Express Yourself: Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Thank You to Our Viewers

Sunday, April 21, 2013

State Rep Linda Chapa-LaVia Says She's 50/50 on Gay Marriage Issue

Gay Marriage, Aurora, Illinois (above video created by supporter of gay marriage)

Hundreds of supporters of traditional marriage held a rally in front of State Rep Linda Chapa-LaVia's office on Saturday.

Supporters of gay marriage also came to express their view.

Chapa-LaVia recently became part of a MILLION DOLLAR scheme at taxpayer expense for a pizza place for a property she owns.

She says she's "50/50" on the gay marriage issue, acknowledging that she doesn't agree with gay marriage on a religious basis, but says more people have called her office recently in support of gay marriage.

In other words, her decision will be based upon which way the stronger wind blows.

Since she is one of the potential "swing" votes, more attention is being paid to her decision.

If you wish to express your view to Ms. Chapa, contact her office at 630-264-6855.

In defense of Linda, we should note she's under a lot of pressure.  In addition to the million dollar pizza place scheme, she's been working under the dictatorship of Michael Madigan, has to stand next to corrupt Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner at publicity stunts and has to babysit former Aurora alderman Stephanie Kifowit in Springfield.

She's also got this problem with her husband, Vernon LaVia, the Pee Wee Herman of Aurora...


Anonymous said...

Hey Linda, a man and man cannot produce a child; a woman and a woman cannot produce a child. However a human and a chimp can produce a child.

Would it be okay with you if people married chimps? It woudl be far more natural last they can actually produce a child.

Anonymous said...

Too bad the only purpose for getting married isn't child production.

Anonymous said...

A legislator represents her constituents, soliciting their views and voting the way THEY believe...

A GOOD thing. That's why we elected her.

Anonymous said...

The only problem with that 7:18 is that the people of her district are split. When she solicits THEIR views, she's going to get constituents that want her to vote for and constituents that want her to vote against. So no matter which way she votes, she's both voting the way her constituents believe AND she's NOT voting the way her constituents believe.

Anonymous said...

Very valid point 6:55. If we say gays can't get married because they can't produce kids, then we have to set a maximum age on allowing marriage. And we need to test all prospective couples for fertility. And if a marriage hasn't produced children after a certain amount of time, that marriage needs to be annulled.

Anonymous said...

"Since she is one of the potential "swing" votes, more attention is being paid to her decision."......allow me to translate: If one of the powerbrokers wants her vote then maybe the powers that be can help Linda and Vern offload some of their bad investments.

Anonymous said...

The only reason for marriage is to encourage children idiot. that is why the tax code is set up - to reward married couples with children.

Douglas Terry said...

It's so convenient to post a strong statement, even one that is ignorant, under the cloak of anonymity.

If the district is "split", then her only reasonable position is one that enables choice.

As for the ignorant posts regarding chimps & the tax code as arbiter of what is right, well, it frightens me that such unevolved people live near me.

Anonymous said...

"The only reason for marriage is to encourage children idiot. that is why the tax code is set up - to reward married couples with children."

Then why does the tax code reward married couples WITHOUT children, idiot? A married couple WITHOUT children can file jointly and receive tax and other legal benefits. The purpose of marriage is for two adults to make a lifetime commitment to each other (for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, etc. -- ever heard those phrases?). I don't remember ever attending a wedding where the minister said "you are now required to have children". There are A LOT of married couples who either are unable or choose to not have children. They are no less married than my wife and I with 3 kids. What we have currently is a system that is clearly unconstitutional because it legally endorses the principles of certain religions while denying the rights of others. This bill would specifically allow any religion to refuse to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage. The difference is it would remove the prohibition that denies the rights of those who would be willing to perform those marriages and would welcome those committed adults.

Anonymous said...

I agree, we should allow Sapiens to marry Simians as at least they have the potential to create offspring which is not something two queers can do. And I am sure a chimp can love a human and vice versa. And isn't the test simply love? I'll support gay marriage when gays stop being simian-phobic and support marriage for all sentient, in love beings.

Anonymous said...

9:16 you are the dumbest fucking moron on the planet.

You are so stupid that you allow the tax code to guide your values.

I have never heard of something so stupid. How about we change the tax code and our laws so that we don't discriminate against anybody.

"I want to live in a free country, but only if that free country outlaws everything that I don't agree with."

YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON and your hatred for everybody different than yourself is disgusting.

Anonymous said... hubby & I are in our late 50s and our children are grown. Does 9:16 think our marriage should be dissolved because we're not raising children anymore?

Anonymous said...

If a man can marry another man in the name of civil rights, then why can't a man marry a beast? You can't discriminate against someone based on their sexuality.....right?

Anonymous said...

I googled around, it appears at a human and a chimp could have a baby! I did not know that. This does cast a different light on things. If we are going to let men marry men and women marry women, a human and chimpanzee marriage really should be allowed.

Anonymous said...

Well, Google around some more and you'll find that the proposed legislation says "two people", not two...whatever.

Guess you & your chimp will have to be just friends, 9:16 a.m.

Anonymous said...

Did Jay Leonardi march in the protest - and if so, which side was he on? Or does he go both ways?

Al Kohollick said...

I may be a little different.....but man I do get aroused when I watch "Planet of the Apes".

Anonymous said...

9:16 did you really google that, or are you just speaking from family history?

Anonymous said...

Why do stupid people always take the homosexuality marriage discussion to bestiality? What a stupid argument to make. It just shows that you have no argument against it and you are grasping at something so ridiculous to make your point.

The reason you don't want gay marriage is because your "God" says in the Bible that it is a sin.

Stick with that argument. it is stupid too but not as stupid.

The bottom line is the government (not your religious institution) should not be able to discriminate against ANYBODY with MY MONEY (taxes).

Your little church can do whatever they want, but a gay couple should be able to go to a courthouse anywhere and legally get married.

The tax code is set up to benefit married couples and to not allow a group of people to get married is WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL.

Marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a social contract.

To continue this discussion is actually stupid. The anti-gay marriage people don't even have a real argument (which is why they resort to bestiality), the only reason gay marriage isn't allowed at this point is because the republicans have more money.

My prediction for the next post: A stupid gay joke that has no point or substance.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to mess up your prediction (maybe it'll be the one after mine) but I agree in spirit with your entire post except one minor point. Gays shouldn't have to get married at the courthouse unless they want to. They should also be allowed to be married those churches which choose to do so. Those arguing it's against the bible and God's word overlook it's against THEIR interpretation of the bible and against what THEY think God's word is. There are a significant number of religions who DON'T think it's against God's word and are quite willing to perform same-sex marriages -- but their constitutional rights are infringed on and they are not allowed to do so.

Anonymous said...

I do agree with you that churches have the right to marry gay people. I should have put "at least" be married in a courthouse. The bare minimum because I am not for forcing my beliefs on anybody (unlike some "Christians")

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but I am an agnostic yet the entire sapien-simian offspring premise is a very valid concern.

The fact that they can produce a viable offspring certainly puts that relationship above that of two homosexuals.

Al Kohollick said...

To my knowledge, there has never been a sucessful procreation of a homosapien and a member of the Ape family. Maybe I'm wrong on this as I am not not expert. If a human and Ape were able to cross-breed and produce a hybrid offspring I think we would have all heard it by now. I'm not sure where your getting this from. Maybe you could direct me to a source of information I would be curious to look into it.The bottom line on gay marriages being legal is that while it doesn't make sense to a lot of people it also is a rather harmless thing. Live and let live...has long as you don't go dropping a bomb on my street.

Anonymous said...

Al, you're correct, there has never been a scientifically valid hybrid produced. There have been a couple claims, but genetic testing showed it was not a hybrid after all, just a funny looking chimp. Where he's getting this from is one of two things: 1) there IS discussion of the theoretical possibility of a hybrid due to how close the DNA is; 2) he himself is in fact a successful hybrid.

Anonymous said...

No one has admitted to doing it. But it can be done. They made some attempts in 1929 a soviet geneticist named Ivanovich before it was banned. And then in 1977 some research was done by Michel Bedford with a gibbon which demonstrated human sperm could penetrate a gibbon egg (in other word impregnate).

In 2006 DNA analysis confirmed that human and chimps diverged and then reemerged and diverged again. IN other words they split but continued to have sex and remix.

The point is, when you go outside of the man-woman marriage paradigm then you open yourself up to what is marriage.

And given that a human could produce a child with an ape - in other words a baby is involved, then you open yourself up to sanctification of that relationship also.

And I am not talking about bestiality in the generic sense, we are talking about a relationship that could produce offspring. A human and a goat cannot, a human and chimp is a different story.

And it does not matter if they have done it, the fact it can be done is what is relevant.

Anonymous said...

1:47 it is NOT AT ALL relevant to the discussion of HUMAN same-sex marriage. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT. You and your ilk are trying to draw things into this discussion that are totally irrelevant. The law that is being discussed is to stop prohibiting two consenting ADULT HUMANS from making a lifelong commitment to each other that is legally recognized -- and that some religions won't recognize and others will. The fact they can't procreate has nothing to do with their getting married. This has nothing to do with any other species, and trying to bring these irrelevant "possibilities" in is just showing you recognize your argument on the actual issue is weak. You're just trying to confuse the issue. Quite simple: this proposed law will NOT endanger ANYONE'S marriage, it will simply end unfair discrimination and will reinforce religious rights. It always amazes me how conservatives rail against big government, yet are all in favor of big brother government, i.e. telling us how we have to live our personal lives.

Anonymous said...

5:48 - you have an agenda I do not. And accept the facts. Human have hybridized with apes many times over the eons, the DNA is conclusive of that which is why they cannot pinpoint when the original divergence was, because they kept mating and producing viable babies so the DNA kept getting mixed.

And guess what if you can have sex with someone and create a child that makes them human. So we are discussing adult humans. By the way, the U.N. is actually considering a bill to declare apes as a person and therefore extend rights to them. No one suggested allowing a human to marry and underage chimpanzee or some sicko thing like that.

The point is an ape human relation can produce a child. And that point makes the issue very relevant. A human and an ape "person" should certainly be able to enter into any relationship a homosexual can. And the issue at point is that it appears that apes and humans are not really different species.

Frankly you are sounding like a homo-sapien bigot who is simian-phobic.

What is up with your hatred of persons who are different than you? Face it apes are people too. Frankly you seem rather intolerant to me.

Explain to me how allowing a human to marry a simian person diminishes the relationship between two homo-sexuals?

I find it fascinating that you want to discriminate against human-simian love and relationships and define them as unacceptable, when at least they can produce a viable baby, which is far more than two homo-sexuals can do. You seem awful intolerant to me given apes are sentient beings who are capable of love, commitment, rational thought, and feelings. Who are you to define love between consenting persons?

I sincerely suggest you confront your bigotry and intolerance.

Anonymous said...

Here is the new definition of marriage for the stupid people who can't figure it out:

Marriage: A social contract between two consenting human adults.

See I did two things there. 1) I limited the number of people to two. 2) I used the word human to ensure that nobody can marry some other type of animal.


Anonymous said...

6:28 while you post with good grammar and intelligent thought you are really nothing more than a dumbass. The U.N. is considering no such bill and to even suggest that they are is stupid.

Your point is far from anything rational and most of all completely fabricated.

If you look up the definition of marriage at no where in the 5 definitions does it say anywhere about producing children.

It talks about commitment, legal partnership, religion, and other things like that, nowhere does it mention kids. So to put child production into the marriage is stupid.

You can't change the definition to fit your argument.

Anonymous said...

Uh the point is some great apes are essentially human, that is why you can breed with them.

And the U.N. has heard testimony on the issue,the last I knew it went into a committee for study two years ago.

I think the group pushing this is called the Great Ape Project.

However that is an aside. without regard for children if your argument is gays should be allowed to be married then why not sapien and simians? What do you have against a loving, nurturing relationship that is expressed through sexuality between a sapien and simian? After all they can mate and have a far greater chance of producing an offspring than any homosexual pairing(that is what Bedford's work demonstrates - no artificial insemination was needed). So what exactly is your issue? Are you anti-simiain or chimp-abhobic?

Your position makes no sense, if all this is about is love,caring etc there is not doubt simians are capable of all of that. We do allow normal people to marry the mentally retarded after all and allow them to reproduce. So why the hatred of sapien-simian relationships?

One is obviously far more natural and normal than homosexuality biologically. I would suggest it is simply religious prohibitions and societal intolerance of sapiens-simian pairings that has forced sapien-simians to deny their love or live in the shadows. I wonder how many innocent sapien-simian lives have been aborted because of such societal prejudice?

All I am saying is if you normalize homosexual marriage then you shoudl also normalize sapien-simian love.

Personally I would legalize both as I think the sapien-simian have a much better hand as biologically their relationship has a viable basis.

Anonymous said...

You can think whatever you want. I don't hear the sapien-simian community asking for marriage.

So if you are the start of it, I suggest that you go the route the homosexuals have gone.

File court cases, petition in front of churches, lobby government officials.

Nobody is stopping you from doing any of those things. So please, start the movement, and maybe in 50 years you will get somewhere with it. The gay community has gone that route, and it is time for them to be respected and not made fun of for being different by ass holes.

I hope that before you die, you can have your marriage with your ape girlfriend/boyfriend and not be discriminated against.

You are obviously very passionate about human/monkey love and I should not make fun of you for feeling the way you do. So please, start the movement and get the process going so that you can live in freedom with your mate.

Anonymous said...

You can think whatever you want. I don't hear the sapien-simian community asking for marriage.

Zoos are persecuted and it is illegal in every state and several people have been prosecuted in the past 3 years. They would lose their jobs, elected offices they hold and face imprisonment.

So do you hold the same view on slavery, which is still legal in several parts of the world? Do you feel the same pedophilia after all in areas of Mexico the age of consent is 12 years of age? So I take it you don’t feel an obligation to speak up for those groups who are disadvantaged also or is it just your intolerance and hatred of sapien-simian relationships the issue?

I speak up for all persecuted groups of people be they gays, sapien-simian lover, slaves, and children. I would support homosexual marriage as long as it is inclusive of other NATURAL forms of love and expression such as sapien-simian marriage I think to do otherwise is bigoted, narrow-minded, and hate filled. I guess you think the Jews should have stood up for themselves also.

Anonymous said...

Then DO IT MORON - Who the hell is stopping you?

This post was about GAY MARRIAGE - Not a post about "all forms of love."

If you want legislation that protects all kinds of love THEN WRITE IT, LOBBY FOR IT. Make it happen.

NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU. Hell, maybe I would support it.

But to deny one group, the gays, from marriage, because somebody else in a different part of the world is denied something is stupid. Changes in legislation happen over time, never all at once, especially social changes. Look at when the US got rid of slavery, black people were not equal right away and many would say they are still not equal. But should Lincoln not have freed the slaves because other countries still had slaves? That's dumb. Lincoln freed the slaves because it was the right thing to do and maybe doing so encouraged other countries to do it too.

Plus, I have very little control over US legislation and zero control over other parts of the world such as Mexico and "places where slavery still exists."

So again I say, get off your ass, and begin the process for your Man/Ape love. Go, do it now. You say that "you speak up for all persecuted people." Then go, speak up instead of posting on a blog that 5 people read.

I will watch the headlines over the next week and hopefully I will read about you.

Anonymous said...

Wow after reading this thread I first thought it was a joke but now one thing emerged. I am now shocked and dismayed at the hatred and intolerance that some homosexuals show toward those is sapien-simian relationships. That is hate speech and should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

Anonymous said...

yeah, it seems gays and their supporters are okay with repression and discrimination as long as it does not impact them. Imagine if white people felt that way about blacks. wrong is wrong and it applies to everyone equally. but then we are learning gays don't care about equality for all - just them.

Al Kohollick said...

In the words of Peter Gabriel: Don't monkey with the monkey".

Anonymous said...

I read this thread several times. I will admit I thought the whole sex with great apes thing was a joke, then I did some research. The poster is right about the significance of Bedford's research.

I cannot believe I am writing this, but if we are going to say that gays are entitled to get married, then, gulp, we really need to allow for marriage with great apes. You cannot get around the fact that a child could happen. I am sure the religious zealots would go nuts over that (or maybe I should say bananas) but it makes no sense to allow homosexuals to get married and deny it to another couple who could actually make a baby. I say legalize them both.

And then there is the UN thing about declaring great apes as persons. It seems obvious that if you can have a baby with something you should not be doing medical experiments on them.

Anonymous said...

10:01pm Gay marriage sure. The only gay marriage I oppose is my own.

Legalizing bestiality?, Tell me you were just having a bad day. You seem like a nice person. Wake up and think about what you just said.

Anonymous said...

1:22 - you miss the point. If we declare great apes as persons, it is not bestiality. Bestiality is a man and a camel - no way even in theory that there is going to be a baby.

Do you understand the significance of a human sperm being able to penetrate the membrane of an egg (and I do not mean that you are an idiot or anything I am just trying no elaborate on this point)? It means the pregnancy is more or less natural. It redefines the boundary between some apes and man. This is not small stuff.

Given the range of IQs for chimps is in the 40-80 range that means the range from below average to moderately retarded in human terms.

I really do not think this is far out there at all given we are essentially saying that same sex couples who can never reproduce somehow deserve special recognition that is superior to that given to a couple who could reproduce.

Anonymous said...

You are so full of crap it's spilling out your mouth. You're just coming up with this crap to upset people and push your own agenda to keep same-sex HUMAN marriage from happening. Having children is a separate issue from being married. Nowhere in the wedding vows does it say you have to have children. Maybe we should just go the other way -- remove all the "special recognition" that human heterosexual couples currently have, whether they have children or not. No tax breaks. No automatic inheritance. No right to say what happens with your partner when they can't speak for themselves, unless they've filled out the paperwork ahead of time.

Anonymous said...

In the U.S. Marriage is an institution designed to keep males responsible for the children they produce. You only have to look at colonial period bastardy laws to see that. Marriage is all about children and always has been.

And whoever has posted all this stuff about human and apes is surprisingly correct. An ape and a man humping and creating a baby is a heck of a lot more normal than two guys buffing each other. At least in one case the parts are designed to fit together. I'd rather see guys walking around with a chimp on their arm then two fags holding hands.

It is a heck of a lot easier to tell your kid that the chimp is an ugly woman rather than Steve and Tom have special feeling for each other.

Anonymous said...

12:46 you're 100%. Every one of your points are wrong. If marriage is all about children, why do we allow people who don't have children to be married? Wouldn't it make more sense to not allow marriage until AFTER a child is conceived? Or to annul any marriage that doesn't produce a child? And explaining that people are individual, and some people are attracted to others of the same gender while other people are attracted to the opposite gender wasn't hard at all. Certainly no harder than the birds and the bees talk (which in fact is all the same discussion).

Anonymous said...

1;18 even I can follow 12;46 point. Marriage in this country was instituted to make sure children born had caretakers and providers so they would not be a public burden. Hence the comment about bastard laws. So by your logic what is wrong with a man who is attracted to a chimp? After all it all about loving who you love right? You sound kind of intolerant to me. And what about those in polygamous relationships? Mormons are a very loving group of people. Maybe they should be able to practice their religion as they see fit. Are you now going to tell me a man can't be attracted to more than one woman?

Anonymous said...

Two guys booty jabbing each others butts, two lezzies licking each others puss, a guy boinking a sheep, or a dude screwing a chimp, you all are a bunch of sicko perverts. And there is no damn way in hell any of this sicko crap is marriage. What it is, is a bunch or pervert perving on each other.

Anonymous said...

4:34 you call me intolerant when I'm not letting myself get pulled into the interspecies marriage discussion. I didn't say anything either way about that, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE REAL DISCUSSION HERE. It was clearly brought up to muddy the issue, and create an emotional response against the true discussion about same-sex marriage. THAT'S the bill that's working its way thru the legislature. And I'll say it again -- if marriage was created to protect kids, why are people w/o kids allowed to be married? Simple, because marriage is about the commitment between two adults whether they have kids or not. So your basic premise on the purpose of marriage is flawed.

If these posters REALLY believe we should allow interspecies marriage, we can have that discussion when a bill proposing it comes up.


Anonymous said...

1:18 is simply simianphobic and a hater.

Anonymous said...

No 7:11, this is a conversation about what marriage is and historically and CORRECTLY it is a legal union between a man and a woman who want to procreate and is designed to protect others form having to bear the cost of raising their children. that is what it is for. marriage has always been tied to the idea of rearing children. Marriage was the way you created heirs to your estate, bastards did not inherit.

The conversation is about expanding the definition of marriage to include alternatives to the man-woman-child paradigm.

Conversations about other combinations that can lead to children, be they brother, sister, mother son, father daughter, man ape, man-woman-woman, or woman-man-man relationships.

You don’t want the conversation in its rightful context because then we have to consider the full scope of the meaning of marriage, where you plainly want it restricted to the narrow class of gays.

The idea that two gays have a lynchpin on the various forms of love is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe you fucking morons are still talking about this. I have never heard a more pseudo-intellectual conversation in all my life.

Anonymous said...

8:24 why don;t you put a gun to your temple and pull the trigger; the world will then be abetter place. Go to the light...

Anonymous said...

What a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

Anonymous said...

No problem glad I could be of help.