IL GOP Chair throws full support behind same-sex marriage

[tsai3904]

The momentum continues to build for same sex marriage in Illinois.

On Wednesday, Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, said he was putting his "full support" behind marriage equality legislation pending in Springfield.

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way," Brady said. "Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value - that the law should treat all citizens equally."

"Importantly, the pending legislation would protect the freedom of religion," Brady added. "No church or religious organization would ever be required to perform a union with which it disagrees."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/...ort_behind_same-sex_marriage_in_illinois.html

 

[cbrons]

That idiot better work extremely hard tomorrow and the next few days to fight the gun-grabbing scum here that are trying to literally pass a very broad-sweeping gun ban here.

 

[angelatc]

Illinois Republicans are essentially Democrats. No surprise here.

 

[Occam's Banana]

More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way.

So, let's see ... "government should not stand in their way" apparently means that government should:

1) be sole grantor of permission to the involved parties to enter into a "lifelong commitment to each other"
2) dictate the particular rights, responsibilities & obligations of each party entering into aforesaid commitment
3) forbid any dissolution of aforesaid commitment except under terms specified by the government (to wit: "no-fault divorce", etc.)
4) grant or withhold certain special priveleges (with respect to taxation, for example) according to participation (or lack thereof) in aforesaid commitment
5) prevent the parties to aforesaid commitment from establishing any enforceable rights, responsibilities & obligations outside the purview of government approval
6) determine and/or proscribe the exact nature and details of the private relationships entered into between both parties to the aforesaid commitment on the one hand and any other 3rd parties (such as insurance companies, etc.) on the other hand

OK. Got it. (Gee, doesn't it sound swell not to have government stand in the way of stuff?)

 

[BSU kid]

Easiest thing to do would be to support voluntary associations as Ron has campaigned for, but once again we just get more government and bureaucracy. Oh well, I don't live in Illinois.

 

[bolil]

It seems to me that the benefits of a state recognized marriage are far outweighed by the lingering obligations people encounter when they seek to destroy said marriages.

 

[TheTexan]

Probably just a distraction to get the gun grabs passed

 

[pochy1776]

Trying Not to comment anything that could get me banned....................................

 

[jkob]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.

 

[Kregisen]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.

Agreed...even though it is my belief that homosexuality is immoral, it is also my belief that denying this marriage (that government shouldn't be involved with anyway...but since they wanted blacks and whites to stop marrying each other ~ 100 years ago they got involved) to some adults while recognizing others is not very moral either.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

"More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way,"

Just LOL. More like "Hey, maybe it's time for us to get in on some of that."

 

[CPUd]

Washington (CNN) – Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady resigned Tuesday, citing a handful of reasons including an ongoing struggle with several members of the state GOP over his support for same-sex marriage.

"There were several reasons," why he decided to step down, Brady said in a telephone interview with CNN. "I've been going at it hard for six years, I need to focus on my family, and obviously I had lost the support of the state Central Committee because of my position on gay marriage."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...tes-support-for-same-sex-marriage-as-a-reason


Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out...

 

[PaleoPaul]

Unless he's a neo-con, it's tragic that he resigned.

 

[Brett85]

Republicans in Illinois are big RINO's. Just look at Mark Kirk.

 

[brushfire]

Unless he's a neo-con, it's tragic that he resigned.

Its much like how you hear someone who uses racial slurs... "Oh I know some white people who I call...<expletive>"
Well, in IL we have democrats we call republicans. There is, quite often, very little distinction between the parties. In fact, the entire ILGA is run by just a couple of people - that cascades throughout the entire state. I'd even argue that these rats control a lot of Washington too...

 

[WhistlinDave]

Government should not be involved in marriage. Saying that, government should not discriminate based on sexuality either. Denying marriage to same-sex couples while still maintaining recognition of heterosexual couples is immoral in my opinion.

Agreed...even though it is my belief that homosexuality is immoral, it is also my belief that denying this marriage (that government shouldn't be involved with anyway...but since they wanted blacks and whites to stop marrying each other ~ 100 years ago they got involved) to some adults while recognizing others is not very moral either.

Agree with you both. (Except the homosexuality is immoral part. That's not my place to decide.)

Saying "I don't care what people do but we need to get government out of marriage entirely, not make it possible for gays to get married" is the equivalent of saying,

"Gee Uncle Bob, it sucks that you're in jail for possession of 2 pounds of marijuana, but even though that's wrong, I can't help you get out, because what I really need to do is work on ending the entire war on drugs."

It's a bullshit reason to support government limitations on freedom. And I say bullshit because everybody knows getting government entirely out of marriage is probably never going to happen, or at least probably not in our lifetimes.

If you don't like gay people, and think they should have less freedom than you do, just come out and say it. Don't hide behind the purist libertarian ideal. (That's not directed at you two that I quoted, obviously.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

@WhistlinDave- This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages." They have every right to call it what they want, and I wish government would step entirely out of the way, but I still support a culturally conservative moral opposition to it, and would try to persuade people to agree with me that "Gay Marriage" is immoral and not a thing. As such, I would actually rather them say "Marriage is only between a mand and a woman" than to have them say "Marriage can be between two men or two women."

That's my cultural conservative side. I don't want government involved at all, but if they HAVE to get involved, I'd rather them support my personal opinion than to support the opposite thereof.

I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I wouldn't support a law saying "Drugs are good for you and everyone should be encouraged to smoke crack." Granted, I think it should be LEGAL, but I don't want the government encouraging it. That's how I feel about SSM. Granted, I support tax breaks, because everyone should get tax breaks just for being alive, that's just saying government can't steal as much. Give that to anyone. Adoption should be privatized as much as possible, as should hospitals. I don't know exactly what rights marriage gives so I can't say at the top of my head what should and shouldn't apply, but considering that getting government out won't happen, I support strong civil unions that give as closely to the same rights (Or at least, "The same rights... as long as they can be reconciled with the NAP) as possible. That way its legally equivalent but the government isn't saying I'm morally equivalent.

If you think I'm wrong on this one, that's fine. Personally, I think its a wedge issue that's stupid to spend so much time over. I WISH that the only problem with this country was that SSM was recognized everywhere. A country where that was the only issue would be a million times better than the country we have right now. I don't pick who I vote for based on that. But if I were a policymaker, that's what I'd lobby for. Getting government out as an ideal, strong civil unions as a backup plan.

 

[WhistlinDave]

@WhistlinDave- This isn't a big deal for me, but to me its an issue of I genuinely don't want the government to define marriages between a man and another man or a woman and another woman as being "Valid marriages." They have every right to call it what they want, and I wish government would step entirely out of the way, but I still support a culturally conservative moral opposition to it, and would try to persuade people to agree with me that "Gay Marriage" is immoral and not a thing. As such, I would actually rather them say "Marriage is only between a mand and a woman" than to have them say "Marriage can be between two men or two women."

That's my cultural conservative side. I don't want government involved at all, but if they HAVE to get involved, I'd rather them support my personal opinion than to support the opposite thereof.

I'm for the legalization of drugs, but I wouldn't support a law saying "Drugs are good for you and everyone should be encouraged to smoke crack." Granted, I think it should be LEGAL, but I don't want the government encouraging it. That's how I feel about SSM. Granted, I support tax breaks, because everyone should get tax breaks just for being alive, that's just saying government can't steal as much. Give that to anyone. Adoption should be privatized as much as possible, as should hospitals. I don't know exactly what rights marriage gives so I can't say at the top of my head what should and shouldn't apply, but considering that getting government out won't happen, I support strong civil unions that give as closely to the same rights (Or at least, "The same rights... as long as they can be reconciled with the NAP) as possible. That way its legally equivalent but the government isn't saying I'm morally equivalent.

If you think I'm wrong on this one, that's fine. Personally, I think its a wedge issue that's stupid to spend so much time over. I WISH that the only problem with this country was that SSM was recognized everywhere. A country where that was the only issue would be a million times better than the country we have right now. I don't pick who I vote for based on that. But if I were a policymaker, that's what I'd lobby for. Getting government out as an ideal, strong civil unions as a backup plan.

I appreciate your honesty... And I agree it's stupid to spend too much time on it.

But I have a question for you. Let's say I'm wrong, and ten years from now, some massive paradigm shift has happened, and suddenly a Constitutional amendment is passed that says no more wedding licenses, and no more tax benefits or any other legal privileges, and the only involvement left for the government is when the courts have to settle contractual disputes in divorces. So, we have managed to get the government completely out of marriage.

Now, men can marry men, and women can marry women, and there is no government recognition, no state entity saying to anyone "your marriage is valid too." People can just do whatever makes them happy and there's no government involvement telling them they can, or can't, or who they are or aren't allowed to do it with.

So under this hypothetical situation, i.e. government is completely out of marriage, why is that more OK for you, for a guy to walk up to you and say, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," when the government is not involved? Are you going to tell them their marriage is less valid than if the government had issued them a marriage license? If the same couple today walks up to you and says, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," why is that somehow more offensive to your personal beliefs about marriage than under the scenario where the same exact thing happens only without a marriage license because they don't exist any more?

I'm not asking whether government licensing of private relationships is moral, or whether it serves any legitimate purpose. I'm asking about you personally being offended by what other people do because of your personal beliefs. Both situations result in a same sex couple defining their relationship as a valid marriage. Why is one OK, and doesn't offend your personal beliefs, but the other isn't OK?

 

[WhistlinDave]

Follow up question: Do you think it was OK for me to marry an atheist woman in the drive through window in Las Vegas over 17 years ago, instead of in a church, and to obtain a vasectomy after our first child was a couple years old, ensuring we would never again procreate? Do you think it would be appropriate for the State to say my marriage is not valid because it does not fit the "Biblical" definition of a marriage? Would you support a law that defined my marriage as invalid? (And if so, why is it any business of yours?)

 

[Christian Liberty]

I appreciate your honesty... And I agree it's stupid to spend too much time on it.

But I have a question for you. Let's say I'm wrong, and ten years from now, some massive paradigm shift has happened, and suddenly a Constitutional amendment is passed that says no more wedding licenses, and no more tax benefits or any other legal privileges, and the only involvement left for the government is when the courts have to settle contractual disputes in divorces. So, we have managed to get the government completely out of marriage.

Now, men can marry men, and women can marry women, and there is no government recognition, no state entity saying to anyone "your marriage is valid too." People can just do whatever makes them happy and there's no government involvement telling them they can, or can't, or who they are or aren't allowed to do it with.

So under this hypothetical situation, i.e. government is completely out of marriage, why is that more OK for you, for a guy to walk up to you and say, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," when the government is not involved? Are you going to tell them their marriage is less valid than if the government had issued them a marriage license? If the same couple today walks up to you and says, "Hey FF, check out my husband here, we're married now," why is that somehow more offensive to your personal beliefs about marriage than under the scenario where the same exact thing happens only without a marriage license because they don't exist any more?

I'm not asking whether government licensing of private relationships is moral, or whether it serves any legitimate purpose. I'm asking about you personally being offended by what other people do because of your personal beliefs. Both situations result in a same sex couple defining their relationship as a valid marriage. Why is one OK, and doesn't offend your personal beliefs, but the other isn't OK?

Fair question and fair enough.

Its still offensive to me, but I don't have a right not to be offended. And honestly, I don't think their marriage is legitimate. Granted, I don't think I have a right (Morally speaking, I do have a LEGAL right to do this) to be a total jerk, and I don't think that doing so would be in keeping with the golden rule, but I still don't agree with it. But they have every right to say it. I'd probably be nice, but if a fundamentalist wants to insult them and call them fing f*** or something, he would have a right to do that as well. I wouldn't condone that kind of jerkish behavior, but in a free society, as long as you don't violate the NAP or threaten to do so, you have a right to do whatever you want. I'm not as much of a hardcore about this as some of the ancaps, but I definitely hold to it as a principle as much as possible, and offensive speech certainly is NOT an exception to this.

On the other hand, when government, who claims to speak for everyone, claims that marriage can be between a man and another man, and wants to tax me to, among other things, to socially engineer people to believe that homosexuality (I'm talking about the behavior, not the feelings. I don't think temptation = sin), that bothers me more. Granted, its not my #1 political issue like some Evangelicals, but if I have a say in it, I'm going to say "OK, you as individuals can do whatever the crap you want, but I don't want the state declaring this to be OK."

Its like this. If a private school wants to teach that homosexuality is great, they can do so. I don't like it, but that's their right in a free society.

On the other hand, if a PUBLIC school was doing this, I'd be seriously upset, and because of my personal views, more so than I would be if they taught that it was immoral.

The most libertarian policy, of course, is not any kind of law saying public schools should or should not teach this. It is to abolish public schools and public funding for public schools. The second most libertarian option is school vouchers (At least IMO school vouchers is better than a straight up public school system, although not ideal), and little to no government involvement in what is taught. If we are forced to take the third most libertarian option, where public schools do not exist, it would be the most libertarian policy to have the schools NOT socially engineer either way. They shouldn't support OR oppose homosexuality. They should just shut up about it.

But what if all those options fail? What if the school MUST decide whether to promote or oppose homosexuality? Well then, and this is my opinion, not a libertarian principle, but for me, them promoting my opinion is less bad than them promoting the opinion I do not agree with.

Do I support public schools teaching that homosexuality is immoral? No. I oppose public schools or public funding for schools. If need be (I don't agree, but I'd settle for it) government should give school vouchers to send kids to private schools and still have nothing more to do with it. Butat the level of the individual school, I'd STILL advocate for it to be either taught that it is immoral, or at least not discussed.

But if I HAVE to decide on a government policy, I'm going to prefer the government to advocate the morality I agree with rather than the morality I don't.

Same thing with SSM. I don't want government involved in marriage. But if they are already declaring that they have the right to define marriage (A right they should not have) I'm going to support them doing it the way I prefer.

Does that make sense? People can do what they want in a free society. I accept the NAP. But if government is going to promote certain lifestyles, against my insisting that they should stay out of it altogether, given the choice I'd rather they promote the lifestyles that I agree with.

Does that at least make sense, even if you don't agree?