Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Politics

Illinois Republicans Cancel Meeting to Oust Chairman Over His Support for Gay Marriage

Mar. 9, 2013 3:43pm Madeleine Morgenstern

Illinois Republicans Cancel Meeting to Oust Chairman Pat Brady Over His Support for Gay Marriage

Illinois Republican Party members canceled a meeting to oust Chairman Pat Brady over his support for same-sex marriage. (AP)

Illinois Republican Party members on Saturday abruptly canceled a special meeting to fire their chairman after he expressed support for gay marriage.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, opponents of state GOP Chairman Pat Brady lacked the necessary votes to push him out.

State central committee members said in a statement the meeting was canceled because Brady himself would not be present — something that had been known for weeks.

“We are sorry for the late notice but we wanted to give the chairman every opportunity to respond to our request that he be present in person or by telephone at this meeting,” the statement said.

Brady came under fire from party bosses after he expressed his support for same-sex marriage and then personally lobbied Republican representatives to support a marriage bill pending in the state legislature.

“This all sparked and the demand for Brady’s resignation came right after his public statements that the Illinois Republicans should support the gay marriage bill,” state Rep. Jim Durkin (R-Western Springs), a supporter and personal friend of Brady, told TheBlaze this week.

State Sen. Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) had been the driving force for Brady’s ouster. He denied the push was specifically about gay marriage, and more about Brady specifically deviating from the national Republican Party platform.

“You cannot have the chair of an organization publicly going out and lobbying in opposition to the organization’s stated goals,” Oberweis told WBEZ.

Brady’s supporters pointed to his strong tenure as chairman, saying he’s brought in more than $9 million since starting in 2009 and played a major role in Republican Mark Kirk getting elected to Barack Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat.

They also said terminating him for deviating on one issue sent the wrong message about having a more inclusive GOP.

“We are a party that says you value different opinions…we have to just understand not everybody is going to agree with us, especially as we’re a party that’s struggling to grow, at least in Illinois,” Illinois House Republican Leader Tom Cross told TheBlaze.

–

Related:

Illinois Might Fire Its Republican Party Chair on Saturday Because He Supports Gay Marriage

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (132)

BenFrank1791
Posted on March 10, 2013 at 12:55am
…And how many Gays are there in the US population ? That’s right some of us can add. It’s only 3 -percent. So what is Gay marriage really about ? Oh, that’s right suing Religious Institutions and suppressing their freedom because they don’t agree with yours. Hey anything to make a buck right ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 1:07am
  Churches are not going to be forced to marry anybody against their beliefs any more than the Catholic Church has ever been forced to remarry people who obtain legal divorces. If legally divorced Catholics getting remarried at City Hall doesn’t destroy religious freedom, then neither does this. There is no evidence to support your belief that anybody even wants to sue a church. To advance such an obvious straw man argument shows that even you know that you can’t construct a rational and persuasive argument against giving gays the equal treatment under the law which they say is all they want.
  
  Report this comment
- may40
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 5:52am
  Grover, are you just plain ignorant? The day is absolutely coming when they will force churches to marry gays or they will be sued. Look at what’s happening to private entities that refuse to serve gay weddings?
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:13am
  may40
  How is that the same? There are laws in many states saying that businesses must serve the public without discrimination. There have to be because people need to depend on private businesses for the necessities of life, not just luxuries like caterers and cakes. Without protection against discrimination, there would be no protection against organized discrimination that could make it impossible for people of targeted groups to choose freely where to live. Churches are protected by the U.S. Constitution. They can’t be forced to marry people of other religions, or people who fail to meet any other requirements that their faith imposes. Nobody has ever sued a church to force them to change the rules governing the administration of sacraments. Nobody has even threatened to do so, and there is no reason to believe that if anybody did there could ever be any other result than summary dismissal.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:03pm
  So your argument here is that we should deny gays equal rights and benefits because you fear that in the vague future someone might possibly try to infringe on your religious freedoms? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
  
  Report this comment
- Mojokojo
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 11:55pm
  Interesting how TheBlaze only reported about Illinois republicans failing to oust the GOP Chairman in Illinois. They never initially reported how the chairman caused a uproar from failing to uphold the GOP platform on marriage, which lead to him potentially being ousted. I guess this site just wants to show its true colors (bias) on this issue (SSM) covertly.
  
  Report this comment
WhatisHappeningtoUS
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:39pm
The answer is simple, take government out of the marriage industry.

I don’t think a persons religion should dictate who gets special tax, legal benefits and superiority over other people. If marriage is only to be considered a religious and holy union then the government should be taken out of the equation.

A person and their church can decide what is an approved marriage for their congregation.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 11:51pm
  That is a lot of benefits to lose..
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 11:59pm
  besides.. Marriage isn’t a religious issue. Or at least it wasn’t until christians “redefined” marriage. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and ruling class members marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs.
  In ancient rome Marriage was a civil law. there were even gay marriages before christianity became popular, in medieval europe, and ancient China and Africa. As far as marriage is concerned, being a religious institution is a relatively new thing. Just ask King solomon… or one of his 700 wives. It wasn’t until 1215 AD when marriage became a holy union thanks to church courts.
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 1:39am
  @KEATONC333 Your a liar, or do I need to pull out scripture to prove it existed long before 1215 AD. To bad I’m going to do it anyway deceiver.
  
  Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
  Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
  Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
  Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
  Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
  Gen 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
  Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
  Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
  
  Try the Seventh day, not 1215 AD.
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:20am
  Valkaneer
  That’s a myth. In the real world people and marriage existed for milennia prior to the invention of Judaism or Christianity. Marriage was practiced in every culture, in every part of the world, no matter what their religious beliefs.
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 9:40am
  @GROVER_STANDPIPE Well thank you for proving my point. Though you are wrong about the time it existed. Christianity did not invent marriage. God did, Christianity is only called Christianity because of unbelievers like yourself labeled us as such. Christians, Jews, and Arabs all accept the First 5 books of the bible as truth, because it is thee truth. You are in the minority.
  
  How is it every culture no matter where has marriage, because it was that since the Seventh day when God created it.
  
  How does it appear that there is a God?
  
  Answer: The very knowledge of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their
  salvation.
  
  How is it out of the entire fossil record scientist can’t find any prof of Darwin Evolution (Ape to man)? The missing link will never be found because it does not exist. How is it, that the Deltas around the world only show a 8,000 year run off, because that is how long they have existed. How is it mountains all over the world can be found with over an inch think of fossilized crustaceans, because the flood created the mountains, the mountains use to be the sea floor. How is it we have a conscious, because God gave us one. I have far more prof God exist than you do that he does not. I pray he opens your mind and heart.
  
  Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on t
  
  Report this comment
- stumpy68
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 9:53am
  Marriage is was and shall be a religious issue government
  should have no interest in if the government is interested in who’s shacking up
  and wants to give them benefits issue a cohabitation agreement and let
  the peoples religion of choice take care of marriage
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 1:43pm
  Valkaneer
  If all the animals in the world came from those that were saved from the flood, how come there are more different species than would fit in in one ark? If there was no evolution before then, there must have been some since. And how are there animals on every continent? Did the Flood end before the continents separated? If the world is only a few thousand years old, continents must have moved much faster back then and suddenly stopped just before we learned to make accurate maps. How come there are kangaroos in Australia and nowhere else? Did they hop all the way across Asia in one pack without leaving any groups of stragglers behind? I don’t think they can swim very well, so they must have gotten there before Australia broke off and flew away. That’s some hopping! And sloths must have been much faster back then to make it all the way across Africa before South America broke away and rocketed across the world forming the Atlantic Ocean.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:56pm
  That’s a common misconception made by creationists about evolution. There has never been a scientific claim that man came from ape. Obviously, Ape and man are two different species. Man came from earlier primates that evolved into modern man. You don’t see half creature species either..those aren’t what transitional forms are…there were no crocoducks like Kurt Cameron and the joke he hands around with try to claim should be found. That is absurd. Obviously, you haven’t actually taken any time to read about evolution and transitional forms to understand what they are. They have been found..numerous times. Evolution doesn’t happen for a bit then stop and start again later..it’s an ongoing thing…and take quite a long time. It’s little changes here and there, not drastic ones in a generation. If you want to try to argue against Evolution, perhaps you should understand what you’re arguing against. Otherwise, you just look stupid.
  
  Report this comment
- katzkiner
  Posted on March 11, 2013 at 11:40am
  Alimony, child support, custody, visitation, property division, and more settled in the courts. How do you get government out of marriage?
  
  Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:04pm
I read the Bible, but have yet to find where it is a sin to eat shellfish. Would someone kindly point out the Book and Verse. Last I read in Genesis, God said we could eat of the sea. Maybe I read it and just don’t remember reading.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:36pm
  So typical of the GOP. When the going gets tough, fold, roll-over, go belly up. Is the GOP a French party?
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:50pm
  I don’t remember the exact verse, but I believe it is in Leviticus.
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:24pm
  Leviticus 11:9-12
  9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
  10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
  11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
  12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:31pm
  You guys do understand that HairyPotter is a paid troll pretending to be gay and he’s making money from your replies… right?
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 11:45pm
  Monk:
  
  LOL! That is the funniest thing I have seen on here to date! Who has all my money? I didn’t realize I was supposed to be getting paid!
  
  Actually, I have to admit, I am actually a liberal billionaire who is secretly paying Glenn Beck and other posters on this site to make myself seem smarter and to make Republicans seem out of touch. I’d like to take responsibility for Obama’s latest win through these efforts.
  
  And do you think that by posting the same conspiracy theory enough times, it will become true?
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:57pm
  He is? How the hell did he get that gig? I’ll pretend to be gay for money and make fun of the ignorant people on here…hell, I was gonna do it for free anyway.
  
  Report this comment
MACaTAC
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:01pm
If he can’t protect children then he should join the Democratic Party.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:50pm
Nice, the principals of the US Constitution were defended, by not allowing a hidden agenda platform by someone ready to use the government to redefine an establishment of religion – at the end of the barrel of a gun? Thank you for the good news.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 12:02am
  The US constitution was defended? How? Where in the constitution is marriage mentioned? The only part of the constitution thats relevant here is the 1st amendment.. Which clearly says we shall not be governed by old testament law.
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 1:52am
  @KEATONC333 Marriage is a convent ordained by God, between a Man and a Woman. It was that way since the beginning, or the Seventh day of creation. The State can not give what power it does not have. It can only perform the ceremony, marriage is ordained and given by God not man. The reason for writing of prof of marriage is for the protection of the woman. God did not want it that way but for the hardness of mans heart he allowed it. Marriage is a serious thing and God does not want it to be taken lightly. It is a convent between the Man, Woman, and God. If you don’t like it take it up with God.
  
  Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:50pm
It is okay for Republicans to have different opinions. If you expect everyone to agree, then you are just Democrats in other clothing. I don’t support gay marriage, but I would not having someone who does part of my group. You agree to disagree.

Heck there are gay Republicans. Being gay does automatically make you a Democrat.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- COFemale
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:18pm
  I typed that rather fast. I would not mind having someone who believes in gay marriage part of my group.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 12:03am
  I appreciate your post!
  
  Report this comment
mvcrowsnest
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:35pm
only in Illinois,,,,the armpit of country

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Paroikos
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:00pm
@HarryPotter,

“So, based on this, the concept of being straight is just as foreign and unnatural as being gay.” Exactly. You are a male, neither gay nor straight. Who you are is male. There is nothing wrong with being male. That is who you are.

What should males do? By definition, they should not “mate” with males because such “mating” is impossible. That truth is broadcasted by nature.

Please ask God for help. Do you believe John 3:16?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:12pm
  Um, actually I am both male and gay. If you are a man, and are sexually attracted to women, you are male and straight. We all have multiple identities to define ourselves. I am also white, a brother, son, Agnostic, a supervisor, etc. You limit yourself and ignore reality by only calling yourself male. And no definition says that males should only mate with females. You make it sound like we are just animals (who also have homosexual coupling by the way). I have found another man who I love. One day, I intend to be married to a man. I have tried, and am unable to have such feeling and attractions to females. If you don’t believe that conceptions of sexuality exist, then be attracted to your own gender for a day! Prove that you can choose!
  
  Report this comment
- gfg0010
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:33pm
  It’s also not natural to eat processed foods. Or to drive in a car. Or watch tv. Or use the Internet. Just look to nature. Do you see how ridiculous you sound? There’s nothing wrong with being gay. If you don’t like it, don’t be gay. And stop pushing your beliefs onto others, it’s very off putting.
  
  Report this comment
- COFemale
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:30pm
  So Harry who is going to procreate naturally in your coupling? Neither of you. Nature did not intend for same sex animals, mammals, fish, etc to have sex with each other. I know you don’t believe in God, but I do and homosexual sex is not okay with God. Homosexuals are not normal in the grand scheme of things. You may feel you are, but you are not. This does not mean you do not deserve to exist and I understand you feel you can’t be attracted to women. I wonder if you had some type of traumatic occurrence in your life either dealing with your mother, father, grandfather or grandmother. Many of the gays I see on TV generally have lost someone dear to them or someone who treated them badly.
  
  I wish you the best, I just don’t agree with your sexual preferences and lifestyle. But you don’t need my approval or permission. One day we will know the truth.
  
  Report this comment
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:30pm
  @ HarryP. ” If you don’t believe that conceptions of sexuality exist, then be attracted to your own gender for a day! Prove that you can choose!” Nicely said.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:32pm
  @GFG0010,
  Sorry about my posting in the wrong place. My post above is part of a discussion thread with HarryPotter.
  
  To clarify, one topic we are discussing is whether or not people are “gay” as the Left defines the term. History seems to back up my point that the Left is wrong. History implies that we are either male or female. No one falls into the “straight” or “gay” classes because those classes do not exist. You are either a male or female. That truth is self-evident.
  
  Self-evident truths are not ridiculous. It is self-evident that humans are designed to invent. Each invention has implicit operating instructions. You don’t watch TV with your feet. You don’t refuel a car through its exhaust pipe. It is cruel to pretend otherwise.
  
  By your saying incorrectly saying, “There is nothing wrong with…,” you are pushing your beliefs on others.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:37pm
  @HarryPotter,
  
  You are a male. That doesn’t change. You are a supervisor. That could change. You are *not* “gay” in the same way that you are male.
  
  You are a male first. So, don’t do what males shouldn’t do regardless of whatever secondary label you apply to yourself.
  
  About your feelings, you might be misdiagnosing them. Your reactions might be psychosomatic.
  
  About agnosticism, please visit ReasonableFaith.org. This article looks like a good place to start: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:08pm
  cofemale:
  
  I appreciate your politeness. We can still be civil even if we don’t agree. Now, if I marry a man, what does it matter if we cannot procreate naturally? Plenty of straight cannot or will not procreate naturally. Does that make them less valid or less worthy of the term marriage? Besides, we are past the point of needing sex for procreation. My future husband and I could use a surrogate mother, or other scientific way to produce a child, or even adopt. These are ways straight couples use to have a family as well. Or do you suggest I have a one night stand with a woman to get her pregnant to naturally procreate?
  
  If nature/God did not intend to homosexuals in animals, why do so many species show gay coupling? Why does humanity still have so many homosexuals? Perhaps we are nature’s/God’s way of checking overpopulation. You may not think that we are natural, but we are, and our relationships are just as real and valid as yours.
  
  Furthermore, I am Agnostic, so I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. But He never said anything about gays or gay marriage. Sure, there are a couple obscure passages in the Bible, but that was written by fallible man, and cannot be considered the word of god Himself. I also have great relationships with my parents, grandparents (still living), and extended family. No trauma or abuse here. That whole idea was spread by homophobes to try and discredit the gay rights movement.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:23pm
  paroikos:
  
  LOL. I am so glad you are here to try and psychoanalyze me based on a couple online comments, and tell me who and what I am. But, why am I male first? Why is that more important than being a son or a brother or someone’s significant other? And more importantly (what you keep avoiding), why do you seem to think that people can choose who they are attracted to? Will you accept my earlier challenge?
  
  And what are these things that males shouldn’t do? Who decides them? Do you? Or do you base these things off of an ancient text which was written by several men thousands of years ago? Personally, I base what people should or shouldn’t do based on what helps or harms yourself or other people. For instance, you shouldn’t have sex with children, because that harms the child, mentally and physically. You should volunteer in your community because that helps the less fortunate. How is being gay harming anyone? How is consensual sex between adults harming anyone? It does not. But a relationship where 2 people complement and love each other can be beneficial to both parties. Trying to convince people that they can choose their sexual orientation is harmful, because it leads to people trying and failing to change who they are, leading to self-hatred and depression.
  
  And how is saying (truthfully) that there is nothing wrong with being gay pushing my beliefs on anyone else?
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:31pm
  You guys do understand that HairyPotter is a paid troll pretending to be gay and he’s making money from your replies…… right?
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 12:09am
  OK stop using Nature to justify homophobia… Homosexuality is prevalent in nature! It has been observed in over 1,500 different species.. and though it might not be “normal” (not as common) It is natural.. and lets suspend logic for a second and say it isn’t natural… like its some sort of defect or abnormality… can we then make the case that people born with clef lip or missing limbs should be denied equal rights as well?
  and grover “Oh, I was confused by the fact that gay means both homosexual and happy.” have you been in a coma the last 50 years?
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:01am
  @KEATONC333
  
  Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
  Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
  Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
  Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
  Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
  Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
  Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
  Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
  Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:05am
  @Keaton,
  
  “can we then make the case that people born with clef lip or missing limbs should be denied equal rights as well?”
  
  That is what the Left is doing! It is as if Left is cruelly denying that people with cleft lips or missing limbs need health care. Even worse, the Left is goading people into mislabeling themselves with a fictitious label. Then, the Left seeks to enable self-abusing behavior.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:17am
  @HarryPotter,
  
  “But, why am I male first?” Let’s use an analogy. A car is a car first regardless of its programming. Suppose a car’s information center displays boat-like messages such as “starboard-side hatch not closed.” The driver sees the message and thinks, “I’m driving a boat.” The driver then demands boating privileges on state highways.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:04am
  Paroikos:
  
  Ok, I think I see what you mean here. But then why am I male first and not human first? Yes a car is a car first, but it can also be categorized as a 4-door vehicle, convertible, it can have a sports package, spinning rims, be manual or automatic, and on and on. To carry with your analogy, a human is a human first, but a human can also be male or female, gay or straight, an only child or have siblings, married, divorced or single, and on and on. These are all identities that people have. Just like cars can have more identities as well. You were trying to tell me that I was only one thing. Yes I am male, I have never denied that, but that is only part of my identity.
  
  By the way, why did you pick this one small part of my last post to respond to? Could you not refute the rest of it?
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 2:04pm
  Please abandon identities that conflict with underlying ones. Your car examples are good. In each case, the driver would operate the car consistently with its mission. Suppose the car’s GPS is set to bicycle mode. It tells the driver to enter a bicycle path. The driver thinks, “I must be riding a bike-car.” A problem occurs when the driver thinks his car is also a bicycle. Down a bicycle path, he attempts to drive his car. He damages the car and the bicycle path. The car is unable to be a bicycle and yet have four wheels. The “bi-quad-cycle” identity conflicts with itself.
  
  I chose only a portion to answer b/c my more comprehensive post was not appearing. About your challenge, car is still a car whether or not its GPS is in bike mode or car mode. Thus, its setting doesn’t matter. (Plus, it probably takes time to change GPS modes unless the Designer is invited to correct settings.)
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:49pm
  Paroikos:
  
  Ok, it seems like you are confused. Sexual orientation and gender are two completely separate issues. Your gender is male or female. I am male. Your sexual orientation is the gender you are attracted to. I am gay. These do not conflict in any way. If you are a male, who is attracted to women, this does not conflict either because they are two separate identities.
  
  And I’m still waiting on an answer to my challenge and the rest of my questions…..
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:03pm
  My girlfriend can’t have kids…so I shouldn’t “mate” with her then? It’s pointless for us to get married eventually? Sounds pretty callous..glad I’m not a religious nut job.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:03pm
  @HarryPotter,
  
  “Sexual orientation and gender are two completely separate issues.“ I disagree; those issues are related. Your sex is male. Thus, by definition, you are sexually oriented toward females at the physical level. Your maleness dictates physical-level sexual orientation.
  
  Report this comment
JACKTHETOAD
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:41pm
There’s still Republicans in Illinois? How the hell did that happen?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HarryPotter
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:30pm
Why is this still such a big issue? By denying gays equal rights and benefits, republicans are harming their own party more than anyone else at this point. The rest of the country has realized that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and that it is against our founding principles to continue to deny them equality. It is time to end the discrimination, and join the rest of America in the 21st century.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- COFemale
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:37pm
  Marriage is between a man and woman. Has been since day one. The purpose of marriage is to procreate and to raise a family with one man and one woman. It is the lack of this is what is making our society go down the tubes. Now I realize you don’t agree with this, but that is okay. We don’t have to agree. However, if you look at single fathers or single mothers they generally raised troubled children. This by no means that you can’t have the traditional family and not have issues. However, children generally are well adjusted. It is only when you introduce other maladies when that family unit goes awry.
  
  Report this comment
- bullcrapbuster
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:47pm
  The whole problem is with homosexual marriage. Stop trying to co-opt and the problem disappears for all but a very few. Homosexual marriage is an attempt by evil forces to redefine the traditional family and to destroy our society. The homosexuals need to call their unions something other than marriage. They have already hijacked the word gay.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:34pm
  cofemale:
  
  Actually marriage has been between a man and a woman, a man and several women, or very rarely, something else. But marriage has not always meant what it does today, it has been constantly changing. It once referred to the purchase of a teenage girl by a middle-aged man through livestock and grains. Is that an adequate representation of today’s marriage? Besides, this argument is basically, “we’ve always done it this way.” Well, that argument held true for slavery, denying women equal rights, interracial marriage, etc. Just because something has traditionally been done one way does not make it right.
  
  Also, wouldn’t 2 parents always be better for a child than 1? And better yet, shouldn’t the focus be on the quality of the parent over their gender? If you want to bar same-sex couples from having children, shouldn’t you ban single parents first? I have seen several well-adjusted and healthy kids raised by gay couples. I have also seen several nightmares raised by straight, married, Christian couples. Again, quality of the parents is the key, not their gender.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 9:40pm
  Bull:
  
  First off, you do not own the words gay or marriage. You can feel free to define them however you see fit, but the rest of us will stay with reality. And we are not stealing the word marriage anyway, we are using a legal term which already exists to define our own unions. We have tried civil unions. They did not get us equality. They are not recognized by the federal government. They do not provide the same rights and benefits. A marriage between 2 men or 2 women is just as loving, just as real, and just as valid as one between a man and a woman. And soon all of these marriages will have the same rights and benefits under the law. THAT is what we are after here.
  
  Report this comment
- Pontiaku
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:04pm
  You know, if you guys would stop calling things you can’t tolerate “evil” and actually stick to making a reasoned argument, you might not drive so many people away from fiscal conservatives come election time.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:32pm
  You guys do understand that HairyPotter is a paid troll pretending to be gay and he’s making money from your replies… right???
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 9:53am
  @HARRYPOTTER Because God says it is sin, If we were let Gay marriage exist what is the difference between children and bestiality? Because that is where the logical thought process goes. There are already groups out there that are pushing for pedophilia to be leagalized. What makes your wants any different from theirs? They will have studies just like the gays had to say it’s natural and next thing you know we will be fighting pedophilia in courts in 50 years.
  
  Better question is why would a Homosexual want to put yourself under what God Created? God Created marriage between a man and woman. So if you don’t believe in God why would you want to be married? Elton John and actors like John Barrowman completely accept this line of logic. Why put yourself under a rule from God when you know he hates the abomination of Homosexuality?
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:00pm
  Valkaneer:
  
  First of all, God never said anything about homosexuality. The Bible was written by man, and even if it was divinely inspired, man held the pen. Man is not infallible so neither is the Bible. So no, God never said being gay is a sin, unless he has spoken to you personally.
  
  Second, the logical progression does not lead to animals and children. There is an important difference here that I think you are ignoring. Pedophilia is harmful to children. They do not yet have the mental of physical development to be able to handle or understand sex. They also cannot legally consent, because they do not yet understand the full ramifications of such a commitment. Similarly, with animals, that is animal abuse, the animal cannot consent, to sex or marriage. This argument is nonsensical and rather stupid.
  
  Finally, I don’t think that God hates homosexuality. But he also calls eating shellfish an abomination, do you avoid that just as passionately? Sure, marriages have traditionally been between men and women, but he never said 2 men or 2 women could not love each other and form a lifetime bond in the same manner. I think you are the one trying to undermine what God has created. God created gay people, he makes more of them every day. Why are you trying to change or deny what he has created?
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:09pm
  Harry, these are the people that made me leave the Republican Party. There’s no rational thought..just adherence to mythology. I’m proud to be a Libertarian and be for small government and equal human rights for everyone. Throwing off the shackles of bronze age superstitions was one of the greatest things I did. It still shocks me with today’s science that there can be this much ignorance still. And willful ignorance at that, which is the worst kind.
  
  Report this comment
TOPOFTHEGAME
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:08pm
I’m 70 years old and have seen a lot in my life time. I can remember being drug to family marriages and the pastor saying”‘WE ARE HERE TO JOIN THIS MAN AND WOMAN IN “HOLY’ MATRIMONY…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:29pm
  It’s rude to drug before the ceremony. The time for drugging is during the reception, near the end of cocktail hour and before seating for dinner, when nobody will notice you slipping out for a few minutes.
  
  Report this comment
Ilivewayupthere
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:00pm
I don’t give a ratz a$$ about gay marriage. It’s an oximoron. If somebody wants to live monogomously with a same sex partner or a pony, go for it. Just don’t try to tell me its a marriage or that it’s somehow equal to what I have. And don’t tell me I have to accept it. Marriage is defined in the bible.
What’s scary to me is way down in the 9th paragraph. “…he’s brought in more than $9 million since starting in 2009…” When did we start selling prinicples? What’s the minimum fee for backing third term abortion? Or, full fledged socialism?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HawkEyeTx
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:00pm
~
Kick’um when they’er up, kick’um when they’er down, kick them all the way out of town.

Let the progressive folks have the lot of them.

This is one reason I’m ready to leave the RINO’s….they no longer represent me and my political beliefs and direction to try a put this Nation back together.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlasberryStrat
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:32pm
@ KEATONC”TRI-6″,

Legalize all you want baby. But by God those people better not try to avoid the ‘marriage penalty tax’ “because they’re a special couple”. And since you seem to be an expert, when it comes to divorce followed by alimony, who do you suggest lives high on the hog from ex spouse – and who is going to (continues to) take it up the butt??

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlasberryStrat
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:26pm
Sooooo……..what has happened is the party members are forced to tolerate and just take it up the butt.

: )

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:21pm
.
Just let them, if their willing to vote republican it’s better than a vote for Obama…..

Then after we win we can put them back in the closet…..

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
blinknight
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:02pm
You’re just going to have to accept reality. Reality being that people are going to get equal rights, including homosexuals, and you will be viewed in the same light as the people who supported segregation in the 1950s. History will look back at you and it will not be kind even if written by a non-liberal.

What are his ideas on spending? Gun rights? Taxation? Free enterprise? Individual rights? Opposition to federal government control? The military?

If those are all good and you’re going ‘omg he supports gay marriage’, then you’re a moron who is helping Democrats win elections.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BlackCrow
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:17pm
  Homosexuals make up maybe 4% of the population, they make a lot of noise and donate a lot of money to Communist causes but they will never be a force at the ballot box. Marriage is between a man and a woman, attempting to change thousands of years worth of tradition in the vane hope of attracting some of that money away from liberal causes will never happen. Every time gay marriage goes to the popular vote it goes down in flames even in California.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:32pm
  Blackcrow:
  
  Well that’s embarrassing…. It looks like someone complete missed the 2012 elections! In 4 states where the issue was put to a vote, it turned out in favor of gay marriage. The tides are turning on public opinion. You should understand, it is not only us gays who support gay marriage, it is all people who are interested in equality and ending the blatant discrimination imposed on a segment of the American people. Over half of Americans now favor gay marriage, the Supreme Court is taking up the case, and people everywhere are realizing that this is our generation’s Civil Rights. Do not be on the wrong side.
  
  Report this comment
- noproblems
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:06pm
  i see tyou are drinking the Beck kool-aid. there is a reason libertarians never win. they stand for nothing.
  
  Report this comment
- Rayblue
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:53pm
  @harrypo..Tides have a way of going out as well as coming in.
  Homosexuality is not a civil right either. It’s nothing more than a back alley wish to be normalized and
  gay “marriage” is no more than the childhood game of dress up taken to it’s extreme.
  Turning sex into a right is a little beyond. It’s like saying wearing clothes is a right just so you can then say that not wearing clothes is a right also.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 8:01pm
  Rayblue:
  
  Why do people keep mixing up marriage and sex? This is not about sex. This is about a loving gay couple being afforded the same rights and benefits as every straight couple in the country. No one is telling us we can’t have sex (or wear clothes either), they are saying that our unions will not be recognized by the government. That is the problem. Any straight couple can be married and be recognized by the federal government, but gay couples are denied that.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:32pm
  You guys do understand that HairyPotter is a paid troll pretending to be gay and he’s making money from your replies…… right???
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:14pm
  So standing for Freedom and small government is nothing? Hmm..could have sworn the first one was one of the most important things in the world.
  
  Report this comment
wilbstal
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:54pm
we dont need any more filth in the repub aprty yhey are doing good with out this added filth

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
neverending
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:45pm
No surprise they wimped out!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HarryPotter
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:32pm
I don’t understand why support for equality would be a problem in the first place.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Paroikos
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:24pm
Dear Blaze, please consider putting quotation marks around the word “marriage” when preceded by the imprecise jargon word “gay.” A more accurate rendering is “same-sex ‘marriage.’” The quotes make sense when you consider a similar phrase: “the round ‘square.’”

Plus, at least one same-sex “marriage” law does not restrict same-sex “marriage” to so-called “gays” (which do not exist as left defines them).

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- gyro
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:32pm
  wow
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:35pm
  Enlighten me, how do gays not exist?
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:17pm
  @HarryPotter,
  
  “Gays” do not exist as the Left defines them because the Left defines “gayness” as a characteristic equivalent to maleness and femaleness. The Left “asserts the reality of ‘homosexuality’ as a permanent condition, though there is little if anything in our history (Greek, Roman, and Christian) to justify the idea.”
  
  Source: “The Gay Invention,” http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f.
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:19pm
  HarryPotter
  Oh, you know, in order to reconcile their homophobia with a belief in equal rights, some people have to convince themselves that people choose to be gay. They are willing to put up with bullying and prejudice and never having children of their own with the person they love, just to be trendy and impress the cool kids and break their parents’ hearts and annoy Paroikos, because they are just plain mean and selfish and childish, and that we’re only helping them by refusing to respect their rights, because that way they may eventually choose right which will make them much happier, and if it doesn’t they’re just stubborn.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:24pm
  Paroikos:
  
  Are you insinuating that you are able to change your sexual orientation? If you believe you can, then try it! Be gay for a day, spen 24 hours attracted to your own gender. If you can’t do this, why do you thing gay people can make this choice/change?
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:45pm
  @HarryPotter,
  
  If you have categorized yourself as “gay” per the Left’s definition, please reject that label. Consider this excerpt:
  
  “As sin, sodomy was an act ‘committed’ or not ‘committed,’ an act (and inclination) for which one was ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty,’ ashamed or unashamed. As sin, the act of sodomy might be taught by ‘bad’ example, but no one thought (as did late-Victorian doctors) of distinguishing between ‘acquired’ sodomy and ‘congenital.’”
  
  Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-f
  
  Report this comment
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Oh, I was confused by the fact that gay means both homosexual and happy. Whether or not you can choose your sexuality, you can choose to never be happy simply by choosing to never have sex. That may seem like a harsh price to pay just to conform to somebody else’s ancient superstitions, but they do worry about you so.
  
  Report this comment
- HarryPotter
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:20pm
  Paroikos:
  
  Actually I fall into the category of gay based on the common definition, and the definition found in any dictionary. But since you are quoting someone else’s words like the Bible, let me respond more specifically. I have a masters degree in ancient history, and I believe I know more about that period than anyone on this site, and likely even the author of that article. In Greece and Rome, no distinction was made between homosexuality and heterosexuality. All mean with the means had sex with just about everyone they could. Men, women, boys, girls, very little distinction was made. Some people preferred one gender or another, but it was very, very unusual to avoid sex with one gender altogether. It was only later, when the church started to ban male-male sex that we began to see the concept of sexuality emerge, both heterosexual and homosexual. So, based on this, the concept of being straight is just as foreign and unnatural as being gay.
  
  You may find something sinful, or wrong about homosexuality, but not everyone does. If you are categorizing it as sin based on the Bible, then eating shellfish is a sin as well. The Bible is the word of man, not God. Man held the pen, so the word is not infallible. This leaves us with absolutely nothing that is wrong with homosexuality at all. If you don’t like it, fine! Don’t have gay sex! But don’t presume to tell me that there is anything wrong with who I am or what I do.
  
  Report this comment
- Paroikos
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 7:16pm
  @HarryPotter,
  
  “So, based on this, the concept of being straight is just as foreign and unnatural as being gay.” Exactly. You are a male, neither gay nor straight. Who you are is male. There is nothing wrong with being male. That is who you are.
  
  What should males do? By definition, they should not “mate” with males because such “mating” is impossible. That truth is broadcasted by nature.
  
  Please ask God for help. Do you believe John 3:16?
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 10:33pm
  You guys do understand that HairyPotter is a paid troll pretending to be gay and he’s making money from your replies… right….?
  
  Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:15pm
I have to agree – Gay Marriage is not important – Riding ourselves of Communists should be our # 1 Priority ! Force Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, McCain, Graham, to resign – Force Chris Christy and other Rhinos out of the Republican Party ! Get Rid of that Pesky Karl “Marx” Rove !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- gyro
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:36pm
  Dont you think we are being menipulated ?
  Think how do you get people to not see what you are doing ?
  Easy — get them exited about guns or gays or drink size or a idiot vice president ?
  Then when they are all worked up over nothing you slip it in and BNGO you win !
  
  Report this comment
teammommy
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:08pm
WHy does the gvmt have anything to say about marriage? Its a religious ceremony hijacked by the government. Allow any civil unions, get out of marriage and return it to the church! Gvmt doesnt require license for baptism, bat mitzvahs, deacon/elder ordination, etc…so why do they have their fingers in marriage???

Grandfather in those that are married, and kill gvmt marriage. ALLow civil unions only.

Judao/Christians get to keep the holiness of marriage intact, gays are allowed all the legalities they want, and everyone wins.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Grover_Standpipe
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:21pm
  Religion does not own the concept of marriage or the word either. It’s not just about same sex couples. There are millions of straight couples in this country who were married by the government without having to seek the permission of any church, and their marriages are just as real as yours. It’s been like that for a hundred years before we were born and nobody ever objected until they started talking about giving same sex couples the same opportunity. It’s not just a religious institution, and it hasn’t been for a long time. And if the government did get out of it, there would be gay marriage in every state. There most be a hundred religious sects in this country. There are bound to be a few who would say yes.
  
  Report this comment
Keatonc333
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 3:49pm
This is going to be a tough pill for you guys to swallow.. but opposing gay marriage is a losing issue. It will be legalized within the decade.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Chazael
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:22pm
  “he will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.” Dan 7:25
  
  “It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.” Rev 13:7
  
  It isn’t a bitter pill to swallow. It has all been foretold. It requires faith and endurance (Rev 2;2,3,19 3:10 13:10 14:12) but I don’t have to swallow anything the world puts forth for me to swallow.
  
  It is the separating of the wheat from the tares (Matt 13:30). The tares must be separated first and we are seeing that now. Good luck being a Christian and owning a business to sell or buy. And there is no way a Chritian will ever be elected in a national republican primary, let alone a national election.
  
  But it is also a time of expectation; a time of joy in our faith and perseverance.
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:40pm
  Let me add this for those who I am sure will point to democrats, like Obama, who say they are Christian and have/can win nationaly.
  
  “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” Matt 7:22,23
  
  Just because one calls himself a Christian, calls Jesus Lord, does not mean they are a Christian. The fruits reveal the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Jesus said not only can we know them, but that we would know them (Matt 7:15-20).
  
  Report this comment
- wilbstal
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:56pm
  who cares as Long as God knows you were on his side of the issue
  
  Report this comment
- Rayblue
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 4:57pm
  You should bet on running across a heavily traveled freeway keaton.
  It’d be the same as betting on the survivability of aids victims into the next decade.
  Not much press on that old and forgotten subject.
  
  Report this comment
- exilemusic
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 5:28pm
  Haha! Within a decade? Try within the next couple years. Beastiality and pedophilia with be legalized within a decade. I personally know people who are for those “sexual preferences” too. Welcome to the roman empire people.
  
  Report this comment
- noproblems
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:10pm
  it is already legal. so is abortion. more morons on the Blaze per capita than any other board I have seen
  
  Beck kool aid drinker. wonder what his opinion will be next week. changes so often. no telling what he will evolve into
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on March 9, 2013 at 6:38pm
  Legal or not it’s immoral. Call it what it is SODOMY. That doesn’t sound as happy as gay but that is what it is.
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 3:04am
  @KEATONC333 What matters is that we do what is right in the eyes of the Lord “NOT YOU”. The Lord will judge us and he will judge you. One day you will be sitting in front of the Lord and you will Confess that he is LORD.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 4:51pm
  You seem to swallow the ******** in a 2000 year old superstitious fairy tale easily enough.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 10, 2013 at 5:12pm
  Noproblems I don’t know that I’d call them Beck kool aid drinkers…Beck has stated he has no issue with Gay marriage, and while he personally doesn’t agree with it, it neither breaks his leg nor picks his pocket, quoting Jefferson. These people are just ignorant on their own.
  
  Report this comment
Southernsoul
Posted on March 9, 2013 at 3:46pm
His stance on the Constitution would be of far more importance to me.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.