* Equality Illinois’s chief lobbyist claims that his coalition can pass the civil unions bill through both chambers by the end of session, even though they haven’t yet proved they can pass it in the House…
Rick Garcia, political director for Equality Illinois, said Thursday he’s “absolutely” expecting the full state House and the Senate to pass a civil union measure either Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill has support from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D).
And here’s the plan…
The House Youth and Family Committee, chaired by Rep. Greg Harris, who’s gay, intends to attach an amendment legalizing civil unions to a “shell bill” that’s already been approved by the Senate, Garcia said. If the full House votes in favor of the legislation, the bill would be sent to the full Senate within hours for a vote of concurrence.
That’s still a very big “if.”
More…
Garcia said Illinois lawmakers often use “shell bills” to pass legislation expediently. He said it’s necessary to legalize civil unions through this method because the legislative session ends May 30 and the approach limits the time that opponents of civil unions can lobby lawmakers.
“We get it out of the House and then senators only have a few hours of being beat up by our opponents rather than three days or a long weekend,” he said. “Since there is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it in one day, that’s what we’re going to do.”
They have to get it out of the House first, of course, but other bills have passed this way. The civil union bill is not like a lot of “other” bills, though, so we’ll just have to wait and see. Admitting to this strategy might also not go over too well. Again, we’ll see.
EI also has a bunch of lobsters, plus support from SEIU…
Garcia said Equality Illinois has nine lobbyists working as either full-time staffers or contractors to encourage lawmakers to vote in favor of civil unions. Other groups assisting in passing the measure include the American Civil Liberties Union, the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and the Service Employees International Union, Garcia said.
LIVE session coverage...
- State Sen. Clay Davis - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:14 pm:
Who is advising Rick Garcia? Why brag about how many lobbyists you have on staff? Why publicize that your strategy is to rush something through before your opponents can mobilize against it?
- Rick - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:25 pm:
I agree that talking about the strategy may be foolish and arrogant. But I wish them the best of luck. It’s pretty sad that Iowan have full marriage equality rights, while Illinois is still fighting over a separate-but-equal lesser classification.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:30 pm:
Lot of petition passers in Oak Park seeking signatures for letters to Rep. Graham, who is described by them as on the fence regarding the legislation.
- Secret Square - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:35 pm:
If this strategy came to pass (and that is, of course, a VERY big if), legislators who voted for it would face a lot more than just “a few hours” of being “beat up” by lobbyists… they could face months of being beat up (in my opinion, justifiably so) by the GOP, more conservative Democrats, religious groups, etc., who never even got the chance to speak out.
One can only imagine the outcry that would ensue if a “conservative” measure such as banning abortion or legalizing concealed carry were rushed through the GA like this. Why should it be any different for a “liberal” measure?
As I’ve said before, if a civil unions or gay marriage measure passes fair and square through referendum or the legislative/constitutional amendment process, with plenty of debate, that’s one thing. Trying to sneak it past the public to minimize opposition is another thing entirely. I would not want even measures I personally agreed with passed that way.
- ChampaignDweller - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:40 pm:
Regardless of what people believe regarding civil unions, the fact that its supporters think they have to pass it in this way is troubling. And to announce it ahead of time seems the height of foolishness, or perhaps, arrogance.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 1:50 pm:
There are only a couple of indians camped out at Little Big Horn, General Custer. You should have no problems getting passed them.
- collar observer - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:03 pm:
This is one time that I don’t care how Harris and Garcia move this bill - GO FOR IT! Illinois should be leading on this issue - not dragging it’s feet any longer. Equality Illinois - well, civil unions will be a good start. Thank you Rep. Harris!
- Vote Quimby! - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:15 pm:
Not a knock on this particular issue, I just hate the way laws can get passed in Illinois. I’m a goo-goo who wishes government existed of, by and for the people originally said by that one Illinoisian, ooh what was his name….enough backroom deals!
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:45 pm:
We are continuing to see special treatment for some groups of people over the beliefs of a majority of citizens. This isn’t democracy, and citizens will not simply accept a decision made in such an undemocratic fashion - even if it passes.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:47 pm:
===We are continuing to see special treatment for some groups of people over the beliefs of a majority of citizens.===
You mean special treatment for heterosexuals who are allowed to marry despite a majority of citizens who believe that civil unions or gay marriage are OK?
lol
Just sayin…
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 2:49 pm:
===citizens will not simply accept a decision made in such an undemocratic fashion - even if it passes. ===
Therefore, all laws passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor are null and void.
- Pelon - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:30 pm:
How about legalizing civil unions and imposing a tax on them? Liberals would have their civil unions, and since they’ve never met a tax they didn’t like, they wouldn’t have a problem with the extra cost. Conservatives won’t like the civil unions, but by imposing a “sin” tax on them, they could claim that the State has determined these unions to be immoral (hence the sin tax). It sounds like a win-win to me.
:)
- Lee - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:33 pm:
“We are continuing to see special treatment for some groups of people over the beliefs of a majority of citizens.”
Either this is a really poorly made straw man argument, or you live on a different planet. I haven’t seen anyone advocating for special treatment on this issue — in fact, even with the civil unions bill gay couples will still be denied basic civil rights. Or maybe less than equal civil rights equates to special in your mind?
- lake county democrat - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:46 pm:
I say Garcia should trade a massive blue law banning work on Sunday (exception for the NFL) in exchange for full marriage. The religious right should snatch it — they’d be getting a Commandment and only giving up a stray line in Leviticus!
- illinois govt - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:48 pm:
If you go onto the SOS Lob. Reg. site - Equality Illinois and registered agents only have a total of 6 lobbyists regisgtered. By claiming they have 9 lobbyist at work is this an admission of breaking the law?
- downstate dem - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 3:51 pm:
This is certainly an issue that needs addressed and with it public discussion, but with a budget still lost in space, and talk of skimming off pension funds again, the legislature just doesn’t seem to be able to focus on priorities.
The budget and governmental reform should, no must, take center stage.
- Joe C - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:00 pm:
I think the story means 9 lobbyists are working the civil union bill - some of whom work for a different group… not that one organization hired 9.
- Secret Square - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:02 pm:
“Citizens will not simply accept a decision made in such an undemocratic fashion even if it passes.”
I interpret that to mean some, perhaps many, people will be upset if this happens, and they will campaign to oust in the next election those legislators who voted for it. Of course, others who favor civil unions will work just as hard to support or reelect the legislators who vote for this. Which is exactly what citizens have the right to do in a democracy on ANY issue they are upset about, be it gay marriage, taxation, gambling, legislative pay raises, etc. Just because a law is legally enacted, doesn’t mean the people have to like it, or stop trying to change it through the democratic process if they feel this is necessary. This is true of any law.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:11 pm:
Man, Garcia never learns. He just can’t keep his mouth shut.
- SangamoGOP - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:17 pm:
==You mean special treatment for heterosexuals who are allowed to marry despite a majority of citizens who believe that civil unions or gay marriage are OK?
What majority of citizens? Perhaps there are polls that show such support but in every state that the issue has gone to referendum, including Cali, such efforts have failed.
That isn’t to say that civil unions are bad but to repeat the mantra that there is a majority who agree with civil unions isn’t reflected at the ballot booth.
- Downstater - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:22 pm:
——————————————————————————–
Law and Civil Rights
► Same-sex marriage, gay rights
► Civil liberties, tort reform . . .
See also: Supreme Court | Crime | Race/Ethnicity | War on Terrorism
——————————————————————————–
Polls listed chronologically.
Same-Sex Marriage, Gay Rights
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
“Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?”
.
Yes No Unsure
%
%
%
5/14-17/09
45
54
1
——————————————————————————–
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. May 12-13, 2009. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among registered voters.
.
“Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?”
.
Legally
Married Legal
Partnership No Legal
Recognition Unsure
% % % %
5/12-13/09 33 33 29 5
11/4-5/06 LV 30 30 32 7
6/13-14/06 27 25 39 8
5/04 25 26 40 9
3/04 20 33 40 7
.
“In general, do you think straight people in your community who have traditional religious values are tolerant of gays and lesbians and their beliefs, or not? . . .”
.
Very
Tolerant Somewhat
Tolerant Somewhat
Intolerant Very
Intolerant Unsure
% % % % %
5/12-13/09 22 45 14 14 6
.
“In general, do you think gays and lesbians in your community are tolerant of straight people who have traditional religious values and their beliefs, or not? . . .”
.
Very
Tolerant Somewhat
Tolerant Somewhat
Intolerant Very
Intolerant Unsure
% % % % %
5/12-13/09 32 35 10 9 13
——————————————————————————–
Quinnipiac University Poll. April 21-27, 2009. N=2,041 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.2.
.
“Would you support or oppose a law in your state that would allow same-sex couples to get married?”
.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
4/21-27/09
38 55 7
.
“Would you support or oppose a law in your state that would allow civil unions for same-sex couples?”
.
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
4/21-27/09
57 38 5
Rich MIller
Polls show people support civil unions, but oppose marriage for homosexuals.
- Lee - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 4:32 pm:
“What majority of citizens? Perhaps there are polls that show such support but in every state that the issue has gone to referendum, including Cali, such efforts have failed.”
Bad examples for that argument, SangamoGOP. Actually, despite having overturned equal “marriage,” California still has a domestic partnership law almost the same as the civil union bill proposed here — and it was hardly contested even in the fight over marriage. In fact, it’s caused so little controversy giving equal rights to gay couples there that you did’t even know about it! Most of the states that went to referendum also banned “marriage,” not civil unions. And a growing number of states are going beyond civil unions to approve gay marriage. I think it’s pretty clear that the majority would support equal civil rights.
- Undercover - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 5:17 pm:
Gay marriage is happening and has been happening since the beginning of time. This bill is about allowing folks in same-sex marriages the dignity of equal rights under the law.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t have one!
- Objective Dem - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 5:47 pm:
I love Lake County Dem’s comment about trading a Commandment for a stray line in Leviticus. And frankly the concept of a mandated day of no work sounds great.
I would also like to see someone sponsor a Leviticus bill. It can say that Illinois believes in the Bible and will not permit civil unions, or women wearing red dresses, or eating shell fish and pork, or all the other ignored “Abominations” in Leviticus.
My guess is few legislators who cite Leviticus really want to see it become the law of the land.
- Skirmisher - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 6:28 pm:
I would think that with a tax increase and/or massive services cuts on their plates, the last thing the Dems would want this year is to do a last minute legislative maneuver to implement a controversial bit of social legislation that serves a very minor constituency, serioulsy offends as many as it pleases, and is of indifferent concern to the rest of us. Garcia’s hot air ain’t gonna make it any easier, and if I were Madigan or Cullerton I think I would just let this die and await a more favorable year.
- STATE WORKER - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 6:32 pm:
We will be watching those legsliators that vote againt it. Right on! It’s about time Illinois.
- Justice - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 6:50 pm:
I support civil unions. Civil Unions seem fair and reasonable and do not represent a threat of any kind to traditional marriage.
- SangamoGOP - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 7:13 pm:
Lee-what states are going to gay marriage by ref? Again, my point was that if such a majority approved, this gay marriage/civil unions would be approved at year ballot box. Rather, they have to be rushed thru (Garcia admitted as much) or legislatively enacted from the bench.
- Bookworm - Thursday, May 21, 09 @ 7:20 pm:
Here’s my theory on why the public in general seems OK with civil unions, but not actual marriage, for same-sex couples:
In past generations, it was relatively easy to explain marriage to children — most children had a mom and a dad who were married, and most of their friends had moms and dads who were married, etc. Marriage was something a man and a woman did when they loved each other and wanted to start a family. (The details of how that was accomplished, of course, could be explained later, but the basic concept was easy to grasp.)
The prevalence of divorce and of single parenthood has made the task of defining and explaining marriage (and its importance) to children more difficult. If same sex couples are allowed to marry, that means we have to start explaining to our children, no matter what their age, that two men or two women can also marry, and why they would want to.
I’m guessing that many parents — even those who personally know people who are gay, who don’t care what consenting adults do in private, or who they have on their health insurance, or who they can visit in the hospital — aren’t looking forward to this task. (Remember “Heather Has Two Mommies”?) Divorce, unwed pregnancy, etc. are hard enough to explain; the added “ick factor” makes gay marriage an even hotter potato.
With that in mind, the term “civil union” basically provides a fig leaf behind which we can provide same-sex couples with all the same rights and privileges as married people, while preserving the official definition and ideal of marriage with which we are all familiar.
I don’t think we should lightly redefine marriage; it is an institution that has existed for millennia and it is the basic building block of society. Generations of experience do show that children are MOST likely to become stable, productive citizens if they grow up in a household with a married mother and father. Of course, there are many exceptions to this general rule, and not everyone can or will be able to form this kind of family. But, does that mean the ideal should be tossed aside? At the very least, don’t do it without open public debate and a fair hearing for all sides.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 6:22 am:
1) Agree with those who say its foolish for Garcia to broadcast his strategy.
2) In my experience, those who brag about having enough votes usually don’t. They usually have enough “Maybe’s” to pass it, and the goal of the press conference is to make passage seem inevitable.
3) To those arguing that support for civil unions will doom lawmakers’ re-election bids: HA! Where was the backlash against the equal rights bill? Was there even a SINGLE primary or general election where opponents used it decisively?
4) I hope it passes. My uncle and uncle have been in a committed relationship for over ten years. They’ve paid property taxes on three homes together — largely in support of the public schools — just like everybody else. They pay income taxes and sales taxes, just like everybody else. If they want to assume the responsibility of entering into a legally binding civil partnership, with all of its vested rights and responsibilities, they should be allowed to.
As unfathomable as it may seem, all you have to do is imagine that the tables were turned and gay Americans were allowed to marry and heterosexual Americans were not. (In fact, that’s a great plot for a book) Then you’d understand that this isn’t about special rights,its about equal protection under the law. That’s in the Constitution somewhere, last time I checked.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 6:38 am:
== I don’t think we should lightly redefine marriage; it is an institution that has existed for millennia and it is the basic building block of society. ==
FACT CHECK: Actually, in Christian society, government didn’t regulate marriage at all until about the 15th Century. Prior to that, marriage was considered a wholly private affair that was performed without ceremony.
And it wasn’t until the mid-15th Century that the Holy Catholic Church defined marriage as being “between a man and a woman.”
While the Jewish understanding of marriage as being for “procreation” is much closer to the popular right-wing definition of marriage today, its worth noting that the Old Testament definition of “adultery” only applied to married women, and married Jewish men were allowed to have as many sexual partners as they pleased (provided they weren’t married to someone else, of course).
And lets not forget that under Islamic law — the most common religion practiced in the world — marriage is between a man and up to four women.
Should I go on?
- Lee - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 8:12 am:
“what states are going to gay marriage by ref? Again, my point was that if such a majority approved, this gay marriage/civil unions would be approved at year ballot box. Rather, they have to be rushed thru (Garcia admitted as much) or legislatively enacted from the bench.”
SangamoGOP — that’s a real stretch of an argument (though barely intelligible, so maybe I’m not following). By that logic, do you believe all legislation should be passed by referendum instead of through representational democracy? Also, again, you need to get your facts straight. They don’t have to be rushed through or enacted through the judiciary — you’re just citing a couple extreme examples. California enacted its domestic partnerships with the same rights as civil unions through the elected legislature, not through the judiciary. Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, DC, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Colorado all have also passed some kind of legislation to provide equal civil rights without going through the courts. The fact that you’re unaware of these many examples where it went through the legislature with popular support just goes to show how uncontroversial this is and how much support it has.
- Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 11:22 am:
The hostility to Judeo-Christian morality on this thread is truly remarkable.
Evidently, the question of whether a majority of Illinoisans support same-sex civil unions or gay “marriage” is shortly to be put to the test.
It’ll make a lovely wedge issue for Republicans in Cook County.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 11:23 am:
You’re looking for hostility where none exists. Stop it.
- Lee - Friday, May 22, 09 @ 8:44 pm:
“The hostility to Judeo-Christian morality on this thread is truly remarkable.”
I can see how Christians might feel threatened by the fact that society is questioning some of the Christian norms that have often been taken for granted in the past. Our society has been hostile toward homosexuals for so long that the shift toward love and acceptance is sure to shake some people up. But I doubt most people here are hostile toward Christian morality. I grew up in a Christian family and have a great respect for Christianity. And I’m also certain that most Christians disagree about the meaning of “Judeo-Christian morality.”