* Former state Senator Rev. James Meeks appears in a new robocall aimed at African-American voters. Meeks encourages people to call their Illinois House members and demand they vote against the gay marriage bill. Listen…
* Sun-Times…
“The [African-American Clergy Coalition] has begun distributing fliers to Cook County African American Churches,” a release from the AACC said today. “African American Clergymen have now taken the AACC flier and began instructing their Congregations to call their legislators.”
The fliers contain a list of African American House members with their phone numbers.
Direct lobbying by pastors in their churches seems pretty darned close to the line. Click the fliers for a larger view…
* In other news, Carol Marin writes about House Republican Leader Tom Cross’ stance on gay marriage…
Inside Cross’ caucus of 47 Republicans, David Harris and most others will vote “no” when the time comes. Only two Republicans, Ron Sandack of Downers Grove and Ed Sullivan of Mundelein, have publicly voiced support for same-sex marriage. And they’re reportedly taking a huge amount of heat from some GOP brethren because of it.
Enter Cross.
“I’m trying to balance . . . and respect the wishes of a whole caucus . . . at the same time trying to remind everybody in our caucus that there are folks who are for this. You have to respect them,” he said by phone on Friday.
The ironies abound.
Some of the downstate members of Cross’ caucus who invoke their conservatism in opposing gay marriage don’t seem very conservative at all when it comes to pension reform. On that issue, they seem to have found common ground with their liberal Democratic colleagues, dependent as many of them are on the support of public employee unions.
* Related…
* New conservative lobbying push for gay marriage: The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.
* Rhode Island Beats Illinois To Gay Marriage: The risk of a black lawmakers losing his seat seems minimal, though. They can’t lose their seats to Republicans, and in 2014, is any Democrat going to run a primary campaign on the issue of opposing same-sex marriage? The winner wouldn’t have a lot of friends in the House Democratic Caucus. More likely, a black legislator trying to move up to alderman, county board, state senate or Congress would be denied a Sunday appearance at a conservative black church. That’s a valuable endorsement in the black community, so that may be enough to make a politician hesitate before pressing “yes.”
- walkinfool - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:41 am:
Telling the congregation from the pulpit, to become politically active for or against an issue, might be seen as uncomfortably close to a line, but it has been a tradition in this country since the beginning.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:45 am:
There were clergymen who used the Bible to defend slavery in the 19th Century and Jim Crow in the 20th Century.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:48 am:
First of all if they keep this up I would question their status as a church versus an interest group. This degree of active lobbying, robocalls and publication of fliers seems to fly in the face of their status.
Second, I find the flier offensive. It says: “As believers in God . . .” To me that implies that if you support gay marriage then you are not a believer. I know there are religious people who don’t believe you can be a Christian and believe in gay marriage. I find that attitude disgusting and as far from a Christian belief as you can get.
I continue to be disappointed in pastors who would be so hateful towards gay people. It would be one thing if they were consistent in their “outrage” for all things that go against “God’s word.” How about some robocalls or fliers against divorce? This laser focus on gay marriage says to me that they could care less about gay people. It also shows what hypocrites they are.
This is a prime example of why I don’t attend church. I don’t need these hateful attitudes interfering with my relationship with God. Why would you want to attend a Church full of such hate?
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:58 am:
I forgot to mention that little gem at the end of their flier: “He died for our sins. Why won’t we speak out for him . . . ” I’m pretty sure Jesus would be ashamed of how you are speaking for Him.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 10:58 am:
People like Rev. Meeks can’t find any rational reason to oppose same sex marriage so they resort to arbitrary rejection like religion. There are thousands of people for whom Jesus is not their personal savior. Do people also forget that we’re living in America? I don’t want “God’s word” in my government. If I want God’s word, I’ll speak with him myself, since I am his Grandson.
- walkinfool - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:03 am:
And there were clergymen who led the Abolitionist fight. And preached for our orginal Revolution. It’s part of America.
Now, tax exemption is another issue.
- Endangered Moderate Species - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:04 am:
This seems to be similar to the Catholic Church’s stance.
We have separation of church and state, but it should not be misinterpreted as the Church not allowed to have an influence with elected officials.
- Amalia - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:09 am:
NBA Center Jason Collins just came out. He’s African American. it’s 2013 people. freedom.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:13 am:
These people disgust me. And we ought to be taxing the churches in which ministers/priests stand up there in the pulpit and try to influence the way their congregants vote.
- soccermom - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:13 am:
There is a difference between exhorting about an issue from the pulpit and handing out lists of lawmakers’ phone numbers. Direct lobbying is crossing the line.
Remember the horrible story of the California Episcopal church that was hounded by the IRS when the pastor gave a sermon titled, “How would Jesus vote?” (the pastor didn’t even endorse one candidate or another - he just went through the list of top issues and gave his idea of how the Gospels lead us to consider them.)
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:14 am:
Pate Philip and James Meeks are on the same page. Boy, if you hang around long enough, you see some strange stuff.
- titan - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:14 am:
@ Wordslinger - while you are correct that *some* did both of those things, it should also be kept in mind that the abolitionist movement (both here and in Britain) was *primarily* a Christian movement.
All cultures in the world have featured some form of slavery, Western culture is somewhat unique in that it ended it of its own volition.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:19 am:
I agree with you Endangered Moderate Species. You are right, religious organizations should have the same right to influence lawmaking as everyone else. I just think it’s lame when the only opposition is something arbitrary, like a divinity’s desire. Opposing something only because a god doesn’t like it doesn’t work for me in the 21st Century. And furthermore, since imperfect humans wrote holy books, who can be sure what a god likes?
- Endangered Moderate Species - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:22 am:
We need to be careful when equating this issue to abolition. Both sides of that battle thought God was with them.
Frankly, when God is entered into a political debate, I become skeptical.
- walkinfool - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:32 am:
==Frankly, when God is entered into a political debate, I become skeptical.==
Amen to that!
- Waldi - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:34 am:
In the U.S. almost half of all marriages end in divorce and 40% of children are born out of wedlock. If SMS marriage were legalized nationally today, I doubt we would see these statistics worsen. If traditional marriage has problems, the cause of those problems is not same-sex marriage. Seems to me these ministers could find better ways to spend their time and money if they really wanted to improve the success of marriage. But then, its always easier to blame someone else for your problems.
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 11:58 am:
This is a big part of the reason that I no longer attend mass.
I’m tired of all religion. Way too often, religion is nothing more than an excuse to spew hate.
I can’t recall the last time anything positive came from any religion.
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
By the way, as a Chicago resident, I can safely report that Meeks is 100% in line with the general views of most Chicago residents.
That want freedom and equality for stuff that they like, but not for anybody else.
When it came to his community, Meeks was first in line demanding equality. He wanted his constituents to be treated like equals.
But when it came to somebody else demanding equality, he could not care less. Equality matters for me. It doesn’t matter for you.
On the other side, certain Chicago Dems demand freedom to marry whomever they want. However, when it comes to guns, they are against freedom. They want freedom for stuff they like.
Freedom doesn’t really matter. Equality doesn’t matter. All that matters is that people get what they like.
- Skirmisher - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
Soccerman and Others- These churches are not trying to influence a partisan election: They are speaking out on an issue related to morality and church doctrine, whether you like their view or not. That is a proper role of a church. Now, if they were exhorting their congregations to vote for Obama or some other partisan politician, that would be crossing the line. But lobbying legislators to uphold what has been a traditional church doctrineis not.
- Skirmisher - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
Soccerman and Others- These churches are not trying to influence a partisan election: They are speaking out on an issue related to morality and church doctrine, whether you like their view or not. That is a proper role of a church. Now, if they were exhorting their congregations to vote for Obama or some other partisan politician, that would be crossing the line. But lobbying legislators to uphold what has been a traditional church doctrine is not.
- train111 - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
I’ve come to the conclusion that the right-wing puritanical Christians and the extreme pro-gay people have symbiotic relationship in that they are dependent on each other for survival.
Right now both sides can point their finger at the other and warn their ‘true believer’ as to what will happen if they lose this fight.
God forbid that the rabids on either side might have to drop their ‘boogey man’ arguments and actually examine their own lives for once!!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:09 pm:
Skeeter, I don’t think that Chicagoans are all that different from Downstaters in that regard. Positions are simply reversed.
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:15 pm:
Absolutely Rich. It happens everywhere. As somebody who lives here though, it bothers me more seeing my friends engage in the practice.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:26 pm:
I’m hung up on this “biblical” definition of marriage. The opponents of SMS have two favorite arguments in opposition: 1) it is not the way marriage is portrayed in the Bible and 2) it will lead to a slippery slope to plural marriage.
However, there reliance on the Bible for a definition of marriage would seem to conflict with point 2) because plural marriage is well established in the Bible.
I also find it odd that conservatives, who express a deep concern with the incredibly remote possibility of Sharia Law sneaking into Federal or State laws, are more than willing to enshrine their own religious laws in the legal code. Talk about a slippery slope…
- LisleMike - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
The whole topic hurts me. I know good people who genuinely believe in opposition to SSM on biblical grounds. They are not “haters” as it is so easy for some here to label, they truly feel they are expressing thier faith. I would remind them of the prayer of the Pharasee “Lord, listen to my prayer, because I am so much more holy than those dirty people praying over there…” I do not feel that when facing last judgement that any of us will get by on “good works” that include beating up on gays. (Lord, I knew you didn’t like them, so I kicked them every chance I could..what? you mean you love them too?…But….I didn’t…know)
I am at odds with many in my own party too. I would fail their litmus test or purity test two questions in. As pointed out previously, Conservatives by nature are slow to change. That is not a reason to hate, but surely a reason to pray for them. I do.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:39 pm:
All cultures in the world have featured some form of slavery, Western culture is somewhat unique in that it ended it of its own volition.
Depends on how you define “own volition.”
After an act of Parliament, the Royal Navy enforced a ban on of the West African slave trade on the seas.
And it was the volition of Grant to Petersburg then Richmond and Sherman from Atlanta to the sea that ended it in the United States.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
“These churches are not trying to influence a partisan election: ”
Then they should shut up.
- Hank - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:01 pm:
Relax people, God is much too busy advising Derrick Rose on when he should return to playing!
We are on our own on this issue
- doedoa - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:16 pm:
Remember when Rev. Meeks brought a busload of students to the North Shore to demand equal education under the law? Do you remember, Rev. Meeks?
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:23 pm:
Churches cannot endorse candidates, ministers can— Ministers have the freedom to teach/preach and advise on issues the legislature is considering. Churches can take stands on issues.
Amazing how this society has lost it roots….
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:25 pm:
Wow! A whole opusabout Billbaords and 28 comments and not one mentioned him. What a bummer. Gotta wonder why CM did not mention TC pushing the pro Marriage Equaliters to hire some lobbos.
Oh, we forgot that was top secret. The media could never learn that one.
- Anon - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:25 pm:
So why are there so many people spewing hate against religion— there are specific supreme court tested rights to free speech by ministers and churches—
Liberals cannon kick them out of the public square.
- austinman - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
@ Doedoa Yes Do And Guess What Blacks StilL Don’t Have Equality. ThoSe Who Oppose Ssm Are Now People Spilling Hate? That’s A Stretch. So ShouldI CallThose Who Oppose Expanding ExPungement Laws Haters Of Exoffenders? I’m Sure They Would Love Some Equality? Or Those Kids In those same CommunitIes ThatThese Churches Come From Would Love To Have new TextbookS LiKe Kids On The Northside Get.
- Ahoy! - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
Jesus did not die so that our Government could discriminate against homosexuals. If you want to teach that homosexuality is a sin in your church, fine. While I do not agree with it, you have that religious freedom. What you don’t have is the right for is Government oppression. We are after equality under the law.
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
Austinman,
Yes, by opposing SSM you are spreading hate.
And it is bad form to demand “equality” for yourself while denying equality for others.
- Hat Trick - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:07 pm:
So, now opposing a policy equates to hating the the group that benefits from the policy. Oppose conceal carry = hate for those who want to carry concealed weapons; oppose LINK cards = hate for those who have LINK cards; oppose right-to-work = hate for business owners? I know that’s a little oversimplified, but it doesn’t seem far-fetched in this debate (you oppose SMS you hate gays; you support SMS, you hate the church). Sorry to bust up the sterotype (and crumple the straw man, for that matter) but one can oppose SMS and not hate a soul.
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:10 pm:
Anon 1:25,
I can’t speak for others, but I dislike religion because it seems to have no purpose other than to divide people.
It is not a force for freedom or equality. It is a force for “this is how I choose to live, now you must believe in my rules and my invisible leader.”
I’m tired of it. If you want to have some ceremony honoring some mystical being, be my guest. But leave the rest of us out of it. We don’t care and we don’t want to live by your rules.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 2:33 pm:
- CFS -,
Sorry, I had a “meeting”, I was pulling my 8-Iron, and I needed some “one on one” time.
To the Post,
“Two Putt” Cross has some serious questions to answer if his “diverse” Caucus only gets 2 or even 3 votes for the measure, and further Commander Galloway, the woman, but not really playing the gender card, but the Commander played the Gender card, because Commander Galloway is a Moderate,… and even she… voted against SSM, and leaving the Lone “Yes” vote of her Caucus on his own, …what does that say about diversity of Caucus and Moderate Leadership?
Just remember, Commander Galloway and “Two Putt” had very diverse candidates last time they ran, and they now have Super-Minoritied Caucuses, that seem destined to vote in lock-step against SSM, becasue their seated members are so much the same, or those members are too scared of Slytherin House primaring them.
If getting more than 3 out of 66 members to vote for SSM is something “Irrelevent Leaders” can’t get Mushrooms to do, they why worry the “Right”, they got you where they want you already.
I give Tom Cross loads of credit for saving Pat Brady’s dismissal by pitchfork, and torch, and Ice Cream Scoop, but in reality, if the measure fails, and 2 or even 3 out of 47 vote Yes, what credit does the ILGOP get for saving Pat Brady at that point?
Make the deal with Rep. Harris, get 4 or 5 to vote “yes”, but under the condition that the GA HGOP, working in a “bi-partisan” way, made the huge difference in getting SSM passed and should be congratulated.
Use the leverage to get it passed, then if you have to dump Pat Brady, you are reversely innoculated for doing it.
“Remember it was the HGOP that made the difference in passing the SSM, so don’t say the ILGOP is intolerant. The passing of that bill, in a bi-partisan way refutes that.”
When you have 63 out of 66 voting “No”, and those 3 “Yes” votes have no weight to them in the discussion of the Bill, and if the Bill passes, … or if the weight of those 63 “No”s is so heavy, the Bill fails, …the rest of … THIS.. is just screaming in the wind when discussing “tolerance”. Either way, if it palys out that way, we in the ILGOP still lose.
Maybe the 63 should just grab their “political” Ice Cream and toast intolerance, since that is what you will hear in the “swing districts”.
What do you say “Two Putt”, that deal with Rep. Harris has to look pretty delicious right now, doesn’t it?
- Wensicia - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
What bothers me is the singling out of African American representatives for this action. How dare you support gay marriage if you’re Black! I find this kind of intimidation to be disturbing.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:17 pm:
@Hat Trick:
It’s HOW you oppose it that draws the distinction. People should feel free to believe what they want to believe. But keep those beliefs out of the lives of others. SSM is really nobody else’s business. It harms NO ONE. When somebody actively tries to interfere in the lives of others on an issue that is none of their business then, yeah, it’s hate.
- Anon - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
Demoralized— there are good arguments but Rich deletes criticism….
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
===Rich deletes criticism===
Um, no. I delete goofiness.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:46 pm:
@Anon:
Give me a good argument. I haven’t heard one yet. I haven’t seen one argument - NOT ONE - that can show me that SSM affects anybody. But if you think you have one I’m all ears.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 3:57 pm:
Anon, liberals are not trying to kick religion out of the public square. Many liberals are also religious, but some of those who support SSM keep their religions to themselves or consider it religious to extend rights to their fellows. They also understand that this is America, and religion does not have to dictate the law. Plus, because this is America, religion does not have a special exemption from criticism and even ridicule.
Skeeter, I can’t speak for others but I don’t equate what a majority of Americans think are reasonable gun regulations and restrictions with taking away freedom. I don’t want to take away your guns. I kind of want a gun myself but have been procrastinating in getting one.
- Keep Calm and Carry On - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
It was my understanding non-profits could not actively oppose or advocate for candidates.
Issue advocacy and education, if I understand correctly, is not a prohibited function.
This seems like a much cleaner case than the example of certain pastors advocating for certain candidates from the pulpit as in years past.
Don’t see a problem here as it relates to their non-profit status, though someone may know the code and statutes better than I.
- Hat Trick - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:35 pm:
“When somebody actively tries to interfere in the lives of others on an issue that is none of their business . . .”
I see. Essentially, you determine what is none of someone’s business. I have watched many people over the years oppose bills because they were philosophically opposed to the concept behind them: increased penalties for drug violations (free will, free choice), restrictions on chemical use in agriculture (greater profit versus protecting the environment), mandates to teach on a variety of issues in our schools (parents should teach values), and on and on. No one is ever going to come up with a good enough argument for you to oppose SSM. But to suggest someone can’t oppose it — in any way they see fit, within limits, especially within the limits of free speech and using the legislative and political process — is hypocritical. Reminds me of the transition to “four legs good, two legs better.”
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 4:57 pm:
@Hat Trick:
I’m am more than open to a sane argument against SSM. I haven’t seen one yet. And the examples you used are ridiculous. In each and every case you cite there is some harm associated with it. Nobody has ever been able to articulate such an argument with SSM. I’m open to such an argument. If you have one make it.
And if you think SSM is your business then you have too much time on your hands. People who think SSM is their business should probably spend a little less time with their noses in other people’s lives and more time focusing on their own lives.
People can oppose SSM if they want to. I would just like somebody to provide a logical argument to justify that opposition. I haven’t seen that argument yet.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:00 pm:
And make no mistake. I’m not suggesting that people have to agree with it or like it. But somebody’s personal aversion to SSM or their religious objections to it are not sufficient justification to prevent two people who love each other from having the right to get married. That would be like me saying I don’t like churches so I don’t think people should have a right to go to church. Nonsense.
- Jimbo - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:01 pm:
It’s odd that people use the Bible to support their view of traditional marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -
“If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver.
He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:17 pm:
In Chicago’s African American churches, political appeals of this sort have been the norm for almost a century. Before 1935, the Republicans benefited; afterwards, the Democrats have had a near monopoly on African American votes.
It seems funny that supporters of SSM are finding this objectionable now. Democratic candidates, including presidential candidates have strutted their stuff in black churches for years. While some people objected to the fiery content of the sermons of Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger in 2008, I cannot recall anyone seriously questioning the tax exempt status of their churches before now.
- Jimbo - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 5:42 pm:
-Anonymous
African Americans switched because LBJ supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while Republican candidate Barry Goldwater opposed it.
LBJ got 94% of the African American vote that year and no Republican has received over 15% of their vote since then.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 6:09 pm:
Good for the Senator. If he stands firmly on that side of the issue, he has every right to push for its’ defeat by expressing the reasons for his views, whether based on clear Biblical teaching in both the Old and New Testament, or otherwise–just as others may espouse their point of view and continue THEIR arm-twisting on this horribly divisive issue…!
- Skeeter - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 6:14 pm:
Just,
Could you explain why you view this as a horribly divisive issue? It seems pretty straight forward to those of us who like freedom.
Just, do you hate freedom?
- Quizzical - Monday, Apr 29, 13 @ 9:58 pm:
Is this something Reverand Meeks could ‘teach either way’?
Will he be receiving a consulting fee, completely unrelated to his advocacy on this issue, from some shadowy Superpacish group?