NOM BLOG

What do States Passing Same-Sex Unions Have in Common? Corrupt Legislatures & Bad Economies

 

A former son of Illinois (and former State Senator) says a heartfelt public goodbye to the State of Illinois over corruption, population loss (due to poor job creation), and high taxes (which he says go hand-in-hand).

Notice any other similarities between, say, New York and Illinois? Corrupt legislatures pass same-sex marriage/civil unions while claiming it is good for the economy:

Good Bye And Good Luck

As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my friends and wish all of you well. I am a lifelong son of the heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois with a heavy heart. BUT enough is enough! The leaders of Illinois refuse to see we can’t continue going in the direction we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost 1/4th of our population. Don’t blame the weather, because I love 4 seasons.

Illinois just sold still more bonds and our credit rating is so bad we pay higher interest rates than junk bonds! Junk Bonds! -- Godfather Politics

37 Comments

  1. Bobby
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    And what do states with anti-gay marriage amendments have in common? The hisgest rates of poverty and unemployment, lowest rates of educational attainment, higher rates of out of wedlock births, divorce and incest, and lower life expectancies.

  2. Johnny
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    It is my hope and my prayer that the next president can get a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Men marrying men is wrong, so matter how you slice it and we need a strong man of God in the White House instead of these gay enablers.

  3. Christy
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    What we need in this country is sanity not God.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Amazing that marriage corruption supporters would demand the right to use their God goven gift of freedom to deny everybody else access to the source of our freedom.

    This nation was founded on the belief that by allowing everbody equal access to these truths we hold to be self evident that we the people would move closer to God; not seek to to eliminate eveybodies right to do so.

    "What we need in this country is sanity not God."

    Comming from somebody who has proven themselves incapable of understanding the intent of their own biology.

  5. davide
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    bobby you are full of crap

  6. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    It's organized crime in some of these states. A handful of leeches sell their souls to the highest bidder, bleed the economy dry, continue raising taxes in order to further line their pockets. All the while they spew forth lovely rhetoric, and casual voters continue to drink the Kool-Aid.

  7. Zack
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    @Bobby

    Actually, those states are experiencing the largest population and economic booms. If the South seceded and formed its own country, it would be the 4th largest economy in the world.

  8. tam
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    You know what else marriage equality states have in common? They're the healthiest states. Four of the five healthiest states recognize same sex marriage.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Tam and Bobby, I would love to see your sources on this.

  10. tam
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    http://americashealthrankings.org/mediacenter/mediacenter2.aspx

  11. Son of Adam
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    If SS"M" is soley responsible for everyone's health, why is it that NY and IA isn't in the top ten? Also, if you broke those rates down to the health of gays, you would have a different story.

    Since homosexual marriage became legal in MA, the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably. Public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."

  12. Spunky
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    @ Son of Adam

    This addresses the misleading claim that gay marriage in Massachusetts has in any way caused an increase in the number of people with HIV/AIDS.

  13. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    SSM cannot stand on its own 2 feet. Unlike man+woman marriage, it depends on coercion and politicking.

  14. Teri Simpkins
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    Marriage itself can't stand on its own two feet. That's why the divorce rate is 50%, the number of people getting married is barely 50%, and religious people still want to keep it to themselves, like it's something special.

  15. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 26, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Teri said,"Marriage itself can't stand on its own two feet."

    Marriage doesn't fail--individuals fail to keep their marriage commitments. Whenever a man and a woman commit, and then give 100% to their marriage, they cannot fail to enjoy a successful marriage.

    When the majority of individuals in a society fail to keep marriage commitments, you can expect to see the decline of that nation.

    Teri said, "religious people still want to keep it to themselves, like it's something special."

    Please provide some proof of your claim, such as a religious document from any religion which proposes that the non-religious be banned from marriage. Thank you.

  16. kieran
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    DoE-

    You're attempting to impose your religious definition of marriage (man-woman) onto us secularists for civil marriage (man-man, man-woman, woman-woman).

  17. Louis E.
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 12:27 am | Permalink

    Kieran,I am a secularist who considers the entire usefulness of civil marriage to society derives from its being strictly man-woman.

  18. leo
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 1:02 am | Permalink

    Tam- the link you provided doesn't seem to provide ANY information regarding diseases or STDs, including HIV/AIDS, as to whether or not there is a decline or increase in those States which has legalized same sex marriage. Also, you need to review the health research and analysis carefully for every State and how the study determined the rankings. A healthy State could be on the basis of a sharp decline in obesity, or the majority of the people for that State has full insurance coverage, and so on...Most likely the information gathered, has nothing to do with same sex relationships and their effects, which would require more precise research.
    The” health rankings” also do not cover the health of that State's economy, the divorce rate or the ranking of healthy stable marriages, education and high school dropouts, the rate of teen sex and teen pregnancy. All of these omitted but relevant factors would determine the health of the particular State.
    However, it appears that the "health' was geared towards physical wellbeing yet the study is highly flawed in my opinion.

  19. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Kieran, please show proof that the definition of marriage as between a man & a woman is exclusively a religious one. Thanks.

  20. kieran
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    Louis E-

    you're opinion is invalid as you're for criminalizing homosexuality.

    DoE - Show me proof of same sex marriage being religious. As far as I've seen, all religions have spoken out against it and attempted to get the govn't to ban it. That is kind of the definition of imposing your beliefs on someone else.

  21. kieran
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Oh, and while we're on the subjects of attempting to link same-sex marriage to bad economies and corruption, states that do same-sex marriage have lower crime rate, and that the top 3 states with the highest rates of incarceration all ban same-sex marriage.

    Source: http://nomlies.blogspot.com/2011/10/marriage-and-crime.html (everything there is linked)

  22. Little man
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:40 am | Permalink

    Yes, Kieran: That's the point (did you get enough sleep?) This post is discussing the relative economies of US States, and the corruption in those States. It is reasonable to think that the more corruption, the more incarceration has to be dished out. So, if i create a blog called kieranlies.blogspot.com you would believe everything i write? There is not a single post on your reference comparing the economies of States promoting same-sex civil marriage. On the other hand, here's NOM's reference to the contrary. Happy reading.... if you can stay awake :) http://www.nomblog.com/6419/

  23. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 3:10 am | Permalink

    Kieran said, " Show me proof of same sex marriage being religious."

    I wouldn't attempt to do that. Like you, I can't think of any major world religions that espouse such doctrine. In fact, I believe all major world religions recognize marriage as being the exclusive domain of a man + a woman. But you probably already knew that.

    Kieran said, "all religions have spoken out against it and attempted to get the govn't to ban it."

    Actually, not all religions have spoken out against SSM, neither have all religions attempted to have it banned. Some, in fact, support it. Were you aware of that?

    Affirming the man+woman definition of marriage is not the same as banning SSM.

    Kieran said, "That is kind of the definition of imposing your beliefs on someone else."

    Again, affirming the universal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not the same as imposing on the beliefs of another. One may impose behavior, but one cannot impose belief. Furthermore, your previous arguments blame religion for the man/woman definition of marriage. In order to support your assertion, you need to produce some evidence to back your argument.

  24. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 3:35 am | Permalink

    Kieran, you seem to be making a distinction between marriages contracted through a religious authority, as opposed to a civil authority. Both require a state-issued license in order to be considered legally recognizable or valid by the state. Whether you are a secularist or not, there is no legal distinction in marriage.

  25. kieran
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Little man-

    The post in question refers to crime, not economies. But hey, if you want higher crime rates in exchange for great economies, more power to you. The entire point of the post on this blog was to point out how you can make largely irrelevant correlations between different statistics, little man. Remember, correlation is not causation. But hey, who am I to use logic on this blog?

    DoE- Yes, there is. If I get married in the catholic church, the state does not recognize it. I still have to get a civil marriage license. So yeah, there is a distinction.

  26. Louis E.
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Kieran,nobody can be for criminalizing a trait.I am not convinced that we need laws banning same-sex sexual activity,but we do need a public policy of deploring it.And your opinion being otherwise doesn't make mine "invalid",it makes yours irrational.There are certainly religions that have same-sex weddings these days,and the government should not recognize them as marriages.

  27. kieran
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    No, it's not having a different opinion, Louis E. I've just yet to meet someone who wants to publicly deplore an activity that takes place in the bedroom of two consenting adults. That is why I say your opinion is invalid. That and you have come out as anti-gay on this blog before (http://www.nomblog.com/15413/#comment-73676) saying "There's no excuse not to be antigay".

  28. Louis E.
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Kieran,it is certainly correct that you and everyone else should reject the false ideas that express themselves as identifying as,or supporting the desire of others to identify as,"gay" without correction.To be "gay" in the homosexual sense is to react selfishly and irrationally to the affliction of homosexual orientation in a way that no one ever should.It is the claim that it is not wrong to engage in same-sex sexual activity,or that inclination toward it can offer anyone absolution of the obligation never to do it,that is invalid.It's a simple matter of the logical consequence of a species having two sexes.
    Stop pretending you have any excuse not to condemn the "gay" philosophy,Kieran.Or that "being gay" is more than a bankrupt school of thought based on identifying with one's weakness for a bad habit,which one should recognize as one of the worst but least important things about oneself.
    All it takes anyone to stop "being gay" is a little honest self-examination,and their true friends will never stop insisting that they develop it,while those who leave them to it are abandoning them to lies,not "accepting them for who they are".

  29. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    Kieran said, "DoE- Yes, there is. If I get married in the catholic church, the state does not recognize it. I still have to get a civil marriage license. So yeah, there is a distinction."

    Your claim isn't quite accurate. If you appear before a Catholic clergyman with a state-issued marriage license, the clergyman can officiate in a religious marriage ceremony, sign your license, and your marriage will be considered publicly legal. Or, you can go before a judge or justice of the peace. Either way, the marriage is considered legal, if a state-issued license is signed by clergyman or justice. My marriage was officiated by a religious authority, who signed our state marriage license. I was just as legally married as if I had appeared before a judge. Either way, there's no legal distinction between either marriage contracted religiously or civilly, and the state treats them the same when it comes to presumption of paternity, etc.

    We may be talking past each other. But marriage doesn't have a different definition legally, no matter who officiates, as long as there is a state-issued license signed by those in authority.

  30. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Kieran, you might explain what sexuality and SSM have to do with each other, in regards to the legal right to marry.

  31. leo
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    kieran-we're all anti-gay, so what's your point? If we are all anti Gay, don't continue blogging here because you're winning us...in fact you are making us more determine to fight and demolish the ssmer, homosexual agenda, by your rediculous opposition to the truth of the matter here....

  32. Little man
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 5:01 am | Permalink

    Kieran: You presume to use logic? Where might i find your so-called 'logic'? You cannot discern the difference between a comment and a post on a blog. No. the post in question refers to economies and corrupt legislatures (all you have to do is read the title, above). Now i am sure you are not awake.

    You write: 'you can make largely irrelevant correlations between different statistics', but it is you who is making the irrelevant correlations. This post is about relevant correlations.

  33. Skooter McGoo
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Marriage licenses are issued by the state, NOT the church. No religion is needed for a marriage to be legal or recognized.
    @Kieran You can't use facts and logic with people who still want to live the way they did in the year 500 BC because the Bible tells them too. Wonder why the Founding Fathers put the NO imposed religion in the 1st Amendment but NEVER mentioned God? The Dominionists Christians just trying once again to make the USA a Christian "Members" only country.

  34. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    "Marriage licenses are issued by the state, NOT the church. No religion is needed for a marriage to be legal or recognized."

    No one claimed otherwise.

    And, if you could please identify "Dominionist Christian" for us, I'd appreciate it. I've never heard of that group. Do they have a website?

  35. Louis E.
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    Skooter McGoo,logic requires a state to regard the partners being of opposite sexes as the most important qualification for a marriage license,as it is from the partners being of opposite sexes that the public interest in recognizing the relationship derives.

  36. John Noe
    Posted December 28, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    The other thing was that the states that imposed SSM due to corrupt state legislatures imposed SSM through corruption also.

    Fact: In none of these states did the people ever get to exercise their civil right to vote.

    Fact: In all of the states where we the people exercised our civil right to vote we have voted against SSM every time.

    I worked for the Census Bureau two years ago. All the states that allowed SSM lost population while the states that voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman gained population.

  37. Louis E.
    Posted December 29, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Not sure why my last response to Kieran is still stuck in moderation.He still needs to learn that the "antigay" position is the correct one,and his own "invalid".