FeedPolitics: We’re going to have a gay old time debating this one …
February 28, 2008 in Statehouse & Capitol Tags: civil unions, Dave Koehler, gay marriage, Richard Pryor
NOTE: Somewhere in this post, there’s a joke to be made about smoking a few fags, but this is a serious blog and I am far too classy a person for that.
Anyway … here’s the whole sordid story:
State Sen. Dave Koehler is proposing legislation that would legalize civil unions in Illinois and entitle unmarried couples — including those of the same sex — to the same protections and benefits currently afforded to traditional married couples.
I have several thoughts:
- I am 100 percent in agreement with Sen. Koehler. In fact, I want the state completely out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious institution. We don’t need the state codifying marriages anymore than we need them codifying baptisms or bar mitzvahs. I can hear the argument now: ‘The government has a compelling interest in promoting marriage, as stable families are the foundation of society.’ That’s right — so that’s where there ought to be civil unions that give people the right to form families and enjoy all those wonderful benefits, regardless of whether couples are all innies or all outies. Churches should have the right to say “no” if they want. That’s their business.
- I do not buy the argument that letting two guys or two women form a legal union somehow degrades tradition one-man/one-woman marriage. People used to say that blacks should be allowed to vote, read, ride at the front of the bus or any number of activities because it disrespected whites. And someone explain to me how the recent marital escapades of Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson are somehow more holy than when two gay people lovingly raise their children together?
- Sen. Koehler must be really, really sure of his re-election chances in 2010, because he’s really letting his liberal freak flag fly with this one. Or, he might simply not care if he is re-elected or not. Peoria is not exactly a bastion of open mindedness, you know. This is a town that cannot agree to sufficiently honor one of its most famous citizens — considered a genius by his peers — because he liked to use naughty words in his act. The horror!
- One of the arguments made by people who oppose gay rights is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and it’s potentially unhealthy. Hmmm … I recall a piece of legislation that DID pass that restricted the rights of people who made a choice that is considered unhealthy. As Sen. Koehler argues against this position while securing passage of this legislation, I hope he notes the irony, as he is a huge proponent of the smoking ban.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:29 am
You ask “someone explain to me how the recent marital escapades of Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson are somehow more holy than when two gay people lovingly raise their children together?”
The marital escapades you mention are not “more holy,” they are also wrong. There is more than one way to pervert marriage into something its not supposed to be. This doesn’t make any of them right.
For many, marriage is still important and honorable. Starting with the right basic ingredients (opposite genders) is a big key. Just because pancakes are made with flour and eggs doesn’t mean that either of those ingredients alone is also called “pancakes.”
-b in Peoria
February 28th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I was with you until:
“One of the arguments made by people who oppose gay rights is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and it’s potentially unhealthy.”
Just because people make that argument, doesn’t make it accurate. It’s well proven that smoking is harmful, but there is no proof that: 1. homosexuality is a choice 2. that it’s unhealthy.
And I’m sure someone will trot out the whole “it’s a behaviour not genetic” argument, so riddle me this, what about being left handed? You could say it’s a behaviour… but I doubt my children “chose” to be left handed….
February 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Ummm…look at the life expectancy of homosexual men.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Being gay is genetic - it has been proven. The “gay gene” has been found. End of story. Now if only they could find the “chocolate” gene and turn mine off so that I might lose some weight - I’d be all over that.
As a proud member of Equal Marriage Illinois, the coalition of citizens backing the bill and Sen, Koehler - I’d like to note that the bill is a “civil unions” bill. It is not asking that gay people be allowed to have a “marriage” - it is asking that gay people who enter into “civil unions” be given the same legal rights as “married” people - the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right of power of attorney, the right to receive benefits upon death, the right to keep their children, etc.
There are approximately 1,300 legal rights that “married” people have (and take very much for granted) that people in civil unions don’t get.
Those of you who are religious can continue to guard your precious “marriage” word - which historically, is not what you think it is. “For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity.” check the NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....ref=slogin
Go Sen. Koehler! (PS I’m a straight, married, mother of two, because that matters to some of you)
February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
cgiselle12 says, “Being gay is genetic - it has been proven.” Please cite your source(s) for this alleged proof.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Proven. You know, like global warming.
Any, who’d be against happy people getting married?
February 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Some random thoughts on the topic:
1) I think the state has much bigger issues to address than this one…however, given their dysfunctionality, they are only likely to address non-critical issues such as this during the session.
2) I don’t understand why a man and a woman would prefer to be “civil unionized” rather than married? If they want the “rights” of marriage, why don’t they get married? What “rights” of marriage don’t they want? Perhaps, I’m missing something…..
3) I’m not a proponent of having two legally recognized forms of commitment. I’d be much more supportive of having the state only provide one type - and let’s call it civil unions and open it to everyone - with the same rights, benefits, and detriments to all without regard to the sex of the individuals being c.u.’d. We’ll then let those who wish to have a religious ceremony utilize the word marriage. (I was married in a church but it was official until I filed the paperwork with the state!) Church ceremonies are religious occassions but unless I’m missing something, don’t constitute a legal marriage without the state’s blessing. Let’s just take one more step to separate church and state and clearly define their roles.
4) I think that individual churches can set whatever limits they want on the ceremonies that they have and who can participate in them. But that the state should not. Commitment to another is commitment to another.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
There is certainly strong evidence that there are genetic factors that predispose an individual to homosexuality:
Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.
Human sexual orientation has a heritable component.
A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples.
Familial aspects of male homosexuality.
A genome wide scan of male sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation in a U.S. sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs.
And here’s a really interesting one … scientists were able to induce male-male courtship in fruit flies by knocking out a certain hormone receptor.
However, despite the evidence from fruit flies, CGiselle12 is incorrect. There is no single “gay gene” that has been discovered. There is certainly very strong evidence for genetic influence in homosexuality, but no one has successfully claimed discovery of an all-encompassing “gay gene.”
February 28th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Peo Proud: Regarding #3 in your list, common law marriages are not valid in Illinois (750 ILCS 5/214). So yes, you don’t receive legal benefits and protections of the state unless you register a marriage certificate under the laws of the state. You could still have a religious ceremony and be “married” as recognized by your church; you just wouldn’t get tax, property, survivorship, or other rights provided by the state.
Regarding #4, all I can say is, really? The state shouldn’t set any limits on who can marry whom (or what)? No age or consanguinity requirements? No proscription of polygamy or exogamy? The state should draw no line? “Commitment to another is commitment to another”?
February 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Knight — There is also evidence that there are genetic factors that predispose an individual to smoke cigarettes:
Researchers Find Genetic Connection to Cigarette Smoking
A meta-analysis of estimated genetic and environmental effects on smoking behavior in male and female adult twins
Genetic and environmental contributions to smoking
Genetic and Social Determinants of Initiation and Age at Onset of Smoking in Australian Twins
Personality and the inheritance of smoking behavior: A genetic perspective
Elucidating the role of genetic factors in smoking behavior and nicotine dependence
Perhaps Sen. Koehler can introduce a bill that will guarantee equal rights for smokers, eh?
What’s really interesting about these studies is that they’re undertaken in an effort to cure smokers of their natural predisposition to smoke. In contrast, studies on genetic predisposition toward homosexual behavior are undertaken to legitimize and reinforce that behavior.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Gay marriage doesn’t make the Top 100, let alone, Top 10 list of problems facing Peoria. This issue is a tremendous waste of Sen. Koehler’s time and reduces his effectiveness as an advocate for Peoria. There are plenty of Chicago Lake front politicians that relish blowing hot air about Gay rights. Very disappointing that Koehler has chosen to make this an issue for his constituents.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Good point C.J…..I’m still in favor of an age of consent — limiting marriage to only those of a certain age….but once we meet that threshold; any two humans can go for it - as far as I’m concerned.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:33 am
and let me clarify….not suggesting closely related individuals should be able to marry or be civil unionized.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Proud: Why not? That’d be the liberal thing to do.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Well Vonster, I don’t classify myself as a liberal…..more of a progressive conservative.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Does he have anyone in mind to marry?
i doubt it will pass and then DO NOT FORGET when Re-election come around!!
Bring something up thats usefull like IMPEACH the GOV !! or Mandate that GOV has to reside in Springfield the state capitol in the housing provided for him! for his 4 yr term!And he has his office in Pekin..Whoa..how will the rednecks take this??
March 1st, 2008 at 1:10 am
I am in favor of gay marriage if both chicks are hot.
March 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
C.J. … yes, there certainly is a genetic predisposition to addictive behavior, and cigarettes are highly addictive because of rapidity of drug onset with inhaled nicotine. Thus cigarettes are the most common drug utilized by such individuals.
However, there is also overwhelming evidence of the inherent harm in smoking cigarettes. There is no such evidence in regards to homosexuality, so your comparison is completely invalid. Homosexuality does not cause multiple forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. The psychological harm associated with homosexuality is due to the judgmental attitude and prejudice shown to them.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
C.J. and Knight: There is nothing that amuses me more than watching two people who can oppose two different attempts by the government to control private behavior, while rationalizing their own support for limiting OTHER private behavior.
People are either in control of their own lives/bodies or they are not. Period.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Knight, I beg to differ. Homosexual acts reportedly lead to higher incidence of anal cancer and various sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV, HPV, and syphilis.
As for psychological harm, a study done in the Netherlands — where same-sex marriage is legal and not stigmatized — found “support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.”
March 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Unprotected sex in any form leads to higher rates of HIV, HPV and syphilis, C.J. Yes, anal sex causes more mucosal tearing than vaginal sex and thus could increase rates of transmission for various STDs. But here’s the thing … straight folks have anal sex, too … probably in higher overall numbers than homosexuals do, since heterosexuals are the majority.
Besides, lesbians have the lowest overall rates of STDs. I guess all girls should be encouraged to become lesbians, by your logic. That’s the safest, right?
As far as the study from the Netherlands … just because same-sex marriage is legal doesn’t mean it’s not stigmatized. In general the Dutch have a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality when compared to Americans, but that doesn’t mean that homosexuals still don’t face prejudice in the Netherlands.
Also, the statistics derived from the study you quote were based on interviews of 87 homosexual men and 43 homosexual women. It was also a self-selected population that agreed to participate in the interview process. That’s not a very convincing study.
Even if there is an inherent increase in certain psychiatric disorders among homosexuals … so what??? Women have higher rates of depression and anxiety disorders than men. African-Americans have higher rates of diabetes. Does that indicate some inherent evil in women and blacks, as you seem to suggest that it does in homosexuals? Is it God’s punishment for their deviance? I suggest that it simply indicates that we are all different.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Billy … there is a clear difference with smoking. Smokers violate the personal liberties of everyone around them when they smoke. Do they ask for their permission to shove toxic chemicals into their lungs? Rarely. Smoking bans are not about the private property rights of bar & restaurant owners. It’s about the personal liberties of non-smokers, constantly violated by smokers. It’s chemical assault … no different than walking up and punching someone in the face. The last time I checked, that was also illegal.
The liberties of smokers end when they start poisoning other people, and it’s about damn time somebody did something about it.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Knight: And there are those who think that homosexuality is threat to everyone because it degrades family values and leads to the destruction of the family unit. And I can make a list of activities that people engage in that can be statistically proven to cause someone, soemwhere, harm. Electromagnetism causes cancer. So let’s do away with wi-fi. Hell, lets do away with bicycling, since some people who ride bikes get hit with cars. Hell, lets do away with cars
Prohibitions against same-sex marriage AND anti-smokign laws are, essentially the same thing: There are people who, for whatever reason, DONT like the activity in question and are a bigger mob of people than the people who practice the activity. So the activity gets banned.
It’s nanny statism at it’s worst.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Knight, you’re missing my point, although you inadvertently made my point (thank you) when you said:
See, this thread started when someone said that a “gay gene” had been found — and was using that as justification for legitimizing homosexuality as a lifestyle. You picked up on that thread and said that, while there isn’t a “gay gene,” that there is “strong evidence for genetic influence in homosexuality.”
So I said that there is also genetic influence in smoking initiation and persistence. But the difference is, science looks for ways to change our genetic makeup to make us less predisposed to smoking, but when it comes to homosexuality, genetic makeup is used to condone and legitimize a homosexual lifestyle. Do you see the double-standard here?
What’s the difference between these two? The only difference is that smoking is seen as bad and undesirable, but homosexuality is seen as something normal and to be affirmed. But those are simply beliefs — neither is based in science. Science can only tell us the “is,” not the “ought.” It can tell us facts, but can’t tell us right from wrong.
Your statement is a good example of this. “So what?” you say, if science shows that there may be higher incidence of disease or psychological disorder. It’s not going to change your mind that homosexuality is okay. You’ll interpret the scientific data in a way that’s consistent with your presuppositions.
Just like you do with smoking. You’re not willing to say, “So what? We’re all different,” when it comes to allowing a bar or restaurant owner to allow smoking in his establishment. Even though you are not being forced to inhale anyone’s secondhand smoke (you have a choice whether to patronize a smoking business), you nevertheless have no qualms about using “science” as your billy club to outlaw smoking in all public places, even thought it’s in violation of private property rights.
That’s my only point — that appealing to science here is a red herring.
March 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
KiD sez: ” Unprotected sex in any form leads to higher rates of HIV, HPV and syphilis, C.J. Yes, anal sex causes more mucosal tearing than vaginal sex and thus could increas e rates of… :
I sez: Words I never expected to read on Peoria Pundit:
“anal sex causes more mucosal tearing than vaginal sex”
He’ll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen…
March 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
And I never thought I’d see the day that Anon had more spelling errors in his comment than Billy had in his!
“Poeir Pundit”? “He’ll be here ll week…”?
(Oh sure, go back and edit them. Cheater.)
March 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Thpt! I already fixed the errors.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
KID: What about the lowered life expectancy of homosexual men?
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
What about it Vonster? You like fiction too?
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Men have a lower life expectancy than women, are you going to start living your life as a woman because it is “healthier”?
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
KID?
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
CJ sez: “And I never thought I’d see the day that Anon had more spelling errors in his comment than Billy had in his! ”
I sez: Lousy laptop keyboard!