IL House Speaker: Gay Marriage 12 Vot...

IL House Speaker: Gay Marriage 12 Votes Short

There are 26 comments on the whbf.com story from Mar 13, 2013, titled IL House Speaker: Gay Marriage 12 Votes Short. In it, whbf.com reports that:

House Speaker Michael Madigan says passing a gay marriage bill out of the Illinois House will be ``very difficult.'' Madigan told reporters Wednesday that he backs the measure allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at whbf.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Mar 13, 2013
Illinois has one of THEE MOST corrupt state goverments in the U.S.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2 Mar 14, 2013
from the article, "he's been contacted by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, who opposes the idea of gay marriage."

WHY do people keep listening to people that have professed to live lives of celibacy (though, let's face it, none of them do) when it comes to issues of personal relationships??

Let them marry God or Jesus or whatever pretend craziness appeals to them and leave the rest of us alone.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Mar 14, 2013
Everyone take a breath and calm down.

The Illinois legislature is in session until the end of May; plenty of time to twist some arms yet.

Depending when the DOMA decision comes out, that may impact their votes as well.

Plenty of time for slitting wrists.......

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Everyone take a breath and calm down.
The Illinois legislature is in session until the end of May; plenty of time to twist some arms yet.
Depending when the DOMA decision comes out, that may impact their votes as well.
Plenty of time for slitting wrists.......
Exactly why fundamental rights should not be subject to the "tyranny of teh majority".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly why fundamental rights should not be subject to the "tyranny of teh majority".
So you oppose the tyranny of the majority of justices voting on whether or not gays have equal rights?

It's going to take a majority vote somewhere for us to be able to legally marry; whether it's a majority of the SCOTUS or a majority of a state Supreme Court or a majority of the legislature or a majority of the people, it STILL REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#6 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Everyone take a breath and calm down.
The Illinois legislature is in session until the end of May; plenty of time to twist some arms yet.
Depending when the DOMA decision comes out, that may impact their votes as well.
Plenty of time for slitting wrists.......
how does this affect your view of the unstoppable rising tide in your favor?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you oppose the tyranny of the majority of justices voting on whether or not gays have equal rights?
It's going to take a majority vote somewhere for us to be able to legally marry; whether it's a majority of the SCOTUS or a majority of a state Supreme Court or a majority of the legislature or a majority of the people, it STILL REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE.
No. I'm opposed to allowing the general public being allowed to vote on the fundamental rights of others. There's nothing wrong with one or more judges deciding the issue.(Did you forget about about Judge Walker already ?)

The U.S. was NOT founded upon democracy, nor "majority rule" despite many Americans mistakenly believing so for reasons unknown to me.

The Founding Fathers NEVER believed in what we now call democracy nor "majority rule". Hence the need for a strong Constitution with a Bill Of Rights, and a U.S. Senate. These things SPECIFICALY INHIBIT democracy and "majority rule". And even in teh U.S. Senate, we have what is effectively "minority rule" because 41 or more U.S. Senators can stop what a majority of senators want to do.

The U.S. is a constitutional republic, NOT a "democracy".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Mar 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
how does this affect your view of the unstoppable rising tide in your favor?
If doesn't affect my view it at all.

For one thing they haven't had a vote yet, so speculation is just speculation.

For another thing, they passed it in the Senate when it couldn't pass in last year's legislature.

The tide keeps rising. If we don't get marriage equality in Illinois this year, we'll get it next year.

It's only a matter of time.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm opposed to allowing the general public being allowed to vote on the fundamental rights of others. There's nothing wrong with one or more judges deciding the issue.(Did you forget about about Judge Walker already ?)
The U.S. was NOT founded upon democracy, nor "majority rule" despite many Americans mistakenly believing so for reasons unknown to me.
The Founding Fathers NEVER believed in what we now call democracy nor "majority rule". Hence the need for a strong Constitution with a Bill Of Rights, and a U.S. Senate. These things SPECIFICALY INHIBIT democracy and "majority rule". And even in teh U.S. Senate, we have what is effectively "minority rule" because 41 or more U.S. Senators can stop what a majority of senators want to do.
The U.S. is a constitutional republic, NOT a "democracy".
And yet they provided a means for the people to have a popular vote.

Split hairs all you want, but in order to get marriage equality, it's going to take a majority vote somewhere- SCOTUS, legislature, or the people.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet they provided a means for the people to have a popular vote.
Split hairs all you want, but in order to get marriage equality, it's going to take a majority vote somewhere- SCOTUS, legislature, or the people.
As I said, while the Founders established a STRICTLY LIMITED means for a SMALL MINORITY of people to be able to vote (by law, about 6% of the population of the U.S. was eligible to vote in elections during the first decade after the ratification of the U.S. constitution), the Founders put large stumbling blocks inthe way of democracy by establishing he U.S. Senate, ubsequently agreeing in effect later on to the doctrine of judicial review, and by allowing the filibuster to be used in teh Senate, as well as the House Of Representatives (both houses allowed filibusters at one time where only a single person could bring things to a halt).

It's an oft-promoted myth of American history that the U.S. was founded upon democracy and that the Founding Fathers belived in and promoted democracy. The fact is, they didn't.

I'm a Libertarian and so believe in a vigorous democracy, and debating in the marketplace of ideas. But I believe in that ONLY within the framework of our U.S. Constitution, and state constitutions, where voting on certain thingsis forbidden, and the rights of the minorities are protected from the "tyranny of the majority" as the Founders put it.

An individual's Liberty and Rights ARE more important than the state. That was the entire fundamental basis for our VIOLENT Revolution against the existing legal government at the time.

IS VIOLENT revolution against an existing legal government moral and just ? Generally it is moral and just ONLY if you win. And sometimes not even then.(The American Revolution of the 18th century turned out very differently than the Russian Revolution of the 20th century).
Jon

Pekin, IL

#11 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Illinois has one of THEE MOST corrupt state goverments in the U.S.
Indeed it is. It's 100% Demonrat controlled. B. Hussein Obama shared the same jailed convict as his initial political sponsor as jailed Governor Blagojevich. It's the Chicago criminals that are trying to force homosexual 'marriage' into law! Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#12 Mar 14, 2013
Jon wrote:
Indeed it is. It's 100% Demonrat controlled. B. Hussein Obama shared the same jailed convict as his initial political sponsor as jailed Governor Blagojevich. It's the Chicago criminals that are trying to force homosexual 'marriage' into law! Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
Is "live and let live" what you had in mind when you said...
Jon wrote:
Any Christian knows that a homosexual lifestyle choice is evil.
...under the Topix thread "Anti-homophobia ads in Quebec ask: Just how open-minded are you?"

Your comment there had NOTHING to do with the kind of cooperative tolerance espoused by a "live and let live" attitude. It was pure superstitious slander.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, while the Founders established a STRICTLY LIMITED means for a SMALL MINORITY of people to be able to vote (by law, about 6% of the population of the U.S. was eligible to vote in elections during the first decade ......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
And yet they still provided for a means to change how we vote, who can vote, and what we vote on.

Either way a majority is going to have to vote in order for same-sex couples to be able to exercise our right to marry across the US.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet they still provided for a means to change how we vote, who can vote, and what we vote on.
Either way a majority is going to have to vote in order for same-sex couples to be able to exercise our right to marry across the US.
The Founders did NOT do that. They left ALL election laws up to each individual state to decide. Many states did not even allow a person, otherwise qualified to vote in other elections, to be able to vote for POTUS until the 1830's.

It's a MYTH that the American Revolution, AND the U.S. Constitution somehow broght "democracy" and "voting" to the average American. IT JUST AINT TRUE !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Founders did NOT do that. They left ALL election laws up to each individual state to decide. Many states did not even allow a person, otherwise qualified to vote in other elections, to be able to vote for POTUS until the 1830's.
It's a MYTH that the American Revolution, AND the U.S. Constitution somehow broght "democracy" and "voting" to the average American. IT JUST AINT TRUE !
Through our constitutional amendment process, the Congress, and the judiciary.

If they hadn't wanted certain things voted on they would have specifically spelled that out in the constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Mar 14, 2013
On another front, the Rhode Island Senate if finally starting to move on their marriage bill- it will be heard in committee on Thursday.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Through our constitutional amendment process, the Congress, and the judiciary.
If they hadn't wanted certain things voted on they would have specifically spelled that out in the constitution.
I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about the FOUNDERS who only wrote the first 12 amndments that were subsequently ratified (some weren't ratified at all, and in one case it took over 200 years for one of the amendments the Founders wrote to be ratified).

I was NOT speaking about anyone who lived AFTER the last Founder died (which would be roughly around 1830 - 1840).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Mar 14, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I was speaking SPECIFICALLY about the FOUNDERS who only wrote the first 12 amndments that were subsequently ratified (some weren't ratified at all, and in one case it took over 200 years for one of the amendments the Founders wrote to be ratified).
I was NOT speaking about anyone who lived AFTER the last Founder died (which would be roughly around 1830 - 1840).
That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

The fact is the founders put in ways to change our consitution and left voting primarily to the states.

Again, if they wanted to ban people from voting on certain things they would have spelled that out in the constitution.
Thats Right

Chesapeake, OH

#19 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

The fact is the founders put in ways to change our consitution and left voting primarily to the states.

Again, if they wanted to ban people from voting on certain things they would have spelled that out in the constitution.
It they wanted marriage between two queers, they would have spelled that out in the constitution.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#20 Mar 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.
The fact is the founders put in ways to change our consitution and left voting primarily to the states.
Again, if they wanted to ban people from voting on certain things they would have spelled that out in the constitution.
I DIDN'T say that they banned peope ffrom voting. What i said (which is teh TRUTH), is that they left the question of voting, and the eligibility for doing so, EXCLUSIVELY up to the states, NOT the federal government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 9 min Frankie Rizzo 19
Jade NE Weekend Review 37 min Frankie Rizzo 9
News Gay veteran with a penchant for heels wins land... 51 min Frankie Rizzo 94
Jade Mad 53 min Frankie Rizzo 2
News This Navy vet is making history as Mississippi'... 1 hr helpfullynxtagz 2
News Church Of Scotland To Draft New Laws Permitting... 1 hr Imprtnrd 2
News Transgender people in Iran face discrimination ... 2 hr Xstain Spot Remover 1
News The Fight for LGBT Equality in 2018 Will Be Fierce 4 hr FART FRANK 137
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 19 hr Pendleton 28,156