Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Can Dorgan pull it off?
Posted in:
* Gay marriage proponents have known for months that they had big problems with the House Black Caucus. The proponents have several Statehouse lobbyists on the payroll, including two affiliated with the House Republicans who have produced just two votes so far. But until yesterday, they had just one black lobbyist, and he’s a former Senate Democratic staffer.
Yesterday afternoon, a day before the scheduled end of session, two former African-American House members were finally put on the lobbying payroll…
Veteran lobbyists Paul Williams and Coy Pugh, both African-Americans and ex-Democratic lawmakers from Chicago, have been hired by advocates backing the marriage equality bid to persuade House Black Caucus hold outs to vote for the bill sponsored by State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago).
I’m not sure what two guys can do in a day and a half. I talked to one of them yesterday, and he’s not sure what he can do, either. This sort of stuff takes time. And it’s truly amazing to me that it took the proponents this long to realize what they were missing at the Capitol.
There is a lot of finger-pointing going on right now about what should’ve happened. Maybe the Senate shouldn’t have passed the bill in February, before the votes were lined up in the House. But that sort of stuff is easy to see in hindsight. The lack of House-affiliated African-American lobsters, however, should never have been overlooked.
Even so, there’s no guarantee that the bill will fail today. If it’s not called for a vote, the recriminations will no doubt begin in earnest. Speaker Madigan will undoubtedly be in for some blame. But the proponents will also need to reexamine what they did.
* Meanwhile, competing Statehouse rallies are planned for today. From the Illinois Family Institute…
Lawmakers will be in Springfield one more day before they adjourn for the summer. Homosexual activists are pushing hard for a vote on SB 10, the same-sex “marriage” bill. They are planning a rally at the State House tomorrow at 11 a.m.
We need you to join us to make a strong showing for natural marriage. If you are at all able to join us tomorrow morning at the Illinois State Capitol, please do so. We will meet in the Rotunda at 10 a.m.
* And this is from Lambda Legal, ACLU of Illinois and Equality Illinois…
URGENT: Meet at the Equality Illinois office (3318 N Halsted) in Chicago tomorrow (Friday) morning at 7:30 for free buses to our marriage equality rally in Springfield!
Just a few hours ago, we emailed with an urgent message to call Speaker Madigan and ask him to schedule a vote on the marriage bill now.
Hundreds of calls have come into Springfield, but no vote has been scheduled. So here’s what’s next:
We need you to join us for an urgent rally at the State House in Springfield tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. Together, we’ll show the Speaker — and all our representatives — that we want a vote taken on the marriage equality bill before the House adjourns at the end of the day tomorrow.
The groups have a Facebook events page as well.
* No way this is happening…
As advocates and observers continue to wonder when the marriage legislation will come up for vote, and as House lawmakers remain in session to deliberate other bills, proponents of the marriage equality measure are calling Madigan’s Capitol and district offices to demand a vote before it’s too late. […]
Many of those callers were reportedly told by Madigan aides the bill will be considered on Friday; however, when pressed, Madigan Press Secretary Steve Brown denied the alleged messaging, noting, “The people who answer the phones don’t say things like that.”
Brown is right. They don’t tell people that sort of thing on the phone in Madigan’s office. First, the people who answer the phones wouldn’t know, and secondly they’d probably lose their jobs if they did say stuff like that.
There were tons of Statehouse rumors yesterday and it was almost impossible to keep up with them. Most of them were false.
* I’m told by the proponents that CNN is considering doing a live feed from the House during the debate, if it happens. There will be lots of attention on Illinois today. A press conference yesterday which announced basically nothing was mobbed by reporters.
* Things are also heating up on the Republican side of the equation. From Illinois Review…
Last night U.S. Senator Mark Kirk was on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight with Carol Marin. One of the topics covered was the resignation of Party Chairman Pat Brady. The discussion went like this: (see video below at 4:26 minutes)
Carol Marin: Has this [same-sex marriage] become sort of a fire line of this, “Who’s a conservative and who’s not?”
Sen. Kirk: Actually, I didn’t want the Republican Party to be run by the top anti-gay bigot in the state.
Marin: When you say the top Republican bigot, you mean Jim Oberweis?
Kirk: No
Marin: Who do you mean?
Kirk refused to answer and moved the discussion to Apple and immigration.
* Video…
* But Speaker Madigan is clearly becoming a target of the left. Via IR…
“@tonymerevick: Oh, and um, this meme is getting posted all over. What do you think? #SB10 #twill twitter.com/tonymerevick/s…” @lisaforil #il4m
— Sam (@smalone2283) May 31, 2013
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Next Post: Can Dorgan pull it off?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So is the meme implying that if Madigan does not make marriage equality happen, the proponents of marriage equality will prevent Lisa Madigan from becoming governor? How do they propose to do that if they can’t even get the bill passed themselves?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:30 am
meme is always funny…me me….
Comment by Amalia Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:32 am
–Sen. Kirk: Actually, I didn’t want the Republican Party to be run by the top anti-gay bigot in the state.–
Whoa. Gloves are off.
Maybe he took it personally when other Republicans thought calling him gay was a smear.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:32 am
This commenter has been banned for life.
Comment by Anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:34 am
If the bill is not called for a vote how is it anyones fault but madigans. If he wants others to take some blame he has to at least call the bill.
Also Proft (I think) was saying on wls this morning that quinn was trying to offer house goppers projects for gay marriage votes. If that is true, why exactly would Quinn be the guy you’d ask to try to round up votes for something?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:37 am
Thank you to Kirk for saying we don’t want bigots running the State Republican party, more republicans need to have that mindset. Of course, if more did, Brady wouldn’t have been the candidate and Quinn wouldn’t be Governor.
The gay marriage bill does make one wonder how this could affect Lisa’s gubernatorial primary, isn’t Chris Kennedy still out there kicking the tires?
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:37 am
Are we sure he was not referring to Joe Walsh versus Jim Oberweis? Walsh’s Twitter account popped off a demand to Kirk last night to name “who he was referring to!”
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:38 am
How about a more palatable bill in the conservative areas to push it through?
Like respect of existing local controls and county law enforcement gets to review each marriage license application for possible objections?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:39 am
@Anon 9:30 - by organizing against her in the dem primary I’m guessing. They do have the majority of the dem caucus for this after all if not outright majorities in both chambers.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:39 am
Just kidding.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:39 am
ANON
Who are you referring to as ” one of their own “?
Comment by MOON Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:40 am
Perhaps Anon 9:34 is who Sen. Kirk was referring to.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:42 am
We can see what Carol thinks of Oberweis,because someone believes in traditional marriage Carol can slander him? How does she or that taxpayer funded station get away with this crap?
Comment by votecounter Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:44 am
==If the bill is not called for a vote how is it anyones fault but madigans==
It’s not his bill. And the sponsor isn’t going to call it if he doesn’t think it will pass.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:48 am
No gov Lisa
Of course, if they really try that, and fail…..
I wonder how long the Speaker’s memory is?
Comment by Pat C Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:48 am
If gay marriage fails because of insufficient votes by Democrats in the Chicago area….
These representatives better be ready to play defense in the Democratic primary.
Those of us who support gay marriage are prepared to whack those that need to be whacked. And it’s not like members of the Illinois General Assembly are doing a great job on other issues.
Chicago Democrats could have defended CPS schools from being closed, but they punted.
Chicago Democrats gave money to CME.
Chicago Democrats still haven’t solved the pension problem, but have managed to jerk around government employees.
If gay marriage doesn’t pass the House, there will be consequences for Chicago area Democrats who failed to clearly support gay marriage.
The people who support gay marriage know how to campaign.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:49 am
–How does she or that taxpayer funded station get away with this crap? –
Probably the same way Rush can make millions using the public airwaves to call young women “sluts,” among other niceties.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:49 am
The SSM effort in Illinois looks like amateur hour compared to efforts elsewhere. The have had months and are just hiring appropriate lobbyists now?
Memes with idle threats are cheap and counterproductive. I’m sure the Madigans are quaking in their boots.
Comment by Want to Marry Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:51 am
votecounter
Sorry, but I suspect a phrase like that brought Jim to more than Carol Marin’s mind.
It may not be fair, it may not be true, but it is what it is.
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:51 am
==We need you to join us to make a strong showing for natural marriage==
These people like to claim that they have nothing against gay people. Not anti-gay. And then they make comments like this. I don’t know how much more anti-gay you can get.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:52 am
===Sen. Kirk: Actually, I didn’t want the Republican Party to be run by the top anti-gay bigot in the state.
Marin: When you say the top Republican bigot, you mean Jim Oberweis?===
“Top Anti-Gay Bigot in the State”
I am quoting…
I complain about the “Math” sometimes Capitol Fax requires, but I keep trying to do the “Math” and … well, I think I will leave it where Sen. Kirk did.
As for the Left taking on MJM, and Lisa, on SB10, it takes guts, and you have nothing to lose, but as I look at this, is that group going to vote for Quinn over Lisa? If Lisa escapes, Lisa over Brady, Rauner, …Dillard …Rutherford?
Stay at home in the Primary and the General?
Further,
Nothing like a group ptting pressure on MJM, all the while, Rep. Harris, one of the mose skilled legislators at getting things done, has to go and talk with MJM about this, all the dancing on the edge of a Constituency forcing the issue on himself (Rep. Harris) and on MJM, while working the Bill with MJM’s help.
Tough “ask” for any legislator.
Again, even if Cross, or Durkin, or whomever is, or wants to be HGOP “Irrelvent Leader” in the future, a smart play id to get 5 votes on for Rep. Harris, get the “Bi-partisan” Seal of Approval upon passage, innoculate, at least, the House Caucus, and move this out of the media…
Otherwise…
“Top Anti-Gay Bigot in the State”…will be a mail piece in ALL targeted districts, calling all those Nominees a “possible” …”Top Anti-Gay Bigot in the State”
How is that “Political Ice Cream” tasting now?
Yikes!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:53 am
It is eternal and infinite He is leader of the pantheon………..
Comment by RNUG Fan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:57 am
===because someone believes in traditional marriage Carol can slander him?===
She asked the guy a question about somebody he has battled with and who sits on the state central committee. Take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:58 am
In all seriousness, I am embarrassed for human nature when you see the groups who fight for their own civil rights and against the rights that they don’t understand.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:03 am
Yeah, I can only imagine the meeting that led to the last minute addition of the lobsters….
If it does not happen today, it is going to make an interesting Masters Thesis for someone down the road.
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:16 am
Mark Kirk ran and won in 2010 and was on record as opposed to gay marriage in that campaign (his opponent Alexi G. was strongly pro-same sex marriage). Kirk only officially changed his position a few months ago.
Is Mark Kirk saying that anyone who still holds the position he had a few months ago is a bigot? Interesting.
Comment by too obvious Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:19 am
Threatening the Speaker for Life is a hazardous strategy.
SSM might have passed if the proposed legislation contained any reasonable accommodations respecting the rights of religious individuals and institutions to exercise freedom of conscience. A comparison was made and the Illinois bill was wanting in such protections for churches, etc. The absence of such exemptions played into the hands of SSM opponents.
Even if SSM passes during this session, the leaders of the cause in Illinois have made themselves look silly. Their organizational skills are questionable and their timing was poor. The entire campaign looks like a farce.
Comment by Whoa Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:21 am
Kirk has never “Battled with” Oberweis. Oberweis has never gone after Kirk that I know about he even supported him in the last election I believe.
Wordslinger Rush is on a station that makes money, he is in the market place and can be taken off the air by losing his audience. Carol is on a publicly funded station night after night spouting her leftist ideology. The public part of public television is supposed to be equal? I don’t thin k we should spend a dime on public TV; let the proceeds from Sesame Street and other kid shows fund it. better yet let the station go against the others in our market and see if can stand on it’s own.
Comment by votecounter Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:21 am
I recall a post Rich made a while back about how Mike Madigan said his worst time in the GA, other than the interregunum (sic) of GOP rule in 1995-96 after the 1994 deluge, was when the Dems had a super majority.
Now I see what he means. As an aside, for Greg Harris’ sake I hope Heather Steans isn’t helping him count votes.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:26 am
===I hope Heather Steans isn’t helping him count votes.===
Look, let’s be quite clear;
“Vote Countula” counts votes, existing or otherwise, in the Senate. It’s like when “Cookie Monster” would be on “The Electric Company”, it just doesn’t work!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:29 am
As fellow Christian said to me last night, God creates both gays and straights so why shouldn’t each have same rights, such as marriage. Makes sense to me.
Comment by bill Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:31 am
From Greg Hinz:
“On gay marriage: Despite lots of brave talk and another plug last night by President Barack Obama, the bill to allow same-sex marriage in Illinois reportedly is short two or three votes, with stiff opposition among many African-American lawmakers.
This one has been a top priority for much of the state’s Democratic leadership. If it doesn’t pass, a lengthy and likely bitter post-mortem is coming as to who screwed up.”
It is difficult to see this bill being the top legislative priority in the final hours of the GA with so many other big items up for grabs. This issue and debate may have to be revisited later.
What adds some weight to this pessimistic analysis is that Hinz is a member of the media who is viewed as being supportive of SSM.
Comment by Ugh Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:39 am
I’m strongly in favor of SSM. I’m a democrat. I expect democrats to support democratic causes that promote equality. I hope those democrats who vote against this are sent a very clear message. My small part in delivering that message will be to not provide financial support to any democrat who votes no. These members are aggressive fundraisers Those democrats who vote no should call their faith based community for money and workers for their reelection. Democrats should not be beholden to their churches. If they vote no because of pressure from religious leaders, let them rely on these leaders for their reelection.
Comment by anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:40 am
===SSM might have passed if the proposed legislation contained any reasonable accommodations respecting the rights of religious individuals and institutions to exercise freedom of conscience. A comparison was made and the Illinois bill was wanting in such protections for churches, etc. The absence of such exemptions played into the hands of SSM opponents.
I keep hearing such things, but I have no idea what it means. What protections should be included? The only thing this bill does is allow same sex couples to get married. It does not require any denomination or church to do so. Any other issue is covered in the Illinois Human Rights Act which included sexual orientation in 2006.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:41 am
too obvious, why would anyone believe what Mark Kirk says?
Mark Kirk doesn’t can about policy details outside of military and foreign affairs.
And he lies about that stuff.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:43 am
Can someone get ComEd involved? They seem to have no problem lining up support for bills that anger constituents.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:43 am
@too obvious, there’s not being in favor of same sex marriage because you’re a traditionalist or whatever, and then there’s saying false and hateful stuff about gays. The latter makes someone a bigot.
Comment by TooManyJens Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:44 am
@Archpundit:
Before the civil unions law passed, various religious groups that were repeatedly assured that the law contained exemptions based upon religious beliefs had a rude awakening. The bait and switch technique is not going to work a second time — now they want it in writing.
Comment by Esquire Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:49 am
Why is anyone attacking the station and the interviewer, when the words came out of Sen. Kirk’s mouth?
Spent some time with him Monday, and was very impressed. He seems to be growing and learning through adversity. His focus was more on family sacrifice and recovery from wounds, than on recalling heroism. He had a subtle and incisive humor. He also was very sharp mentally — he recalled details of a conversation of four years ago, that I had forgotten.
Good for the Senator!
Comment by walkinfool Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:50 am
The suggestion by one of the commenters at Illinois Review that Kirk meant Jack Roeser makes sense to me. Roeser wanted Brady out, and Roeser’s the guy who was spreading rumors about Kirk being gay.
Comment by TooManyJens Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:52 am
====Before the civil unions law passed, various religious groups that were repeatedly assured that the law contained exemptions based upon religious beliefs had a rude awakening. The bait and switch technique is not going to work a second time — now they want it in writing.
Claiming a bait and switch doesn’t mean there was one. What did the Civil Union bill cause to change?
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:54 am
If the bill fails, there will be a significant investment in defeating Democratic House members.
This isn’t a boast. It is a certainty. This is precisely what happened in NY after a failed vote in 2009 and in RI after a failed vote in 2011. Numerous Dems in both states were ousted or placed within a few percentage points of defeat. The one difference is that the investment in IL will likely be significantly greater, since the movement has acquired a number of mega-donors since the NY and RI elections, and because there is much less on the movement’s plate in 2014, leaving more volunteer time and movement money for IL.
Comment by William Becker Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:58 am
- Ugh -,
While, at first, everyone will be pointing at the Dems failure, and rightly so.
What can, and probaly will, happen is that MJM, and the Dems will point to Senator Oberweis, and his attempt to remove Pat Brady under SSM, and the single, one, only, vote from the SGOP for SSM, and the 2, duece, one plus one, votes in the HGOP Caucus for SSM… and say …
“Illinois Democrats undertand that polling, statewide, shows a strong swing towards SSM, and while we Democrats try to get the work done to pass it, the ILGOP, and the 3 votes out of 66 members in the General Assmebly are intolerant. Sixty-Three members of the GOP oppose this Bill. It says more about the GA GOP speaking in unison for intoleeance, then about the Democrats trying to pass the bill.”
I have seen this movie before.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:59 am
===Numerous Dems in both states were ousted or placed within a few percentage points of defeat. ===
How amny is “numerous” and how “close to defeat” do they have to be t claim that?
If youahd those “numbers”, specifics, that might make that interesting.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:02 am
“top anti-gay bigot in the state”??? There’s only one?
As for the Lisa Gov issue - I think this will just increase the immediacy of the focus on the relationship between Lisa and the Speaker.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:03 am
Willy,
I agree with you that the attempt will be made to shift this to Republicans, but most people I know are not blaming Republicans. They expect them to be opposed. They are blaming the Speaker because proponents are sooooo close to getting this done. The belief is he can make the difference but is choosing not to. That will create problems. Just not sure how big.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:07 am
===There’s only one?===
Yes, but there is a lot of competition for the top spot. It’s like a NASCAR race with so many Republicans vying to say the most awful things to score points with the base. Unlike NASCAR, this is a race to the bottom.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:09 am
=It says more about the GA GOP speaking in unison for intoleeance=
I am always fascinated by “progressives” referring to traditionalists as “intolerant” or “closed-minded”. I have found many progressives who are quite intolerant of allowing anyone to have ideas that are not in their brand of “progressive”. If my religion isn’t as accepting of something you like, then I MUST be intolerant, as opposed to principled (maybe wrong, but still principled).
And the definition of an open mind is willing to consider “willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own”. Not accept them automatically - consider them.
An old South American quote said: “When comes the revolution, things will be different - not better, just different.” Such seems to be the intolerance argument so often put forward.
Comment by ProblemChild21 Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:09 am
===If my religion isn’t as accepting of something you like, then I MUST be intolerant, as opposed to principled (maybe wrong, but still principled).
I don’t care what you accept theologically. I care that you want to deny equal rights to people in the secular world. Believe whatever you want. We even let the Scientologists run around with crazy ideas, but I wouldn’t accept a ban on psychiatry because it’s their belief.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:12 am
- many progressives who are quite intolerant of allowing anyone to have ideas that are not in their brand of “progressive”. -
We’re talking about legal rights, not personal opinions. Gays aren’t legally allowed to marry, and those that want that to continue are intolerant of gays. It’s your right to be intolerant of gays, but don’t expect those of us who aren’t to label you differently.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:14 am
1) I am not a “Progressive”, but nice try.
2) You can NOT, as a Politcal Party be seen, by voting, or preparing to vote 63 to 3 on a “Social Issue” and go to voters and say, “Look, we welcome all beliefs.” Really, 95% of your elected officials in Springfield seem to believe SSM is worng, and point to a Party Platform as one reason … so, your Party Platform says “no”, your elected officials concur, and yo are “an open tent”?
The Reagan Rule of 80% would probably mean at least more than 3 votes should be “had” in a diverse, inclusive Caucus.
“Always”, “Must”, Never”, “Only” leads to a Minority Party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:15 am
“In all seriousness, I am embarrassed for human nature when you see the groups who fight for their own civil rights and against the rights that they don’t understand.”
Whoa - who is “they” and how do you arrive at the generalization that “they” are fighting against “rights they don’t understand?” For the record, I support marriage equality and I think I understand people’s right to equal treatment under the law pretty well.
And, votecounter, your statement that “Carol is on a publicly funded station night after night spouting her leftist ideology” is wrong on two counts - one, yes, Chicago Tonight is “publicly funded,” but that public funding is from donations by members of the public who believe the show is worth supporting. Do you oppose people being able to spend money to support something they believe deserves that support? Two, calling her “leftist” really stretches the definition; everyone to the left of you is not “leftist.”
Comment by OldSmoky2 Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:22 am
More from the “I’d rather be right than win” crowd. It’s hard to argue with a mindset that doesn’t look at polling and would rather be an embarrassing minority rather than moderate. It’s more fun, apparently, to be the Master of the Phone Booth than an effective, diverse caucus. I’m surrounded by dinosaurs, and I know what’s going to happen.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:27 am
Are you surrounded by dinosaurs or fearful bigots?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:30 am
Anyone else hear this?
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:33 am
==Before the civil unions law passed, various religious groups that were repeatedly assured that the law contained exemptions based upon religious beliefs had a rude awakening==
What would that awakening be? That a business owner can’t discriminate against a gay person just because they might not like it? They shouldn’t be able to. I’m sorry, but this crap about people being able to use their relgion to discriminate in anything they do is ridiculous. Your freedom of religion does not guarantee that you get to discriminate against anything you might not agree with. Churches and legitimate religious organizations are one thing. Anything beyond that - tough.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:35 am
OneMan, it’s true. But people can read anything they want into anything. Somebody tried to push that one on me an hour or so ago. It might mean something, it might not.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:36 am
And that Rich is why I ask…
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:44 am
- Chicago Cynic -,
You are right, in the heat of the middle of all this, Dems are blaming other Dems.
In the long run, Dems rally among themsleves, and Moderates, they can not stand intolerant party doctrine, be it from the Left or Right, and with polling favoring SSM, its an easy move to blam,e the GOP, in 2014.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:45 am
Just got an HRC-paid-for automated call from a 217 number offering to patch me thru to the Speaker’s office, pushing for him to schedule a vote on the bill. “Last day,” etc etc.
Comment by Josh Levin Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:45 am
Actually, it’s not entirely true. I just tweeted this…
@CarolMarin: I’m told that Rep. Harris made the request to use the Speaker’s gallery. It was granted.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:45 am
Want to Marry made the same point I was trying to make, but did a better job. The marriage equality effort has made several mistakes in their tactics and strategy, including their belated outreach to the powerful BC. Rep. Harris is smart not to call the bill before it can pass. Simply demanding a vote - TODAY - will not make the votes needed magically appear. If anything, it will scare off those who are undecided. Proponents need to quit worrying about what other states are enacting SSM before Illinois and focus on what it will take to make it happen here. Nothing is easy in Illinois, Nothing.
Comment by Anonymous 9:30 Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:49 am
>>>>> too obvious, why would anyone believe what Mark Kirk says?
We’re talking about new, vulnerable, humble post-stroke Kirk that transcends anything stupid that he ever did before.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:50 am
To the post,
Silly proponents, you gotta pay the tolls. Signed,
democracy, 2013, united states of america.
Comment by dang Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:53 am
Are you surrounded by dinosaurs or fearful bigots?
@CarlNyberg: The fearful bigots are dinosaurs. Gallup polling says voters under 30 favor SSM in excess of 70%. A majority of Illinois now solidly favor it, according to 5 recent polls.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:53 am
Illinois already has a strong civil union law. This so-called SSM is out of the mainstream and not even necessary. All legal and financial protections that this legislation reportedly provides is already available via Civil Unions.
Therefore, this is not even about “civil rights” because the rights are already there. And the irony of the lack of support by the Black Caucus isn’t lost on anyone.
Supporters, please give the rest of the state who do not support this a break. If you are serious about being democratic, then put it before the voters instead of trying to manipulate politicians and smearing opponents and calling them bigots just because they have different sense of what is better for our society and its children.
Comment by Nickname Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:59 am
–We’re talking about new, vulnerable, humble post-stroke Kirk that transcends anything stupid that he ever did before.–
JJ, for a “vulnerable” guy, he has no problem standing up for gay rights and bucking the NRA.
For a Republican in today’s United States Senate, that’s showing some Testicular Virility.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:00 pm
Should go even farther — no pensions, no governor Lisa. Until Mr. Speaker begins acting like a Democrat, he or anyone near him should not count on the traditional Democratic base of support.
Comment by ash Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:03 pm
OW said,
“Again, even if Cross, or Durkin, or whomever is, or wants to be HGOP “Irrelvent Leader” in the future, a smart play id to get 5 votes on for Rep. Harris, get the “Bi-partisan” Seal of Approval upon passage, innoculate, at least, the House Caucus, and move this out of the media…”
Do you really think that a couple of votes cast by the GOP will make a significant difference for candidates, either local or state-wide? No matter what the outcome, it will only matter for those individuals that cast a vote, either way. If a candidate casts a pro-traditional marriage vote, or pro-same sex marriage vote that is what will matter in that individual’s race. A couple of votes cast by one member will not somehow rub off on any other individual.
Here’s how I see it. If the SSM bill passes with a few Republican votes, a Democrat (or different Republican in a primary) running against that Republican that cast a vote for traditional marriage will still use the vote against him no matter what the outcome of the GA action. If the bill passes, a Democrat would say, “That guy voted against it.” So, unless the whole Republican caucus were to vote for SSM, how does a couple of votes matter to an individual candidate?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:08 pm
Isn’t this the plot of Rigoletto? If we don’t like what you do, we take revenge on your daughter?
Yeah, you’re in big trouble when the musicologists target your candidacy…
Comment by soccermom Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:09 pm
Nickname, please see below from Attorney General Lisa Madigan regarding why SSM is necessary:
“A ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution’s equal protection clause. The law does not allow the state or federal government to create a separate class of marriage based on a person’s sexual orientation. There is no other way to describe this than to call it discrimination. That is why, in state court, I have intervened in a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ current marriage law, and at the federal level, my office has filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court that support overturning California’s same-sex marriage ban and finding the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.”
Comment by anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:10 pm
I agree with ash but the blunt threats to him seem to have worked today…so everyone take note!
Comment by RNUG Fan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:15 pm
I want marriage equality to pass as bad as anyone, so some of the tactics the proponents are employing at this point are dismaying. Calling Madigan’s office to demand he call it for a vote? That just reeks of amateur hour. Do folks want a vote or for the bill to pass? Those are two different goals, and a segment of proponents are unfortunately fixated on the former right now.
Comment by Montrose Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:16 pm
- Cincinnatus -,
With Respect.
Read all that I posted.
The “Deal” eeds to include the innoculation;
“And SB10 would not be possible without the Bi-Partisan spport it recieved in the Illinois House.”
You can’t have a statement like that out there, and then paint an entire Party as intolerant.
Each race, be it for IL House, IL Senate, will include the distict as the factor as to how the race should be attacked.
MJM and HDems and the SDems in e last few cycles esecially, are MASTERS at understanding a distirct, we in the GA GOP stink.
Innocultion for the GOP, as a “Bi-Partisan” vote carries the day.
Or,
You might have a GA GOP with 63 “no” votes and 3 “yes” votes and the H&S GOP trying to sell the “We are a diverse caucus… that votes at a 95% clip against SSM”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:18 pm
===This so-called SSM is out of the mainstream and not even necessary. All legal and financial protections that this legislation reportedly provides is already available via Civil Unions.===
1. It’s not out of the mainstream. A majority or near-majority of Illinoisans support it, and that number is increasing all the time.
2. If the SCOTUS strikes down DOMA, there’s going to be a big legal difference between even the best civil unions and marriage.
Comment by TooManyJens Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:18 pm
LincolnLounger
Going to go out on a limb here and say that I am very confident Carl supports SSM…
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:46 pm
@Nickname: All legal and financial protections that this legislation reportedly provides is already available via Civil Unions.
Are you ignorant or lying?
Fact: There are thousands of tax and financial benefits involved in marriage that are not provided by civil unions.
Fact: The U.S. Constitution includes rights that spouses do not have to testify against each other in court. Find a fix for that in the civil union laws and let me know where it’s at.
Fact: We don’t make decisions about civil rights or otherwise in Illinois by referendum.
Oppose it if you want, but stop being a stranger to the facts.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:50 pm
“No Governor Lisa?”
So, they’re going to vote for a Republican who would veto a gay marriage bill? “No Governor Lisa? Yeah, um, no marriage equality.”
Comment by The Muse Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Two fine ideas.
Comment by A Nanny Moose Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:48 pm
I may have read this thought here before, but does anybody believe the Speaker wants to let Quinn sign this bill?? Nuck, nuck, as Moe would say.
Comment by b Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:04 pm
*I may have read this thought here before, but does anybody believe the Speaker wants to let Quinn sign this bill?? Nuck, nuck, as Moe would say.*
Everyone needs to stop already. Can we ban all comments that assume MJM is making decisions based on Lisa’s run for governor? It is as tedious as it is inaccurate.
Comment by Montrose Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:04 pm
=We’re talking about new, vulnerable, humble post-stroke Kirk that transcends anything stupid that he ever did before.=
All I’ll say on this issue is that when I watched the interview, I had the same “feelings” and thoughts that I had when I watched everything else he’s done politically since his stroke. My emotional side wants to believe there is a “new Kirk”–and therefore also believe that the “general” comment he made re: bigotry was perhaps accidental, something he might have regretted as a statesman even during the interview, and therefore, did not follow up on the subsequent quesstion. My brain, however, wonders whether it might have been intended to raise speculation as to WHOM he had in mind by refusing to answer the follow-up question, and thus “painting” anyone and everyone within the subject context with a broad brush, which many may feel is entirely inappropriate and in a sense, destructive because of the speculation it would trigger.
Furthermore, with regard to Mr. Kirk and his team (generally), “everything” is highly complex, possibly by design, to the extent that even defining “anything stupid that HE ever did before” is impossible. Some may view that as a “cohesive team” who share accountability, while others may see that as a play to dodge same.
Therefore, while I would generally give anyone in his position the benefit of the doubt, it’s much more difficult in some instances when past credibility could have been higher to begin with.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:19 pm
=Some may view that as a “cohesive team” who share accountability, while others may see that as a play to dodge same.=
And I’ll add that while many “teams” may struggle with that dynamic, it can be quite frightening in those that are extremely agressive and generally categorize everyone as either “useful” or “threatening.”
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:24 pm
I created the “Governor Lisa” meme because it expresses how I feel. I have no power or influence over Illinois politics, but I thought it would speak to Mr. Madigan in language he can understand.
Comment by Barry Aldridge Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:39 pm
- Barry Aldridge -,
The Speaker has a LONG memory, and is on your side. It appears during this whole process, Rep. Harris and Speaker Madigan have been working, honestly, on the Bill.
If it passes, all will be forgiven, just not forgotten. Leveraging Lisa against MJM would be what some consider “Folly”.
We will see how this ends soon.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 31, 13 @ 5:18 pm
“A ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Amazing Lisa Madigan! Illinois has been a sovereign state for 195 years and the current state constitution has been in force for forty-two years or so, but you are the first Attorney General to find this novel interpretation of the Illinois Constitution. All of this begs the question, especially since you are now in your third term, why haven’t you spoken up or filed suit before now?
Or is it all a political calculation on your part?
Comment by Really? Friday, May 31, 13 @ 8:05 pm
State Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago) has admitted that SSM cannot be taken up until November. The bill does not have the votes and will not be called according to its sponsor.
Comment by Newsflash Friday, May 31, 13 @ 8:12 pm
…that was, from my last Comment, “pass IT….”
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, May 31, 13 @ 8:16 pm
No one to blame beyond Equality Illinois, Lambda Legal, ACLU of IL, Greg Harris, and Speaker Madigan. Equality Illinois, Lambda Legal, and ACLU of IL shut out the LGBT lobbying community through this process because the big 3 claimed to have the “money” to make it happen. (Rich I think you posted it in the past.) Harris and Madigan gave the bigots cover. What happened tonight was a joke. The big 3 f’d up by bringing in cover yesterday in spite of months of warning. Harris and Madigan gave cover to Reps who don’t deserve it. It was politics and what makes it worst is an inept lobbying and inept legislation effort!
Comment by Anon Friday, May 31, 13 @ 9:36 pm
Anon - so what’s your name?
Comment by Barry Aldridge Saturday, Jun 1, 13 @ 8:58 am
A fascinating discussion is definitely worth comment.
There’s no doubt that that you ought to publish more about this subject matter, it might not be a taboo subject but typically people don’t talk about these
issues. To the next! Cheers!!
Comment by grow taller secrets ebook free download Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:45 am