A press release from Steve Reick, the Republican opponent to State Rep. Jack Franks:
Jack Franks Votes for Gay Marriage in Illinois
Steve Reick
Yesterday’s passage of the gay marriage bill was by a single vote.
No one who supported the bill can point to some other member and say “His/her vote decided the issue.”
Every “yes” vote was the deciding vote. That includes Jack Franks, who flipped from the position he held in the 2010 campaign.
During the floor debate, Franks said he “(couldn’t) think of a single way” that approving gay marriage would hurt his own marriage.
He couldn’t be more wrong.
Marriage, in its historical context, has always been conjugal in nature.
Removing the conjugal nature fundamentally changes the logic of human relationships.
Even now we’re seeing agitation toward allowing those in polyamorous relationships to marry.
What principled objection can Jack Franks have when the day comes that someone introduces a bill to recognize polygamous marriages in Illinois, making a claim of equal protection?
Placing the State’s imprimatur on relationships centered on adult satisfaction and romantic love by calling it marriage is the apotheosis of the “Me Generation” mentality which marched under the banner that read “If it feels good, do it.”
Jack Franks’ “yes” vote is going to affect him in ways that he can’t even contemplate.
If marriage is dependent on a ‘conjugal nature,’ that implies the ability to bear children.
We should not allow anyone who cannot have kids to marry because they can’t fruit children.
Reick also misquoted Franks. Context IS important.
Reick also said that the vote was about sex.
It wasn’t.
It was about people having the same rights to enter into contracts/equal rights concerning visiting their loved ones in the hospital.
Could you imagine not being able to see your wife if she were in the hospital because you didn’t bring the right documents to the ER to prove you were connected? Didn’t think so.
Reick just lost my vote.
People under 50 are much more accepting of others.
What people do in their marriages and their bedrooms is not my business.
I love how the right wing conservatives don’t want a lot of government, but they still want to government to tell people how they should live behind closed doors.
Gay people are created by God just like the rest of us.
Only God gets to judge.
I can’t wait for the younger generations to take over all government.
The tea party conservative crazies are ruining the republican party.
What happened to the fiscally conservative republican who can be a moderate on everything else?
Until the republicans find someone like that to run, they’re never going to win.
How about the fact that your vote causes Illinois to be at the center of God’s wrath?
Nice going, politicians.
Like Illinois didn’t have the deck stacked against us already.
What next?
Marriage between a dog and a person because we would not want to stop the dog from visiting the person if he / she was in the hospital?
Now we need to get to work to get Steve elected!
Be assured Franks will be spending down his campaign fund which is growing by the thousands based on recent contributions.
Franks can be beat but it will take a lot of “boots on the ground”.
Until and unless the Republicans get their noses out of our bedrooms and their hands out of the cookie jar (yeah, that goes for the Democratic thieves as well) they will never regain control either locally or nationally.
They see what their hypocrisy gets them in the elections and yet they keep banging the same old drum. WAKE UP MORONS!
**What next? Marriage between a dog and a person because we would not want to stop the dog from visiting the person if he / she was in the hospital?**
Sigh… and you call yourself “Knowledge Voter”?!?!
This is such an asinine comment that it doesn’t reserve a response, but please do tell how the legalization of marrying a dog would be the next step here?
Please do tell how marrying a dog has ANYTHING to do with two humans marrying.
I find it interesting that at a time when Illinois has so many issues, from pension reform, to corrupt government, with the 2nd worst business climate in the US, that at this particular time… the issue that comes up as a priority is redefinition of marriage.
The proverbial village burns, these lawmakers play the fiddle.
In the national scene as well, the democrats ought to deal with profiteering CEO’s, with banksters, with the botched healthcare reform, with protection of what’s left of the US industrial base. Instead the priority again is the redefinition of marriage.
Well, democratic voters deserve what they are getting: no jobs, no healthcare, no future, really, but you can have gay marriage. Enjoy.
“name less” – I could not have said it better myself.
This isn’t about this one issue lawmaker dealt with, it’s about the issues far higher on the priority list that got a big fat zero.
Yeehaw – lawmakers kowtow to a very small colorful bunch.
The state is in dire need of leadership and instead we’re left with the Rainbow Connection.
Score one for lovers and dreamers, but not me.
Why is it that if you are a Conservative you are labeled a loon from Liberal’s?
I thought that they were in the business of not labeling people?
But my thought is that marriage should be defined between a man and woman.
Why is it that in California that they tried 2 times to amend their laws to redefine what marriage is and lost both times.
This is California of all places.
If there was a nationwide vote it would be defeated to.
But does that mean that Gays/Lesbians should have no rights?
Absolutely not!
If they were given a civil union law that encompasses laws that they are able to see their loved ones in hospitals, being able to transfer property etc..
However marriage should be between a man and woman.
Our country was founded on Christian values.
Does that make people that are Christian perfect?
No but by changing our laws of marriage which has been defined for thousands of years does make it a slippery slope.
@Live – Q. Why is it that if you are a Conservative you are labeled a loon from Liberal’s? (A. Who said all Conservatives are loons? Many liberals see value in Conservative economic practices as much of the economic growth Bill Clinton enjoyed was from Reagan/Bush tax cuts.)
-Q. “I thought that they were in the business of not labeling people? (A. Who said that? Of course, would you say the same of women getting their own Amendment in the constitution for being able to vote as labeling? Or blacks for that matter?)
-“But my thought is that marriage should be defined between a man and woman.” (A. And you are entitled to that belief, of course, in terms of social contracts by the state, everyone should be legal, which is why this law passed and IS constitutional. Please find what is unconstitutional about it?)
Q. Why is it that in California that they tried 2 times to amend their laws to redefine what marriage is and lost both times. This is California of all places. (A. This isn’t California.)
-If there was a nationwide vote it would be defeated to(o). (A. Probably, but the Federal government has already determined that this is a state by state issue, so your statement is a misnomer.)
But does that mean that Gays/Lesbians should have no rights? (No one said that.) Absolutely not!
-(you)If they were given a civil union law that encompasses laws that they are able to see their loved ones in hospitals, being able to transfer property etc.. (A. Fragment – consider reviewing this part of your post)
(You)- “However marriage should be between a man and woman.” (A. If you are basing this belief on religion, that you’re opinion. In the eyes of the law and lady justice, you are incorrect. Again, if you disagree, find what in the law is unconstitutional.)
(you) “Our country was founded on Christian values.” (This may be partially correct, but not totally as many of the founding fathers were deists, NOT Christians and Thomas Jefferson (the writer of most of the constitution) believed that Jesus never actually performed any miracles.) Regardless, we have religious freedom engendered in our constitution, so even if the country was ‘inspired’ by some principles of Christianity, it’s irresponsible to believe that this postulate would determine the future of our country.)
“Does that make people that are Christian perfect?” (G-d no)
No,but by changing our laws of marriage which has been defined for thousands of years does make it a slippery slope. (We have redefined marriage before, (see 1960’s civil rights movement) You used to not be able to marry a black if you were white or vis versa. Many of the arguments used to say the Civil rights movement was against God’s will are used TODAY against the civil rights movement for gays and lesbians. Don’t believe me? Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u4Z3n2Fnyc It’s less than the amount of time to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks.)
Live, any more slippery than when marriage laws changed to allow interracial marriage? It took an 1967 SCOTUS decision to permit that…or maybe you oppose miscegenation? I will admit, pension reform, the issues with CCL and marijuana should have been vetted first-since less than 2% of the population identifies themselves as gay–but even as a conservative–I have zero problems with permitting whatever intelligently consenting adult couple who want to–marry. To be honest-they shouldn’t need our consent…get government out of people’s bedrooms-there are more important issues to contend with (like ACA’s evisceration of our generation…)
BTW, only way to bring DOMA back for good is a Constitutional Amendment–SCOTUS shot that down and, before you start to rally for one, realize you need some serious super majorities….good luck with that.
Fair Play, legally you might be right, but the Gay Parade in Chicago, is a slap in your face . . . if you allow these people to discredit your agenda, all will fail. Best wishes for you, but there are some real sickos out there, that will ruin a good agenda. Take a Stand!!!
Really Fair Play, You really had to break every word down.
LOL That is a complex.
Seriously a Fragment and correcting a to to too.
That’s funny!
Lets just say that if it is up to the states then why don’t the states just put it on the ballot and let the people vote on it.
If it passes or doesn’t pass so be it.
Either way it’s up to the people.
Simple But you stated “Could you imagine not being able to see your wife if she were in the hospital because you didn’t bring the right documents to the ER to prove you were connected? Didn’t think so.” Those rights could be invoked in a “civil union” law without changing the definition of marriage.
@really I never said anything about race in the defining marriage.
My belief is that it should be between a man/woman.
As you have stated only 2% of the population is engaged in gay/lesbian relationships.
I don’t care what people do behind closed doors and don’t think the government should be involved in peoples bedrooms either.
Since the SCOTUS took the weasel way out and put it on the states then let the people of that state vote on it.
Simple!
My problem is the states changing what the definition is!
When will polygamy be ok?
Marrying animals/objects? I bet 20-30yrs ago people never would have thought we would be talking about changing the definition of marriage.
I still feel marriage is between a man and a woman.
I don’t remember anything in the Bible about 2 men or women getting married.
Illinois passed civil unions bill years ago, that gave the same sex partners the same rights as Married people.
I think this was a big mistake jack did listening to madigan.
Hitler was gay and look what happened.
Gay marriage will open the door for the Anti-Christ to take over the world.
Approve gay marriage and you approve World War III.