State Party Considers Firing Chairman for Embracing Gay Marriage

[Charles Kozierok]

Whether one supports or opposes gay marriage, is this really reasonable?

The state Republican Party’s central committee will meet Saturday to consider firing chairman Pat Brady, largely because he spoke out in favor of a bill to end Illinois’ ban on gay marriage. And the only Republican state senator to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, Sen. Jason Barickman, has been chastised by his colleagues and a national organization opposing the measure.

One could argue that it is reasonable for a group to oust a chairman who says things that don't represent the views of the group. That said, I thought the GOP was trying to "modernize" its approach on social issues, and it's hard to see how this helps any.

 

[Murloc]

if it goes against party guidelines, then he doesn't represent the party voters and it would make sense to expel him.
If they want to modernize their approach, they better change the guidelines.
I understand that personal views within a party vary but there are some basic lines that can't be crossed because they define whether you're in or you're out.
Disregard what I wrote if the republican agenda doesn't explicitly oppose gay marriage.

 

[techs]

State Party Considers Firing Chairman for Embracing Gay Marriage

I think I see the problem.



But, seriously, heresy is a serious offense in the Republican Party. Just ask Chris Christie.

 

[Craig234]

It's a bit amazing how much Republicans on the one hand will say they hate putting party ahead of what's right and the country and such, but then do exactly that.

They tolerate all kinds of behavior that's strictly for 'party benefit', from obstructionism up to and including hurting the economy to hurt the democratic incumbent.

They are often very strict about 'do the right thing that isn't good for the party and you're going to be punished'.

There's way too much support for things like Republicans trying to keep people from voting or for gerrymandering just because they're 'good for the party'.

Democrats aren't saints about it, but Republicans are far, far worse.

For just a random example - I'm still waiting for the first Republican to say ACORN shouldn't have been shut down by using lies.

Its only real crime was providing assistance to the poor, including helping them to vote, and the poor are 'the 47%' so destroying an agency helping them was a priority.

I'm still waiting for a Republican to criticize Saclia's recent 'judicial activism' where he said he knows Senators didn't mean their 98-0 vote to renew the Voting Rights Act and so what's needed is for a judge to help them by saying that the act 'does not comport with the constitution' to overcome their political difficulty to vote no.

It's a rare case where a Republican can get away with criticizing the party's positions. Dick Cheney's position for gay marriage to be a state issue was one exception.

 

[Lithium381]

This is exactly why we need more parties at the national level. . . sometimes neither of the two major players match people's viewpoints . ..

 

[Craig234]

This is exactly why we need more parties at the national level. . . sometimes neither of the two major players match people's viewpoints . ..

We've been through why it's unlikely for any third party to be competitive many times.

The option is to try to change one of the two parties.

 

[Lithium381]

We've been through why it's unlikely for any third party to be competitive many times.

The option is to try to change one of the two parties.

I know It's just a idea i would like to eventually see happen, even though you and others have shown me that under our current system it's highly unlikely.

I just can't vote for the republicans as they are now, and many others are starting to abandon them as well, which, unfortunatly means the Dems are going to have a leg up unless they really screw themselves over.... but the media has their back... I can see gun control and other rights violations bringing them down in the future though..

 

[techs]

The "problem" is that the electoral college or even a straight plurality vote could easily allow a radical ideology of as little as 34 percent of voters to obtain power.

Would people be so quick to want a third party if that party were Communists or Fascists and could possibly win with a relavitely small amount of votes?

 

[Craig234]

I just can't vote for the republicans as they are now...

I am proud of you for that.

but the media has their back...

That's really not right. We can have a discussion/thread about it, but it's not factual.

What media bias their is on a 'side' is enormously on the owner/wealthy side; but the main media bias is just 'make money'.

Even Ropert Murdoch is less locked in to pushing for the right wing than for his own power. When he benefits by supporting the 'left', he's done that.

 

[Lithium381]

Bias by omission most of the times . . . but as you said, another topic.


I've been evolving on the concept of gays. Back when i was an early teenager, i thought it was the grossest thing possible. Looking back it's because that's what i was exposed to from my mother and other adults at the time. Also, having gone to church since i was two and the notion of man+woman is the end all be all.
Now, while I still think it's unnatural, not neccesarily WRONG, I support the right of anyone to have a legal civil union and be in a relationship with whomever they please. it's not my life, and as much as the guys on the 'right' try and say it's going to be the end of the world, i haven't yet seen anything concrete other than them sticking to what they grew up with.
On Prop 8 here in california i voted for gay marriage to be legal even though it is at odds with my own upbringing.

The worst thing to come about from the gay civil rights movement IMO is the intolerance and PC of HAVING TO BE PRO-GAY. For example, the founder/owner of the Chil-fil-a restaurant was under fire last year because he has an opinion. Yet his restaurants didn't discriminate in any way. . . Somehow people MUST accept the gay point of view or be attacked?

Listen, other people have opinions, just as you do and that's OK. . . . seems to me a lot of positions the left takes up has this issue. Then again I know for a long time those who are fighting for equal civil rights have had an uphill battle against the status quo and I understand the frustration. i just wish they'd be as open minded about other peoples opinoins as they want people to be about their preferences. . .

 

[Craig234]

Bias by omission most of the times . . . but as you said, another topic.


I've been evolving on the concept of gays. Back when i was an early teenager, i thought it was the grossest thing possible. Looking back it's because that's what i was exposed to from my mother and other adults at the time. Also, having gone to church since i was two and the notion of man+woman is the end all be all.
Now, while I still think it's unnatural, not neccesarily WRONG, I support the right of anyone to have a legal civil union and be in a relationship with whomever they please. it's not my life, and as much as the guys on the 'right' try and say it's going to be the end of the world, i haven't yet seen anything concrete other than them sticking to what they grew up with.
On Prop 8 here in california i voted for gay marriage to be legal even though it is at odds with my own upbringing.

The worst thing to come about from the gay civil rights movement IMO is the intolerance and PC of HAVING TO BE PRO-GAY. For example, the founder/owner of the Chil-fil-a restaurant was under fire last year because he has an opinion. Yet his restaurants didn't discriminate in any way. . . Somehow people MUST accept the gay point of view or be attacked?

Listen, other people have opinions, just as you do and that's OK. . . . seems to me a lot of positions the left takes up has this issue. Then again I know for a long time those who are fighting for equal civil rights have had an uphill battle against the status quo and I understand the frustration. i just wish they'd be as open minded about other peoples opinoins as they want people to be about their preferences. . .

You aren't the only one who when young had the repulsion.

Two things I disagree with you about - but congrats on trying to be fair.

First, it is natural. I've reached that conclusion looking at the people and the science. It's not 'natural' for most people; it is for a minority of people and always has been.

It's often hidden because of the penalties and bigotry and people with those feelings not knowing what to do and wanitng to hide them. Look how many gays marry the opposite sex only to find themselves in unhappy marriages - it happens many, many times (ask Arriana Huffington).

Yet in societies historically you find a similar percentage of people again and again and again. I haven't found an exception. Even in, say, the middle east - or Uganda - where the pressure is massive and can carry prison and worse, you still find people who are gay dealing with it. Talk to them - the didn't choose it.

Another thing is how people have the feelings from young ages just like heterosexuals do about the opposite sex.

It's not scientificaly simple because sexuality isn't simple - look at the passions, the compulsions, the perversions - people get out of control and warped. Molest a child and he's far more likely to grow up to molest children himself, not because he was 'born that way' but because of the way sexuality and people work. There's no simple 'gay gene'. But it's pretty clear that for whatever reason, there is a big biological factor.

Look at identical twins - they're far more likely to both be gay - but it's not 100% either. Showing genetic influence - but not simply determining it.

It is 'natural'. The reason to have an opinion should not be based on saying it isn't.

Second, the PC issue. We disagree there, but not maybe as much as you think.

If you meet someone who just HATES blacks or women or Jews or whatever group, how do you react?

Probably, hopefully, you don't think they have a good reason but you understand they feel the way they do. You might respect their freedom but oppose their hurting others over it.

It's important for it not to be 'socially acceptable'. Walking into work in your KKK hood should not just be 'personal choice'. It's good for society to take a position on the bigotry.

It's ok to have some sympathy and understanding for the person - it's normal, you can related as I can how people 'go through change' in getting over bigotry. You don't need to 'hate the bigot' and 'think they're evil'. But it's not just 'one person's valid opinion as good as anyone else's.'. It's ultimate wrong and harmful.

Now the problem with the Chik Fil A guy isn't so much for his opinion. It'd for his being a public advocate for his discriminating against others and giving millions of dollars to fund people who are politically active to tell people who love each other that they should not be able to get married and should have their equal rights denied. That is HARMFUL.

It's absolutely ok to oppose and condemn that harmful, bigoted behavior. For it to not be socially acceptable - any more than wearing a KKK hood - even if it is his 'right'.

People used to think it was ok to ignore the law to discriminate against blacks riding busses equally - which is why the freedom riders did it to draw out the bigotry instead of allowing it to silently continue, even though it meant as they'd arrive in a city the police would stay for a mob of bigots to beat the people expressing their bigotry. That confrontation brought the issue more in the open and better exposed the injustice. Confronting the guy donating millions to get the rights of people denied is ok, confronting the bigotry.

Why would it ok for him to spend millions to deny you the right to marry but it's not ok for you to say he's wrong and organize a boycott of his business that gives him the millions?

The guy needs to be shamed for bigotry.

Not doing so makes you a sort of accomplice, just as would if you tolerated the KKK denying marriage to blacks and said 'oh don't criticize them, that's PC'.

This idea of society having to take a stand or be an accomplice goes way back - the founding fathers had a 'gentlemans's agreement' not to talk about the uncomfortable topic of slavery in the middle of trying to reach agreement to form a society celebrating freedom, between those who supported and opposed slavery. That worked out well.

 

[werepossum]

Whether one supports or opposes gay marriage, is this really reasonable?



One could argue that it is reasonable for a group to oust a chairman who says things that don't represent the views of the group. That said, I thought the GOP was trying to "modernize" its approach on social issues, and it's hard to see how this helps any.

Reasonable, yes. The party chairman must be in line with the party platform. Smart, no, for two reasons. First, it's increasingly a losing proposition with voters. Second, you want party leaders who lead, and occasionally that will be in a direction where the followers don't want to go, but still need to go.

The "problem" is that the electoral college or even a straight plurality vote could easily allow a radical ideology of as little as 34 percent of voters to obtain power.

Would people be so quick to want a third party if that party were Communists or Fascists and could possibly win with a relavitely small amount of votes?

That is an excellent point. A strong independent or third party could indeed be a fringe, albeit a strong fringe. Even assuming it's not outright evil (not too likely in America) it could still be disastrous; imagine the Tea Party breaking away and gaining power through a protest vote, with no clear direction except opposition. Another reason to go to ranked voting, so that if no one party captures 50% + 1 then composite rankings are used.

 

[werepossum]

Bias by omission most of the times . . . but as you said, another topic.


I've been evolving on the concept of gays. Back when i was an early teenager, i thought it was the grossest thing possible. Looking back it's because that's what i was exposed to from my mother and other adults at the time. Also, having gone to church since i was two and the notion of man+woman is the end all be all.
Now, while I still think it's unnatural, not neccesarily WRONG, I support the right of anyone to have a legal civil union and be in a relationship with whomever they please. it's not my life, and as much as the guys on the 'right' try and say it's going to be the end of the world, i haven't yet seen anything concrete other than them sticking to what they grew up with.
On Prop 8 here in california i voted for gay marriage to be legal even though it is at odds with my own upbringing.

The worst thing to come about from the gay civil rights movement IMO is the intolerance and PC of HAVING TO BE PRO-GAY. For example, the founder/owner of the Chil-fil-a restaurant was under fire last year because he has an opinion. Yet his restaurants didn't discriminate in any way. . . Somehow people MUST accept the gay point of view or be attacked?

Listen, other people have opinions, just as you do and that's OK. . . . seems to me a lot of positions the left takes up has this issue. Then again I know for a long time those who are fighting for equal civil rights have had an uphill battle against the status quo and I understand the frustration. i just wish they'd be as open minded about other peoples opinoins as they want people to be about their preferences. . .

That's pretty much my own evolution as well. As a teenager I doubted such a thing even existed except in a few really messed up people in very large cities. All it takes is one level-headed, normal gay person to break that cartoonish concept, but one has to meet that person, recognize he or she is gay, and be open to re-interpretation of one's beliefs.

I tend to agree with Craig on Chik-Fil-A; it's not really fair to say he has no opinion on gay marriage since he's a big funder of anti-gay marriage groups. That's somewhat like claiming to have no views on blacks while funding the KKK. (I don't think these are hate groups like the KKK, there just isn't a better analogy since openly advocating discrimination against other minorities isn't tolerated.) With his money he is fighting gay marriage, so withholding patronage to fight for gay marriage seems perfectly sound to me. I do still eat there since I think on balance the chain is a force for good, but I can certainly see how others might disagree. There's also an argument to be made for fighting the concept that one supports traditional values by denying them to certain minorities, which I think really isn't so much preserving traditional values as maintaining their exclusivity.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The "problem" is that the electoral college or even a straight plurality vote could easily allow a radical ideology of as little as 34 percent of voters to obtain power.

Would people be so quick to want a third party if that party were Communists or Fascists and could possibly win with a relavitely small amount of votes?

That type of situation is where a Parliamentary styled system shines. If the minority in power doesn't play nicely with the other parties they will quickly be ousted by a no confidence vote and lose that power.

Sure it can happen where the resulting election still finds the same party again winning but if their ideas are truly radical it's less likely to be successful.

 

[Mxylplyx]

You aren't the only one who when young had the repulsion.

Two things I disagree with you about - but congrats on trying to be fair.

First, it is natural. I've reached that conclusion looking at the people and the science. It's not 'natural' for most people; it is for a minority of people and always has been.

While I understand your point, I believe many measure "natural" by natures design rather than by natures reality. I've found that being accepting of gays in a way that doesn't offend anybody requires believing that homosexuality isn't a choice, but stopping short of considering it a disorder. While that is perfectly understandable, I cant help but to call a spade a spade. Alternative sexualities and gender identities seem to manifest themselves in a myriad of different ways, from same sex attractiveness all the way to full blown gender identity issues, ie transsexualism. It seems obvious that there is some form of defect in a persons normal brain chemistry or structure for this to happen, though no one wants to feel that their identity is some kind of accident, so the reluctance to classify it as such is understandable.

 

[SMOGZINN]

While I understand your point, I believe many measure "natural" by natures design rather than by natures reality.

The problem with this is that you are saying that you completely understand what the designer intended. Just because a hammer is normally used to put nails into something does not mean that I'm using it wrong when I use it to take nails out of something.

It seems obvious that there is some form of defect in a persons normal brain chemistry or structure for this to happen, though no one wants to feel that their identity is some kind of accident, so the reluctance to classify it as such is understandable.

Do you feel the same way about left handed people?

 

[werepossum]

The problem with this is that you are saying that you completely understand what the designer intended. Just because a hammer is normally used to put nails into something does not mean that I'm using it wrong when I use it to take nails out of something.


Do you feel the same way about left handed people?

This really cannot be emphasized too strongly. Honor the man who seeks to understand G-d's will; fear the man who says he does understand G-d's will, for he too has a plan for you.

 

[Craig234]

While I understand your point, I believe many measure "natural" by natures design rather than by natures reality. I've found that being accepting of gays in a way that doesn't offend anybody requires believing that homosexuality isn't a choice, but stopping short of considering it a disorder. While that is perfectly understandable, I cant help but to call a spade a spade. Alternative sexualities and gender identities seem to manifest themselves in a myriad of different ways, from same sex attractiveness all the way to full blown gender identity issues, ie transsexualism. It seems obvious that there is some form of defect in a persons normal brain chemistry or structure for this to happen, though no one wants to feel that their identity is some kind of accident, so the reluctance to classify it as such is understandable.

It may surprise you to hear this, but on this 'isn't a choice, and isn't a disorder' issue you raise, my position is that it generally isn't a choice - to the extent sexuality isn't a choice, I mean heterosexuals can choose celibacy, but it doesn't get rid of their sexuality; but it can be called a 'disorder' in a certain sense of the word.

It can NOT be called a 'disorder' as a mental problem, the way it was in mental health, the way that the word disorder is used there. It can't simply be called being broken in something, the way, say, being born with a missing leg is. But it IS a 'different condition' and I think to the extent that nature supports procreation generally, it can be viewed as a 'defect' that people born homosexual are less likely to want to reproduce (though they can and do do so).

But it's all the garbage that some people pile onto that that's the problem. The fact that they are different abou their orientation is NOT grounds to deny them marriage or rights or jail or execute them. And what harm does it really do to society? Is the planet so underpopulated with the human race not reproducing that we need to scream about the horrible damage of a small percent of people reproducing less? How is that more harmful to society than heterosexuals who don't have kids, or someone born impotent?

Do we tell impotent people they can't marry and can't have their equal civil rights?

So let's say for the purpose of this argument that people born homosexual have some sort of minor 'disorder' in their biology steering their sexuality to the same gender.

So what?

That's the end of the story. They have it. And they deserve respect and equality like anyone who is born with, say, 9 fingers. Or albino.

Now, a funny thing is, that some people PREFER it for themselves. It may surprised you to hear this - no pun intended as you're about to understand - but there is a movement among deaf people that deaf people should NOT be cured all the time they can - that they actually find the lack of hearing preferable. Who are we to say?

And oh by the way - 'nature' and heterosexuality would make some men very happy to run around raping everything they see and creating hundreds of children they don't care for. That's 'natural', right? And therefore it's a good thing we have to champion - it's nature, right? Forget these artifical constraints to reign in natiural impulses.

Animals rape all the time and we don't condem them. Let's hear it for 'natural'.

Homosexuality is a condition as heterosexuality is. It is NOT justification for discrimination.

 

[Mxylplyx]

The problem with this is that you are saying that you completely understand what the designer intended. Just because a hammer is normally used to put nails into something does not mean that I'm using it wrong when I use it to take nails out of something.


Do you feel the same way about left handed people?

First let me clarify that by using the term "natures design", I do not necessarily believe in a designer. I believe in evolution, and believe traits that aid the propagation of the species and have subsequently been reinforced over thousands of generations constitute the "design". I fail to see how homosexuality or gender identity issues that would inhibit the likelihood of procreation would adhere to that principle, so it would therefore be considered a disorder. Don't confuse that with a subjective judgement on whether it is right or wrong, as I could care less. It's probably dumb to even engage in such a debate, as many would just assume off the bat that I'm a bigot trying to argue that homosexuals are lesser people and should be treated as such, but that isn't the case.

 

[Craig234]

First let me clarify that by using the term "natures design", I do not necessarily believe in a designer. I believe in evolution, and believe traits that aid the propagation of the species and have subsequently been reinforced over thousands of generations constitute the "design". I fail to see how homosexuality or gender identity issues that would inhibit the likelihood of procreation would adhere to that principle, so it would therefore be considered a disorder. Don't confuse that with a subjective judgement on whether it is right or wrong, as I could care less. It's probably dumb to even engage in such a debate, as many would just assume off the bat that I'm a bigot trying to argue that homosexuals are lesser people and should be treated as such, but that isn't the case.

As my post to you showed, I did not assume that, I simply held you to the standard of not misusing the sexual orientation as justification for discrimination.

I also gave you a little food for thought that just maybe unlimited wild procreation isn't the be all and end all for the species.

 

[SMOGZINN]

First let me clarify that by using the term "natures design", I do not necessarily believe in a designer. I believe in evolution, and believe traits that aid the propagation of the species and have subsequently been reinforced over thousands of generations constitute the "design". I fail to see how homosexuality or gender identity issues that would inhibit the likelihood of procreation would adhere to that principle, so it would therefore be considered a disorder. Don't confuse that with a subjective judgement on whether it is right or wrong, as I could care less. It's probably dumb to even engage in such a debate, as many would just assume off the bat that I'm a bigot trying to argue that homosexuals are lesser people and should be treated as such, but that isn't the case.

We see lots of creatures in nature that do not reproduce, but are needed for the species viability. Reproductive robustness is not the only valuable trait. In fact over population can be just as fatal to a species as failure to reproduce. Perhaps homosexuality is a population control measure, allowing there to be enough people to do work needed to survive, but not so many breeders that they will over populate?

 

[Lithium381]

Reasonable, yes. The party chairman must be in line with the party platform. Smart, no, for two reasons. First, it's increasingly a losing proposition with voters. Second, you want party leaders who lead, and occasionally that will be in a direction where the followers don't want to go, but still need to go.


That is an excellent point. A strong independent or third party could indeed be a fringe, albeit a strong fringe. Even assuming it's not outright evil (not too likely in America) it could still be disastrous; imagine the Tea Party breaking away and gaining power through a protest vote, with no clear direction except opposition. Another reason to go to ranked voting, so that if no one party captures 50% + 1 then composite rankings are used.

In this case wouldn't this be a good thing? Because we've got three seperate branches and many posts available within them, wouldn't having a strong third candidate force the other two to put up or shut up? Having for example a democratic senate, a republican house and a libertarian president wouldn't be any worse than we have now, would it?

Maybe move this topic back to the other thread?

 

[Lithium381]

Craig, maybe I misused the word natural. . ? I understand that it is natural in the fact that a person doesn't CHOOSE to be gay, they simply are. . . . but more of the somewhat Darwinian fact that it would be VERY difficult for a homosexual couple to reproduce to carry on the species. Men are born with certain hardware as are women. . . they serve a purpose.

 

[Lithium381]

That's pretty much my own evolution as well. As a teenager I doubted such a thing even existed except in a few really messed up people in very large cities. All it takes is one level-headed, normal gay person to break that cartoonish concept, but one has to meet that person, recognize he or she is gay, and be open to re-interpretation of one's beliefs.

I tend to agree with Craig on Chik-Fil-A; it's not really fair to say he has no opinion on gay marriage since he's a big funder of anti-gay marriage groups. That's somewhat like claiming to have no views on blacks while funding the KKK. (I don't think these are hate groups like the KKK, there just isn't a better analogy since openly advocating discrimination against other minorities isn't tolerated.) With his money he is fighting gay marriage, so withholding patronage to fight for gay marriage seems perfectly sound to me. I do still eat there since I think on balance the chain is a force for good, but I can certainly see how others might disagree. There's also an argument to be made for fighting the concept that one supports traditional values by denying them to certain minorities, which I think really isn't so much preserving traditional values as maintaining their exclusivity.

I was honestly unaware of that, so it seems my example was off base!

 

[Mxylplyx]

We see lots of creatures in nature that do not reproduce, but are needed for the species viability. Reproductive robustness is not the only valuable trait. In fact over population can be just as fatal to a species as failure to reproduce. Perhaps homosexuality is a population control measure, allowing there to be enough people to do work needed to survive, but not so many breeders that they will over populate?

The idea that certain numbers in a genetic line are sacrificed, for lack of a better word, for some undetermined benefit to the herd would seem to support a higher intelligence that guides it all. It is presumed that the ability of a species to evolve and thrive is more the collective product of each member's individual desire to survive and procreate. It is hard to fathom that part of an animals individual genetic makeup would compel it to not procreate for the benefit of the species, which is usually a matter of consequence as opposed to purpose.