No he does not live in the hotel, that is his campaign office which is not in the 19th Senate district. Check his campaign contributions, it was donated by Georgio's. None of his fundraisers have been in the 19th Senate district either. He does not even live in the 19th district; he currently resides (supposedly has for the last 5 years) in his parents home in Orland Hills. Do you really think he cares about us in the 19th District? He has paid no property taxes and his dad is a State Democratic Central Committeeman. He doesn't represent change for IL. He won't vote to take any money from his dads pension. He should have run in the 14th district that includes Orland Hills instead of the 19th district.

Hastings still lives at home with his parents in Orland Hills.

Marriage, as defined by the Bible, is also:

1. Polygamy
2. A man having sexual rights to his wife's servants
3. Arranged marriages between slaves
4. A rapist and his victim
5. Selling your daughters for livestock

Actually, Mike F. only the arranged marriage passage you mentioned use the "marriage" definition.

Was there slavery in Biblical times? Of course. But there is a difference in the way "marriage" was defined for a concubine's activities. The closest thing in today's Western society to the concubine is a pregnancy surrogate as used by Bill Rancic and his wife. When a wife couldn't conceive for some reason, another woman was selected to bear a child for the husband, and more often than not the child was raised as the wife's child would've been. this is not very different than adoption from a pregnant mother today.

i guess if you knew anything about the cultural institutioin of arranged marriages, you'd know that marriages were arranged for virtually EVERYONE at the time by their parents or guardians. The reason was simple and logical. Experienced parents evaluated the choices for mating available, and tried to make the best choice for improving status and genetics for those they cared about, both children and servants.

This practice is still very much alive in in many Eastern cultures, and it can be argued that this practice has been FAR more successful for the individuals and society than than the high failure rate "domestic partnering" system that's propagated in today's American dysfunctional social cesspool.

One other thing regarding slavery in the ancient times. While some slavery was force through subjugation, much of it was voluntary. Why? Many people back then were refugees from famine, war, and plague from Eastern European nations. These refugees often had only two choices; die from starvation or the cold or volunteer to become a slave of some patrician and be fed and cared for while losing freedom. The children were the first to die from the lack of food and the elements, so often parents gave their children to become slaves for nothing other than the promise of their children being fed and housed. So many refugees were forced to do this from the Slavic nations that the latin term "Slav" became the root word for "slave" in Latin

"I ask you vote for treating all the people of Illinois as human beings and vote to legalize all marriage." Does this mean you support a 14 year old marrying another 14 year old?

One could make a stronger case that a heterosexual couple of young reproductive age should be able to get married than for that of a same sex marriage.

This is a HUGE potential cost for a state that's already broke, and now is certainly not the time to be expanding expensive entitlements.

The simple fact is that giving special benefits to a same sex couple just because they're doing each other is a perversion of fairness and law. Many same sex friends would give their lives for each other. One could argue that their relationship is far stronger than many, or most, gay couples. Why not give that stronger relationship the same perks as a "married" couple? The reason is simple, WE CAN"T AFFORD IT AND IT'S BAD PUBLIC POLICY!

This isn't about being "equal" for people who are gay. It's about using state powers to empower gays to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyles on others who reject their lifestyle, and choose not to subsidize it.

No one is trying to take the freedom of gays to act as they wish away from them. This is about taking the freedom away from others to accept or reject them based on their values and morals.

You fought long and hard for freedom, Mike. Don't use your political career to take away what so many fought and died for!

Emily,
For you to state that you are a person without hate or prejudice is a joke.
You are extremely prejudiced against gun owners such as myself.
You also seem, based on your previous posts, to either hate or are extremely prejudiced towards conservatives.

Bob - let's not get silly. Consenting adults is legal adult age. What is the cost of marriage equality to the state? More weddings = more revenue. Bad policy to treat your citizens as equals? Bob, what you are is a bully. You don't agree with marriage equality cause personally you think it's icky and everyone should live how you want them to.

TFBS - I have never been prejudice against you or your gun ownership. Just because I feel there isn't a need and my opinion differs from yours is not prejudice. If I knew you personally, I wouldn't march outside your home protesting your right.

Why is it a right to own a weapon but not get married to who you want?

"Not get silly"?LOL C'mon, Emily, with every post you show how ignorant you are of other posters and issues in general.

As far as my considering gay relations as "icky", you show how infantile you are. If you understood the issue, you'd know that relations between adults are not at issue here. Sodomy laws were ended long ago.

This reminds of a Woody Allen remark. He was once asked if he thought sex was dirty. He replied, "Yes, if it's done right!"LOL

"Civil unions" give many of the financial and benefit advantages of marriage, but not all. Right of survivorship can be handled through trusts, wills, and durable power of attorney, so those benefits are not denied gays.

What this is about is empowering gays to force their will on churches, especially those that decry gay relations, Once again, this is not about creating "equality" or freedom, it's about tyranny of the minority and taking freedom from others. 'nuff said.

Bob - How will it 'force their will' on churches? Churches do not have to marry anyone they do not want to. How is two people of the same gender getting married taking freedom from you?

Emily, it is really quite simple, I have the RIGHT to have a gun because of the 2nd amendment.
You do not have the Right to marry whomever you want because it is not an amendment to the Constitution, see, really simple.
As you said earlier in a response about illegals getting drivers licenses, I am just pointing out facts. If you have issues with the current policy, I suggest you leave your comments with the U.S. Government. Complaining on the Patch isn't going to get you anywhere.

I already called in my support of fellow human beings to my legislators.

"Churches do not have to marry anyone they do not want to." Not now, but they will if this law is passed. Once marriage between two people of the same sex becomes law, this will provide standing for any homosexual to sue the church to force it to peform the marriage, even if it is against the tenets of the church.

Perhaps more troubling is the effect this will have on sex education in schools. Once homosexual marriage is legal, schools will be forced to promte homosexual relatiionshsips in their "health classes" the same way it was forced into the schools when Massachussetts made gay marriage law. If you don't think there's a liberal judge in Illinois who will compel a church to perform such a ceremony, you kow nothing of the judiciary in Illinois!

Emily, when you compel someone to take food off their families' table to extend marital benefits to same sex spouses, you take away the freedom of the taxpayer to use the resources on their family, or for other worthy causes like education and roads, and you diminish the individual's right to chose how what they earn is spent.

When you compel a church and it's congregation to perform marriages against their religious beliefs, you're taking away their freedom of religion.

When you force schools to promote homosexual marriage to your young children in public schools, you take away parents' freedom to teach about this subject in an even handed and honest way to their children.

Want some more examples?

"I already called in my support of fellow human beings to my legislators." You mean in support of your fellow human beings right to bear arms to protect themselves and their family from dangerous psychos, criminals, and tyrannical government?

God Bless You, Emily!

As I said before, I don't care what you and your guns do. I wouldn't care if you spend hours every day juggling your arsenal of weapons then playing Russian roulette. Does not bother me one bit.
Yes, I posted that statistically proven that conceal and carry does not make you safer.

Emily,unlike you, I will cite my source.
According to statistics kept by the N.C. Attorney General's Office the raw number of violent crimes – murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults – has dropped. In 1995, there were 45,016 such crimes throughout the state. In 2010, the last year for which state level data is available, there were 34,033 such crimes.
When those numbers are converted into rates that take into account population growth, the violent crime rate dropped from 649 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 374.4 per 100,000 people in 2010. That's a drop of 24.4 percent in terms of the raw number of crimes or a drop of 42.3 percent drop in the violent crime rate.
These numbers may not mean anything to you, but, I will let you know that 1995 is the year that NC allowed concealed carry.
So put those numbers into your statistics and see what you get.
Oh yeah, if I was juggling my guns and then playing Russian roulette, I'm sure that it would bother you as the fact that I or anyone else owns guns seems to bother you greatly.
It may please you to know that I will not juggle or play games with my guns as this would be both foolish and dangerous. In case you don't know, guns are not toys.

Or as Britons and Canadians call it, "marriage".