|
“Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock
Friday, Aug 4, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller When you don’t have the facts on your side (or in this case, signatures) , you argue the law. That didn’t work either. From a Protect Marriage Initiative press release: Yesterday we received word that United States District Court Judge Elaine B. Bucklo (a Clinton appointee) had ruled against our complaint that the Illinois election code for advisory referenda (such as the Protect Marriage Illinois referendum) is unconstitutionally burdensome to Illnois citizens–thus infringing on their right to petition their government. It’s not looking good for Peter LaBarbera’s people.
|
 |
|
|
- wndycty - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 7:44 am:
Well its good to see BIGOTRY will not be on the ballot in November.
- Pat Hickey - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 8:21 am:
Boys and Girls - Marriage will be fine; so will divorce.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 8:22 am:
Interesting. When people like LaBarbera want THEIR rights protected, they want federal judges to apply high standards of scrutiny. But when it comes to protecting the rights of gays and other minorities, they want a low standard of judicial scrutiny and respect for majority rules. What hypocrisy!
- Things were good when Clinton ruled - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 8:26 am:
I love how every problem facing this nation/world is “Clinton’s” fault somehow. Right wingers, that’s about as lame as Rod continuing to say everything is George Ryan’s fault.
Move on already!
- Shallow Pharnyx - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:03 am:
wndycty- I don’t always agree with you (OK, almost never- and I’m a registered Dem), but you are right on.
- Disgusted Democrat - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:07 am:
My bet is that the appelate court will let the lower court’s opinion stand.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:15 am:
Illinois has never cared for what it’s voters wanted. Unlike California or other progressive states, Illinois has never enacted the progressive reforms 70 years ago.
So, do you believe in democracy? Then let the voters vote! The fact is, if this was on the ballot, it would pass easily as it has in every state so far. There is a difference between gay rights and gay marriage and it is obvious that even idiots know this en mass. We know this so well, this entire fight has been to prevent voters from voting. This from a group of people who claim they were the victims of voter disenfranchise for six years!
The only reason we have even see gay marriage occur anywhere in the US is through judicial fiat. Everyone but the most delusional recognizes that legalizing gay marriage is not possible by ballot.
Massachusetts screwed up. They made this a ballot issue. As a result, half the US has already passed laws that prevent gay marriage in the past few years. Talk about a popular issue! Few ideas have swept the US as quickly as the protect marriage initiatives have. Liberals are up against a wall and can only play judicial games.
So they do, and did, in Illinois. They called voters every name in the book and are afraid of them. How democratic of them!
- Northside Reporter - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:16 am:
They are terrified that an ‘activist Illinois court’ will oveturn state law defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Then appalled that an Illinois court would not legislate from the bench to uphold their ‘liberal’ interpretation of state law.
Peter , you can’t have it both ways. Get over it.
- Anonymous - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:21 am:
Well, it’s really bad news for Topinka. “Peter LaBarbara’s people” are many in number and they are none too happy that the GOP nominee not only didn’t support the petition drive, her people were actively working against it.
If the referendum doesn’t make it on the ballot, then Republicans will truly have no reason to go to the polls. Bye, bye Judy. What goes around, comes around.
- Truthful James - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:33 am:
If you trust the citizens of Illinois to vote against BIGOTRY, let the advisory referndum be on the ballot.
- HANKSTER - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:46 am:
Funny how anytime a group like this is ruled against they attack the judges, calling them activists ect ect. Now when a judge rules with them they say the judge was just following the rule of law. I find this very amusing.
- IVote - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 10:41 am:
Anonymous 9:21 said “Well, it’s really bad news for Topinka * * * If the referendum doesn’t make it on the ballot, then Republicans will truly have no reason to go to the polls.” You are assumin that ALL Republicans are right-wing nuts. Unfortunately, too many are, which is why Illinois is, and will for the foreseeable future be, a BLUE state. If the right wing would try to look at some larger issues–rather than focusing solely on gays and abortion–other conservative issues might gain some support. As it is, their most effective opponent is themselves!
Honestly, with an ill-conceived (and dishonestly justfied) war in Iraq, the Israeli-Arab conflict getting worse by the day, America’s standing in the Arab (and larger) world all but destroyed by the Bush administration, bazillion-dollar budget deficits, gas prices continuing to go up beyond the means of poor and middle-class as well as destroying small businesses. . . and conservatives decide to focus on gay marriage! If they were so concerned about protecting marriage, where the hell have they been since 1950’s when the divorce rate started to climb?? There are REAL issues for the government to address that affect millions of citizens, but the conservatives want to vote on a constitutional amendment to stop something that is already prohibited by state law?
Do you realize just how ridiculous you are?
- Rick - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 10:57 am:
This harmless ballot measure is merely advisory. No real or perceived rights are at stake. It is no more bigoted than any poll result showing public attitudes toward gay marriage.
That being said, LaBarbera is a hypocritical idiot. He works to put internet filters in public libraries while he runs his own online pornographic website and encourages people of all ages to visit it.
What a pathetic loser.
- Lt. Guv - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:01 am:
Vanilla Man, you’re way off. While you laud the ballot initiative in places like CA, you ignore that it has made the state ungovernable based on inconsistent and in fact conflicting law and constitutional change it has foisted upon that state.
In all honesty, CA needs a constitutional convention to wipe the slate clean and start over again.
- Anonymous - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:06 am:
IVOTE, you should call yourself “straw man” because that’s all your frothy diatribe is - staw man fallacies.
You just need to calm down.
I know of no one who says gays and abortion are the only issues. The Protect Marriage thing is just one issue.
Who are you to tell people how they should allocate their time, or what issues they should consider important? I suppose posting on a blog is much more vital and praiseworthy.
Shouldn’t you be working on some of these other issues that you say are so much more important?
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:17 am:
So let me get this straight - you don’t disagree that a protect marriage initiative would pass easily, but instead attack the very idea that voters should have a right to vote on this?
Since when have you guys started hating democracy? Let the people vote and let the people rule. Start acting like democrats.
- HANKSTER - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:21 am:
Lt. Guv - I agree that ballot initiatives have made California a mess.
The way government was set up to work in this country is that we elect people to vote on these issues. If we dont like how they vote we can vote for someone else.
- HANKSTER - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:25 am:
VanillaMan - what we have here is an indirect democracy. We have that because it is the only realistic and sustainable form of democracy.
- Truthful James - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:37 am:
HANKSTER -
What we have is a Federal republic, not an indirect democracy. And it is the only self sudtaining form of democracy, obtained from our earliest experience with the Articles of Confederation which bound us loosely together after the Revolutionary War — until a commonality of interests brought us together with authorities delegated by the States in the Constitution..
Thank (insert here name of deity, divine person, or anything elese) for that. The ability of the individual states to make decisions which differ from state to state is a diversity which ensures maximum opportunity.
- fightforjustice - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:39 am:
If it’s bigotry to believe marriage should be confined to one man and one woman, is it also bigotry to believe marriage should be confined to two persons?
Whether or not state petition requirements are unconstitutional, can we agree they are too strict?
- HANKSTER - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 11:47 am:
Truthful James:
A federal republic and an indirect democracy are not mutually exclusive. An indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. Do we not have that?
- Truthful James - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 12:29 pm:
At two levels, yes. Unfortunately, it might be implied from your post that only a single level was necessary.
That was the largest error committed by the Bush Administration in Iraq — its insistance on a unitary democracy. That was unachievable given, as I have too passionately remark elsewhere, the state of development of political economics within the Moslem world.
- So-Called "Austin Mayor" - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 1:10 pm:
One of the interesting side effects of Petey’s petition drive was that you could drive around the western suburbs, see a Protect Marriage Illinois sign in a yard, and know that that family’s marriage was threatened by homosexuality.
After all, why would you worry about protecting your marriage from the homosexuals unless you thought that the temptations of homosexuality were threatening your marriage?
I salute those families brave enought to admit that their hetero marriages were in trouble.
- Scott - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 1:24 pm:
I love that they are arguing for their first amendment rights, but they don’t care for other people’s human rights.
- Left Leaner - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 1:53 pm:
Well said Scott. Many on the right love to invoke the constitution when it suits their purpose, but are loath to apply that very same document when it doesn’t suit their purpose.
I agree with some of you. Put the referendum to a vote. I may very well pass. Then, let the courts shoot it down. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen because discrimination of this kind does not stand the test of time in this country. Judges - liberal and conservative - are going to find it increasingly difficult to find referendums like these constitutional.
The brilliance of those who wrote the constitution is that they realized that even 100% of the citizens could be wrong sometimes and the courts were needed to save citizens from their own bad choices sometimes. The “majority rules” right of today can’t stand this principle - but it always comes to pass.
- Truthful James - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 1:59 pm:
Leftleaner –
It certainly is. And thank goodness that tates can decide under law differently,
But this is an advisory referendum. No laws come out of it.
- Left Leaner - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 2:37 pm:
Thanks for the clarification TJ. I should have been clear that I was referring hypothetically to the referendum leading to a law that, in the end, would not pass constitution muster.
- Dundeer - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 3:35 pm:
This is another Jack Roeser failure. Look at the creepy people who are on the bandwagon with this. Especially the NOBerweis people.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 3:42 pm:
So to summarize so far: “Power to the People” - except when WE think they’re wrong.
And you guys wonder why voters find your opinions so arrogant. But then, you probably think they are just a bunch of fools anyway?
Let Democracy rule! Let the people vote!
- LiberalYeoman - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 4:13 pm:
I am for letting any advisory measure on the ballot, as long as it is brought forth within the bounds of the law.
If memory serves, the proponents of the measure first had complaints about the rules governing what is allowed on a state wide ballot. I have no problems with the standing requirements. If we don’t have certain benchmarks then every ballot we take will be ludicrously long with advisory measures.
If they can get on the ballot within the law I say let’s rumble.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 4:45 pm:
OK, lets see just how democratic our state is in reality regarding this issue:
421,000 signatures were collected
347,912 got under the first hurdle
283,111 were required to be on the ballot.
Then the “Democratic” National Committee started funding opposition to this drive by sending money to Democratic counties, such as Cook. Naturally, this meant that it was their job to find enough signatures to invalidate the proposal.
So, even though 421,000 Illinoians wanted this on the ballot, the DNC killed it because they didn’t want voters to vote on it. Exactly how is this serving the public? Does anyone really believe there were tens of thousands of fraudulent signatures, or isn’t it more believable that a cadre of political hacks backstabbed the movement because of it’s powerful political impact on the November election? C’mon! ‘Fess up!
Thats just plain wrong. We all know that this state actively ruins every attempt to break through the miasma that is Illinois’ two party system. Take a look at how the Greens are getting shafted.
It is clear that this proposal had enough support to make it on the ballot, but anti-democratic politics killed it behind the scenes.
Sadly, it seems that this situation is perfectly find for a lot of you folks. This is because you don’t agree with those 421,000 signatories. Well, whether you agree or not, using this method to prevent this many voters from getting a chance to put something on the ballot is disgusting. It isn’t right.
We have enough ugly politics out there to be perfectly comfortable dissing 421,000 citizens. Once again, how is it that the party that blew a gasket over the Florida vote in 2000 can sit with a cheshire cat grin when it screws over 400,000 Illinoians?
But then after reading through what has been posted so far, obviously a lot of you guys think you know SO MUCH more marriage and family issues than these people. It is a wonder how you guys get your heads through doorways with that much arrogance!
- Bubs - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 5:28 pm:
VM,
The Petition should indeed be on the ballot, to give the people a say, but it is not “clear” why it is not, other than the PMI folks obviously screwed the pooch (but, of course, only through a lawfully sanctioned man-dog marriage.)
Never forget that logistical support for PMI has been loudly claimed (and reclaimed, in case anyone missed them trying to get credit in the first claim) by the FTN thugs, a/k/a The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
That certainly clarifies the problem.
- doubtful - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 5:35 pm:
Not counting legally cast votes for an elected official is not the same as disallowing an advisory measure so the comparison to FL 2000 is a bit of a stretch.
If you want to take a poll (which is all that is), then go take a poll. If you want a legally binding referendum on the ballot, that’s a different issue.
However, we have law makers whose job is to construct laws within the boundaries of the state’s Constitution as needed. If the people want different laws then they should elect different lawmakers.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 8:36 pm:
The will of 421000 signers, if this does not get on the ballot will be denied. That vote was denied to this state by a democrat run Cook county clerk’s office. I think there should be a civil rights law suit filed against them. For you that are against this you should hope that some day there isn’t something that you want on the ballot that a corrupt clerk will throw off by disqualifying 64% of the signatures when the rest of the state is throwing of 6% at the most on average
- T$ - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:01 pm:
To complain that filing legal challenges to an advisory referendum about a topic that effects nothing but the tender sensibilities of of the signers is somehow subverting democracy is nothing short of idiotic.
Save your melodrama.
We live in a republic. The people elect representatives. The representatives write the laws. Ballot initiatives are political - this is certainly the case here.
- Anonymous - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:10 pm:
Don’t you have to be a registered voter for your signature to count?
So, if they haven’t registered to vote why should their opinion come into play for a state-wide measure?
They were only required to gather about 7.8% of the 2002 GE turnout to get the measure on the ballot. Makes it even less of the total registered voters, less than 4%.
Is that really the will of the people? That is less than half the registered voters in suburban Cook.
As to fraudulent issue, I believe there have been several discussions on this site as the nature of the signatures collected and their methods. But as I cannot clearly recall them I will not restate anything. But if they were not sensible enough to get registered voters to circulate petitions and have the first question be “Are you registered to vote in Illinois?” then I don’t think they have a right to complain about “Draconian” laws. That I know they did because you don’t hear that word too often.
I think my basic point is, it’s not a hard hurdle to clear on a state-wide basis and the law isn’t hard to follow when you care to.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:20 pm:
This is my opinion but it is a law passed by the general assembly and signed by the governor that an advisory referendum be put on the ballot if the signatures are collected and valid. That has been denied by the by a county clerk who found an unusually high number of invalid signature causing the voters to be denied the opportunity to vote on the referendum.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 9:25 pm:
I will state it one more time Cook county voided 64% of the signatures the rest of the county’s voided no more then 12% you don’t think that is strange?
- A.J. - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 10:03 pm:
Whether this amendment gets on the ballot for this November could literally be the pivotal factor determining the outcome of major GOP elections [federal, statewide, and local]. There is a major fear - and quite justified - that voter turnout, among our party’s base, may be low in this election. Something needs to be on the ballot to motivate conservatives to GOTV, in a non-presidential election year. The 6th and 8th U.S. House Districts are two major elections for which this could be a problem. On the other hand, it was this precise type of election process that helped push President Bush to re-election last time.
The supporters of “democracy” are being hypocritical on this issue… They claim to favor populism, but don’t want the people to be able to vote on the issue of marriage. They believe - quite correctly - that a measure like this will get the Republican Party base motivated and out to the polls, not only that, but that the initiative will receive solid bipartisan support.
We need to get the PMI question on the ballot this November.
- NoGiftsPlease - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 10:07 pm:
Maybe we should have a referendum to decide whether we should allow people to drive a gas guzzling car be limited to only 1? Maybe we should have a referendum on whether people can dye their hair hideous red? The point is, even if “the majority” agreed that it was wrong to do, there are many areas of our personal lives that we do no let “the majority” decide. The “majority” decided that it was a crime against marriage for whites and blacks to marry. The “majority” thought that liquor should be against the law and that women should not vote. The “majority” has made many bad decisions in the past, and and the areas the “majority” has a legitimate interest in should be strictly limited.
- Anon - Friday, Aug 4, 06 @ 10:34 pm:
Your right I think all the democrats who won with a majority in this state should resign and let the minority republicans take over.
- IVote - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 12:00 am:
I think I’m starting to get the idea — Republicans (conservative ones, at least) want MAJORITY rule, and they don’t want no stinkin’ court to stick it’s collective nose in and rule otherwise. . . I’m sure President Gore would agree! But no, we have this silly little thing called the Electoral College that stopped the majority from ruling, and then those “unelected judges” (on the Supreme Court) stuck their noses in. . . hmmmm, we ALL know how loud the Republicans shouted about the unfairness of THAT, don’t we?
- Scott - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 3:18 am:
Anon and Vanilla, no law should be passed that detracts from a person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t care if a million people signed the thing. It is not a valid argument.
If 500,000 people signed a petition to segregate Illinois public schools, would you support it?
- Bill Baar - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 8:29 am:
I salute those families brave enought to admit that their hetero marriages were in trouble.
IFI ought to pay you to go around the State presenting this position.
It’s serious stuff to people on both sides of it.
You do serious damage to supporters of same sex marriage (and do you support same-sex marriage or do you support some half-way civil marriage provision?) when you ramble about an institution many have failed terribly with yet, consider basic to our lives.
- Veritas - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 10:08 am:
Topinka’s one hope for receiving votes from the base just went up in smoke. Social conservatives will not show up at the polls for Topinka, but they may have cast a ballot for her if they were already in the booth. Since it looks like the marriage amendment will not be on the ballot, there really is no reason to expect statewide turnout of the Republican base. Eseentially, what I’m saying is Topinka will not pick up the “well I’m here anyway” vote.
- Shallow Pharnyx - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 10:54 am:
VM-
I want to give you a little insight into the review. I assisted in checking the signatures against registered voter records (I’m straight and very happily married- I just have a problem with legislating morality). Most of the signatures I questioned were not registered voters. I don’t think the signers had any fraudulent intent, I just think they got caught up in the signing frenzy. The majority of the sheets I worked on had groups of 3 or more with the same last name. Maybe 2 or 3 of the signers were registered voters but the rest weren’t. Guess what? The signers were required to be registered voters!! Go figure. I envision families were signing and no one wanted to be left out so even the unregistered signed. There were a few other reasons signatures were invalidated- the signers were not Illinois residents, the notary public’s term had expired and yes, sometimes the same signature and address appeared on more than 1 petition. I will say that there were an inordinate amount of petitions from jurisdictions throught the state that were certified by Peter LaBarbera. Enough to question the logistics since the certifier claims to have witnessed the signing.
Just thought I would share some factual insight.
- Bill Baar - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 11:45 am:
…have a problem with legislating morality…
What should we legislate then?
- Shallow Pharnyx - Saturday, Aug 5, 06 @ 8:29 pm:
BB-
Let’s start with a legal understanding of our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (some people leave it out): Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Courts have long interpreted the founding fathers to mean “separation of church and state”. I believe this means leave it to families and churches to teach morals/values. I want my values taught to my child; not state sanctioned values.
If you read the Bill of Rights you will note that Amendment 18 (later repealed) was the only Amendment limiting rights- all others give or expand rights.
There are plenty of laws that don’t legislate morality (except for criminal law, I guess you could argue):
taxing ways and means
voting age
presidential requirements
balanced budgets
estate divisions
etc., etc., etc.
- The Conservative - Monday, Aug 7, 06 @ 7:16 am:
“One of the interesting side effects of Petey’s petition drive was that you could drive around the western suburbs, see a Protect Marriage Illinois sign in a yard, and know that that family’s marriage was threatened by homosexuality.”
This is such nonsense and a result a sick mind. Perhaps it is just that homosexual marriage is just sick and wrong and against God’s law. That is not homophobia, that is following God’s law.