As a Democrat I don't think I should interrupt Republicans from allowing themselves to be destroyed by history.
As a democrat I don't believe a personal opinion like this should be allowed to harm a person.

Same sex marriage is going to lose in Springfield. The concept that one can 'marry' anything and anyone one loves has no merit once you extrapolate all of the possible 'marriage' combinations that could follow.

I do not support same sex marriage but do feel that there is a greater issue at work here. When the government (or anyone) starts to censure people based upon that persons thoughts and opinions it is of much greater concern. The way to deal with issues is at the ballot box.

How refreshing to read about an actual grown up in the Republican party.
Brady is one of the few willing to step into the 21st century while the rest are kicking and screaming trying to remain in the past.

Oberweis has sought elective office six times, finally succeeding in the 2012 race for the 25th State Senate district seat. Now that he holds this seat he's bound and determined to try to push his views that a majority of people do not agree with. The fact that the meeting to oust Pat Brady was canceled speaks volumes.

Not much that Jim Oberweis stands for warrants anyone's attention ... except his dolche de leche ice cream.

I agree, with Bill Bangs...Oberweis was pro-choice before he was pro-life. Typical republican, doesn't have the balls to stand on an issue...just look at what happened to Romney. And to Lou, we are talking about adult men and women not "anything you want to marry." I think same sex marriage WILL pass in Illinois as it should.

Jim Oberwies is dilusional regarding his importance in this world. His campaign to oust Brady is hateful and polarizing, and I'm betting it is more related to some degree of personal animosity than to marriage equality.

And Lou b., I'm hard pressed to address your comments without name calling. That you would equate one human marrying another as a gateway to marrying anything one wants, simply because those two humans are of the same gender is illogical, mean, hateful, and I'll-informed.

Oberweis should shut up His election record speaks alot for his opinions

Always interesting that people feel that one man and his opinions are representative of a political party. Aren't the politicians supposed to represent those who voted them into office? I believe that this is where our government is failing us.

The extremists in the Republican party are damaging the two-party system in Illinois.

No politician should be ousted or retained for their opinion on gay marriage or abortion.

Same sex marriage is expensive for business. More dependents to cover etc., a rather high percentage with AIDS. As an owner of a small company offering group coverage that I pay the lion's share of, that's a little chilling for me.

Government shouldn't enforce morality, just keep order, provide defense etc. That's enough.

If a church doesn't approve of gays, it shouldn't have to hire gays or allow them to participate on any level. It's their religion and their morality.

They also shouldn't force their morals on the general public through the government. That's what "separation of church and state" means.

Gays deserve to walk the streets unmolested just like everyone else. That's a civil issue. Government has a right to intervene whenever civil order is not kept....

We can like gays, approve of them or not approve of them but no one should be allowed to beat anyone up for a lifestyle choice.

Marriage is never going to be the same thing for gays as for straight couples. Gays who want to tie a knot should be able to. I would think there would be a lot more marriage and divorce, but given the dismal number of straights staying faithful, will gays be any worse? I doubt it.

When it comes to gays adopting kids, I think the same sort of qualifications should be used as for straights. Often, not a good idea. Sometimes, maybe good or very good.

Oh, and Oberweis is a rich guy who will do anything to get elected. I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Needs to try something else. He's very good at ice cream.

Lou B - you can trivialize and spew rhetoric from both sides of this argument. I've never been a staunch supporter of gay marriage, but then I think straight marriage should be separated under law and religion as well (a church ceremony is at the discretion, or not, of the church, but the legal union is bestowed by the legal government of the state). We can achieve many of the same functions as marriage by legal means, except for a few that are critical: health care/financial determination and estate taxes/survivor benefits. That a loving couple can endure 10, 20, 30 years together only to be told at end of life that you can't call the shots for your dying partner (HC Proxy be damned) - or that a blood relative with a good lawyer can strip your life's partner of everything not legally nailed down....THESE are the real sins with regard to the situation. Our legal system is based on the premise that it's better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be punished. Should a legal union be any different? Yes, there will always be fringe elements waiting to try and stretch gay marriage, or any legal right, into something that 99% of society finds repugnant or inane, but does your desire to deny that fringe precedent really justify your denying legal rights and recognition to others whose only "crime" (at least in your eyes) is to love another soul that happens to be the same gender?

Perhaps giving "gay marriage" a separate name and its own entity would solve a lot of confusion. Maybe it's not a marriage and its a "wedded unity". Then all of the issues can be sorted out as they arise and have nothing to do with what is called a marriage in the church, state or insurance world.

Wouldn't work Laurel. You had me until you left 'marriage' as a term for church, state or insurance. I maintain that the state and insurance side of the coin should be the same for all "wedded unity" contracts (nice name, btw!), regardless of make-up. I'm in the minority on this though, as I know many gay couples desperately want the societal recognition of their love and commitment and feel that only the word "marriage" will convey that validation. Kind of like telling women "sure, you can vote, but you still have to use the back door and walk 2 steps behind your lord and master, aka, hubby"

My opinion of this has been for some time that the government (state) should issue licenses termed a Civil Union License, not a Marriage License. That would be the legal reason for either partner to receive the benefits formerly given under the state issued Marriage License.
As for declaring the union a "Marriage", let the religious organizations use that term. If 2 people wish to have their union certified as a "Marriage", there are many religious denominations that recognize and embrace opposite sex and same sex unions.
Lastly, I understand that many religious organizations oppose same sex unions as a moral issue. However, they should also understand that if they make the decision to exclude, they should also be prepared to not receive government funding for their programs.
And that is the real reason behind all of this, isn't it?

Lou, I believe the reason that Polygamy is illegal is that in its most relevant terms, it is applied to only the male having multiple wives. Isn't that rather unfair to the women? And then there is the typical thinking that it refers to sex and not the other more subtle, but just as important parts of a marriage - family estate, raising children, etc.
However, the more correct terms in which you refer are Polygyny and Polyandry. I suppose there are the typical reasons given for the illegality of Polygyny and Polyandry: Western culture disapproves, our Judeo-Christian society disapproves or, at best, the majority of our democratic society disapproves. Hence, it is illegal.Those reasons shall certainly be examined down the road as same sex marriage becomes legalized.
However, I believe the real reason at this time for mulitple partner marriage being illegal or not legaized is that marriage as we know it is a state licensed union that makes both partners EQUAL in their union. To share equally is their union. In a multiple partner marriage, there is no true Equality.
Now about those opossums.

Greg S. many gay couples considered themselves married anyway. I have a family member in this situation and her employer offers insurance/benefits for her significant other. I guess my point is that it can't be a blanket policy because there is more to it than a straight couple's union. It's just the way it is. It's going to take a long time for this to be a natural situation and that's how it needs to be approached-baby steps.

Lou, thanks for your reply.
The "Equality" issue will come to the forefront. Consider that their is always going to be an unequal arrangement in multiple partner marriage. I shall never be able to be legislated (IMO).
Let's face it. We're talking about the subordination of women.

As for the opposums, you realize that you were referring to them ion your earlier comment. you know, the Philanders.

If you find yourself on the opposite side of an issue with Oberweis, you're doing something right. I prefer Dairy Queen anyways.

What people are forgetting is that Mr. Brady chose to support and manage the campaign of one Republican candidate over another when he should have NOT been involved at all other than urging Republicans to vote in the primary (the Kane Co. board Chairman's race). That in itself should be enough to disqualify Mr. Brady as a statewide GOP chairman. There are other issues that again should disqualify Mr. Brady. The constant drum beat about same-sex marriage is a Democrat smoke screen to divert the public's attention from the real issues that confront the ILGOP and Illinois' awful financial condition.

BTW--if Mr. Brady wanted what was best for ILGOP he would step aside so someone could rebuild the party and help everyone in Illinois get out from the yoke of Democrat mismanagement. This turmoil will only mean that Republicans won't be able to focus on how to rebuild our state.

Storm: your response is so full of inaccuracies it's unbelievable. BTW, there is no such person as "Gary Dugan"-- the 'perp' is Brian Dugan who will be in prison (thankfully) for the rest of his life and was in jail on another murder charge--not running loose as you asserted. It was Obama's campaign (does anyone smell David Axelrod) who somehow managed to unseal private sealed divorce records - for political purposes. So much horse hockey not worthy of refuting.

Lastly, in re-reading my reply to you, I see that I used the wrong word "through" incorrectly. It should be "threw".

As for Ryan's apology, here's a link to refresh your memory:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/11/jim-ryan-apologizes-for-his-role-in-the-nicarico-case.html

As an added note, the reason I remember the Dugan case is that Jeanine was the same age as my own daughter. My daughter's best friend's father worked with Dugan. AAMOF, I believe Dugan might have been at her friend's house once or twice.
I have no use for overzealous States Attorney's like Ryan and his assistants.

Storm--I'd rather have had Jack Ryan--and all his supposed issues--elected than Mr. Obama who was a do nothing US Senator but a loyal Illinois Democrat (bad for Illinois) and now a disaster as president. Had Mr. Axelrod and his unscrupulous accomplices not played usual dirty Chicago politics history might be very different.
As to the handling of the Nicarico murder--it was truly horrid. To rehash that serves no purpose. I am glad Jim Ryan was not elected. No apology can ever make up for how badly all those DuPage pols mangled that whole thing. BUT--this whole smoke screen about Brady should be about his tenure as ILGOP chairman--which has been marred by mistake after mistake and much bad judgment. Let's focus on that. All the other stuff is usual Democrat obfuscation.

Let's focus the discussion on Mr. Brady's tenure as ILGOP Chairman. This is a matter for ILGOP members. It's time for everyone to put their egos in check, truly take a look around and remove their "me first" perspective. we need to REALLY figure out how we can dig ourselves out from the pit too many faux leaders in Illinois have put us into with their poor decision making. Reportedly one taxpayer moves out of Illinois every 10 minutes. We're rapidly becoming a state of takers and not makers. How do we turn this around? The current crop of Democrats is only making it worse. We need new ILGOP leadership to address this disturbing trend.

Sure Angela.
But, let's get one thing straight - this is a Republican led fight.
Aamof, it's infighting on something that only shows Republicans how out of touch they have become with their constituency. IMO, it is a tempest in a teapot. If there are other issues that makes Brady a poor choice for Il GOP leader, then they should air their reasons rather than this issue. Jim Oberweiss is a nice guy, but he seems rather clueless about the sea change that this issue is. IMO, Judy B Topinka is the only true Republican of note who has a clue. Mark Kirk? Probably will not run again and if he does, he'll probably lose. Randy H? He's no help.

As for Mr Obama, that is your opinion.
As for Jack Ryan, i could just see him as senator getting caught in some sleezy escapade. Those records would have come to light one way or another. It was a classic case of this state's REP party ineptitude in not vetting their candidate.
Democrat obfuscation? I was merely pointing out some of the critical political mistakes that this party has made over the past years. Mistakes that have turned the public against them and made this state a Dem controlled majority state - something that is also not healthy.

Storm--you are obviously not a Republican and I doubt Storm is your real name. So really you are part of the Democrat smoke screen. The lGOP committeemen choose the chair and many across the state are not happy with Mr. Brady. Let them settle it.

As to Jack Ryan--he would be considered a saint next to Mr. Menendez, Ted Kennedy, and so many others who are on the other side. Let it go.

Illinois is an economic and political disaster. We are controlled by Democrats who have sucked the state dry. They all stood by Blago's side and enjoyed the corruption with him, aided and abetted him and used him for their own purposes. More of the same will occur unless we all collectively slap our faces, yell SNAP OUT OF IT and get on with scrubbing ego driven pols (on all sides of the issues) out of our collective hair.

BTW, Angela.

About the name Storm. It is a Danish surname, my grandmother's, given to me at birth.
The Scandinavian heritage runs deep in these communities. A classmate's brother was named Trygve. This morning I was talking to a fellow named Gunnar.

But it really doesn't matter other than it isn't Ward.

@ Lou B - It was very early in the morning.... Censure vs. censor.

Actually I really don't care what the reason is but I certainly support sending Brady out to pasture. He's been a disaster as Chairman and has done more for Illinois Democrats than Republicans.