Our Representative from the 15th district voted AGAINST the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). To be specific, Mr. Johnson voted against a law that ...
Makes it an unlawful employment practice for covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees) to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated.
Even after his conservative cohorts amended the bill in several ways. Like an amendment that ...
Prohibits construing this Act to require a covered entity to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits.
Declares that, in this Act, the terms "married" and "marry" refer to a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
We don't know Mr. Johnson's reasoning for voting against this bill because, as usual, he didn't say anything on the floor. As a side note, Johnson has actually sponsored seven bills during the 110th Congress, which is a bit of a burst of energy for the guy. Unfortunately, like most of Tim's bills, all are currently languishing in committee.
We are represented in the US Congress by a man who has voted against employment protections for gays and lesbians. Personally, I am embarassed for our district.
You shouldn't be his district isn't embarrassed and has returned him to Congress consistently. While I am sure most people don't want people to be treated unfairly they probably don't want to make it a federal case. Forcing every small business and religious institution deal with complicated laws and moral issues seems like over kill to me.
So ... when do you propose we repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No doubt Johnson has a bedrock of conservative support in the area. Also little doubt that a vote like this will not decrease his support among the conservative base (quite the opposite, I assume). But as for me and my house, I find it shocking that we are living in the 21st century and there are still legislators among us who are in favor of restricting the rights of American citizens because of their sexual orientation. And no, that is not "hyperbole". If you are voting AGAINST a bill to outlaw discrimination of a minority group then you are voting IN FAVOR of allowing businesses to discriminate against that group. And I really was shocked and disappointed that Tim voted this way.
"Forcing every small business and religious institution deal with complicated laws and moral issues seems like over kill to me."
Religious organizations are specifically exempted from this bill.
Following the link to the bills sponsored by Johnson, none seemed terribly important
Michael Fuerst
One of the dirty little secrets about Rep. Johnson (and there is more than one) is that he doesn't seem to do a whole lot while in Washington. For years now this has been effectively spun in his favor because he is apparently good at "constituent services". I have heard he has personally called people back from DC, or even knocked on random doors to find out what is on the voter's mind.
There is nothing wrong with that per se, but I am not sure it is preferable to have a Rep in DC who returns your calls but rarely proposes anything of substance or, in the case of the 109th Congress, anything at all. Unless something has changed, I don't believe Johnson has ever had a piece of sponsored (not *co*-sponsored, SPONSORED) legislation become law. He sits on two committees and several sub-committees, but has not progressed into a Chair position, even during the heyday of the Republican dominated Congress. In short, he is (imo) a dud.
The danger is that he votes against this kind of legislation, and quietly helps to push a conservative agenda. He also voted against overriding Bush's veto of H.R. 976: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, when every vote counted. He voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, voted in favor of tougher bankruptcy rules for middle class Americans, but has consistently supported Bush's tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 10%. I could go on.
The guy flies under the radar, lives out of the trunk of his car (literally), walks for hours at CRCE and returns your calls from DC. Meanwhile he proposes nothing of substance, has little sway in the House, and quietly throws one more vote behind the conservative agenda in DC. all to the apparent delight of his conservative supporters back home. It really is embarassing.
Maybe D.Boon could enlighten us with some of the progress that the Democrats have made in Washington since the last election?? Rep. Johnson must be doing somthing right as he has been reelected several times.
Before anyone asks why I'm not participating in this thread: I work for Congressman Johnson's campaign, and I've got a self-imposed rule that I won't talk about him on here, in response to numerous complaints that I spent too much time shilling for Sen. Judy Myers on here in 2006.
Have a great day.
IP,,,,,very diplomatic, sincerely so, and mean't, So in keeping with that spirit,,I will also refrain from speaking anything about the congressman. :)
"Rep. Johnson must be doing somthing right as he has been reelected several times."
Mussolini must be doing something right because the trains are running on time.
Well, Brown V. Board has been repealed for any practical purposes. Weren't there a ton of people against renewing the Civil Rights Act?
I don't find this particularly surprising. There are plenty of people who are not interested in equal opportunity for Americans.
D. Boon said..."there are still legislators among us who are in favor of restricting the rights of American citizens because of their sexual orientation. "
Actually, I guess we could say the Democrats are in favor of restricting the rights of American citizens because of what they wear since this protection is not currently being offered by Congress.
The failure to enact a law that grants legal protections based on "perceptions" is hardly proof that someone wants to restrict rights for those people.
Kevin--If this law is so important why should religous institutions be left out?
D Boon-I know Tim Johnson sits in his office and does nothing so you can complain about him. I think the problem for you is that he does things you don't like. You know sometimes he does things I don't like also. Next time he calls I will tell him your unhappy.
I have tried to post to this thread a couple of times in the last two hours, to no effect. Any idea what the problem is?
EDIT: I changed IP addresses and now it works. Hmmm.
The failure to enact a law that grants legal protections based on "perceptions" is hardly proof that someone wants to restrict rights for those people.
No, he voted against protecting this minority group's rights. That is what he did. You can read the legislation yourself. He voted no to protected gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace. If I am walking down the street and I see someone getting the crap kicked out of them by a mugger, I have a choice. I can "do nothing" or I can try to stop the guy from getting his ass kicked. Essentially, Johnson decided to keep walking past the mugging.
Maybe Xian is right. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
I think the problem for you is that he does things you don't like. You know sometimes he does things I don't like also. Next time he calls I will tell him your unhappy.
Thanks, but he already knows. And yes – he does a lot of things I don't like. But perhaps more important is that he doesn't seem to do much at all. Maybe you could point us in the direction of some evidence that shows he is working hard for his constituents but I sure haven't found any. This is smart politics, however. The less he does the less the Dems will have on him every two years. Keep the head down, call miscellaneous voters from the Buick on the way back from DC and then play the "Mr. Smith" role to the hilt. A simple man who doesn't have much to say, that kind of thing.
It has been very effective for him. Too bad it is mostly BS. If the local Dems have any sense they will hammer him early and often for voting against SCHIPs and ENDA.
Expect two more years.
"Kevin--If this law is so important why should religous institutions be left out?"
That's an excellent question, and one that I'm not altogether certain that I can fully answer adequately. The clear implication would seem to be that deeply held, sincere religious beliefs are considered by this act to be a legitimate excuse for activity that would otherwise be considered under the bill to be discrimination. I'm trying to think of a better way to describe that, but I'm drawing a blank.
I do know that many of the more rabid religious organizations screamed long and loud that passage of ENDA would result in the outlawing of religion. That seems to be quite a stretch to me.
On the other hand, some of the more lucid religious lobbyists raised understandable concerns about being forced to hire employees who might have lifestyles that were considered immoral by particular churches. The exclusion in the law as passed was clearly an attempt to remove that objection in an effort to garner wider support for the bill.
What I find equally interesting is the manner in which the exclusion was implemented. From the summary at Thomas, Section 6 "Makes this Act inapplicable to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from religious discrimination provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964." In other words, this exclusion of religious organizations from civil rights laws is not something new, but has long been an established custom.
"I have tried to post to this thread a couple of times in the last two hours, to no effect. Any idea what the problem is?"
No idea. I'm not seeing any errors in the logs.
Are you getting any specific error messages?
I understand Rep. Johnson has also refused to implement such a nondiscrimination policy in his own office, though plenty of other representatives have one. I've always wondered if it's because he actually does fires workers if he finds out if they're gay, or if he just wants to retain the option of doing so for the future.
As for Mr. Shelden's snarky "perceptions" comment, I believe "perceived sexual orientation" language is generally put into these bills because many people will see a person in a non-traditional gender role (e.g. a woman with short hair) and treat them as if they were gay, without any thought to finding out their actual orientation.
"without any thought to finding out their actual orientation."
hey narc, are we employers supposed to go and ask people's orientation? personally, i've never had any "thought to finding out" the sexual orientation of my employees. is that something you believe in?
I believe "perceived sexual orientation" language is generally put into these bills because many people will see a person in a non-traditional gender role (e.g. a woman with short hair) and treat them as if they were gay, without any thought to finding out their actual orientation.
So, if I didn't hire a woman who has short hair then I could have been subject to lawsuit or complaint under ENDA - how exactly does this short-haired woman know that I did or did not perceive her as gay?
rsw, don't worry about that. just pony up the extra insurance money to cover all the perceptions out there. guys who wear pink, have earrings, read cooking magazines, or have a plant on their desk can all claim that their firing was because you thought they were gay. and your defense will be what?
let's say you have a dozen gay people who work for you but you don't know that they're gay. maybe you have even think one is gay because he lives with another guy, goes to chester street each week and tells you about it, and never dates women that you know. but you don't know that he's gay. so are you going to depose him and others in your company to ask if they're gay? and then their sexual orientation, which they may have tried to hide, becomes a public record?
For years now this has been effectively spun in his favor because he is apparently good at "constituent services". I have heard he has personally called people back from DC, or even knocked on random doors to find out what is on the voter's mind.
He isn't apparently good. He is known by Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and non-voters alike to be unprecedented in constituent service. He is admired and respected in Washington by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing something that most aren't willing to do; staying in touch with regular people in the district.
And before you dismiss this as an ineffective public official, remember, people care much more about getting help with their wayward social security check or pension than with one more congressman bloviating on the House floor! There are 434 other congressmen to do that. Only one is elected to help people in the 15th.
Congress's approval rating wouldn't be even lower than the President's if more congressmen called their constituents all day to ask about issues and problems. We need less legislating and more practical help with the bureaucracy of government.
So Johnson believes the middle class with good jobs should pay fror their own insurance, and that the government should not overkill on discrimination laws. Good for him, he's got my vote again.
"Maybe D.Boon could enlighten us with some of the progress that the Democrats have made in Washington since the last election?? "
Irrelevant. The point is Rep. Johnson and his lack of productivity. Try to stick to the point.
I have disagreed with Johnson votes against drilling in ANWR, and for his recent lack of support for the war in Iraq, but he has been a solid pro-life vote, and a solid lower-taxes vote. I'd prefer Mike Pence, but he's not bad.
Maybe because she has a friend working in your office that overheard (the hypothetical) you say, "We don't want no bull dykes working here." You could replace "gay" in what you just said with "Methodist" and everything you said still holds true. Yet one is protected, the other isn't and I see no real reason why to draw a distinction between the two.
"I'd prefer Mike Pence,"
You've diagnosed the problem. The next step is to fix it.
Narc, I actually am not a big fan of the religious protections, not because I want to discriminate, but because it's such a nebulous, hard to define thing.
But there is one huge distinction between the two. Sexual orientation is a far more secret trait than religious. It would be common for someone to ask where another person goes to church in the office whereas the question, are you gay, bi, etc. wouldn't be asked, and in fact, if it were asked might trigger some harassment suits.
So the employer has little ability to draw on current and past employees to demonstrate his lack of discrimination.
On November 9th, 2007 at 03:12 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"Maybe D.Boon could enlighten us with some of the progress that the Democrats have made in Washington since the last election?? "
Irrelevant. The point is Rep. Johnson and his lack of productivity. Try to stick to the point.
Maybe in the next election the Dems could find someone to run against Rep. Johnson, and show us how its done, just standing up and running their mouth on C-Span is not my idea of productivity, ie,Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Jesse Jackson Jr. and lets not forget Dick "Turbin" the best friend the illegal aliens ever had! I asked earlier "what have ANY Democrats done since the election????"
I disagree. I'm confident that I know the sexual orientation of pretty much all of my coworkers. As for their religious affiliations, I can say I only know those for two people I work with.
You could replace "gay" in what you just said with "Methodist" and everything you said still holds true. Yet one is protected, the other isn't and I see no real reason why to draw a distinction between the two.
Good point Narc. 2 possible replies:
1. The Bill of Rights mentions freedom of religion.
2. I tend to trust the markets to deal with employment issues more than many do - I think we could drop all employment protection laws without huge issues. If someone wants to have a Methodist only, or Methodist free office, whatever.
I'm confident that I know the sexual orientation of pretty much all of my coworkers. As for their religious affiliations, I can say I only know those for two people I work with.
Confident? Confidence in knowledge implies at least some lack of certainty. For example, would you insert "I'm confident that" if you were talking about knowing that the earth revolves around the sun? So whence the confidence? did they tell you? Or did you just figure it out the same way the average bigot figures it out? just curious.
"Maybe in the next election the Dems could find someone to run against Rep. Johnson, and show us how its done, just standing up and running their mouth on C-Span is not my idea of productivity, ie,Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Jesse Jackson Jr. and lets not forget Dick "Turbin" the best friend the illegal aliens ever had!"
Well, that is at least amusing, even if it's not any better.
The point is about Tim Johnson, NOT Democrats. Try to stick to the point.
I'll stick to whatever point I feel like, this is not your post or your blog for that matter. Anonymous (not verified)
To all of the Tim Johnson bashers on here, If you don't like Tim fine, in the next election vote for the Democrat of your choice, then after the votes are counted Johnson will still be the Congressman from IL.
Gregg,
They're allowed to discuss Congressman Johnson on here. You're allowed to as well. Please keep it civil.
"It would be common for someone to ask where another person goes to church in the office "
I don't remember ever being asked that question by an employer, or prospective employer. I am sure I would remember if they had, because it would have set off major alarm bells in my head all the way down to my reptile brain.
Kevin, I don't think that I've ever been asked by an employer, but I certainly have had plenty of discussions around the office about church. I imagine that virtually all the churchgoers in our office are known
"Kevin, I don't think that I've ever been asked by an employer, but I certainly have had plenty of discussions around the office about church. I imagine that virtually all the churchgoers in our office are known"
Our work experiences have apparently been very different. The only time I have ever known a co-worker's religious views or affiliation has been when they volunteered them, and that has been the rare exception rather than the rule in my employment history.
Kevin-Have you been asked if you are a Homosexual by your employer? How did you prove you were or weren’t?
Sorry to go back and respond to your response to me Kevin about why this new law did not apply to Churches. It doesn't apply because as you know it would have never got the votes to get out of committee. The law doesn't even include transsexuals because it would not have had the support to pass. I think this means two things one that this has too negative of an effect on too many people including small businesses who will have to ask are you a homosexual (I thought we were suppose to stay out of peoples bedrooms) the other this is just a first step and adding churches will come, give it time.
"Kevin-Have you been asked if you are a Homosexual by your employer? How did you prove you were or weren’t?"
No, I've never been asked that, either. I'm sure I would remember. :-)
I would think that any employer hoping to avoid even the appearance of future discrimination would avoid asking that question like the plague. Asking the question demonstrates knowledge of (or at least interest in) the answer, entirely removing a possible defense strategy for the employer in any future legal action.
"It doesn't apply because as you know it would have never got the votes to get out of committee."
I think I said as much. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
"has too negative of an effect on too many people including small businesses who will have to ask are you a homosexual"
Again, in actual practice, I suspect it would have exactly the opposite effect: it would make employers more reluctant to ask.
"this is just a first step and adding churches will come, give it time."
Ah, yes, the old slippery slope fallacy. I would suggest that this alleged inevitability has proven entirely untrue over the forty-plus year history of the identical language in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I see no reason at present why this should be any different.
“Ah, yes, the old slippery slope fallacy”. 20 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the congress wouldn't even consider it. Just like there wouldn't be a state with gay marriage because there is no slippery slope, right a fallacy. I think another word for it is an agenda.
I know you want to connect this to the Civil Rights Act, you can call it orientation all you want it still has not been proven to be anything more then a choice. If we are going to start protecting choices we are going to have a long list to protect.
Yeah, and 120 years ago we wouldn't have had any anti-discrimination laws at all, because the idea of working alongside a black person as equals was unthinkable. Women couldn't get jobs or even an education. Jews were regularly run out of town. That's no longer the case. Societies change.
You mean like how we protect religion, another choice? A growing amount of evidence suggests that sexual orientation has a genetic or a biological component. That's neither good nor bad, it's simply the way things are.
Personally, I'd love to see hiring and firing decisions made on the basis of who could do a good job at the job, and not as a proxy for enforcing religious doctrine. Unfortuately, a lot of people don't think they have to behave in a professional manner, because they're part of the majority group.
On November 9th, 2007 at 10:06 PM, Narc said: "Personally, I'd love to see hiring and firing decisions made on the basis of who could do a good job at the job, and not as a proxy for enforcing religious doctrine. Unfortuately, a lot of people don't think they have to behave in a professional manner, because they're part of the majority group."
And, sadly, there are some people who behave unprofessionally because they are part of (or feel a part of) a minority; they somehow feel protected from any action by the employer because they are in the minority.
I'm with Narc on the first portion of his quote: I'd also love to see hiring/firing based on who could do a good job, irrespective of religion, gender, who they go home to at the end of the day, etc.
HG
Personally, I'd love to see hiring and firing decisions made on the basis of who could do a good job at the job, and not as a proxy for enforcing religious doctrine.
And I think if you read the legislation that is clearly what was intended. It is a very careful bill, built to sooth the qualms of even the most homophobic legislator. Yet ... over 150
conservativeRepublicans voted against it. Honestly, it really is shocking.Expect a veto from Bush if it makes it through the Senate. First SCHIP and now this – the Dems are playing their hand very wisely, digging up popular issues that they know a
conservative... uh ... Republican president will almost have to veto. It shows just how unpopularconservativeBush's ideas are.And it can all definitely be used against Johnson in '08.
It's strange to me that people would look at the history of the country and conclude that we do too MUCH to protect people from being judged on issues other than their skills and character and that somehow there are tons of evil, incompetent minority folks getting over...
I don't think treating people fairly is a problem, making it a federal case is. You can twist my comments on the time line of this issue to mean anything you want to hide the agenda of the bill supporters it was changed so it could get enough votes to pass. No one has said anything about anyone’s skills or character except you Xain. I see your back to attacking people when they don't agree with you, it seems pretty childish.
"I don't think treating people fairly is a problem, making it a federal case is. "
Then I guess we should repeal the entire Bill of Rights, since it's almost exclusively about making a federal case out of treating people fairly.
"it was changed so it could get enough votes to pass."
That's called the legislative process. It's the only way possible to get the people's business done on a daily basis, and it generally (not always, but generally) tends to keep any legislation from being too extreme. Getting enough votes is called consensus building, and it has always been required in order to achieve the majority in "majority rule."
"No one has said anything about anyone’s skills or character except you Xain."
Actually, there have been numerous references by others in this thread to hiring on the basis of qualifications or skills.
"I see your back to attacking people when they don't agree with you, it seems pretty childish."
There was nothing even remotely resembling an attack, personal or otherwise, in Xian's comment. He merely pointed out his own discomfort and inability to understand what seemed to be an attitude or perception held by a large number of people.
The comments for or against Cong. Johnson notwithstanding, there had been a refreshing lack of personal attacks on posters in this thread, at least until your final sentence.
This is a link to a story the News-Gazette ran today. www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/11/10/million_going_to_ui_private_firm Also Kate Clements today in the CUNG on page A3 reports that Cong. Tim Johnson announced a grant from The Dept. of Homeland security to the Pesotum fire Dept in the amount of $77,733.00 Thank You Tim for all you do for all of us in Your District. Keep up the good work!
The devil is always in the details. I have not followed the ENDA, but I always worry about legislation where the proposer fails to make the case as to why it is needed and what is its purpose. We have many laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Is another law needed? A HRO almost needs a consultant to sort them out now. As for the unstated real purpose of the law, I suspect it has to do with benefit for partners. Many large employers have that now and the purpose would be to extend these benefits to others.
At first blush that seems fair, but again, the devil is always in the details. Is this the camel sticking his nose under the tent? What I mean is that you might start out by allowing benefits if a same sex couple lives continually together for 3 years. Then it becomes two years, then 1. A situation like this is difficult to monitor and an argument can be made that it could lead to abuse. But I might have given your comments the benefit of the doubt until you brougt up Mr. Johnson's vote against Children's Health Insurance.
Why would anyone (in their right mind) put their pension money, funding for the U of I, or any other program in the hands of Blago, Stroeger and Jones. The govenment runs bad programs especially in Illinois. I am a big advocate for Children's Health Insurance. The NewsGazetter was kind enough to publish my guest editorial on the subject. The devil is always in the details, and passing laws that make one feel good, but are bad public policy, should be avoided. By the way, I am a Romney coordinator in Champaign. He has proposed and passed Universal Health Care for Children in Massacusets that was funded through private insurance. This type of legislation is useful because children need the best possible health care funded in the most efficient manner. Unfortunately most knee jerk legislation does not meet this test.
Yes. Most states do not have a sexual orientation non-discrimination law (map). I'm not sure that nineteen states plus DC counts as "many."
I disagree. You're ignoring the fact that gays and lesbians genuinely face the fact that they can be fired from their jobs if someone finds out they are gay or lesbian. And it's not a threat that goes away. I think it's fundamentally unfair that my continued employment becomes at risk if my boss becomes born-again.
Except that you have the exact same situation with straight couples. Is there a state that doesn't have common-law marriage? So even if this law backdoors in partner coverage, it seems unlikely to me to have a significant effect. And most companies that do have this sort of coverage require some evidence that the people involved are more than roomates. They often require some proof of intent to live as a couple, like a joint checking account.
Just as a side note, I'd like to point out that health care coverage of a gay partner is considered by the IRS to be straight income. Not so with straight couples; I think then it's free. But if you're getting health insurance for you and your kid because through your partner's job, that's hundreds of dollars more a month of taxable income (without any more actual income) that you're getting dinged for.
If you own a company, you should be able to hire or fire anyone you please. Quit making loopholes for people to keep their jobs. What happen to all you prosmokers saying for government to stay out of regulations. I thought you guys were all for the 'marketplace' to dictate regulations. I mean really, how many non-blacks do you really think work for Ebony/Jet company. But so what. If PFLAG want to hire only gays to their company because they would better support their cause, then so what. If a christian business owner refuse to hire gays because it would interfere with his/her company morals, then so what. If he goes out of business because he has a limited talent pool, then that his his choice. If you want a job that allows you to live any way you want, work for the government. Otherwise, leave private business alone. Quit being hippocrites. Tim Johnson is staying out of microregulating businesses. I thought that is what you all wanted?
Anon at 12:15: I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you see nothing wrong with any discrimination whatsoever on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, political affiliation, income level, or sexual preference? In other words, there should not be any discrimination that is illegal?
All the laws in the world aren't going to stop discrimination. When IP banned Interloper wasn't he (IP) in fact discriminating against him, just because he was different. To ban someone for not agreeing with you based on his viewpoints and beliefs, is, by definition, discrimination.
Interloper got banned? You've got to be kidding me.
Equating the ability to leave a comment on a blog with getting fired from your job is a pretty ridiculous claim.
"All the laws in the world aren't going to stop discrimination. When IP banned Interloper wasn't he (IP) in fact discriminating against him, just because he was different. To ban someone for not agreeing with you based on his viewpoints and beliefs, is, by definition, discrimination."
That doesn't answer my question. I asked if you were saying there should be no laws against any type of discrimination.
I don't think Interloper was banned, was he?
This is a link to a story the News-Gazette ran today www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2007/11/10/million_going_to_ui_private_firm Also Kate Clements today in the CUNG on page A3 reports that Cong. Tim Johnson announced a grant from The Dept. of Homeland security to the Pesotum fire Dept in the amount of $77,733.00.
Johnson ranks in the 28th percentile for defense earmarks even though his district includes one of the countries leading research universities. The U of I is also a feeder school for dozens of defense contractors around the country. With that in mind, I personally see the $3 million to be an embarassment, especially considering $1 million of it is going to a private company to "develop" a product. The U of I is really only receiving $2 million, if I read the legislation correctly. In comparison Murtha, whose district includes Penn State, brought home $165 million in earmarks, and John Lewis (R-CA), whose district includes UCSB, brought home $112 million.
I won't even discuss the ethics of diverting $77,000 of taxpayer dollars to Pesotum, IL as Homeland Security money.
If you want to play the earmark game, Johnson looks weak on that front as well. But hey! At least he's tracking down those social security checks, right?
"When IP banned Interloper wasn't he (IP) in fact discriminating against him, just because he was different."
I didn't ban Interloper. In fact, I enjoy discussing things with Interloper, if only because he often comes at things from a perspective which never would have occurred to me to otherwise consider.
I banned Wenalway. And it had nothing to do with his viewpoints and his beliefs. It had to do with the fact that he started insulting everybody in every single thread, and wouldn't stop, regardless of the topic.
Is there a state that doesn't have common-law marriage?
Actually, 35 states don't grant common-law marriage. Including Illinois.
Half the State, including Illinois, have laws on discrimination. You live in Illinois. Your real complaint seems to be with the fact that straight married couples are favored by our society. Laws of any kind, including tax laws, sometimes are policy orientated and sometimes are enacted to deter certain conduct. An example of the former is an investment tax credit. An example of the later is a speeding ticket. Another way of saying this is that laws encourage and discourage. Sometimes a balance needs to be struck.
We give tax breaks to married couples because in encourages them to live together and make little tax payers. This also decreases the number of people on public assistance and the number of children in poverty. The more people marry, the less we have to spend on them and the more we can spend on things that add to the economy and make our nation wealthier. The reason that many people are unwilling to give gays a tax break is the same reason why I pay a great portion deal of my property taxes to support Unit 4- We all need to support our society's infrastructure the same as we need to keep our roads paved and police cars on the street.
The decline of our inner cities has been caused in great part because we have rewarded single mothers for have babies without being married. Should two single mothers with small children be able to form a civil union to obtain even more benefits?
What I am saying is that every law we pass sometimes has some unintended consequences that are not easy to recognize. Your reply on "children's health care" missed the point. The end does not justify the means and if the particular health bill you mentioned would give more money to Blago to create a more massive and wasteful government controlled system (at a much greater cost). I oppose it because it is bad public policy. I am for children's heath, you are for children's health. All I am saying is that if Tim Johnson's vote was bad from a "public policy" point of view, you should state why it is bad public policy . Then we can have a nice public policy debate rather than read reactions to your argument ad hominem. Do you agree?
"I'd prefer Mike Pence,"
I don't think he meets residency requirements.
Actually, John from your logical point of view, a gay marriage does a much, much better job of addressing the same issues that you say that marriage incentives do.
Gay marriages should be legal for equality reasons. However, if you use your economic model to analyze it, you'd find that gay marriages are much MORE beneficial.
After all, "little taxpayers" don't actually pay taxes for a couple of decades. In the interim, the gay marriage is taking children who would normally be wards of the state and providing for them stable, two parent homes. The same thing with your example of two single mothers-->a single family unit. It would claim LESS resources, not more. You could rephrase your question to "Should we allow two single people to marry and claim even more benefits?" and it would contradict everything else you've written.
In terms of the health care issue, it'd be really hard to create a WORSE public health policy than what we already have. Preventive health care is many times cheaper than emergency based health care. More direct spending from state to health practitioner would be cheaper than spending that goes from state to health care corporation to practitioner.
Finally, you mentioned policies as deterrents. The only deterrents than are effective across all economic strata are graduated ones. A speeding or parking ticket or any other ticket is simply not as much of a deterrent to those who make hundreds of times what most of the people in the society make. Such tickets should have a minimum amount, but be "$20 or 1% of yearly income, whichever is more". Then they would have the same deterring effect on different groups in society.
Xian,
I've never heard anyone legitimizing gay marriage in order to help with reducing the 'children of the state' population. I'm sure bringing home little Johnny to dad and, well dad, would really help stabilize his orphaned life. Another great argument.
Yes, having two parents won't work if both of them have penises or vaginas.
What organs do you use to parent? Most of the people I know use their arms for hugs and hearts to love. Their sexual equipment is not utilized.
Most adoption organizations, even many faith based one now encourage same sex adoption because kids need loving homes, not specific sexual equipment.
On November 12th, 2007 at 11:28 AM, xian said: "What organs do you use to parent? Most of the people I know use their arms for hugs and hearts to love. Their sexual equipment is not utilized."
My nomination for best Xian quote, ever.
(and cosign)
HG
What organs do you use to parent? Most of the people I know use their arms for hugs and hearts to love. Their sexual equipment is not utilized.
and, of course, we all know that there really is no difference between men and women except for their sexual equipment.
and, of course, we all know that there really is no difference between men and women except for their sexual equipment.
Which I was not claiming. But certainly we can agree that individual differences are FAR more important than any broad generalizible gender traits. If not, where are the perfectly formed male and female parents who conceived the kid in the first place.
Don't look a loving couple gift horse in the mouth. Unless you are willing to adopt a few thousand children yourself.
Sarcasm, I assume. When I hear conservatives complaining about this sort of thing, it's never about "men" and "women." It's always about masculine and feminine gender roles. In other words, Mommies wear aprons and bake cookies, and Daddies go out and beat a woolly mammoth to death with a big stick. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a traditional male/female division of labor in the household, but it seems ridiculous to me to suggest that this is somehow innate and not a matter of social conditioning. Believe it or not, there are women who can change the oil in a car without becoming a lesbian.
Narc - did you just say "conservatives"? Uh oh.
Now *I* know you don't mean every-single-conservative-ever. And *you* know that's not what you meant. But I have a sneaky suspicion others on the site might not see it that way.
Back to the topic at hand, has anyone actually read the legislation? For example:
So unless I am reading this incorrectly (always a possibility) it seems pretty clear the entire conversation is no longer about this piece of legislation. Good conversation, don't get me wrong, but there is nothing in this bill that requires employers to extend benefits to same-sex couples.
Of course it always interesting to see the level of animosity toward same-sex couples coming from
conservatives... uh ... Republicans. But I don't think the defense of Johnson's actions can really be that he didn't want to extend benefits to same-sex couples. Of course we don't really know since (as usual) no explanation has been offered to the constituents of the 15th District.Of course it always interesting to see the level of animosity toward same-sex couples coming from
conservatives... uh ... Republicans.Is voting against this legislation "animosity"?
It is funny, when Republicans/conservatives whatever, vote against something that it is animosity, hatred whatever. If you guys don't like Tim Johnsons policies or voting record, then vote him out. But apparently you are in the minority. (I know, since I go to church, that was a hateful thing to say).
This is animosity:
"I'm sure bringing home little Johnny to dad and, well dad, would really help stabilize his orphaned life. Another great argument."
and this is animosity:
"The reason that many people are unwilling to give gays a tax break is the same reason why I pay a great portion deal of my property taxes to support Unit 4- We all need to support our society's infrastructure the same as we need to keep our roads paved and police cars on the street.
The decline of our inner cities has been caused in great part because we have rewarded single mothers for have babies without being married. Should two single mothers with small children be able to form a civil union to obtain even more benefits? "
Should I go on?