Foes lobby against same-sex marriage law

Foes lobby against same-sex marriage law

SPRINGFIELD -- Thousands of opponents of same-sex marriage in Illinois held a rally outside the Capitol in 15-degree temperatures Wednesday and later attempted to lobby legislators on the bill that cleared the state Senate last week.

A House committee was scheduled to hear the bill this morning, but Rep. Daniel Burke, D-Chicago, chair of the House Executive Committee, announced that the legislation (SB10) would not be called.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Catholic Diocese had promoted the "Protect Marriage Illinois" rally organized by the Illinois Family Institute, but the bishop did not attend the event.

Several other speakers, however, decried the bill during a 30-minute rally held in the cold and without a sound system. Speakers were forced to shout out their message to the hundreds of people surrounding a statue of Abraham Lincoln at the front of the Statehouse.

"They have called this the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act," said state Rep. David Reis, R-Ste. Marie, "but I think they should call it the Religious Persecution and Marriage Unfairness Act.

"But when you're a county clerk and you don't believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that's religious persecution."

Reis urged those at the rally to tell legislators "to protect the institution of marriage in Illinois, and that they have civil unions and we don't want any more."

Pastor Richard Giovannetti of the Standing in the Word Ministries of Morris, told the crowd that "when we have gay marriage we are going to enslave millions of people back into a lifestyle that we know that God can set them free from."

Pastor Linda Jernigan, who said she was "a former lesbian" who now operates a ministry in the Chicago area, asked repeatedly, "Did you know that God can deliver homosexuals?" 

She said it was "a chosen behavior" and that "if you allow God, He can change your behavior."

"Don't believe the lie," she said, "that homosexuality is a civil right. It is not a civil right. Homosexuality is a choice."

 

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

rsp wrote on February 20, 2013 at 2:02 pm

 

She said it was "a chosen behavior" and that "if you allow God, He can change your behavior."

"Don't believe the lie," she said, "that homosexuality is a civil right. It is not a civil right. Homosexuality is a choice."

 See? God can change your behavior, it's God's choice. Someone who is against it said this. If it's God's choice, it's not your choice. When they made it legal for blacks and whites to marry they didn't leave exceptions for those who felt uncomfortable with it, did they? If this passes, and there are exemptions, what would stop people from packing those places so there was no place for people to go?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

"But when you're a county clerk and you don't believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that's religious persecution."

The same thing was said when they revoked the anti-misegynation laws. Here, let me show you how bigoted it is:

"But when you're a county clerk and you don't believe in interracial marriage and you have to issue that license, that's religious persecution."

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

A gross injustice will result if the senate bill is not called for a vote in the house.  Whether people agree with the bill, or not; not allowing a vote gives the finger to democracy.  Where is the Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan, on this?  Does he, and the other legislators allow Burke to decide what is allowed to be voted on?

thelowedown wrote on February 20, 2013 at 4:02 pm

http://ilga.gov/house/committees/members.asp?committeeID=1186

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Where-is-your-state-rep-on-marri...

It will take six votes to get the bill out of the Executive Committee and I've counted 5 definitie votes for it since those candidates were endorsed by the group Equality Illinois in 2012 which supports this bill. A probable sixth vote, Rep. Keith Farnham, was endorsed by EI in this last cycle, but previously said he preferred civil unions. If you view the committee list in order from committe leadership down through members in alphabetical order, you get all the Democrats who support were endorsed by EI. All GOP members on the committee do not support equality.

This is speculation, but Burke probably didn't call the bill for committee today because who knows what sort of chaos could come with those protestors being able to pack the committee room and potentially booing and hissing and whatnot.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

thelowedown;  Thanks for the explanation.

cretis16 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 7:02 am

Democracy would be a state wide referendum. I wonder if the populace is pleased with this bill?

B-Evs wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Looking at a poll of people in Illinois revealed on Tuesday, 50% of those polled support gay marriage while 29% oppose it.  (20% say don't know or mixed feelings.  Downstate Illinois was found to support it 48%, with no stats given on opposing numbers.)
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130219/BLOGS02/130219779/illino...

cretis16 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 7:02 am

What religion bans interracial marriage?

B-Evs wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Looking via Google, a Baptist church banned interracial couples from their church in 2011.  And if you look at the religious reasons of unnatural and against God and so forth, being put forth against homosexuality and gay marriage, you can find them also having been used against interracial marriage.  In fact, this pastor gave a speech where he simply changed racial identifiers to gay identifiers and you could have heard that speech anywhere in the recent years against gay marriage.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/21/phil-snider-missouri-pastor-anti-gay-rights-speech-surprise_n_1997036.html

Maybe you think it would be more accurate to compare it to religions banning interreligious or interdenominational marriages?

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

That is a very, very weak argument.  The church that you reference is not a religion or faith that did not allow interracial marriages, but rather a very small group of misled individuals within a single congregation.  It should also be noted that "Thompson (the pastor behind this decision) has since been replaced with a new pastor who said that everyone was welcome at the church and the Harville family said the issue was dropped..." was included in the original story but was not included in your attempt to make your point.

cretis16 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

OK, that's one....21, 989 to go.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

There were many, many more 50 years ago. Just admit that you're wrong. The same arguments were made.

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Yes, just stick you fingers in your ears, have an infantile tantrum and ADMIT IT already!  Don't bother offering up any evidence, just admit it already!  Don't confuse anyone with facts.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

What facts have been put forth - at all?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

Wow. Projection in all it's glory. Are you seriously trying to argue, in front of grown people with brains and memories, that Christianity was not used in this country and others to ban interracial marriage?

Seriously?

Talk about sticking your fingers in your ears and denying reality.

As one of your idols once said in a vice presidential debate, say it ain't so, Joe.

Joe American wrote on February 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

"SPRINGFIELD -- Thousands of opponents of same-sex marriage in Illinois held a rally outside the Capitol in 15-degree temperatures Wednesday and later attempted to lobby legislators on the bill that cleared the state Senate last week.

Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Catholic Diocese had promoted the "Protect Marriage Illinois" rally organized by the Illinois Family Institute,....."

Nice display of your typical bias, Kacich.  Next time how about someone else writes your article for you?

 

Supporters rally for traditional marriage

SPRINGFIELD -- Thousands of supporters of traditional marriage in Illinois held a rally outside the Capitol in 15-degree temperatures Wednesday and later lobbied legislators on the bill that cleared the state Senate last week.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Oh, were they also trying to outlaw divorce?

thelowedown wrote on February 20, 2013 at 4:02 pm

What is Kacich's bias? The anti-marriage equality/pro-"traditional" marriage crowd actively revels in their opposition, so labeling them opponents is not an indication of bias any more so than using "traditional" marriage. Since they oppose gay marriage, that makes them opponents! 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opponent

Joe American wrote on February 20, 2013 at 4:02 pm

lol.....If I didn't know better, I'd think you were being sarcastic just enough to make my point.  I'll just refer to it as irony for now.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 20, 2013 at 6:02 pm

I assume they all oppose divorce, right?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

And in addition to opposing all divorce, I'm sure they all also agree with the bible that adulterers should be executed.

I mean, they're not picking and choosing which verses to believe and which verses to ignore are they? That would be hypocritical. And we all know that's just not possible, right?

GeneralLeePeeved wrote on February 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm

The bible-thumpers need to give it a rest.  "Marriage" stopped being just a religious-based institution decades ago, when governments, employers and places like hospitals started using marital status as a means for deteriming what and who were eligible for insurance benefits, survivor benefits and visiting privileges.  While I believe that any two adults who want to get hitched should be allowed to do so, this issue wouldn't be quite so necessary if it weren't for groups such as the Springfield City Council, who determined that they didn't need to provide insurance coverage to the spouses of those that had obtained civil unions.....since those people weren't "married"......or the bed-and-breakfast near Paxton that, essentially, didn't want anything to do with gay couples.  As for this being a "choice" that people make....Hah....nothing could be more absurd.  Does anyone really believe that someone would choose to be ridiculed, beaten, harassed, or disowned by one's parents? People are who they are...nothing more, nothing less.  What most fail to recognize is that we are all on a sliding scale of sexuality....with 100% heterosexualness at one end and 100% homosexualness at the other.....well, guess, what, there's a whole lot of gray area in between those extremes.  Those that claim to have "changed" from homosexual to heterosexual most likely reside near the middle of the scale.  This is nothing new under the sun, it's been this way since the dawn of time. 

gdhowse wrote on February 20, 2013 at 6:02 pm

It amazes me that we continue to hear the argument equating same sex marriage with interracial marriage.  It is a ridiculous emotion-based argument.  The arguments in favor of same sex marriage are usually emotional in nature.  It usually involves a relative, or a friend, or a neighbor, or a co-worker, or a son or daughter.  Same sex marriage is not legitimized because a person knows someone practicing the homosexual lifestyle.  We also hear the word "evolving" a lot these days.  Public opinion is said to be "evolving".  Public opinion is being manipulated by the power of the media.  4% of the population is made to look like a huge percentage of the population when we see homosexuals displayed in many TV shows, and many movies.  The media is controlling the sway of public opinion.  It is an intentional strategy to manipulate public opinion on this issue.


This is not about civil rights.  If someone can stop being a homosexual it cannot be a civil right.  It is an issue about sexual preferences, not about civil rights.  I know Linda Jernigan.  She has been out of the lesbian lifestyle for over 13 years.  And, you misquoted her in your comments.  To make this a civil rights issue is an insult to all African-Americans, and all women.  It is an insult to the work accomplished by Dr. King.


And, what is your beef with the writer?  He wrote about what happened today in Springfield.  You wouldn't have an issue with the same type of report being written about a pro-same sex marriage rally in Springfield.  Are you one of the voices shouting out against discrimination of all kinds?  Isn't it discrimination for you to demand that today's event in Springfield not be reported in an accurate fashion?  Don't Illinois citizens have the right to go to Springfield and voice their stand on a moral issue?  Doesn't the newspaper have the right to report the event?  Can't we have this publicized just like pro-same sex marriage efforts are publicized in the news?


Every TV news outlet had cameras there today.  I haven't seen one report on their evening news programs yet.  Why were they there if they aren't going to report about the event?


 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 20, 2013 at 7:02 pm

The arguments against gay marriage are exactly the same as the ones against interracial marriage:

1) The bible says so.

2) It's unnatural.

3) Think of the kids!

This isn't an emotional argument any more than any other miscarriage of justice isn't emotional. The fact remains - we, as a society, have no right to deny equality to members of our society. To claim otherwise is to deny justice - which is why this is a civil rights issue. You just don't like that it's a civil rights issue because it makes your ilk look like bad people. Well, guess what? You ARE bad people. Only a terrible human being persecutes others for things outside their control.

Also, you can't stop being a homosexual. To think you can is wrong, stupid, and bigoted. You can stop practicing, the same as one who is celibate. But that doesn't change who you are.

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 8:02 am

*comment removed*

I have to remind myself:

I will not feed the trolls.

I will not feed the trolls.

I will not feed the trolls.

I will not feed the trolls

I will not feed the trolls.

I will not feed the trolls.....

 

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm

No, feed the trolls. They don't know they are trolls. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Am I actually a troll? I'm pretty earnest with my arguments.

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

I was being sarcastic

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

My sarcasm-meter must be broken.

cretis16 wrote on February 22, 2013 at 9:02 am

The fact remains - we, as a society, have no right to deny equality to members of our society. To claim otherwise is to deny justice - which is why this is a civil rights issue

 

OK, you convinced me...pedophiles should be allowed to date minors. Thank you for the enlightenment.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

Yes, two consenting adults is the same thing as one person praying on someone unable to give consent. Nice. You're a terrific human being.

B-Evs wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Nice Straw Vulcan.

I think that acknowledging emotions can be helpful in making a decision in what you will or won't support.  By knowing someone who is gay, you can see that they are human, not abominations.  You can support your anti-gay marriage stance by looking them in the eye and telling them that you don't believe that they should have the same rights as you, that they are lesser than you.  And they can exercise their free speech right back by disagreeing with you.

If rights shouldn't be given because of choices, then why are religious people and stances given power?  Religion is a choice.  Why should we give more rights to people based on their religious preference, by saying that it is okay for them not to do their job based on their conscience instead of their contract?

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm

What exactly is the homosexual lifestyle? I've known a lot of people who were straight and a lot of people who were gay and could never see any real difference in lifestyles. Other than the obvious, marriage. And we need to change that. 

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 8:02 am

Be careful when opening your emotions to a logically flawed argument.  Proponents have carefully crafted the debate to perpetuate the fallacy of this being an equal rights issue when, in fact, it’s about special rights.  After all, special rights will never win a debate.

B-Evs wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

How do you feel that this is about 'special' rights?  Do you believe that since everyone isn't allowed to marry the same sex, we're all equal?  That was also brought up for interracial marriage, and it is just as wrong now.

I disagree that homosexuality is a choice.  That makes it a civil right, in that it is something that a person is born with, not a choice.  It may be that a person who is 'no longer gay' either is bisexual or delusional or asexual.

What _is_ a choice is religon.  Which makes religious rights 'special' rights, not civil rights.  Or do you think it would be okay if everyone was free to choose their religion, as long as it was *throws dart*  Free Southern Baptist?  After all, if everyone has the choice to be it or go to hell _by power of the government_, it's okay, right?

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

Your comparing interracial marriage with gay marriage is ludicrous.  gdhowse hit the nail on the head and I'm not going to waste my time or yours furthering the discussion based on a false premise. 

Special "rights" are "rights" (and I'm using that term very loosely) that are created above and beyond a universal right, to benefit a specific group.  So yes, you're correct - I'm not allowed to marry whoever I want, and neither are you.  And neither is the pedophile, nor the zoophile. 

Another problem with your argument is that you are mixing opinion and fact.  You begin your second paragraph with, "I disagree that homosexuality is a choice" which is clearly an opinion.  You follow that with "That makes it a civil right".  Really?  It does?  You can't base a fact on an opinion.  Anything based on opinion is either speculation or wishful thinking.

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Children and animals can't consent, so that's a false argument. Being gay is not a choice or it would not show up in nature across the board. It's even shown up in fish. Do you think they choose to be gay?

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Children cannot consent because of an abitrary age that has been imposed mandating them below that age of consent, and that age isn't even consistent from state to state.  And you cannot marry your children or parents either, whether consenting or not.

When or if scientists identify the "gay gene", we'll have an entirely different discussion.

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 5:02 pm

How about the fact that they have identified differences in the brains of people who are gay and people who are straight. What if it isn't genetic but has to do with exposure to hormones in the womb? What then? As far as children, why do you think about kids and sex when people bring up gay marriage? Marriage isn't just about sex. It's about the commitment. 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

So, just to be clear, you are stating publicly and for the record (care to use your real name, here 'joe'?) that you believe that the only thing that makes it wrong for an adult to have sex with a child is that we have 'arbitrarily' decided that the child is too young?

That consent laws are just 'arbitrary" limits that 'have been imposed' by society?

And that 'arbitrary' age limit is the only thing that makes sex with kids wrong?

And you want to lecture others about your twisted and bigoted views on morality?

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Joe you say "You can't base a fact on an opinion"

How exactly is the, invisible man in the sky told me it's bad, that is the basis for this stupid opposition not an opinion? Talking snake tell you that?

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."~ Hitchens

 

PS, I am illiterate so all my postings are a divine miracle too. I wrote it down on some golden tablets but I misplaced them somewhere.

Dogchakra wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Speaking of feeding the trolls........Joe, your "special rights" argument has no teeth. I know two men who have been together for almost twenty years. When Illinois finally granted civil unions they got one thinking that it was better than nothing. Guess what? Because they are not "married" my friend can't put his husband on his health insurance. Special indeed.

syzlack wrote on February 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Which speaks more to the parasitic health insurance industry than it does the non-sense marriage debate.  If we had a civilized system like Canada or Europe the marriage thing would be moot.  All people would have lo-cost access to health care.

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

You're comparing apples to oranges.  The question in point is about gay marriage, not about who's entitled to be put on someone elses insurance policy.   There's nothing within the very definition of marriage as it being the sole basis for determining who gets to be one someone elses health insurance policy.  That's policy set by the insurance industry, and they're laughing all the way to the bank while gay marriage supporters bark up the wrong tree.

syzlack wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

No, it is not comparing apples and oranges.  The reason is that "marriage" as defined, has certain legal aspects that "civil union" does not.  Otherwise, who cares?  You can always call a civil union a marriage, have it in a church (liberal one, of course) even.  But that don't mean beans to the law, which recognizes "marriage" as a state ceremony. 

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

Ummm....yes it is.  Two different issues.  Two different discussions.  Are they related?  Yes, currently they are, but even according to your own post above, the solution to the health insurance issue can be resolved without changing the millenia old definition of marriage.

"Which speaks more to the parasitic health insurance industry than it does the non-sense marriage debate. If we had a civilized system like Canada or Europe the marriage thing would be moot. All people would have lo-cost access to health care."

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

They are the exact same argument. The point to marriage is all of the legal rights that it entails. Otherwise, one could simply say "we're married" and call it a day. I'm not one to care much about semantics.

Joe American wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Apparently you don't care much for logic and reason, either.

Seriously, you don't really believe what you're saying, do you?

Simple policy change within the insurance industry allowing partners to be on the policy of the insured would solve your little problem.  Why didn't your boy Obama take care of that in his pet project?

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

Do I really believe what I'm saying? OF COURSE I DO. I'm right here - and 100% sure of it. Denying rights to people based solely on bigotry is just wrong. There's no reasonable moral argument - and certainly no reasonable constitutional argument - to denying gay marriage.

No, it wouldn't. Marriage has a LOT of rights that are not conveyed upon "civil unions." Pensions, inheritance/estate law, health care, powers of attorney, parentage and adoption - these are just the tip of the iceberg.  If ALL rights were the same, I really wouldn't care about the semantics of "marriage" vs. "civil unions." The bigots will continue to denigrate homosexuality regardless. But all rights MUST be the same.

syzlack wrote on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Well I replied too hastily.  Yes, there are two distinct issues here.  I was originally commenting on the statement that someone could not get benefits for their life partner because they were not "married."  So point one is that this is obviously discriminatory in unequal access to the same rights and priviliges based on the definition of "marriage."  The second point, which is related, is that if we had universal health care and other such universal benefits for each individual citizen, and there were not special priviliges available only to the "married," then it wouldn't matter what the legal definition of marriage is. 

rsp wrote on February 21, 2013 at 5:02 pm

The definition of marriage was changed long ago when it became a legal contract. It has continued to change as women gained status from being property to being able to own property. So... you're hoping to go back to the chattel days? Millenia ago?

jgrout wrote on February 21, 2013 at 10:02 am

In the arch-conservative Diocese of Peoria... and, increasingly, in dioceses all over the country... Catholics are taught that (a) there is no such thing as a sexual orientation and (b) the Church's teachings are (by definition) free of error, even if the Church demands that the State start hanging and burning people alive.  Twenty-odd years ago, the curate of the Catholic parish I attended in Urbana defended the Spanish Inquisition... including the hangings and burnings... in print.  He was a graduate of the seminary in Peoria.  Unsurprisingly.  He was eventually sent off to a Catholic high school near Danville, where he filled young people with the desire to damn and persecute others just as he did himself.

He (and the bishop who invited cavemen like him to his seminary) are two of the main reasons I'm no longer a Catholic.  The others include encountering Catholics who believed all this hell and damnation... something I'd never run into in the Northeast.  There are lots of them these days all over the country and there will be more as the Church descends further and further into fundamentalist lunacy.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Here we go again attacking everyone in a specific faith.  How about watching the news?  The controversy among American Catholics over who will be the new pope has been in the news for the past week, or more.  One of the big things being battled among Catholics is allowing a bishop who covered up child abuse to have an influence in the selection of a new pope.  Additionally; American Catholics are split over birth control, female priests, and same sex marriage to name a few things.  There is dissension in the Church in America.  It has been brewing for years.

I am sorry that you left the Catholic Church.  It was your choice.  Many others made the same choice.  Many others decided to stay, and create change.  Not every Catholic feels that the "Church's teachings are free of error".  Man makes mistakes, has prejudices, and discriminates.  The leaders of the Church do the same.  

I am not trying to pick a fight with you.  I only hope that you look at the differences held by American Catholics.   

syzlack wrote on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Not an unreasonable response, Sid, but I don't think he was attacking all Catholics.  His beef is with the power of the heirarchy and his experience with some of what we might call the less-than-fully-enlightened teachings and indoctrinations from many (not all) in the priesthood.  The "debate" (if one can call the papal position debating) is always lively.  I'd suggest Garry Wills (a devout Catholic, although not the heirarchy's favorite thinker) new book, "Why Priests?"  or some of his recent essays on the subject, which describe the papacy a sensecent monarchy and and that revisit that old stand-by issue of trans-substantiation vs. con-substatiation.....    Sic semper...

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 21, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Thanks for the book recommendation.  I was reacting to "Catholics are taught....".  Maybe, I am being overly sensitive about it; but every time a social debate arises, the comments on Catholics come out.  Baptists, Muslims, etc. seem to get forgotten in some of their members zealousy.  Intolerance exists in all religions, and among the non-religious.  If the comment had of been "Baptists are taught..."; all heck would have broke out in the comments.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 21, 2013 at 8:02 pm

For the record, my family is filled with several different religious groups. This includes Catholics, born again fundamentalists, Jehovah's witnesses, and even scientologists. The Catholics are fairly reasonable and nonjudgmental. The other groups aren't.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

Sid, people can criticize the catholic church if they want to. Your religious freedom does not trump other people's free speech rights or guarantee you a life free from hearing any criticism whatsoever of your particular mythology.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Your correct about religious freedom, and criticism.  I, also, have the right of free speech to denounce religious bigotry within the Catholic Church, and from it's critics.  No one is playing "comment cop", except you perhaps.  I do not consider my faith, or any other faith to be mythology.  You have expressed your opinion as you have the right to do.  I express mine as I have the right to do.

You cannot have it both ways, Mark.  Capiche Bubba.    

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Except I've never told you that you are not allowed comment the way you see fit. I've never told anyone that.

You have. On repeated occasions. Hence the comment cop label from a previous thread.

That's what I object to.

Can you understand why?

I have little doubt that you're perfectly capable of distinguishing between responding to a comment, even responding critically, and telling the commenter that, according to your dictate, they are not allowed to make their comment in the first place.

By the way, you still have not apologized for or withdrawn the false witness you bore against me when you falsely accused me of "smearing all catholics."

You can still do so if you choose.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 22, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Take a number, and get in line.  I apologize when I feel that I was wrong; and to those that I respect.

Also, practice what you preach.

 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 1:02 pm

So you think making deliberately false accusations and bearing false witness is not wrong. At least not when you do it.

Noted.

That mindset goes a long way in explaining why you think you can dictate what others are and are not allowed to say.

By telling me to 'practice what [I] preach,' are you accusing me of falsely accusing others? Can you back that up with actual evidence. Or are you just, yet again, making unfounded charges that you find impossible to support?

You should at least respect yourself enough to refrain from repeatedly engaging in such behavior.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 22, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Mark, read your comments from the various topics which you comment on.  Evidently, you want a public apology regarding making comments toward you after you make comments toward others. 

An insincere apology is hypocritical; but it may appease the guillible.

Gee.... Mark, I am sorry.

Feel better now?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 22, 2013 at 9:02 pm

I feel just fine. I of course knew you could not bring yourself to apologize for or withdraw the false accusation. But it's still worth noting your habit of making such false accusations and not having the integrity to regret doing so.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 23, 2013 at 9:02 am

Stick to the phony hick Steven Colbert routine.  You can belittle the conservative commenters without needing any facts to back up your comments.  I find it ironic that you of all people beg for an apology.

Sincerely, "Sidney". 

Yeah, your sarcastic reference to my name does not require an apology.   Enough of this conversation.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 23, 2013 at 10:02 am

And I find it, sadly, unsurprising that you find yourself unable to withdraw your false accusation.

I await the next time you try, however vainly, to disallow comments you disagree with.

Cheers.

BigBear wrote on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 am

Every accredited medical and psychological institute in the United States agrees that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal, natural and unchangeable sexual orientations.

The christian faith has been denying scientific fact for nearly 2000 years...about as long as they've been buring heritics at the stake.

Stoning to death and buring at the stake were the established punishments within the christian chruch for dealing with those who committed "unnatural acts against god" or in modern terms, Gays and Lesbians. Leviticus 20:13 spells it out quite clearly.

Utowner wrote on February 21, 2013 at 11:02 am

 

 

"They have called this the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act," said state Rep. David Reis, R-Ste. Marie, "but I think they should call it the Religious Persecution and Marriage Unfairness Act.

"But when you're a county clerk and you don't believe in same-sex marriage and you have to issue that license, that's religious persecution."

I would say if you're in this position and your religion prevents you from performing duties required by law in your job you probably need to find a new line of work.  I've heard this same line before about pharmacists and birth control.  It is perfectly ok that you don't like birth control/gay marriage, but if your job requires you to provide these services to others you need to perform your duties.  If you feel that makes you involved in the process and violates a tenet of your faith you probably should exercise your conscience and find other work.

This bill contains adequate protection for religious institutions.  This is not a valid argument for a legislator to oppose this Bill.  If a legislator is opposed to this Bill it is for the following reasons:  1.  They do not like gay people.  2. Their constituents do not like gay people.  Both are acceptable reasons to vote against the legislation, but have the honesty to admit that this is your reason for action so that your bigotry is documented for history.

There is no need for popular vote on this issue.  Our democracy is structured so that the rights of a minority should not be trampled.  Let our legislators vote and then we can vote on whether they should keep their jobs.  

 

yates wrote on February 21, 2013 at 12:02 pm

If proponents are so sure Illinois wants gay marriage....put it on the friggin ballot. So simple, so democratic. Who here is against that?

Utowner wrote on February 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm

I'm against putting it on the ballot.  We have a representative democracy so that the rights of a minority are not trampled by the majority.  If we had a true democracy then every issue would need to be voted on by all citizens and nothing would ever get done.  We can't pick and choose which issues we put on the ballot.  

BigBear wrote on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 am

In Illinois Marriage Equality would pass if it were put on the "friggin ballot". Remember the 2012 election where Marriage Equality passed in three states and bible based discrimination disguised as "traditional marriage" was soundly defeated in another. 

All Marriage Equality would need to pass in Illinois is a visit from President Obama asking the voters to support the legislation.

That being said, In the United States the civil rights of the minority are not decided by the voting of the majority. If this were the case islam would be outlawed as a religion.

The Supreme Court will eventually decided the issue of Marriage Equality for Gay and Lesbian Americans as they always decide civil rights issues. Without a credible arguement against Marriage Equality outside bible based bigorty they will strike down discriminatory "traditional marriage" laws just like they struck down bans on interracial marriage.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 21, 2013 at 3:02 pm

If this were about gay people being denied guns these same opposition hicks would be up in arms about the equal rights of gay people to own assault weapons.

EL YATIRI wrote on February 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Profile Picture

Live and let live.

outoftownie wrote on February 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Oh the put it on the ballot argument. Every time the legislature wants to do something progressive, some conservative always screams to put it on the ballot.

Here's a thought. What if 50% + 1 vote for it?

 

One other thing. This is coming from the same group complaining about Sharia Law?

jlc wrote on February 21, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Joe, does your "traditional" marriage come from the Bible? The book where women were treated as property and forced to marry thair rapists?

BigBear wrote on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 am

In the United States marriage is a government license. Marriage has nothing to do with religion. In Illinois a church cannot marry a couple without the blessing of the State nor can a church end a marriage without the due process of law. Unless there is a compelling reason outside of religious bigotry to deny Marriage Equality to Gays and Lesbian Americans it is unconstitutional and frankly un-American to do so.

America is not a theocracy where biblical law trumps our constitutional legal system. If your only argument against Marriage Equality for Gay and Lesbian Americans comes from Leviticus 20:13 or anywhere else in the bible you don't have legal standing in the United States.

Remember

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are both normal, natural and unchangable sexual orientations. Every accredited medical and psychological institute in the United States agrees that sexual orientation is fixed and cannot be changed. The only groups still promoting discrimination against Gay and Lesbian Americans are a few margionalized and discredited sects within christianity and islam.


 

Brownie wrote on February 22, 2013 at 8:02 pm

This is an idea whose time has come.  It's as simple as that.  It's no use arguing.  Same sex marriage will be the law of the land.  I predict it will be within the next 20 years.  The gay haters (or "hate the sin, not the sinner") are in the minority now.  That's just the way it is.  There's always a fight to hold onto all sorts of predjudice before it's outlawed.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 23, 2013 at 1:02 pm

GOP state chairman, Pat Brady, is under attack by some in his own party.  A meeting was called to appoint a new GOP state chairman.  Brady's view toward same sex marriage is part of the reason.  The GOP is split over the matter as they are over diversity voters, women voters, immigration, federal Medicaid funding, and compromise in Congress.  The GOP politicians with the Tea Party backing are starting to think about their futures.  The same sex marriage vote in the Illinois House of Representatives will put them on the spot. 
 

Danno wrote on February 24, 2013 at 4:02 pm

From a far past epoch, during the time of 'our' Creator's Creator:

"Marriage. Marriage is a temporary institution. There was a time when each of us created independently of the other and did not need the cooperation of the opposite sex, since there was no opposite sex then because we each possessed both polarities or were hermaphroditic. In the present period ofseparateness,when self-conciousness and dynamic power were to be developed, we were divided into sexes and needed the cooperation of the opposite sex to create. At some distant time in the future we will function in a vehicle of ether (the golden wedding garment) as spoken of by St. Paul and will not have the physical expression of sex as we have at this time. Again we will begin to create independently of another, and will begin to embue creatures with life, gradually creating higher and higher forms. We will again possess both polarities, male and female."

Esoteric Bible Dictionary. Author Unknown. Even to 'our' own creator.

Ellipse Kirk wrote on February 26, 2013 at 10:02 pm

"If someone can stop being a homosexual it cannot be a civil right." Riiiiight.

So because anyone can change religions then the freedom of religion cannot be a civil right, that's it? Not a facetious question.

Because Bobby Jindal converted from being a Hindu to a Catholic, and I believe he has a right to do that.