Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

*** LIVE*** Pension reform conference committee coverage

Thursday, Jun 27, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Click here to watch live video of the pension reform conference committee meeting.

* Let’s do some ScribbleLive coverage as well. Blackberry users click here…

* Meanwhile, at first blush, I dismissed this press release yesterday as mere political posturing from a likely gubernatorial candidate…

State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) today called on Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan to publicly testify in front of the recently appointed Conference Committee established to deal with the state’s pension crisis.

“Gov. Quinn said that if he could fix the pension crisis by Executive Order he would. Therefore, Gov. Quinn should appear before the Conference Committee and tell its members what his Executive Order would look like and how his solution to the state’s nearly $100 billion pension crisis would be drafted,” said Dillard. “As Governor, Quinn has not offered his own plan but reacted to the General Assembly. Now it’s time for the Governor to lead and show us his plan.”

Dillard said that as chief legal counsel of Illinois with a staff of attorneys, Attorney General Lisa Madigan should also testify in front of the Conference Committee on the constitutionality of the competing pension proposals being pushed by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton.

“Importantly, as the state’s chief legal officer Attorney General Madigan should appear before conferees and give legal guidance as to whether Speaker Madigan’s plan or Speaker Cullerton’s plan are able to pass constitutional muster. The Attorney General must have an opinion as to which of the two plans are more constitutional, and she should share this with the Committee,” said Dillard.

But, the more I thought about it, the more this made sense, even considering the partisan source.

As noted below, most legislative committee hearings are far more show than go, and, by the looks of things, this pension reform conference committee will be no different.

So, why not shake things up and heed Dillard’s advice? It couldn’t hurt.

Your thoughts?

45 Comments

*** UPDATED x2 *** Springfield Bishop: Supreme Court ruling “absolutely devoid of moral authority”

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki has issued a statement on the DOMA ruling….

As in the case of Roe v. Wade striking down abortion laws 40 years ago, the United States Supreme Court has again usurped its legitimate prerogative through a raw exercise of judicial power by giving legal protection to an intrinsic evil, this time by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in the case of U.S. v. Windsor and in refusing to take up the defense of Proposition 8 in California in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry.

These hollow decisions are absolutely devoid of moral authority. It is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that what secular law now calls “marriage” has no semblance to the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony. People of faith are called to reject the redefinition of marriage and bear witness to the truth of Holy Matrimony as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between one man and one woman.

Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki
Bishop of Springfield in Illinois

Via WUIS.

Despite the rhetoric, the Bishop may have actually stumbled onto a revelation: “It is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that what secular law now calls ‘marriage’ has no semblance to the sacred institution of Holy Matrimony.”

Well, yeah. That’s the point here. And that’s why folks like Sen. Mark Kirk have taken to referring to it as “civil marriage.” Holy Matrimony is blessed by the church, not the state - never the state. So the concept of Holy Matrimony is untouched by a gay marriage bill.

*** UPDATE *** The Catholic Conference of Illinois was far more reserved…

“The Catholic Conference of Illinois regrets the U.S. Supreme Court’s wrong decision to invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage comes to us through God’s nature as the union of one man and one woman,” the group said in a prepared statement.

“The ruling, however, does not mandate a redefinition of marriage across the nation, so the citizens of Illinois can still preserve marriage by telling their state lawmakers to honor the natural truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” the group said. “The Catholic Church in Illinois and across the world will continue to promote this truth.”

A “natural truth” does not necessarily translate into a “legal truth.” This whole debate has been one side talking past the other.

*** UPDATE 2 *** From the Illinois Family Institute…

And the reason the state is involved in marriage is to protect the needs and rights of any children that may result from the particular type of sexual union that is marriage.

Well, if it’s all about protecting needs and rights of children, then what’s the big deal here?

[ *** End Of Updates *** ]

* And here’s the Heritage Foundation’s response to the DOMA decision…

In its ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Court struck down Section 3, declaring that the federal government cannot define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws but must accept whatever the states decide about marriage. The Court’s ruling, however, does not affect Section 2, which provides that no state is required to give effect to another state’s recognition of same-sex marriages.

Here, the Court got it wrong. The Court ignored the votes of a large bipartisan majority of Members of Congress. It is absurd for the Court to suggest that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself has enacted. Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too Congress has constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining a term for federal programs created by federal law.

DOMA imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states, and the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government. We must work to reverse it and to defend the rights of all Americans to make marriage policy. And we should promote the truth about marriage between a man and a woman and why it matters for children, civil society, and limited government.

Nothing in the text, history, logic, or structure of the U.S. Constitution requires redefining marriage. Indeed, in a Heritage Legal Memorandum, John Eastman explains why marriage laws are constitutional:

Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.

Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges. The American people and their elected representatives have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.

47 Comments

*** UPDATED x3 - Videos posted *** Bill Brady’s campaign kick-off

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Sen. Bill Brady is scheduled to kick off his 2014 gubernatorial campaign this morning at 10 o’clock. Our good friends at BlueRoomStream.com are providing a live video feed. No embed is available, but click here to watch and help us live-blog it in comments. Thanks.

*** UPDATE *** BlueRoomStream.com reports “network problems at the hotel” and therefore can’t provide a live feed. Brady was already getting buried by the DOMA decision and now this.

We’ll have archived footage later today.

*** UPDATE 2 *** Sun-Times coverage from yesterday…

In a clear shot at millionaire venture capitalist Bruce Rauner who is already hit the airwaves in anticipation of the March 2014 primary, Brady said his best asset is his history in the Illinois Senate state, where voters can review his record.

“In a big state like Illinois, running ads doesn’t make people comfortable with you,” Brady told the Sun-Times. “History and time makes people comfortable with you.”

Brady said Tuesday he would formally launch his campaign in a series of news conferences Wednesday, starting in Chicago and moving Downstate.

Brady didn’t flinch when asked about Rauner, who is already miles ahead in fund-raising. (Brady had about $200,000 in his campaign fund at the close of the last reporting period while Rauner had $1.3 million).

“I think (Illinois) primaries have proven that millionaires don’t win it by being millionaires. You’ve got to lay the groundwork. The voters know me, they’ve shown that they can trust me,” Brady told the Sun-Times on Tuesday.
“We won the last primary, we spent a little over $1 million, it’s no question that Mr. Rauner’s personal wealth can outspend anybody. We will raise the resources necessary to get our message out.”

*** UPDATE 3 *** Here are the vids. First up, the announcement itself…

Click to view

* And here’s the Q&A…

Click to view

I haven’t had time to watch the announcement video yet, but he did dodge questions on today’s Supreme Court decision, saying he was focused on economic issues.

“Social issues are just that, there are people who are on one side or the other side of an issue,” Brady said, adding that he would “honor what the Supreme Court of the land as an abider of the Constitution decrees.” He said he believed the gay marriage bill is “flawed” and would violate the rights of churches.

* Tribune…

Republican state Sen. Bill Brady, who lost to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn by less than 1 percent of the vote in 2010, formally kicked off his third attempt for the office today.

“It’s time to finish the job we started four years ago,” said Brady who noted he expects to do better in the four of the state’s 102 counties he did not win last time, including Cook County.

51 Comments

Supremes strike down “Defense of Marriage Act”

Wednesday, Jun 26, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller

* From the US Supreme Court opinion…

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect.

Make sure to check the SCOTUS Blog for live updates.

I don’t usually post about national issues, but this is pretty relevant to Illinois’ debate over gay marriage, so I decided to go ahead with it. Please, do your best to avoid national political talking points here. Thanks.

…Adding… From Equality Illinois…

“The Supreme Court today affirmed America’s promise of equality by ruling that the federal government cannot ignore constitutional principles when it comes to gay and lesbian couples and their marriages, and it is a moment to celebrate. But today’s historic victory overturning the Defense of Marriage Act is bittersweet in the states like Illinois where couples are still denied the right and recognition of marriage. For anyone who doubts that civil unions in Illinois created an unacceptable second-class status, the court’s ruling is a powerful message that the state House urgently needs to join the Senate and pass the freedom to marry. It is crystal clear now that by failing to act the House denied gay and lesbian couples equal access to the federal protections that married couples in other states will now enjoy.”

* In his rather harsh dissent, Justice Scalia claims that the decision will be used to overturn state laws banning gay marriages, even though the opinion makes clear this the decision applies only to the federal law…

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate thatcan seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

* From Gov. Pat Quinn…

“Today the Supreme Court took a historic step by providing equal access to more than 1,100 federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples.

“Members of the Illinois House now have more than 1,100 new reasons to make marriage equality the law in Illinois.

“This is a monumental day for freedom in the history of our nation. The opportunity to guarantee equal rights and benefits to all citizens - under both state and federal law - is one we must seize here in the Land of Lincoln without delay.

“Now is the time for all to put differences aside, band together and redouble our efforts to make it happen.

“I will continue working with members of the Illinois House and all of our tireless community advocates to bring marriage equality to Illinois as soon as possible.”

* The Tribune answers some questions that have popped up in comments…

Because Illinois only allows civil unions and doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, Camilla Taylor, an attorney with Lambda Legal in Chicago, said most gay and lesbian couples in the state are unlikely to see their status in the eyes of the federal government changed by today’s decision.

“In the vast majority of circumstances, Illinois couples in civil unions are uncertain, if not unlikely, to get any of these benefits,” she said.

Taylor said the Obama administration will have to provide guidance on how the government will treat same-sex couples who were legally married in another state and now live in Illinois. It’s possible, she said, that those couples will now have federal recognition.

“We should expect some federal guidance from the IRS, for example, on how same-sex couples will be treated in states like Illinois if they got married in a state like Iowa, where they can legally marry,” Taylor said.

* Journal Star…

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling Wednesday giving married same-sex couples access to federal benefits will have little impact in Illinois unless the state legalizes same-sex marriage, a spokesman for the ACLU of Illinois said.

The court’s decision to strike down the section of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, that denies federal benefits to married same-sex couples applies to couples in the 12 states and the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is legal.

“It also means couples in civil unions in Illinois don’t have access to those benefit because they are not married,” said Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “Frankly, the House ought to convene and pass the marriage bill.”

* These stories have lots of react…

* Sun-Times: Supporters hope DOMA ruling pushes Illinois House on gay marriage

* NBC5: Illinois Reacts To Supreme Court’s DOMA Ruling

58 Comments

« NEWER POSTS