Updated: State Senate approves gay marriage bill; measure moves to House

Updated: State Senate approves gay marriage bill; measure moves to House

Updated 9:50 p.m. Thursday.

SPRINGFIELD — Sponsors of a gay marriage bill in the Illinois Senate were hoping to get some Republican votes on the measure in order to show bipartisan support, especially in advance of a vote in the House.

They got only one Republican vote, and it was from an unexpected source: newly elected Sen. Jason Barickman, R-Bloomington.

Barickman, 37, the former Champaign County Republican Party chairman who grew up on a farm, is married and the father of two young children, was elected to the Senate in November and represents a district that includes Ford, Iroquois and Livingston counties, some of the most conservative Republican counties in the state.

Some Republicans had said yes votes were possible from a handful of veteran suburban lawmakers, but not from Barickman.

But he said after the vote that he thought it "was the right thing to do," although he added he hadn't decided to vote for the groundbreaking legislation until Thursday morning.

Barickman said he was "directly involved" in negotiations with the bill's sponsor, Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, on an amendment, added Thursday, "that I believe does an adequate job of protecting the religious freedoms that I have strongly supported. And as I listened to my constituents and others around the state, that is what is most concerning about this bill as it moves forward: How do you protect the religious rights of those who do not agree (with gay marriage)? This bill does that and I'm glad to have helped make that happen."

Barickman had announced on the Senate floor shortly before the 34-21 Valentine's Day roll call vote on Senate Bill 10 that he intended to support the bill.

"The original bill did not include those protections (for religious groups to be allowed to bar same-sex marriages and celebrations on their property). I raised my concerns with the sponsor and appreciate her willingess to address them," Barickman said in the unusually quiet Senate chamber. "Because of the amendment to the bill, this bill now protects the religious freedoms of people around our state.

"Along with these religious protections I believe that the people of Illinois want our government to give individuals freedom over their life decisions. We want fairness under the law and for me this is simply the right thing to do."

His dramatic statement led to sustained applause — the only such outburst before the vote — from the Senate galleries which were filled with supporters of gay marriage.

"It's a vote that I understand some have varying opinions on, but I feel that I voted in the correct way," he said shortly after the vote.

In the long term, there might be political fallout for Barickman although state Treasurer Dan Rutherford, who represented much of the same district as a state senator, was the only GOP vote for civil unions in Illinois two years ago.

"The district I represent has a history of supporting those who are willing to do the right thing," Barickman added.

Asked about a potential challenge from another Republican, Barickman said, "Those are political, potential ramifications, but what I was concerned about was doing the right thing."

Although all of Barickman's Republican colleagues voted against the bill, state Sen. Mike Frerichs, D-Champaign, was among the four downstate Democrats to support it, joining Andy Manar of Bunker Hill and David Koehler of Peoria and Mike Jacobs of Moline.

Frerichs said he had no problem voting for the measure, even though he said some constituents had urged him to vote no.

In floor debate, he noted that Illinois allows older couples, incapable of having children, to marry.

"I've seen people who are past their child-bearing years. So for people who say that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, why do we allow them to marry? We allow them to marry because they are people who have found someone they want to spend their lives with, and that's why we allow them to do it, and why we should allow this as well," Frerichs said.

Like Barickman, Frerichs said he thought voting to legalize same-sex marriage in Illinois "is the right thing to do."

The amendment to the bill Thursday was to assure religious groups that ministers would not be forced to "solemnize" a same-sex marriage, nor would churches be ordered to allow same-sex couples to use their churches or halls for celebrations.

But opponents of the measure, including Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, said they were not satisfied with the amended legislation. Righter repeatedly questioned Steans in floor debate about how she thought the legislation would restrict religious groups.

"I was trying to find out what Reverend Mathews back home is going to have to do in order to make sure he doesn't expose the facility to being a place of public accommodation," said Righter, a former prosecutor.

He said he wasn't assured the bill would not present legal problems for churches and religious groups.

"In the time I spent talking to her, I raised a minute fraction of the questions that are going to be asked, and the examples that they are going to face in dealing with this issue," Righter said. "Literally we would have to talk for a week about the potential problems. That's what you have to do on bills like this."

The legislation now moves to the House, where support is believed to be less firm.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Catholic Diocese has scheduled a "lobby day" in Springfield next Wednesday for Catholics to come and urge lawmakers to oppose the bill.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a Catholic, already has said he will sign the bill, however.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
spangwurfelt wrote on February 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Good for Barickman. Too bad the rest of his party is trying so hard to bury itself.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 14, 2013 at 4:02 pm

I was surprised that Rose voted against it.  Wait until the House vote is taken.  You will know where the reps stand on the issue.  Votes, or conscience?

cretis16 wrote on February 14, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Thank god Pope Benedict XVI has left and did not have to witness this. Where are our catholic legislators?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 14, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Are you talking about the Catholics who go against church dogma by voting for marriage equality and reproductive rights or those who go against church dogma by voting in favor of the death penalty and unjust wars?

Which particular heterodoxy are you having a problem with?

cretis16 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

The Catholic teachings are clear, they do not change on the whim of the times. Accept our teachings, they have not changed over hundreds of years. What has changed is the culture trying to shoe horn anti catholic beliefs into somehow being catholic. This is way bishops refuse to give the sacraments to Peolosi and Durbin, you cant be Catholic in name only. OH well....at least Grandpa can marry Grandpa..how sweet.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

Great, you're catholic. Good for you. You don't get to make everyone else Catholic.

As far as giving sacrements, it's incredibly insulting to me that fallible people themselves would refuse to give sacrements based on others' perceived sins. That's part of the reason that I would never. be. catholic.

cretis16 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Crushing the head of an infant in the womb and denying life is sin. May God be mercifull to all who run from biblical truth.It is a better world when we follow our faith...

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 4:02 pm

No one is asking for you to crush the head of a fetus.  And I assume that Pelosi, Durbin, etc. have not crushed the head of a fetus, either. I'm struggling with the idea that Pelosi and Durbin not imposing their faith on the rest of us also constitutes a sin. 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 9:02 am

Oh, c.mon. Answer my question. Which heterodoxy has got you going here? That tey gayz might be able to marry or that right wing Republican Catholics constantly violate church teaching on the death penalty, wars, and budgets that help the only the rich and screw everyone else...?

Why are you such a cafeteria Catholic?

B-Evs wrote on February 15, 2013 at 9:02 am

We can respect your teachings but they have no power over anyone who is not Catholic (and if you believe the polls taken, they don't really have that much power over most Catholics in America either).  And please tell me, does the Catholic church deny marriage to anyone who is unable to procreate?  I have a vague recollection of that stipulation in my marriage classes, that if one or the other of us were sterile, it would not be a true marriage.  And Catholic teachings _have_ changed over time.  For one thing, priests used to be able to marry.  And the Church once supported slavery.

I think that the bishops are very hypocritical in denying the sacraments to legislators who support gay marriage but do not publically deny them the Eucharist for supporting divorce (like Newt), for supporting the death penalty, for supporting a budget that hurts the poor, the infirm and the elderly (like Paul Ryan, who said that his Catholic upbringing led him to make the budget like that.  When some of the bishops pointed out that it was not Catholic-like in how it treats the poor, Ryan stated that since not all of the bishops objected, he didn't have change anything.). If you're going to be judgemental, you should judge on everything, not just gay marriage and abortion.

Also, thanks to the ways that the bishops of Illinois acted over the past year in regards to Obamacare, Obama himself, women's health, the Nuns on the Bus and gay marriage, it pushed me from being a Ronin Catholic to leaving the church.  The disrespect that these bishops, along with their brother bishops in other states, have for their laypeople and their refusal to take responsiblity for their hiding and shuffling of pedophile priests had already pushed me far, but the actions of the bishops of Illinois pushed me away.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Cretis16, The Catholic Church needs to get that whole child rape and torture thing under control before they send out their minion to lecture others about how to live their lives and to rant about holy doctrine. You also don't get to shoehorn your absurd religious suspension of reason into the laws of the land. Sorry

bluegrass wrote on February 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I knew there was something we could agree on Bulldogmojo, just took a while to find it.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm

bluegrass;  You make no comments on the article, same sex marriage.  Yet, child rape gets your attention?  Was it that, or the remarks on a religion? 

What do you think about the article, same sex marriage?

bluegrass wrote on February 15, 2013 at 4:02 pm

..... child rape gets your attention?

Nice touch Sid. 

Jason Barickman voted his conscience, which coincides with my belief that the state has no business telling someone they can't get married because they are homosexuals.  It was a stand up vote, he's a stand up guy, and I'm proud of him.  I'm even proud of the State of Illinois for the first time in a long time.  I think Chapin Rose does a great job representing downstate voters on the whole, and I'll continue to support him and vote for him.  I don't know why he voted against this measure, but if it was just to vote against gay marriage I'd say he got this one wrong. 

It's too bad this thread got turned into a debate on the Catholic church, and I'm sorry I participated in that part of it

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Okay, we understand each other.  I was surprised that Barickman voted for the measure, and disappointed that Rose voted against it.  A pragmatic politician should have seen which way this vote would go.  I would prefer to think that all voted their conscience on this legislation. It was good that this passed though.

EL YATIRI wrote on February 21, 2013 at 10:02 am
Profile Picture

"The Catholic teachings are clear, they do not change on the whim of the times. Accept our teachings, they have not changed over hundreds of years."

Really?  I was born and baptized in 1953. After Vatican ll in 1962 the liturgy was completely revised.  "The spirit of Vatican ll" has come to signify openness to reform and change.

I find your statement appallingly ignorant and out of touch with today's church.  I am so glad that Benedict has resigned and gotten out of the way of progress.  Hopefully the new pope will get rid of obligatory celibacy for priests and allow for women priests among other sensible reforms.  Even Benedict changed the teaching on condom use to prevent AIDS.  The Church's stance on human sexuality is medieval and much in need of reform.


SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

He didn't die, did he? So now Popes are Omniscient? Now that he's not Pope, he cannot hear about votes in Illinois?

Also, I would hope that anyone who is upset by this vote has to watch it over and over. With toothpicks holding their eyes open.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 10:02 am

Remarks are made by cretis16, and anti-Catholic remarks come out.  Give me a break; how do you know even if cretis is Catholic?   Many Catholics do not agree with the leadership of the Church.  They do still practice their faith while disregarding some of the man made doctrine.  This is a trend in North America, and Europe. 

The subject of the article is "gay marriage bill".  The article is not "bash Catholics bill".  If I want to make derogatory comments toward Protestants, or atheists; I could use the "gay marriage bill" comment line the same way.  The same situation came up in another article this week.  I was disappointed that the commentors chose to make derogatory comments on a religious faith.  You have the right to be whatever you choose to be regarding religion.  I am not going to mock you.  If you had a bad experience as a Catholic; I am sorry about that.  Have we gone back to the times where our hatred is extended to the old, and the young of another faith?  Peace be with you. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 11:02 am

I hope you're not responding to me - nothing I said was anti-Catholic.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 11:02 am

You've been pulled over by the comment cop who knows best what is okay and what is NOT OKAY for you to say.

Your opinion is DISALLOWED!!!!!!!1!

You're also ignorant. Let me EDUCATE you:

If you disagree with people pushing their religious views into law then you're ANTI RELIGIOUS.

Someone can cite their religion to back up their views. However, YOU are NOT ALLOWED to question the relevance of those views to laws and public policy.

Just like if I say something stoopid, my first amendment rights FORBID YOU from criticizing me over it.

You just don't understand how the Constitution works, do you?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

If you want to criticize the Pope, or the bishops; that is fine.  If you want to criticize the rabid zealots of a faith, that is fine.  However to use a broad brush to criticize, and mock all those of that faith is ignorant.  In your haste to condemn; do you mock all Mulims for the actions of their zealots, and misguided?  You can do what you want; but whatever it is indicates your character.  I am not "pushing" my religious views on you.  I am supportive of same sex marriage as my comments have indicated.  I do take offense when you lump all members of a faith into a group of zealots.  Now, mock on with you phony Steven Colbert hick routine. It is your constitutional right. 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Exactly where are you claiming that I "use[d] a broad brush to criticize, and mock all" Catholics?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 3:02 pm

The article is about same sex marriage.  credit16 of all people makes a comment about Catholics, and the story changes.  A dog gets shot; and the story changes to gun control, and the abuses of the Champaign police.  The current article is about same sex marriage, not Catholics.  The story is not about Muslims, Protestants, atheists, or Jews.  It is about same sex marriage.  How about people stay on subject? 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 5:02 pm

How about you don't say I said something I didn't actually say?

How about you let others respond to someone bringing religion into this as they see fit to respond the that introduction of religion into this issue?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 pm

You mean let you talk without responding?  Sure.  Where's the "ding, dang"?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Respond all you want. Even respond disingenuously, as with this one full of projection.

But please just stop, finally, telling others not to respond the way they see fit.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Also, I note that you are unable to back up your claim that I smeared all Catholics anywhere.

But, of course, you haven't withdrawn or apologized for bearing false witness against me either.

But please, go back to telling us how pious you are, Sidney.

B-Evs wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Actually, my comments were partly because of cretis16 _and_ partly because the article itself was pointing out Catholics, like Bishop Jenky and Governor Quinn.  It is a reasonable thought that cretis is Catholic given his/her remarks previously in this comment list.  And as the article itself pointed out the bishop's call for Catholics to lobby next week, I thought I would point out the hypocrisy of this and the reasons I have left the church.

But, if you need to have more electrons spilled, I support gay marriage.  I am quite glad that my representative in the legistlature voted the way that I asked for.  I am disappointed in those who voted against it and those who voted present.  I look forward to that time when Illinois becomes another state that allows gay marriage.  I think that legislators complaining about how religious people would not be able to stay both bigoted and profitable in their businesses have missed that not serving the public because of sexual preference has been illegal in Illinois for years.  I think it is quite helpful to know what businesses to avoid patronizing because of their bigotry.

Have I drifted back onto the proper track now?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 am

In order to appease Mark, and you; my comments were not to blame all Catholics for the actions of a few.  I really give rat's tail if you left the Church, or not.  If you bothered to read my comments in total, you would realize that I have supported same sex marriage.  My request obviously went unnoticed with the exception of bluegrass.  bluegrass, and I differ on many things; but we show respect toward each other.  If I am being "the comment cop", it obviously is not working.  So feel free to rail on against Catholics; everyone of them, the bishops, the pope, the nuns, the priests, and the congregations.  Some of us decided to stay in the Church, and try to make changes.  Now; feel free to carry your cross listing the abuses, and reasons why you left the Church.  It is the popular thing to do.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

I'm saddened that Rose voted against it. It's really just sad. I've been a constituent, and met him a few times, but I will never be voting for him again. I will not tolerate bigotry.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 8:02 am

YOU DANG LIB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!

You have to tolerate my intolerance or you're not tolerant at all.


I GOT YOU!!!!!!

My indisputable LOGIC has DEFEATED you for evermore you dang LIB!!!!!!!


I win teh intertubz with this UNbeATaBLE and CLEVER CLEVER lOGic!!!!

You are defeated by my brilliance and now, BY THE RULZ OF THE INTERNET, you must shut the dang heck up!!!!!

Tolerate my intolerance or shut the fudge up you stupid lib!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

By your own lights, you HAVE TO BE TOLERANT of everything. Even (heeheeheeheeheehee) MY INTOLLERANCE!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't tolerate my intolerance than you're nothing but a dang hypocrite!!!!




I've got you locked in the IRON GRIPS of my LOGIC and REASON!!!!

[Oooooops. I was laughing so hard I messed myself worse than Ted Nugent trying to sneak out of being drafted...]

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 15, 2013 at 11:02 am

Also, teaching evolution discriminates against me because I sincerely believe in creationism.

yates wrote on February 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm

R.i.n.o...Nuff said.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 15, 2013 at 1:02 pm


Obviously it's not enough said, because I'm not sure who you're talking about or why.

bluegrass wrote on February 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Don't feel bad, yates hasn't a clue what he's talking about either.  RINO = republican in name only.  He's trying to say you have to be anti-gay to be a republican, and he's absolutely wrong.  yates obviously doesn't know Jason Barickman.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 15, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Comment deleted by author.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 15, 2013 at 9:02 pm

My remarks about the history of the Catholic Church were very specifically in regard to Cretis16 stating... "Where are our catholic legislators?" I don't think I am going out on a limb here in saying that, that very statement is the exact ideology of a person who is willing to violate my right to have church and state separate. I didn't turn this into a commentary on Catholicism.  If someone who declared he or she were Muslim and cited Sharia and posted the question "Where are our Muslim legislators" I would have had the same response or if some buddhist who traded his freewill for a cheap pair of sandals stated the same, again same reaction from me and so on and so forth. 

If you give one religious ideology a toe hold into our legal structure the others can slip right in behind that one so its all the same to me as an atheist. The outliers and extremists of any religion including catholicism are the highest ranking officials and who themselves act in the most contrary way to the tenants of their own faith. On the matter of religion's boastful claims of it's moral compass it has shown its real intolerance of gay people and it's hipocrisy in regard to anyone who is different. You can dress it up all you like in the God argument but it is just a different flavor of the 3/5ths of a person concept. They are humans and they ARE equal.

Cretis also states "Accept our teachings, they have not changed over hundreds of years." and i say yes thats the problem!

"I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves." ~ Christopher Hitchens 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 10:02 am

It is cretis16 after all.  Do you even know if he is Catholic?  Did he clearly state that he was Catholic?  Read his comments, and recall previous comments made by him. 

You can be an atheist like my mother was; and I can be a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, or whatever.  However, we should be able to respect each other without going out on a rant about a religious faith.  Heck, I could read your above comment as your pushing atheism.

The article is about same sex marriage.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I will stand my ground when it comes to any religious person trying to mandate to me or anyone else how to live by manipulation of our law to suit their religious ideals. The power of this nation is in its secular Constitution and its application to all citizens being equal. Beyond that I encapsulated eveything in my previous post and there are plenty of Cretis16 types out their that had better keep their religion out of my laws.I understand the article was about same sex marriage and the reason we are discussing this is that religion has been the key player in preventing gay people from having this equality in the first place. We are not giving gay people the right to marry we are attempting to remove the obstacles that have long prevented it in the first place and those obstacles have their roots in religion. We must always strive for everyone to be free in this country or until then none of us are.

As an aside, I would never want to talk any religious person into embracing atheism because they need to arrive at that conclusion themselves or it wouldn't be genuine reason. I won't be knocking on your door at 7:00 am on a Saturday asking you if you have heard the good word of Darwin.

Peace to all my very equal fellow primates.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 16, 2013 at 1:02 pm

But, even after others, both in the article and in the comment thread, cite their religion as to justify a particular law or public policy, you are not allowed to criticize or even note that fact.

At least according to Sidney.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Well if you count bulldogmojo being an atheist as religious, and cretis16 being religious; that leaves me as the only other religious person making comments regarding religion.  I did not cite my religion to "justify a particular law or public policy".  I did not dis-allow comments on religion.  I did criticize others for making the assumption that all Catholics are alike.  I did make statements addressing the intolerance of others toward a faith.  I did indicate my support of same sex marriage from the beginning.  

Your just mad because I referred to your hick Steven Colbert routine.  By the way; where is the "ding dang" in your comments recently.  Rather serious in your intolerance now.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 17, 2013 at 9:02 am

Psychology is usually better left to those with more than an armchair for a qualification. I really don't care if you like or dislike my comments.

I do care when you, repeatedly and yet again, attempt to tell others not to comment the way they want. You can attempt to deny it, but it is plainly obvious that you've, repeatedly and yet again, told people not to comment as they see fit. That your attempts were unsuccessful does not mitigate the fact that you made those attempts.

Atheists are not religious. It's unsurprising that you would resort to that profoundly, and deliberately, ignorant gambit. Just don't expect the rest of us to accept it.

You didn't cite religion but I never claimed you did. Cretis and others did. You then tried to claim that responses to those citations of religion were out of bounds.

Now, you can try to deny the history of this thread -- and, given your previous debate "tactics," I'm sure you will continue to try to do so -- but that doesn't mean others will accept your transparent attempt to rewrite what actually happened.

I'm sure you'll ignore this like you always do when called out on your all of your blatantly false accusations: how is it "intolerant" of me to resist your attempts to keep others from speaking?

Last, as I noted above, after accusing me of "smearing all Catholics," you were unable to cite where this happened. However, you have not withdrawn the false accusation or apologized for making the false accusation.

Even while finding time to tell us how pious you are, you still have not found the time -- or the will -- to correct the fact that you bore false witness against another person.

In microcosm, you illustrate nicely how many religious people hold up aspects of their dogma to try to tell others how to live while flouting that dogma in regards to their own conduct.

Sometimes it's mighty hard to be so much holier than everyone else, huh Sidney?

rsp wrote on February 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Atheists are not religious. 

I've seen a lot of atheists use it as a religion. They become zealots attacking people for having different beliefs. They are literally on a crusade.  

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 18, 2013 at 8:02 am

That sounds perilously close to judging all atheists by the actions of a few. Careful, or the always consistent comment cop will tell you that you're not allowed to make such comments.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 18, 2013 at 11:02 am

Atheism isn't a religion it's the absence of the suspension of reason. We atheists have always been here just with the advent of instant global communication you hear from us a lot more. We don't build physical temples to ourselves and unlike god we are pretty good with money so we don't need to panhandle. All mysteries once solved are solved in the language of science.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Bulldogmojo;  As an aside, you will not find Catholics knocking on your door at any time of the day trying to convert you either.  Your right about people arriving at the conclusion of selecting their faith.  I don't like people trying to convert me either.  There should be a separation of church, and state.  I may vote democrat; but that does not make me a liberal.  I may be a union member; but that does not mean that I believe that the union leadership is always correct.  I may be a Catholic who believes in same sex marriage, birth control, female priests, and transparency in my Church.

Peace upon you.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on February 16, 2013 at 3:02 am
Profile Picture

The Roman church is the largest organized criminal conspiracy in the history of homo sapiens. It's so big, and so entrenched, that it's persuaded much of the modern world that it's above the law.


Please, do not call it catholic. It abandoned the Nicene Creed long ago.


The church should be prosecuted under RICO. Its assets should be seized, or at the very least taxed.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 11:02 am

Evidently, my comment to Rob was objected to by Rob, or the News Gazette.  So, I will try to be polite in this one.  

The article is about same sex marriage.  I do believe in the separation of church, and state.  If an evangelical christian makes negative remarks about same sex marriage based on his faith; I do comment on the importance of the separation of church, and state, but I do not attack his faith.  I do not condemn everyone of his faith because I know that there are some who do not agree with him.  I realize that there are some who had a bad experience with their faith, or chose not to have a faith.  I have first hand experience with that.  I do not believe everything that I am told regarding my faith.  I question it at times.  I know that American Catholics in a majority practice birth control.  I know that many American Catholics do not have a problem with a woman priest.  I know that the majority of American Catholics vote their conscience regardless of what they hear in a sermon.  I am intolerant of people who do not share my faith making exaggerated statements about my faith.  I believe that it is indicative of their character; not their religion, or lack of one.

The article is about ending the discrimination, and persecution of those of the same sex who want to marry. 

Now, Rob if you object to the above have it pulled.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on February 16, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Profile Picture

The Vatican is not interested in your opinion Sid. That's not how dogma works.


If your church were interested in the voice of the people, you'd be Lutherans.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Why do you keep having my responses to you pulled?  This is the second time.  There were no vulgar statements.  Rather intolerant of you, Rob.

Why the statement about Lutherans?  I have nothing against Lutherans.  I did make the statement that prejudice exists toward religions, and occupations.  Are you going to recommend pulling my comment again?  Your starting to act like what your ranting against.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 16, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Mine was pulled as well, and I can't possibly understand what would have been offensive.

ROB McCOLLEY wrote on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Profile Picture

I'm glad you think I'm omnipotent. But I can't allow you to project the notion that I'm censorious.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 16, 2013 at 10:02 pm

It's the caricuture that projects omnipotency.  You make broad statements that appear intolerant, and prejudicial.  Is it for effect; or is it based on something else?

One of the manufactured defenses on the part of all religious groups opposed to same sex marriages is that their churches would be required to perform marriages.  The bill makes it clear that churches are not required to perform same sex marriages if they are opposed to it based on religion.  That has been countered now by the opponents complaining that if they rent a hall in their schools to the public for marriages, it is government intrusion into their religion if they are required to allow same sex marriages in their hall.  If the churches did not rent halls to the public in their schools for any events, or marriages; would they pass muster on not performing same sex marriages, and not be in violation of the law?    

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 16, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Ok Sid I'll bite... If you have all these contrary views of Catholic doctrine and tolerent acknowledgements of others in the Catholic religion who also have views that stand in such stark, albeit blasphemous, contrast to the so called eternal laws of the Catholic Church, then at what point are you no longer a Catholic? Is your faith in the Catholic Church or God? Do you even need the Catholic Church involved in your relationship with God? I'm not trying to be smug just trying to get an idea of from what point on the grid you are seeing yourself as defining what you are calling "faith". If there is a huge groundswell in the Catholic membership to reclaim the core tenants of the service of mankind then this bodes well for the future of millions of people. If not it will simply fracture and further hobble the credibility it is already suffering.

Out of respect for you Sid, In my post I capitalized the words Catholic Church and God which I never do btw.

rsp wrote on February 17, 2013 at 12:02 am

Is your faith in the Catholic Church or God?

That's not a valid question. One can believe in God, and the Catholic Church be an expression of that faith. For someone else it would be the baptist church. Another person the Lutheran Church. One has a relationship with God, it's personal, it's different for everyone. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm

In the context of the posts related to the Gay marriage topic, some on here have indicated that even the mere consideration of gay marriage as law is an offense to Catholic/religious tenants. My question to Sid is for him to clarify how far you can drift from those tenants personally and still be considered a faithful member of his affiliated religion. In his case Catholic. I greatly respect his liberal and open minded positions on a whole host of issues.  However my personal experience with the Catholic church is enough that I can say the leadership of the Catholic church would expect confession and an act of contrition for those
aforemention views on equality. So if "that expression of faith" as you call it manifests itself as an organization with immovable tenants that you have less and less in common with, then I ask, when does that religion become an obstacle to your faith in God's will for how you treat others?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Bulldogmojo;  It took me some time to respond to your first questioning of my faith in God, and my Church.  By the time I responded, you posted more questions.  I have bared my soul enough for today.  If the last comment that I made did not answer things, the second one would not either.  Read it following this comment.  Have a good day. 

rsp wrote on February 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm

You should look at the politics of the last two popes and the influence they have had on the church hierarchy. Not all bishops believe the way that Jenky does out of Peoria, he's just very vocal. If he wasn't saying the things that agreed with Rome he might have trouble advancing. Think of an army. You may not agree with everything the top is doing but that doesn't diminish the work and value of what you do in your area. What about the people who come and post on here? Complaining over and over about the N-G. If the experience is so terrible why come back? People complain about Champaign or Urbana officials or even Illinois, but in their own neighborhoods do they notice a difference? Not unless the streets don't get plowed. Most people won't notice a new mayor or governor or even president. The new pope might make some changes but life goes on. Nobody worships Rome. Consider the fact that one of the tenants of the faith is not to use birth control. But almost all of the women have. The priests know this and so does the pope. So they are all in collusion to "sin". Everyone gets bread and wine. There are bishops who punished catholics for supporting abortion rights and gave others a pass for the death penalty and putting kids on the street. Some people like to pick and choose. Others don't.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Not everyone gets bread and wine.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 17, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Thanks for your statement, rsp; but I will answer bulldogmojo's question.

bulldogmojo;  You realize that by responding to your question; I will expose myself to ridicule, and more snarky comments.  I have thought it over.  I decided that it was worth it if I am being honest about myself.

I mentioned in the earlier comments my past; and my parents beliefs.  I grew up skeptical.  I experienced a life of meeting others, and looking for their angle.  What were their motivations?  Most of them were working a deal for money.  I looked for a glimmer of sincerity while paying attention to the deception in their eyes.  Most of them were working a con.  Since I had no defined religion, I was fair game for every of the faithful trying to convert me.  When you are a kid, someone always wants to "save" you.  On the rare occaisions that I did enter a church, I watched the play.  I have been in tents where they spoke in tongue.  I have been in churches where the "church leaders" sat in their family pews up front.  For a brief period of time, I even went into Buddist temples.  I still do respect that faith very much since it has tenants similar to what my Father believed in.  

I was playing handball with a guy one day.  There was not a lot to do in off time except baseball; or if there was a wall, handball.  We joked about the stuff most young men joke about.  When I ran into him later, I realized that he was a priest.  He kidded me because my demeanor toward him had changed.  I told him my past regarding religion.  He said that no one would try to convert me if I stepped into a Catholic church.  It stuck in my mind at the time because I had experienced death around me, and wondered about myself.  Time passed, and I was back in college.  One day, I walked into a church.  It was different than the past.  If you believe in sin, especially the Ten Commandments; I had broke a few of them even though I was required to break one of them.  I sat through the service.  I noticed that there were no special pews.  I noticed that the congregation was diverse.  Some spoke English, and others did not.  Some wore blue jeans, and others wore suits.  There was no distinction between them.  At the conclusion of the service; the people shook each others hands, and said "Peace be with you".  They even shook my hand, and wished me peace.  I walked out of the church; and I felt better.  Maybe, it was a psychological high; or maybe it was what I needed at the time.  I wanted to feel peace.  

I had believed in some power before joining a religion.  I watched the sun come up, and go down.  I watched things born; and watched them grow.  I saw them die also.  It seemed to me that man was egotistic in thinking that he was more special than what was around him.  My experience had been solitary though.  The thoughts were only in my head.  I did not share them with others.  When I joined the Church; I found a commune of others.  It became a vehicle to my understanding of the higher power.  Call it God if you want to.  For others, it is their faith and church.  Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims, Buddists, or whatever don't want to be alone when they are in awe of something bigger than them.  It's like standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon by yourself.  It's better when others are with you.

Okay, I don't know if that makes any sense to you.  Let the laughs begin. 


Bulldogmojo wrote on February 17, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Certainly nothing wrong with seeking out fellowship. Hopefully we will both live long enough to see everyone have an equal chance at it.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 17, 2013 at 11:02 pm

It's slow in coming; but it will get here some day.  It requires people reaching out to each other with understanding.  We are making progress.  Did either one of us ever think that we would see same sex marriage in our life time? 

BigBear wrote on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 am

In the United States marriage is a government contract between two people establishing shared responsibilites and benefits. It has nothing to do with church doctrine or religious beliefs. A church cannot marry a couple without the governments consent nor can they divorce a couple without the premission of the secular court system. 

You cannot deny civil rights to American citizens based on religious beliefs! Marriage is a "fundamental" civil right that is currently being denied 10% of the population solely because the christian church hates Gay and Lesbian Americans. Not only is this morally wrong, its completely unconstitutional.