Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Oberweis: You first
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Lisa Madigan visits DC to gauge support
Posted in:
* Upping the ante…
Some African-American clergy and conservative Catholics say they’ll ban Illinois lawmakers who vote for same-sex marriage from their churches.
About two dozen priests and pastors joined the Catholic Conference of Illinois to form a new religious coalition yesterday.
“We want to make sure that we a send a message to our elected officials that as a collective community and a collaborative, we will not allow you to speak in our churches, you will not be invited to our church when you’re running for office because we as a community are incensed,” said Bishop Lance Davis, senior pastor at a church in Dolton, who’s part of the group.
The measure is a part of a media campaign the coalition is planning to launch Friday. They’re going to 75 churches this weekend to ask people to contact lawmakers and urge them to vote against gay marriage. They also plan billboards, TV and radio ads.
Remember to keep a civil tongue in your head and also remember that there’s a First Amendment in this country and people are free to say what they want. No broadbrush attacks, please. Thanks.
* Nationally, though, things are moving away from them…
Support for gay marriage has ticked up over the last few months, particularly among Catholic voters, according to a new poll Friday.
Among Catholics, 54 percent back same-sex marriage, while 38 percent oppose it, the Quinnipiac University poll found. That’s a jump from December, when Catholic support for same-sex marriage was 49 percent to 43 percent. […]
Among all Americans, it’s a closer margin, with 47 percent supporting and 43 percent opposing. The pollsters noted that’s a dramatic reversal from their July 2008 survey, which found that 55 percent opposed same-sex marriage and 36 percent supported it. It’s also a slight rise in support since December, when Quinnipiac found 48 percent backed gay marriage and 46 percent opposed it.
* And here’s some info from an Illinois-based economic impact study conducted by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law…
— As many as 11,525 same-sex couples who live in Illinois — about half of the 23,049 in Illinois, according to the 2010 Census — would choose to marry. (The report did not include spending estimates for out-of-state same-sex couples who might travel to Illinois to marry.)
— The state’s wedding business would see an increase of $74 million, and an increase of $29 million would be seen in tourism expenditures by out-of-town guests over the same period.
— Total state and local tax revenue would rise by $8.5 million, including an estimated $1-2 million in local sales taxes. The first year would produce $5.4 million of the increase.
— The boost in wedding spending will generate about 281 new jobs.
Other findings include an expected 16 guests per same-sex marriage, each of whom would spend about $155 per day during their visit. This translates to 184,400 wedding guests in three years, spending a total of $28.6 million.
The report also determined that over the first three years, 5,472 couples now in civil unions would marry, but without an accompanying ceremony.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 9:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Oberweis: You first
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Lisa Madigan visits DC to gauge support
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
You know Catholic clergy do not believe in divorce either, but they don’t seem to be inclined to make it illegal. I’m not sure why they they reserve such animosity for gays. A group of them even came out this week against the Violence Against Women Act signed by President Obama because it included protections for LGBT women. Given that action, I think the Catholic hierarchy has lost any hope of credibility on this issue.
Comment by kimocat Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 9:48 am
Religious denominations have the rigth to define the denominations beliefs and make mebership decisions, and decide who’ll be invited to speak in their facilities.
Perhaps we should get government entirely out of the “marriage” business, with it being so intertwined with religion. Let the government control civil unions (which same- and opposite- sex couples would get to secure their governmental recognized rights, responsibilities and benefits) and let the various religious groups decide what their own adherents do as far as who can or can’t or can stop being married to whom.
Comment by titan Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 9:48 am
They can make any demands they want but I would hope our lawmakers see through them.
If my own State Rep., Christian Mitchell, votes against equality I will be out getting signatures for a primary opponent for him. He will have to decide whether to follow some alleged religious leaders or to follow the voters in his district.
For what it is worth, although I was raised Irish Catholic, I’ve refused to step foot in a Catholic Church until they both starting treating people as equals and until they take real action against those engaged in cover ups of sex abuse.
They can take their position. I take mine. Welcome to America.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 9:57 am
By the way, I do agree with Titan. “Marriage” seems like an inherently religious concept, while a civil union seems like a contractual one.
I would prefer to see Illinois take no role at all for “marriage” and instead just recognize “civil unions.” Until that time, we need to treat all people equally.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 9:59 am
–The measure is a part of a media campaign the coalition is planning to launch Friday. They’re going to 75 churches this weekend to ask people to contact lawmakers and urge them to vote against gay marriage. They also plan billboards, TV and radio ads.–
Where does the money come from for that? It can’t be collection plates or church funds, right?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:01 am
As a Christian, I’m always amazed at “Christian” organizations who say they will “bar” people from their churches. Jesus never barred anyone from his table…he even shared his last meal with Judas, who betrayed him, Peter who denied him and Thomas who doubted him.
These folks are free to bar whomever they chose from their little clubs, but stop hiding behind Christ’s robes. You are certianly not serving him by doing this.
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:01 am
There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Religion offers none.
Comment by Chitownhv Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:04 am
Late last year I was asked to be godfather to my cousin’s son. I accepted, though I’m not Catholic nor am I particularly religious at all.
In conversation with the priest, he repeatedly bemoaned the shortage of young people wanting to become priests, and the shrinking, aging population of his church.
Well, if you’re going to keep shutting your doors to people over these issues, don’t whine when people that share those opposing views don’t come knocking either.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:05 am
I’d prefer to leave church weddings to the churches and have legal marriages performed by government workers.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:09 am
I have to agree with both titan and Chevy.
Let religions determine who can marry in their churches, let the government decide who is LEGALLY joined at the hip
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:16 am
Why would you want to go to a church where the minister is banning you anyway? So much for God’s love. Those ministers should be ashamed of themselves and their congregations should fire them. I know it, but I still can’t believe how people of christian faith treat homosexuals.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:18 am
“we as a community are incensed” - well, yeah, all that frankincense is going to get to you eventually.
But seriously folks, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. The obvious threat is that politicians won’t be able to make the rounds during campaign season, but there’s only so long you can rattle the sabers on this one. It’s happening, and my guess is that by campaign time (when marriage for all will have passed), these same pastors will quietly accept the same pols back to keep their congregation’s influence up.
Comment by haverford Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:26 am
It’s one thing to be against gay marriage, but it’s something different to publicly chastise and punish anyone who does not agree with your views.
I do not follow any established religion, but if I did, I would leave their church if they were part of this abhorrent behavior.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:30 am
Perhaps the good Pastor will turn in his tax breaks and other government granted loopholes too
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:31 am
–but I still can’t believe how people of christian faith treat homosexuals.–
Please don’t presume they speak for all, or even a majority, of Christians. There’s plenty of polling out there to indicate that they do not, including the poll above.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:34 am
Ask anyone running for public office and be told that they can’t speak at a African American church, African Americans who attend church vote in high volumes so yes why would a Pastor invite then to speak if they feel that they are being wronged. I agree with titian.
Lastly why don’t they just do a statewide referendum on this issue ?
Id rather see the legislature resolve this pension mess the stuff with schools and other state issues.
Comment by austinman Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:34 am
It is still somewhat ironic to me that African American ministers are putting so much effort to fight against what is essentially a civil rights issue. 20 or 30 years from now, people will look back on their wrong side of the fight the same way we do now when we see black and white footage of people protesting school desegregation or mixed race marriages at the U.S. Capitol back in the 1950’s and 1960’s
Comment by Roadiepig Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:43 am
I think the Catholic church is making a wad of money on their version of divorce (aka annulment). They just haven’t figured out a similar way to profit from same-sex marriage yet by calling it something else and charging a hefty fee.
Comment by Waldi Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:54 am
===Late last year I was asked to be godfather to my cousin’s son. I accepted, though I’m not Catholic===
No offense intended STL, but the church rules stipulate that at least one godparent be a Catholic. Was there another godparent involved?
The relevant rule from the Chicago Archdiocese:
===Although the selection of two godparents is customary, only one godparent is required for baptism. A godparent can be either male or female. If two godparents are chosen, one must be male and one female. (Canon 873) A godparent must
also be a fully initiated Roman Catholic who is free to celebrate the sacraments. (Canons
892 and 893) A baptized non-Catholic Christian can be chosen as a Christian witness
provided there is at least one Catholic godparent. (Canon 874.2)===
The Catholic Church has lots and lots of rules.
To the post: Churches are free to discriminate in their membership and free to bar anyone from participating in their rituals and exclude them from the community. They’ve been doing that for centuries. Conversely, church attendance has been declining for decades because people are voting with their feet.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the idea of politicians speaking at churches anyway. It’s fine with me if they exclude them, but I wish they’d use more and broader criteria for their decisions, such as social justice and poverty issues, which Jesus spoke about more than gay marriage.
When the last parishioner leaves the church, please turn out the lights (and blow out the candles).
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 10:54 am
- Was there another godparent involved? -
Yes, and the priest referred to me as “witness” during the ceremony.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:00 am
Thanks STL, and I again, I meant no offense. Good for you for standing up for that child. He/she will be better off with you playing a role in their life. It’s quite an honor to be asked to be someone’s godparent.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:03 am
–Please don’t presume they speak for all–
I don’t nor did I say they did. They sure don’t speak for me.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:07 am
- Thanks STL, and I again, I meant no offense. -
None taken, my first question when asked was whether or not they realized I wasn’t Catholic.
If only the church knew the wisdom I hope to impart on my godson, they might have called me something else during the ceremony.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:07 am
I oppose same sex marriage for religious reasons, but you can’t ban people for what you deem is sinful conduct, unless you ban everyone. So kick out the drunks, adulterors, and the liars as well. You will have an empty building.
I know preachers that will not marry same sex couples, but they also will not marry heterosexual couples who they know are in violation of chuch doctrine. This is not discriminatory, it is applying beliefs. When you say kick out someone for one sin while you have a church full of other sinners, you are discriminating.
If church leaders cannot speak against sinful conduct without banishing people, they lose the argument. If you really believe it is wrong, welcome them in and open a diaglouge as reasonable people.
On the economic side, you missed one. Attorneys. IF 50% of marriages end in divorce do we believe SSM will fair much better? 11000 marriages means 5500 divorces. Bad for court dockets, but good for lawyers.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:18 am
Doing nothing is not an option for them. Supporting gender-blind marriages isn’t something they can support based on their education and experiences within their communities.
So, give them a break.
There’s nothing wrong with allowing concerned community leaders voicing support for traditional marriages. After all, they have usually more experiences with performing marriage ceremonies than your average General Assembly Rep.
Open your minds and show some courtesy.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:25 am
In regard to a comment about Illinois just recognizing civil unions and staying away from marriage: this is not just about the word marriage. This is about EQUAL rights as hetero married couples who get all the benefits government affords them for being “MARRIED.” To say we are better off with “civil unions” totally undermines the benefits a married couple is awarded.
Comment by Atoman Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:29 am
“So, give them a break.”
“Open your minds and show some courtesy.”
I could ask the same of them.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:30 am
So be a dear and hold my coat while I attack your friends.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:36 am
–After all, they have usually more experiences with performing marriage ceremonies than your average General Assembly Rep.–
What does that have to do with anything?
Everyone’s allowed to speak their minds, obviously. It’s part of the debate.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:36 am
This is not a civil rights issue its a human rights issue. Interracial marriage opponents didn’t want black and white blood to mix, that was the most major reason regardless what research will tell you find any African American who was raised in the south. When you fill out a job application does it ask for your sexual orientation? It surely ask your race, and everytime i.circle or write African American a small part of me says oh well i may not get that job. Or when you drive a nice car and get pulled over in a white area that’s a civil rights issue, none of my gay friends feel that its a civil right.
Marriage is a religious issue civil unions is a government issue, this could open the door to try and bring prayer back in school, etc…
The voters of Illinois should vote on this let the lawmakers decided this budget issue and pay those past due debts.
Comment by austinman Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:44 am
Atoman,
Those of us who are discussing “civil unions” for all contemplate a system where what is now known as marriage (including all rights and benefits) would be called “civil unions” for all couples. “Marriage” would no longer exist as a state function.
Doing so would recognize the distinction between the contractual and the religious.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:44 am
Atoman
I think you misunderstood titans point. We think that civil unions should become the only LEGAL definition of two people getting hitched and receiving the governmental benefits thereof. Marriage should be reserved for religous implications. If you prefer, we can call the legal term ‘legal marriage’ and the relious term ‘blessed marriage’.
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 11:44 am
“Doing nothing is not an option for them. Supporting gender-blind marriages isn’t something they can support based on their education and experiences within their communities.”
I’m not asking that they “do nothing” or that they support same-sex marriage. But how about if they tell their own flocks how to behave (or proselytize to others), rather than imposing their religious beliefs with the force of law on others who don’t share them?
Comment by ChicagoR Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 12:13 pm
The Evangelical Christians and Catholics seem to bear the brunt of criticism on issues related to gay rights. It is exceedingly rare for anyone to mention that Orthodox Judaism and almost every branch of Islam holds similar views on marriage.
It also astounds me that some people who routinely criticize the United States and promote tolerance for the Arab World are frequently willing to turn a blind eye to the denial of basic human rights in such societies to minorities and women. Many devout Leftists praise Moscow, but fail to mention that the criminal code there still has extreme sanctions, including prison and capital punishment, available to be used against open gays. Compared to what goes on elsewhere in the troubled world, the deprivation of rights claimed by so many activists in the USA seems like empty rhetoric indeed. Being denied a marriage license is not the height of intolerance when compared to what goes on in other societies.
Assuming the legislation is approved, how long will it be before the next chorus of complaints is launched by Andy Thayer & Company?
Comment by Anonymous and Fatigued Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 12:55 pm
@VanillaMan:
I won’t give them a break. I don’t expect them to change their beliefs but it is completely “un-Christian” to ban people from a church. I had a pastor tell me one time I was not welcome at “his” church because I was gay. It was the most vile and despicable thing I had ever heard a religious leader say. I have zero tolerance for churches that do such things. Zero. That one encounter with that one pastor is a large reason I don’t attend church any longer. If you want to sit in judgment of me, then fine. But you had better sit in judgment of everybody in that church and tell them all they are not welcome.
Again, it amazes me how some people who call themselves “Christian” act. Despicable.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 12:59 pm
I’m not sure how this would work practically … I understand that they can refuse to provide communion, etc. other religious sacraments, and the like.
But most church services are open to the community — by definition (and especially in the Protestant tradition). Church services are, very largely, a community function. Can they “ban” someone from coming into a service that is open to the community (without legal reason?). I mean, again, no one has to give them communion, but I think if I tried to go to a church on Sunday, I would be allowed to go.
So, if they want to play this game, that’s fine. But then they are no longer a church, they are a club, and it’s time to pay the taxes and so forth, just like any other club.
Comment by xxtofer Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Let’s for a minute look at marriage as the codification of 1400 various legal and financial arrangements in addition to its religious significance.
Many of the legal obligations should be the same for civil union, dispensation of property, etc. which really have nothing to do with the government being involved. In this case marriage is simply a short hand method of various contractual obligations of the state.
Now we can look at the tax side, and consider eliminating any tax breaks/penalties for marriage.
Now consider this: Take the money away from the adult and provide each parental unit a block amount of money for child rearing that can be used on education, healthcare, whatever.
Now, marriage becomes a religious item that can be sanctified by the Church. We can still allow the Church to act as an intermediary for the State to form the civil union function, as well as non-sectarian actors like JPs or whatever. Churches would not be obligated to perform civil union ceremonies, and non-religious actors would be unable to perform marriage.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 1:37 pm
“…and non-religious actors would be unable to perform marriage.”
Are you saying the non-religious can’t get married if they don’t want a religious ceremony?
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 1:56 pm
No, more like saying that marriage would be done only by Churches only. Civil unions can be performed by both religious and non-religious actors (like Judges or JP’s).
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:00 pm
Hmmmm, we could either go with Cinci’s rube goldberg plan, or just give gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Tough call…
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:00 pm
Most Christian denominations believe they are a congregation of sinners, whom through the church they seek repentance.
Hope, Peace, Faith and Love are the basic tenets of most Christian denominations. Please do not paint all Christians with the same brush as the clergy in the article.
Personally, I am agnostic. But my mother and grandmothers are Christians in the truest meaning and they accept and love all of their grandchildren, nieces and nephews, with no exceptions.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:01 pm
Cincinnatus, stop. Your plan is far more radically out of the mainstream than gay marriage. You want to tell people they can’t get married because they don’t want to use a church? What is this? Iran?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:08 pm
It is sad when those who have suffered so much from bigotry turn out to be bigots themselves whether they are black clergy or Israeli settlers. Apparently intimate knowledge of discrimination does not inoculate against hate.
Comment by wishbone Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I have always thought religion and politics were two completely separate things. I could never understand how ANY church would allow poiticians to speak from their pulpit.Particularly during election season I would be incensed if my church presented my ministers favored politician as a speaker. If I want to hear what politicians have to say, I’ll watch a debate.
Comment by robert lincoln Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:34 pm
“On the economic side, you missed one. Attorneys. IF 50% of marriages end in divorce do we believe SSM will fair much better? 11000 marriages means 5500 divorces. Bad for court dockets, but good for lawyers.”
Do you think that straight marriage should be banned for that same reason?
Comment by Nick Kruse Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:43 pm
–It is sad when those who have suffered so much from bigotry..–
You can put the Irish Catholics on the list, too.
Start with 700 years of oppression by the English, coming to the United States as cannon-fodder in the Civil War and having to claw their way every step of up the ladder…
I’m not Catholic, but live in a neighborhood with many progressive Irish Catholics. Their parish, St. Ascension (Quinn’s), is in trouble all the time with the powers-that-be, and it’s like water off a duck’s back. Like many Catholics, it’s not their first rodeo with the hierarchy.
You’ll see them all tomorrow at the St. Pat’s Parade on Madison in Forest Park. Sunny and in the 40s, lots of good food and drink.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:44 pm
Excuse me, just Ascension, not St. Ascension (you guys have so many, I get confused). It refers to the act, not a person.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 2:49 pm
No one is ever going to call their union a civil union because the bigots can’t share a word with them.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:01 pm
Cheryl44,
Excellent point. But most of the discussions we have on CapFax have very little tolerance for bigots…
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:02 pm
Sorry, Rich. I was taking my deep breath and was going to change the b word to something less caustic, but I posted it instead.
Comment by Cheryl44 Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:04 pm
People were getting married long before there was a Christian Church. People get married in non-Christian cultures. Christians, even if they could all agree among themselves which marriages are legitimate, didn’t invent marriage and don’t own it. There’s no reason to not call civil marriages marriages just because some churches don’t approve of them.
Comment by TooManyJens Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:28 pm
@Cheryl44 - No one would have to call their relationship a “civil union”. I don’t suspect very many would (it would be a vanishingly small percentage anyway). And that would be just fine and dandy. As now, people in the current “civil union” status are free to call their relationship a marriage if that’s what they want to do (and many I know of do just that) - First Amendment and all that….
I suspect the only place one would see the words “civil union” would be the statute books and the paperwork at the County Clerk’s office. And government would be out of the marriage business completely and everyone would be completely free to call their own particular relationship whatever they want to call it.
Comment by titan Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:29 pm
- the only place one would see the words “civil union” would be the statute books and the paperwork at the County Clerk’s office -
Do you really believe these churches would be satisfied if we just took the word marriage out of the statutes? My guess is no, I think they’re against same sex couples having the same legal rights as everyone else.
While I don’t care either way on the word, I feel like the whole “civil unions for all” argument is just a cop out for those afraid to come right out and admit they’re against SSM.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:54 pm
STL,
You are wrong about that last one.
I favor everybody having the same rights.
I just see “Marriage” as having a religious significance. “Civil union” sets the terms of the contract.
I would like to see as little involvement between religion and government as possible.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 3:57 pm
There are also religious ceremonies for naming children, but nobody suggests that naming a child is inherently a religious activity and thus children shouldn’t get legal names.
Comment by TooManyJens Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:00 pm
“I just see “Marriage” as having a religious significance.”
I don’t. Holy matrimony, yes; marriage simply describes the legal union between two consenting adults.
What about the millions who married outside of any church or religious organization? Would you strip them of their marriage certificates if the government chose to refer to all unions as civil?
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:08 pm
Wenscia,
I think “stripping them of their marriage certificates” may involve a lot of paperwork, so no. Frankly, I just don’t trust government employees to do the job right.
Provide the same benefits and obligations though? Replace “marriage” with “civil union” wherever it appears in the Illinois statutes? Absolutely.
The concept just seems strange to me. I was “married” in the Roman Catholic Church. The State of Illinois provided some contractual rights and obligations. I never confuse the two.
I would be perfectly content if under Illinois law, I was no longer “married” as long as the State did not change the contractual part, which is the only part that is any of their business.
I’m really talking about nothing other than a term here. Any consenting couple should have the exact same rights as my spouse and I.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:16 pm
Whoa–these Clergymen and Pastors sound like they mean business! Yet, in the end, they’ll be in the minority in that the elected Officials will still always find their way into all sorts of OTHer Churches who can’t stomach going so far to the edge as to outright BAN them from attending…
Maybe what those Congregations’ Leaders should do, instead, is to just state their Church’s Official Position on the matter to members and cease any such Political Campaigning/Speeches about it from any Politican in their Church, pro or con, while feeling free to urge members to CONtact their local Legislators to express their views about the issue to them directly.
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:17 pm
The whole argument that “marriage” has religious significance worthy of giving churches veto power over who can and who cannot enjoy the benefits of marriage is absurd.
Newsflash folks: Athiests can, and do, get married. Many religions say that marriage if for life…yet the state permits divorce (to the relief of well over 50% of married people who avail themselves of this benefit). Furthermore, many people choose to get married without ever consulting with their local Pastor, Priest, Imam, Rabbi, Shaman, High Priest/Priestess or Yogi. To suggest that the state simply get out of the marriage business because gay and lesbian people are now demanding equality of access is at once absurd and insulting.
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:17 pm
===I would be perfectly content if under Illinois law, I was no longer “married”===
I highly doubt my parents - married by a judge - would agree with you.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:21 pm
@Skeeter,
What you’re saying is the same thing Cinci intimated. Marriage would not be allowed outside of religious organizations.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:23 pm
No, not at all Wenscia.
People can define “marriage” however they see fit. It is none of my business. Religious? Fine. Non-religious? Fine. It is up to the couple.
But no matter how it is defined, it is separate from the contractual side. The state is only involved with the contractual side.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:30 pm
And to reiterate —
I have no opposition to marriage between consenting adults.
If the feeling is that it should remain under the title “marriage” that’s perfectly fine. We need to treat people as equals.
I’m just talking about the labels. If it was up to me, we would have the state stop using one of the labels.
Whatever label we apply though should apply to everybody.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:37 pm
@Skeeter,
Thank you for the clarification.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:43 pm
==Support for gay marriage has ticked up over the last few months==
Here is another study on changing attitudes, and another first. This one is from a Republican group.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/majority-young-republicans-support-gay-marriage-now
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 4:44 pm
If I had the means, I’d send every IL legislator a copy of the little book “Cross in the Closet”, by Timothy Kurek.
It’s a true story of a young man’s internal wrestling match between his evangelical Christian teachings and what he does to precipitate his awakening to the mistreatment of homosexuals in the world community. I can’t imagine anyone reading this story and then still calling homosexuality a choice, a sin, and an abomination.
I wish I could help everyone “evolve” faster toward acceptance and equality of their fellow human beings. The fear and bigotry breaks my heart.
Comment by Midwest Mom Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 5:00 pm
–But most of the discussions we have on CapFax have very little tolerance for bigots…==
You make that sound like a bad thing, lol.
Here’s the deal: those that don’t want gay marriage, I get it. We’ll meet, again, in the great by-and-by.
Those who want to slice the baloney a little thinner — between civil unions and marriage — I get it. You think it’s semantics.
The truth is, gay people who want to be married want to be married,\….
…and they will be married….
…and they and their neighbors who support them will not buckle to some compromise in which they pretend they are something they are not to make someone who it-is-nobody’s-business feel better.
Skol. Get married. Mazeltoz. Best wishes. Salud. Careful what you wished for, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 5:44 pm
Old timers probably see the irony here. Nearly forty years ago, the Black Caucus Democrats helped kill the ERA for women by withholding their votes over an unrelated issue. This time, the Black Caucus Democrats will likely kill marriage equality, too. So much for a grand progessive alliance and civil rights for ALL.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 5:56 pm
Midwest Mom, good on you.
From my experience, the old-timer, salt-of-the-earth parents who raised me and the folks I grew up with didn’t give a hoot about what consenting adults did behind closed doors — gay, straight, none of your business.
They didn’t want to know, and I know I didn’t want to know.
Having said that, I grew up with cousins and friends that everyone knew were gay from the get-go, but they had to hide it, for reasons that are unclear to me now.
Seriously, it must have been some weird, leftover cultural thing from long ago that no one ever dealt with.
But we’re all a little wiser now and can deal with it, what say you?
I know my mother and her friends would not have cared if anyone was gay.
My father was a smart, progressive, working man, swinging a hammer all day long, and his only business in your business was whether you could carry your load.
Meh, there was a study on here the other day that people overestimate how right-wing some are. I think that’s true.
I think most people are busy with their own business that they mind their own business.
Let’s get right with our people and mind our own business. Get out of my, yours, and everyone’s bedroom.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 6:26 pm
–Old timers probably see the irony here. Nearly forty years ago, the Black Caucus Democrats helped kill the ERA for women by withholding their votes over an unrelated issue. This time, the Black Caucus Democrats will likely kill marriage equality, too. So much for a grand progessive alliance and civil rights for ALL.–
Everything you said is true, and you don’t have to be an old-timer to see the irony — or the hypocrisy.
Step up, civil rights advocates.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 8, 13 @ 6:39 pm