* The House Executive Committee has always been tightly controlled. Leadership sends bills there to pass, or fail, depending on what leadership wants. And while gay marriage passed Exec yesterday, it was a close, 6-5 vote, with one Democrat voting against it and another voting for it just to advance it to the floor. That vote shows the problems the bill faces in the full chamber…
The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act advanced out of the House Executive Committee by a 6-5 vote with the panel’s four Republicans voting against the plan. State Rep. Eddie Jackson (D-East St. Louis) also voted “no,” the lone Democrat on the panel to do so. […]
Harris assembled a pair of high-powered black ministers in a bid to help shore up shaky support among some African-American legislators like Jackson. The legislation is backed by Gov. Pat Quinn and Mayor Rahm Emanuel and already has passed the Senate.
Testifying in support of the bill were the Rev. R. Herbert Martin, former Mayor Harold Washington’s minister, and the Rev. Otis Moss III, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, which is President Obama’s former church on the South Side. […]
Beyond Jackson, there were other fissures within the Democratic Party. Harris’ bill drew opposition from state Rep. Luis Arroyo (D-Chicago), who voted to let the legislation move to the House floor but said he likely wouldn’t be a supporter once it’s called for a final vote.
“I don’t think I could vote for this bill on the floor of the House because of my religious beliefs and because of the churches in my district I represent and support,” Arroyo said.
* The roll call…
Voting for the bill were Daniel Burke, Robert Rita, Greg Harris (replacing Edward Acevedo), Toni Berrios, Keith Farnham and Luis Arroyo.
Voting “no” was Mike Bost (replacing Ed Sullivan, Jr.), Renee Kosel, Joe Sosnowski, Michael Tryon and Democrat Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr.
* Related…
* VIDEO: 2-26-13 House Executive Committee
* Gay marriage moves to state House on 6-5 vote
* Illinois House committee advances gay marriage bill
* Editorial: Ill. moves toward gay marriage as state GOP self-destructs: So go ahead and oust Brady. Chalk it up as yet another self-destructive act by Illinois’ Republican Party.
LIVE special session coverage...
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 9:50 am:
Love your commitment to civil rights and equality, Rep. Arroyo. Let us know what we can do to help when your constituents claim to have been treated unfairly. We will be sure to remember you.
- Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 9:57 am:
What Skeeter said.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:03 am:
Here is a question.
If it does not pass the house, who wears the jacket? Is the Democrats since it will take a few of them voting no or is the Republicans since virtually all (or all of them) will vote no?
- Esquire - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:05 am:
The Trinity United Church of Christ is a gay friendly congregation? Who would have guessed that.
Is there anything to be inferred from Greg Harris being substituted on to the committee for Edward Acevedo or is this a routine matter?
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:07 am:
I saw the debate online including the ugliness from opponents. That vote was definitely too close for comfort. I truly hope they have the votes at this point, but I am concerned. Yesterday I predicted it passes with 60. I’ll stick with that.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:15 am:
Tough sledding ahead. People often underestimate the splits in both the Black and Hispanic caucuses over this issue. Republican votes are needed to pass the marriage bill.
Opposition is driven primarily by church-based lobbying, — along with just a few of the “this will lead to the end of civilization, just like it destroyed the Roman Empire” nut case arguments, like we previously heard on the House floor.
One tactic might be in play: to trade for gun legislation with some Republicans, who aren’t dead set against the marriage equality bill on religious grounds.
G. Harris knows how to win responsibly. How long it will take is unclear.
- Siwash - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:23 am:
This nonsense needs to end. There is no “right” to marriage; it is a social privilege. Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children. Bad families; and we still—perhaps due to heavy-handed advocacy–do not understand the full nature of this sexual disorder.
Instead, like it or not, you and I are getting this rammed down our throats!
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:26 am:
- because of the churches in my district I represent and support -
Please, don’t try to make this about the district Rep. Arroyo. You’re surrounded on all sides by representatives that support marriage equality. Even a former Republican south of you pledged support.
Either admit you don’t like gay folks or join your colleagues on the right side of history.
- Siwash - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:26 am:
I object to the threats of violence the homosexual activists have used to advance their goals over the years, and the obvious disregard of science and research. I object to the Democratic party demanding campaign funds for these votes, which are SO anti-social.
I object to, to the bullying and steamrolling going on with this. . . with the loss of vision, with efforts to turn people’s eyes aware from the heavy social damage that this will create. . . as well as expensive thought-policing on ideological grounds.
No, I’m not a conservative, but a moderate who has studied this sorely distressing issue.
- Darienite - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:27 am:
=”Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children.”=
Can you name your source of proof?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:27 am:
===rammed down our throats===
Who, exactly, is getting what, exactly, rammed down their throats? This is a legislative body.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:28 am:
- Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children. -
Apparently this proof is so well known you chose not to share it? Or are you one of the examples of the damaged child?
Get a grip, and a clue, and find somewhere else to spew your hatred.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:28 am:
Si,
That’s interesting. I’m not aware of those studies. Could you post them?
Also, could you spell out why somebody else getting married impacts your own in any way? Do you think your wife will leave you for a woman?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:31 am:
===No, I’m not a conservative, but a moderate===
Moderates don’t use the tone you use and make the sort of baseless accusations you make. So, either tone down your mouth and back up what you say or go elsewhere with your trash.
- ChicagoR - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:31 am:
“There is no “right” to marriage; it is a social privilege.”
Ok, fine. Let’s start with yours. We’ll pass a law that says you can’t get married or have any of the many attached rights and privileges. Then we’ll see how you feel.
- SSM FTW - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:32 am:
Did any of you vote for Mitt Romney since he effectively brought SSM to Massachusetts?
Didn’t think so.
Not on of you here will become a Republican or vote for one over SSM.
Side show over.
- Shoeless - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:35 am:
Let same-sex couples carry concealed weapons.
Seriously though, is it possible that some trading can go on, such as a gun (not necessarily concealed carry) vote for a SSM vote?
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:39 am:
Esquire, it’s a routine matter. Acevado was endorsed by IL Equality this last cycle, so he was a likely yes in committee. What’s strange is Arroyo saying he’ll vote no on the floor since he was also endorsed by IL Equality this cycle.
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Where-is-your-state-rep-on-marriage-equality-/41405.html
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:40 am:
===Did any of you vote for Mitt Romney since he effectively brought SSM to Massachusetts?
Didn’t think so.===
Maybe Mitt forgot THAT binder to explain all his Gay Friends?
Social issues, Obama v. Romney, SSM notwithstanding, was not going to bring more votes to Romney versus Obama …
However …
The more Obama painted Romney as elitist, out of touch, extreme, and “pure” … the more Moderates, Romney LOST.
Just sayin …
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:42 am:
===Moderates don’t use the tone you use and make the sort of baseless accusations you make. So, either tone down your mouth and back up what you say or go elsewhere with your trash.===
As a “moderate”, but a proud member of the GOP, I thank you Rich.
Amen.
- B2Chicago - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:49 am:
Arroyo’s vote was disappointing and you could tell (wishful thinking?) he was conflicted and didn’t fully endorse what he was saying.
Speaking of violence by homosexuals, I was surprised that Deb Mell didn’t back-hand him after that vote since she was sitting next to him.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:57 am:
We all like to **think** we are moderates…
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 10:58 am:
===We all like to **think** we are moderates… ===
That was priceless, well played.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:09 am:
Will there be any GOP votes? I’m surprised there was only one in the Senate.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 11:29 am:
===Will there be any GOP votes? I’m surprised there was only one in the Senate.===
The “Over/Under” is 1 1/2. I am going “Under” with One… That gives me no solace to my Party’s future.
“64 of 66 GOP Members voted for Intolerance. Maybe … the ILGOP is just to extreme … for Illinois”
Nah, we won’t see that …Ask Bill Brady about being painted “extreme”, then multiply THAT for an entire PARTY, for the entire CYCLE.
Yikes!
To your question, - wordslinger -, when Madigan took out the likes of Saviano and other moderates, I do not think there are any votes left from the Civil Union vote, is there?
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
@SSM FTW
Mitt Romney didn’t effectively bring same-sex marriage to Massachusetts. He was clearly and explicitly against it.
http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/same-sex-marriage/
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
Precinct Captain is right. From the LA Times…
===Among his moves: resurrecting a 90-year-old state law, aimed in part at preventing interracial marriage, to keep same-sex couples from flocking to Massachusetts for weddings.===
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/29/nation/la-na-romney-gay-marriage-20120430
Let’s move along now, please.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
I will be watching Rep. Harris and his cobbling of the 60 votes needed, given the dynamic of the Super-Majority in his Caucus, and the lack of support from the HGOP, specifically to the Bill.
Can Harris get 1 or more HGOP votes for the Bill AND get 56-57 soild Dem votes out of his diverse Caucus’ veiw on this subject?
This is going to be on “simmer” for a lot longer than maybe any of us think(?) This is going to be as interesting as it gets, and might even come down to arm-twisting on the floor during “debate”.
- Raymond - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
It’s tough to know where to begin with the far-right’s demagoguing on this issue, but my favorite gem from last night’s committee was the notion that legalizing same-sex marriage would somehow or another validate inner-city broken families because, if I followed the “logic,” the state would lose the authority to forcibly reunite parentless kids with their parents. Woo-wee.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 1:20 pm:
“Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children.”
We have ample proof that heterosexuals raise damaged children. It still shouldn’t stop them from having the right to marry.
- jaranath - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 2:44 pm:
FWIW, the research people like Siwash like to cite tends to be panned by the vast majority of scientists as bad, misinterpreted, pseudoscientific, or outright fraudulent. I would bet Siwash is thinking of the Regnerus study mentioned by a commenter yesterday, or some of the noise it generated. That one is a classic example of poor science and may constitute scientific fraud on a few levels.
Science is about understanding how we know what we think we know. Unfortunately far too many people crave science’s hard-won air of respected authority yet have little knowledge of or patience for the techniques that won it.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:42 pm:
==Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children.==
My 8th grade daughter recently wrote an essay for school and discovered that the research on children shows exactly the opposite. And she cited her references. (Alas, I do not have her paper, but I did look up her sources and they were legit.)
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:48 pm:
==Like it or not, we have proof that homosexual couples acting as parents raise damaged children.==
That’s a despicable statement and if you had any guts or brains you’d try to back it up.
Do you spend your days peeking in your neighbors bedroom windows, making sure they’re doing things the “right way.”
What’s your hangup, dude?
Mind your own business, and you won’t be minding mine. Mind your own business and it will keep you busy all the time.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
===do not understand the full nature of this sexual disorder.===
I missed this … but you want it to go … THERE?
Of all things, to say that its a ….’disorder’ is quite possibly the most nausiating and ignorant (look up the definition, I am not insulting you!) thing you can have as a crutch to your stance.
- jaranath - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:12 pm:
Oswego Willy:
I gave up on defending the definition of ignorant a good while ago. If someone wants to take it as an insult, I figure the word is equally appropriate. ;)
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
- jaranath -,
Hey, thanks. I figured, “Maybe give a disclaimer, a courtesy.”
You may be on to something with that thought. I will keep that in mind.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:47 pm:
Looks like trouble ahead–this Bill’s passage is anything but a gimme, so long as same-sex marriage remains a split, highly-charged emotional and spiritual, and, yes, even quite divIsive issue among Illinoisans. Probably the most prudent thing to do for now would be to lay off, and stick with Civil Unions, but, of course, the Zealots in Support will have nothing to do with that!
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:52 pm:
Sure, either that or make people vote and then primary any Dems would vote against it.
Ignore basic human rights, or make people take a stand.
One or the other.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 5:54 pm:
By the way, it seems that “People telling others whether they can marry” would seem like zealots, since I can’t figure out why somebody’s marriage would impact me at all.
Maybe you can flesh out that “zealot” comment a bit. As used, it seems confusing.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:06 pm:
So “same-sex marriage remains a split, highly-charged emotional and spiritualsame-sex marriage remains a split, highly-charged emotional and spiritual, and, yes, even quite divIsive issue among Illinoisans.–
Wow, after all that, it’s “quite divisive,” too?
That reminds me of one of the best from RJD:
“The have vilified me,
They have crucified me,
they have gone as far as to criticize me.”
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:13 pm:
Just the way,etc….
Just to keep things straight, would you be considered a “Zealot in Opposition?”
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:20 pm:
===Just to keep things straight, would you be considered a “Zealot in Opposition?”===
That made me laugh! Well said.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 6:34 pm:
AA-nope. But I’m sure not excited about it either. Oh, and “ZIO,” by the way, WAS a pretty funny term to use. Hardy har har…!
- park - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 7:31 pm:
The issue is before the US Supreme Court. Just wait for their decision, all the political cover the GA will need.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Feb 27, 13 @ 8:32 pm:
Today’s blog comments are pretty telling. Where is the serious opposition to same sex marriage? This issue is flipping to pro in a remarkably rapid manner. More people are recognizing that they have neighbors, friends and relatives who would like to get married and cannot, and they can think of no good reason to oppose SSM for their friends.
If Harris cannot pass the bill this year, I expect it will pass soon. If not this GA, the next.