Mark Beaubien Civil Unions Vote Criticized by Illinois Family Institute

The Action alert asks people to call State Rep. Mark Beaubien's district office at 847-487-5252 or to email him at [email protected]

It’s not news that State Rep. Mark Beaubien (R-Barrington Hills) has a liberal social agenda.

So, it was not a surprise when a mailing from the Illinois Family Institute, an organization that has a conservative social agenda, should find one of his votes with which to disagree.

It’s his “Yes” vote on Senate Bill 1716, which concerned civil unions.

IFI equates civil unions with “same-sex marriage,” as you can see from the flyer that arrived in my mailbox.

The mailing was misdirected because, while Beaubien represents part of McHenry County, he doesn’t represent m the part in which I live.


Comments

Mark Beaubien Civil Unions Vote Criticized by Illinois Family Institute — 7 Comments

  1. I say let those men who want to marry men, marry men.
    Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.
    Allow folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.
    In three generations, there will be no Democrats !!!

    Damn, I love it when a plan comes together.

  2. would it not be simpler for those opposed to gay marriage and civil unions to not participate in them? for those opposed to abortion, don’t have one. I have always wondered how many who profess to be against abortion have adopted a child

  3. Gee Larry, that’s original.

    Wonder what would happen if people just stopped sleeping with whoever they feel like? A little bit of self-control and dare I say, “Abstinence?”

  4. Paul Clement, the former solicitor general, signed on to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against constitutional challenge. He was a partner of King & Spalding. The client was the US House of Representatives, who hired Clement after Holder and the Obama administration announced that they would abdicate their Constitutional legal responsibility to defend the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

    The law in question was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that preserved that marriage was between men and women, not same sex couples.

    Gay groups began a campaign of name calling, slander, and hatred against Clement and his firm. Greg Sargent in the Washington Post wrote that liberals and gays politically bully individual and firms to deter lawyers from representing clients that do not like.

    “I just got off the phone with leading gay rights advocate Richard Socarides, who had led the charge against the firm, and he tore into the decision by Clement — the Solicitor General under George W. Bush — by pointing out that it’s folly to present this as a principled stance.

    “He tries to make the case that lawyers should represent unpopular causes — but this is not merely an unpopular cause, this is an un-American cause,”” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-principle-hes-defending-is-discrimination/2011/03/03/AFcDFniE_blog.html

    Under the pressure, King & Spaulding caved and dropped the US House as a client. This caused Clement to resign from the firm, but remains the US House’s lawyer. Clement said that that lawyers must be willing to defend unpopular causes.

    The left (liberals, progressives, gays, and Democrats) has decided that unpopular (in their opinion) opinions and people SHALL NOT HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION!

    And they will relentlessly pursue anyone who opposes their fascist tactics.

    Up until today, I supported civil unions. Until today, when I heard that the fascist left had decided that some opinion are so evil (like marriage is only between men and women), that the holders of those opinions are to be hated so much that they must be denied legal representation.

    These are the same people who demanded civil trials for terrorists murdering Americans, and insisting that they be allowed free lawyers. Yet the want to suppress lawyers who disagree with ther position on gay marriage.

    Lying hypocrites.

  5. George & Paul, obviously you have major issues with what our Founding Father believed….embracing the diversity of this country. If you want everyone goose stepping to your conservative values, perhaps a home in China is the place for you.

  6. LCTRUTH – I do not know what founding fathers you are talking about. The Founding Fathers of the USA were not so much into diversity. The were into a Republic, a system of government based on laws. The majority of laws they based the USA on are Biblical in nature.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *