Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Madigan guts Cullerton’s pension bill
Posted in:
* Rep. Greg Harris was interviewed by the Windy City Times this week about the failure of the gay marriage bill. He offered up these thoughts about what should be next…
We need to understand how our opponents are attacking us, we have to address those attacks, and we have to shore up our friends who want to be with us
Those are reasonable and smart goals from somebody who understands what it takes to pass a bill.
* Andy Thayer, co-founder of Gay Liberation Network, has a different idea for how to approach legislators…
“It’s not a question of persuading them to do the right thing, it’s a question of forcing them to do the right thing. If you have thousands of people in the streets, that becomes an irresistible force.”
Sorry, but street protests are gonna have minimal impact on African-American and Latino legislators, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats - the very people the proponents need to pass this thing.
I get the good cop, bad cop schtick, but I don’t think the bad cop part is gonna work, and it may just backfire.
* Speaking of which, this is from questions posed to Rep. Harris by the Windy City Times interviewer…
On that Friday night when you stood up to announce the bill would not be called, there was a moment when people in the gallery started shouting at you to call the bill… The coalition leaders were sending text messages to people in the gallery, asking them to yell at you to call the bill.
Sheesh.
* Meanwhile, unless he’s running away from Chuck Goudie again, I doubt Madigan will even be in his office this Saturday…
Finger-pointing over a failed push to pass equal marriage in Illinois this spring has been abundant since May’s end, and LGBT activists are now eying the House’s top Democrat.
Activists will protest outside Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan’s district office Saturday, June 15, citing what they say was a failure to prioritize equal marriage this year.
The decision to target Madigan was made at a community meeting held in Uptown June 11. More than 50 people attending the gathering, held at the Peoples Church of Chicago. No elected officials attended. […]
Among the most critical of Madigan was Gay Liberation Network co-founder Andy Thayer, who stated that the speaker needed “to whip his own damn caucus into line.”
State Rep. Ed Sullivan, a Mundelein Republican, says he expects that his support for same-sex marriage this year means he’ll face his first primary race in 2014 since he first ran in 2002.
He was not shy about how he thinks that’ll go.
“You’d better be prepared for a battle,” Sullivan said.
He’s unsure who his opponent will be, and I’ve reached out to a couple possibilities to try to find out. Sullivan’s support of same-sex marriage puts him at odds with most of his party and has drawn some high-profile criticism. He hasn’t relented, though.
“If our party ever wants to get out of the 1950s, we need a bigger tent,” Sullivan said.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Madigan guts Cullerton’s pension bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If only Madigan would’ve pressured the House Democrats, he’s all powerful you know.
WCT: What was that moment?
GH: Well, again, I don’t get what specific members say … . Just remember how technology has changed, how votes are taken. Everyone says you should put it on what’s called “postponed consideration.” (Postponed consideration allows a vote to be pulled from record to keep a bill alive.)
In the not-so-distant past, that strategy worked differently than even today because there are people who would have said on an issue, if this is going to win, I want to be on the winning side. But if it looks like it’s going down, I’m coming off. So as those green and red lights go up on the board, in the days before handheld video cameras, there was not a record necessarily of how votes changed. You could end up with a roll call that’s even worse than getting it on postponed consideration.
WCT: So your concern was that you would fall short on votes in planning for postponed consideration?
GH: That you would have an artificially low total, whatever that number would be. And that people could be locked into a vote. It’s one thing to vote on an issue and explain your vote. It’s another thing to vote on one thing one day, come back the next day, and explain how you’ve evolved that suddenly, especially if it’s in short order.
Why don’t gay marriage advocates get that it would have been a disaster to call that bill on May 31? Hit the ground running from here and move forward, including bringing in constituencies ignored this spring (like LGBTs of color).
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:20 pm
Andy Thayer’s got passion. He doesn’t know Springfield at all.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:22 pm
*“It’s not a question of persuading them to do the right thing, it’s a question of forcing them to do the right thing. If you have thousands of people in the streets, that becomes an irresistible force.”*
Nope. I am sorry. I like a good protest as much as the next guy, but this is getting exhausting. If you can get thousands of constituents to peacefully and respectfully assemble in favor of marriage equality in a district of someone who is on the fence, that is a conversation worth having. If it is all about being angry, you are only hurting the cause. Do you really think the bill did not have the votes to pass because Greg Harris did not yell enough?
And good on Rep. Sullivan. Wally and the Beav aren’t living in 2013.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:22 pm
Whether you agree or disagree with Harris on the issue, you have to admit he is an excellent advocate for this bill.
It’s a shame politics in Illinois has become so dependent upon money and connections that even something as principled as this was thrown off by a failure to hire the proper House-affiliated lobbyists.
This is one of those fundamental core decisions that should not be influenced by money or connections, but rather your mind, your heart, your constituents and your sense of public duty.
Whether those factors lead you to vote “yes” or “no” depends on how you weigh and evaluate them as a legislator.
It’s also a shame for Mr. Harris that Speaker Madigan misjudged the timing and didn’t call the bill when it had more support back in March. I get his strategy, but it obviously turned out to be a flawed one.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:26 pm
Yes, good on Rep. Sullivan. He might be lonely now on his side of the aisle, but he is most assuredly standing in the right place.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:33 pm
“It’s a shame politics in Illinois has become so dependent upon money and connections that even something as principled as this was thrown off by a failure to hire the proper House-affiliated lobbyists.”
Do you mean that the lack of money and connections caused this bill to be a failure? If not, please explain.
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:37 pm
“Why don’t gay marriage advocates get that it would have been a disaster to call that bill on May 31? ”
Lots of us/them do. It’s just a loud and vocal minority that doesn’t get it.
Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Sullivan for House GOP Leadership???? Yeah right!!
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 3:49 pm
=== “It’s not a question of persuading them to do the right thing, it’s a question of forcing them to do the right thing. If you have thousands of people in the streets, that becomes an irresistible force.” ===
What an arrogant knucklehead… how does he think he is going to force people to vote for his bill? Protests? Violence?
Thayer may believe its the right thing to do, and the majority of people in Illinois may believe that its the right thing to do… But guess what? It’s no slam dunk! Just a few years ago, there was a spirited debate over whether there should be civil unions, let alone same sex marriage! Times are changing. Social norms are evolving. But Thayer’s divisive rhetoric isn’t going to get marriage equality!
Comment by Fred's Mustache Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 3:54 pm
It’s clear that the more control someone like Andy Thayer has on this process the less likely the bill will pass. Shut it and let the adults like Harris do the necessary work.
Comment by L.S. Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 3:55 pm
Thayer = clueless. Yet, I support the bill. But foolish is foolish.
Comment by Lt. Guv Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 4:25 pm
I really didn’t know much about Andy Thayer, so I Googled him. Apparently, he is a big protestor. The article I read was from last year, prior to the NATO Summit, and it was about how law enforcement expected him to be one of the biggest thorns in their sides:
http://www.suntimes.com/9928700-417/g-8-protest-organizer-agent-of-change-or-pain-in-the-butt.html
According to the article, “police critics mock him as a publicity hound who’d call a rally to protest a parking ticket.”
I have to second what L.S. advised: Shut it and let the adults do the work.
Comment by ??? Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 4:49 pm
This bill or some version may pass in the future, but it will not be the result of public opinion polls but rather the development of consensus by lawmakers from throughout the state representing districts as diverse as the state itself. It would probably have a better chance of being enacting sooner if its proponents could clearly articulate what makes the present status quo of civil unions a lacking one and why if any two people of the same sex can enter into a civil marriage, then what rationale could be justify why the state recognizing civil marriage between more than two persons or between persons familially related to each other would be and should not be allowed. However unconnected these instances may seem to be, they do require an explanation by those seeking to change this legal status quo.
Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 5:34 pm
Downstater, those “questions” have been answered on this site ad nauseum. If you haven’t heard, you just don’t want to listen.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 8:39 am