Chairman of Illinois GOP endorses gay marriage

Pat Brady, the chairman of the Illinois Republican party, has endorsed gay marriage, improving the chances of legislation to that effect now pending before that state’s legislature. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

“More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way,” Brady said. “Giving gay and lesbian couples the freedom to get married honors the best conservative principles. It strengthens families and reinforces a key Republican value – that the law should treat all citizens equally.”

“Importantly, the pending legislation would protect the freedom of religion,” Brady added. “No church or religious organization would ever be required to perform a union with which it disagrees.”

The National Organization for Marriage, an opponent of same-sex unions, immediately pledged to spend $250,000 against any state lawmaker who agrees with the GOP chair. From the just-arrived press release:

“Any Republican in Illinois who betrays the cause of marriage will be casting a career-ending vote and will be held accountable to their constituents,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We will spend whatever it takes – hundreds of thousands of dollars if necessary – to remove them from office, just as we did three of the four turncoat Republican state Senators in New York who were responsible for gay ‘marriage’ passing there. We will not hesitate to support pro-family Democrats to replace them, as our record in New York proves.”

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

35 comments Add your comment

DJ Sniper

January 3rd, 2013
12:22 pm

Let’s see how fast the GOP turns on this guy.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
12:42 pm

“More and more Americans understand that if two people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, government should not stand in their way,” Brady said.

Well, what if three or four people want to make a lifelong commitment to each other? Should government stand in their way? Why? What’s the difference? We surely cannot discriminate against the love they all have for one another. That would be bigoted.

What about a brother and sister? Can they make a lifelong commitment to each other?

What about a person and a pet? Can they make a lifelong commitment to each other?

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
12:50 pm

I was gonna post “tired old canard about marrying the dog in 3..2..1…” but I see Isikoff has already leapt into the breech.

Fright wingers are so dependable.

Steve

January 3rd, 2013
12:53 pm

Exactly Isikoff. And what about a black person and a white person wanting to get married. Or how about a catholic and protestant wanting to get married. When will the abominations end? We must stop this abomination.

J Throckmorton Malcontent

January 3rd, 2013
12:56 pm

I made a lifelong committment to my cat. It was the happiest and most successful relationship of my life.

Horrible argument

January 3rd, 2013
12:59 pm

Why does it matter that the argument justifying gay marriage could also support polygamy and incest? It happens to support heterosexual state-sanctioned marriage as well. Lifelong commitment is the point of heterosexual marriage, is it not? But there are countervailing reasons why the argument is persuasive in the homo and heterosexual monogamous relationship and not in the ones you describe. Thus, they are distinguishable and your reduction of the argument to absurdity fails. Think things through.

Cal

January 3rd, 2013
12:59 pm

I am pretty sure that the Illinois legislature is not considering any laws related to pologamy or incest, and that no German Shepherds are pursuing legal challanges to existing marriage statutes.

These irrelevant canards look sillier and sillier everytime they get trotted out.

DJ Sniper

January 3rd, 2013
12:59 pm

Leave it to the neo-cons to turn this argument into something retarded.

SirLogic

January 3rd, 2013
1:01 pm

Ahhhh, when an article is posted about marriage equality there always comes the typical “people marrying non-humans (pets)” and “inbreeding” and the famous “orgy of people marrying eachother” debate aim at laws to stop TWO consenting non-related ADULT humans from getting married.

Thanks Isikoff for posting that. Hell, let’s even go further on discrimination!! Let’s ban man-woman unions too!

I mean man-woman marriages are already screwed up as it is, with a divorce rate of 40-50% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States) we should just enact a law that bans them all together since man-woman marriages don’t even work.

Also, man-woman marriages makes these gay babies that grow up to gay adults that want to be married like their parents… There’s the problem!

John K

January 3rd, 2013
1:02 pm

When I proposed to my cat, he just licked himself and barfed on my pillow. Saddest day of my life.

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
1:05 pm

he just licked himself and barfed on my pillow.

Honey, from a cat that’s a “yes.”

Frankly anything acknowledging your presence from them is a yes.

DJ Sniper

January 3rd, 2013
1:06 pm

Dogs have owners; cats have staff.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:07 pm

So, what’s the answer to the question? Will government stand in the way if three or four people want to get married?

J Throckmorton Malcontent

January 3rd, 2013
1:14 pm

What if two or more of the three or four people are Siamese twins? Or Siamese cats?

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
1:15 pm

Will government stand in the way if three or four people want to get married?

Yes, although the main problem would be legal, not morality. If you have two wives, who gets to make medical decisions? Are they all covered under insurance? Who gets your social security?

Frankly if somebody could design a model that worked legally, as far as I’m concerned they could punish themselves with multiple spouses. You’re free to hit yourself in the head with a hammer too, Gawd Bless ‘Merica.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:15 pm

What rationale do we – or the government – have for limiting marriage to TWO consenting ADULT humans? Why can’t it be three or four? And why shouldn’t the argument for redifining marriage in any way not support polygamy and incest – it’s simple discrimination. If two people can get married, why not three? The results of marriage – whether they end up in divorce or the upbringing of homosexual offspring is not the issue. It is the issue of marriage itself. Who is to say that three or four people cannot be married if they are committed to one another? That’s the answer I’m looking for.

John K

January 3rd, 2013
1:18 pm

I don’t care what ***consenting adults**** want to do in regards to their relationship.

By the way, what was your dowry?

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:22 pm

Aquagirl: I’ll pass on the hammer to the head. If I used it to cause bodily harm to myself, it might be labeled as an assault weapon and therefore subsequently banned from use. Which, of course, would create a bunch of ticked off carpenters, Gawd Bless ‘Merica.

Cherokee

January 3rd, 2013
1:26 pm

I’m pretty sure, Isikoff, that you’re not ‘looking for an answer.”

And if, by chance, you seriously are, how about *you* answer the question posed by the Illinios Republican chair? Why would the Republican Party, ostensibly opposed to an intrusive government, want government to intrude on this most basic human decision – who to choose to commit yourself to for life?

SirLogic

January 3rd, 2013
1:31 pm

Isikoff, if you want to marry your sister/brother, cat/dog, and 8 other people go ahead and try no one is stopping you from that legal battle. But I can tell you cat/dog probably wouldn’t do so well, the courts would probably say you have to have a consenting adult human… So maybe you’ll be left with trying to marry your sister/brother and 8 other people.

But I don’t see how a completely different marriage case that hasn’t been explored in the courts has to do with blocking same-sex marriages?

Stop same-sex marriages because people will want to marry their brother/sister or 8 people is like saying stop any marriage because they end up in divorce or produced crazed people that think same-sex marriage will result in people wanting to marry their sister/brother.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:37 pm

Cherokee: I don’t want government to intrude, particularly not the federal government. But government currently bans the practice of incest and polygamy. If we are no longer going to define marriage as between one man and one woman, then preventing other willing and committed individuals or entities from engaging in the act of marriage is simply discriminatory. Plain and simple.

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
1:41 pm

But I don’t see how a completely different marriage case that hasn’t been explored in the courts has to do with blocking same-sex marriages?

It’s a fright wing flowchart:

Gay marriage—-> Polygamy—> Incest—–> Sheep marriage —–> Republicans unable to repress desire to marry 5 gay sheep siblings.

DJ Sniper

January 3rd, 2013
1:44 pm

Can somebody show me where marriage is actually defined as being between one man and one woman? I’ve heard this argument from plenty of people on the right, but I just want to know if it’s explicitly defined like this in any sort of document.

Aquagirl, let’s not forget how many neo-cons equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:44 pm

SirLogic: I did not say that I want to block same-sex marriage. But if you support same-sex marriage based on individuals who love and are committed to one another, then why doesn’t the same argument apply to three or four individuals. You can’t say that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory while not applying the same argument to incest or polygamy. It’s a bigoted idea – and one full of polyga- and incestaphobia (sic).

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
1:50 pm

Aquagirl: Your bigotry against polygamists and incestuous individuals is glaring. It’s the 21st century; wake up. How dare you – as a self-admitted Democrat no less – hold up your nose at the rights of others to feel good about themselves. Who are you to deny love? You’re just a simple-minded polgyaphobe. Report yourself to the authorities.

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
1:54 pm

then why doesn’t the same argument apply to three or four individuals.

We’re not stopping you from marrying five people—go for it, honey. Though I think you’ll exhaust yourself in a lengthy search, finding one individual that crazy is long odds already.

J Throckmorton Malcontent

January 3rd, 2013
1:58 pm

Oh, good night.
We are fortunate to live under a system where our laws more or less reflect our social mores, eventually, sort of.
Therefore, if polygamy, incest, and bestiality were to lose their social stigma, relationships based on those behaviors would eventually become legal. So what? If you’re uncomfortable with that, join a group that works to socially stigmatize things you don’t like. I personally believe it’s most impolite to tote a gun around, but I recognize you have the legal right to do so, because we are not a sane enough society in that regard. Perhaps my descendents will live in such a society.
Here’s the thing about so-called “culture wars”. They are not always won by the side that starts them. Japan did not win World War 2 and the Christian Right will not prevail against modern secular society.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
2:13 pm

Ok Aquagirl – just as long as you think it’s OK for me to have five spouses. That’s all I needed to know. Appreciate your consent. And whether or not I find multiple husbands/wives is my business, not yours. Now, let’s turn to the real issue: benefits. Since I now have your consent to marry five spouses, I want a new law that prevents discrimination against polygamists for securing state and federal contracts and I want a new law that provides my five spouses all the same benefits (tax credits included) that apply to traditional marriages. And I want to be named as the beneficiary for each of them. Make it happen ASAP or the lawsuit will occur forthwith against all you polygaphobes!!

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
2:17 pm

J Throckton: I can’t wait to live in a world where only the criminals carry weapons and I’m paying for all of their five different spouses with full benefits. Oh, what a utopia it will be!!!

Aquagirl

January 3rd, 2013
2:42 pm

and I want a new law that provides my five spouses all the same benefits (tax credits included)

I would abandon my own husband to the IRS, so I’m sure not gonna do it for the sake of your marriage(s).

I’m not polygaphobic but I’m most certainly IRSaphobic. That’s also known as “sane.” :)

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
2:50 pm

Well…at least we agree on something!

Yella Dog

January 3rd, 2013
2:51 pm

First, I want to thank you Aquagirl for your succinct responses to some of these “Fright Wing” nuts.

And Isikoff, I believe you’ve answered your own argument here:

“Cherokee: I don’t want government to intrude, particularly not the federal government. But government currently bans the practice of incest and polygamy. If we are no longer going to define marriage as between one man and one woman, then preventing other willing and committed individuals or entities from engaging in the act of marriage is simply discriminatory.”.

You’re right – government currently bans incest and polygamy, and those bans are not about marriage. However, government does not ban marriage between two people – it only requires that marriage be between two people of the opposite sex. There’s where the discrimination occurs.

curious

January 3rd, 2013
3:30 pm

When is NOM going to back candidates wanting to ban divorce? That must be their position on the issue.

Isikoff

January 3rd, 2013
3:46 pm

Yella: You’re wrong. The federal government doesn’t ban gay marriage; it just doesn’t recognize gay marriages for federal purposes, to include insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns. However, several states now allow gay marriage. And those gay marriages are allowed as a result of legal or legislative actions against a perceived discrimination of two individuals of the same sex who loved and were committed to one another. That’s the basis of the argument. By that rationale, any individual or entity who is equally in love or committed to another individual or entity should be entitled to the same act of “marriage” – at least at the state level. If the state no longer chooses to define marriage as between one woman and one man, then the state cannot equally prevent marriages between groups of individuals or entities. So, you’re wrong in stating that government requires that marriage be between two people of the opposite sex – move to Massachusetts tomorrow and you’ll find that won’t be the case.

Edmund Ruffin

January 4th, 2013
7:12 am

Republicans should NOT be endorsing sodomy or sodomites. If they want to do that they need to switch to the anti-American party. It is sad enough that these 2% cretins are telling the rest of the country what to do, but when one major party, who pretends to be the party of conservatives, can’t hold the line then we are in bad shape. The US of A will pay the price for allowing sodomites out of the closet. Their chosen “life-style” is an abomination to all the is good and right.