Republican Bill Brady concedes Iilinois governor's race to Quinn

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    Thank God. I'm very excited about this. We will most likely get civil unions next month and then we can set our sights on full marriage rights. Thank you, Illinois, for staying sane and keeping our state government a Democratic majority. We can actually get things done now and move forward.

    Yes, I know this is a single issue, but it was the decisive one for me. We've waited long enough to join other states in the march toward equal treatment of all.

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...expected-to-concede-governors-race-today.html
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
    Congratulations Lee. :D

    19,000 hanging chads?? Mmmmmmm, no. :p
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    haha- well, it is nice. I'm constantly reminded that I live in a good state where there is lots of opportunity and sensible people. That's a good feeling.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    You need to share some of that sense with the people across the Mississippi River :p
     
  5. leekohler, Nov 5, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2010

    leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    A lot of us have tried. The Republicans here don't get it and we've told them several times- they will not get elected if they are extreme social conservatives. We will vote for Republicans, but not wackos. Mark Kirk knows this. He also knows he's on very thin ice as far as his job is concerned. If he screws up, and starts voting for social conservative causes, we'll vote him out in the next election. He has stated himself that the knows that. The rest of the country should do the same. Stop playing games and start working together to get us out of this mess.
     
  6. Eric-PTEK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #6
    I'll assume one of two things, A. your gay, or B. you are a huge proponent of gay rights.

    I am a strong, strong, and did I say strong, fiscal conservative. On other issues....depends...tend to be more socially liberal than most would assume considering my other stances.

    So where is my question/stance.

    The government should get out of the marriage business, period.

    You apply for a union certificate, or call it whatever you want. Something that allows two individuals of legal age to enter into a union which allows them tax and other personal right benefits similar to what marriage does today.

    After that, straight, gay, white, black, blue, whatever, getting "married" is up to you.

    If a church won't marry you because they do not believe in what you do, that is there prerogative.

    If gay people want to get their own church together and marry each other, all the better.

    I personally do not think that anyone should force someone to do something they do not want to do. If churches do not want to marry gay people, so be it.

    If gay churches did not want to marry straight people, so be it.

    If the view of marriage is a union in God's eyes then why do you need anyone, especially someone who looks down upon your lifestyle to justify it?

    You will never win the gay marriage debate, because according to the definition 2 people of the same sex do not marry.

    That being said the government should not say what marriage is.

    You will not change the definition of marriage, ever. Take marriage away from the government, put everyone else on equal footing as far as unions, then take the fight somewhere else.

    The problem is most homosexuals do not like this, and neither do religious conservatives even though it is the best solution.

    So to hook your bandwagon to liberals who will dangle single solutions while destroying the rest of the country is just a bad idea.

    BTW, you need to check out Log Cabin Republicans.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    Cool story bro.

    By the way, what are your thoughts on when basically the same exact arguments were used for interracial marriages? ;)

    I really wish this country would realize that politics, or anything for that matter, exists in a continuum and HISTORY actually applies.
     
  8. Eric-PTEK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #8
    How is the argument the same?

    What is the goal of the OP?

    To have gay marriage or to fight the system?

    Remote marriage from government control and you will have gay marriage because the individual religious organization will define what marriage is.

    That simple.

    Take marriage out of the governments hands and put it into the hands of religious institutions.

    If the religious group you belong to doesn't marry gay people, go find that will, or start your own.
     
  9. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #9
    Your rock called, and wants you back. :mad:
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    You're completely ignoring that marriage as it currently exists in this country from the perspective of the church, and the government are two completely and totally separate things.

    I'd refer you to iJohn's post.
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    Would marriage then still have the same legal rights (e.g. hospital visitation, inheritance rights etc.) as now?

    What about if you aren't religious?

    What about if you get married in a different country?

    What about if you get a civil union in a different country?
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Then you need to leave 'Merica, you godless Commie.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    I LOL'ed :p
     
  14. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #14
    McCarthy must be approaching warp speed by now.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    The good thing is that this kind of thinking, as any, has a breaking point in public life.

    Mark my words, there will be another counter culture era in our lifetimes where social progress will leapfrog just like it did in the 60's. That will be followed by a period of rolling them back to a certain extent.

    Everything is a cycle in history. It's fascinating.
     
  16. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    I'm the homo your mama warned you about. ;)

    There is no reason for that. Marriage predates religion and is a social construct, not a religious one.

    Go tell all the married people now that they are no longer married, but "unioned". See what that gets you.


    That is the case now, and will not change. No one is saying any church has to marry them.

    Already done for years now. This isn't a religious battle, it's a legal one.


    Already reality. Again, allowing gay people to marry in the eyes of the law changes none of that.


    I don't and am not asking for that. I couldn't care less about religion.


    Can you find where that is written in stone for me? And yes, we will win. This is just the beginning. We will win.


    Yes, it should.


    What definition? Whose definition? You know it's not the same everywhere. And according to this, we aren't changing anything:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage


    Well then, the best solution is equal marriage rights for all.


    Why? Because Republicans have done such a good job? Were you only born two years ago, or has your memory been erased? Forgive me if I don't share your faith in the Republican party.
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    PLEASE tell me that Lee is finally about to have a sig. :p
     
  18. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    Too pretentious. You should know that by now. :p
     
  19. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    That's right. :)
     
  20. Eric-PTEK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #20
    1. Yes
    2. Doesn't matter, its a union, civil or otherwise
    3 & 4 who knows...
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #21
    So your issue is only with the using of the word marriage? :confused:
     
  22. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    According to the dictionary, marriage has not and isn't being redefined, so I fail to see his issue.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    Lee, I think we both know what his issue is.
     
  24. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    Of course. I'd just like to see him state it.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    Not gonna happen. That, or some very elaborate weasel words that will just beat around the bush.
     

Share This Page