* Perhaps the strongest denunciation of the civil unions bill so far is from a Democrat. State Rep. Brandon Phelps…
“As many in my district already know, I am a very active Christian and have always spoken out against homosexuality,” Phelps said in a news release. “In recent years I have been a co-sponsor of constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and outlaw civil unions just like SB 1716. I am disappointed by today’s vote and I am proud to have voted to preserve traditional family values.
“Current Illinois law prohibits gay marriage, and I do not believe that will change anytime soon. Rest assured that I will continue working to keep marriage between one man and one woman.”
* Dennis Byrne seems almost disappointed that the civil unions bill didn’t include an abolition of the blood relative prohibition…
But the bill does discriminate, as does the marriage act, against civil unions between certain blood relatives. Why should it? Liberals have long contested the logic that the purpose of marriage was broad, in that it lays out the rules, privileges and rights involved in procreation, in the interests of parents and children, and in the interests of society. Obviously, the purpose of a civil union rarely would be procreation, so why should the state deny the right of partners who are blood relatives from having the same protections and rights as anyone else? Don’t anyone point this out to Harris, or he might want to also include fathers and daughters in civil unions.
* And on the other side, two Catholic columnists take strong issue with their church’s position. Carol Marin…
That pledge [by Gov. Pat Quinn to sign the bill] provoked a stern lecture from Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, head of the Springfield Archdiocese. Paprocki wrote:
“If the governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority, and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”
The operative word in Paprocki’s dressing down is “authority.” A church that should be chastened by the failure of its authority to protect children from sexual abuse, a church misusing its authority to conduct the current inquisition of the faithfulness of Roman Catholic sisters, is instead evermore consumed with its authority.
Kristen McQueary…
Lastly, you should know I am a proud Catholic. I am Catholic because I respect, follow and support the church’s missionary devotions and its humble, service-based teachings.
But because of my liberal views on gay marriage, the church would prefer to cleanse me of its pews. I am not “pure.”
But guess what?
I’m not leaving. I was baptized, confirmed and married into the faith, and I’m staying put.
Right where God calls me to be.
* And my syndicated newspaper column looked at how the voting shook out…
Six Illinois House Republicans voted with 55 Democrats last week to approve a civil unions bill. But a few of the Democratic “Yes” votes were a bit more surprising.
All but one of the six Republicans were suburbanites. Bill Black, who is retiring later this month, was the only Downstater. Reps. Suzi Bassi and Beth Coulson were suburban “Yes” votes who are not returning next year. Reps. Mark Beaubien, Rosemary Mulligan and Skip Saviano were the other Republican “Yes” votes, and all three are suburban legislators. None of those were particularly huge surprises. Black has been a more traditionally liberal Republican for years, endorsed by labor unions and backed by many Democrats in his district. Black quoted the late Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen during the debate, citing Dirksen’s crucial vote for civil rights legislation in 1964 as the basis for his own position.
But just about every politically targeted suburban Democratic incumbent who survived the November election also voted for the plan, even though they just came off grueling campaigns against tough opponents. That support was even more newsworthy.
Rep. Keith Farnham (D-Elgin) won by just a handful of votes two years ago and beat the same opponent in a rematch by just 627 votes this year, but he voted for the civil unions legislation. Rep. Carol Sente (D-Vernon Hills) and Rep. Fred Crespo (D-Hoffman Estates) were both Tier One campaign targets, yet they also voted for the bill. Rep. Emily McAsey (D-Lockport) easily won reelection this year despite heavy spending by Republicans and she also voted “Yes.” Rep. Jehan Gordon (D-Peoria) was one of just three Downstate Democratic Representatives who voted for the bill who aren’t also lame ducks. Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) has not been a target in years mainly because he has cultivated a strongly conservative voting record, yet he also voted the civil unions bill.
Not all targets were on board. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (D-Orland Park) voted “Present” last week. McCarthy, who survived a brutal campaign with a relatively narrow victory against a tea party Republican, said he was opposed to the legislation, but wanted to soften the impact by voting the yellow button.
Eleven of the chamber’s 18 lame ducks, all but three of them Democrats, provided needed votes for passage last week. At least some of those members might have voted “No” had they won reelection.
Despite the bipartisan and target-rich vote in favor of the legislation, last week’s action probably can’t be used as a model for non social issue votes, like a tax hike. Black will leave before the January lame duck session. Bassi and Beaubien are strong fiscal conservatives. Saviano is a member of GOP leadership, which is united against the Democrats. Polls showed that suburban voters supported civil unions, but not tax hikes, so those Democratic targets who voted “Yes” probably won’t be on board, either. Many of the Downstate Democrats who voted against civil unions (Beiser, Bradley, Holbrook, Jefferson, Mautino, Phelps and Reitz) will probably also be against a tax increase, mainly because their regions have become so conservative lately.
The debate last week was almost universally respectful and stayed on the high road, except for some weird comments by Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Greenville), who, among other things, called himself an “old-fashioned traditionalist” during his remarks. Stephens has twice had problems with his pharmacy license for alleged substance abuse issues, was recently popped for a DUI and is divorced. There’s nothing spectacularly wrong with any of that whatsoever, but it certainly doesn’t make him an “old-fashioned traditionalist.”
The momentous civil unions bill passed the Senate the following day with 32 votes - two more than the minimum required. One Republican, Sen. Dan Rutherford, joined with 31 Democrats to approve the legislation. Democrats later claimed that Rutherford had made a politically smart vote, if it doesn’t ruin him in a Republican primary. He’ll almost certainly be able to establish a new - and strong - base of Chicago-area fund raising support for being the only Senate Republican to stick his neck out on the bill, and the only statewide officeholder to actually vote for the legislation.
Unlike in the House, where only two Republicans rose in opposition, several Senate Republicans spoke against the bill, and they mostly stayed on message. The Republicans almost universally complained that the Democrats were spending no time on solving the budget crisis and the precarious economic situation while debating social issues.
- Skeeter - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:24 pm:
“Obviously, the purpose of a civil union rarely would be procreation”
No, not at all. Many gay couples want to raise children together. Based on the couples I know, it almost seems the norm.
Maybe Dennis should actually talk to seem gay people, and not just sit around ranting.
- silverback - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:32 pm:
Are the partners in a civil union limited to a monogamous relationship or may they have multiple partners?
- cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
I’ll have to admit, I would have liked to have seen parent child civil unions allowed. I know a lot of grandmothers who are rearing their grandchildren and it could have provided a convenient way to protect guardianship in these cases.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
silverback, you must be daft. Seriously, have you read anything, anywhere that would even suggest the bill legalizes polygamy?
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:37 pm:
Silverback, I think the rules for civil unions are the same as those for marriage. You can have as many other partners as your spouse lets you get away with. In most cases, that’s zero.
But thanks for not reading anything about the bill, nor any of the dozens of similar comments here and elsewhere where your ridiculous question was already answered, ad nauseum.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:39 pm:
You know… I’ve never heard a response to the philosophical question as to why not allow “polygamy” (or multi-partner civil unions) other than complete and utter apoplectic derision.
I would like an answer to that philosophical question some day.
- Louis XVI - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:40 pm:
Phelps should do everyone a favor and just stick an “R” behind his name and be done with it.
That would be no big loss and no big gain to anyone.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:43 pm:
Hey John,
Maybe you can find a blog that is devoted to philosophical questions like yours. Then you can feel free to wax on about whatever tickles your fancy. But unless Illinois considers legislation to address polygamy, my guess is that you won’t find that debate on Capitol Fax.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:43 pm:
John Bambenek,
I believe I did answer that question without bombastics last week. Mainly that as the state is responsible for paying for benefits, it has the right to limit these benefits to one per employee and additionally, the amount of changes to family law would not be insignificant. In a union with 2 men and 1 woman, who is presumed to the father of the child? What if Ben and Steve and Gary are married and Gary wants to divorce Ben but not Steve but Steve does not want Gary to divorce either of them. If a triad have 2 children and one of the members dies, and the other two split up, who gets custody? What about debt obligations? These are not trivial law changes in the same way that simply making the partners genders irrelevant is.
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:44 pm:
- You know… I’ve never heard a response to the philosophical question as to why not allow “polygamy” (or multi-partner civil unions) other than complete and utter apoplectic derision. -
Yes you have, John, you just choose to ignore it. The answer that myself and many others on both sides of the aisle point to is that the government shouldn’t be providing special benefits for any relationships. For all your bluster about limiting government, you still want the government to define marriage as man and woman. We don’t.
- Wensicia - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:45 pm:
Timing is everything, and the timing of this bill regarding the members who did vote for it was perfect. If it hadn’t passed, it would probably be years before it was attempted again. Dennis Byrne, crawl back to your cave.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:49 pm:
cermak-
As someone who is married, I’d like to know when I can receive payment for these so-called benefits I’m supposedly receiving at the hands of the taxpayers. As far as I know, once the Bush Tax Cuts expire, I’ll be paying more in taxes for being married than I would be if I was simply shacking up. Sure, I can share health insurance but… why is that exactly a federal restriction again? Then there is inheritance, but I believe it is fundamentally immoral for the tax man to descend on a funeral and demand a cut from the estate.
STL-
I hear much more hysterics to the question then what you said. And you know that’s true.
I believe government should be limited, which implies there are some things government SHOULD do. Limited government isn’t the same as anarchy. But if you want to keep playing silly word games, I’ll be happy to buy you a dictionary.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:50 pm:
Stop feeding the trolls, people. Yes, I know I did it, too, but let’s all stop now. Thanks.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:50 pm:
47th Ward-
I do believe the same philosophical point was made… I don’t know… a few paragraphs into the post we’re all commenting on. Which I seem to recall it is called Capitol Fax.
- Heartless Libertarian - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
I support the bill… but at the same time, I wish all the capfax lecturers would stop being so freakin’ preachy. It passed, that’s great. But now you just have to make everyone that doesn’t support it feel stupid. Give me a break.
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:52 pm:
- I hear much more hysterics to the question then what you said. And you know that’s true. -
The question is the hysterics, John. Can you give me one example of how someone “hysterically” answered that question? Maybe you ought to keep that dictionary.
- Skeeter - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:55 pm:
Heartless, Dennis Bryne doesn’t need me to make him look stupid. He’s been doing the job well as long as he has had the column.
By the way I’m the only person who envisions Byrne, while writing, yelling out his window “YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!” He’s like the bitter neighbor we all had.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 1:59 pm:
STL-
I stand corrected. Everyone who supports gay marriage always responds with the utmost respect and intelligence. It’s those who oppose gay marriage which are the knuckle-dragging neanderthans that provide the clear and present danger to our present life. We should sterilize them.
/snark
- Small Town Liberal - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 2:12 pm:
Good one, John.
- John Bambenek - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 2:37 pm:
I thought so.
/pats self on back.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 3:06 pm:
Skeeter - Good one.
@John - I don’t think anyone would claim that folks who oppose gay marriage are knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
Most, however, are nostalgic for a time that never existed.
During the Golden Era of the Sanctity of Marriage (1957-1963), which oddly enough coincides with the airing of “Leave it to Beaver,” pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock births, adultery, domestic violence, and child abuse still happened. We just ignored them and pretended they didn’t.
- Served - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 3:09 pm:
Because of this bill, a number of citizens have more financial and emotional security at no extended cost to the state. Hem and haw about polygamy and wasted time all you want, but it was a good bill, and will be a good law, that does a huge good for your neighbors and fellow citizens.
- amalia - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 3:24 pm:
the war is mostly over in Illinois. we’re just catching up to tv…..where Ellen, married to a woman, reigns as a wildly popular tv star. most of society is working on an everyday basis with folks who are LGBT and it’s not only not unusual, it’s accepted. legislators who did not vote for this bill are out of it.
- BSP II - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 3:29 pm:
We all know Brandon is a gun-toting pro-lifer - but I didn’t realize that he actively “spoke out against homosexuality” as well. I thought I liked him - this is really disappointing. What a jerk.
- Jake from Elwood - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 3:55 pm:
McQueary knocks it out of the park yet again.
Well said.
I do not know her one iota, but she has my vote for most underrated journalist in the state.
- Aonn - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 4:30 pm:
In many ways the Catholic Church has responded from the play book it used in the late 1980’s to fight back the passing of the ERA Amendment. It seemed like they made many similar agruments. I remeber it being a big deal in my catholic middle school. Well most of what the ERA was seeking to change has happened in the last 30 years inspite of the Church and the world has not ended as we know it. Just saying.
- wordslinger - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 5:19 pm:
Here we are in 2010, and last week the whole battle was between the New Testament evangelists vs. the Old Testament literalists. We left quite a bit of humanity on the sidelines.
I jumped in with both feet, to my embarrassment now.
News flash: We’re not a theocracy. The Constitution preamble begins “We the People” and ends with “do ordain and establish…”
The Founding Fathers, who so many pay homage to and pretend to know their original intent, specifically and purposely left out of the Constitution the words “God,” “priest” “Christian,” “church.” etc. The only reference to religion at all is that the United States can’t have an official one.
In the public square, you bring your faith’s values, but you don’t get extra points for them. We’re governed by reason, as intended by those Founding Fathers, men (and only white men) of The Englightenment.
If you want to be governed like Moses allegedly layed it down in Deuteronomy and Leviticus (you could still have slaves; stone petulant children, among other things), while ignoring the message of The Gospels, much less the rule of the Constitution, you will find kindred souls in power in Teheran and Riyadh.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 5:21 pm:
I don’t know Phelps, but I don’t see how being opposed to homosexuality and civil unions makes him a “jerk”. It makes him someone I disagree with on some matters, not a jerk. There are probably many matters he disagrees with me on, and that doesn’t make me a jerk.
- gsb - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 6:00 pm:
It seems to me if this was really an argument about giving gays the same rights as heteros, we should be discussing a same sex marriage bill, not a civil union bill which gives marriage benefits while preventing any marriage penalties. But this isn’t just about gay rights at all. It’s about allowing survivors to keep benefits that would be lost if they actually had to marry their partner. This gives the best benefits of marriage and single life all at the same time!
- Pink Girl - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 6:07 pm:
What was the excuse of Rep Chapa-LaVia? She is a popular Dem that is pro-choice and had no opponent. What was her excuse for voting no? And that Vote Verification stunt? She needs a primary challenge.
- Anonymous - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 7:20 pm:
I have to laugh when I read about the Republican Liberty Counsel (because if you use the word “liberty” with Republican, people will associate the two together; see, “pro-life” whereas the Democrats are “pro-death”). Liberty for whom? For John and his wife? Yes. For Sam and Alex? Well it depends on if it’s Samuel and Alexis or Samantha and Alexander or nevermind.
1967, Loving vs. Virigina. We actually had a “learned” judge from the Commonwealth write this: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Because in my Church, we were taught that if you touched a black person’s skin, it might fall off. But we don’t go by what the Church or the Temple or the Mosque says. We’re not Israel or Iran.
At one point, a great majority of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Fortunately, these people had kids and their kids were a little brighter than their parents. Yeah, it took too long but except for the Mary Mitchell’s and the David Duke’s, people in the mainstream don’t see race as an issue.
In Illinois, poll after poll has shown a majority are okay with civil unions. Over 60 percent. And the now our government agreess.
Lastly, depending you and your spouses income, you might be paying less if you’re married.
51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average amount these couples saved: $1,300.
42% of married taxpayers paid more by filing jointly than they would have if they’d remained single, the office said. The average penalty: $1,380.
You could always be married and file separately and see what that saves you. And if you’re worried about the Bush tax cuts on the rich, should you really be that worried when your combined income is north of 250K a year, more than 98% of Americans? I am going to be sooooo worried about the wellbeings of families making Rich Miller money. Snark.
- Park - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 8:49 pm:
Since when is Carol Marin a ‘Catholic Columnist’??
My guess this is the first time she’s identified herself this way. Falling back on the sexual abuse scandal? How lazy.
Carol, this is not your finest hour.
- MrJM - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 9:27 pm:
Wanna bet the guys burning witches in Salem described themselves as “very active Christians”?
– MrJM
- Steve Downstate - Monday, Dec 6, 10 @ 10:28 pm:
I’m late to the party (as usual), but I notice that Carol Marin’s column on Bishop Paprocki is no longer available on the Sun-Times website. (No, it’s not just Rich’s link that’s bad; I tried googling the piece and it led me to the same error message.) Isn’t that a bit unusual for it to be gone within 24 hours? Not suggesting deep, sinister forces at work here, just wondering what the deal might be…
- dave - Tuesday, Dec 7, 10 @ 8:29 am:
@Steve Downstate - the article is right here:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/2671586-452/catholic-church-authority-daley-gov.html
- ZC - Tuesday, Dec 7, 10 @ 9:26 am:
If anyone is curious about the case against polygamy, I recommend the following column by Jonathan Rauch, “One Man, Many Wives, Big Problems” :
http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem
The other point I’d make re Byrne is: this is why a legislature is superior to a court (though a court may be a last resort in certain situations). If a court is setting out a general principle, to protect a civil right, then I believe it is obligated to explain why civil unions differ from incest (or polygamy). A legislature, on the other hand, is not. A legislature can pick and choose and take a piecemeal, gradual approach (unless Byrne is arguing that incestuous couples have a fundamental constitutional right under the IL Constitution to marry. Which almost certainly he is not).
- even steven - Tuesday, Dec 7, 10 @ 11:11 am:
Quick correction, MrJM… no “witches” were burned in Salem. They were hanged.
- Paul Richardson - Tuesday, Dec 7, 10 @ 12:13 pm:
Steve-
“Jerk” didn’t make sense to me either.
But reactions to comments like “I have always spoken out against homosexuality” will inevitably/rightly invoke stronger reactions than disagreement about gun rights legislation.
If you believe that homosexuality is an innate characteristic (as I do), than there is something particularly perverse about demonizing people for their mere existence.
His statements are likely mandatory for anyone seeking to remain the representative from his area of the state. But that doesn’t make it any less sad and disappointing.
It’s a different matter than mere policy disagreement.