Two coalitions come together on gay marriage
Thursday, Dec 20, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Two “new” coalitions have been formed around the gay marriage push. The opponents usually work together on Statehouse issues…
The “Coalition to Protect Children and Marriage”, announced on Tuesday, includes the Illinois Family Institute, Eagle Forum of Illinois, Abstinence and Marriage Partnership, Illinois Citizens for Life PAC, Lake County Right to Life, Concerned Christian Americans and Family-Pac.
Paul Caprio, director of Family-Pac, said that the coalition would use the resources of those organizations to lobby against same-sex marriage in Illinois.
Not included in the coalition, however, is the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which is somewhat interesting.
* The pro-gay marriage side announced a new coalition today [fixed link]. Its members include groups that don’t usually work on gay rights, including…
AFSCME Council 31
Chicago Bar Association
Chicago Jobs with Justice
Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Illinois State Bar Association
SEIU
United Electrical Workers, Western Region
* The inclusion of the American Academy of Pediatrics should help counter the opposition’s main argument, which seems to currently be focusing on “the children.” From a press release…
Paul Caprio, Director of Family-Pac, said, “Traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, our existing state law, developed and survived for thousands of years because it is the best familial arrangement for the protection of children and, therefore, for the future continuation of society.”
Said David Smith, Director of the Illinois Family Institute, “Government did not create marriage. It merely recognizes and promotes this type of relationship that exists and which protects the rights and serves the best interests of children and, therefore, of society. Research has consistently demonstrated that children fare best when raised, whenever possible, by their biological parents. The state has a vested interest in promoting this institution because it provides the ideal environment in which to raise the next generation of healthy and productive members of society.”
Said Penny Pullen, former state legislator and President of Eagle Forum of Illinois, “As foundational as the family is to our society and especially to the well-being of children, it would be both wrong and dangerous for our state to interfere with the family for the sake of a social experiment whose results we cannot know for decades. The risk to future generations is too high to take this chance.”
Mary Anne Hackett, President of Catholic Citizens of Illinois stated, “Only a marriage of heterosexual persons can produce children and secure the future of society. The protection of the lives and development of children must take priority over the personal gratification of even one single adult. The definition of natural marriage must be between one man and one woman, unchanged by whims and claims of equality.”
- Not It - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:40 am:
If government doesn’t create marriages than why do some straight couples get married before county judges at the courthouse?
If the purpose to get married is to raise children then why are their laws around spousal-benefits that don’t have anything to do with children? And why do people who are no longer able to have children allowed to get married?
- dave - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:42 am:
Link doesn’t work to the pro-marriage PDF.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:47 am:
Although I agree with the position taken on gay marriage, I’m disappointed that the Chicago Bar Association is taking any position.
The CBA and the ISBA need to stay out of political issues unless they directly impact the operation of the courts.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 11:51 am:
Just once I’d like to see the anti crowd tell the truth. Modern opposite sex marriage has been in its current form (adults who consent to marry each other as more or less equals) has been around roughly 100 years. It’s a legal contract that may or may not have some religious component, and the couple may procreate or not.
They just don’t want gay people to have the same civil rights as the rest of us.
- MrJM - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:04 pm:
The breadth of that anti-marriage coalition is amazing — it spans from right-wing busybodies all the way to extreme right-wing busybodies!
– MrJM
- Skeeter - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:06 pm:
I’m still waiting for the anti groups to tell me how somebody’s marriage impacts my own. Even if women can marry, I don’t expect my wife to leave me.
So far, the biggest impact on my life would be that I might have to buy a few more wedding gifts.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:18 pm:
Both coalitions should come together and fight for a referendum of the citizens of Illinois. Decide this issue concerning the very social fabric of society once and for all…
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:20 pm:
===the very social fabric of society===
How so? I can’t see how passing gay marriage rips it at all.
- youre-it - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
Said David Smith, Director of the Illinois Family Institute, “Government did not create marriage. It merely recognizes and promotes this type of relationship that exists and which protects the rights and serves the best interests of children and, therefore, of society. Research has consistently demonstrated that children fare best when raised, whenever possible, by their biological parents. The state has a vested interest in promoting this institution because it provides the ideal environment in which to raise the next generation of healthy and productive members of society.”
That seems like a pro gay marriage position to me.
- frustrated GOP - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:27 pm:
To the Bar question that’s easy. more marriage, more divorce, more legal bills. It’s a simple customer development issue.
Delete gay and insert inter-racial. It’s the same debate 40 and 50 years ago. Except, these people are even more out of touch with where we are at as a society today.
Merry Christmas.
- just sayin' - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:41 pm:
soon there won’t be any issues left for the ineffective conservative “movement” to lose on.
but a few will keep milking their remaining followers for money in the meantime.
- Ray Midge - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 12:50 pm:
If two people want to stand up in front of friends & family and make a mutual lifetime commitment of love and respect, who are we to judge? Why should the law treat them differently?
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:18 pm:
Rich,
The family, and marriage, predates the formation of political bodies. They form the very building blocks of society. It is from this premise that one could argue that gay marriage is inconsistent with the social fabric to which people have become accustomed. Notice I did not say that gay marriage should be allowed or prohibited, only that the people should decide this issue as opposed to 178 poobahs in Springfield, at which time the legislature should create the enabling legislation that supports the citizens will.
Very few issues fall into this approach, IMO, so don’t think that I am trying to cut out the idea of representative government. But the one thing about this approach is it involves ALL the citizens in the state, and provides some sort of consensus to what will undoubtedly be a controversial result.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:24 pm:
The gay dudes across the street who adopted the little girl, and the the gay ladies down the street who raised three swell kids, have somehow not ripped the social fabric of my “traditional” heterosexual marriage, family, neighborhood and community.
They’re good folks and good neighbors. I’m glad Penny Pullen doesn’t live on my block.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:25 pm:
===only that the people should decide this issue===
Then first you gotta change the IL Constitution. And that is just a pipe dream. So your argument is specious. Move along.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:32 pm:
Hey, Rich, you asked!
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
The other thing is, there is no such thing as ‘citizens’ of Illinois. You are a citizen (or not) of the United States. You are a resident of anything other than a country.
- Former Downstater - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
Rights for anyone should never be put up for a public vote. As I believe Rachel Maddow said (paraphrasing)- rights aren’t voted on, that’s why we call them rights.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
And why should ‘the people’ get to decide on the civil rights of one subset of the people, and not everyone’s?
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:42 pm:
“Only a marriage of heterosexual persons can produce children” - Seriously? The gay couples in my family must have missed that rule.
“Research has consistently demonstrated that children fare best when raised, whenever possible, by their biological parents.” - Does that mean families that involve a step parent, widowed, adoption, grandparents, single parent, or biological mother/father with partner are all bad options? In my family there are straight cousins who are terrible parents (3-4 marriages each) who could care less about being a parent, others who are doing just fine, and several gay partners who are the parents anyone would want. Amazing thing is all the kids are doing well. I am hitting 35 years of marriage with grown kids and fail to see how gay marriage would have the slightest effect on us.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:43 pm:
“Only a marriage of heterosexual persons can produce children” - Seriously? The gay couples in my family must have missed that rule.
“Research has consistently demonstrated that children fare best when raised, whenever possible, by their biological parents.” - Does that mean families that involve a step parent, widowed, adoption, grandparents, single parent, or biological mother/father with partner are all bad options? In my family there are straight cousins who are terrible parents (3-4 marriages each) who could care less about being a parent, others who are doing just fine, and several gay partners who are the parents anyone would want. Amazing thing is all the kids are doing well. I am hitting 35 years of marriage with grown kids and fail to see how gay marriage would have the slightest effect on us.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:44 pm:
–The family, and marriage, predates the formation of political bodies. They form the very building blocks of society.–
You sound like you know what you’re talking about. Please educate.
When and where was “marriage” established?
What were the first “political bodies” that it predated?
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:45 pm:
This is a nice surprise for me, to see a diverse coalition, including AFSCME, supporting gay marriage in Illinois. I support gay marriage and am glad to be part of this.
I don’t believe at all that gay marriage will threaten the fabric of society. After all, how many gay organizations are trying to repeal heterosexual marriage? I also don’t believe that the definition of marriage should never evolve. If we didn’t evolve, we would still be in caves.
- wishbone - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
“The breadth of that anti-marriage coalition is amazing — it spans from right-wing busybodies all the way to extreme right-wing busybodies!
– MrJM”
.
Thanks JM! Made my day
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:48 pm:
With such a huge proportion of births being out of wedlock now, isn’t the for the children argument kind of obsolete?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
–And why should ‘the people’ get to decide on the civil rights of one subset of the people, and not everyone’s? –
Perhaps Dr. Freud could explain that mindset. I can’t.
The whole idea of peeking in someone’s bedroom to judge what’s going on is really creepy. To try and justify it as some defense of society is bizarre.
- Nick Kruse - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 1:55 pm:
===Notice I did not say that gay marriage should be allowed or prohibited===
Yeah, I did notice that. You people who are so opposed to gay marriage are embarrassed by your own opposition, so you pretend that you aren’t on either side. Stay out of the debate, or announce what you believe.
===only that the people should decide this issue as opposed to 178 poobahs in Springfield, at which time the legislature should create the enabling legislation that supports the citizens will.===
Opponents of gay marriage weren’t calling for a public vote a few years ago. They were fine with trusting the “178 poobahs” then because the “poobahs” were on your side. Now that they aren’t, you think it should be a public vote. Civil rights shouldn’t be up for a vote.
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:02 pm:
Why in the world would ANYBODY fear the paper tiger that is the conservative “movement” as delineated by that coalition led by Caprio and David Smith? Besides fighting for media space, those two couldn’t organize a two-car funeral, let alone an effective political cause. How many elections do they have to lose before nobody cares?
As a wise old GOP pol told me once, “Be for what’s going to happen.”
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:05 pm:
I understand it’s not their main priority, but I’m surprised Personal PAC isn’t on the pro- list. Terry Cosgrove is brilliant.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:12 pm:
Government should get out of marriage…let everyone have a civil union and let the religions do what they want and call it “marriage”. The legal/secular interests and the sacred issues are different. Why the right-wing religion folks feel the need to impose the religion in law is frightening.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:28 pm:
There is always a subset of society that is afraid that their vision of civilization is collapsing before their eyes. (It’s probably why they poisoned Socrates.)
They pick someone to blame (usually political opponents), something to protect(like majority lifestyles), or something with which to protect themselves(guns or dogma). The common key driver is fear, aided by ignorance of history and human cultures.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:35 pm:
Has marriage been determined to be a US Constitutional right yet? I believe those cases are now moving through the Courts. I can live with whatever the decision is, can you?
- Skeeter - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:40 pm:
Cincy, why do you care?
How does it impact you in any way?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:46 pm:
Cincy, I’m surprised at you — you would allow the Supreme Court to decide the fate of the very building blocks of society, something that predates political bodies?
When did that all go down, again? You seemed to know.
- Ray Midge - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 2:49 pm:
Cincinnatus, go read Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said states could not prohibit mixed-race marriages. The case involved an interracial couple that were sentenced to a year in prison for, um, being married. The court said marriage was a fundamental civil right.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:32 pm:
Wordslinger,
Have no idea why you are choose to behave the way you do. In case you missed it, Constitutional Amendments 15 and 19 were required to settle those issues. Let’s have at it for Gay Rights. I have no problem with that approach.
Ray,
I said earlier there are cases right now percolating through the courts. Let’s let them happen, I’m willing to abide by the results, are you?
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:43 pm:
- I’m willing to abide by the results, are you? -
Guess we should have just left slavery at Dred Scott, eh? Darn that Lincoln fellow.
- LincolnLounger - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 3:55 pm:
Yes, let’s drag our heels waiting for molasses-like “progress” through the courts. Let’s not do the right thing until we’re absolutely forced. Let’s not look at polls that say that Americans under 40 favor gay marriage by upwards of 70%, according to Gallup. Let’s wait until we’ve swallowed every bitter drop of medicine before learning our electoral lessons. Let’s pretend to be “conservative” while dreaming up ways to tell Americans how to govern their bodies and personal relationships.
- Sunshine - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:14 pm:
Be very careful people. The next thing you know they will be wanting to fight right along side you to protect your rights….. oh, wait, they already do.
Never mind!
Alright, if you want to be gay and be accepted, and be able to marry you must use blue Christmas lights. All ungay people must walk on two legs.
Dang, that won’t work either.
How about we move on to something bigger like finding an honest politician. Now that is a worthy cause!
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 4:25 pm:
@Sunshine,
I had a coffee-spitting moment the other day about gays fighting in the military. Someone wrote that if gays fight and die for our freedom and want to engage in an intimate act with a pie, not only will the writer not condemn the gay people, but he or she will also bake them the pie.
- amalia - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 8:22 pm:
Mary Anne Hackett can kiss my heterosexual marriage’s ass. I’m off to have wild sex in a marriage without children.
- Capitol View - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 9:55 pm:
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Whatever and whoever it takes. None of government’s business.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 20, 12 @ 10:55 pm:
Way TMI, amalia. Just sayin.