Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: ** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Vote nears on medical marijuana
Posted in:
* Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago George J. Rassas headquarters in Libertyville, and his flock is within Rep. Ed Sullivan’s district. As you already know, Sullivan (R-Mundelein) has announced that he will vote for the gay marriage bill. Bishop Rassas issued a statement in response…
I was distressed and disappointed to read of Representative Ed Sullivan’s change of heart concerning the legislative effort in Springfield to redefine marriage. Representative Sullivan had indicated for some time that he understood the gravity of this issue and was prepared to oppose Senate Bill 10.
Senate Bill 10 proposes to legally alter an institution that has been the bedrock of human society for much longer than our state has been in existence. This bill would declare that gender and gender differences play no unique role in marriage and the family and thereby undermine the norms that have defined marriage (i.e. gender, procreation) throughout human history and that are essential for healthy families and the common good of society.
Representative Sullivan mistakenly claims that Senate Bill 10 contains strong religious freedom protections. In fact, the bill allows only meager protections for what happens within the walls of select religious facilities. It offers very limited protections to religiously affiliated nonprofits, which are extensions of religious missions, or to individual conscience – the right of any man or woman to live by their own religious beliefs in every avenue of life. Every state that has redefined marriage by legislation has offered greater religious liberty protections than does Senate Bill 10.
There can be no doubt that this issue of marriage and sexuality are controversial and sensitive. We must be careful to respect all of our neighbors and ensure that none are being unjustly discriminated against. However, that safeguard does not rationalize the redefinition of marriage and the family. It is simply wrong to say otherwise.
The first rule when negotiating legislation is to agree to not oppose the bill in the end. So, the Catholic Conference is basically forcing proponents to negotiate against themselves.
But as far as the Bishop’s statement about the bill offering only “meager protections” for what happens within church walls, here is the bill’s actual language…
That’s pretty strong stuff.
And what about how Illinois’ religious protections are supposedly weaker than every other state’s laws? Well, here is the relevant language in Illinois’ proposal…
There are some very real protections in that bill, including for groups “whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion.”
New York’s gay marriage law may make the protections a bit clearer…
But even with those protections, there was still a hue and cry from Catholic bishops…
The New York State Catholic Conference, led by Archbishop Timothy Dolan, stated to NBC News that it was “deeply disappointed and troubled” and that it will “alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage.
* Anyway, back to Rep. Sullivan…
Sullivan, who is Catholic, told us yesterday that he knew political blow-back was coming. After all, Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady of St. Charles has faced possible ouster over taking the same stance.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: ** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Vote nears on medical marijuana
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Have to say the ‘hall protection’ is better than it was before…
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:11 am
Rep. Sullivan, thank you for your personal integrity!
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:14 am
I guess I don’t understand the position that marriage is a requirement for proper procreation. Nor do I understand the position that marriage is a “natural” thing.
If I remember my bible correctly the Good Lord put Adam and Eve on earth to multiply. I have looked and I see no evidence that he also put a member of the clergy in the Garden of Eden to make the whole thing proper. There was a whole lot of begatting going on and each birth was celebrated without any ceremony being conducted.
There will probably be a lot of comments that if the original couple were of the same gender there would be no begatting. But that is not my point.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:22 am
Again with the procreation. Has the bishop ever knowingly conducted a marriage ceremony for a couple that was not capable of procreation? Are those real marriages? I know some good Catholic couples who fit the bill.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:23 am
Congratulations to Rep. Sullivan. It took courage. As the to the bishop, I bet this is not the first time he has reacted before getting the facts. His response may be symptomatic of why many Catholics are not fully embracing church rules. We have learned to know that our church leaders do not always know what they are talking about and sometimes even intentionally withhold information.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:27 am
Not sure a social service agency or a school run by a religious entity should not be excempt from this. There should be provisions to protect other entities such as photographers from civil claims if they refer a couple elsewhere.
Comment by Richard Afflis Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:30 am
The issue is the “redefinition” of marriage….what is wrong with civil unions? If we redefine marriage to include same sex partners, what is to stop future legislation to include polygamy, or what about a father wanting to marry his son to protect assets from inheritance taxes? It is a slippery slope that we are embarking when we redefine the meaning of marriage.
I have nothing against gays/lesbians….I just don’t understand the “NEED” to be married, instead of legally recognized with civil unions
Comment by Boondocks Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:30 am
What protections does a religious school need from this? Last I checked, a principal does not conduct marriages. A Catholic school CAN have a policy that it does not hire non-Catholics. It’s problem will be if it hires non-Catholics in marriages that aren’t Catholic but denies employment to similarly non-Catholic-but-gay-married people.
But the simple fact is this: once the Catholic Church decided to enter the PUBLIC marketplace with schools, hospitals, and adoptions, it has to abide by the rules that govern those marketplaces. They are not able to pay below minimum wage b/c God dictates that minimum wage is socialized hedonism, so they can’t discriminate in employment WHEN IT’S A MARKET ISSUE, not a religious one.
Comment by xxtofer Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:35 am
===Sullivan, who is Catholic, told us yesterday that he knew political blow-back was coming. After all, Illinois GOP Chair Pat Brady of St. Charles has faced possible ouster over taking the same stance.===
Oberweis can’t shake that STAIN, even GOP members voting FOR… SSM are turning on Sen. Oberweis and his ouster of Pat Brady …very SPECIFICALLY on SSM.
When your OWN party is telling you that you did something, Sen. Oberweis, you can’t clean the stain, no matter how often you try to explain it away.
To the Post,
Bottom line for Rep. Ed Sullivan is two-fold;
Remember never commit to the EXACT way you are going to vote unless its YOUR bill to begin with, or there is a compromise out there that you can point to as a blueprint. Otherwise, “I know how YOU want me to vote, but once I look at the entire Bill, what it actually does, and how it looks when I actually have to vote for it, I am not going to commit to you today.”
Second, polling and the voting public are on your side, and whils some will call you out of touch with THEIR constituents, heck even with Jim Oberweis’ Blood Oathers and Litmus Testers, the reality is there is a reason hey are called Sub-Groups, they are not large enough to be THE group.
Thanks for making OUR Party seem less about what we aren’t, and more about who we CAN be, and we can be inclusive to many more within the Reagan Rule of 80%.
..and don’t let Oberweis’ backstroke off the hook if others think they can put YOU ON that hook. Eighteen out of 19 in the Illinois Senate does not sound inclusive, and dumping the State Party Chair becasue of SSM is not too inclusive either.
Keep up the Good fight… as a Good Republican, (right Sen. Oberweis?).
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:37 am
It’s just like when the government forced the Catholic Church to hire women as Priests…
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:38 am
If a catholic church rents out meeting spaces at their (catholic) school, or hospital, or social-services agency, does this mean they could not prevent a non-sanctioned ceremony from happening in those spaces? Or just that they could not be forced to conduct the ceremony there?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:38 am
Slavery is frequently spoken of in the Bible like a bedrock of society. That’s much older than the State of Illinois and we decided that we weren’t going to follow those teachings. We hardly ever burn people at the stake, either. There are lots of things we used to believe in that were endorsed by the church that we don’t do anymore. Usually, it’s because those beliefs and practices were inhumane.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:40 am
Richard, taking pictures is not “religious activity”, it’s a business. If a photographer is allowed to discriminate against gay couples, what’s to prevent say a grocer from doing the same?
Comment by Chitownhv Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:40 am
I find the arguments against SSM, procreation and child rearing, weak. Do the opponents know how many children are born out of wedlock or that there’s no evidence children raised by same sex couples are any different? Perhaps they should spend their energy working to ensure all children are raised by a family, heterosexual or same sex.
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:42 am
Polite assurances were offered in advance of the civil unions law. Afterwards, litigation followed because Catholic social agencies were not placing children for adoption with same sex couples and these agencies were barred from doing business with the state on account of their refusal to abandon their religious principles to conform to the new legal and cultural environment.
Does anyone want to bet that Greg Harris never raised such a scenario with other legislators when he was rounding up votes for civil unions?
The assurances made last time wound up being a “bait and switch.”
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:49 am
The same part of the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong also says we shouldn’t be eating shrimp or wearing linen-cotton blends.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:53 am
As a non-Catholic I must note that the protections are in fact very limited.
First, the protections against civil, administrative and criminal actions extends only to “organizations” whose principle purpose is to study, practice or advance religion. There are many organizations started by churches who don’t fit into this category. The term “practice” will be very narrowly construed (see how it is applied to hospitals).
Second, there are many individuals who practice the tenets of their faith in their businesses or actions. Individuals are not covered in these protections. They are wide open to civil, administrative and criminal (hey, it’s in the language) action.
Third, there is a whole wedding industry consisting of individual photographers, hall owners, musicians, caterers, decorators, etc., who may have religiously derived convictions about participating in these types of unions. The legislation leaves them wide open to, again, civil, administrative, and criminal penalties.
Far from offering protections, this bill opens the doors to a new class of plaintiffs who will sue religiously motivated individuals not covered by the limited language proposed. Civil lawyers are salivating at the prospects.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:54 am
===Third, there is a whole wedding industry consisting of individual photographers, hall owners, musicians, caterers, decorators, etc., who may have religiously derived convictions about participating in these types of unions. The legislation leaves them wide open to, again, civil, administrative, and criminal penalties.
Of course, the law already requires those providing public accommodations to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Welcome to 2006 everyone.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:03 am
The Church hierarchy picks and chooses odd occasions to show (and not show) moral indignation.
Comment by Gern Blanston Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:05 am
“I just don’t understand the “NEED” to be married, instead of legally recognized with civil unions”
It’s very simple, Boondocks. There are literally thousands of rights, responsibilities, protections, and benefits that marriage provides that civil unions do not. You will never be able to legislate civil unions to the same level as marriage, even if one wished to follow your “separate but equal” logic (that went out of voge in the 50s.)
The fact is that marriage pre-dates Christianity. It’s not yours to define.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:06 am
LincolnLounger-
So when in history where marriage between same sex couples performed prior to the last decade???? It’s not a “christian” definition, but a societal one.
Comment by Boondocks Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:13 am
Irish, if we are to take the Old Testament literally, then the first “traditional” marriages — those of Cain and Seth. — were certainly incestual, since all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve.
Polygamy was a strong tradition as well, as was slavery. And people lived for hundreds of years with the dinosaurs.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:13 am
- It’s not a “christian” definition, but a societal one. -
Societal definitions come and go. We’re talking about legal definitions. If you can’t wrap your head around that, there’s no sense arguing with you.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:16 am
“…proposes to legally alter an institution that has been the bedrock of human society for much longer than our state has been in existence.”
Really? I always think of the Greeks and Romans (many same sex couples) which our western society was built upon - (accepting conservative teachings here, of course).
Apart from one reference in a book from the Old Testament (said book also promotes stoning women caught in adultary) the issue is not mentioned in the Bible.
I had a phenomenal Catholic education, and I have yet to see, hear, or be made aware of anything Christ said about this issue. But we know that it did exist and had for thousands of years before his birth.
There were 12 male disciples who followed him everywhere. Yet he never said a single thing regarding this?
Remember, the Bible is a collection of books that has been agreed by the hierarchy as the true gospel (an infallible teaching) while many other writings were rejected. Yet nothing said?
Sorry, Bishop - but your theology is simply incorrect on this.
Comment by AMDG Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:19 am
1 Corinthians 6:9-10:-
Matt. 19:4.
New testament, I would not usually quote them but when someone says the bible doesn’t speak of it or that Jesus didn’t that is incorrect.
Comment by Votecounter Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:29 am
I think it is venue protection, that is they wouldn’t have to rent out a gym or classrooms or a playing field (whatever) for something.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:32 am
=== Afterwards, litigation followed because Catholic social agencies were not placing children for adoption with same sex couples and these agencies were barred from doing business with the state on account of their refusal to abandon their religious principles to conform to the new legal and cultural environment. ===
That is a point I had not previously considered. It goes a long way towards explaining the roots of some distrust here. Thank you for reminding us.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:33 am
Polling consistently shows that a majority of lay Catholics support marriage equality. The church leaders are out of touch on this one. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/poll-catholic-gay-marriage-support-up-88618.html
Comment by Reo Symes, M.D. Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:34 am
Word. I think I am arguing the same side as you are. Not sure what in my post begot your post. LOL
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:36 am
@ADMG:
1) The first act of Christ’s public ministry occurred at a traditional wedding celebration in Cana. Many Christians attach significance to this fact. Catholics consider marriage to be a holy sacrament ordained by Christ.
2) Throughout the Epistles (most, but not all were written by St. Paul) there are numerous condemnations (in euphemistic language depending upon the translation of the Bible) of sexual misconduct and immorality. These epistles addressed to communities in the Greek and Roman regions of the Roman Empire. Only marital relations between a husband and wife were approved of by the early Christian Church which adopted many, but not all, of its teaching from Judaism.
For religious adherents, it is difficult to square their beliefs and centuries of human experience and understanding with contemporary legislators seeking to “redefine” marriage due to the demands of the gay rights advocates and their lobbyists.
3) Procreation is natural to marriages, but does not necessarily occur for every married couple.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:52 am
@Non-ISRA Member:
None of what you bring up should be protected. What you are saying is that individuals and business should be allowed to discriminate. When has the EVER been ok? If you are going to operate a business then you follow the rules like everyone else. You don’t get a free pass to discriminate just because you don’t like something. You are singling out gay marriage as an acceptable thing to discriminate over. Should these same businesses be able to reject services to somebody who was divorced because their religious convictions tell them divorce is wrong? No, they shouldn’t. People seem to believe their religion gives them a pass from having to obey laws simply because of their religion. Churches are one thing. The general operation of a business is something else. Comply. It’s that simple.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:54 am
Irish, I’m with you.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:56 am
@Esquire:
And Catholic Charities wasn’t forced to allow adoptions to same sex couples. They were stripped of their state contract because they refused to follow the law. You don’t have a right to a state contract. You don’t give a pass to certain contractors while everybody else has to follow the law. It’s not a difficult concept to understand. It’s their right to not offer the service as a religious insitution. It’s not their right to get a state contract.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 11:57 am
I don’t like all the references to gender and gender roles and distinctions. Too often, these gender roles and distinctions have been used to limit women. And the traditional marriage that everyone opposed to gay marriage wants to maintain, has only really been reasonable for women since about the 50s. Before that, getting married involved giving up a lot of personal rights.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Let’s never forget that this Bishop’s flock include the hideout at the seminary. He go back to solving his own challenges before he starts bossing others around
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:10 pm
Reo- since when is the Catholic church, or any church, a democracy? This is really an egalitarian vs libertarian issue- the moralists have already lost.
Comment by Liberty_First Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:14 pm
REO
The Church is not a Democracy! Just because you want something doesn’t mean something that has stood for 2000 years should change. You don’t have to be a member but Thank God the constitution says you can’t vote to force it to change and make me stop practicing because you don’t like it.
Comment by Votecounter Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:23 pm
Liberty - This legislation would create a right of civil marriage. Civil marriage only. It has nothing to do what churches consider or do not consider marriage. This is about the law treating all people equally. Churches can do what they want.
Comment by Reo Symes, M.D. Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:27 pm
circular
And you think the Church is the Hate group?
Comment by Votecounter Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:27 pm
PS., Liberty - When you say the moralists have lost, I assume you’re lamentingly including yourself in that group? To some folks, treating others as you’d like to be treated yourself is an important moral value.
Comment by Reo Symes, M.D. Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:30 pm
No one is asking the Catholic Church to change (except maybe the majority of its members) its definition. I’ve argued before that the legal civil definition of marriage shouldn’t be entwined w/ religion…an improper blending of church and state.
Comment by D P Gumby Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:39 pm
The institution has stood for 2000 years but it does change….witness the decision made 1000 years after it was founded deciding priests could no longer marry. John Paul II to turn the altar around and do mass in the language of the congregation….these are just 2 examples of how man changes the system.
Core religious beliefs based on Jesus teachings tend to hold steady, but what man has decided around issues of cannon law and church policy has and will continue to evolve.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 12:59 pm
@Esquire & @Demoralized - I would point out that as a result of state officials and church officials inability to find common ground, one of the major components (many Catholic Charities service providers) in Illinois’ adoption and foster care network for the past few decades withdrew.
I don’t think those kids waiting to be adopted, however, much care about who “won” that political debate.
I think that if we asked those kids, they would tell us they just wish leaders on both sides had found some way of working out an agreement enabling Catholic Charities to continue operating an adoption netwrok of the same size and scope.
That way they might not have to go to sleep without a family at night.
Plenty of blame on both sides of that one. It was an absolute failure of leadership by those kids - the ones that system is supposed to serve.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:19 pm
First let me say that I was born and raised Catholic (12 years of Catholic school), so I’m not trying to bash anyone else’s religion. Recently we had the child abuse cover-ups and the bashing of Catholic nuns for spending too much time helping the poor rather than proselytizing. Now we have church leaders trying their best to deny same sex couples the right to marry, even though the Catholic Church would not be forced to perform same-sex weddings. This is just sad.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:21 pm
Votecounter:
Please explain what it is that you fear being forced to stop practicing.
Comment by jaranath Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:22 pm
@Demoralized:
I argue no such thing. I merely point out, accurately, that the exemptions are rather limited and not broad, and that this legislation will lead to new civil, administrative and criminal (by the proposed wording) actions against individuals and businesses who would choose not to participate in SSM. Nothing I’ve seen or read leads me to conclude otherwise.
Your post raises other interesting issues about the religiously motivated behavior of individuals and public acceptance of such actions. I don’t know that this has been fully debated by the GA, and I haven’t commented on this.
This being Illinois, I suspect Illinois courts would take a dim view of a religious defense by individuals to these potential civil, administrative and criminal actions arising out of this new law; any legal protections would I think have to come from the federal judiciary, like the CC issue.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:41 pm
@Non-ISRA Member:
The exemptions should be limited. It’s pretty clear that churches are protected from having to participate in or perform the ceremonies. And it’s good if there are penalties for people who would violate the law. I have zero tolerance for people who use their religion as an excuse to be a bigot. But that’s just me.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 1:59 pm
Historically, the Catholic Church has not had the best track record in matters of Church obedience.
The Midwest was settled by many Protestant Europeans whom fled Europe because of persecution by the Church.
The Church leaders in that era also believed they solely determined the “bedrock of human society”.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:02 pm
====Reo- since when is the Catholic church, or any church, a democracy?
Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and many more churches actually are democracies.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:40 pm
===For religious adherents, it is difficult to square their beliefs and centuries of human experience and understanding with contemporary legislators seeking to “redefine” marriage due to the demands of the gay rights advocates and their lobbyists.
For some religious adherents. You don’t speak for all religious adherents, or all Christians even, or all Jews, or all Muslims, or all Buddhists, or all …..
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:42 pm
=We hardly ever burn people at the stake, either. =
Hardly ever?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:45 pm
====I argue no such thing. I merely point out, accurately, that the exemptions are rather limited and not broad, and that this legislation will lead to new civil, administrative and criminal (by the proposed wording) actions against individuals and businesses who would choose not to participate in SSM. Nothing I’ve seen or read leads me to conclude otherwise.
You don’t appear to understand that Same Sex Marriage is irrelevant to the issue you bring up and that the issue has already been settled when the State of Illinois pass a law that went into effect about 7 years ago.
Nothing you are arguing would occur because of a bill legalizing Same Sex Marriages in Illinois. It already happened seven years ago.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:48 pm
It’s interesting to watch how Willy and Willy’s Party continue to “evolve” from day to day. The only thing that seems to remain constant is Brady.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 2:59 pm
“No one is asking the Catholic Church to change” is pretty much the same manure that was put forth before the Civil Unions bill.
The politicians (and Steve Brown) swore up and down that Religious Institutions including Catholic Schools, Lutheran Adoption Agencies, etc would not be forced to change their practices due to that legislation.
It turned out that Lisa Madigan decided otherwise, regardless of the previous promises and legislation to the contrary.
I don’t know why anyone would believe these guys again when they claim that they will respect Religious Liberty.
Comment by Backwards Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:00 pm
@Demoralized:
Do not twist the meaning of my words. My point was before the passage of civil unions legislation, assurances were made that religious organizations were going to be exempt. When the law passed, lo and behold, the Catholic social agencies were told that the exemption did not apply and that they could either place children for adoptions by same sex couples or forfeit their state contracts. So it came to pass.
From a legal standpoint, I understand the court’s decision, but I rather doubt some of the legislators who voted for civil unions based upon the “exemption” for religious organizations envisioned that the limitations would be so narrow. A thorough discussion would have been beneficial, but, being a cynic, I suspect the legislative sponsors of the bill did not want to go into such concerns at great length for fear of losing votes in the General Assembly.
It is a difficult question to respect everyone’s rights and sensibilities, but it seems that conservatives always get trampled. Consider the pro-life pharmacists who have been ordered to set aside their own values to dispense abortion pills. Of course, they could always quit their jobs and find another profession. Somehow, to me that does not seem right.
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:10 pm
@ArchPundit:
You are mistaken about the current law and the scope of the law currently on the books.
Current law does not require a wedding photographer, planner or others who “do” weddings to participate in SSM. Upon passage of this law, that will change. The state regulatory apparatus will be obligated to ensure that these services are being offered to SS couples as well as OS couples. Civil, administrative, and criminal penalties will follow. Clergymen and churches are exempted, all others are not.
Rep. Harris understands the issue. As the sponsor, he is including the language that is the subject of this post. If as you argue nothing would change if this bill were enacted into law, then why has Rep. Harris included language to protect anybody or any institution from civil, administrative or criminal legal action? It’s because it is expected that this bill will lead to civil, administrative and criminal legal proceedings.
The post is about “real” protections in the proposed legislation and the bishop crying wolf.
I am merely pointing out that the protections are very narrow. While the bishop and his organization may be exempted, his parishoners and others enjoy no such protection.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:13 pm
===Current law does not require a wedding photographer, planner or others who “do” weddings to participate in SSM===
That may be covered under the human rights statute, however. Public accomodations, etc.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:19 pm
====You are mistaken about the current law and the scope of the law currently on the books.
No, I’m not. In some technical sense it’s true that businesses don’t have to provide services for gay marriages because gay marriage doesn’t exist under the law. However, that would be a really stupid argument for pretty obvious reasons. Those businesses engaging in market behavior are already covered by the Illinois in the Human Rights Act and it prohibits discrimination of protected classes already including sexual orientation. So if a gay couple wants to hire you as a professional and you engage in that business and don’t fall under the few exclusions, you cannot decide to decline the work based on their sexual orientation.
This has been the law since 2006 when it went into effect on January 1st. Allowing for same sex marriage doesn’t change this except now same sex marriages will exist under the law. Given civil unions had the same status under state law as marriage, nothing changes in terms of public accommodations or professionals providing services.
The parishioners don’t have that “protection” now and have not had it since 2006 in relation to the protected class based on sexual orientation. They haven’t had it for much longer for the protected classes or race, gender, and other protected classes.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:31 pm
===It’s interesting to watch how Willy and Willy’s Party continue to “evolve” from day to day. The only thing that seems to remain constant is Brady.===
Brady lost …Food for thought.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:52 pm
Please do not reference historical facts in the old testament as theological rules or laws if you do not understand the difference.
First, consider the source. The catholic church is still hiding behind corporate loopholes, not scripture to justify allowing thousands of kids to be abused. They are not a reliable authority on Biblical doctrine in the modern age.
The Bible in new and old Testament condemns homosexuality. But I really wonder if Jesus would be breating fire on homosexuals or great them with open arms.
The problem for churches is not homosexuals. It is that we want to call them sinners, but treat them different then other sinners. Why are we not crying about people who drink excessively, have too much debt, use foul language, or commit heterosexual adultery?
How many of these bishops have refused to marry somone because of excessive drinking or having sex before the cerimony?
The Romans could not force christians to endorse immoral conduct. Regardless of what law Springfield passes, it cannot force churches to endorse immoral conduct. Churches need to sole search on this issue and take a firm and uniform position on all Biblical issues, not discriminate against certain one’s because of political reasons.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 3:57 pm
TP,
“Regardless of what law Springfield passes, it cannot force churches to endorse immoral conduct”
Springfield already did with regard to adoption and SS couples.
**
I don’t think you have thought this out very well. You can’t be baptized into the Catholic Church when you are intoxicated (not that I have tried, but it is one of the rules). You can’t adopt via Catholic Charities unless you are married, that is a boyfriend-girlfriend cannot adopt etc.
Comment by Backwards Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:03 pm
Posting from Hollywood, Willy?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:15 pm
===Springfield already did with regard to adoption and SS couples.
The Catholic Church was not forced to do anything. It had a simple choice–if Catholic Charities wanted to receive public funding, Catholic Charities had to abide by the law of the State of Illinois. Catholic Charities is free to do as it chooses, but it is not entitled to a public subsidy.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Miami … No, Detroit, … No, Kansas City …
No, I am in Augusta, Georga. This is the 1st Masters Golf Tournament with TWO female members in the ranks of the Membership …and the question that seems to be swirling among the Georgia Pines is …”what took so long?”
Maybe, kinda like My Party, who is so wrapped up in Blood Oaths and Litmus Tests, the “Right”, the “Jim Oberweis’” lose sight that being …inclusive … IS a good thing.
So, as you “Troll”, I will enjoy the 1st Major of the Year in Golf, celebrating the TWO new female members and the fact that Augusta National embraced diversity in it ranks, as the “Oberweis’” of My Party in Illinois celebrate… intolerance… to be in “their” ranks of what a member of the ILGOP should be.
Or maybe I am in Decatur, I dunno …
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:23 pm
Not to be rude, but I’d try to reply to all of the golf analogies if I had a clue as to what they were supposed to mean.
My question had more to do with whether you’d been “retained” as a speaker on “How To Build A Big Tent By Tossing Out The Conservatives.” Guess they must have passed on the offer, huh?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:28 pm
===”Not to be rude…”===
How priceless is that.
I am learning from - wordslinger -,
“Do. Not. Feed. The. Trolls.”
Golf is a great game, if things work out, I look forward to playing in a “Leader Cross” event.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:32 pm
I’ll have to ask Tom to introduce us then.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:40 pm
Yeah, ok … I will be the one swinging a golf club.
For someone who has no respect, or time, for me…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 4:46 pm
@Oswego Willy, LOVE your words on the women of Augusta!
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:18 pm
- Amalia -,
Thank you.
Love that Course and Event. The Membership did “a solid” with inviting 2 incredible women within their ranks. I will enjoy this year’s Masters a little bit more this year because of it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:26 pm
The bill specifically states that “religious facilities” does NOT include educational facilities. It would thus appear that Catholic Universities, such as DePaul, Loyola, etc, would be required under civil penalty to make their facilities available for same sex marriage ceremonies or receptions. Also, the law does not appear to provide any protection for religious fraternal organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, to restrict the use of their facilities for same sex marriages.
Comment by David0316 Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 5:53 pm
Willy and amalia, what I know about golf would fit in the, thingy where the ball goes, cup is it? Willy will be in charge of “Golf” at the Con$ulting shop, ok?
I do know that I never thought I would see Condi Rice wear the green jacket of “The Masters” in my lifetime. What a fine moment for both those ladies.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:46 pm
I’m waiting breathlessly for the catholic press releases bashing catholic legislators for not supporting Medicaid expansion. Which, by the way, the Catholic Cnference explicitly supports, but has been silent about in Springfield and the media.
And they’re going to stop serving communion to all those legislators that didn’t vote to abolish the death penalty, right?
Comment by dave Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 6:52 pm
Bottom line–the Bishop and the Catholic Church have every right to espouse and publicize THEIR stance on this issue…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:21 pm
===Willy will be in charge of “Golf” at the Con$ulting shop, ok?===
Sounds good, how is YOUR golf cart driving?
To the Post,
I agree that the Bishops, the Catholic Church, any and ALL ministries can voice any and all objections.
My concern is just the pure political ramifications of My Party, the STAIN that Oberweis and others want on My Party, and by being so rigid, where does the Reagan Rule of 80% fit in, and are there “issues” that Purity MUST overrule all, leaving us shrinking further?
Where does the Reagan Rule of 80% begin, if it can’t begin with SSM? Is there a Manual or Checklist of what qualifies, and further, if something has to qualify, doesn’t that defeat the ACTUAL Rule Reagan came up with?
Food for Thought…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 7:47 pm
No protection for a religious group’s hospitals, schools/universities, charitable institutions, etc…..That’s what Rassas is talking about…..
Wow, I’m not even a lawyer, and I could figure that out!!
Comment by JoeInPeoria Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 8:30 pm
Bishop Rassas hits the nail on the head. Sullivan is an absolute wimp for caving to all of the out-of-state (and in-state) cash and pressure and parting from his constituents. The majority of Illinoisians see that this bill goes way too far - it’s no longer about “equality,” it’s about forcing your will and viewpoint on everyone else, including people of faith who run businesses and shouldn’t be sued for merely staying true to their consciences on a common-sense issue!
Comment by Monique Wednesday, Apr 10, 13 @ 10:23 pm