Marriage amendment organizers optimistic

From within the doors of Family Taxpayer Network, John Biver assures us in his piece, "Topinka v. Keyes:  can Judy do better than Alan?" that the advisory on the Marriage Amendment will be on the November 2006 ballot.

Biver's news means that Illinois Family Institute and Family Taxpayer Network worked together to accumulate 283,111 valid signatures, an admirable feat.   At the end of last week,  Protect Marriage Illinois requested assistance at a petition drive to be held Sunday morning at Senator/Rev James Meeks' 15,000 member Chicago church, where they hoped to accumulate several thousand more signatures in one day.

Biver suggests despite the State Treasurer's refusal to support the advisory initiative,  her gubernatorial campaign will benefit from the November ballot advisory asking our Illinois General Assembly to vote on amending the Illinois Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

The petition signature gathering deadline has been extended to April 30.

Link: Topinka v. Keyes: can Judy do better than Alan? - Article - Family Taxpayers Network.

Comments

[Tom]

I hope they pull this off. If they don't, this will be a big embarrassment for anyone supporting marriage.
You can bet the gays will have their appeal ready to go immediately after those signatures are filed.
This battle has only begun.

[FA]

Ok, I think we can all agree that Topinka isn't a favorite of the rabid-right. But if you think her showing in November could rival Keyes, you're out of your mind.

[NW burbs]

Here's a clue Tom, gay Americans who want to marry the person they have committed to actually do support marriage -- that's why they'd like for churches or local governments who want to recognize their loving commitment to each other to be able to do so.

But, no, some Americans hate gay people so we end up with Hate Amendments like this which restrict privileges that the intended citizens don't even have anyway.

Your Hate Amendment already is a big embarrassment and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Marriage is about love and commitment and a lifelong promise between two consenting adults.

Ask Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson and hypocritical conservatives like Tenn. St. State Senator Jeff Miller what they've done to actually "protect" marriages...

Fact is, Massachusetts has had legalized marriage between two consenting adults for how long now?

My wife and I? Our marriage is stronger than ever -- the only people we need protection from are kooky conservatives like you who hate people for no reason other than they are different than you.

[Tom]

NW,
Why only two consenting adults? Why not three? or four?
Are you sure you're not being kooky or hateful when you limit "marriage" to just two?

[NW burbs]

Why not dogs, cats and turtles Senator Sanitarium?

[Tom]

NW,
Your response proves my point. If there isn't clear definition of marriage in our constitution, there is NO definition of marriage.

It's not only a religious issue, it's a legal one. It matters who is allowed to be involved in the union. It matters how it begins and how it is dissolved.

Your flippant attitude towards marriage tells us a lot about you.

[Real Men Marry Women]

It will be interesting to see which political and so-called "pro-family" leaders have circulated petitions, and how many signatures each one of them collected for this important effort.

This will separate the leaders from the talkers.

[NW burbs]

Tom,

Crack a smile every now and then...

How are gay people's marriages "destroying" your marriage? Please tell me, I have yet to meet a conservative, liberal or other who could actually answer that question honestly.

Just because something is disgusting doesn't mean we ought to forbid it. There already are laws against polygamy, bestiality, and child abuse.

Among those, only polygamy can occur between consenting adults. (In the case of bestiality and child abuse, there cannot be mutual consent because animals obviously can't say "yes" and children are not mature enough to make such decisions so society protects them from those that would them harm such as those members of Pres. Bush's Homeland Security Department who were disturbed enough to peruse child pornography.)

So, your original question (why not accept more than two consenting adults in a marriage) is a somewhat valid distraction from the issue of Hate Amendments.

I posit that any additional partners may negatively impact the contract (and "promises") of the original two partners in a marriage, but yes, the only other answer to that question is that we limit marriage to two consenting adults due to societal "norms".

Considering most modern polygamists are conservatives (voting GOP) I'd say that's more a question for you and your conservative friends to answer amongst yourselves first.

Me, I'll stick to defending couples who love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together, just like my wife and I.

----

"Real Men Marry Women".... interesting username.

Wouldn't the world be a better place if "Real Men Lived and Let Live"?

Or if "Real Men Were Comfortable Enough With Their Own Heterosexuality to Not Hate Homosexuals"?

It's odd how some of the biggest gay-haters in the GOP have turned out to be closeted gays themselves... And why is it that so many conservatives are so curious about gay people that go around following their every move and telling all their conservative friends about it?

[tfb]

As an FYI, what some conservatives are against, is normalizing aberrant behavior. What most people do not understand is that the purpose of society and culture is to sanction those beyond two standards deviations from the norm in a society. What has happened is over the past 30 years, society has been failing in its duty. As a result balkanization is occurring and large enclaves of "deviants" are massing in a manner that threatens the very culture that this nations success was predicated upon.

As I have mentioned before in other forums, we had queers/gays/whatever in our communities all along. And most people knew who the butches and fems were and they were accepted as part of the "community" as long as they understood their covenant with the community required that their preference not be so readily apparent.

However now the “whatever” they call themselves have stepped over the societal boundary of two standards deviations and are trying to normalize a aberrant behavior. So any backlash is justified and in fact necessary if the culture and society is to survive. AIDs and the like have certainly called into question the idea of rapidly assimilating into the mainstream the fabric of society this form of deviant behavior. Therefore the proper societal response is to increase sanctions against homosexuals in order to retard their societal advance so that they once again are on the fringes of acceptable societal behavior. This will give the mainstream culture and society additional decades of information in order to evaluate the benefits and detriments of normalizing said aberrant behavior.

tfb

[NW burbs]

TFB wrote, "What has happened is over the past 30 years, society has been failing in its duty. As a result balkanization is occurring and large enclaves of "deviants" are massing in a manner that threatens the very culture that this nations success was predicated upon."

Is that the same argument the C.S.A. made when those states seceded?

Because, really, America's success up til the Civil War was predicated upon slavery. And ending slavery threatened the very culture our nation was *founded* on.

TFB, not everyone in the world needs to be exactly the same to get along. It's the people who, deep down in their soul and heart, hate folks who are different from them that can't handle change.

- Backlash is justified ... if the culture and society is to survive?

- The proper societal response is to increase sanctions?

I didn't realize we were living in Nazi Germany or Baathist Iraq. That's the *exact* same rationale those dictatorial regimes used to oppress minorities.

The proper AMERICAN societal response is to realize we're all in this grand experiment to form a more perfect union TOGETHER -- that's why our nation's name is the UNITED States of America, not the We Hate Gay People State of America or the I'm Hetero States of America...

[NW burbs]

I earlier wrote, "That's the *exact* same rationale those dictatorial regimes used to oppress minorities."

Swap "minorities" for "others who were different" considering Hussein 'sanctioned' even (especially) the majority Shi'a.

You have no defense for your radical, unAmerican hate TFB.

[tfb]

I do not need a defense, there is not hate above. Nor is there anything un-American in it. However, just as homosexuals wish to redefine normalcy to include their own deviance, they also wish to redefine mores as "hate" and societal custom as "intolerance". What you need to do is open your mind to what purpose a society and culture serves, and how societies and culture interact to incorporate change. The purpose of societal taboos is to slow the rate of change so that the cohesiveness of society is not shattered while allowing the society and culture to adapt to the world around it at a measured pace.

And in the future please save your hate-baiting for someone who will fall for your childish antics.

tfb

[NW burbs]

TFB, the fact that you cling to immoral fallacies to explain yourself says it all.

Intolerance is immoral. Christ didn't tell the children to stay in their place, did He?

You too easily forget the greatest commandment of all -- Love One Another as You Love Yourself: treat each other with respect and acceptance.

You can call your rants whatever you want TFB but that doesn't change the fact your presumptions are based on hate and intolerance.

[tfb]

NW burbs writes:

TFB, the fact that you cling to immoral fallacies to explain yourself says it all.

Intolerance is immoral. Christ didn't tell the children to stay in their place, did He?

My reply:

Pedophilia is immoral. So is cannibalism. I shall not tolerate either. So is my intolerance still immoral? Or is it only immoral when it is directed at your assumed form of perversity?

tfb

[NW burbs]

It's odd that you assume I'm "perverse" TFB. Does that imply you think I'm gay? Why not just say that? It's not true, but why beat around the bush like that? Grow up.

Pedophilia and cannibalism are both acts which involve victims that are defenseless.

Homosexuality is completely different and more akin to heterosexuality (though, obviously, with different genders involved). In both cases, couples fall in love, have compassion for each other, want to grow old together, etc.

What other false arguments do you have?

[tfb]

Someone writes:

It's odd that you assume I'm "perverse" TFB. Does that imply you think I'm gay? Why not just say that? It's not true, but why beat around the bush like that? Grow up.

My reply:

I phrased it that way, because I did not know, and I did not want to make unwarranted, baseless accusations. Grow up? I did not label you, that is why I wrote it the way I did so not to accuse. It was merely speculation on my part.

It was written:

Pedophilia and cannibalism are both acts which involve victims that are defenseless.

My reply:

Apparently you know very little about either topic. I will not comment on the pedophilia, as it would simply detract from the issue. But you might be surprised to know, in many forms of ceremonial cannibalism, the "victim" volunteers. It can be a “cultural thing”.

It was written:

Homosexuality is completely different and more akin to heterosexuality (though, obviously, with different genders involved). In both cases, couples fall in love, have compassion for each other, want to grow old together, etc.

My reply:

LOL!!!! Oh really, know who needs to grow up? Statistics regarding the number of partners, etc do not bear that out. And many "zoos" climb they have empathy for their "lovers", and indeed love them, and the "love" is reciprocated.

It was queried:

What other false arguments do you have?

My reply:

You are avoiding the central argument with your pointless red herrings. The issue is the purpose of a society and culture and the fact that the leaders of the homosexual political movement are trying to normalize deviant behavior.

By the way I should point out that, for all you know I may be a homosexual, bi-sexual, or a cross dresser (however I assure you I am not pedophile or a cannibal or a zoo). I mention this because if I was/am/are a social deviant my position would not change.

tfb

[NW burbs]

TFB sez: "I will not comment on the pedophilia, as it would simply detract from the issue." and "And many "zoos" climb they have empathy for their "lovers", and indeed love them, and the "love" is reciprocated."

The emotions aggressors project onto their victims (whether the victim is a child, an animal, or deceased) doesn't change the fact that the victim is not able to adequately defend themselves from the aggression -- thus our society enacts and enforces (to one degree or another) laws prohibiting such aggression.

TFB sez: "Statistics regarding the number of partners, etc do not bear that out."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. According the Centers for Disease Control (which is under the supervision of President Bush) AIDS in America is advancing most rapidly among young women, ages 13-24 IIRC.

The number of partners (whether among heterosexuals and homosexuals) is not relevant to your arguments that deviant behavior is grounds for ostracizing distinct groups of Americans and fomenting backlash against them.

Besides, you provide no evidence for your opinions (no reference for the statistics you claim to have knowledge of).

Finally, TFB sez: "I phrased it that way, because I did not know, and I did not want to make unwarranted, baseless accusations. Grow up? I did not label you, that is why I wrote it the way I did so not to accuse. It was merely speculation on my part."

My wife cracked up when I told her a conservative at Illinois Review thought I was gay. Thanks for the laugh we shared.