Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Not gonna miss you at all
Next Post: It’s always somebody else’s fault
Posted in:
* The petulance of a weekend Windy City Times editorial about the failure of the gay marriage bill rivals that of the worst Tribune efforts on pensions. Let’s take a look at their goofier points…
[Rep. Greg Harris] made promises he could not keep. In politics, that can be a reason to step down. Harris, who has dedicated his career to LGBT and AIDS issues, deserves the chance to prove his strategy right. If he wins, we all win, and that is all that matters. But if he does not succeed in passing this in the veto session this fall, he should not run for re-election in 2014. To be clear, this is not a call for Harris to resign, but he will have lost the trust of the people he made commitments to, and it is very difficult to lead once that trust is gone.
In addition, Harris should step down now as chief sponsor of this legislation. He has proven he is tone deaf to the wishes of both the grassroots and leadership of this community. They almost all called for a vote “no matter what.” Instead, Harris chose to give cover to his political colleagues, rather than follow through on his own on-the-record promise to call for a vote by May 31.
Why did a vote matter now? Because for months, no hard count has been possible on who really was for or against this bill. This limbo caused confusion and depleted valuable resources lobbying dozens more representatives than necessary.
Harris said he has promises from certain reps they will vote for the bill this fall, but we have seen how political promises pan out.
What’s not clear is if it would have failed if the legislators had been forced to be on record. Several legislators said they believe some of their colleagues would have changed to “yes”—and indeed in other cities and states this has been the case. With four openly gay and lesbian representatives in the Illinois House as their colleagues, they have a much greater understanding of this battle.
Harris has said from Day One that he wouldn’t call the bill until he had the votes. Period. End of story.
Not to mention that calling a bill without enough votes to pass usually does a lot more harm than good. Just because a handful of political amateurs demand a vote so they can have a little closure doesn’t mean it should be done. This line of attack is completely absurd, particularly since the roll call was so far from passage by Friday that no last-minute switches would’ve helped. Instead, if history is any guide, the vote would’ve gone backwards. And that would’ve hurt far more.
Also, Rep. Harris is by far the most committed and able sponsor that marriage proponents will ever hope to get. Demanding that he give up sponsorship is unbelievably short-sighted. And demanding that he not run for reelection if he doesn’t pass the bill is just plain stupid and self-defeating.
The biggest difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats don’t allow their radical activist base to dictate strategy or tactics. This editorial, and the sentiment behind it, will undoubtedly be ignored.
* And blaming Harris ignores a whole lot of other problems. For instance…
Mounting pressure from the Chicago archdiocese and the African American Clergy Coalition is believed be partially responsible for the sudden lack of votes needed to pass the bill. Bishop Larry Trotter put out a statement which reads in part”
“Pastor James Meeks, Bishop Lance Davis and I are so proud of the God fearing Black Caucus members who withstood the pressure of the LGBT forces and allowed God’s word concerning marriage to remain between one man and one woman in Illinois,”
* We’ll see if this happens…
Before adjourning Friday night, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan did sign an extension, which now has August 31 as the deadline to pass the bill. If Governor Pat Quinn were to call a special summer session, the bill could be voted on then, otherwise it may have to wait until the fall.
* Related…
* Gay marriage bill fails to go to vote in Illinois House: Harris said efforts weren’t helped by Quinn’s repeated demands to call the bill in recent weeks. Quinn insisted there were enough votes to pass the bill, a situation Harris noted could peel votes off if lawmakers felt their “yes” wasn’t needed to get the measure over the top.
* Same-sex marriage sponsor vows to press ahead after blowback for not seeking House vote
* Legislature adjourns without marriage vote
* Illinois’ same-sex marriage failure: Glitch or bellwether?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Not gonna miss you at all
Next Post: It’s always somebody else’s fault
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The very unexpected/interesting coalition of African American ministers, the Black caucus, and downstate bible thumpers is going to continue to cause difficulty in the passage of gay marriage in IL. Hang in there…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:07 am
Will the marriage equality bill require 71 votes if the vote were to occur in November, as opposed to next January?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:10 am
Rick Garcia called out Harris as essentially a puppet of Mike Madigan.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:12 am
===He has proven he is tone deaf to the wishes of both the grassroots and leadership of this community.===
Sadly, if the “writer” knew anything about the General Assembly, its interworkings and Greg Harris since he has been IN the General Assembly, this Dopiness would not have been written.
That is pretty embarrassing to type, let alone believe.
===They almost all called for a vote “no matter what.” Instead, Harris chose to give cover to his political colleagues, rather than follow through on his own on-the-record promise to call for a vote by May 31.===
That is called being;
Politcally savy.
Why alienate possible “allies”, when another vote will come about when Greg Harris is going to need them when it matters.
As a member of the GOP, I am glad, because we now have some time to look at the 18-1 agsainst SSM in the IL Senate, and see to make sure My Party can get over the labe of “intolerence” by trying to get votes on the Bill.
Rep, Harris is NO “Vote Countula”. Rep. Harris is one of the few in his class that has moved up and seen how to get things done under the Dome.
Take a breath, people. If there is any blame to go around, its the “grassroots” for not understanding what was/is going on, and not doing the legwork necessary to assist Rep. Harris. there were too many days of “famous people”, and pontificating. All is not lost for you, just do your work, and stop leaving all the blame on Rep. Harris’ feet.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:12 am
Their political misunderstanding is showing. . .
Comment by tubbfan Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:13 am
here’s my “favorite” comment from a WUIS site article…
GARCIA: “All of a sudden you have all these old, rich white guys running around spreading their money to other white guys who know nothing. And that is really why we lost.”
Rick Garcia, gak.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:13 am
SSM is a lot like CCW. very emotional. You will get those that see it as a civil rights/individual rights issue and those that see it as the potential to end to the world.
Both need to chill a little.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:14 am
Leaders of the movement for same sex marriage are usually more savvy than this. Rick Garcia and others need to take a deep breath. It’s a long struggle but it’s clear that they are going to prevail eventually, both at the state and national levels, and sooner rather than later. Garcia should apologize and move on.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:17 am
Rep. Harris played this poor hand as well as it could have been played. If the goofball activists got their way and he called a vote, not only would it have failed, it would have doomed marriage equality for the rest of this General Assembly. You simply don’t string your colleagues out on a tough vote like this knowing you don’t have the votes because they’ll never want to work with you again after that.
Harris ensured the bill remains alive. That was the best outcome he could get. He should be applauded and yet I’m hearing so many complaints from the Monday morning quarterback crowd it makes me wonder if they were watching the same game I was.
Great job Greg. Stay with it and tune out the noise from the ankle biters.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:18 am
The proponents of this legislation wanted a roll call vote; for the same reason that the elected officials did not.
The proponents wanted to expose their opponents on the record, so that they could know who to target and attempt to replace come election time.
Nobody is actually “on the record” with respect to an issue until it actually comes time to vote; and they are forced to take a stand.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:18 am
===Nobody is actually “on the record” with respect to an issue until it actually comes time to vote; and they are forced to take a stand.===
That is EXACTLY why My Party should be a bit worried, because the savy political move would be …
“Look at the SGOP - 18 GOP senators voting ‘no’ for the record, and a lone ‘yes’. The HGOP offered no help to Greg Harris, so we need to stop blaming fellow Democrats, and remember the GOP didn’t lift a finger.”
We have all summer to try and correct this narrative that is going to begin, and being loudly, and will not go away.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:24 am
Quinn’s demand to call for a vote, immediately, didn’t help SSM either.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:25 am
Capt Fax is right on with his analysis
Harris was right. A vote would have produced about 25-30 votes and doomed the future of the issue.
Garcia has been out touch for about three years so do not put much stock there
Advocates might want to extend their grassroots advocacy into African American neighborhoods.
How?
How about looking for college age LGBT folks home for the summer, start networking go have some sensible meeting with members of the Black Caucus
Try to line up some votes now. It might be fun to see who is paying Meeks and the other Revs. Perhaps they could be asked by the media.
AND maybe someone could connect with that Southside couple leaving out east and see if they might a little more than issue press releases
BTW did everyone notice that Time mag has tabbed Valarie Jarrett as one the 100 most powerful people in the frigging world?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:26 am
As much as I understand the desire to get folks on record in order to go after them…
The question remains, could you really do anything? Do you think you can take out an incumbent in a primary on this? Because unless you really think you can, don’t try.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:29 am
Guess they should of put it up for a vote and let it fail and kill the bill off so they would really have something to cry about.
Comment by cm Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:30 am
I don’t blame Harris at at all.
Where were the Big Hitters in the state Democratic Party — all of whom claimed support — to push this over the top with the super-majority?
If some Dems were scared of primaries, you’d think Obama, Durbin, Quinn, MJM, and Lisa Madigan could have assured them of the support, money and muscle to make sure that didn’t happen. This ain’t beanbag.
Cullerton got it through his chamber, no problemo.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:35 am
I think it was a bit early for the conclusions.
There is still a possibility in the Fall. Current members will be doing the voting. Why alienate them at this point?
However, no matter what the number show, a vote really does need to be taken before the next primaries. People need to go on the record.
In safe Dem districts, it would be helpful to know who is really on the side of Democratic ideals.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:36 am
Are the black caucus members just holding out for something for their communities in return for their support on this bill?
Comment by Mike M Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:39 am
“Garcia has been out touch for about three years so do not put much stock there”
Garcia has been out of touch for a lot longer than three years. He and his buddy Art Johnston are much of the reason it took Illinois so long to join other states in having an LGBT non-discrimination bill. I think they want full credit for anything that passes and that they try to destroy anyone who potentially might take away the limelight. Hence all this character assassination of Greg Harris.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:41 am
Stay strong, Rep. Harris. For every radical who would cut off his nose to spite his face, there are a dozen more of us who are very proud of you and ready to stand with you for the next round.
Comment by Anonymiss Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:50 am
Anonymous @10:10 - SB10 says it would take effect 30 days after signing. I understand that would mean it would take 71 votes to pass it this summer or fall. It would need an amendment to change the effective date and allow a majority vote for passage.
Comment by muon Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:52 am
A serious question….
You just don’t see this type of coalition (African American ministers, the Black caucus, downstate religious groups, and the Chicago archdiocese) all come together and HOLD together on an issue like gay marriage.
They’re had to be some sticking points, but unlike the CCW legislation, where there was compromise, nothing happened on gay marriage.
From reading all the posts on CCW, it was pretty easy to see where the sticking points were. Not so much on gay marriage.
There’s obviously issues that bound that religious coalition together, and it can’t just be that “if gay marriage passes, the world’s going to end tomorrow!”.
Before all the recriminations start over the ‘failed’ bill, maybe it’s time to take an unbiased look at where the folks on the other side are coming from.
Take a lesson from Todd V. on how to get it done.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:53 am
” Are the black caucus members just holding out for something for their communities in return for their support on this bill?”
Maybe, but don’t underestimate their ‘communities’ resistance to gay rights or acceptance. It’s culturally taboo to the community, so they need to listen to their base.
Comment by Happy Returns Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:54 am
After years of reading with no reason to comment, I need to speak: Greg Harris is the best. He represents us well and he is in for the long haul. If it is possible, and there is still work to do, he will get SSM through even as he continues to be an effective leader on a host of other justice issues.
Comment by UptownProgressive Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:55 am
Look, no one should blame Greg Harris. He is a smart, capable legislator who has his community and constituents in mind. I will blame the odd coalition of African American ministers, the Archdiocese of Chicago, and downstaters who are blocking this. But I think we are assured a special session, and this will get the votes, between now and November. Reps, such as Monique Davis who stated rudely, “I don’t see ém hanging!” however, need to be primaried. However, this is old news and just the latest example.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 10:56 am
=== Also, Rep. Harris is by far the most committed and able sponsor that marriage proponents will ever hope to get. Demanding that he give up sponsorship is unbelievably short-sighted. And demanding that he not run for reelection if he doesn’t pass the bill is just plain stupid and self-defeating. ===
Agreed.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:01 am
Never set your opposition in concrete, if you think they might be moved later.
Harris couldn’t have done this better. He’s one of the most responsible, most respected, and smartest legislator in Springfield.
People calling for a vote last week would have set the cause back.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:05 am
Rich: Isn’t STAR Bonds still the Worst.Idea.Ever?
Do I detect a Horseshoe Award category?
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:15 am
I remember Rep. Art Turner making a similar sad announcement: that he would not be calling legislation to abolish the death penalty because he knew he didn’t yet have the votes and he was not about to string out his friends.
For all those pointing fingers at Greg Harris: what did you actually do to help pass the bill?
I tire of progressives who complain about our democracy, yet are not willing to do the work.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:16 am
===Isn’t STAR Bonds still the Worst.Idea.Ever?===
It was the Worst. Bill. Ever.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:18 am
Politically speaking this isn’t a tough call.
If you want to go after and pressure the “no” votes on the gay marriage bill, umm, you can still do that. It’s not exactly a secret who they are, in Springfield. You can try and run primaries against them, or threaten them on this issue - but covertly. This might get some of them to change their political calculus, come November.
But you’d want to run primary opponents, or at least threaten to do so, for -other- ostensive reasons than they are anti-gay marriage. Because I don’t think a lot of these holdout voters are really quaking in their boots, about being primaried for being too pro gay marriage, back home in their districts, especially if this smacks of a challenger funded by a bunch of white liberals from Chicago’s North Side (who can be portrayed as expecting African-American reps to vote the way they’re told, when the White Liberal Powers That Be really want something … Yeah, that’s gonna work .. Or, better yet: rail on African-American legislators, because they fail to see the parallels between black civil rights struggles and the gay rights movement? Yeah. In their home districts, -that’ll- work, guaranteed …)
So - pressure them, maybe threaten to primary some of them, depending on the specific circumstances, and above all, keep working and lobbying them. Harris knows what he’s doing. Some very prominent members of the gay community in Chicago, clearly do not.
In the very long run, people aren’t going to much remember or care, if Illinois approved gay marriage in May of 2013 vs November of 2013. To be effective in politics, you need patience, as much as time and history and justice -are- on your side (and to be clear here, the pro gay marriage folks are manifestly on the right side of history).
Comment by ZC Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:19 am
Harris and the WCT publisher posted a joint statement on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/greg.harris.750?fref=ts
Comment by Raymond Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:29 am
“Garcia has been out of touch for a lot longer than three years. He and his buddy Art Johnston are much of the reason it took Illinois so long to join other states in having an LGBT non-discrimination bill.”
In January 2005, Illinois became the 14th state to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and just the sixth state to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. So, contrary to your assertion, Illinois was a bit ahead of the curve, especially for states in the heart of the country. And Garcia and Johnston are far from buddies, nor did they write the editorial in WCT, as neither one of them has ever been on particularly close terms with the editorial’s author. In fact, both of them have a history of working much more closely with Harris, a history that goes back decades. So much for character assassination, though.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:38 am
Here is what I don’t get about the ssm kerfuffle: why wasn’t there better coordination between Cullerton and Madigan?
Ssm wasn’t a “must do” like pension reform, so why did Cullerton push it ahead with the fire! ready! aim! ssm bill without checking with Madigan that the votes would be there in the House?
This was a tough vote in the Senate too because Rich’s pal Mike Jacobs called his vote for ssm a “tough vote” while his vote for civil unions was deemed “the right thing to do” and anyone who disagreed with him was “unpatriotic”. Jacobs claimed he only voted for ssm because of economic reasons—too much wedding business going across the river to Iowa—or something.
Jacobs’ vote for ssm won’t hurt him if he runs again, but there was a marked change of attitude about his votes for ssm and civil unions.
I wonder how many moderate Dems walked the ssm plank for no good reason?
Comment by qcexaminer Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:55 am
Illinois was far later on everything other than gender identity than comparable states - 12 years after Minnesota, 15 after Colorado. I stand by my statement.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:55 am
==They’re had to be some sticking points, but unlike the CCW legislation, where there was compromise, nothing happened on gay marriage.==
Marriage equality is a bit different than CCW though. With CCW there is an almost limitless number of things that can be permitted or denied, so there is a lot of give and take to compromise on.
With marriage equality there isn’t as much ground to fight over, either there are no rights, civil unions and marriage. IL already has civil unions so there isn’t much left to compromise on.
Comment by defaultdotxbe Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:56 am
The LGBT community knows Greg is the most hardworking, compassionate and dedicated sponsor they will ever see to pass this bill. It is very clear Windy City Times has a weak understanding of the political process. Wanna take bets on their support AFTER the bill passes? We all know bandwagon jumpers and I’d bet money they’ll recant when it passes.
Comment by Sandy Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:04 pm
WCT’s editorial seems to imply that Harris had the votes and still didn’t call it. However, this vote isn’t just for a show of principle, it was for a civil rights cause and Harris should not have risked defeat for the bill and the issue just so that maybe,, possibly, potentially there would be some unexpected ayes way out from left field. Equal rights activists clearly showed they are politically tone deaf idiots here. I read somewhere over the weekend where one person mentioned that activists weren’t working the offices of black legislators or their communities like they needed to. That is a critical element that the civil rights crowd here totally blew. Instead of a poor shows of carpetbagging (not that all carpetbagging is bad), activists should have been telling legislators the story of people in their community who could finally be one step closer to equal citizenship. But instead they didn’t because it was all just so inevitable. Well, guess what? It ain’t, even when it should be.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:11 pm
The article above said Harris did not guarantee he would call the bill. He did: From 5-24-2013 Windy City Times: “Chief Sponsor Rep. Greg Harris told Windy City Times he will “absolutely” call the bill to a vote before session ends at the end of the month and that it will pass.” On the very day of the nonvote he actually made this promise. You may this game in Springfield, but most community members do not. Hopefully, Harris’s strategy will work. But one has every right to call out the truth of what he promised. … See quote here: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Marriage-bill-gets-clearance-for-consideration-next-week/42946.html
Comment by Tracy Baim Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:17 pm
Rick Garcia cares about one thing and one thing only: Media attention for himself. He’s never passed a bill in his life, never could. As for the Windy City Times, shame on them.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:39 pm
The way forward for those most vocal supporters would have been to identify those targeted members who were afraid to get off the fence, and show them some strong financial support to offset the votes they are afraid of losing. This part of the process is not rocket science. Harris did his very best, and I’m sure he’ll continue to. It’s the undecideds that need more wooing.
Comment by Newsclown Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:44 pm
–Hopefully, Harris’s strategy will work.–
Had The Windy City Time’s editorial been written in that vain, it would have received none of well-earned scorn and derision that is has found here and elsewhere.
But it wasn’t.
The editorial should have been an opportunity to educate the “community” on the legislative process and strategy rather force feed them driveling, divisive nonsense.
Quote that.
Comment by David Ormsby Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 12:59 pm
Greg Harris’ goal is getting equal marriage. Rick Garcia’s goal is getting his name in the paper.
Comment by Just Me Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 1:07 pm
David Ormsby, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that my enormous political crush on you is hopeless…
Comment by soccermom Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 1:11 pm
Sorry, mom.
Comment by David Ormsby Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 1:25 pm
ChicagoR, stand by your statement all you want, but you’re still wrong about what’s behind this WCT editorial. Heck, the publisher took full credit for it and does so again in these comments. It’s totally unfair and disingenuous to bring in some other ax to grind. Everyone who knows what’s going on knows that (a) Johnston has been and remains a solid supporter of Harris in this fight and (b) that Johnston and Garcia haven’t been close at all for a long time. And for the record, I wish the bill had been called, I don’t work for any of these folks, and I don’t agree with the editorial. I just hate seeing people seize any opportunity that becomes available to do character assassination on people when those people aren’t really the story. You want to criticize the editorial, then focus on the source of it, not people who had nothing to do with it.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Oldsmoky2, my comment wasn’t about the editorial. It was a response to the poster who said Garcia has been “out of touch for about three years”. I was just saying he hasn’t changed, and at the relevant time as to the nondiscrimination law, he was tight with Johnston. And from where I sat, the community infighting that those two promulgated was not productive.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 1:40 pm
Let me add my vote of confidence in Greg Harris to the dozens of others cast in these comments. Anyone who really knows Greg also knows how absolutely committed he is to the goal of marriage equality, and to ensuring its legislative success. And anyone who knows his/her way around the statehouse - and how a tough bill gets passed - wouldn’t be writing a bucket-headed editorial like the WCT’s.
Comment by Linus Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 2:05 pm
~The editorial should have been an opportunity to educate the “community” on the legislative process and strategy rather force feed them driveling, divisive nonsense.~
Well said David.
Comment by Sandy Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 2:06 pm
Some of the sponsors of the bill have issued an apology to families who were there last week. Printed here: http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/lgbt/Marriage-equality-bill-sponsors-issue-apology-to-families/43063.html … we can all disagree on strategy and policy; I am not new to this. I have covered the LGBT community since 1984, City Council, County Board and downstate. As a media outlet, we call it as we hear and see it. Harris’s strategy may work, and of course I hope it does, but then just do not guarantee something–especially if that guarantee is based on what Madigan may have said could be done. It was not only what happened with a nonvote, it was the entire orchestration of emotion, with kids in the special seats to manipulate and build their hopes. Their tears were real, their betrayal was real (the promise was a vote, but everyone knew it might fail). 81-year-old Jim Darby was asked to wait so he could hear a concession speech? Good on Harris if it gets done; but I can disagree that we need to get there by this type of manipulation. I respect politicians for their role, and how they have to compromise every single day. But Windy City Times would be wrong to just allow this to go unquestioned.
Comment by Tracy Baim Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 3:18 pm
This is what I wrote on Greg Harris’ facebook page:
Greg, your dedication and love for the goal of equality will win out. I have an incredible amount of respect for you as a colleague and as a human being. You made a tough choice on Friday, but you made the correct one. For this, and for who are, you have my admiration and I have your back. We will get this done.
Comment by Lou Lang Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 4:07 pm
@Tracy
The “absolutely” quote is one word completely without context. Was he straight up asked if it will be called by session’s end? Was there any back and forth? Was there something like ‘I’m pretty sure it absolutely will be called’? It’s easy to hammer him over one word with zero surrounding context. Also, even if context is just another indictment that he went back on his word, that still doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be the leader on the bill or that it was wrong to not call it last Friday. It seems as if marriage equality advocates are ready to eat their own and possible push marriage equality in Illinois further back unnecessarily rather than honestly and critically examine their own actions and determine the way forward.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 4:52 pm
Tracy, you may have been around a while, you’re painfully naive. When a politician promises to call something for a vote, he is working to rally support and inspire optimism in hopes that demonstrating that momentum will help push it over the edge. That you consider this some kind of iron-clad promise is a sign you truly have no clue how the process works.
Greg and the other sponsors were heart-broken over the betrayal of some folks in Springfield who should have been there when needed and the ultimate failure of the bill this session. Having the kids and others in the gallery was not “manipulation” and “orchestration of emotion” for some nefarious purpose. It was, much as Deb Mell said in her passionate eloquence, an attempt to show doubting members that LGBT folks are real people with real emotions, not just some caricature of political or religious ideology. Again, your failure to understand what was happening says vastly more about your failures than about the fault of the sponsors.
Instead of rallying or inspiring, you chose to run salt in the wounds of leaders of your community that gave their all. You provided nothing of value to the community and did nothing towards the larger goal of passing this life-changing bill.
With your absurd editorial, and your comments here, you have added yourself to the crowd deserving of shame for their poor behavior in this endeavor. The same cannot be said of those you attacked including Greg, Deb, Kelly, Sam and their supportive fellow-members.
This will get done and hopefully soon - no thanks to you.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 6:04 pm
That was supposed to be “rub salt in the wounds”
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 6:05 pm
mom, am I losing you????
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 7:52 pm
Garcia showed up at the Saturday rally - spouting off as usual. He smelled as though he had drowned his sorrows the night before. He went on to assault white males on the North side, while holding the rally on the North side. Richard Strretman said Garcia “created” Rep. Harris - made him who he is today. The entire rally was sickening. Garcia and his group (TCRA) were left out of the original coalition for this very reason. Loud mouth, know it all, who wants to claim all the glory.
Comment by Call it out Monday, Jun 3, 13 @ 11:36 pm
Rick Garcia did bring a lot of attention to this issue. Also, if I recall correctly the “101″ bill about including same sex attraction as a protected class was passed with Garcia’s strong support and coordination. He may be wrong about this particular issue (I do not know if that is true or not) but I think the comments are too harsh on him and too inside baseball of homosexual politics (understanding this is Capitol Fax) for most people to know or care.
I think Rick Garcia is right that minority legislators should not merely be taken for granted just because in the past Daley or someone else could guarantee their votes on “101″ and Garcia is right that there should be Black and Hispanic lobbyists (are there really no Black and Hispanic lobbyists on this issue or hired by Equality IL or whatever other groups?) The anti-homosexual marriage group has Black (Frank Bass representing the Black ministers) and Hispanics (longtime lobbyist Ralph Rivera). Senator Meeks has been very effective at organizing phone calls and post cards in the Black-African American areas.
It will eventually pass whether it is summer session, November, next year or in 5 years.
Comment by George T Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:01 am
I agree with most of Rich Miller’s critique of rash reactions regarding the bill and Rep. Harris. However, Miller’s analysis fails in at least one regard: Harris should be faulted for saying he would not bring the bill to a vote without the votes, but he changed that and said he was bringing it to a vote and presumably thought he had the votes. There is something wrong, at least inconsistent or disorganized about that.
Comment by Dan Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 5:28 am
Schnorfy, we’ll always have Paris (IL)…
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 8:09 am
10, 20 years ago, the very notion that a SSM bill would even be seriously considered would have been rejected out of hand.
Now, not only is it seriously considered, but it passed one of the legislative chambers.
As Rich always says, the trend is your friend. It will happen.
Although I understand the disappointment, saying things like it must happen now, I want it now, or else- those types of positions and statements are not helpful - not on this issue or any other issue in the political arena.
Interesting that there is all this debate on Quinn’s leadership, and then we have Greg Harris, who is showing the marks of a true leader.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 9:21 am