FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: ironbite on January 10, 2012, 06:39:33 pm
-
Yeah seems there's a bright spot in another Midwest state....Illinois wants to join the modern world (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/illinois-gay-marriage_n_1197460.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003)
Really love it when the Conservitards scream family values and how this will destroy yet they haven't criminalize divorce yet. Wonder why?
Ironbite-but hey...another tidal wave that erodes America's dismal gay rights record is ok in my book
-
Supported by: Chicago
Opposed by: The rest of the state.
-
Really love it when the Conservitards scream family values and how this will destroy yet they haven't criminalize divorce yet. Wonder why?
Yeah, why exactly haven't they tried that yet? I'm surprised, tbh.
-
Really love it when the Conservitards scream family values and how this will destroy yet they haven't criminalize divorce yet. Wonder why?
Yeah, why exactly haven't they tried that yet? I'm surprised, tbh.
Do a check on how many conservative politicians haven't had one in the course of their careers. I think newt's on a personal crusade to make up for those who do manage to go without getting one.
-
Supported by: Chicago
Opposed by: The rest of the state.
This. The only reason IL goes Democrat is because of Chicago and the proliferation of polling places within the city. Hell, even the county that Chicago is in is largely Republican (beyond the city, I mean).
-
Really love it when the Conservitards scream family values and how this will destroy yet they haven't criminalize divorce yet. Wonder why?
Yeah, why exactly haven't they tried that yet? I'm surprised, tbh.
Do a check on how many conservative politicians haven't had one in the course of their careers. I think newt's on a personal crusade to make up for those who do manage to go without getting one.
There is a specific reason, people in power think the rules do not apply to them. Gingrinch even said that in response if Obama fired judges who didn't agree with his positions.
Also hope this passes it would be nice but Illinois is so rural except for Chicago. Also it's Illinois so assume election rigging.
-
Even ignoring some of the issues like it being heavily rural, I'm not sure they can get the support when Illinois already has civil unions. A pro-gay marriage movement could convince people to support it that really want civil unions instead, because it's close enough, but once there are civil unions less people are going to bother because they see the work as already done.
-
Even ignoring some of the issues like it being heavily rural, I'm not sure they can get the support when Illinois already has civil unions. A pro-gay marriage movement could convince people to support it that really want civil unions instead, because it's close enough, but once there are civil unions less people are going to bother because they see the work as already done.
If I lived in Illinois I would use the argument that civil unions do not work well in the same way that separate but equal did not work.
-
Here's crossing my fingers that it passes.
-
Even ignoring some of the issues like it being heavily rural, I'm not sure they can get the support when Illinois already has civil unions. A pro-gay marriage movement could convince people to support it that really want civil unions instead, because it's close enough, but once there are civil unions less people are going to bother because they see the work as already done.
If I lived in Illinois I would use the argument that civil unions do not work well in the same way that separate but equal did not work.
And that is a valid argument, but we should both know by now how well people respond to pure logic.
-
Even ignoring some of the issues like it being heavily rural, I'm not sure they can get the support when Illinois already has civil unions. A pro-gay marriage movement could convince people to support it that really want civil unions instead, because it's close enough, but once there are civil unions less people are going to bother because they see the work as already done.
If I lived in Illinois I would use the argument that civil unions do not work well in the same way that separate but equal did not work.
And that is a valid argument, but we should both know by now how well people respond to pure logic.
True seeing how Rick Santorum outright rejected logic and people applauded it.
-
Even ignoring some of the issues like it being heavily rural, I'm not sure they can get the support when Illinois already has civil unions. A pro-gay marriage movement could convince people to support it that really want civil unions instead, because it's close enough, but once there are civil unions less people are going to bother because they see the work as already done.
Our civil unions are so close to marriage, that I honestly thought we already had it. I think the only thing missing is the word itself and the federal benefits portion.
I'm a gay marriage supporter, for the record. Alternatively, I would support removing the word "marriage" altogether and making the legal contract that consenting adults enter in to just "civil union" across the board.
-
Alternatively, I would support removing the word "marriage" altogether and making the legal contract that consenting adults enter in to just "civil union" across the board.
This. So much this. If only to further separate church and state, the line has to be drawn between marriage as a spiritual commitment and “mariiageâ€Â/civil union as a financial contract.