Mike Tryon’s Same-Sex Marriage Reply

Mike Tryon

Mike Tryon

Here’s the reply that State Rep. Mike Tryon sent to an opponent of gay marriage this week:

“Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your concerns for Senate Bill 10.

“As you know, the bill was heard in the Executive Committee Tuesday night.

“It did pass out of committee, but I was one of five ‘no’ votes.

“I certainly appreciate hearing your concerns.

“I wanted to let you know that I believe in a traditional marriage, one that exists between one man and one woman and will be voting ‘no’ if the bill makes its way in front of the House for full consideration.

“Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about SB10. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to reach out to me or my office.”


Mike Tryon’s Same-Sex Marriage Reply — 18 Comments

  1. There are legal ways in place right now for any couple to join their finances, protect their assets, make health decisions for one another, provide for children or any other legal concern a loving couple may have.

    Since “marriage” is the sole province of religion I find it mildly amusing the self same people who will scream at the top of their lungs for separation of church and state(they have this backwards too) will ask for the State to recognize a religious institution…. At all….

    There are so many ways our nation is under attack it is sometimes overwhelming but the most frustrating attacks are the illogical.

    Marriage is God’s Purpose and Calling for some and as such has been ordained for the procreation of the species.

    The family unit created by this union and creation of children was deemed good for a society and culture eons ago so governments began to get in the business of this union.

    It is time to get the government out of the business of ANY social engineering.

    Then both sides can go back to their respective religious corners and get back to dealing with scaling back a wildly out of control government at all levels.

    This marriage “issue” is a weapon of mass distraction and our representatives need to stop discussing it at all as they are at risk of making government wholly irrelevant as a coherent implement of promoting our culture(yes, the United States DOES have a culture) and a peaceful environment in which to practice our lives freely without governmental encumbrance.

  2. Thank you Mike!

    LCTruth – Were Sodom and Gomorah on the “right” side of history but God misunderstood them?

  3. Wow- “Priest” you posted such massive falsehoods I find it appalling you chose the nickname “Priest”- I certainly hope you are not an actual priest. You don’t seem to understand marriage at all.

    First off, your opening salvo that there are already plenty of legal ways to secure the benefits of marriage is patently untrue (see for example the current Supreme Court cases involving citizenship by marriage and inheritance laws involving same-sex marriage).

    You next claim that these legal protections are bestowed in a purely “religious institution.”

    If that were the case, we wouldn’t be discussing this and you wouldn’t go to the county clerk’s office to secure your marriage license.

    Your church can issue the sacraments (including marriage ) to whomever they please.

    When it comes to matters of law, that’s where government comes in.

  4. Thank you Mike……and I agree with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and his recent comments about why he opposes gay marriage: “gay and lesbian couples are not able to consummate their unions”.

    “Marriage comes to us from nature,” he said. “That’s based on the complement of the two sexes in such a way that the love of a man and a woman joined in a marital union is open to life, and that’s how families are created and society goes along. …..”

  5. Conservatives are incapable of discussing this issue in a purely civil perspective. Religion has NO PART in this discussion.

    Take the above comments and substitute the name of a Hindu Priest or a Wicca priestess to see how they read then. The Catholic Church is NOT in charge here.

  6. Thank you “Priest”

    I whole heartedly concur on all your points.

  7. Clearly, Joe, you need to read for comprehension better. Try again. I’ve read your posts in the past and you are weak. If you took a moment to read and then think before burbling forth your nonsense perhaps people would bother to take you seriously. However, I will defend your freedom to comment and I invite you to strive, as every American should, to improve yourself educationally so you may better understand what others are saying.

    The point, Joe, was quite enough laws exist on the books and in precedent to offer people the protections I listed and many many more. There is no need to waste time at the State or Federal legislative level discussing and legislating social issues when there are far more pressing issues currently.

    Marriage wasn’t invented by government.

    It was invented by God.

    Government co opted the institution in order to collect a tax, promote social stability and grow their population to ensure the future of the nation.

    What a government thinks about the rules of a marriage are immaterial to anyone of conscience.

    The protections a government provides under the title of marriage are immaterial when those protections exist outside the title.

    What this government thinks about marriage is totally irrelevant as it continues to promote its religion of relativism against the constitutional dictate not to establish a state religion.

    There is no moral imperative to care what this government thinks when it shows nothing but hatred for all things traditionally, historically or morally successful.

    Americans reject, as a foundational principle, striving for ignorance and mediocrity.

    It is time to stop being distracted by the specious arguments about marriage or any number of other social issues and get to issues of national security…

    Before our beautiful and unique nation walks off the same cliff so many other great nations in history have leaving all of the social issues we are distracted by today in irrelevant historical piles as we struggle for survival.

  8. Mike, howa bout you do this.

    Get Illinois out of the “marriage” business.

    Heck, get government out of the marriage business.

    Let churches tell you who you can and can’t be married too.

    The problem has never been “allowing” gay marriage … the problem has always been the government being the “allower” of anything religious.

    Wouldn’t that be a conservative point of view?

  9. To all you cultural Marxists, answer me this: what biological purpose does the rectum serve?

    I am sure you will claim that mother nature intended for the rectum to be a “dual use” organ and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

    Tell me then, if we have no problem admitting that 3% of our children have autism and therefore a mental illness, why is it so hard for us to admit that our gay population (+/- 3%) is also mentally ill?

    Homosexuality was considered a mental illness for centuries until hardcore leftists took over the academic establishment in the 1970s and summarily declared it “not a mental illness”

  10. @Watching that is the libertarian point of view not the conservative one.

    The conservative one is to have the government turn marriage into a legal institution with special tax benefits and allow or block certain people from it (the status quo).

    I understand what you’re saying about turning marriage into a strictly private/religious bond but to be honest nobody in politics is going for that.

    You’re barking up the anarchist tree in arguably the biggest statist country in the world.

    That’s why Gary Johnson and other Libertarians are backing gay marriage now.

    They are realists and they realize the government isn’t going to abolish state issued marriages so might as make the definition more open.

    The problem with that is eventually aren’t we going to get polygamists and cousins wanting to marry.

    Eventually the government will have to draw a line and say “No, you’re not allowed to get married.”

    I’d imagine.

    What a sticky wicket!

  11. Priest I guess you don’t understand- but a couple hundred years ago we set down the rules for this nation and #1 was that we weren’t going to be governed by the bible or the Koran but by the constitution.

    You may hate that idea, but there we are.

    You proved my point quite eloquently with your post.

    Your church may declare anything it likes- but OUR government is not bound by it.

  12. Simple question for you all:

    If Marriage is strictly “religious” and NOT a legal institution, why does getting married make all those legal changes Priest listed in his first post?

    It effects your inheritance rights, your citizenship rights, your property rights, your tax status and a couple dozen more- all in one fell swoop.

    And you can “get married” without any involvement by a church.

    I guess next up is saying that after your bar mitzvah, you can drink, drive and vote because y.our church says you are a man?

  13. Drinking age and driving age is set by the state but as long as you are that age you’re pretty much good to go.

    The issue with gay marriage is people who are gay cannot be married and recognized by the state period if they are in love like all other couples.

    And if you weren’t married by the state or church (say you were not religious) it would be a personal oath that you and your spouse have with each other.

    Basically, the meaning of it would be the exact same as far as a church and as far as the two in love are concerned, but the state wouldn’t be involved in it.

    Did people ever get married before registering with a state?

    I’m pretty sure they did.

    Getting rid of state sponsored marriage ends the whole “gay marriage vs traditional marriage” debate because it lets institutions and individuals figure out the agreements as opposed to the state giving you the right.

    I’m not necesarily for that, I just find it interesting and am trying to bring a different perspective in here.

    Like I said it’s a sticky wicket!

  14. “why does getting married make all those legal changes Priest listed in his first post?It effects your inheritance rights, your citizenship rights, your property rights, your tax status and a couple dozen more- all in one fell swoop.”

    Because the government said so^^

  15. Um….OK. So you agree? Marriage IS a legal rite codified by the state?

    I am not arguing there is no Sacrament of marriage- there is and your church can marry whomever they please (or not).

    Likewise, you can hold hands with your beloved and make a promise and considered yourself married.

    But in the eyes of the state, you aren’t- not until you get a license and exchange those vows.

    For immigrations, inheritance, tax purposes, social security- that piece of paper (issued by the government) is what matters.

  16. Right, and it looks like as long as we ARE going to have the traditional vs non-traditional marriage debate the trads are losing ground quick.

    I think social liberalism is more popular than social conservatism and as soon as the Reps start reflecting the younger demographics a little bit closer you’re going to start seeing tidal waves. (What’s the average age of a U.S. Senator? Is it 60 or 70?) In fact, it’s already happening.

    Look at gay marriage and marijuana.

    Even where they are defeated it is by narrower and narrower margins every election cycle.

    I wonder what Franks will do. . . He’s such a wild card. ♣

Leave a Reply

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