issue for that matter and because of that I do not think he will stand for re-election. Coming out for gay marriage after senator portman, on a tuesday at noon after a holiday in prime media coverage time was not an act of courage it was an act of political calculation. The Senator has spent his career working for human rights around the world and courage to do this would have been years ago when could have been a leader if he really believed this way.
I think the media has really failed on covering this issue and it’s extremely disappointing. The reality about gay marriage and the time we live in right now is that because of how new this issue is most americans have not come to a decision on how they feel about it and are much more concerned about other issues which they feel and see in their lives. To write an editorial on the issue is one thing, to push the issue in news side reporting is another and out of line.
Finally Chairman Brady has again demonstrated his incompetence in embracing the issue at a time when the party position is strongly against gay marriage. This issue one way or the other is not going to make the difference with younger voters particularly at a time when the party has also embraced other matters from drilling/environment, the ryan plan, abortion ect which also turn off young voters. He’s not a public official and all he’s done is divided the party base against the leadership when it should be uniting against Democrats on spending, taxes, ect.
Comment by Shore Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:58 pm
==”so most of of us have gay acquaintances at work or at church and we know them. And the thought of discriminating against our own friends and coworkers is an anathema to me.”==
Another great quote from Sen. Kirk. I fully agree with him.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 1:17 pm
–FYI I left Illinois in 2011—Illinois didn’t leave me. lol–
How can we miss you if you don’t stay away?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Ok …
===Coming out for gay marriage after senator portman, on a tuesday at noon after a holiday in prime media coverage time was not an act of courage it was an act of political calculation.===
You do it on a Thursday, afer 5 pm of a 3 Day weekend, or 5 pm on a Friday, then you may have something. Tuesday? Really? Nope.
===The reality about gay marriage and the time we live in right now is that because of how new this issue is most americans have not come to a decision on how they feel about it and are much more concerned about other issues which they feel and see in their lives.===
Polling, and continuous polling here in Illinois, and its results seem to show the opposite. Heck, there was even a “trend” seen upward. How do you have a trend? You gage the pulse and people are, and have made decisions.
===Finally Chairman Brady has again demonstrated his incompetence in embracing the issue at a time when the party position is strongly against gay marriage.===
So the party position, it can’t be questioned? Then you better be ready to take on quite a few Republicans, or plan on using your “Litmus Test” to run out even more Republicans with the intolerance… that is leading to irrelevence.
===He’s not a public official and all he’s done is divided the party base against the leadership when it should be uniting against Democrats on spending, taxes, ect.===
If the base REQUIRES 100% compliance, and refuses the 80% Reagan Rule, the only way, according to the 100% rule of Intolerance, to “unite” is to be … again … 100% in compliance with the fiscal house … right?
The dividing that is being done is by Jim Oberweis, the “Litmus Testers and Blood Oathers” and the Intolerance of the Reagan Rule of 80%, which is about … tolerance and building a party, My Party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 1:36 pm
Wensicia writes, “Kirk came out in support of gay marriage for the same reason Obama did; it’s now politically advantageous to do so. To imagine it’s more than politics would be wrong.”
I have no doubt that our pols take many of their positions because they see political advantage; the question becomes whether public shifts in position reflect prior changes of heart that up until the announced change were seen as politically disadvantageous (I’m fairly sure that President Obama was secretly OK with gay marriage all along, or at least since he told Windy City Times he was OK with it when he was running for state senate) or if whether they reflect cynical opportunism.
My guess, for the record, is that Kirk’s announcement was more the former than the latter, and that he anticipates that this issue is moving so fast now that it won’t be much of a factor in 2016 should he choose to run for re-election.
Comment by Eric Zorn Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 1:40 pm
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 12:18 pm:
===You’re saying Illinois isn’t a deep blue state?===
If Illinois was completely blue, how do you explain the 2010 elections of Mark Kirk, Judy Baar Topinka and Dan Rutherford? Last I checked, all three were Republicans.
++++++++++++++++++++
Sometimes, a blind squirrel gets a nut…
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 1:55 pm
47th Ward….No, I think we’re talking about uniting two people in a mutually accepted contract. What you are describing would create unequal, multi-lateral obligations and rights, and is far different from a spousal relationship.
Within the multi-relationship you would still have spousal relationships with equality amongst all the partners with the same obligations and rights that are present in a two-person relationship.
My sense is that you would oppose multi-relationships, but you still have not be able to show how the arguments that make you support SSM can not be applied to all cases where consenting adults have a desire to be united under the definition of marriage with a multi-party acceptable contract.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:00 pm
===Sometimes, a blind squirrel gets a nut… ===
j/k & Snarky…
Three ….THREE …
Three, statewide, completely different races, completely different candidates, completely different opponents …
Blind squirrel”s”? I am guessin this is snark from you too …lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:01 pm
===but you still have not be able to show how the arguments that make you support SSM can not be applied to all cases where consenting adults have a desire to be united under the definition of marriage with a multi-party acceptable contract. ===
I think that is why you have this Bill, addressing the SSM issue.
If you want to include multiple partners, cats, whatever, good luck passing that specific Bill.
I might even have to agree with Jim Oberweis if he opposes the multipule partner marriage bill!
Your premise seems a bit silly, since even Utah had to change multiple partners to join the Union, and states that have SSM have yet to be omitted from the United States.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:05 pm
===My sense is that you would oppose multi-relationships, but you still have not be able to show how the arguments that make you support SSM can not be applied to all cases where consenting adults have a desire to be united under the definition of marriage with a multi-party acceptable contract.===
Multiparty is the key phrase here. That would be a redefinition of marriage. How does divorce work in a polygamist marriage? Who would receive spousal benefits via Social Security? There are many other areas of law and policy that would need to be amended to allow for polygamy, and no one is arguing for them because no one sees any right to them.
Same sex marriage, on the other hand, requires no changes to the legal definition of marriage nor to any federal benefits of marriage.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:14 pm
====My sense is that you would oppose multi-relationships, but you still have not be able to show how the arguments that make you support SSM can not be applied to all cases where consenting adults have a desire to be united under the definition of marriage with a multi-party acceptable contract.
Quite simply, the current way marriage is regulated has no practical way of admitting more people to the contract or law. Could that be changed? Sure, but it would take a fundamental reshaping of tax law, child custody, inheritance, divorce, benefits, and on and on and on. On top of it, polygamy has traditionally been abusive and exploitative.
For SSM, none of the above matters. Two people of the same sex marrying has no effect on the any of those areas of policy and law other than allowing two people of the same sex to be included. There’s no evidence that same sex marriages are more abusive or exploitative. Though even if you throw out the issue of polygamous relationships being abusive, you still have the issue for fundamentally changing the relationship of marriage. Extending the same rights and privileges would have no standard way of being applied to multiple people.
That said, we allow polygamous relationships to exist as long as:
1) there is no formal legal relationship though contractual rights can be created to fit the particular relationships.
2) There is not an attempt to claim benefits as single people in an attempt at welfare fraud.
All of that said, so what if people were to be engaged in polygamy? I don’t know how we would create a legal framework to include them in marriage, but if people want to be involved in multiple partners, they have the ability to do so now. Outside of compounds in the west full of fundamentalist Mormons, there is not noticeable interest. So why the concern?
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:23 pm
“…but I’d love for him to take a more active role as sort of a “boss” of the Illinois GOP.”
Did you just fall of the turnip truck? Mark Kirk and his people have been running the show for years, ever since Denny Hastert handed him the baton. Who do you think sent Pat Brady out in the first place. Sheesh, go buy a clue.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:30 pm
=I know the Senator has reported some energy and time challenges as he recovers, but I’d love for him to take a more active role as sort of a “boss” of the Illinois GOP. We all could use a more effective party. =
Let’s see how people, specifically Republicans, react as he continues to bring “Hollywood” into his thought processes, twitters, and press releases. My perception: It’s not going to go over very well and people will begin to question where he is in his recovery.
I’m not being critical; just being…cautious that he may be taking on, or perceived as taking on, too much too soon.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:34 pm
For example, whether you agree or disagree on an ANY issue, statements like this will not be perceived by many as valid input into any serious decision-making process:
“U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk said on Tuesday that the movie “Lincoln” helped persuade him to support gay marriage but he still believes it should remain a state issue.”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:42 pm
–Let’s see how people, specifically Republicans, react as he continues to bring “Hollywood” into his thought processes, twitters, and press releases. My perception: It’s not going to go over very well and people will begin to question where he is in his recovery.–
You’re out of line, dude. You can disagree with him, but you can stick the ad hominem attacks.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:50 pm
Really, word? It’s already started, but you can keep pretending that you’re his “buddy” by ignoring it, rather than trying to raise a yellow flag to help.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:53 pm
To the person making the anonymous comments. Please continue to nominate only the “real conservatives” who apparently want government out of their lives, except for issues in the bedroom. Please continue to do that as to allow me to have an easier job of helping winning campaigns. Thanks!
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:56 pm
What does my comment have to do with “real conservatives,” UISer. Spin much?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:57 pm
Again, please keep up the good work.
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 2:59 pm
Original House of Pancakes Anon, I get it. You’re bored and have no one to talk to. But you’re still out of line questioning someone’s “recovery.”
Post all you like, I will not engage with the troll.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:01 pm
Yeah, you too, word. Did I say I was questioning his recovery?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t think that looking to “Lincoln” for inspiration is exactly going “Hollywood”> It’s not as if he switched positions on marijuana based on a rerun of “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”.
Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:15 pm
– Did I say I was questioning his recovery?–
Ugh, I shouldn’t do it but… you wrote..
–It’s not going to go over very well and people will begin to question where he is in his recovery.–-
So it’s “people” doing so, not you? What a devastatingly brilliant rhetorical device.
Get some game, dude, or go the Trib comment section.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:19 pm
@wordslinger boom goes the dynamite
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:24 pm
@Shore Do you have any data to back up your claims that most people don’t have an opinion on ssm? Also any data on your claims about young voters?
Because polling I have seen showed that most people do have opinions on ssm and as they think about it or know more they become more likely to support it.
As for young voters support for ssm not mattering because they are liberal on other issues - this ignores that even a clear majority of young REPUBLICANS support ssm even as those folks remain traditionally conservative on abortion and don’t care much about the environment.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 3:38 pm
“Pot calling kettle” - I’m not an opponent of SSM (at least for governmental purposes), but I don’t believe that prohibitions on it are on the same level as slavery and infanticide.
I’m just sayin’…..
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 4:25 pm
So Grandy, the federal government denying by statute my neighbors and their children the same rights that my family enjoys is just a lesser form of bigotry than slavery — a matter of degree?
Does that make you feel better?
But it’s a nasty business all the same, Congress and the executive rendering moral judgements and passing laws based on their sanctimonious hypocrisy — we’re talking Newt and Bubba here, back in 1996, the great defenders of the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.
Justice Kagan quoted from the House report on DOMA from 1996:
‘Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’
Are we cool with that? I’m not. I’m ashamed I didn’t raise more hell back then. I won’t make that mistake again.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 5:00 pm
- wordslinger -,
Well, well Done!
- Shore -,
I, too, would be interested in your view of young Republicans and if the polling is rising for SSM, are those YRs out of touch with where the country is going too?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 5:00 pm
===I’m ashamed I didn’t raise more hell back then.===
Me too.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 5:11 pm
=Did you just fall of the turnip truck? Mark Kirk and his people have been running the show for years, ever since Denny Hastert handed him the baton. Who do you think sent Pat Brady out in the first place. Sheesh, go buy a clue.=
Did this post get lost earlier and just appear, or did I “unconsciously” ignore it as everyone else seems to be.
Now THERE’S something worth pondering when it comes to assessing the state of today’s ILGOP. lol
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 8:13 pm
== Same sex marriage, on the other hand, requires no changes to the legal definition of marriage nor to any federal benefits of marriage. ==
IL defimes marriage as between a man & a woman, as do most states.
I support SSM. I also recognize, however, that the same arguments for marriage equality can be applied to polygamous relationships.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 9:15 pm
Last one on the bandwagon is a rotten egg.
That said, marriage is traditionally a sacrament between one man and one woman. I would like to see the states out of the sacrament business. Equal protection and civil unions for everybody, let the churches sort out what constitutes a sacrament.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 9:44 pm
Reformer, if I could draw a diagram in comments to help you and others understand this, I would. The same arguments that apply to a bi-lateral agreement cannot also apply to a multi-lateral agreement.
One-on-one relationships are not the same as plural relationships. To suggest otherwise is ignorance, either willful ignorance or the old-fashioned kind of ignorance.
And Harris’ bill is directly aimed at changing Illinois’ one man, one woman definition. If you want to change it further to include several men and several women, feel free to find a sponsor. But until then, please stop comparing this to plural marriage. It’s a lazy and dishonest argument.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:24 pm
“To write an editorial on the issue is one thing, to push the issue in news side reporting is another and out of line.”
@Shore: Amen to that.
@Excessively Rabid: Unfortunately, “traditional marriage” occupies a unique place in the legal system (ecclesiastical courts performed an important function centuries ago when the Church operated in spiritual and temporal spheres). If you take an introductory contracts class, marriage contracts, to a degree, are part of the course.
@Oswego Willy: The Illinois YRs haven’t not produced a strong group of rising political stars since Leo Durocher accepted a third base coaching position with the Los Angeles Dodgers almost fifty years ago. Their opinion is irrelevant to most political discussions. The group is like a model United Nations exercise in a high school current events class.
Redefining marriage has economic and political propaganda implications.
Comment by Professor Kingsfield Wednesday, Apr 3, 13 @ 11:57 pm
- Professor Kingsfirld -,
Well, thank goodness I meant that as snark.
“Propaganda”? That in itself might might be a bit over the top..
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 7:04 am
I have said it before, but it bears repeating:
I don’t understand the argument that a child is better off with no mom than two moms.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 7:15 am
No, wordslinger, it’s not a ‘matter of degree.’
Not receiving ‘legal recognition,’ and the resulting legal benefits, of your marriage/union is not a “matter of degrees” away from being enslaved. Not by a long shot.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 9:06 am
adding….
That’s like kicking an opponent of the ballot for technical objections is a “matter of degrees” away from “Stalin-esque” oppression.
I’m just sayin’…..
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 9:13 am
Grandy, not sure what you’re trying to rationalize here.
Maybe you can see some similarities between the House report on DOMA:
–‘Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’–
…and Chief Justice Taney’s “Dred Scott” opinion, in which he ruled that black people, whether slaves or free, were:
== beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. –
Taney wrote that in 1857. The House report was written in 1996. It’s now 2013, if you’re keeping score at home.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 9:23 am
Wordslinger,
I understand the similarities; I’m just saying that those are outweighed by the differences…
One is an injustice, to be sure. But the other is a crime against humanity.
Do I need to clarify which is which??
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 9:29 am