Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Catholics increase their pressure against civil unions, death penalty

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The Catholic Conference of Illinois is turning up the heat against the civil unions bill, and urged action by its adherents this week…

Please call your state representative and state senator next Monday, Nov. 15 or Tuesday, Nov. 16 and ask him or her to vote NO on Senate Bill 1716. We expect a vote next week! Senate Bill 1716 enacts civil unions and grants those in civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Under this bill the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the name. Your message is simple: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.

It’s not completely clear what that “significant impact on the Church’s social service missions” means. Washington, DC’s archdiocese originally threatened to close homeless shelters and end various social service programs if the city enacted a gay marriage ordinance. Instead, they simply transferred a foster care program to another group and stopped paying for new employee spousal health insurance.

Fran Eaton has her own translation…

Forcing the Catholic Church to consider civil unions in its qualifications for adoption and other family-oriented ministries would force state policy onto religious doctrine, a possible First Amendment infringement.

* Robert Gilligan, the executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, penned a recent op-ed that provides some clues…

The November 12, 2010 editorial “Time for Civil Unions” stated that civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage. You should have read the legislation more carefully because they are the same.

The bill describes a “party to a civil union” as the legal equivalent of a “spouse” under Illinois law. The bill then states that a “party to a civil union” is entitled to the same legal obligations, protections and benefits as are afforded by the law to a spouse. Proponents of civil unions know lawmakers do not have the political will to pass same sex marriage in Illinois, so they have created the pseudonym of civil unions in order to get the same benefits of marriage by calling it something else.

The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life. More attention needs to be directed at how this legislation presents a clash with established principles of religious liberty. Real concerns remain about how this bill could require faith-based employers to grant benefits to same sex civil partners and how it would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners. Do not be fooled. Civil unions are same sex marriage and there are real problems with this legislation for religious entities.

So, it appears that the Catholics may no longer be in the foster child, adoption game if this passes.

* Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan not only claimed that the civil unions bill has a good chance of passage, he also appeared to endorse it…

“There’s a good chance it’ll pass,” he said. “. . . It’s an appropriate thing to do.”

* Sen. James Meeks is probably hoping the bill never arrives in the Senate. He’s a social conservative and has opposed the idea in the past. He wouldn’t tell Chicago Tonight what he would do if he does have to vote, but said as Chicago’s mayor he would have a duty to uphold all the laws. Have a look…

* The Catholic Conference is also urging abolition of the state’s death penalty. From its website…

Legislation to abolish the death penalty in Illinois may be considered during the fall veto session in Springfield (November 16-18 and November 29-December 2). The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI) supports this legislation. The use of the death penalty when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without parole, weakens the respect for all human life. Now is the time to end the death penalty in Illinois. Here are a few things you can do to take action.

1) Call your legislators.

Please call your state representative and state senator and ask him or her to vote YES on legislation to abolish the death penalty. Tell your legislators that:

“The death penalty is not necessary when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without the possibility of parole. Please support legislation to abolish the death penalty.”

You can go to the Illinois State Board of Elections to look up your elected officials or call our office at (312) 368-1066 or (217) 528-9200.

2) Participate in the November 29 Lobby Day.

You can also participate in the “People of Faith Lobby Day” in Springfield on November 29. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is providing transportation (for a fee, lunch included) from Chicago and Glen Ellyn. Go to ICADP or contact CCI at (312) 368-1066 for more information.

3) Promote educational efforts on Catholic Social Teaching & the abolition of the death penalty.

* Related…

* Meeks swipes the cone!

* VIDEO: In their own words

* Exposé Hits Hard At Death Penalty System: Since 2000, she learned, $100 million in taxpayer money has been spent via the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. That honey pot was meant to ensure defense counsel in capital cases, especially in places where public defender offices aren’t staffed adequately and must enlist private lawyers. But prosecutors made sure that the fund would also pay for their often-ample nonsalary expenses, including those for investigators, not just for private defense counsel and the nonsalary expenses of public defenders.

* VIDEO: Scott Turow — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Rob Warden — End the Death Penalty

* VIDEO: Karen Yarbrough — End the Death Penalty

46 Comments

Joe Ricketts thought he had a sure thing

Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Joe Ricketts talked earlier this year about why he forked out all that money to buy the Chicago Cubs. Check it out…

The most interesting part of the video was Ricketts’ description of a conversation he had five years ago with his son, Tom, who is now the Cubs chairman.

“Why would I want to buy a baseball team?” Ricketts said he asked his son.

“They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose,” Tom replied.

“Now you’re talking about a business,” the elder Ricketts said. “Now you’ve got my interest.”

Cub fans have changed a bit since that fateful conversation. Attendance is down the last two years, even though it’s still abnormally high for such an awful team. Fan dissatisfaction appeared to grow this year with every horrific loss. They have a ton of overpaid, underperforming players and they can’t find the right managerial mix.

“If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to come over and run it because I don’t want to be exposed to risk,” Ricketts told his son Tom. Well, the risk has injected itself anyway.

* Reading a Tribune story this morning about the proposed Wrigley Field renovation plan gave me an idea…

Ricketts said the more than $200 million in proposed ballpark renovations and another $200 million the family would commit to redevelopment surrounding the historic ballpark would create 1,000 construction jobs and hundreds more permanent jobs in the next five years.

Here’s the layout of the proposal. Click the pic for a larger image. Notice the “Triangle Building” to the west and “Cubs Alley” between the triangle and the park…

The Triangle Building will include parking, concessions, shopping, dining and Cub offices. It may also include a hotel. Cubs Alley will have a retractable roof and will feature shops, restaurants, etc…

The Ricketts see that development as a way to make more money. Understandable. But they can apparently afford to spend $200 million. So, how about they just put their cash into the stadium and find private investments for the ancillary stuff like the Triangle Building and Cubs Alley? There’d be no need for a government bailout and the park would be remodeled.

* Anyway, back to the Statehouse, where things got a bit confusing yesterday…

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D- Chicago) told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday afternoon that the team’s owners, the Ricketts family, withdrew their proposal to finance a $200 million stadium renovation with a state bond sale that would be repaid with the anticipated growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets sold at Wrigley.

But a Ricketts family spokesman denied the family had scrapped the amusement-tax plan. […]

Later in the day, after Madigan’s comment, his spokesman, Steve Brown, seemed to leave the door open to more deliberations, but he did not elaborate on the state of negotiations.

“Mr. Ricketts has called the speaker … and the speaker has reiterated that he is prepared to try and be helpful,” Brown said.

When even the Speaker is confused, things aren’t going well.

…Adding… Joe Ricketts penned an op-ed for Politico this week…

The voters sent a clear message to stop reckless spending. Yet the earmarking system that perpetuates the power of incumbency, fosters a culture of dependency on the government, and produced the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and influence-peddling scandals that sent many to prison, still exists. Washington keeps borrowing and spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.

I suppose what Mr. Ricketts ought to explain is how government borrowing that allows him to build a big shopping mall and parking garage next to his ball park is something we really need, unlike those federal earmarks.

* Jon Greenberg at ESPN also took a look at the elder Ricketts’ ironic fight against federal earmarks…

“An earmark is something that’s appended onto a federal bill which is never debated, never discussed, just thrown in,” [Tom Ricketts] said. “The fact is, what it does is it jeopardizes the integrity of the federal budgeting process. You can tell by the people in the room today this isn’t a private process we’re going through. We’re trying to be as open as possible. This is a decision that will be made by elected officials and the people in this room.”

No this project isn’t an earmark, per se, but it’s close. If you bend the meaning a bit, you can see how some people would see that above statement as an exercise in semantics and this plan as hypocrisy.

After all, who would benefit the most by the Cubs getting a new park? The owners, of course. This isn’t a nonprofit. While Ricketts has claimed he wants the team and the park to stay family-owned for a century, a new Wrigley Field would increase the team’s value significantly. Astronomically, even.

According to [Taxpayers Against Earmarks, the group funded by Joe Ricketts], the point of railing against earmarks isn’t really the way they’re put together, it’s that they’re tailored to benefit the people who are sponsoring them. Sound about right?

Here’s what it says on the website: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”

Now, you can see the similarities.

Yes, we can.

61 Comments

« NEWER POSTS