In Valentine vote, Illinois Senate approves gay marriage

“Obama has encouraged the drive to legalize gay marriage, authorizing a White House statement recently saying that if he were still in the Illinois legislature, he would vote for it.”

Now, THAT’S funny — if Obama were still in the Illinois legislature, he’d have voted “present” . . . . just like he did on most other issues.

So, politicians, where DO we “draw the line”? What isn’t OK? What moray or tradition are you not willing to scrap in the hopes of gaining a few votes?

In a society where we’re racing toward Gomorrah, how difficult is it to understand why people would take the side of a rogue LA cop who, because of his imagined grievances, starts murdering his fellow policemen, and turn him into some sort of a cult hero?

No connection? I’m not so sure.

yes

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Missourimule – Personally, I’m willing to “scrap morays or traditions” that discriminate against anyone because of their skin color, religious affiliation or sexual orientation among other “criteria”.

Are you?

The right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to “marry” someone of the same sex.

The ability to marry someone (and “marry” implies the opposite sex) is equally available to everyone.

Furthermore, even though we idealize marriage as a romantic relationship, history shows that romantic love is not foundational to the institution of marriage. We can develop other kinds of contracts or expand civil unions for homosexual partners, but we face a disconnect with reality if we legally redefine marriage.

And if it’s acceptable for homosexuals to “marry” each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy/polyandry not legitimate “marriage”? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

The bottom line is that common usage of terms (in whatever size segment of a population) cannot be blindly applied to legal distinctions.

“The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them.”

Wait a minute! Haven’t I heard these arguments against affording gay people equal rights-or any rights-including liberty, before? I have! They were used to defend slavery, a ban on interracial marriage, other things wrong and evil. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran. (We’ll miss you!). And, by that, I mean the opposite. Everyone is entitled to practice, even express his or her religious beliefs, but the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of religion as well as freedom FROM religion for all her citizenry. Brace yourself. Marriage equality is coming to your state…and the US as a whole…soon!