Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

As this State Journal-Register editorial noted yesterday, the Protect Marriage Illinois group is attempting to gather half a million signatures to put an advisory referendum on the ballot this November.

The referendum asks this question:

â€œShall the Illinois General Assembly submit an amendment to Article IX of the Illinois State Constitution to the voters of the State of Illinois at large at the next General Election stating as follows:

â€˜To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this Stateâ€™?â€

The campaign has been endorsed by the Catholic Bishops of Illinois.

You can read more background info in this Post-Dispatch story.

The question is, do you think they’ll succeed in getting this question onto the November ballot? Can it pass? Also, do you think it will have a significant impact on the fall campaign?

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:37 am

Comments

Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois said it best in that Post-Dispatch article.

“These people no more care about families than the man on the moon. If they wanted to protect families, why aren’t they pushing a ban on divorce? Divorce ruins more families than any gay person ever has.”

Comment by The first to comment Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:47 am
Now we will see if Illinois is blue due to ideology, or due to gerrymandering, corruption, and incompetence. I’m always interested in knowing the answer to that question.

I think this is a bad idea. The bureaucrats in Springfield shouldn’t be in the business of telling people who should and shouldn’t get married. If two guys want to get married, so what? If a guy and three women want to get married, so what?

But then again, this is the state that chased out the Mormons and where an angry mob killed Joseph Smith….so I won’t hold my breath.

Comment by Bad Idea Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 6:36 am
Yes, I think they’ll get the sigs, if they’re serious about this. And they’ll probably come close to getting it passed too.

Of course, if this actually did get to that point of being a serious ballot referendum, I imagine that those campaigning will be unable to avoid the issue, and some will probably grandstand on either side of it too.

This is really not what Illinois needs, another ideological battle over a pointless issue. Well done…

Comment by Kiyoshi Martinez Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:15 am
Chicago’s hosting the Gay Games this summer too. So we’re going to see a lot of Gays on TV. Remember the Onion Parody on the Gay Pride parade setting back the cause of Gay Rights twenty years? It wasn’t far from the truth.

I want to support Gay Rights because I think it’s a human rights issue. (Look at how gays fare in the Arab world and Iran.)

That doesn’t mean you have a right to marriage, or a right to tell the Pope what it means to be Catholic,,, if Gay activists overplay it could backfire on them.

Check the letter to the Editor in Oak Park’s Wednesday Journal from Eric Peters (page 26 of the Jan 4 issue). He’s complaining about the kids summer session at the HS getting bumped to accomadate hosting the Gay Games.

You get an image out there of dual income guys pushing up property values and then pushing out the kids from the HS, you got a problem.

I wish male Gay activists would be a little more sensitive to that.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:23 am
That’s what referenda are for. It is a form of free speech. The majority will decide. I do not understand the objections to this petition.

Vote on it. BTW, it will xertainly increase the turnout. Perhaps we can get as great a percentage as the Iraqis.

Comment by Truthful James Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:33 am
Well, it will distract Illinois citizens from the really important stuff like the pension grab, rampant state and local corruption courtesy of both parties, our overfunded and overstaffed state bureaucracy jobs farm and the
Dem-sponsored DCFS and Audy Home meltdowns so the Dems will probably be privately cheering the sponsors on. Thanks again to the religious right for helping Blago win a second term.

Comment by Cassandra Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:37 am
Cassandra,
You don’t see an Ohio effect here? Bush won by what, 160k votes in Ohio and some will argue it was because of a similar amendment which brought out opponents who also cast a vote for Bush.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:45 am
Is the Oak Park example something special done that has been done just for the gay games or have they done something like that in the past? If it’s something just for them, it seems innapropriate, but gay games are what they are, games, so if someone cares about them being in Chicago (for reasons other than like the school example or the traffic problems that are affiliated with all big events), you need to grow up and lighten up.

I think the amendment won’t get the 5/8 or whatever crazy fraction is needed to pass an amendment if it’s on the ballot, and there’s no way they’ll get half a million signatures by November. If I were advising them, I’d tell them to be more realistic and aim for 2008, because it’s extremely hard to get that many sigs in one year.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:49 am
This is something that it’s time has come. Americans are sick and tired of a smal group screaming about sexual prefrence. This has passed all over the United States where the voters have a choice. Why is the gay community afraid of what the American people think. If everyone thinks this is such great stuff then it won’t pass, if the average American thinks they would rather have marriage between a man and woman then this will say so. Let the people have their say. Let’s bring everyone out to vote America will be better for it.

Comment by The Conservative Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 7:56 am
this amendment is a smoke screen. in ‘04, it’s presence on the ballot was used to cover up and explain suspect totals for republicans that were, in fact, inflated by electronic vote theft. now that diebold is coming to dupage county, you can count on vote fraud.

Comment by mopinko Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:34 am
In 2003 the Netherlands passed gay marriage. This completed the seperation it’s society used to see between the act of marriage and the institution of family. Critics claimed that the next step would be multiple marriages.

The critics were right. In September, the Netherlands began approving multiple marriages. The trio were polyamorist, so that not only were they a multiple marriage, it was also the first marriage between bisexuals.

Reporting of this marriage has been killed in the US press by gay marriage advocates. However, Dutch society seems thrilled by it’s development. The trio’s neighbors say that the marriage is OK by them, and they see nothing wrong with it.

But there is a problem. Marriage is a religious act later legalized by the state for tax purposes, and for the legal purpose of deciding family rights and child support. Once you decide that marriage no longer is a part of the establishment of families, you start hitting that slippery slope.

Milleniums have created female-male marriages. It works. Only within the past thirty years has the criminalization of intolerance and discrimination pushed our society to the point where it can no longer decide what is right or wrong, since these terms are now “debateable” to the majority of “enlightened, educated people”. But the fact is biology and mother nature will not be screwed with: societies thrive when they protect marriage and children, they die when they become unsustainable.

Regardless of the lastest fashion trends, we know through history that breaking the tie between marriage and families results in the death of societies. It is sad to see so few educated people forgetting human history, biology and environment. It is very arrogant of us at this time to believe that we have somehow found the magic to go beyond societal boundaries.

I hope that Illinoians will silently, (because it is so unfashionable to judge now a days), support this legislation and we begin to see beyond the corrupted mindset of the Baby Boomer generation’s self absorbed stupidity.

Whew!

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:34 am
Wouldn’t going back to polygamy be even more “traditional”? Or was I totally misreading the entire Old Testament when they mentioned men having more than one wife?

It’s not the government’s job to say what is and isn’t moral. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I see no reason why two homosexuals shouldn’t be able to get married if that’s what they consentually want to do. It is NEVER the government’s job to prevent people from choosing to put themselves on the path to hell as long as they are consentually doing it and not harming any one else in the process. There’s nothing I hate more than statists who think that just because a government allows something, it means that society is going to hell in a handbasket.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:46 am
V-Man: Presuming to designate who can and who cannot marry seems the absolute embodiment of “self-absorbed stupidity.”

Comment by Cap'n Crud Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:50 am
A good book on the history of family and marriage by the way is Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.

I’d make it required reading before voting on this.

As far as Rich’s original question. Yes, I’d want this on the ballot because I don’t want courts deciding it. If I were gay, I wouldn’t like it because the advantages conferred are more symbolic than substance, and it just mobilizes opposition.

I think it favors anyone opposed to the amendment.

I think it creates the greatest problem for JBT (no relation to me by the way) and makes her take a stand she would probably want to avoid taking in the primaries.

But what do I know, I’m still growing as someone above suggested.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:51 am
sorry, I meant it helps anyone who favors the amendentment.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:53 am
the amendment will get on the ballot. it will pass and be a factor in the statewide and local races. i hear all kind of silly arguments against the amemdment. marriage is between a man and a woman and comes with certain restrictions. a man cannot marry his sister, mother or daughter or have more than one wife. all the arguments against the amendment seeks so called rights for homosexuals. they have the right to live togther and in many cases can have civil unions, which is fine. opening up marriage to homosexuals means other groups will want to be legally married and then we really have a mess. by the way, i have friends who are homosexuals and most of them feel this marriage amendment is no big deal.

Comment by ron Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 8:54 am
If these people really want to strengthen families then they would be pushing for banning divorce, making infidelity a crime, and abandoning your children a capital offense.

The real fear of these people regarding gay marriage is not that it will destabilize families but that gay partners will have a much lower divorce rate than straight spouses. Look at the states passing gay marriage bans - most have high divorce rates.

Comment by Bluefish Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 9:02 am
I come from a very large family. Several cousins have long term gay relationships and others are working on their 3-4 straight marriage. The rest are doing just fine. Kids are everywhere. The ones with gay parents happen to be doing great. The divorced families have the expected problems. Wish the Protect Marriage people would simply go away and pray for themselves. But then they also have an agenda. What group doesn’t? They could spend better time on the divorce issue. Still, it is their right to push their ideals. Let the people vote.

Is an endorsement by the Catholic Bishops still considered a good thing after all the sex related lawsuits they have faced and paid off?

Comment by zatoichi Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 9:03 am
Hey “The Conservative” at 7:56 a.m.: Ever hear of Matthew Shepard? That is the type of thing the gay community still has to worry about. For heaven’s sake, it wasn’t until last week that you could still fire/evict someone simply because of their sexual orientation.

Comment by First Time Poster, Long Time Reader Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 9:15 am
First Time re: Matt Shepard: I’m a straight guy who’s had the misfortune of walking the Northside at night and being mistaken for queer by passing gay bashers. I didn’t find any protection in a constitutional amendment on marriage.

You’re making a case for gun concealment here. Which would have been my preferred solution at the time.

Re: divorce and strengthening families. Read Coontz’s book… that’s a liberal showing the disaster liberalized divorce has wrought. It makes you wonder about what public polity here should be.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 9:26 am
sorry, yes, the amendment defines marriage as something between man and woman.

I just hit the ceiling with gays who link same sex marriage with gay bashing.

As though defining a right to same sex marriage is going to reduce gay bashing.

So I stop and tell thugs on Broadway at 2am, hey, by the way, Illinois allows same sex marriage. That’s crazy.

Anything licensed and taxed by Stroger’s Cook County can’t be a fundamental right. It’s something that can change, and if changed; should be down by legislatures and voters.

To create a right to marriage, and link it to a real right to protection from violent assaults just does a real disservice to Human Right’s causes.

I’m just a Liberal who’s sick and tired of having a minority of gays tell me I’m sanctioning gay bashing.

Maybe I’m an insight on how this is going to go over with voters.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 9:39 am
Does the Illinois Constitution really need to be a soapbox for idealogues? This is patently absurd. To the person who suggested this will show if IL is blue by gerrymander or ideology…you obviously don’t know IL very well. This can easily pass with dyed-in-the-wool Democrats - particularly downstate. Many populist, blue-collar Dems are not lefty on social issues.

And Bill - I saw that letter too. Mostly, I took it as a curmudgeonly gripe that events from, as the writer put it the “so-called Gay games” would take place at a high school that had not only left-leaning Oak Park’s name on it, but his more righty town, River Forest (heaven forbid!).

This can pass - and it will be a shame if it does. It could open a pandora’s box of Constitutional tinkering that will be embarrassing and sad.

Comment by Anon. Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 10:01 am
The proponents of this and other ballot initiatives could care less about gay marriage. What they want is to turn out bigots at the ballot box becuase bigots vote for Republicans–and that is the bottom line–getting Republicans elected.

I wonder how an inter-racial marriage referendum would have gone over in Illinois before the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia legalized inter-racial marriage in 1967? The fact that a majority of people oppose something does not make it wrong. How many of the bloggers here consulted with the public before you partnered up with your spouse?

Comment by Coloradem Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 10:13 am
you are all missing the point. the important part is “on the BALLOT”!!! it is a red herring. it is there to cover up the fact the dre voting cna now steal votes in dupage county. of course, other forms of election fraud, the death by a thousand cuts perpetrated in ohio, will also be employed. and they will be hidden under the sheet of “people whipped up by a controversial referenda.”
don’t conservatives care about election integrity?

Comment by mopinko Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 10:57 am
Conservatives care about not having marriage defined by judges and courts. (I could argue that’s a liberal idea too along the lines of FDR’s lets get rid of the nine old men by packing the court).

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:09 am
If the choice in the general is between JBT and Blago, how would those opposed to gay marriage
vote for the governorship. If for neither, the results are neutral to both, presumably. JBT is widely viewed as sympathetic to gays although she may have to tamp that way way way down for the primary. If she changes her position, that could really do her harm if she makes it in the general. A quandary. But that’s what campaign managers and paid advisors are for. To figure out how to handle this, for their very very inflated compensation.

This from someone who is absolutely indifferent to the issue, by the way. I don’t care if gays can get married. I don’t care if they can’t. Boring.

What I am interested in is getting incredibly corrupt and freespending (of our money) politicians like Blago and John Stroger out of office asap.

Comment by Cassandra Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:12 am
Mr. Baar,

Then, if conservatives are consistent (which I would argue is a very, very big “if”), they would have a problem with the case Loving v. Virginia that was decided by the Supreme Court and stated that states must recognize marriages between members of different races. Lord knows there was no state legislature at the time that would have pro-actively passes such a law. It took the courts to do it. The situation is similar now with gay marriage.

Comment by Coloradem Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:16 am
If you believe someting is a “sin,” then don’t let the “sinners” into your church (although that’s not what jesus would do, but that’s beside the point), but don’t write “sin” into law. If you don’t want two people to get married, then don’t allow such marriages in your place of worship. But don’t tell the state what it can or can’t sanction. Although it wouldn’t seem like it from the climate over the past six years or so, the United States is not a theocracy. Why does it seem that those who most loudly and proudly thump their bibles, do not actually read them?

If someone really wanted to “protect families,” wouldn’t they be supporting Blago’s kids insurance initiative? If they wanted to help out “families,” why not make it easier for families to buy and hold onto their homes? Families aren’t threatened by two guys walking into David Orr’s office and signing a piece of paper, they’re threatened by jobs being moved overseas, by high school and college tuition skyrocketing, by winter heating costs doubling over the past year, by pensions (if they ever even had any) being frozen, by social security becoming a lot less secure.

And please don’t anyone say how gays and lesbians are supposedly doing their cause more harm than good by aksing for basic civil rights until you’ve lived in our shoes 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You say you get mistaken for gay while you just happen to be walking in a diverse neighborhood in the wee small hours of the morning? Tough. Try walking through Jefferson Park, Albany Park, Edison Park or anywhere else in the state, really, in the middle of the day, merely holding the hand of a same sex person you love. Then get back to me — once you re-gain consciousness.

I may be naive and parochial, but I’ve always believed that Dems and Reps, conservatives and progressives, could debate and work together in this state, despite political differences. The thing I hate most about this is that it brings Illinois down to the level of the backwoods states, playing on fear and the lowest common denominator to stoke a political fire, as well as distracting people from more important issues. I always had hoped Illinois was above the fray in this respect.

Comment by jim s. Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:22 am
After seeing my parents fight for 35 years, I’m not so sure marriage is good for anyone…let’s have people decide what’s best for them…not politicians.

Comment by second guessing Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:40 am
Here’s my pragmatic prediction: if the voters believe that the (advisory) referendum applies only to same-gender marriage, it will pass; if the voters believe that the referendum prohibits civil unions, it will fail. In either event, in Illinois in 2006 the referendum will not get the supermajority required to amend the state constitution, because attitudes about same-gender marriage are changing rapidly.

Here’s a question for those who make the argument that marriage is based on religious beliefs: what about those churches that sanction same-gender marriage? Couldn’t those churches claim that their First Amendment right to practice their religion is infringed by a prohibition on same-gender marriages?

Just a thought.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:53 am
the governors race is not the point. it is the 6th that they are after. a solid red seat that is about to flip. a clear demographic shift, as well as a growing anti-war sentiment. but with dre voting in place now, they need a cover to explain how it somehow stayed red. presto, chango, you look over here, to see the evil queers, they wave their electronic cape, and bingo, a pile of roskam votes.

Comment by mopinko Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:04 pm
RE: conservatives who care about “the courts” defining what marriage is. Give unto God what is God’s and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Comment by jim s. Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:09 pm
Color Dem; just call me Bill,

and I’m not a stickler for consistency.

But I don’t buy the notion gay rights is the same kind of struggle that civil rights for African Americans is.

The constitution defined African Americans as not fully human. It not only denied human rights, but it denied full humanity. It took wars and the civil rights movement to correct that.

Homesexuals acts have been criminal. Homosexuals have been defined as sick. I belong to a church that will bless gay unions, and allow gay clergy. But I don’t think marriage a civil right. It’s always been a state relationship defined by government and culture. It will change.

I’ll write a longer post and stop the comments.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:15 pm
ok, maybe not just the 6th. i suppose ole denny will need a shove, also. in fact, i think it will be a bad year for republicans all the way around. holding the congress is what this is about.
do conservatives care about election integrity? if they do, they will swear off of swallowing red herrings.

Comment by mopinko Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:25 pm
JERUSALEM, Israel â€” Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. Last week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky “guy” plunged right back.

In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world’s first person to “marry” a dolphin.

Dressed in a white dress, a veil and pink flowers in her hair, Tendler got down on one knee on the dock and gave Cindy a kiss. And a piece of herring.

“It’s not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He’s the love of my life,” she said yesterday, upon her return to London.

Comment by Strangers in the night Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:34 pm
Man there is some vitriol on this message board!

Dems are ideologues, too, but they have different ideas than us Republicans. Therefore, neither side is any different in the approach but rather the basic beliefs.

The gay rights movement is necessary to protect the gay community BUT it should be used to give special/preferential treatment to any certain group. The gay community should also stop asserting that its cause is the same as the Civil Rights movement of the 60s or the Suffrage movement of the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

There is also a difference between being sympathetic to gays and supporting gay marriage. I would bet that most poll responders who support gay rights do not support gay marriage; it’s a way of being egalitarian and open-minded without taking your beliefs too far.

That said, I think this amendment will pass not because people are bigots but because there are still enough voters who think in a tradional manner and who will not be willing to allow something they seem as “unnatural” to carry further. Voters are willing to tolerate certain issues and behavior to a certain extent, and I think this is one of those instances.

Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 12:35 pm
Team Sleep,

“The gay rights movement is necessary to protect the gay community BUT it should be used to give special/preferential treatment to any certain group.”

What “special/preferential treatment” are we gays seeking? Affirmative action? No one has even spoken of that as far as I know–and I get our newsletter!

The whole “special rights” argument is a red herring. Marriage rights are not new rights, they are rights that are available now to the vast majority of Americans.

Many straight folks exercise these rights a multitude of times in a their lifetimes (Rush Limbaugh, 3X’s; Ronald Reagan, 2X’s; Newt Gingrich, 4X’s; Bob Barr, 4X’s)–the fact that so many of the leaders of the so-called “Family Values” movement have such a difficult time managing to keep the same spouse until “death they do part” makes it a bit difficult for those of us who would like to be allowed to marry our partners to take your side seriously. You have a bad case of hypocricy.

Comment by Coloradem Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:04 pm
ColorDem,
There is no right to marriage. You need a license for it. You can’t just marry anyone.. the need to be of age, not related, doing it of their free will, and it’s a one-to-one thing. It used to be not so long ago they needed to pass a VD test too.

I think it’s unwise to write this all into the constitution along with marriage must be between a man and woman, but casting this all as a “rights” issue sure forces the question.

And right now the debate serves the traditionalists best.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:14 pm
Here’s a question for the religious conservatives. If abortion could be outlawed for all cases except for rape and to save the life of the mother in exchange for gays having the same marriage rights straights have, would you support such a swap. If not, then you are totally out of touch with anything that Christ has ever taught.

(I personally am pro-Life and pro-Gay marriage, i.e. I believe in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not just one of the three).

Comment by Larry Horse Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:26 pm
Great wedge issue for the Republicans.

Too bad it won’t work in the gubernatorial race because as soon as the poll numbers hit 70% Blago will be the first person in line to sign the pledge.

Comment by Goodbye Napoleon Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:27 pm
wow another conservative ballot drive. who the hell cares about who makes love to a lover in the bedroom.

perhaps if the conservatives were not scared of their shadow they would quit messing around with who screws whom.

Comment by Doug Dobmeyer Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:36 pm
Mr. Baar,

My right to marry should not be decided by what my neighbor is comfortable with which is what the right wingers seem to be advocating.

Further, I will acknowledge that the propensity of Americans, indeed all of human nature, seems to lean towards the need to have some group to point at. Bigoty against one group or another will always be popular–that is “tradition” to use your word. The fact that you can get a majority to vote to prevent gays from marrying does not make you “right” any more that it would have been right if there were a ballot measure preventing blacks from marrying whites in 1920—a ballot measure that would have surely passed.

Comment by Coloradem Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 3:44 pm
As a divorce lawyer, I’m all for gay marriage…just means a bigger client base with a lot more money involved due to the lack of kids in the picture…bring it on!

Comment by Jackie Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 4:22 pm
ColorDem,
Nobody has a right to marry. The county licenses it, and the county can refuse it.

Here are some of the hoops you have to jump through in Okanagon County Wash,

Both applicants must provide separate written statements neatly typed or printed which explain:

Why each wants to get married.

The history of their relationship.

Concrete steps they have taken to provide food, clothes, shelter, and other needs for themselves and any children they will have.

Why it is necessary for them to marry at this time.

Check the site, it’s not a hoax.

Notice this has 40 plus comments, and Rich’s post on roads has four? Should tell you what a wedge issue this is.

Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 4:41 pm
Not only will it not pass, it will not get enough valid signatures to appear on the ballot. For those who’ve forgotten the recent Equality Illinois poll:

CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT GAY MARRIAGE

Changing the U.S. Constitution:
Â§ 23% Support
Â§ 70% Oppose

Changing the Illinois Constitution:
Â§ 27% Support
Â§ 67% Oppose

This, BTW, was a poll of registered voters with a margin of 4%.

That means that of the 7.5 million registered voters in Illinois, barely 2 million support the ban, and canvassers will have to physically locate 1/4 of them.

It’s tough enough to collect enough signatures for something that is politically popular in Illinois — that’s why you don’t see statewide referendums on increasing the minimum wage or free ice cream every year. But collecting enough signatures for something so unpopular — that would never pass any way — is untenable.

Heck, if there were that many wingnuts in Illinois, Alan Keyes would have won.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 5:22 pm
YDD,

Thanks for that encouraging news. You learn something new every day!

Comment by Coloradem Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 5:36 pm
Funny, last time I read the bible, I didn’t see a mention of ” Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Comment by Huh? Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 5:54 pm
I actually think that in order to avoid giving “special rights” to anyone, that marriage should be removed from the civil law and left entirely to churches and synagogues as religious rites, not civil contracts. Thus giving no benefit to anyone not available to everyone else. So companies that wish to cover an employee’s spouse would have to just provide for an employee + 1 other adult (spouse, aged mother, lover whatever), paternity to be decided by DNA, ownership of property etc. to be covered by explicit legal contract, no spousal support following divorce unless stipulated by contract… Seems to be the fairest way to go.

Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 5:55 pm
I think Cermak_rd’s argument is an interesting one.

What if we were to create–using the state’s ability to regulate the making of contracts, or something like that–an lifelong unlimited-liability civil partnership that covers hospital visitation, disposition of property, etc.? This civil partnership could be entered into by heterosexual as well as homosexual couples, along with sexually uninvolved pairings (an unmarried brother and sister, two unmarried women who have shared a house for years, etc.). In addition, something resembling “covenant marriage” (the equivalent of a pre-nuptial agreement eliminating the possibility of a no-fault divorce, or something similar) could also be instituted as an option.

The definition of marriage, per Cermak_rd’s comment, is left up to individual religious communities. If non-religious or liberal religious groups decide to marry a couple simply joined by the civil partnership, then they can. If conservative churches wish to say that a couple cannot really be married without the added covenant provision, then they are free to do that. No institution can be accused of discriminating against anyone else’s views, because in a free marketplace of religious ideas, a couple wishing to get “married” for less commitment can find another institution to help them accomplish that.

Similarly, this eliminates the awkwardness that many conservative couples have with covenant marriage (”if marriage is already a lifelong commitment, why do we need to sign the additional paperwork as well?”), since their religious community will be able to insist upon a legal arrangement for marriage that more closely matches their beliefs on the subject.

I think this is a fairly fool-proof system (Correct me if I’m wrong), but I am conflicted on this, however, for two reasons. First, I think religious conservatives have very legitimate concerns about how anti-discrimination/possible hate speech legislation could be applied (Is it so wrong for a church that believes that homosexuality is a sin and which holds all its staff to a code of conduct consistent with its beliefs to not hire a homosexual employee? Is it that big of a threat to public order to allow a pastor who believes that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong to preach from the Bible the way he reads it without fear of legal retribution?), and I can definitely see how people could view a measure such as this as a good way of defending communities of faith against undue state interference. The best defense is a good offense, and–lest anyone have the wrong idea–the “traditional marriage” push is intrinsically a defensive campaign.

Second, there is a public policy argument out there that traditional families actually help the state and society function better. If this is so (and I’m going to leave the question open), then the state definitely has some basis for regulating marriage; if the state can regulate marriage, then, the disestablishment of marriage law seems premature.

Can anyone help explain this muddle to me?

Comment by Defensor Pacis Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:06 pm
Yellow Dog Democrat et al. -

If I could make one small request, please refrain in the future from referring to supporters of this measure as “wingnuts.”

That kind of language is unnecessarily polarizing–particularly in a discussion of an issue that is already a wedge issue. This is a hard enough issue without name-calling by either side.

Comment by Defensor Pacis Monday, Jan 9, 06 @ 11:11 pm
If this did get on the ballot think of the other opportunities for the conservative movement to attempt to take hold. Would be nice to see the ISRA and NRA get on something like this to get more friendly gun wording in the IL Const. Vandermyde if you reading this please take note!!!!!!

Comment by SouthernILRepub Tuesday, Jan 10, 06 @ 12:17 am
People,

This referendum is advisory. Whether it earns a majority or not (or even a 3/5ths, 2/3rds, or 3/4ers supermajority) doesn’t matter — it can’t “pass” or “fail” because Illinois only allows advisory referenda on statewide ballots.

This isn’t to amend any state law and certainly not the state constitution. The governor (whomever it may be) and the lege and even the courts can all ignore the results because it’s purely advisory.

On another topic, Huh? wrote:
Funny, last time I read the bible, I didnâ€™t see a mention of â€ Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.â€

Funny, last time I read our state and national Constitutions the Bible wasn’t even mentioned…. Maybe it’s because the Founding Fathers believed what you do in your church, synagogue, temple or mosque is your own business, that’s what Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State is all about.

If you want to live in a nation ruled by the Bible you need to become a Catholic Bishop and live in Vatican City. Even England, whose titular head is both a monarch and the Head of the Church of England, isn’t ruled by the Bible, that nation is also ruled by laws.

Comment by Anonymous Too Tuesday, Jan 10, 06 @ 11:22 am