Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: DON’T TAX SATELLITE TV!
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver…
In the past, we have sometimes considered the possibility that support for same-sex marriage is increasing at a faster rate than before. The data seems to suggest, however, that the increase in support has been reasonably steady since about 2004.
The national polling graph…
* And using a model based on polling and demographic analysis, Silver projects the future…
I assume that support for same-sex marriage will continue to increase by one and a half percentage points nationally per year, which reflects the recent historical trend from both polling and ballot-initiative data. (The way that the model is designed, support might be projected to increase slightly faster or slower than that in individual states based on the number of swing voters.) Thus, we can extrapolate the results forward from 2008 to 2012, and to future years like 2016 and 2020.
* Some of his projected support results for same sex marriage in ballot initiatives. Note Illinois…
Illinois doesn’t have binding ballot initiatives, of course, but you get the idea.
* Meanwhile, the Sun-Times looks at the prospects for the gay marriage bill…
While Illinois Speaker Michael Madigan said the legislation is 12 votes shy, quiet momentum continues to build among Illinois lawmakers – including Republicans – who believe now is the time to embrace the issue.
“The margin is smaller than what the Speaker had stated,” said one state legislative source who asked not to be named.
Several sources said a small group of Illinois Republicans are considering voting in favor of the bill, which would almost certainly give it the 60 votes needed to advance. “There’s some indication that there’s more than one Republican supporting this bill,” said one of the sources.
As I told you yesterday, Madigan overstated the margin. Right now, there’s only one Republican openly supporting the bill, Rep. Ron Sandack. There may be another out there, but so far, not much more than that.
* But GOP Chairman Pat Brady is standing firm…
“Whether you agree or disagree with particular Republican beliefs … we have to be gracious in a diversity of opinions,” Brady said. “I think that’s the way we can get more people to support our candidates.”
If Silver’s projections are even close to accurate, then Brady has made the right decision: Get on the bus before it runs you over.
But Brady is also giving the GOP cover in case the Republican House vote for gay marriage is as low as it was in the Senate, which is also pretty smart.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 9:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: DON’T TAX SATELLITE TV!
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===But Brady is also giving the GOP cover in case the Republican House vote for gay marriage is as low as it was in the Senate, which is also pretty smart.===
Spot on! Well said.
This “vote total” has been my fear that there will be NO cover, at this point, if there are 63 out of 66 GA GOP members voting “no” to SSM, AND add the fact Senator Oberweis is/was pushing the agenda of Brady being gone for taking a supporting position on SSM.
What cover does the ILGOP have?
None.
Oberweis can try to spin, sell, backtrack, whatever, on what he said was the reason, but, Senator, you had from Novermber to January to make it about the dismal election results, not working with the SCC, fundraising, but you chose to be very public about making it about SSM, no matter how hard you try to un-ring that bell.
Pat Brady is giving “cover” to the 63 GOP members, and the SCC are going to “Dump Brady” at the call of SSM. The trend and tide is going against My Party, as they fight it, with 63 “No”s and dumping the Party Chair, (A useless job, title, etc.,).
These decisions on SSM, and Brady’s dumping and its timing and cause, will haunt my party as they go fishing in “swing” districts held by Dems already.
Spot on, Rich, I hope someone is listening.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 9:57 am
Pat Brady was already a failed chair, now he’s further divided the party.
Last year’s wipe-out of the GOP in Illinois had nothing to do with the fact the IL GOP platform has the same position on marriage that Barack Obama had until May of last year. Zero. Nada.
Some people are so gullible.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 10:39 am
It will happen in Illinois. This is a crazy issue in every state pretty much.
One thing I will say, the poster boy for this (California, with its Prop 8 at SCOTUS) this was just as bad there. Only here we talk about the GOP. In Cali it wasnt the GOP holding this up as much as you may think. Lots of votes for prop 8 came from black and hispanic districts. they voted for Obama and are solid D’s. But their religion guides them on this issue more than party affiliation.
We dont do constitutional referendums here in Illinois like Cali, but while politicians seem split by party (for the most part) I think with the actual people its not a political split that is simple to point at.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 10:51 am
@just sayin’
Maybe you should tell that to the Jim Oberweis’ of the world who, after all, made it THE central issue in the Pat Brady saga. Gullible indeed.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 10:52 am
==If Silver’s projections are even close to accurate==
Mr. Silver’s poll analysis in the 2012 presidential election was spot-on. He was slammed and insulted by critics on the right. His critics were denying polls and saying they were skewed.
Folks on the right ought to really take heed to these polls and stop denying them. It’s important, in my opinion, for Republicans to begin taking the lead on these issues, or they might get left behind permanently. They have a reason to dare: for the first time, more than 50% of young Republicans support marriage equality.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 10:53 am
Adding to the dogpile on Just Sayin: this year’s ILGOP failures may have had nothing to do with their position on same sex marriage, but the next decade of failure could easily be related to it.
Comment by In 630 Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 10:58 am
Lots of focus is put on this. I understand the reasons. But funny all the effort put into this and I do sometimes wonder if it is not cover for not doing crap about our fiscal situation in this state.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:00 am
===but the next decade of failure could easily be related to it.===
Agreed. That is the lack of forsight of this “Social Agenda Litmus Test GOP” and it is going to force more people out, than bring anyone in.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:01 am
“Maybe you should tell that to the Jim Oberweis’ of the world who, after all, made it THE central issue in the Pat Brady saga.”
Red herring. Hardly my fault Jim Oberweis and Pat Brady are both goofs.
I’m not disputing the country is moving fast on this issue and 10 yrs from now (if not sooner) gay marriage will surely be legal nationwide one way or another. But as we saw yesterday at SCOTUS, it’s still not the slam dunk some would like to believe.
Also I would note Mark Kirk was on record as PRO-traditional marriage when he beat Alexi G. in 2010 who was on record FOR gay marriage. Granted Mark Kirk didn’t campaign on the issue and everyone knows where he likely really stands. Also, yes, opinion has shifted more in just 3 yrs. But again point is he was officially on record as against gay marriage, and he won. You can’t say this is such a big controlling issue and then ignore all the evidence where it clearly wasn’t.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:11 am
“Social Agenda Litmus Test GOP”
The SALT GOP. Good one, Willy.
It’s hard to grow things when you add SALT.
Comment by Joe from Joliet Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:16 am
–I do sometimes wonder if it is not cover for not doing crap about our fiscal situation in this state.–
What does that even mean? You could say the same about guns.
Walking and chewing gum at the same time ain’t as hard as it looks.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:33 am
I think it’s time for “social conservatives” to try and find some honor in defeat on this issue. As painful – excruciatingly painful – as it is for me to admit, Justice Kagan’s questions yesterday were devastatingly poignant. She absolutely destroyed the ‘state interest’ rationale. After all, what difference is there between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple who is either incapable or unwilling to reproduce (and subsequently become parents)? What justification is there for accepting one marriage and not the other?
The toothpaste is already out of the tube, so to speak. Gay couples are already standing in front of their family & friends and pledging to each other (and, perhaps, whatever God they may believe in) that they will commit their lives to each other. From a non-sectarian standpoint, isn’t that fundamentally what marriage is about? After all, if the government came by tomorrow and told my wife and I that they no longer recognized our marriage, it wouldn’t change a thing for me in terms of my commitment to her and our relationship. So maybe we should either get government out of the marriage business altogether, or just accept that the gender of the participants is really no one else’s business.
Besides, it’s always possible that if more gay couples are allowed to marry and adopt children, there will be greater demand for adoptable children. And I know how we can make millions more available every year…..
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:35 am
Why the GOP leadership doesn’t get together, find a handful of safe votes to put on this bill, and get it off the table and over with is beyond me?
The zealots, most of whom have proven they can’t organize a three-car parade, will all be distracted next year with gubernatorial and other races.
Bill Brady was nearly ideal (except for immigration) for them — completely restrictive on abortion and ready to play Whack-a-Mole with any gay who dared show his face. While they were filling prospective cabinet appointments and designating plum jobs and commissions, Terry Cosgrove and Personal PAC, along with their Democrat allies, completely out-worked, out-organized, and out-classed them — propping up a flawed candidate in an historic GOP wave election.
Exactly who is “gullible” again?
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:37 am
Who are the 12 Democratic House holdouts? Why not just have President Obama or Mrs. Obama call them all directly.
Comment by Meanderthal Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:42 am
Meanderthal, if it was that easy it would’ve been done.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:44 am
Seems to me Pat Brady is trying to make the Republican Party in Illinois viable by shrugging off previous intolerant views. Hoped for result, more voters. How is he wrong?
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:46 am
===Why the GOP leadership doesn’t get together, find a handful of safe votes to put on this bill, and get it off the table and over with is beyond me?===
I think here is “the rub”.
The 19 and 47 seats in the Senate and House, accordingly, are as close to “non-competetive” for a Dem as possible, but most are ripe for a Conservative Primary opponent if they lean towards the middle and not the Right.
The margin of “diverse” districts is probably quite small, so the GOP members need to show wether they are strong enough to vote on the issue, or weak enough to vote the Right way.
Look who is left who voted for Civil Unions in the House and the Senate on the GOP side.
….
Exactly.
Your post was On Point. Well said, LincolnLounger
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:47 am
“…including Republicans – who believe now is the time to embrace the issue.”
I thought it was interesting that Hillary took so long to come on board. She just beat the SCOTUS decision(s) whatever they may be.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:48 am
I think the opposition to gay marriage will continue to decrease faster than support. Notice since 1996 those who oppose have went from 70 to 40 (roughly) which represents a 30 point drop. Support went from 30 to 50 roughly an increase of a little more than 20 points.
Frankly as more friends and family come out, I believe opposition will decrease even faster, while support lags in growth just a little. It’s amazing what happens when a family member comes out, hearts change fast.
Either way, this train is going to keep moving toward acceptance and tolerance and the Republicans need move toward accepting equality. Why the Republicans would want to be on the wrong side of history is beyond me.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:49 am
Will approval of same-sex marriage open the flood gates to many unintended consequences? Loss of income tax exemption to religious organization who refuse to marry same sex couples; allow for multiple partner marriages and the impact it could have on employee sponsored health insurance plans, increased dependent reductions on tax forms, and social security benefits for non-working spouses. This is an important step as it could rework the definition of the nuclear family which is the foundation on which the american society thrives. This is to important a decision to make until the onion is peeled to its core.
Comment by RMD Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 11:52 am
–Will approval of same-sex marriage open the flood gates to many unintended consequences?==
Dogs and cat sleeping together?
Seriously, how hard it is to mind your own business and live and let live? No heavy lifting required.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:02 pm
Be careful what you wish for.
Eighty years ago, popular political opinion (something that “the marriage equality” crowd keeps trumpeting now) seemed to be decisively breaking in favor of the prohibition of alcohol. The movement was so strong that the proponents succeeded in amending the Constitution through the legislative process rather than resorting to shopping a test case to the judiciary. Illinois had numerous powerful figures and activist organizations backing prohibition.
Within less than a single generation, the noble experiment proved to be an epic societal disaster. The promise utopia never came to pass. Despite the political power of the WCTU and the ASL, the rank and file people who were not polled opposed the change.
Redefining marriage and issuing licenses is not going to prove to be a magical elixir.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Anon, thank you.
Until now, I’d never even considered the clear relationship between gay marriage and Prohibition, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:12 pm
You are seriously comparing equality to prohibition?
Just wow.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Can anybody explain to me why the forces for marriage equality aren’t enlisting Terry Cosgrove in the battle? There’s no one more effective. Imagine the terror on the reluctant Democrats if he got involved (or someone competent used the same tactics as he does at Personal PAC.)
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:17 pm
===not going to prove to be a magical elixir. ===
You’re trying to address a result that has never been propagated. Try thinking things through a bit more, please. The only thing being asked for here is that two consenting adults who love each other want to be married.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:18 pm
@Grandson -
While I would buy Silver’s projections of how states would have voted in 2008 (and even in 2012, noting only slight error), it seems to me to be a massive assumption that support for same-sex marriage will continue to grow at the same rate.
If memory serves, Silver had Romney winning Florida the week before the election. What happened? New data came in, and the prediction was adjusted. Forgive me for being skeptical that anyone, regardless of their sophistication, could accurately predict support for an issue 7 years into the future.
Comment by Simon Sez Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:20 pm
@Anonymous- I’m with Lincoln Lounger on this one.
It is an incredibly brazen assertion you made regarding prohibition and marriage equality given that prohibition was a failure in attempting to control human behavior as regulating people’s right to marry will be a failure in the near future as well. The irony: Both were/are fueled by Bible-thumpers who preach(ed) their own religious truths over another tax paying citizen’s.
Comment by The Muse Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:30 pm
>>Forgive me for being skeptical that anyone, regardless of their sophistication, could accurately predict support for an issue 7 years into the future.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:33 pm
@word,
The gun issue is a must deal with situation in this state. And yes a wedge issue. Same Sex marriage is not being forced on the ILGA, they have no time sensistive requirement to deal with it.
I think these pols should focus on why our state is falling apart and other priorities. This gets lots of air time and print space as Illinois burns.
With all that said I could care less if we pass it. If gay men and women want to be married, sure. I dont really care and think I know better than they do what is best for them. I do care it gets lots of time while we are broke.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:39 pm
I don’t think it is particularly astounding that a deep blue state like Illinois is “trending” toward ssm, what I find astounding is that a moderate, swing state like Iowa has had ssm for years, while ssm languishes in Madigan’s Dem controlled House.
Weird, huh?
Comment by qcexaminer Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:42 pm
I’ll have what …- Anonymous - is drinking(?)
- RMD -,
Sounds like more big government. So NOT having SSM is a Small Government issue with taxes, regulation, and insurance issues?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:45 pm
= nuclear family which is the foundation on which the american society thrives =
Thirty percent of us live alone.
And besides that, how is a man and a man and their kids *not* a nuclear family?
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:51 pm
This line:
I dont really care and think I know better than they do what is best for them. I do care it gets lots of time while we are broke.
Should have read “I dont really think I know better”. after a re-read it seems the opposite.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:52 pm
In the last 24 hours we’ve had Dems from Alaska, Montana, Missouri, and North Carolina come out for gay marriage. If Dems from the city and burbs are too chicken and/or bigoted to vote for ssm then Madigan needs to give these mushrooms some spine implants or pull back the curtains and let us Illinois voters work on them to let them know just how disconnected from their constituents they are.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Oops, I don’t know what happened in my last post, but I’ll try again.
@Simon Sez,
Yes, we can’t predict what will happen in seven years, but polling trend lines show that support for gay marriage is growing steadily. It’s a safe bet that support will be greater in the future. Young people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, but even if they become more conservative as they get older, there is no reason to believe that this would dramatically change the overall trends.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:00 pm
@qcexaminer:
In Iowa, same sex marriage was legalized a due to a court decision (the Iowa State Supreme Court issued the decision). In Illinois, the matter is being addressed legislatively. This process takes much more time.
By the way, at the next Iowa statewide judicial election, three of the supreme court judges who voted in favor of same sex marriage were on the retention ballot. All three were removed from office by Iowa voters. This was unprecedented in Iowa elections.
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:11 pm
===let us Illinois voters work on them to let them know just how disconnected from their constituents they are.===
In March of 2014, and November of 2014, you will have your chance if it doesn’t pass.
It’s up to the Dems if they want to run a Primary Challenge, and if you find a Republican that will RUN on SSM in 2014, as a challenger to a sitting Dem who voted “No”, let me know about that race, I want to follow that one closely.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:19 pm
There’s some evidence I think that younger voters become more fiscally conservative as they age - though even there, that’s predicated on the idea that they make more money as they age, which isn’t currently as true as it used to be.
But don’t expect that trendline to apply to a social controversy like gay marriage. I think it’s much more likely that the whole definition of “social conservative” is going to change. It has in the past - I’ll avoid mentioning the inflammatory parallels - and my suspicion is in the long run it will here again.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:30 pm
The increase in support for gay marriage during the past few years is an astoundingly quick reversal of public opinion on an issue touching the foundations of people’s core beliefs. Are there any parallels for this in history? Ten years ago, gay marriage in Illinois was viewed by most as inconceivable, today it is seen as almost inevitable. Our society is changing very, very quickly and on a very deep level.
Comment by Quiet Sage Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:36 pm
“Seriously, how hard it is to mind your own business and live and let live? No heavy lifting required.”
“Until now, I’d never even considered the clear relationship between gay marriage and Prohibition, lol.”
“Walking and chewing gum at the same time ain’t as hard as it looks.”
Wordslinger is on a roll taking on stupidity.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:37 pm
In 2020, beer, chocolate and ice cream will be wildly popular with Americans.
Take it to the bank.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:43 pm
You can quibble with Silver’s model (all models are wrong) but not the end conclusion (some models are useful).
The growth in public support for equal rights wont be linear exactly, but is likely to be logrithmic over time. eventually, it will hit a ceiling. 75 percent, 80 percent? who knows.
politically, you will notice lots of western states, midwest states, and eastern states above the national trend. but southern states that represent the GOP’s national base in Congress and presidential politics? they are locked into the past.
Don’t look for the GOP to drop their opposition to equal rights any time soon, or lawmakers from southern Illinois (which is further south than Lexington, KY) either.
As long as the majority of primary voters in solidly Republican congressional districts cling to the past, so will the GOP.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:45 pm
@wordslinger:
I think you pretty much have to forfeit the “marriage is for procreation” argument as soon as you realize that Illinois law specifically allows cousins to marry provided that they are beyond the age of childbearing.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 1:54 pm
===Loss of income tax exemption to religious organization who refuse to marry same sex couples;
You do realize churches aren’t forced to marry anyone now, don’t you? A church can refuse to marry an interracial couple. A state cannot refuse a marriage license to such a couple, however.
In the same way, a church will not be forced to marry same sex couples, but the state will not be allowed to deny them a marriage license. There is freedom of religion, but also equal treatment under the law.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:04 pm
Of course, if gay marraige is allowed then such state employee dependents will be allowed to get health coverage.
This will be mean that at least state workers will end up paying more than gay couples as everything increasingly becomes redistributiion/means tested.
Naturaly the state will want more money from everybody thus increasingly cost shifting higher premiums to non-gay employees with families.
Funny, how this is never analyzed or mentioned.
One solution would be for health insurance to be no longer provided to dependents of state workers/retirees.
Comment by Fultonfarm Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:08 pm
Quiet sage: its really not that radical of a change when you think of how opposite sex marriage has changed over millenia. No longer do women have to put up with polygamy or provide a dowry or forfeit all individual economic contractual and property rights yet all those things are hallmarks of marriage in the bible thumped so hard by traditional marriage supporters as an excuse to exclude gay couples from marriage. Thank God marriage has changed.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:13 pm
Rep. Ron Sandack…the same guy who was one of the first to turn down the legislative pension/health care. Who attempted to eliminate the legislative pension going forward, term limits to eliminate career politicians, supported thedream act, ect. Hey…not too bad for a Republican.
Comment by Not in the Know Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:28 pm
Are you being paranoid or just silly?
The state can’t even compel religious organizations to comply with fundamental anti-discrimination laws, e.g. the Catholic Church refuses to hire ANY women as priests.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:32 pm
@Fultonfarm
What the heck are you talking about? You must be growing some wicked weed, dude. You’re not making any sense.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Fultonfarm: What?! State employee same sex couples are already eligible to pay the same premiums straight couples do for dependent coverage. How do you figure non-gay families will have to pay more money?
Comment by peacelover Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 2:46 pm
Since we are from Illinois (and we all saw Lincoln, the Movie) - call in James Spader to seek out the needed holdouts; the rest will be history.
Comment by Atbat Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 3:03 pm
So here’s my takeaway and only comment on this thread:
1) Some people expect all Democrats who have been elected into office to do everything that the President and Mrs. Obama ask of them;
2) It is not considered appropriate to ask questions regarding the impact passage of SSM might have on “infrastructure” because asking such questions obviously means you’re against SSM, rather than trying to obtain info to help state a case in support of SSM–or SSM supporters themselves believe that the response is not a “good” one and have no confidence in their ability to build consensus regardless of what the answers are; and
3) Some elected officials are not the independent and thoughtful statesmen many believed they were; they’re (as John Lovitz always said) simply…acting!
I’m beginning to believe that the biggest issue SSM marriage has against it in many crowds, are the arguments and tactics that some supporters make for it.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 5:04 pm
===Since we are from Illinois (and we all saw Lincoln, the Movie) - call in James Spader to seek out the needed holdouts; the rest will be history.===
As long as we are on the topic of the Lincoln movie, here are some good quotes from it that apply to same-sex marriage:
Anti-equality: “We shall oppose this amendment, and any legislation that so affronts natural law, insulting to God as to man! Congress must never declare equal those whom God created unequal!” - Fernando Wood
Pro-equality: “I don’t hold with equality in all things, only with equality before the law and nothing more.” - Thaddeus Stevens
For the folks who complain about moving on marriage equality only two years after civil unions: “Say you believe in legal equality for all races, not racial equality. Compromise, or you risk it all.” - Rep James Ashley to Thaddeus Stevens
For the folks who complain about Obama not defending DOMA: “He didn’t say it was legal. Only that it wasn’t criminal.” Lincoln says of his Attorney General’s advice on the Emancipation Proclamation
Comment by Nick Kruse Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 5:20 pm
- impact passage of SSM might have on “infrastructure” -
You show me a reasonable question about that and I promise I’ll try to give a reasonable answer. I’ve yet to hear one.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 27, 13 @ 6:54 pm
@Anonymous -
You and Fultonfarm make an argument against the state providing ANY medical benefits to the families of state employees. For that matter, it is an argument against ANY employer providing ANY medical benefits. After all, if your company didn’t provide you with health insurance, their products and services would be cheaper to the public, right? And America as a whole would benefit…atleast that is how your argument goes.
Let us know when you tear up your insurance card.
For my part, I agree with the hundreds of private companies supporting the repeal of DOMA. Marriage equality enables them to compete for the best and brightest employees, regardless of sexual orientation. We should want that at every level of government too.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 28, 13 @ 8:15 am
Funniest argument against marriage equality: Kids are better off with no mom than two moms.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 28, 13 @ 8:17 am