Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Tell us what you really think…
Posted in:
* This is a mistake…
Metro East voters today have started fielding the first of some 10,000 robocalls that will be flooding predominantly African-American areas in and around East St. Louis in the next few days, with a message from a prominent black Chicago pastor: Oppose gay marriage.
“In my view, same-sex marriage should not be the law of the state of Illinois,” says the Rev. James Meeks on the robocall, which is targeted specifically at state Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson, D-East St. Louis. “. . . Call your representative, Eddie Lee Jackson, and share with him your view.”
Rep. Jackson voted against the bill in committee and said at the time that he would also vote against it on the floor. Unless there has been some major move in the opposite direction, why waste resources on these calls? Why risk alienating somebody with robocalls who is already on your side? Not bright.
* Now, this took some guts. GOP state Rep. Ron Sandack attended a rally organized by both anti and pro gay marriage types and told them exactly where he stood…
In February, Sandack, R-Downers Grove, became the first Illinois House Republican to come out in favor of marriage-equality legislation, and he restated that position Saturday for groups on both sides of the issue.
“To be completely forthright with you all, I am going to vote for the bill,” Sandack said to the group opposed to same-sex marriage.
More from that rally…
The Illinois Family Institute, a Carol Stream-based anti-gay Christian group, arranged to hold their “Defend Marriage” rally to assert their opposition to legislation that would legally permit same-sex marriage. They also were there to ask Sandack to reconsider his support of Senate Bill 10, which would create the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.
“If same-sex ‘marriage’ becomes the law in Illinois, it will negatively affect every aspect of our society and have disastrous consequences for children,” IFI spokesperson Kathy Valente said in a press release for the rally.
As with those who predict ungodly calamities if concealed carry becomes law, I would very much like to see some actual hard data about how states with gay marriage statutes already on their books have been the scene of disastrous societal collapses.
Do you know why people who talk this nonsense don’t have any data? Because the data doesn’t exist. They rely way too much on fear and ignorance to hype their causes. It’s goofy.
* Rev. James Meeks…
I oppose it because marriage is a religious institution. Once they have a law allowing same-sex marriage, they will come after churches and ministers demanding they perform same-sex marriages.
“The Constitution allows for a separation of church and state, but they will come after (churches’) tax-exempt status and file lawsuits claiming (ministers) have violated their civil rights if we refuse to marry same-sex couples.”
Yeah, because that bill will pass right away. I’m telling you, it’ll zoom through both chambers with unanimous support. Yep. No legislator would ever get any pressure from his or her local ministers on a bill like that.
Sheesh.
* Related…
* Black church leader urges lawmakers to oppose medical marijuana: Evans said if the law passes, African-American homes will be broken and black women and men will be sucked into the drug environment even more. “The church’s job is to urge against that climate and to oppose the bill,” Evans said. “If lawmakers want the black community to stand with you, vote against HB 1.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:20 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Tell us what you really think…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Reprinted from the “Illinois Review.” From R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
“Back in 1989 two young activists pushing for the normalization of homosexuality coauthored a book intended to serve as a political strategy manual and public relations guide for their movement.
In “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s,” authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen argued that efforts to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships would fail unless their movement shifted its argument to a demand for civil rights, rather than for moral acceptance. Kirk and Madsen argued that homosexual activists and their allies should avoid talking about sex and sexuality. Instead, “the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”
Beyond Kirk and Madsen and their public relations strategy, an even more effective legal strategy was developed along the same lines. Legal theorists and litigators began to argue that homosexuals were a class of citizens denied basic civil liberties, and that the courts should declare them to be a protected class, using civil rights precedents to force a moral and legal revolution.
That revolution has happened, and it has been stunningly successful. The advocates for the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage have used legal arguments developed from the civil rights era to their advantage. Arguments used to end the scourge of racial segregation were deployed to normalize homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Over the years, these arguments have led to such major developments as the decriminalization of homosexual behaviors, the inclusion of homosexuals within the United States military, and the legalization of same-sex marriage in some states.”
This has been a winning strategy since the terms of the debate have been changed. No one can oppose “civil rights” per se, but many people still find homosexual acts morally objectionable.
Opponents of SSM are not persuaded by the adoption of polite euphemisms.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Why does every organization with the word “Family” in its name appear to be a right-wing theologically inspired organization?
Comment by Jimbo Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:49 pm
===Opponents of SSM are not persuaded by the adoption of polite euphemisms.===
They are also not persuaded by logic and evidence.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:51 pm
Sandack could be a real star for the GOP.
Comment by LincolnLounger Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:51 pm
I think the line to challenge the bill going after the churches Rev. Meeks references has already formed. Might the Rev provide them with a bill number?
Comment by Dirty Red Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:54 pm
The conservative black clergy are acting disgracefully. Their arguments sound just like the anti-integration arguments of white Southern Baptists in the ’60s. “It just ain’t natural!”
Apparently they are incapable of seeing the irony in their pro-discrimination stance.
Comment by Ray del Camino Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Oh let these folks get married. It’s clearly only a matter of time.
I just want to see the divorces on court tv.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. lol
Just sayin’
Comment by just sayin' Monday, May 6, 13 @ 2:57 pm
The concern about litigation is very real, it may not be accurate, it may be a red herring, but it is real.
Comment by OneMan Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:13 pm
Rev. Meeks, as long as the government issues marriage licenses it’s not solely a religious institution.
And AMEN to what Rich said about calamity not ensuing because of same sex marriage. Why make an argument that can so easily be shown to be bogus? That was a rhetorical question, of course.
Comment by Demorlized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:14 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if I could spell my own screen name correctly.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:15 pm
==The concern about litigation is very real, it may not be accurate, it may be a red herring, but it is real. ==
It’s only real to those with no rational perspective.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:16 pm
If Sandack doesn’t watch it, he could end up being the GOP’s best shot at winning either AG or Governor. Smart, fair, limited government proponent, pro-business, in tune with the majority on social and fiscal issues - the Republicans need more of that.
Comment by phocion Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:34 pm
Jimbo,I asked that of my American Family Insurance rep and got a discount out of him.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:35 pm
There is a large USPS sorting facility in Carol Stream which also serves as the local PO. The Illinois Family Institute rents a PO box there, how does a PO Box qualify as being a ‘Carol Stream’ based organization?
Comment by Ggal Monday, May 6, 13 @ 3:41 pm
all farcical issues aside, the fact remains that there is a large percentage of Americans opposed on moral grounds. it is not required that anyone agree with any one position, and we all certainly view the world through our own tinted moral codes; however, civility and respect from everyone. towards positions on all sides of the issue would be welcome.
Comment by ProblemChild21 Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:03 pm
The “smart” play for the ILGOP would be to have Cross find 4 or 5 votes for SSM, make a deal with Rep. Harris that the Bill will get enough votes to pass, but Rep. Harris and others need to call the Bill, a “Bi-Partisan” bill, thank the GOP for helping pass the Bill and be done with it.
The ILGOP gets innoculated, we can have Brady move on without seeming uninclusive because it was the HGOP that made the passing of the Bill possible, and “that’s that.”
Will Cross be savy enough to make a deal to save his Party, his Caucus, and possibly all Republicans from the “Stain” of a Jim Oberweis/Slytherin House non-inclusive barrage next cycle? Sounds like a “win-win” for Harris, the GOP, and the issue can’t be hung over the ILGOP any more.
We will see.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:14 pm
Why don’t we let downstate set their own standards for marriage and let cook set their own……
Comment by Todd Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:19 pm
look, - Todd -, I will leave Conceal-Carry to you, and please leave the demise of My Party to those who think they are “helping” lol
Now if Sherriff Dart gets to decide …
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 6, 13 @ 4:24 pm
Does same sex marriage pass Kant’s test of the desirability of universal laws? How would are society fare if all marriages were same sex relationships?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 6, 13 @ 7:28 pm
Anonymous… Is somebody proposing that? Because I’s definitely be against that.
Comment by FoxValleyPride1 Monday, May 6, 13 @ 8:15 pm
Crud… I’m glad I didn’t call out Anonymous on his/her spelling. There’s no way to edit these after they’re posted, is there?
Comment by FoxValleyPride1 Monday, May 6, 13 @ 8:16 pm
Being able to marry the person you love passes Kant’s test. How would society fare if everyone could marry the person they love? Massachusetts is doing just fine after 10 years.
Comment by Marky Tuesday, May 7, 13 @ 8:09 am