Message To NJ GOP State Senators
by: Michael Illions | January 05
Just finished a highly energized conference call with nationally known bloggers, Conservative leaders and representatives from some social conservative organizations regarding the upcoming Gay Marriage vote on Thursday in the State Senate.
The bottom line to what was discussed is quite simple and should come as no surprise. Being the quiet and shy person that I am, I offered to deliver the message personally on this blog.
To ANY Republican RINO in the State Senate who votes for this Gay Marriage Bill on Thursday, you will be Primaried in 2011 and you will lose your seat.
Any questions?
I’ll bet Bill Baroni wets his pants when he sees this.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:36 pm“Just finished a highly energized conference call with nationally known bloggers,”
Energized? What’s that all about, wingnuts on steroids? Are they putting a little something extra in their tea bags?
January 5th, 2010 at 8:39 pmSomething tells me there’s a certain amount of irony in someone calling himself ‘Boy Toy’ talking about others being energized, teabagging and wetting their pants.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:38 pmYou might need some help to find 75 primary challengers and the boots/money needed to give their candidacies credibility.
However, I like the sound of it and maybe the ability will materialize if the public finally wakes up.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:44 pmI am sorry – you said State Senate – only a handful of Rhino’s there. Maybe you will succeed with a much smaller group.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:51 pmA simple postcard with a straight and to the point message should do the trick “Remember NY-23“
January 6th, 2010 at 12:01 amMichael Illions suddenly is a barometer of ideological purity through primaries? What a joke.
January 6th, 2010 at 8:04 amIn an important primary, Michael Illions endorsed and encouraged support for Kate Whitman, the liberal architect of anti-conservatism, over 100% conservative Martin Marks for Congress.
Michael Illions is the hallmark of hypocrisy and incredibility.
Hey Anonymous Moron Coward:
Michael has more integrity in one of his fingernails, then a little creep like you has in your whole body. Why don’t you grow up and let everyone know who you are? Afraid to let the whole world know what a little pantywaist you are.
“A word to the wise ain’t necessary — it’s the stupid ones that need the advice.” Bill Cosby
January 6th, 2010 at 8:15 amI’m not a fan of Baroni by any means, but I have to admit that Michael Illions is the last person who should be lecturing others about ideological purity in primaries. Kate Whitman is to the left of almost every Republican, but Michael still endorsed her over true conservative Martin Marks in a PRIMARY. A Whitman Republican like Michael Illions is tossing stones in the glass house he’s living in.
January 6th, 2010 at 8:33 am“Michael Illions suddenly is a barometer of ideological purity through primaries?”
“Michael Illions is the last person who should be lecturing others about ideological purity in primaries.”
Hey guys stop shooting the messenger.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:02 amI like the sentiment but have doubts about wether the threat is credible
We will have to wait and see. I hope I am wrong.
January 6th, 2010 at 9:19 amExtending marriage to same-sex couples will boost New Jersey’s economy by over $200 million creating 1,400 jobs and generating new $15.1 million in new revenues for state and local governments
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/NJEconImpactMarriage2009_FINAL.pdf
January 6th, 2010 at 9:46 amCurt,
You wrote,
“Extending marriage to same-sex couples will boost New Jersey’s economy by over $200 million creating 1,400 jobs and generating new $15.1 million in new revenues for state and local governments”
Use of this study as a talking point by gay rights groups is an example of how badly misunderstood and badly managed public policy has become.
Marriage is an institution with profound long-term implications for our families and communities and it follows that public policy on marriage should be taken very seriously. One sure sign that the discussion has become frivolous is when a one-time $24 per New Jersey resident is considered to be a factor worth mentioning.
January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pmso does that take into account the increased costs to the health system that an increased gay population will bring?
January 6th, 2010 at 8:30 pmgays have higher rates of all forms of mental illness and addiction as well as HIV, numerous STD’s, hepatitis and gastro intestinal disease. Male homosexuals have a life span significantly lower (almost half) that of hetersexual males?
If we are gonna look at economic issues as relates to Gay marriage you have to consider this.
Dov,
“Marriage is an institution with profound long-term implications for our families and communities and it follows that public policy on marriage should be taken very seriously. One sure sign that the discussion has become frivolous is when a one-time $24 per New Jersey resident is considered to be a factor worth mentioning.”
Of course it is. And its something that gay people take very seriously as well. But just because marriage is an important societal institution does not mean the economic impact of it should not be taken into consideration, or at the very least acknowledged.
January 6th, 2010 at 10:21 pmM,
“so does that take into account the increased costs to the health system that an increased gay population will bring?
gays have higher rates of all forms of mental illness and addiction as well as HIV, numerous STD’s, hepatitis and gastro intestinal disease. Male homosexuals have a life span significantly lower (almost half) that of hetersexual males?
If we are gonna look at economic issues as relates to Gay marriage you have to consider this.”
…..? I don’t even know where to begin on that one.
Are you saying gay marriage will lead to mental illness and addiction as well as HIV, numerous STD’s, hepatitis and gastro intestinal disease?
For the record, I am gay and I don’t have any of those above conditions. Of all my gay friends I had one who was bipolar but he passed away. The only HIV positive person I know is a black heterosexual woman.
To be perfectly blunt, what is your point? That the legalization of gay marriage will cause the lifespan of gay men to decrease (???)
January 6th, 2010 at 10:26 pmCurt,
You wrote,
“just because marriage is an important societal institution does not mean the economic impact of it should not be taken into consideration, or at the very least acknowledged.”
If the impact were $1 for every New Jersey resident would you also describe that as “the economic impact”? Would and indeed should $1 a head be a factor in whether or not to redefine marriage? A trivial $24 per head impact – the price of two tickets to the theater is not any more worthy of consideration, and its mention shows how much some people have lost all concept of the value of societal institutions.
January 7th, 2010 at 1:20 amSome sources could suggest that Kate Whitman could move into Baroni’s district and challenge him from the liberal left. After all, Baroni is pro-life while Kate Whitman is pro-abortion and was the director of Christie Whitman’s organization dedicated to moving the Republican Party leftward.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:34 amIt is not known yet whether Michael Illions, a big backer of Kate Whitman, is pushing her to primary Baroni.
Dov,
“If the impact were $1 for every New Jersey resident would you also describe that as “the economic impact”? Would and indeed should $1 a head be a factor in whether or not to redefine marriage? A trivial $24 per head impact – the price of two tickets to the theater is not any more worthy of consideration, and its mention shows how much some people have lost all concept of the value of societal institutions.”
Read my answer again in #15. The fact that gay people are willing to spend so much on marriage shows how much they value it. The financial impact is not the primary cause but it is also a consequence from this institution. The wedding industry is huge for heterosexuals. Remember that woman who drove her car through a group of people in the Hamptons a few years ago, Lizzie Grubman? She spent three million dollars on her wedding only to get divorced a year later. Nobody seemed to make a big deal about that. But now gay mariage is up and NOW the arguments of losing concept of societal institutions are suddenly appearing.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:44 amCurt…how many times has your airbag gone off from hitting the stupendously immobile brick wall on this site?
January 7th, 2010 at 10:26 amWelcome back Mr. Ambrosia.
Speaking of immobile brick walls, care to explain to us how you can claim to be for equal treatment for everyone, but also for progressive taxation as opposed to a capitation tax or even just a proportional tax that applies the same rate to everyone?
January 7th, 2010 at 10:31 amSorry, I’m not buying the “Gay Marriage is good for the economy” routine.
It’s amazing how the left only cares about the ‘good of the economy’ when they are pushing another one of their left-wing agenda items.
As for the amounts quoted as being a boon to the economy, I believe that as much as I believe the cost analysis on No Child Left Behind & Medicare Part D in the Bush years, and anything Obama proposes.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:45 amAmbrosiajr,
I guess when you’re gay you have to have alot of patience when it comes to explaining certain things to people who are unfamiliar with it.
I have no problem with debating gay marriage with someone who is opposed to it but there have been quite a few stupid and ignorant remarks that are embarassingly laughable.
I’ve made this comment before, gay marriage opposition is the Titanic of the Republican Party. What started out as an unsinkable ship has been taking on water and will continue to sink the party.
New Jersey may not approve gay marriage today but Portugal will approve of it tomorrow. Last month it was legalized in Washington DC, Mexico City and Argentina.
Why? Because there is no real logical reason to oppose gay marriage.
Some of the worst arguments I’ve heard? DiMarco’s that it would cause HIV to rise yesterday is a close second but I have to say Sharon’s argument that gay marriage will lead to the repeal of DADT really bothered me. Sharon is entitled to her opinion but DADT is a policy that should go and for a serviceman to serve two tours in Iraq, be willing to risk his life for our country and still be subject to discharge is not only disrespectful but it also portrays our country in bad light, especially to the 29 other civilized countries who allow gay people to openly serve in their military.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:47 am“Sorry, I’m not buying the “Gay Marriage is good for the economy” routine.”
For the record I am for gay marriage even if the state does not profit one dime.
However I was posting statistics that I felt should considered and it would be also fair to mention that NJ would be reaping from NY’s loss as well as PA and Delaware.
January 7th, 2010 at 10:53 amHi Curt,
You wrote,
“Read my answer again in #15. The fact that gay people are willing to spend so much on marriage shows how much they value it… The wedding industry is huge for heterosexuals. Remember that woman who drove her car through a group of people in the Hamptons a few years ago, Lizzie Grubman? She spent three million dollars on her wedding only to get divorced a year later.”
Weddings and marriage are not the same thing. The fact that people spend so much on weddings shows how much they value weddings. It shows nothing of how much they value marriage. If the woman who spent $3M on her wedding would have been willing to spend a fraction of that on staying married that would have shown how much she valued marriage.
So, dont’t show me how much they spend on weddings, show me how much they are ready to invest and how far they will go to stay committed to each other and that shows how much they value marriage.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:43 pmDov,
“So, dont’t show me how much they spend on weddings, show me how much they are ready to invest and how far they will go to stay committed to each other and that shows how much they value marriage.”
I give you my word I am ready to invest and stay committed to my partner as much as my parents and my brothers in their marriages until the day I die. Theres nothing more I want than to build a home and have someone to share my life with.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:50 pmAnd thats the end of that.
I’ll admit I was hopeful but it didn’t pass as was to be expected. It’s nice to see where certain people stood.
Thanks to everybody on here who was respectful and upfront with your views. I really hope that I was able to carry myself and my argument with a little dignity and class.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:00 pmCurt,
I understand where you are coming from and I can certainly accept that there are homosexual couples who like you say they are serious about marriage.
No doubt for homosexuals who desire gay marriages $24 a head is an additional welcome bonus and that’s fair enough. So I should qualify my earlier comments for clarity.
How about the $24 a head argument for heterosexuals? It really depends on where they stand on the gay marriage issue. That in turn usually depends on whether socially they are liberal or conservative.
Social liberals are very inclined to dismiss the old as being dated and outmoded, they are ready to trade it in for the new, and to constantly experiment and change. So social liberal heterosexuals are far more inclined to agree to redefining marriage. To them marriage as it is today as opposed to some new definition tomorrow may not even be worth the 2 movie tickets. They will buy into your argument.
In contrast to social liberals you have social conservatives who believe that there is significant timeless wisdom and value in much of our well-established societal behavior. Social conservatives believe that stability and continuity require careful thought about which things should change and which things should not. Any heterosexual with a social conservative conscience ought to dismiss the $24 a head argument as being frivolous. If marriage as practiced today has value, it’s value is a lot more than $24.
Which goes a long way to explain why you as a homosexual who is in favor of gay marriage found that piece meaningful whereas I as a non-homosexual social conservative found it laughable. We were each looking at it from very different perspectives.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:28 pmDov,
“Social conservatives believe that stability and continuity require careful thought about which things should change and which things should not.”
Believe it or not, I believe you can be a social conservative and be for gay marriage. I strongly believe in pricipal values. I am for gay marriage because of the fact that gays have been treated very poorly in the past and have not had the recognition that they deserved. Now in 2010 being gay in society for the most part is acceptable.
Stability and continuity are important to me and experimentation and constant changing are destructive in my mind. However, as with black people and inter racial marriage, some traditions needed to be broken. We have a rapidly increasing population which means the gay population will be increasing with it. Gay people deserve to have their place in society and recognized as equals.
By setting up Separate But Equal systems as an attempt to compromise, you are not only condoning, but encouraging second class treatment. As I said before, i would be for gay marriage even if it did not bring in one dime to the state. To me this is about principal and fair treatment.
“Which goes a long way to explain why you as a homosexual who is in favor of gay marriage found that piece meaningful whereas I as a non-homosexual social conservative found it laughable. We were each looking at it from very different perspectives.”
To me the equality is whats important. The money is just gravy.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:43 pmCurt,
I think that until and unless as gay marriage law passes, it would benefit you to accept the analogy of separate but equal bathrooms as opposed to separate but equal water fountains. There is no comparison to slavery or Jim Crow laws, bad as the unfair treatment for homosexuals has been. You are not doing yourself or any other homosexual any good by overstating – or over-investing in – the victimhood status of homosexuals.
Injustices have been done. The Civil Unions law ameliorates the legal injustices entirely. If you want to keep up the fight for the title, go ahead – but if you want to make life better for homosexuals, take the New Jersey Civil Unions law to all of the states that are currently perpetrating real injustices against homosexuals and show them how fairness can be achieved for all parties.
January 7th, 2010 at 6:53 pmCurt,
“Believe it or not, I believe you can be a social conservative and be for gay marriage.”
I believe that there will be homosexual social conservatives who will see it your way, their own desire and urgency to come up with a “conservative-style” framework for their own relationships will probably trump their desire for conservatism for the larger populace.
That said, for non-homosexuals I am convinced that it is absolutely inconceivable that any true social conservative in the mold of Edmund Burke would ever contemplate something as radical as adopting gay marriage at this early stage of its acceptance.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:31 pm