Huh?
Illinois is considering a bill which would allow "civil unions" between same-sex couples. OK, fine. No problem there.
It's supporters explain that they went with the semantically less threatening "civil union" rather than marriage due to some legislators who had religious problems with voting for a same sex marriage bill, but change the words to civil union, and they may go for it.
Leaving that bit of silliness aside, someone explain Sen. Jacobs remarks on the issue please.
"This strikes me as just feel-good legislation that doesn't address the issue. If they want gay marriage, they should introduce a gay marriage bill. That would be more honest than a `civil union' bill. I would be more amenable to a gay marriage bill than this," said Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline.That's hilarious!! He lays out all this junk in which he essentially takes the Republican stance on the important issue, as he very often does, and makes a valid point that he thinks it should be more honestly labeled gay marriage, rather than civil-union. Heck, if that were the case, Sen. Jacobs says, he'd be more amenable to it.
When pressed, Sen. Jacobs said he believes marriage should only be between "a man and a woman" and said he would vote against a gay marriage bill, as well.
Then when "pressed", he spouts the typical Republican talking point about the issue then says he'd vote against the marriage bill he had just said he'd be amenable to. Pure comedy gold! ha!
Wow. Guess he kind of makes it up as he goes along. Ah well.
But Sen. Jacobs father Denny is doing something that will actually help people. It's very much worth noting and commending former Senator Jacobs for using his considerable skills at lobbying to help establish the new Oak Glenn Home in Moline. This is a hell of a lot more noble and helpful than being the gaming industry's guy in the Senate, and though a lot less lucrative, I'm sure it's a lot more satisfying.
Hat's off to Denny and the effort he's bringing to help care for our area's elderly and insure that even those who don't have a half million laying around can still be cared for with the dignity they deserve in their later years.
They say that a society can be judged by the way they treat their elderly. Denny's helping on that score.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 4/02/2007
18 comments
18 Comments:
Denny does have some class.
Classic waffling from the kid on an issue that could be easily defended either way. Just pick a side….
"This very important issue" - are you serious?
Who cares?
'Important issues' seem to be - the state of the tax burden in Illinois, businesses leaving Illinois, people leaving Illinois, Businesses not coming to Illinois, healthcare (or lack thereof), etc.
Gay marriage/ civil unions - an "important issue" - not!
I get no sence of waffling. Sen. Mike Jacobs stated he would vote against it either way. Where is the waffle?
He just thinks that the term civil union is chicken way of saying marrige.
Well, you can think it's unimportant, and I'm sure it is to you, but I'd bet big money that it's damn important to the people which it affects.
And it's a very important issue with which to judge where a politician stands, and in this case, it shows that Jacobs adopts the Republican stance, which he seems to do on a host of issues.
Either he doesn't give a shit about Democratic priciples and values of equality, diversity, etc., or he simply places political calculation above principle.
In this case and several others, he's obviously determined by polls or donations or other divination that it's safer to ape the right wing line.
And yes, gay marriage is indeed an important issue in and of itself as it reflects whether our society is going to stay mired in the dark ages and enforce inequality and denial of equal rights for an entire class of citizen or not.
Doesn't matter what your view of homosexuality is, it's a matter of equal rights under the law and whether same sex couples should have every right to form loving and long term legal relationships with each other the same way heterosexual couples do.
They certainly couldn't do much worse at it than heterosexuals have. What's the problem?
Very valid argument Dope. I agree with you 100%. It's too bad your parents were not a same sex couple having every right to form a loving and long term legal relationship. Just think how you might have turned out?
Well, I believe that 'Rolle Bolle' is the greatest game on earth and is an incredibly important issue - does this mean that it is extremely important to you as well - or the rest of the world?
I fail to see any sort of point there. But in answer to your question, there's just as much chance I would have turned out just as delightful, charming, and bright as I did.
Why would a child raised by two loving and committed men or women have any poorer an upbringing than a couple with a workaholic father or a home with alcohol or drug abuse problems, or a single parent, or .... any of the thousands of situations in which children are raised?
Don't get why a person's sexual preference still frightens people.
Every country aside from backwards theocracy's have long ago moved beyond their homophobia. I find it embarassing that we haven't.
Yes, yes, Dope, gay marriage is an important point on which to gauge where a politician stands.
For example, just last week Boland voted against "civil unions" and also proclaimed opposition to gay marriage.
As you say Dope, either Boland doesn't give a shit about Democrat principals, or diversity or equity, or he simply places political calculations above principle.
Why don't you come out of the closet Dope, galvanize the left wing of the party, and run against the homophobic Boland?
Again where is the waffling? Jacobs stated that he is against both. This seems to be very straight forward. It appears that he was talking about the hypocracy of calling a civil union bill and not a gay marriage bill.
Well for starters, because I don't think I could live with myself BSing everyone nearly every time I opened my mouth, and letting money dictate how I voted, etc.
It's a dirty business, as anyone involved will readily admit, and I really think in many ways it's a horrible job. Having firm priciples and high ethics would certainly get in the way.
And the bottom line is that I simply don't have an overwhelming craving for power. I would never be willing to subject myself to the humiliating and often crooked, unethical and thuggish things politicians do to get it and try to hold on to it.
I just noticed that Rep. Pat Verschoore of Rock Island also voted against "civil unions" last week. Do you think Verschoore and Boland have placed politics above Democratic values, or just Jacobs?
Yep.
So you are saying that Mike Boland and Pat Vershoore are not Democrats because they belive like Jesus Christ that marrige is between a man and a woman.
Why can't they just believe this and not have to be bribed to do this as you suggest. I know Mike Boland and for you to say this shows your bias against him.
Dazed and confused, 1:32.
Not sure what you're saying, but Jesus had no opinion on homosexuality. But if you want to think so... be my guest.
You want to take the Bible literally, then why aren't you out stoning people to death for minor infractions as it calls for?
And stop coveting your neighbor's ass while you're at it.
And apparently the Bible endorses incest as well, as in Genesis, there's some reproduction going on on the same branch of the family tree.
If you're going to pick and choose which ancient verse to hold up as law, be consistent.
The bit about Mike Boland makes no sense and as usual, is just a goofy stab at twisting things.
The right wing, fundementalist's and Republican party are the ones who've elevated this issue to something far beyond it's importance.
Jacobs, Verschoore, and whoever else all are most definitely parroting the Republcan line, as they often do with gun issues, etc.
They obviously feel that more closely mirrors the wishes of their constituents. At least I hope that's the reason, as they take the Republican stance fairly often, and if that's their true beliefs, maybe they should switch parties.
But then again, it's not about party ideology, it's about gaining and holding onto power, and so once you get there, I guess you come out for anything you feel will best keep you in your position, even if it's directly opposed to the platform of your party.
That's politics I guess.
Now that you brought up gun control. I looked it up and I was shocked to see that Mike Boland is for Americans havig guns. He seems to be in agreement with Jacobs and Vershoore on this issue Dope.
You seem to hide Bolands views. Are you Mike Boland?
Mike Boland a Republican?
Who would have thunk it.
anon above,
Just curious. Do you really think you're being clever with such transparent crap?
Obviously, no Democrat I am aware of, least of all myself or any Dem politician, is against Americans owning guns.
Therefore, your entire comment is worthless.
Most Democrats are for common sense gun control, which makes eminent sense in the face of the millions of guns flooding the country. This is light-years away from the NRA BS that anyone somehow wants to ban all guns or the even more ridiculous notion that anyone wants to "take away" anyone's guns, as if that were even remotely possible.
Being a shill for the NRA and opposing ANY gun legislation no matter how sensible and sane is Republican. Being for common sense gun regulation isn't.
Boland recently scored an A+ ratin with the NRA. Does this make him a Republican?
Show me a link to prove it first. If that's true, then he certainly parrots the Republican stance on gun issues. Why should anyone have to tell you this? You can't figure it out on your own?
Post a Comment
<< Home