Gay marriage roundup
Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The publisher of the Windy City Times is demanding a veto session vote on gay marriage…
A lot of people have called me naive ( and worse ) when it comes to pushing for a vote in May—and now. But I am not alone in wanting to know where people stand. They do not need more time to decide if they have courage. You either have it or you don’t. If your career is more important than your integrity, or than doing what is right, than maybe you are in the wrong profession. In the 1980s Chicago City Council, the community pressed multiple times for a vote on the gay-rights law, and each time more politicians joined the side of justice. But we had to start with a vote to know where to press for change. […]
Let me be clear: There is a lot more to lose here if they delay a vote than if they lose a vote. There is far more courage in fighting for what is right and losing than staying on the sidelines. If we lose, we will fight another day ( and encourage people to get married in other states in the meantime ). And if a similar bill returns next spring, and passes after a lot more work, it would start the same time as if it were to have passed this fall with a simple majority. But we do not want that.
What do we want? A vote. When do we want it? This fall.
* Others are trying to tamp down expectations. An article from Windy City Times…
It’s a matter of strategy and not an issue of support, say advocates, but sponsors and leaders might wait to call for a vote on marriage equality until winter, despite promises to push for this fall.
John Kohlhepp, campaign manager for Illinois Unites for Marriage, told Windy City Times that leaders have their sights set on the fall veto session. But he added that the team is also debating holding off on a vote until January, a move that would give the bill an earlier effective date but might raise eyebrows among supporters who expected to see a vote sooner.
“Everything in our whole strategy is pushing for a vote in veto session,” Kohlhepp said. But, he added, coalition leaders have not ruled out push during regular session.
If passed during the legislature’s veto session, SB10, the marriage equality bill, would not take effect until June. But if sponsors pass it in January during regular session, it can go into effect the following month. That could mean fewer months of waiting for same-sex couples anxious to see marriage in Illinois.
My best guess would be next May, safely after the primary. But, heck, I could be quite wrong. Your guess?
* Leader Durkin thinks it’ll pass eventually…
The new leader of Illinois House Republicans says the writing seems to be on the wall for marriage equality in the state. House Minority Leader Jim Durkin said his personal religious convictions cause him to oppose gay marriage, but he acknowledged the likelihood it may someday be the law of the land.
“They’ve been able to achieve a lot in a very short amount of time. We just got to go back…a little bit of history…back in the last lame duck session, where they produced an income tax increase, repealed the death penalty, and passed a civil union bill within a 48-hour period with just Democratic votes.”
While Durkin points out the Democrats huge majorities in Springfield, he cautions same-sex marriage is not a Democratic or Republican issue.
* But Zorn prefers a judicial solution…
Gay marriage is not a right to be granted or conferred by a newly generous majority. It’s a right to be recognized. At last and forever.
* In other news, Rep. Greg Harris, Ald. Deb Mell, Thomas More Society senior counsel Peter Breen and Catholic Conference of Illinois executive director Robert Gilligan debated gay marriage in Chicago last night. Skip ahead to about the 8-minute mark. Watch…
* And the Illinois Family is planning a veto session lobby day and hopes to bring thousands of folks to Springfield. Here’s a promo video…
* Related…
* Military Veterans Join Push for Illinois Gay Marriage
* Gay pastor finds new ministry in marriage fight
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 11:57 am:
If there is any question as to what the Slytherin House Republicans are doing, and why “Peter Breen” feels the need for “purity” against Sandy Pihos, because Rep. Pihos voted for Mike Madigan for Speaker, and is a “yes” for SSM, and …
That’s right, Pihos did neither, but Peter Breen the Lawyer for Slytherin House Republicans everywhere I guess feels the need for the “purity”.
I am hoping none, not ONE of the HGOP Caucus that voted unanimously for Leader Durkin is backing Peter Breen over a colleague….
If that/those HGOP Member(s) turn on their new Leader and “force” Leader Durkin to spend monies against a “purity” run that is back by members of the Caucus …that kinda stuff should be beaten back, and maybe some Caucus justice would be in order, I mean, turning against a HGOP Colleague for …”purity” … seems like a good place to remind everyone, “Hey, we are in this together…”
Go be that “Pure” candidate, Peter Breen, and let’s see those Slytherin House Republicans who are willing to poison the good beginnings Leader Durkin thought … he had.
- mm - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 11:58 am:
I don’t know why people get so upset about allowing same-sex marriage. As a straight person I can confidently say it would do nothing to negatively impact my life. The government should not be involved in people’s bedrooms.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:01 pm:
If Durkin thinks its only a matter of time, I hope he’s willing to protect his members who would like to vote their consciences on this issue.
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:02 pm:
Could someone tell Durkie Marriage Equality is amending IL law not his religion?
BTW which religion does Durkie use for his cover? One that advocates inequality? We would quit that one Durkie
The merciful God encourages treating all as equal.
- GV - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
Veteran checking in. I emailed my rep, Sue Scherer, to tell her to come off the fence in this debate. Why? Because of all the rights denied spouses of military members in civil unions that are granted to spouses of military members in same sex marriage.
Her response? She didn’t respond.
- Wensicia - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
What your religion allows you to believe or not to believe has nothing to do with your job as an elected official.
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:10 pm:
== repealed the death penalty, and passed a civil unions bill within a 48-hour period with just Democratic votes.”
Leader Durkin’s memory fails him. There were a few brave Republicans who voted for both bills. The late Rep. Beaubien gave an impassioned speech for the civil unions bill. I believe Reps. Coulson and Mulligan also supported civil unions. The death penalty repeal also attracted a few Republicans including Rep. Sullivan and Senators Johnson and Duffy.
The fact is that almost all controversial bills have historically had bipartisan support.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:20 pm:
- reformer -,
The “battle” in My Party for the Caucus, especially in the HGOP Caucus is this;
Which “Caucus” makeup gives REpublicans the BEST shot at governing?
A “Pure, Slythrin” Caucus, based on Blood Oaths and litmus tests, and let the competitive districts fall…
Or…
Build a caucus of “Bernie Petersens and Rosemary Mulligans”, “Beth Colsons and Maureen Murphys”, “Peter Roskams … and Mark Beaubiens”
That is the battle - Purity or Majority, testing or inclusion.
Leader Durkin will have his hands full. In reality, He shouldn’t.
- Hans Sanity - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:26 pm:
Regarding Eric Zorn’s comment shown above: “…a right to be granted or conferred by a newly generous majority…”:
Don’t those guys in robes still vote?
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of their decisions still reflect “..prevailing whims or local prejudices” too,
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:27 pm:
–safely after the primary–
Yup.
As far as the comment about the religion side of it. Their religious beliefs is what a lot of people base their moral compass and life on. Asking a politician (or any many) to vote against his core beliefs is silly. And just because you disagree with their religious beliefs doesn’t mean much. Denigrating their beliefs is no way to win the argument.
(this from a SSM supporter)
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
Somewhat related, given the Chicago Catholic hierarchy’s lead role in opposition to gay marriage and the alleged threat to “religious liberty,” another remarkable interview from Pope Francis.
–Pope Francis cranked up his charm offensive on the world outside the Vatican on Tuesday, saying in the second widely shared media interview in two weeks that each person “must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them” and calling efforts to convert people to Christianity “solemn nonsense.”
The Vatican’s head seemed intent on distancing himself from its power, saying church leaders “have often been narcissists” and “clericalism should not have anything to do with Christianity.”–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/pope-francis-stirs-debate-yet-again-with-interview-with-an-atheist-italian-journalist/2013/10/01/9e7a6790-2acb-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_print.html
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
The death penalty repeal was SB 3539. It got the minimum 60 votes in the House, so the six GOP votes were indispensable. Republican YES votes were cast by Beaubien, Biggins, Osmond, Pritchard, Saviano and Sullivan. Durkin was a NO vote.
In the Senate, GOP YES votes came from Duffy, Johson and Sandack.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/house/09600SB3539_01062011_010000.pdf
http://ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/senate/09600SB3539_01112011_005000C.pdf
- Just Me - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:23 pm:
Yeah, we should always let religious beliefs tell us how to treat other people.
Rich, maybe we should have a QOTD on whether to call the bill if they aren’t 100% confident they have the votes.
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
The civil unions bill was SB 1716. It passed with just 61 votes in the House, so the six GOP Yes votes were indispensable: Bassi, Beaubien, Black, Coulson, Mulligan, and Saviano.
Oh, and civil unions passed in December, not in January “within a 48-hour period” as the income tax and abolition, Durkin’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory.asp?GA=96&DocNum=1716&DocTypeID=SB&GAId=10&LegID=44423&SessionID=76
- Belle - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:36 pm:
Considering that marriage is not particularly successful in the straight community, I don’t understand the pre-occupation with it. If Gay people want to try it (knowing they have less than a 50% chance of making it work), what’s the big fuss? It’s really very silly to hold people back.
- yepperdo - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
I noticed how they slipped LaShawn Ford in there.
- orzo - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
Has anyone ever made an argument against SSM w/o referring to religion, the Bible, or God? Have any of those opposed ever offered a credible non-religious reason to be against it?
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:56 pm:
How about defending equality under the law?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 1:59 pm:
I watched the Illinois Family Institute video. It’s offensive in so many ways. These are just a few of the quotes from Mr. Smith.
“Good American citizens” came to Springfield “to defend marriage.” So if you are for gay marriage you aren’t a “good American citizen?” And please, please, please somebody tell me what we are defending marriage from? I wish Mr. Smith and others would tell me how their marriage or anybody else will be affected by allowing gay marriage.
“Don’t even think about redefining marriage!!!” (yes he was very adamant).
“For the sake of children, for the sake of religious liberty, for the sake of marriage.” That is the most asinine thing he could possibly say. Allowing gay marriage doesn’t do one bit of harm to children. And this argument that the religious right keeps making about religious liberty is completely ridiculous. Somewhere along the line they came to believe that anything that doesn’t conform to their religious beliefs violates their liberty. I’ve got news for them. Their religion is their religion and doesn’t entitle them to special treatment just because they disagree with something. Nobody - NOBODY - is forcing them to agree or approve of gay marriage. And to those of you that will throw out the silly arguments about religious people being forced to participate in gay marriages by providing cakes, or tuxedos, or whatever else, I say to you tough. If you are going to operate a business then you don’t get to discriminate against somebody just because they are gay. I’m not sure why you think gay is some special category you can discriminate against.
I honestly have no idea what to think when I see Mr. Smith talking about this stuff. He says over and over he has nothing against gay people. Could have fooled me. To me he borders on a hate monger.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
==Their religious beliefs is what a lot of people base their moral compass and life on.==
Agreed and I don’t have a problem with that. Nobody is forcing them to change their beliefs. But they don’t get to use those beliefs to discriminate in the operation of their business like many of them believe they should be able to do.
In my opinion these people need to stop being busy-bodies and stay out of other people’s business.
- Just Me - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 2:27 pm:
@Orzo, their argument is that children are best raised by a mother and a father. They ignore the following:
1. While studies point out that two parents are better than one, no study has proven that two parents of different genders are better than two parents of the same gender (unless you could the studies that are done by opponents of same sex marriage, which are far from neutral studies).
2. Even if you ignore Point #1, two people of the same gender can’t create a child without some outside help (something that is already legal in Illinois and the Harris bill does not change). Allowing them to get married legally doesn’t alter the biology of giving birth to someone.
- otoh - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 2:29 pm:
I doubt this talk will move many needles but I was shocked how hard Rep. Mell had to work searching for words to express her opinions throughout. Gilligan did a better job speaking to her opinions than she did for herself near the start. She clearly could not keep up. Harris had his info cleanly and clearly presented to pick up the slack.
Overall Dold did a good job on balance. Thanks for posting the video.
- Anon. - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 2:47 pm:
==But they don’t get to use those beliefs to discriminate in the operation of their business like many of them believe they should be able to do.
In my opinion these people need to stop being busy-bodies and stay out of other people’s business.==
You don’t see the contradiction in those two sentences? I support SSM, but I also understand that forcing a florist to provide flowers at the celebration of a ceremony they disagree with is inserting my opinion into their business, and don’t know of any principled basis on which to say “my beliefs can be imposed on you, but not vice versa.”
- Lee - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
I’ve given up on our incompetent legislature and am upgrading my second-class-citizen civil union to a marriage on my next trip to Maryland this fall, so I can get basic federal rights. It’s ridiculous we can’t pass this here, and Illinois couples who can’t afford to take a trip to another state to get married will be stuck paying the gay tax again for the 2013 tax year.
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 3:19 pm:
—
In my opinion these people need to stop being busy-bodies and stay out of other people’s business.
—
Could be said about so many things the legislators deal with…
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
@Anon:
They run a business. Nobody is forcing them to run that business. I’m not being intrusive to expect them to operate their business in a non-discriminatory way. It’s why we have laws to prevent that and thank goodness we do if you think it’s ok to not serve somebody just because they are gay. To suggest that these businesses should be able to tell a gay person to go fly a kite is ludicrous. If you do that then you have to allow businesses to discriminate against anybody they don’t happen to like or who they happen to disagree with.
You shouldn’t operate a business if serving gay people makes you that uncomfortable. Non-discrimination shouldn’t be a difficult concept to understand.
And, just for my own sake, do you honestly believe a florist should be allowed to not serve a gay person? Seriously? That is the kind of asinine thinking I was talking about.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 5:12 pm:
I catered my way through college, and the only people we ever discriminated against were the ones with a history of not paying their caterers. And believe me, the competitors talk to each other about that. We would never tell a customer ‘no,’ we would just be ‘busy.’
Anyone who turns away business over their beliefs deserves that bankruptcy that’s headed their way.
- low level - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 7:05 pm:
He cites what the Chicago City Council did in the ’80s.
How many times am I going to have to remind my fellow Chicagoans that the state Legislature is completely different than the state House??
In fact, one could logically argue that pretty much nothing the City Council does can be applied to other legislative bodies in the Western world.
(The people that Rod brought with him to Springfield never ever learned this. )
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 8:30 pm:
Things have been so contentious lately down there in Springfield and NO sign this issue has become any LESS contentious and turbulent…it really would not be wise to force a vote in the Fall and TAKE the fall on it…it’d be better to play it out and debate it further–i.e. deal with it in the Spring….
- cod - Wednesday, Oct 2, 13 @ 9:13 pm:
Jeez. Why are some people so perversely obsessed with regulating what other people do with their sexual organs? Don’t they have better things to think about?