|
Gay marriage bill amended
Tuesday, Nov 5, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * This was just filed by Rep. Greg Harris and advanced out of the House Rules Committee…
Lines 5 and 6 from the original include the immediate effective date. So, that’s been deleted. It can now receive a simple majority for passage. …Adding… I’m told the amendment language on private clubs is essentially just a reiteration of already included language to make extra special sure that there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that church-affiliated groups like the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent their facilities for gay weddings. Also, Rep. Naomi Jakobsson is not in town yet. A family member is ill, I’m told. If she can get here, the bill might possibly be called today. …Adding… Make sure to watch our live updates post for continuous coverage of this and other issues. It just can’t be beat.
|
- david starrett - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:18 pm:
That’s it then; he’s calling it.
- Louis Howe - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:20 pm:
Will there ever be a time that when legislators stop discussing our individual sex lives and address the economic issues facing all of us?
- Served - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
This bill has had a major turnaround the past two weeks. I wish they could get the immediate start date, but that would just be endzone dancing at this point.
- Just Me - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
Hey Louie, I think being legally married and enjoying all the tax and security benefits a marriage provides is a pretty big “economic issue” for those who are unable to get married but yet share their lives together.
- LincolnLounger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:41 pm:
I hope there are a bunch of last second GOP votes that surprise everybody.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:43 pm:
That’s what they are doing, Louis. Marriage equality is good for business.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:48 pm:
Of course now, it will need to go back to the Senate. Should not be an issue getting the votes, but still another twist in the road.
- Not about sex - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:50 pm:
@Louis Howe, It would be great if you could step back for a minute to take a look at this bill to see it for what it actually is, an equal rights bill for all Illinois citizens, and also see that it actually has very little, if anything, to do with sex. This bill is about equalizing state recognition of family, finances and economics for everyone in Illinois.
- OldSmoky2 - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:55 pm:
==Will there ever be a time that when legislators stop discussing our individual sex lives and address the economic issues facing all of us?==
I will be very happy when the legislature rectifies the inequality that denies more than 1,100 benefits and privileges to same-sex couples who want to marry. I would be even happier if opponents of marriage equality just focused on those economic issues and quit talking about sex, since there’s nothing in this bill that’s even remotely about sex.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 12:56 pm:
I share that hope.
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
I hope some folks think long and hard before casting a “No” vote.
This is one for the history books, a vote you’ll be remembered for long after you’re gone.
- Louis Howe - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
All I am saying is that legislators love to play identity politics because it deflects media attention away from the tough underlying economic issues. Perhaps we should pass a constitutional amendment banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and be done with it. However, somehow I believe either the legislators or the special interest groups will find a way to keep these identity issues front and center in our political discourse.
- anon - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
@wordslinger Amen!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:18 pm:
–All I am saying is that legislators love to play identity politics because it deflects media attention away from the tough underlying economic issues.–
What a diabolical conspiracy! Do you really believe that nonsense?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:21 pm:
At least Dunkin admits that the issue is fear of having to face the indignity of a primary opponent. What a joke.
- Snucka - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:22 pm:
Sorry, that was me:
==At least Dunkin admits that the issue is fear of having to face the indignity of a primary opponent. What a joke.==
- Jolly1 - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
Along with Marriage equality there will also be Divorce equality for all the same sex marriages that don’t last..
- DaveM - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:39 pm:
Reis asked Harris if he’ll call the bill today. Harris nodded.
- reformer - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:39 pm:
== I hope there are a bunch of last second GOP votes that surprise everybody.==
I wouldn’t count on more than two GOP votes in the House. The rest are pretty much on the record in opposition. Heck, the ones that were around in 2010 voted against civil unions.
- Northsider - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:41 pm:
“However, somehow I believe either the legislators or the special interest groups will find a way to keep these identity issues front and center in our political discourse.”
Equality before the law is a special interest? Who knew!
Legislators ensuring equality before the law is playing to identity issues? Oy.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
There were “59″ on the Procedure and Rep. Jakobsson pulling up to the building … and Harris changes effective date to June 1, 2014….
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
Who is this speaking right now?
- Katiedid - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
OneMan - it’s Jeanne Ives.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
Thanks… Ugh
- SAP - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:32 pm:
Can somebody send Kay a copy of the 1st amendment?
- Bill F. - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:38 pm:
Can OneMan be in charge of all IL Republicans?
- Served - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
I honestly cannot believe some of the things coming out of mouths during this. “Glitter”? Really?
- From MN - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
jolly1 - Divorce equality is one of the benefits of marriage equality. To have laws to handle the breakup of relationships is a good thing. Some of the court cases in states without marriage equality have come from people married elsewhere trying to get divorced.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
“Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Those are the best words I know in a moment like this. Proponents don’t know they are rejecting God’s words, or if they do, have convinced themselves the words are outdated. Let’s pray for all.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
==Let’s pray for all. ==
Indeed, including praying for those who favor unequal treatment of people. I know plenty of Christians, myself included, who support this effort. I don’t believe I am rejecting anything.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:55 pm:
I guess I would ask, if you feel that this does not fit God’s definition, do you think that in any way shape or form any action of the state of Illinois changes that?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
Hey, Anon 2:50, can you see my house from up there?
- Bill F. - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
Rep. Reis, your friend is not required to be a judge, he chooses to be one. He is welcome to register his disgust by resigning.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
The funny thing is you can make these same arguments about evolution….
We are not Texas…
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
The more I hear the cons on this the more I am agreeing with the Pros…
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
Train’s leaving…. please, Illinois GOP House members, get on board.
Strike back now at the Tea Partiers and haters; they are never going to love you and they are never going to allow you to build an inclusive, big-tent party that can compete with the Democrats on the state level.
This is the moment, this is the issue, bring the GOP back home to Main Street. Vote “Yes.”
- hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
Just turned this on to hear Rep. Reis saying he is from “a very Christian part of the state.” What?
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:06 pm:
This is not about equal rights. It is about creating new rights which have never been recognized in Illinois law during the past 195 years. It is also about repealing a law enacted less than twenty-five years ago that stated that same sex marriages are contrary to the public policies of Illinois.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:06 pm:
HGOP…
Who do you stand with ….
Rep. Ives? Rep. Morrison?
Think. think before you vote. Don’t make my Party be 3-63.
- Bill F. - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:08 pm:
Well, Hisgirlfriday, his district is very close to (and may include) the gigantic Cross you can see from i-57. So, you know, he’s got that going for him.
Which is nice.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:13 pm:
A lot of things used to be Anon., 3:06.
Rep. Reis, thanks for straightening us out on who’s a real Christian. Tell me, would you say your governing model is Teheran or Riyadh?
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
Not all marriages are equal; the proposed SSM law continues to prohibit the recognition of common law marriages in Illinois which are permitted elsewhere in the USA.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
As you vote, HGOP, remember, no sitting member of your Caucus is going to be left out, by Leader Durkin, and any …ANY … sitting HGOP Caucus member who …assists … in the Primaring of another HGOP sitting member of that same Caucus … should feel the heavy, heavy … weight … of ruining the Unanimity … of electing Leader Durkin … who is striving for diversity … even if you …are not.
Do not target fellow HGOP Caucus members …don’t do it.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
Who is the state rep behind the current speaker who looks like he is 12?
- Anon - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:22 pm:
One in six Illinois residents are receiving food stamps or government subsidies for food purchases. SSM is a priority item.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:23 pm:
Does anybody know what Rep. Flowers is talking about? I need a translator.
- hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:25 pm:
“This debate is a joke.” No Ms. Flowers. I don’t think it’s the debate that is a joke.
- SkepticCal - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:29 pm:
Odd that the immediate effective date was deleted. That makes this take effect on July 1. But I understood that if it was brought to the floor in January, it could pass with a simple majority and be effective immediately after the Gov signs it. What gives?
- DaveM - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:35 pm:
Skeptic - the arcane rules of the Veto Session.
And Harris/Madigan have twisted the arms - no sense in waiting in case they un-twist…
- david starrett - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:36 pm:
Vote already!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:39 pm:
C’mon, GOP members, change the Illinois political landscape today, right now, with one vote. This is your moment — a resounding “Yes”, please.
If you don’t vote for this today, you’ll regret it for the rest of your lives. And your grand-children and great-granchildren will wonder why you did not.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:41 pm:
== One in six Illinois residents are receiving food stamps or government subsidies for food purchases. SSM is a priority item. ==
Well, ironically I suspect you are making this as an argument against, when odds are it will create jobs and therefore it may very well reduce those numbers.
Why, well for one thing, more people are going to get married and need services (receptions, etc) that is going to cause some economic stimulus.
Secondly, it is going to make it easier for some Illinois employers to attract talent. For example tech companies in particular will see a hiring benefit, this will result in economic growth in general.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:48 pm:
Show us all HGOP … surprise yourselves.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 3:58 pm:
I’m pretty sure the Pope quotes Madigan too.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:00 pm:
Yikes, for My Party …Lou Lang.
Now MJM speaking, saying to Greg Harris what logical people already know.
Landmark vote, no way around it.
- david starrett - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
Done.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
61.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:04 pm:
Rep. Harris was one “heavy” …
- hisgirlfriday - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:04 pm:
JBT on the floor and one of the first 5 people to congratulate Harris. Good for her.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:05 pm:
Oswego Willy…
It appears you owe Tom some Tees
- Dee Lay - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
I feel this is appropriate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXvLsltu2A
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:14 pm:
- OneMan -,
Mr. Cross never listens to me, never listened to me, could care less about me, or my thoughts.
That being said, Mr. Cross knows Jim Oberweis at the top of the ticket, voting NO to SSM, and if Cross voted NO, running against Sen. Frerichs voting YES, Cross would have been painted, very easily a Jim Oberweis Republican, so I am glad for Mr. Cross, and that Mr. Cross voted YES, but it was 1000% more about Sen. Frerichs and Sen. Oberweis than about anything else.
Good on Mr. Cross. If Tom Cross needs a 4th to play, I am around. I will bring those tees, - OneMan -.
- Mama - Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 4:51 pm:
Why is Dillard against SSM?