Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Dillard questionnaire: Repeal civil unions, Motor Voter laws

Posted in:

Illinois

* I was looking up candidate questionnaires this morning for a story I did for subscribers and stumbled across a 2012 Illinois Review questionnaire filled out by state Sen. Kirk Dillard.

Dillard is often touted as a “moderate” candidate, but check this out…

“It is a litigous nightmare!!” he wrote underneath his answer. It hasn’t really turned out to be that way, except for the lawsuit to overturn it and instate full marriage rights based on equal protection arguments.

* Dillard also said he favored repealing the state’s “Motor Voter” law. I hadn’t heard of anyone of prominence pushing that idea, so it really stuck out for me.

Dillard also revealed that he could support a so-called “right to work” law, although it “Depends on how it is drafted,” he noted.

To be sure, he said he supported the right of public employees to strike “with limits,” but the questionnaire is a very interesting read. Click here to read it for yourself, then discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:43 am

Comments

And people here are saying Dillard is not an extremist candidate.

This is exactly why I will never vote for a Republican candidate in Illinois.

Comment by Mike Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:51 am
It has become apparent that since losing in 2010, D-Lard will say any crazy thing to get him support from the right.

For those who have known him for a while — was there ever a time that he stood for something? Is this something new, or have the winds just (at least to him) blown in a different direction?

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:53 am
Dillard is a guy who just tells people what they want to hear. This is an example where that wishy-washy style comes back to bite.

Comment by too obvious Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 9:53 am
Depends on perspective. Civil Unions turned into a litigious nightmare for Catholic Charities. and led to the current gay marriage bill with similar serious flaws.

The URF questionnaire is causing more than a few candidates indigestion. MV has proven to be just another camel’s nose under the tent, leading to on-line registration. That’ll be fun.

Comment by otoh Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:00 am
PS, I don’t know what the comparos are between RTW and IL, but it suspect they are better looking for RTW.

Comment by otoh Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:01 am
Glad to see the Republicans are doing everything they can to shed their anti-gay persona. Are Republicans trying to get themselves labeled the party of hate?

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:04 am
Maybe he’ll say “I’m evolving on this issue.”

Soon.

I’ve heard that before.

Still, it’s disappointing that he listened to and believed the panic-mongers from the right on this bill. They’re always ridiculous with their “sky is falling” rhetoric.

Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:06 am
I would have gladly voted for Dillard in 2010 if he’d been on the general election ballot. No way could I do that this time around.

Comment by olddog Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:07 am
And this shouldn’t surprise anyone given Dillard’s relationship and work with ALEC. He is not a moderate and will pretty much say what he thinks you want to hear!

Comment by Young and In The Way Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:07 am
@otoh:

What exactly is the serious flaw? Churches are not being required to sanction or perform civil union ceremonies and wouldn’t be forced to preside over gay marriages.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:07 am
Sounds like Dillard is moving hard to the right, but to support right to work legislation in Illinois is suicide. The reason we have Gov. Quinn is not becuase the Union’s love him (they don’t), is that the Unions (public and private) hated Brady because he said he would support right to work legislation, and the Union’s went all out in Cook County to stop Brady.
Dillard looks like a typical politician, take the Unions’ money and bash them to get right wing votes.

Comment by Union Thug Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:11 am
Kind of surprised he supports term limits, as he will be completing his 20th year as a State Senator.

Comment by Darienite Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:13 am
Young — He doesn’t just work with ALEC. He is their state chairman.

Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:13 am
Dan Rutherford is the Obi-Wan Kenobi of the GOP. He’s their only hope!

Comment by MM Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:15 am
They don’t make “moderates” like they used to.

They don’t make “conservatives” like they used to, either. Barry Goldwater would tell Dillard just to mind his own business when it comes to civil unions.

The national far-right movement to disenfranchise voters is absolutely repulsive. How dare they call themselves “conservatives.”

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:17 am
If it is such a litigious nightmare I have a very easy solution: allow equal marriage.

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:18 am
For those of you who aren’t familiar with ALEC, some insights from Paul Krugman:

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence….

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

….

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along. …

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:19 am
Sounds like this run is more about keeping his position with ALEC/setting up a nice cushy job somewhere for the far right.

Comment by Served Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:21 am
- MV has proven to be just another camel’s nose under the tent -

Are you actually admitting that easier registration is allowing unwanted voters to participate? Impressive, most everyone else just lies and says it’s fraud prevention.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:22 am
–Depends on perspective. Civil Unions turned into a litigious nightmare for Catholic Charities. and led to the current gay marriage bill with similar serious flaws.–

Some nightmare. Catholic Charities of Chicago took in $151 million from the taxpayers last year. Charitable contributions don’t even cover their operating expenses.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:25 am
I understand that a person can be considered moderate and against marriage equality. Moderates can “evolve” to being pro equality.

But against civil unions in 2012? No, you can’t call yourself a moderate and be against civil unions.

The thing is, I just don’t get the play. Does he think he’s going to take social conservative votes from Brady? The IR crowd is never going to vote for him. He lost their support in 2008. It is not coming back.

So he’s not getting any more votes with this, but he is going to lose a lot.

Seems like he may not be smart enough to be our gov. Considering that Pat Quinn is our current gov., that’s a pretty brutal thing to say.

Unless he’s not thinking of the Gov.’s office. Maybe he’s got some other office in mind.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:38 am
Well, that finally made my decision. I haven’t been comfortable with Kirk’s pandering to the kooks for some time, but this is beyond redemption.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:38 am
This is typical of Dillard having no real convictions. He’s a weather vane. All over the place depending on who he’s talking to. It’s like him doing an ad for Obama but then being McCain delegate in the same yr.

Dillard is a nice guy but he’s not a leader. He’s like a GOP version of Quinn.

Comment by GOPGal Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:44 am
The motor voter law was fairly contentious at the time it was passed. It makes sense that Dillard likely recalls that from the Edgar days, and it also makes sense that most folks probably don’t even remember that.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:45 am
Dillard has been in royal suck-up mode to the right ever since he made the Barack Obama video. He knows that without that video he probably would have been elected governor in 2010. Now, he’s both a phony and a reactionary with zero chance to win.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:46 am
It is so sad that the moderates of yesteryear have been forced to take one of two paths. The Dillard path of running to the right or the Milner path of saying to heck with this and walking away.

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:50 am
Say, speaking of ALEC, here’s an interesting tidbit from the Economist:

“The most candid members talked of channelling public resentment against those seen as enjoying unfair perks in hard times, such as welfare recipients or public employees with generous pensions. People feel they are paying for a safety net that others enjoy and it makes their “blood boil”, said a state senator.”

So you can see why public employee pension members are now the welfare queens in the debate.

Oh, and 90 members of the US House are former state legislators affiliated with ALEC. All but one of these is a Republican.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 10:58 am
==Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.==

==Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.==

So which is it? Does ALEC want to let you shoot at will without fear of punishment or send everyone to jail?

As for civil unions being a “litigious nightmare,” the litigation is going to be with us, as long as there is unequal treatment.

Comment by Anon. Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:10 am
Rich, Dillard is right on this one. The civil union law has been a litigious nightmare.

Exhibit A is the Catholic Charities lawsuit from 2011. There were over 2,000 kids in the care of Catholic Charities and Evangelical Child Family Agency across the state — that’s more kids than are in at least 13 other states’ entire systems. These were some of your top-ranked child care agencies, forced out of the foster care ministries that they founded in the 1920’s. Religious freedom for religious social service agencies was promised on the floor of the Senate — the Governor had other ideas. One can reasonably ask whether DCFS’s recent headaches can be traced back to drop-kicking some of its best and largest private agencies.

Exhibit B is the downstate bed and breakfast in Paxton that was brought up on human rights charges for not hosting a civil union ceremony reception.

Exhibit C is the ACLU/Lambda lawsuit in Cook County, which you reference.

Exhibits D and onward are the inevitable lawsuits about whether civil union and domestic partnership participants are entitled to spousal rights of refusal in private pension plans under ERISA, to tax benefits for marrieds filing jointly, and to the other 1,000+ federal laws involving a marriage relationship.

Take whatever position you want on the issue, but Sen. Dillard was irrefutably correct in his characterization of the civil union law.

Comment by Peter Breen Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:37 am
===The civil union law has been a litigious nightmare.===

Mr. Breen, with all due respect, isn’t all of this litigation a dream come true for lawyers such as yourself who are either filing these suits or representing the defendants?

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:43 am
Peter, all they had to do was follow the law, any nightmare was created by themselves.

I’m just surprised Cinci had the talking point wrong all along, I thought Dillard would go with the public referendum nonsense.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:44 am
@47th Ward: No, far from being a “dream,” this area of litigation is a nightmare for the private individuals and organizations whose lives are upended by the government officials and practices involved.

In particular, there was no reason, none, to force Catholic Charities out of foster care. They were top-ranked, with no complaints. That situation was political grandstanding at its worst.

Comment by Peter Breen Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:52 am
===Rich, Dillard is right on this one.===

And yet just three lawsuits, one of which was tossed quite quickly? C’mon. Nobody has the “right” to a government contract if they refuse to follow government guidelines. That Catholic Charities lawsuit was bogus from the start.

And it’s OK to deny law-abiding citizens public accommodations based on who they invite to a party?

Also, by your logic (and by Dillard’s), the US Civil Rights Act, all the employment protections for women, minorities and seniors, and the countless protections for religious institutions shouldn’t have been passed because of all the lawsuits they spawned.

Sorry, but your argument doesn’t hold water on either level, man.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:54 am
@Small Town Liberal:

The point remains that Sen. Dillard was correct in his characterization of the law.

As for the Catholic Charities litigation, note that the Governor’s real legal argument wasn’t that the Charities were defying the law — because they weren’t — but that the Governor can decide to contract with whomever he’d like. He didn’t want to contract with Catholics, and the trial court went with him on that. The Governor forced the transition before we had time to brief the appeal.

Comment by Peter Breen Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 11:56 am
– but that the Governor can decide to contract with whomever he’d like. He didn’t want to contract with Catholics–

So Quinn’s anti-Catholic? What a terrible thing to say.

Many of his fellow parishoners at Ascension agree with his stand. They consider themselves good Catholics, too.

Catholic Charities is a victim to the tune of $151 million taxpayer dollars a year.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Peter,

The fact that your pals want to discriminate doesn’t make it a nightmare.

Your pals made it a nightmare for themselves.

Don’t blame the law for your own actions.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:08 pm
The real “victims” are neither the Catholic Church nor the State of Illinois.

The real “victims” are the children missing out on adoption opportunities because the state and church couldn’t work through their differences.

State and politicians pushed the issue. Church wouldn’t or couldn’t back down.

Kids suffer.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:17 pm
Lost in the whole discussion regarding Catholic Charities is the upending of the foster system in general with thousands of kids. They aren’t generating any kind of an operating profit on this, they’re simply acting as competent agents that the state tried mightily, but failed at doing themselves. Volunteers and very modestly paid professionals who don’t have the slew of labor issues just went about doing the job competently. As to “who gets invited to the party” methinks it has more to do with forcing the establishment to have the party in the first place. At the very least, arguable. There’s a constant harangue about people not having to do things that violate their own beliefs. That protection is far from absolute and also arguable. They hold enough water to argue about Rich. And the discussion should be had. The issue won’t lose heat until it has been discussed thoroughly and knee jerk responses give way to thoughtful transitions.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:19 pm
No Keep, the sides are not equal.

One side demanded an end to discrimination.

The other wanted to discriminate as a matter of policy.

One was right. The other was wrong.

The state should never have contracted it out in the first place. Illinois could have done it without discrimination. There was no reason at all to have an outside group do it.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Skeeter, they tried and they couldn’t. You can’t see that the same issues dealing with all of their other bureaucracies wouldn’t be a problem here? It’s not at all uncommon for private, non profit agencies to handle these kinds of services. Catholic Charities, Lutheran Adoption Agency, etc. have performed this service with few problems and huge efficiency for years. The right thing to do was the thing that benefited the foster children the most. BTW, it’s a pretty non-religious exercise of service.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:30 pm
Rich, if you want to go deep on the same-sex marriage issue, then let’s set up a public panel discussion and have it out.

The point remains that Dillard’s right — this has been a litigious nightmare. None of the examples I’ve cited are minor cases — each is/was a major case drawing attention from across the country. Catholic Charities was an expedited proceeding in which a preliminary injunction was entered in our favor, we lost on summary judgment, and were in the midst of an appeal when the Governor forced us out. Hundreds of pages of briefing, numerous hearings, etc. The Paxton bed & breakfast is a multi-year case with national implications. The Cook County marriage case has taken over a year, though we’re still in the preliminary motion to dismiss phase.

I recall that you and I have argued this previously, but Catholic Charities was compliant with every applicable Illinois law. The court didn’t buy your argument, either. You can’t call a case “bogus” because you don’t agree with the legal arguments — which were extensively briefed. Under that standard, I could call the Cook County marriage lawsuit “bogus” because there’s very little precedent supporting overturning our 150-plus year tradition of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Rich, to be clear, your position on this issue is that it’s okay to force solo wedding photographers, small bed & breakfasts, etc., into actively participating in same-sex civil unions, marriages, and other similar ceremonies to which these folks have deep religious objections. You’ve written about those issues with respect to SB10. That’s a policy issue where we disagree.

This has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act — as noted by another commenter, the issue of public accommodation and rights to refuse is a nuanced one. That’s a red herring.

@wordslinger: Governor Quinn refused to contract with Catholic agencies because they held to Catholic teaching. I didn’t call him names. Not my job.

@Skeeter: My “pals” — do you mean the dedicated (and underpaid) staff of Catholic Charities and the numerous foster parents who were glad to be part of the Catholic Charities family? Your comments are a repeat of what others have written, so take my answers there and reapply. Anyway, your vitriol doesn’t exactly comport with the comment box instructions to be “civilized and smart.”

@Keep Calm and Carry On: The Church didn’t change its commitment to serving kids or its policies. No couples were refused the ability to become foster parents. The State and its politicians forced the issue — and wouldn’t even wait for the court process to conclude before forcing the transfer of the 2000+ kids.

Those are my final answers, with my name attached, not a pseudonym. You guys can hash this out from here — I have to get back to work.

Comment by Peter Breen Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:32 pm
===Catholic Charities, Lutheran Adoption Agency, etc. have performed this service with few problems ===

I think there was a real problem with Chicago’s Catholic Charities’ adoption service.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:33 pm
===the issue of public accommodation and rights to refuse is a nuanced one. That’s a red herring.===

Um, no, it’s a crucial central point.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:34 pm
Skeeter,

I do not understand how it is possible to label the sincere belief and long standing practice of someone else’s religion “wrong”.

Nor do I understand how it is possible to label a homosexual couple any less “real” than a straight couple.

As a non-Catholic, I can see how it may be difficult for some to simply turn their backs on their religious doctrine and faith.

As a straight person, I can see how it may be difficult for some to see this as anything other than a basic question of equal rights.

Ultimately, this issue is not as clear-cut as either “side” makes it out to be.

All I know is that in the meantime, kids are suffering as a result of failure on both sides to overcome their personal beliefs and work something out for the sake of those kids.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:38 pm
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 is a federal law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVRA

When Jim Edgar was Gov, he resisted implementation of NVRA in Illinois. Illinois was one of four states to resist implementation. The other three states all had histories of disenfranchising Blacks or Native Americans.

I suppose Dillard could push for repealing Illinois’ implementing legislation for NVRA. It doesn’t seem likely to pass, but we all gotta have goals.

Dillard’s goal of repealing NVRA would probably result in significant amounts of litigation from either individuals or the Justice Department.

I would note that Dillard seems selective in what sort of legal bills outrage him.

Also, I think Dillard’s opposition is a good reminder that even Republicans fluffed by the media for being “moderate”, e.g. Jim Edgar, pursue some pretty hard right policies in other areas. Opposing making it easier to register to vote?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:41 pm
“your position on this issue is that it’s okay to force solo wedding photographers, small bed & breakfasts, etc., into actively participating in same-sex civil unions, marriages, and other similar ceremonies to which these folks have deep religious objections. ”

We don’t allow bed and breakfasts or photographers to use their “deep religious objections” to get out of serving people of a different race, do we?

Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:47 pm
===We don’t allow bed and breakfasts or photographers to use their “deep religious objections” to get out of serving people of a different race, do we? ===

A better argument would be religion, since it’s a choice. Not saying that gayness is a choice at all. Just saying that we uphold the rights of people based on the religion they choose.

That bed and breakfast couldn’t deny two newly converted Mormons their wedding reception reservation based on their religion alone, for example.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:52 pm
Shame on Dillard for letting the voters know where he stands on hot-button issues. You won’t see Bruce Rauner do that.

Comment by Voice of Reason Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:53 pm
“Voice of Reason” has the funniest comment of the day, by far. I laughed out loud for real.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:57 pm
Breen,

Yes, “your pals” are the ones who do not get that discrimination is wrong.

Unless, of course, they feel that they’ve been discriminated against, but that’s another matter.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm
“I do not understand how it is possible to label the sincere belief and long standing practice of someone else’s religion “wrong”.”

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Neither the length of time nor the firmness of the beliefs make those beliefs correct.

Discrimination is wrong, no matter how long they’ve liked to discriminate.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 12:59 pm
ChicagoR, I don’t know of any deep religious doctrine that suggests not serving people of a different race. Catholic Charities has been a champion in feeding, clothing, sheltering and providing foster care regardless of race, religion or immigration status. You could ask a Rabbi to provide over a Methodist wedding, but you can’t force him to. Can the race argument here. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with this.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Skeeter, the adults are talking. Go take lunch.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:02 pm
“Can the race argument here. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with this.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. There were definitely people in the 60s who used the Bible to justify race discrimination. I’m sure many of them believed it deeply, but we didn’t let that stop us from making race discrimination laws apply to all.

Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm
===I do not understand how it is possible to label the sincere belief and long standing practice of someone else’s religion “wrong”.===

Maybe you’re just not thinking about religions that may not be similar to yours, like, for instance, the rather large and influential Wahhabi sect.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm
Breen wrote:

“Anyway, your vitriol doesn’t exactly comport with the comment box instructions to be “civilized and smart.”

Breen, if you don’t like being called pals with people who discriminate, then stop hanging out with people who discriminate. Don’t blame me for your choice of friends.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:04 pm
Hardly a litigious nightmare. Not like the 3,000 civil lawsuits, $3 billion in settlements and diocese bankruptcies resulting from the decades of enabling and covering-up the sexual abuse of children.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Let’s be fair - Quinn just signed this week a private gun show law and notice law on stolen guns. Dillard voted for it…..moderate. How’d he vote on drivers licenses fir illegals and Dream Act? And, civil union law did end adoptions/foster care by Catholic Charities, Lutherans etc. Dillard was right it is a legal quagmire…..ask those children not adopted. I call him “independent” and not label Kirk a moderate or conservative.

Comment by fairness Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:11 pm
–ChicagoR, I don’t know of any deep religious doctrine that suggests not serving people of a different race.–

You can’t be serious.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:12 pm
@A guy:

Catholic Charities could have continued to provide services. They are the ones that chose to end their relationship with the state when they refused to abide by the rules of the contract. I agree that it was detrimental to the children but that rests entirely on the shoulders of Catholic Charities. They had a choice between serving children using state funds and their position on homosexuality and unmarried couples. They chose the latter. That’s fine to make that choice but they need to own it and stop blaming others.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:19 pm
==Rich, to be clear, your position on this issue is that it’s okay to force solo wedding photographers, small bed & breakfasts, etc., into actively participating in same-sex civil unions, marriages, and other similar ceremonies to which these folks have deep religious objections.==

Hey, if you think it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against people then that’s your right. It’s disgusting and vile and I’ll continue to call people like you out on those beliefs.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Chicago R, some in the 60s did use the Bible to justify poor treatment against others; however, I’ve never seen the verses they used to do so. Do you know what they were?

Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:22 pm
“Maybe you’re just not thinking about religions that may not be similar to yours, like, for instance, the rather large and influential Wahhabi sect.”

Rich, indeed I am thinking about those other religions. They are at the forefront of my mind when making a comment like that.

The mindset is one of tolerance and understanding. There are many, many religions out there in this world. Some of them view things similarly. Others very differently.

Who am I to tell someone like Ghandi or the Dalai Lama they are wrong simply because we are of different religions? Or the Pope? Who am I to judge them and tell them exactly what to believe and how to believe it?

I certainly wouldn’t want them telling me what to believe or how to practice my beliefs.

In my humble opinion, using an example like the Wahhabi sect (or the fundamentalists in Pakistan who shot that 12 year old girl as she slept, etc.) is a red herring for the most part. That one example doesn’t fit with the spirit and intent of my comment - that both “sides” are allowing their beliefs, right or wrong, to cloud their judgment in terms of the greater good for those kids.

I doubt those kids care much about who is “right” in this debate; or whether they have two mommies, two daddies or a mommy and a daddy when their heads hit the pillow at night - alone and by themselves.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:25 pm
==The point remains that Dillard’s right — this has been a litigious nightmare.=

No, the point is that he’s wrong because the litigation would be here, anyway. All the act did was make it clearer who would win.

Comment by Anon. Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:30 pm
–Chicago R, some in the 60s did use the Bible to justify poor treatment against others; however, I’ve never seen the verses they used to do so. Do you know what they were? –

Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Exodus, the Pauline Epistles and the First Epistle of Peter would be a good start if you were a slave owner or in the slave trade.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:36 pm
There is a middle case, as Thomas More would say, to the issue of adoption services: Catholic Charities provides a tremendous service to the children and society in re their adoption services. They do not sanction adoption by same-sex couples. The state could fairly continue to support Catholic Charities great efforts in that regard and also support an agency that did sanction same-sex adoption. The funding for the latter could be taken from the monies allotted for Catholic Charities. Most importantly, the children win in that case. They have been victims long enough.

Comment by Voice of Reason Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:38 pm
Good list, Word. I also think the story (or mistranslation) of the “mark of Cain” came up in my church from time to time.

Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:44 pm
Wordslinger, you seem to be confused about the difference between verses and books. I’m not going to go dig through a couple hundred pages for a few verses taken out of context. I want specifics; the burden of proof is on you.

Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:46 pm
To those who proffer that “they used the bible to discriminate…” let’s agree they “misused the bible” in those cases.

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:52 pm
SirLankselot, Google “curse of ham”

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Rich, really, the Wahhabi sect. Just how many cards are in the deck we’re playing with today?

Comment by A guy... Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:54 pm
Sir Lankeslot, no burden on me. Use the google and the verses will pop up lickety-split. The fact that you don’t want to know the truth doesn’t change the truth.

In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially renounced and apologized for its institutional racism based on “the mark of Cain.”

George Romney, as businessman and governor, publicly bucked The Church of LDS for it’s then-institutional racism. The dude led open-housing marches in Grosse Pointe.

George Romney was a heck of a guy. They don’t make Republicans like that anymore.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Separately, I just want to take a sec and say thanks to Rich for consistently erring on the side of dialogue and debate.

Even when people disagree with you or are snarky, you tend to let posts stand. You might throw back the occasional “bite me”, deletion or lifetime ban, but you usually let stuff through moderation. It’s part of what makes this such a great place to trade thoughts, hash things out and explore ideas we may not be able to in “real” life or in person.

Ya’ll can mock me as a brown nose if you want, but it’s a very neat, important aspect of this community that I think most of us appreciate.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:57 pm
===Rich, really, the Wahhabi sect.===

It’s a mainstream religious belief in several countries that dates back to the early 18th Century.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:57 pm
–To those who proffer that “they used the bible to discriminate…” let’s agree they “misused the bible” in those cases. –

No, they weren’t. The Bible is explicit in laying down the law governing slavery. You can look it up.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 1:58 pm
In an argument, the burden of proof lies with the person making the statement. You said the Bible supported slavery.

I do want to know the truth; why else would I have asked a question?

You and Rich are correct about the Mark of Cain and Ham. However, those were missused verses to an end and not correct interpretations.

As for what Mormons do, I don’t care. I don’t think they are Christians since their teachings deny Jesus’ diety (and I believe the Trinity if I’m not mistaken), but that’s a whole can of worms for another day. (And yes, I voted for Romney in both the primary and general).

Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:05 pm
===As for what Mormons do, I don’t care. ===

Me neither. But if someone does care and is in the public accommodations business, that person cannot legally discriminate against a Mormon in this state for being a Mormon. Try to follow along.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:07 pm
===I do want to know the truth; why else would I have asked a question?===

OK, then use the freaking Google. It ain’t that hard. Here, I’ll get you started.

This search: https://www.google.com/search?q=bible+versus+rules+for+slavery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Produced this result: http://rarebible.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/slavery-rules-in-exodus-and-leviticus/

Not that difficult. This blog isn’t your Google. Only Google is your Google. Use it before commenting. Thanks.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Rich, when did I ever say to the contrary?

Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:11 pm
–Separately, I just want to take a sec and say thanks to Rich for consistently erring on the side of dialogue and debate.–

Hear, hear. There’s no place like Cap Fax on the web for thoughtful, informed discussion. Even bedrock publications like the NYT and Wall Street Journal are infested with lunatic commenters.

You really want to get scared, read some of the comments from John Kass’ “fans.” They give lunatic fringe a bad name.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:12 pm
To be fair, if we are going to begin focusing on the Bible in regards to slavery, etc. we also must consider the “explicit” teachings of the Koran, the Torah and others in a similar vein.

Only, of course, if we are interested in applying an equal standard. And since some seem interested in visiting the transgressions of one’s predecessors upon successive generations.

There are plenty of painful moments in every religion’s history to go around if that is what we want to focus on.

Speaking of religion, oppression and equality… anyone catch Louis Farrakhan’s recent sermon?

It is easy to take a snippet of a passage, a person or a past mistake and claim it applies to everyone in that group. It is difficult to look past the surface and try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes.

In this case, the shoes of both the Catholic Church and our homosexual brothers and sisters.

Most importantly, the shoes of those kids hoping for a family.

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:14 pm
Great! I have verses and will do research.

Wordslinger, I’ve been reading this site for a long time and consider you and OW to be the big names here. Thanks for the debate.

Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Wordslinger - truer words were never spoken. It’s a good place for thoughtful exchange (in between caption contests and our snark, lol). Your posts and those of many others are a big part of what brings me back here day in and day out. There’s a good reason it’s now dubbed the “wordlsinger golden horseshoe for commenter of the year”, if memory serves.

Sometimes commenters may even agree with one another but push each other on reasoning, different facets of arguments we are curious about or arguments we would like to make ourselves in the “real” world while seeking to shore up counter-arguments… as I did above @2:14, albeit perhaps a bit sharply.

A Voice of Reason - you are indeed a voice of reason

Comment by Keep Calm and Carry On Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:24 pm
I’m a zealot on gay marriage because I’m ashamed of my past indifference to the horrible discrimination my government has inflicted on gay people.

I’m particularly ashamed of my silence and indifference to the evil DOMA, where in 1996, Congress and Pres. Clinton “decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.’

Bubba and Newt defending the sanctity of marriage and expressing moral disapproval. Can you dig it?

Across the street from me, two dudes are raising the sweetest little two-year-old girl in the world. She is one lucky kid.

Lucky too, is the University of Michigan academic full-ride student down the street from me who has the two coolest moms in the world.

How “holy men” can invoke Jesus to discriminate against my neighbors is beyond me. May God forgive them.

Supporters of gay marriage are the abolitionists of our time. On this issue, “I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard.”

The people are way ahead of the politicians and the holy men on this one.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:32 pm
“To be fair, if we are going to begin focusing on the Bible in regards to slavery, etc. we also must consider the “explicit” teachings of the Koran, the Torah and others in a similar vein.”

Sure, which goes back to your prior comment of “I do not understand how it is possible to label the sincere belief and long standing practice of someone else’s religion “wrong”.”

If religions want to debate whether life is controlled by some differing versions of an invisible man, they can do so all day long.

But as you noted with the first comment, the fact that the beliefs are long-held does not make them either true or in any way valid.

To the extent that there is litigation over civil unions, it is litigation because people want to discriminate.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Gen. Powell weighs in on the despicable ALEC movement to use the law to disenfranchises voters in the name of combating non-existent fraud.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/colin-powell-north-carolina-voting-law-95813.html?hp=f3

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Aug 22, 13 @ 7:23 pm