Cutting it close
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* If they’re only shooting for 300,000 signatures, that means their opponents ought to have a good chance of keeping this proposal off the November ballot…
Supporters of a state constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as only for male-female couples are in the final stretch of a push to collect enough signatures to put an advisory referendum on November election ballots.
How close they are to their goal is unclear. Joetta Deutsch, a Taylorville resident and board member for Protect Marriage Illinois, declined Monday to say how many signatures the organization has gathered.
She said Protect Marriage Illinois is shooting for more than 300,000 signatures statewide. That figure would exceed the required number of about 270,000 signatures, but organizers want to ensure their effort survives even if some signatures eventually are thrown out as invalid.
The signatures must be submitted to the State Board of Elections by May 5 to get the advisory referendum on Nov. 4 ballots, Deutsch said. Protect Marriage Illinois has set an April 30 deadline for church groups and other supporters to submit signed petitions because the organization needs time to process the paperwork.
The usual rule of thumb is to get twice as many signatures as needed. That would be pretty tough, but an extra 30,000 (if they even get that much) is cutting it a bit too close for comfort.
Also, it would be interesting to know how many of their state legislative and congressional supporters, as well as their local pol backers, are contributing to the petition effort.
- GOP'er - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:15 am:
God Bless Joetta Deutsch and others for staying in the trenches and continuing to champion a cause for which they believe. It’s good to see grassroots energy in this state, on anything. They should all be commended. Unfortunately, while one hates to poo poo any positive volunteer effort, this probably isn’t the year for this referendum. In what will surely be a huge Dem year in Illinois, if this question was on the ballot, it would have major trouble passing. Andy McKenna’s State Party has never lifted a finger on this, for reasons folks can speculate. Bottom line, not having the State GOP onboard creates an extra burden that this effort in other states has never faced. But I wish them luck. They’re keeping good people engaged and that alone is good. That’s a lot more than the State GOP here can say.
- train111 - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:16 am:
Back in the March primary, they were outside of my precinct trying to get signatures from voters as they left the polls. The wife and I kindly declined.
IMHO its all a big political stunt anyways.
train111
- Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:22 am:
Forgive me for not knowing the rules on this, but if they submit on May 5th, how long to opponents get to challenge their signatures? And where can I sign up?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:24 am:
I will not agree with everything voters gather to voice an opinion upon, but I will always support their ability to voice that opinion.
Power to the People!
- Dirt Guy - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:33 am:
If this measure is to make it onto November’s ballot and not a recall provision, this state’s priorities are all screwed up.
- Bill - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:36 am:
VM,
You old radical, you!
Right on, up against the wall!
- Rob_N - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:39 am:
GOP’er…
Why would any State Party involve themselves in such a divisive effort? Would you want McKenna to help the KKK or neo-Nazis run a petition drive to ban interracial marriage?
–
train111…
Why were you voting in March? The rest of us went out in February…
–
Dirt Guy…
This is small group of residents who oppose equality for all citizens trying to gather these signatures (similar efforts have failed in prior election years).
The recall provision is a legislative effort on the part of House Dems in Springfield.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:42 am:
Even as a conservative, I have a difficult time supporting this. Why aren’t people like Ms. Deutsch working on electing Republican candidates instead of working on a marriage amendment which has no chance of passing? Success begins when you are able to elect and then re-elect candidates who favor most of your beliefs. They are putting the egg before the chicken.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 11:22 am:
It doesn’t matter whether you support it or not. If you don’t - don’t vote for it.
But don’t deny others their political right to collect enough signatures to put this on the ballot.
Believe in the power of people.
Don’t be an elitist!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 11:47 am:
I think gay people have suffered enough. I don’t think you should make them get married, too.
- Hoisted by their own Petard - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 12:14 pm:
Advisory referendums are a political tool, plain and simple, and not a very good one.
BUT, it will be fun to use the database from that petition drive to HAMMER all of the Republicans who voted to fund a “HOMOSEXUAL ‘CULTURAL’ CENTER” in downtown Chicago.
Which, BTW, is everyone who voted for the Illinois FIRST budget.
Which, BTW, is everybody.
If Republican elected officials refuse to stop pandering to these extremists and purge them from their party, we’ll just purge Republicans from the Legislature.
I think I’ll go reserve my new Political Action Committee: “Take Back The Republican Party” now.
- thinking grrrl - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 12:54 pm:
Many will dismiss this effort as meaningless. However, conservatives might be concerned that if Obama leads the ticket in November, Illinois polling places will be overwhelmed by “liberal” voters. A referendum on traditional marriage might help give conservative voters more motivation to turn out, thus balancing the numbers a bit. Similar referendum in other states has been credited with turning out conservatives.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 1:07 pm:
That’s assuming they get it onto the ballot in the first place.
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 2:31 pm:
Curious where they are gathering sigs from. Not that I would sign such a thing, but I’ve seen no one canvassing my neighborhood or polling place.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 3:43 pm:
This would of course need to be followed with a proposal that only a union between a fertile man and a fertile women could be a marriage. Also, you should have, say, 3 years to produce a child or you have to be move to the status of a civil union. need to make sure marriage serves its purpose of propogating new people, anything else should just be a civil union.
- Levois - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 4:45 pm:
These days I’m weary about any group that might inject some form of social policy into law such as gay marriage. I’d rather we take away government’s power to issue marriage licenses.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 4:48 pm:
If you don’t agree with this group, make concrete reasons to disagree with it. Making false claims that it will lead to only fetile couples being granted marriage is ridiculous. No one has ever suggested such a thing.
There is an fear that if something like this is placed on the ballot, it will pass. The reality is that even if this did make it to the ballot, and did pass, there are enough liberals empowered to prevent it from becoming law. If you look at how we still do not have a majority-approved mandate regarding parental notification regarding abortions in Illinois, you will see how certain groups are circumventing laws they do not politically favor.
We have been seeing an increasing disrespect for democracy in this country. We are seeing an increasing disrespect for the majority of Americans and a belief that most Americans are stupid uneducated individuals incapable of knowing what is best for them. We are seeing an increasing disrespect for self-governing by groups that use legal means to control governmental decisions.
After 230 years of self-governing, we as Americans should be the last citizens on Earth who have reasons to be afraid of democracy.
- keepin up with jones - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 6:34 pm:
This a worthless right wing get out the vote ploy.
State law already defines marriage is between a man and woman.
The General Assembly should put on a constitutional question on civil unions.
- Rick Garcia - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 6:53 pm:
In the past, with Alan Keyes shilling for them and Jim Oberweis funding them they pulled out all stops to get their anti-gay question on our ballot. They did not have the necessary valid signatures. This time, a couple of well meaning folks(if you can call people who lie about their neighbors, family members and friends ‘well-meaning)are trying to keep this dead issue alive. They failed in the past and they will fail again because Illinoisans are decent people who really do believe in fairness and don’t want to see their family and friends demonized and lied about - even if they are gay.
And, by the way, if these folks are so concerned about protecting marriage why don’t they promote legislation or a constitutional amendment to ban divorce.
- keepin up with jones - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 8:15 pm:
What happen to marriage until death due us part?
It was something to see all those Republican Presidential Candidates who protect family values who have been married more than once.
Why do not they practice what the family values themselves.
- Quizzical - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:00 pm:
Those Repubs who have a rational plan for a continued presence in Illinois know to stay as far away from this issue as they possibly can. Younger people are exponentially more comfortable with homosexuality than older people. Twenty years from now we will wonder what the fuss was about and why the law treated gays differently.
- Joetta Detusch - Thursday, Apr 24, 08 @ 1:17 pm:
Thank you for this post — the People deserve to vote on this important issue.
To answer some of the comments - the GOP did support our effort last year. It is always the “right time” to protect traditional marriage! I’ve spoken to a few legislators and they’ve assured me they believe the amendment would pass handily if it gets on the ballot. The legislators that’ve supported this in the past will benefit from this effort! There are 2 bills pending now that would redefine marriage — we shouldn’t delay in preserving marriage.
In the countries that have redefined marriage, the numbers of marriages have DECLINED. That only hurts society and our children.
Marriage is a UNIVERSAL family unit. It’s common sense to preserve it for all, including those who seek to redefine and devalue it!
The deadline has been extended to April 30 to get them turned into us, so if you agree that the People should decide, go out and ask your family and friends to sign.
Thank you kindly, Jo