* The controversy continues over the decision by Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez not to defend the state’s ban on gay marriage because they believe it’s unconstitutional. As you already know, lawsuits were recently filed by the ACLU and others against Cook County Clerk David Orr, who issues marriage licenses. The crux of Alvarez’s decision…
Alvarez’s office said it “will admit the salient allegations within the complaint and concede that the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution prohibits discrimination in the issuance of marriage licenses based upon sex or sexual orientation.”
“We are in agreement with the plaintiffs that Illinois laws that prohibit same sex marriage are unconstitutional. We believe the plaintiffs are correct in their assertion that the Illinois Constitution upholds marriage equality for same sex couples just as it does for opposite sex couples,” the statement said.
* Since Madigan and Alvarez won’t defend the law over constitutional grounds, there’s some debate on whether anyone else can step forward, and there’s much consternation about the decision itself…
Peter Breen, executive director of the Thomas More Society, a private bar association that represents the Catholic Church, said the group “will be seeking relief from the court,” though he didn’t say exactly what that would be. Some experts have suggested the society could seek the right to defend the ban, though that’s considered a long shot.
“You can’t just say you feel it’s unconstitutional,” said Breen. “This … puts people of the state of Illinois in a difficult place because their elected representatives are not defending their interests. If there is no argument or disagreement, then you’d really have a hollow judgment.”
David Erickson, a former prosecutor and state appellate judge who now teaches at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, said it also potentially puts a private bar association in the position of being demonized for stepping forward to defend a state law. Erickson believes the law is unconstitutional but said Breen is right.
“Show me where it says any elected official, especially a prosecutor, can say, `I won’t defend law passed by a legislative body that is my coequal,’” Erickson said. “Only one body can say it’s unconstitutional and that’s the (Illinois) Supreme Court.”
But fellow Kent College professor Douglas Godfrey said Alvarez and Madigan have a professional responsibility to ensure claims have merit, whether they’re filing a lawsuit or defending one, and “in essence … said we don’t think Illinois’ law will stand muster.”
* From the Illinois Constitution…
SECTION 3. OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF OFFICE
Each prospective holder of a State office or other State position created by this Constitution, before taking office, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …. to the best of my ability.”
* From Fran Eaton’s latest column…
In 1996, then-state Sen. Peter Fitzgerald successfully ushered through the General Assembly a Defense of Marriage Act. His effort was to draw a line in the sand, to clarify where Illinois stood on same-sex marriages.
Sixteen years later, that law is endangered — something that few could have imagined when it was adopted.
Why is it so ridiculous to contemplate whether other Illinois marriage prohibitions should be tossed to the wind as well? With only sexual orientation bias as the argument against banning same-sex marriage, why should polygamous relationships be banned by the state? If morality is irrelevant, why should there be any marriage bans?
* Rep. David Reis (R-Ste. Marie)…
“The current statutory definition banning gay marriage in Illinois does not violate Illinoisans constitutional rights. In fact, it is just the opposite,” Reis said. “Allowing gay marriage in Illinois would violate our citizens’ religious freedoms by forcing religions to recognize marriages not in accordance with their beliefs.”
Discuss.
- too obvious - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:17 am:
This battle is over. Conservatives don’t know how to make the case and are too wimpy in any case. They sit around and complain but don’t fight. They just come across as close minded.
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:25 am:
Reis couldn’t be more wrong. Religions aren’t forced to recognize any certain marriage now, even opposite sex ones. Why would they be if this law is overturned?
- It's Just Me - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:27 am:
Once again, Reis has confused the difference between a legal marriage and a religious one. I realize that to people like him they are the same thing, but they aren’t. If your church doesn’t want to religiously recognize another marriage, it can go ahead and do so the same way it doesn’t recognize other religions all the time.
But back to Rich’s question: have the General Assembly defend the law it passed. Not sure if that is a real option, but makes sense to me.
- Freeman - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:38 am:
Whether one supports or opposes gay marriage, this puts a new twist on judicial activism.
Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, this substitutes the will of only one person (Madigan refusing to defend the law) in place of the entire Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches in our state.
Are there any precedents of Illinois being sued over a current law and an AG refusing to defend the state?
- Air-Is-Total - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:41 am:
It’s a blatant abdication of their responsibilities and constittional duties. It’s black letter law that all laws are presummed constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise. The AG and SA can’t make that call.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:44 am:
===Are there any precedents of Illinois being sued over a current law and an AG refusing to defend the state? ===
Yes. It happens quite often, but the AG then allows the state agency to appoint its own defense counsel. In this case, there’s no state agency.
- Freeman - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:49 am:
From the AG’s website (take a look at the last listing):
“The job of the Attorney General is to:
Advocate on behalf of all of the people of Illinois;
Legislate with members of the General Assembly for new laws; and
Litigate to ensure state laws are followed and respected.”
To be clear, a core concern here is neither support nor opposition to gay marriage (or substitute any other hot-button liberal or conservative issue you prefer: gun laws, school prayer, etc.). The concern is one person’s substitution of will for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial process.
If part of your job description is “Litigate to ensure state laws are followed and respected”, it is reasonable to expect one does their job as a “zealous advocate” and trusts the legal process to run its course.
Defense attorneys face these personal frustrations every day. “I’m not playing cuz I don’t want to” isn’t an option, especially when you have the public trust of all citizens, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, etc..
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:50 am:
LOL. Even career Democratic politicians have figured out that the Mrs. Kravits peek-in-bedroom looney-tune gasbags have lost on this one.
I wake up in the morning, I look across the street, and I don’t worry that the two daddies and their sweet little baby girl will do me or mine any harm. I also don’t worry about the beautiful young lady with two mommies who has been a glorious constant in my house for years.
The kids get it. They think the whole “controversy” over gay marriage is nuts.
Let’s get over ourselves, mind our own business and live and let live. Salud.
- King Louis XVI - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:53 am:
–“Allowing gay marriage in Illinois would violate our citizens’ religious freedoms by forcing religions to recognize marriages not in accordance with their beliefs.”–
Gay marriage will not force Catholics to recognize Baptist superstitions and it will not force Baptists to recognize Catholic superstitions.
Civil marriage is superstition free.
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:59 am:
==Reis has confused the difference between a legal marriage and a religious one. I realize that to people like him they are the same thing==
Exactly. His sort thinks freedom of religion is telling everyone else what they may and may not do. And using the government as the authority to enforce it.
- JoeVerdeal - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:00 am:
I am not an attorney and therefore must ask if “marriages” of this sort would be voidable at some future date if a change in political conditions placed public officials in office who were inclined to enforce the laws already in place….????
Wouldn’t it be safer to wait until gay marriage was provided for by settled law?
- too obvious - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:01 am:
btw, Fran Eaton’s slippery slope “argument” is ridiculous. If she doesn’t understand the concept of making distinctions she shouldn’t waste our time with the non-licensed practice of law. Again, this is why social conservatives have already lost this battle. Weak arguments articulated horribly.
This idea that if gays are allowed to get married there is nothing to stop someone from marrying their horse or whatever is silly.
- johhnypizza - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:05 am:
“It’s a blatant abdication of their responsibilities and constitutional duties. It’s black letter law that all laws are presummed constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise. The AG and SA can’t make that call.”
I agree that the AG is way out of line here. Not surprising given her family background and political yearning for higher office. However, if one can not fulfill the obligations of one office, why should it be expected that one can fulfilll the duties of another office?
- Dan Vock - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:08 am:
===Are there any precedents of Illinois being sued over a current law and an AG refusing to defend the state? ===
===Yes. It happens quite often, but the AG then allows the state agency to appoint its own defense counsel. In this case, there’s no state agency.===
Not only that, but this is exactly what happened in the Proposition 8 case in California. Backers of Prop 8 had their own lawyers in the trial, but on appeal (after Prop 8 lost), the issue of standing came up. Neither Jerry Brown (then California’s AG) nor Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to defend the measure. Eventually, I think, the court let the proponents have their own attorneys. That may be a thankless task, since they are going up against Ted Olson and David Boies
- Bluefish - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:19 am:
FE: “With only sexual orientation bias as the argument against banning same-sex marriage, why should polygamous relationships be banned by the state?”
It’s ironic that the argument against gay marriage - it’s the first step to allowing polygamy or people marrying animals - is so similar to the argument against legalizing pot - it’s a gateway drug to coke, heroin, etc.
- Madame Defarge - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:23 am:
While I agree the slippery slope analogy has merit, if we avoid slopes altogether we can never move higher. We must,therefor, approach them with caution. Here, to me, the best analogy is the Fugitive Slave Laws before the Civil War. They clearly were the Law of the Land, but some/many simply refused to enforce them with good reason. Today we look back and wonder how anyone could have ever thought them just.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:33 am:
It is clearly the accepted practice of the AG (and every county State’s Atty and the US Atty Gen) to choose which cases they pursue. The only time anyone complains about the exercise of this choice is when they don’t agree with it.
Recent cases in point are the John Edwards case (started by a Bush appointee now running for Congress) and the Roger Clemons case (requested by a Congressional Committee). In both cases, the US AG should have exercised their power to drop.
Small government and fiscal conservatives should appreciate this type of action.
- Boone's is Back - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 11:47 am:
Ries’ argument may be the stupidest circular logic I’ve heard from somebody at the statehouse. And that’s sayin a lot.
- reformer - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 12:19 pm:
Alvarez disagrees with the law so she won’t defend her county clerk who administers it.
The SAO takes quite a different view about jury discretion in not following laws THEY disagree with. Jurors are told they MUST follow the law.
It seems the SA wants to have it both ways: she gets to ignore laws she feels are immoral, but insists jurors have no such right. Even though there is precedent for jury nullification.
- reformer - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 12:21 pm:
too obvious
I disagree with Fran more often than not. But how about addressing her point about how state law discriminates against residents who want to marry several wives at the same time?
If discrimination against same-sex couples is unconstitutional, why is discrimination against would-be polygamists perfectly kosher?
- Old Lawyer - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 12:31 pm:
As Rich points out, the government lawyer’s sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution; there is a “duty to defend”, but courts and legal scholars have historically advised that said duty does not extend to laws deemed unconstitutional by the executive branch. Former Deputy Solicitor General Frank Easterbrook suggested “whether a particular statute of dubious constitutional standing can be defended is itself a matter of faithful execution of the full set of laws.” And former Solicitor General Wade McCree explained, “the…Office is called upon to give full faith and credit to the fundamental law embodied in the Constitution, even at the expense of the…statute.”
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
===If discrimination against same-sex couples is unconstitutional, why is discrimination against would-be polygamists perfectly kosher?===
Marriage is a legal contract limited to two consenting adults, or sometimes with parental approval, between two minors or between an adult and a minor. The contract governs certain rights and obligations between the parties and also bestows some benefits to the couple, who choose to enter into this contract voluntarily. The contract can be broken by mutual consent or by legal action taken by one of the parties to the contract.
Polygamy would require a new contract to cover more than one spouse and alter the contractual obligations. Therefore, polygamy is a strawman argument and is NOT comparable to same sex marriage.
I’ll now wait patiently for someone to mention beastiality and incest next, in a desperate attempt to confuse the issue once again.
- Foxfire - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 12:59 pm:
too obvious, Blue fish, and 47th - if you’re so certain that a bright line test can be determined and enforced, then what is it? Even if you state one, you can’t possibly by certain that it won’t be smudged in the future. Never say never.
- Gish - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:08 pm:
Polygamy is not a straw man argument. Other legal contracts can be entered into by more than one party so it is relevant. The fact that you define it as applying to 2 people is little different than others defining it as opposite sex only. I personally do not find polygamous marriages to be on a slippery slope either. Why should I care if more than 2 consenting adults wish to enter into the legal contract known as marriage as long as they are all adults and consenting.
Incest is never a valid comparison since there is a vested public health interest in preventing child-bearing couples from producing offspring. We could debate those past childbearing age but, once again, I don’t see why my personal feelings of ‘ick’ should prevent to legally consenting adults from entering into a purely civil contract.
Child marriage is likewise never valid since children under a certain age cannot legally enter into contracts.
Bestiality is the same. animals cannot legally provide consent to enter into a legal contract and, if they could be considered as capable of providing consent, the we might as well all become vegetarians because no animal would consent to being killed to provide food for the rest of us.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:11 pm:
OK Foxfire, I suppose you have a point. When the aliens come to Earth we might have to revisit some of this again since that would certainly smudge the issue, especially if the alien invaders are hotties. I stand corrected.
In the meantime, if you and others feel strongly enough about wanting to marry your dog, feel free to make your case and file some lawsuits. Maybe you can make a convincing argument. I look forward to that.
Never say never and don’t knock it unitl you try it.
- Rahmbo's Missing Digit - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:12 pm:
There’s a broader perspective to consider. Let’s examine the Attorney General’s own words on this subject, as well as the plaintiffs themselves:
#1: In late 2011, the Illinois Attorney General declared that it is her duty to defend the law “whether I agree with the law or not”.
“I represent the broader interests of the people of the state even when that will create significant conflict with the officials and agencies that are technically my clients. How this works in practice,” she said, is like this. “It is the AG’s office that defends the law, whether I agree with the law or not.”
Lisa Madigan lecture to Michigan State University Law School on “New Directions in Ethics: The Attorney General’s Changing Role in the 21st Century”
#2: The Illinois Attorney General’s website clearly notes that defending the law is part of her job.
“The job of the Attorney General is to: Litigate to ensure state laws are followed and respected…”
Illinois Attorney General website, “About Us”
#3. Even the plaintiffs recognize this failure to defend the law is “unprecedented”. In addition, Anita Alvarez herself admits the decision is “unusual”.
“The fight for same-sex marriage rights in Illinois took an unprecedented turn Thursday… It marks the first time a state has refused to contest a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban. “I’ve never encountered this before,” said Camilla Taylor, an attorney with the gay rights group Lambda Legal, which filed one of the lawsuits last month… Alvarez acknowledged it was an “unusual” position Thursday but said she was comfortable with her stance… “However, what we’re dealing with is unprecedented,” she (Taylor, from Lambda Legal) added. “There’s a need for the adversarial process to work.”
Chicago Tribune, “State’s Gay Marriage Ban Unlawful, Alvarez Says”
It is not often public officials simply lie down on important issues. In fact, on this specific issue, it is “unprecedented”.
The true danger is that this cuts both ways. What happens when an Illinois AG declines to defend cases on abortion rights, discrimination laws, immigration issues, etc.? Are we OK with officials specifically elected to defend and enforce the law substituting their whim for due process on major issues?
There are legitimate causes for concern underlying the issue of selective enforcement among people in positions of public trust. For every Anita Alvarez or Lisa Madigan, there is a Joe Arpaio.
This sort of behavior and justification cuts both ways, regardless of partisanship. Meanwhile, our system of due process breaks down when people responsible for defending and enforcing the law choose to only do part of their jobs.
- reformer - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
So limiting marriage to two people isn’t discriminatory, but limiting it to a man and a woman is?
Whenever the law defines certain standards, it means people who can’t meet those standards are excluded. The law makes distinctions.
The consensus on this board is that the distinction against same-sex couples should be eliminated, and since the legislature won’t do it, the courts should.
Polygamy is permitted under Islam, the world’s second largest religion. Polygamy is legal in scores of countries. We choose to prohibit it. Fair enough. But why wouldn’t a would-be polygamist be able to make an equal protection argument too?
- Get Real - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:32 pm:
Most all of you are missing the point. Reis is correct in saying that it is doubtful legislation legalizing same sex marriage would pass the General Assembly. If that’s the case why is the AG’s office trying to use the courts to legalize it without their approval? Fair statement by Reis. If you want this to be the law of the land then PASS A BILL. Don’t cram it down everyone’s throat with the courts.
Secondly, why didn’t the AG’s office join the other 26 state in questioning the constitutionality of Obama Care? That is the job of the AG’s office - to uphold the Constitution in all cases not just when it’s politically advantageous for her. Again fair statement by Reis.
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:59 am:
==”Reis has confused the difference between a legal marriage and a religious one. I realize that to people like him they are the same thing”==
=”Exactly. His sort thinks freedom of religion is telling everyone else what they may and may not do. And using the government as the authority to enforce it.”
Excessively Rabid - what do you thing you are doing? People like you are telling Christians, who think same sex marriage is a mortal sin have to live by one set of rules on the weekends and another set of rules during the work week. You can preach all you want about how this doesn’t trample on religious freedoms but it does.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:35 pm:
Since DOMA has been found unconstitutional in a couple of federal courts and the Justice Dept has backed away from defending this, it seems prudent the state’s AG office would step back from their version. It will probably decided by the U.S. Supreme Ct in the not too distant future.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:48 pm:
–People like you are telling Christians, who think same sex marriage is a mortal sin have to live by one set of rules on the weekends and another set of rules during the work week.–
Is that what you do during the work week, sort out the sinners? Tough job. How did you ever get it? Or did you just take it on yourself?
Mind your own business. You won’t have to work so hard.
- Nice Kid - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
I agree with Reformer. Polygamists should be allowed to marry too. There is too much government intrusion into personal matters. Great point, Reformer!
- ChicagoR - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 1:54 pm:
“People like you are telling Christians, who think same sex marriage is a mortal sin have to live by one set of rules on the weekends and another set of rules during the work week.”
I don’t understand this. Are Christians being forced to marry someone of their own sex from Monday to Friday? Because if you are against same sex marriage, just don’t get same sex married. You have total religious freedom not to do it.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 2:02 pm:
===Polygamy is permitted under Islam, the world’s second largest religion. Polygamy is legal in scores of countries. We choose to prohibit it. Fair enough. But why wouldn’t a would-be polygamist be able to make an equal protection argument too?
Steve Chapman had a very good column on this a few years ago and his conclusion was that it should be allowed and, in fact, it would allow the state to regulate and protect many of the women in currently abusive relationships that are polygamous.
Marriage as defined in the states is largely an institution concerning two parties and the contract is set up with defined rights and responsibilities in a two person contract. Applying marriage to more than two people would not work as it is currently legislated and frankly I find the pecularities of marriage
- ArchPundit - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 2:02 pm:
===Polygamy is permitted under Islam, the world’s second largest religion. Polygamy is legal in scores of countries. We choose to prohibit it. Fair enough. But why wouldn’t a would-be polygamist be able to make an equal protection argument too?
Steve Chapman had a very good column on this a few years ago and his conclusion was that it should be allowed and, in fact, it would allow the state to regulate and protect many of the women in currently abusive relationships that are polygamous.
Marriage as defined in the states is largely an institution concerning two parties and the contract is set up with defined rights and responsibilities in a two person contract. Applying marriage to more than two people would not work as it is currently legislated and frankly I find the pecularities of marriage
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
–People like you are telling Christians, who think same sex marriage is a mortal sin..–
Here’s another thing, pal: Stand up on your own feet for you bigotry, don’t try to hide behind being a “Christian” which apparently in your mind allows you to judge but not be judged.
- In 630 - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 2:27 pm:
No matter how hard I try, I’ll never understand how something that in now way touches people’s religion somehow is seen as a threat to how they practice their religion.
Legal same sex marriage is no more a threat to religion than legal pork consumption is.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 2:55 pm:
If the Attorney General’s Office can choose not to fight an appeal of a death row inmate the Office believes was wrongly convicted, I don’t know why the Office should be compelled to defend a law it believes is unconstitutional.
Rich is correct that this is a tricky case for those who believe that two women marrying will be the ruination of marriage. As if marriage could get much worse.
They really don’t have standing in the case, unless they can show that they are an aggrieved party.
- Southern Peggy R - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 4:05 pm:
i don’t know now one can claim conservatives have lost this issue. every time the public have a chance to vote on the issue of what marriages their state should recognize, they vote marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. we have won every time. over 30 states.
- Southern Peggy R - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 4:12 pm:
How is religious freedom affected? B&B owners compelled to host homosexual nuptial celebrationsin Grafton I think? Christian photographer sued in NM for not doing a homosexual nuptial? There’s a lot of specialization, sometimes by religion, among wedding professionals. Do all planners/providers know how to plan for Jewish weddings? Do some specialize in Baptist or Catholic or Mormon ceremonies? Probably. Why should all photographers or B&Bs serve homosexual interests? Check out case law in other states, eg NJ, a church owned a facility that a court said it had to rent to homosexual ceremony. Wow!
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 4:20 pm:
Peggy, the photographer thing is another state, but this state - and all other states - have public accommodation laws because lots of business owners used to claim that they didn’t have to accommodate black people. Deal with it.
- Colossus - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 4:36 pm:
Ah, and our very own Archie Bunker, er, Peggy R, shows up to weigh in!
Here, let’s try this for you, Peggy. I can hear my grandparent’s generation saying these exact words:
“B&B owners compelled to host BLACK nuptial celebrationsin Grafton I think? Christian photographer sued in NM for not doing a BLACK nuptial? There’s a lot of specialization, sometimes by religion, among wedding professionals. Do all planners/providers know how to plan for Jewish weddings? Do some specialize in Baptist or Catholic or Mormon ceremonies? Probably. Why should all photographers or B&Bs serve BLACK interests?”
And before you claim race has no bearing on religion, allow me to point out the words of Brigham Young, revered prophet of a man who may soon 9in his own mind) be president:
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290; emphasis added)
- Southern Peggy R - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 4:46 pm:
race is not sexual lifestyle. one may or may not be able to choose one’s attractions, but one doesn’t have to live it. race cannot be chosen.
bowing out to get to kids’ little league game.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 5:07 pm:
- one may or may not be able to choose one’s attractions, but one doesn’t have to live it. -
Spoken like the true bigot you are. Whatever, I’m really looking forward to supporting my gay brothers and sisters this weekend at the Pride parade in the great city of Chicago. I’m even more looking forward to a time when attitudes like yours are looked at with the same scorn you show for those brothers and sisters.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 6:14 pm:
–race is not sexual lifestyle. one may or may not be able to choose one’s attractions, but one doesn’t have to live it. race cannot be chosen.–
Peggy, please fill me in as to what is an acceptable “sexual lifestyle,” between consenting adults, behind closed doors, here in the United States in 2012.
Please be specific, because I for one, don’t want to get it wrong.
And while you’re at it, tell me again why it’s your business, or mine, or Mrs. Kravitz’s. From a “conservative” viewpoint, of course.
“Conservative.” Most abused word in the English language.
- Wing Ding - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 7:45 pm:
The government interferes with who/how consenting adults choose to love, and it’s supported by conservatives? I thought they believed in less government interference. Cafeteria conservatives.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 9:37 pm:
RMD@1:12 makes a very good point. A Very Good Point.
Citizens can’t force the General Assembly to pass a bill, we can’t force a Governor to sign a bill, but citizens can (and maybe should) force the Court to decide a law by bringing suit. Even if the State’s Attorney or AG mailed-in a defense, a contested suit gives the Justices a chance to make and maybe explain their decision.
What if Joe Arpaio was state’s attorney or Bill Brady was AG? It’s going to be hard to complain if the political shoe is on the other foot.
I happen to agree with Alvarez and Madigan on this issue, but it isn’t up to us. It’s up to the courts.
- Southern Peggy R - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 9:57 pm:
i am a bigot. wow. that’s all you folks have?
the govt is not interfering w/people’s feelings. it recognizes marriage btwn 1 man and 1 woman primarily for welfare of children they create. that is not an issue w/2 men or 2 women. if govt policy on marriage is about feelings then why not siblings? 3 men & 5 women? 5 women & 3 men? the libertarian approach would be no govt recognition of any marriage. conservatives don’t care what homosexuals do in private. quit asking 99% of society to change its understanding of human sexuality and marriage for 1%. (see atlantic monthly) talk about a govt of the 1%! the christian & jewish understanding of human sexuality primarily derive from the 10 commandments. some things are meant only between a huz & wife. we’ve seen the disaster of unmarried sex–illegitimacy, public aid dependency, crime, dropout, etc…–and divorce.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:08 pm:
“Your” not “you’re”
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:09 pm:
I had a come-to-Jesus moment on this issue about five years ago.
I was hanging out around left field on a glorious Saturday watching one of my boys play ball in Lindbergh Park in Oak Park.
A couple of pretty old ladies timidly approached me and asked if I would sign a petition imploring Rep. Graham to support a civil unions bill.
That hit me like a brick. I was dumbfounded. And I was so ashamed that I had neglected and ignored this civil rights issue for so long. I still am ashamed.
The fact that these citizens had to go out on the street and ask a dumb schmuck like me to support legal recognition for their relationship ripped me to shreds. Forgive me, please.
Now, I’m all in. It is the civil rights issue of our generation, and I will not be on the wrong side of that. I’m sorry it took me so long.
I’d rather we end this disgusting bigotry in the GA than the courts. Once again, let the people of Illinois lead the way towards freedom and progress, and let’s see our lawmakers line up and declare openly where they stand.
- wishbone - Thursday, Jun 21, 12 @ 10:25 pm:
“Jurors are told they MUST follow the law.”
Actually they don’t have to at all. It is called jury nullification and it is a clear right of a jury.
- Lucky than Good - Friday, Jun 22, 12 @ 2:02 am:
How did government come to regulate marriage in the first place? This seems pretty informative:
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2007/11/why-does-government-regulate-marriage.html
It would seem that the main reason government is involved today is to regulate benefits. Some people would say that government is involved because of a vested public interest in the welfare of children. But many married couples these days aren’t even having children and with almost half of all children born to unmarried parents in the USA, i have to wonder what good government marriage is doing for child rearing.
Why should you get a tax benefit (or penalty) from being married? You can just list your significant other (assuming they have little or no income) as a dependent.
What about community property, inheritance and medical decision making? You can already get those benefits with powers of attorney, wills and civil court proceedings.. but we could wrap it all up and simplify it by including all that in a Civil Union law… which we just happen to already have.
In my opinion, we need to untangle government from the social, family and religion institution known as marriage.
- CF - Friday, Jun 22, 12 @ 10:23 am:
Despite my personal thoughts on the matter, both the Attorney General and the State’s Attorney are wrong to not defend a legitimaly passed law.
Former Solicitor General, Paul Clement, resigned from his former firm under similar circumstances. His resignation letter sums it up very well:
“a representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history. But being on the right or wrond side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.”
Full text here:
http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/04/Paul-Clement-Resignation-Letter.pdf
- danny - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:36 am:
this is late in the game, but a few points:
First, who on earth cares about the “slippery slope” to polygamy? Marriage is a legal contract. If you want to share that legal contract between more than two consenting, sane, adults, who cares?
and ==race is not sexual lifestyle. one may or may not be able to choose one’s attractions, but one doesn’t have to live it. race cannot be chosen.=== from Peggy.
Religion is a choice. You can argue you may not choose to “believe” it, but you can certainly choose not to practice it. Should I be able to discriminate against you because you choose to practice as a Jew (/fill in whichever religion you choose). Of course we think that type of discrimination is wrong - so we legislated against it. Sexual orientation is no different.
Oh, and as for “quit asking 99% of society to change its understanding of human sexuality”, Get a newspaper for crying out loud! A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage so don’t go pretending like 99% of Americans are bigots like you.
(Not that majority public opinion should dictate human rights anyway - which is why ballot measures are immoral. If the majoriy of people voted to support Jim Crow, would that be democratic or would it be a violation of the rights of an oppressed minority?)
Any argument against same-sex marriage is an argument against logic, US history and basic human rights.