An advantage to extending the Protect Marriage petition drive deadline?
Eric Zorn , Archpundit and some others have blogged on this. In particular Zorn and Arch have talked about the IFI extending the deadline for petitions and perhaps seeing it as a sign they are having problems.
Let me toss another theory out. They have plenty of signatures but every name and address on a petition is another name for the IFI database and the day they say no more petitions the growth of the list stops as well.
Especially at the end with a deadline, those folks who are passing and spending the coin to FED-EX the thing in are obviously motivated to get the job done and would be very good names for IFI to have in their database as activists. Just from the names of last minute circulators you can build a good grass roots list.
Regardless of if this thing ever ends up on the ballot, at the least IFI ends up with a list they can likely rent out (not sure what the law is on this) of over 200,000 (well at least over 100,000) self identified 'family values' voters. Think about how much that is worth in influence over the process in the next 2 years. At best they get this on the ballot.
Here is a what-if to think about.
They file and a challenge is filed against the petitions by some group that has at best loose ties to the Democratic party (like they give money to some candidates) . IFI turns around and starts mailing out items about how the Democratic Party does not want you to have a say in the issue. Might be a good way of getting 'family value' voters who would not be motivated to go vote for Judy to get to the polls in November. Could it swing a leg race or two in Southern IL? Hmmmm
OneMan
20 comments:
If it gets on the ballot, expect supporters to be shooting lots of video at the Gay Games to drum up support.
A lot of people (many Democrats) who support civil unions will vote to constitutionalize marriage as between a man and a woman.
The best argument against it is the conservative one of keeping the constitution limited. Activist Judges have just scared the heck out of people though and invite these referendums.
The videos of the gay parade are not only disgusting but criminal.
These are not Judy voters.
If this gets on the ballot it will pass at least 60 to 40 maybe better.
OneMan -- great theory, one small problem: the minute they file the petitions, anybody can get a copy, and probably will. In fact, look for the Democratic Party to get a copy and send direct mail on behalf of it's conservative members about how they support family values.
Ask yourself this: who do you think has a bigger direct mail budget, IFI or DPI? I can tell you the IFI was scrambling to raise $75K just so they could finish their petition drive.
John M. Sullivan quoted in the Quad City Times,
3. Would you support the ban on same-sex marriages that is being proposed in the US Senate for a vote this summer?
Yes.
I think this will be the Democratic position and a lot of Democratic voters will agree and vote for the ban. Candidates will tell gay supporters they support civil unions instead.
A real armadillo position consistent with having Sister Muhammed on your anti discrimination commission.
Attack the IFI as extreme but it's ho hum for a guy who wants to wash the Holy Land with blood because Israel allows a Gay Pride parade.
I can make a conservative case for same-sex marriage. (It's pretty much the same case for any kind of marriage.)
I agree with it.
I can make a conservative case for taditional marriage. It's easy: Respect tradtions.
But Democrats can't get their act together on any principled stands it seems.... Read Dean fires Dems' gay outreach chief.
Hitchcock declined comment Tuesday night except to confirm that Dean informed him May 2 through a surrogate that he had been terminated. He said he was considering consulting an attorney to decide whether to contest the firing.
"This is retaliation, plain and simple," said Yandura. "This shows what they think about domestic partners."
Yandura said Tuesday night that Dean was using Hitchcock as a "scapegoat" for problems of Dean's own making.
"All I did was ask questions about what the party and Dean are doing about its GLBT constituency, Yandura said. "I have yet to see any answers."
Hitchcock's dismissal came after Yaundura created a stir among party activists, both gay and straight, by sending an open letter on April 20 to gay Democrats criticizing Dean and the party for not getting involved in state ballot measures seeking to ban gay marriage.
It just confirms to me the pary is void principles of any kind. Give me a Bill Brady committed to traditional marriage, limits on activist judges; but most importantly a Bill Brady who can speak loud and clear about the inhumanity spouted by Farrahkan.
The Republican Party is just as void of principles on the whole and you know it. You definitely do have to focus on individual candidates to find honest ones with integrity. While I disagreed with Brady, I would agree that he has integrity. Pat Quinn is a Democrat I can trust. It's a shame we have to choose between the party of Ryan and Bush and the party of Blago and Dean, but what can you do?
It's a no brainer for me Lorenzoman.
I voted for Ryan over Poshard because I bought onto the Poshard was too much the social conservative.
Won't do that again.
Bush believes in traditional marriage. He's honest and consistent.
Fine then, if it must be decided, put it to a vote....
But Illinois Republicans are uniformly decided agains Blagojevich's choice of of Sister Muhammed on the Commission and condem Farrahkan's speeches.
This is a problem for many Democrats save Quinn and Lisa Madigan and a handful of others...
...the lack of outcry among them destroys any credibility for me and I suspect it will with most voters.
How opponents of this referendum can accuse opponents of being bashers and homophobes when they turn their faces away from Farrahkan almost makes me want to vote for it just to throw it back in their faces in disgust.
If you think Bush is honest and consistent, then I have some lakefront property to sell you. He's Blagojevich on a national level. What's really sad is that his VP, for Machiavellian reasons, won't stand up for gay marriage when he believes in it .
It's really too bad that McCain couldn't have been nominated and won in 2000. He would have been up to the task to lead us in Iraq and against the travails of the War on Terror with integrity.
Bill-
You often talk about 'put it to a vote' or 'letting the people decide'.
I assume that you'll have to agree to two key things:
1) Homosexuals are a minority in this country.
-and-
2) Many heterosexuals find homosexual activies wrong/distatseful for a variety of reasons whether they be religious, cultural, etc.
Given these two very significant reasons, do you honestly think that the population has any real level of tolerance towards homosexuality to the point where they are going to allow same-sex couples to have any form of governmental approval?
There were periods of time in the country when women were oppressed, non-whites were oppressed, etc. 'Putting it to a vote' in those eras would have resulted in continued oppression. Does that mean that it was okay for women to have been oppressed back then or do we recognize that sometimes the population acts in a discriminatory manner?
Homophobes/'tradiionalists' have yet to produce any valid reason two same-sex people should not enjoy the legal contract sanctioned by governments known as 'marriage'.
Rumor has it that they have more than 283,111 signatures. However, in order to protect themselves from getting knocked off, they were looking for a lot more. Whenever I signed the petition on Saturday, some lady told me that their goal was more than 325,000 and that it was very attainable.
Lots of Southern Legislatures (even some Dems like John Bradley) have endorsed it.
Bill, Don't think that Garcia speaks for the entire gay community. Both the Illinois chapters of the Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans publicly called for the removal of Sister Muhammad. I believe you can still find it on their websites.
It's just that Garcia is the designated talking head of the gay community thanks to our mainstream media.
I like the Bill Brady Governor and Pat Quinn Lite Guv that would kick Sister Farrakhan and Rick Garcia off of any boards.
Gish,
I don't think marriage is a right for anyone.
I think marriage is relationship defined and liscensed by States and Counties.
If you get a marriage license in Dupage, and get married in Kane, the State of Illinois will not recognize it as a valid marriage.
No one has a right to take a Dupage license and have it solmnized in Kane. Our minister finds out you have a Dupage issued lisense she gets mad because it means she needs to get bride and groom in car, drive to Dupage, do a quick service, and then drive back to Geneva in Kane were everyone is waiting to do a service all over again for show.
I'm guess the majority of voters will decide to keep marriage as something between men and women.
I'm guessing more would approve something waffling like civil unions.
I don't think it's a civil rights issue to deny marriage to same sex couples.
There is no inalienable right to a marriage licsense.
anon 11:16
I like the Bill Brady Governor and Pat Quinn Lite Guv that would kick Sister Farrakhan and Rick Garcia off of any boards.
It's ashame this kind of ticket couldn't happen. I don't understand why.
Bill-
Marriage is a legal contract under government. It is also a religious ceremony to some. A marriage license has zero to do with the religious ceremony for all practical purposes and the government has zero ability to force churches to perform the ceremony for any couple.
This country has enacted a whole host of laws to provide equal access to legal contracts such as purchasing real estate, entering in to leases, insurance contracts, etc. Owning a house is not a 'right', driving a 'car' is not a right but we do not allow the government to prevent people from doing so without strong reasoning such as DUI convictions or Sexual Predator status.
Somehow though you find it to be different with marriage licenses. Why is that?
A marriage license has zero to do with the religious ceremony.
Not in Illinois and most US States. You get a license but the marriage has to be solemized which I consider a religous ceremony (that's why they're solumn) by...
Ordained ministers, judges, retired judges, and public officials whose powers include solemnization of marriages.
...before it's legally recognized.
Check out the rules here.
Illinoisians can marry their first cousins after age 50.
But we don't have an inalienable right to marry them.
Marriage, driving cars, all different rules... and the rules change with age... so if you want to marry your first cousin in Illinois, you have to wait to age 50.
I don't right them. I'd let same sex couples marry. But it's not a civil right and I don't call people who disagree bigots.
write I mean... but I think you got it.
Also note, like many things in Illinois... Requirements may vary as each county in Illinois could have their own requirements.
Bill-
Having your 'marriage' performed by a retired judge is in no way religious. Even the implication would have had that tossed out years ago on separation issues.
My point is that: The sanctioning of marriage by government is irrelevant to any religious aspect.
Government sanctioning of marriage is to pre-screen applicants and then record that marriage took place ny a sanctioned religious representative or a civil judge.
That is it. Governments pre-screen apllicants and record the act thereby creating legal standing in the contract.
Government through protection of the 'public health' does have an interest in screening related candidates who have significant possibilities of producing offspring with recessive genetic defects.
Marriage is as alienable a right as equal housing or lending rights exist. We as a society/nation have stood by the principle that these things should be open to all barring significant reasoning to bar it. This is no different. The imapact on religious groups is nil. They have a right not to perform ceremonies for same-sex marriages just as they have the right to ordain the faithful.
Bigot is a word tied to the act of discrimination. Marriage with regard to government is a civil contract. Some wish to ban a certain, distinct group from engaging in that contract. That is discrimination pure and simple.
The concept that Illinois Republicans would get organized and share information between the mainstream and Roeser wings of the party is a joke. The concept is a good one, but it won't happen because of internecine warfare and worry over who will get credit.
Post a Comment