Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Burris: “There’s no one better qualified than me”
Next Post: Senate civil unions videos
Posted in:
* 11:57 am - Sen. James Meeks said this morning that he intends to vote “No” on the civil unions bill when it comes up for a vote today.
This isn’t much of a surprise since Meeks’ record hasn’t exactly been pro-gay. But there had been some speculation that he might change his mind now that he’s running for mayor of Chicago. But Meeks said if he voted for the bill he’d be deemed a flip-flopper who was pandering for votes ahead of the mayoral election and he planned to stick to his principles.
Of course, the other side is it could be darned tough getting elected in Chicago with that “No” vote on his record.
* You can use this post to discuss the Senate’s civil unions debate, which ought to be soon. Watch or listen here.
• UPDATE: GOP Sen Dan Rutherford just announced that he would vote for the bill. Rutherford was just elected state treasurer.
• UPDATE: The bill passed 32-24 with Sen Ira Silverstein voting Present.
• UPDATE: Sen. Rutherford was the only Republican to vote for the bill.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 11:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Burris: “There’s no one better qualified than me”
Next Post: Senate civil unions videos
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m not surprised, nor will I be voting for him in February.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:01 pm
In a bizarre way, I can respect the guy for being honest in a no-win position.
Meeks will frustrate some voters regardless of which way he goes on the bill.
Better to respect your sincere principles (since someone will disagree) and let the chips fall where they may than defy those principles based on potential political gain.
Comment by S Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:05 pm
Looks like he is very happy being a Senator, because he won’t be elected Mayor.
Comment by wndycty Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:05 pm
Plus, the city of Chicago already extends benefits to domestic partners of employees.
Unless Meeks says he wants to reverse that, is there much more he can do polcy-wise to help or harm gay rights?
Comment by S Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:11 pm
Sorry Rev. being stubborn AND wrong doesn’t win you any points. It’s fine to change your mind if you can explain why you did.
No matter what he votes, I’d say 1000-1 against him winning the mayor’s race.
Comment by State Sen. Clay Davis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:11 pm
Here we go! The debate begins.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:14 pm
Opening remarks by Sen. Koehler. Discussing Sen. Dirksen and civil rights as a moral cause.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:18 pm
Did Sen. Koehler just out a servicemember?
Comment by DaveM Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:21 pm
A “no” vote on civil unions will kill Meeks’ chances for being mayor. Harold Washington was able to win because he received overwhelming support from African American voters and a substantial vote from lakefront liberals. If Meeks makes it into the run off he might be able duplicate the former but the “no” vote (plus his right to life positions) will cost him the latter.
Comment by LouisXIV Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:21 pm
Koehler: This is not gay marriage. It’s a way to provide civil recognition and protection. Sen. Koehler is a clergyman and the father of a gay daughter.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:21 pm
Sen. Koehler discussing relationship to bans on interracial marriage.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:23 pm
Sen. Lauzen: Why civil unions now? The economy is in the tank and the state is in fiscal trouble? This is a waste of our time.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:25 pm
Lauzen makes the feeble, “why this and not the budget?” argument.
Sorry Senator CPA, this is an asinine argument. Can you, as a deliberative body, not walk and chew bubble gum?
Comment by Bill F Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:25 pm
Lauzen: Several years ago, I offered to gays that they are already covered under contract law…this is a smokescreen to move toward homosexual marriage.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:26 pm
Sen Lauzen, irrespective of whether or not this bill should be debated now, it IS being debated now.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:27 pm
Lauzen: Talking sex. Why is this a government issue? Marriage is about making babies.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm
Well then, Senator Lauzen it should cost you thousands in legal fees for all those rights you and your wife take for granted.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm
The best response to Meeks is the “quote” of Senator Dirksen reported by Rep. Black yesterday - it is better to be right than consistent.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm
Right, St.Louis. If it’s such a waste of time, then lead by example…yield your time.
Comment by Bill F Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm
lauzen’s comment shows the utter hypocrisy of the republican position. they won’t help whatsoever with the state’s fiscal crisis, but don’t want anything else to be done while the state is in that crisis. just like a petulant child, the best thing to do is to ignore it…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:28 pm
Frankly, I did not realize that a fertility test was required for marriage.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:29 pm
Anyone have an alternative for audio/video. Having no luck connecting.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:30 pm
If Sen. Lauzen thinks this debate is a waste of time, then why doesn’t he just sit down and vote yes to get it over with already?
Comment by Lee Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:30 pm
Lauzen: Marriage is for raising healthy children. Discussing single parent (mother-child) families and the problems therein.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:30 pm
one might wish to argue that marriage is about procreation, but this isn’t about marriage. civil unions are about equal legal rights and protection, not babies. something so simple, so elementary — in fact, the very basis upon which this country was founded. sen lauzen must hate america…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:31 pm
Lauzen: There are no procreative requirements surrounding marriage, nor is the ability to procreate a requirement. Until there are, your argument that marriage’s purpose is the raising of children in a traditional household is moot.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:31 pm
Sen. ??? is now questioning cost to taxpayers
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:32 pm
Dear Senator Lauzen: You are making me want to go out and get gay married this afternoon. And then have my gay partner get herself knocked up. However, my husband would probably object, so I guess I won’t.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:33 pm
The argument that civil unions should be rejected because of the pension impact is almost obscene. Just think how history would judge a Senator in the 1950s arguing against the repeal of anti-miscegenation because of the cost to pensions of more persons being able to marry?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:34 pm
Now Sen McCarter with questions: How is this not gay marriage?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:34 pm
Sen. Duffy-The Government shouldn’t get involved in the private lives of citizens, but the state is broke, ergo, continue the practice of Government barring private citizens from conducting their personal lives as they please
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:35 pm
Sen. Duffy is now raising the strawman argument that civil unions would be financially burdensome to the State. Would the gentleman approve the erstwhile civilly united couples instead seek opposite-sex partners, join in traditional marriage and burden the State in a more traditional manner?
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:35 pm
Senator Lauzen, you are a disgrace to the chamber. You misguided this debate to totally irrelevant topics. Too bad the Democrats didn’t have a nominee who could beat you.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:38 pm
Sen Koehler: Hetero couples will be covered under this as well.
Sen McCarter: Can the state afford this, what will it cost?
Sen. Koehler: We already give partner benefits to same sex partners. Already built into retirement.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:38 pm
GOP argument is getting ridiculous. This is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. Affording people the right to an attorney and to a fair trial is expensive too, can we just get rid of those rights as well?
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:39 pm
Sen McCarter: How will this impact private employers and religious employers?
Will this change the educational curriculum in any way?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:40 pm
Rahm’s Parking Meter — keep in mind Senator Lauzen even wins in Aurora proper (and used to out poll even Denny Hastert)
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:40 pm
Sen McCarter: What about the budget? We need to deal with the budget?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:40 pm
Sen. McCarter is just running down the NOM talking points.
“We can’t afford equal rights” is the most mindnumbing and a particular brand of offensive that’s been tossed out there so far.
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:41 pm
McCarter’s litany of strawmen are falling like ducks in a shooting gallery. Now he’s falling back on the non sequitur of the need to deal with the economy and not the social issues.
And now we get to his bottom line: “I just think this is wrong.”
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:41 pm
McCarter: It’s wrong not to respect traditional marriage.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:41 pm
Sen. Jones: I disagree with the sponsor. This is gay marriage. I have gay friends that I respect. But I am against it.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:42 pm
No, Sen. Jones,you don’t respect or support your friends who are gay if you don’t support this bill!
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:42 pm
I keep hearing “This is just wrong” and “I don’t agree with this” but not any reasons why the Senators feel this way.
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:43 pm
Thanks to the Senate for making the House look like a Greek Philosophy Chamber with regards to the civil unions debate.
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:43 pm
Sen. Jones, you want revenue to come to the state? civil union parties!
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:43 pm
“There is some major pieces of legislation out there…”
Really? There IS?
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:43 pm
To sum up the opposition:
1) Gay people should not have civil unions because it wrecks marriage.
2) We need to fix the budget and economy instead.
Wow! They can’t do any better than that?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:44 pm
Regardless of how he votes, Rev. Meeks was not going to get any gay votes for Mayor. He lost these votes with his history of anti-gay rhetoric including the “Gays in Hell” haunted house. He also thinks Buddhists,Jews, Hindus and all other non-Christians are going to hell which isn’t going to play well in the City.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:44 pm
Add John Jones to the “well, we need jobs and economic development” argument group.
So if not today, when. In a month? Will our economy be OK by then. Six months? A year?
Comment by Bill F Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:44 pm
Sen. Jones brings up the Rome argument again
Comment by Publius Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:44 pm
Rome is burning? Again?
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:45 pm
Bivins: I’m not a minister, but I don’t think we are reading the same book.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm
Do these people not realize gay people will pay the state for the licenses?
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm
My husband and I (we were married in Massachusetts, but in MO or IL, our marriage is not recognized) have long said that we would give very strong consideration to moving across the river into Illinois if IL legalized civil unions. And last night we spoke in more detail, talking about specific communities where we should begin looking for real estate.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm
Cheryl44, hilarious! Made me laugh. Hey, isn’t Lauzen the one one who also compared Dillard to Moses?
Comment by irisheyesrsmilin' Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:46 pm
Keeping up the class-Martin Luther King didn’t take a bullet for same sex unions
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:47 pm
I hate to say this, but they have no real argument against it. They are going into same talking points like Rome is burning or we are going to collapse. In 2-4 years these same people will be praising this piece of legislation has historic
Comment by Publius Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:48 pm
Are all these who are opposed expected to be opposed? Any surprises?
Comment by Damen Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:48 pm
I should be excited about the civil union bill. But it feels it is the same as being told you can ride on the same bus as long as you sit in the rear. I’m happy that there is progress but civil unions is still second-class status.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:49 pm
Why is the civil unions bill limited to one person-one person relationships? What happens if one person wants to join a union with two others. Two on two. One person and a goat? All these couplings are as valid as the civil unions proposed by this bill. Here is my sole problem with civil unions, and one I cannot resolve.
Discuss.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:49 pm
Senator Rutherford to support the bill
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Sen. Rutherford: I’ve been traveling around the state. This bill is opposed by some, it is uncomfortable for some. It is the right thing to do. I will be voting yes.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Looking forward to getting the e-mails about Rutherford, not.
Good for him
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Nothing like some civil discourse, telling those who oppose your preferred stance on a bill/issue to:
- just stop talking
- comparing them to a “petulant child”
- claiming they “must hate America”
- labeling them a “disgrace to the chamber”
Glad to see we’re all heeding Rich today and toning it down… sheesh.
Comment by S Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Cincinattus: Should we discuss your lack of understanding?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Are you posting from the Senate floor Cincy? You sound like them.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Why is the civil unions bill limited to one What happens if one person wants to join a union with two others. Two on two. One person and a goat? All these couplings are as valid as the civil unions proposed by this bill.
-This is blatantly false, so if this is your only opposition to the bill, I welcome your support!
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:52 pm
At what point do religious institutions get to errode society? when the Palin right wing Taliban gets their theocracy.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:53 pm
Cincinattus: If you want your cat Fluffy to marry your dog Buddy, you go right ahead.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:53 pm
That goat thing might not be a bad idea. Can I get a state tax exemption?
Comment by Bill Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:54 pm
OneMan: voters are stupid. we don’t really need additional support for that conclusion.
Cincinnatus: since this bill doesn’t overturn existing laws, not much to discuss. i can only assume that your relationship with your goat is safe, so long as peta doesn’t find out…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:55 pm
Hypothetical question: can one form a heterosexual civil union?
Don’t know why one would want to, but does this bill prohibit that?
Comment by S Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:55 pm
@Cincinnatus: get back to us when the goat can make informed consent.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:55 pm
Godwin’s Law needs to be amended to state that whenever speaking of gay rights ect. the discussion will lead to the fall of Rome.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:56 pm
-S-: Yes, heterosexuals can get a civil union under this bill.
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:57 pm
Pot calling kettle, Cheryl,
Seriously? Polygamy. Okay with you? Why not?
I have asked a serious question. Try being adult and explaining away my concerns with logic instead of childish responses.
EazyTurner,
Surprisingly to you, you might have it. My questions are more based on the logic of the situation, not the morality, on which I pass no judgment.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:57 pm
both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions would be permitted under this bill
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:57 pm
Cincy, read the bill. Your argument is ridiculous and a needless distraction.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:58 pm
what will be the final vote total? we are in the final comment stages, right?
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:59 pm
I can’t stream the video or the audio, can someone whose listening please provide some updates?
Comment by fantasma Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 12:59 pm
Thanks, EazyTurner and St. Louis
Comment by S Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:01 pm
—Looking forward to getting the e-mails about Rutherford, not.
LOL-he voted for the non-discrimination law too so it shouldn’t be a surprise to them.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:01 pm
“I have asked a serious question”
Cincinnatus, you asked to marry a goat. lol
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:02 pm
@fantasma: I’m not hearing anything new. The same non sequiturs, red herrings and strawman arguments are being raised in opposition.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:04 pm
===. Try being adult and explaining away my concerns with logic instead of childish responses.
Because equating getting with a goat and two adults making an informed, free decision is very mature.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:04 pm
Cincy, we’ve been hearing that tired old argument (polygamy! animals!) since the first time anyone tried to get civil rights to all of the citizens of this country. I can’t take it seriously anymore.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:04 pm
ugh, this health insurance argument. people who get married don’t ask your permission to have children, which no one seems to see as some financial predicament for business. plans require payment various levels of family members. that’s it!
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:05 pm
Thanks Saint, it’s killing me that I can’t listen or watch!
Comment by fantasma Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:05 pm
Cincy, again, that is not covered in the bill. It is a distraction. Those opposed to civil unions and/or gay marriage have trotted that line of reasoning out and it has been repeatedly refuted, or refudiated if you prefer. Stop. Please. It’s tiring.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:05 pm
@Cincinnatus: The traditional model of marriage had more to do with securing property and political influence than what we see as family today. The church’s role in marriage and the role of marriage itself have both changed dramatically over the course of those thousands of years you reference.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:06 pm
Senator Kyle McCarter appears to be voting on a different bill that legalizes gay marriage.
From Twitter:
“house sponsor of gay marriage bill just arrived in the senate chambers. gay marriage bill is being heard now.”
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:06 pm
Thank you Sen. Rutherford!!! Even if he doesn’t stand for re-election in his district again, that’s still a courageous vote given the communities he represents aren’t exactly on the cutting edge of gay rights support.
And not only is this the right thing to do, it’s definitely good politics for a statewide officeholder in this moderate state with bigger ambitions than treasurer.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:07 pm
Remember, not too long ago, interracial marriages were considered a non-traditional coupling
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:07 pm
Senator Syverson is arguing that COBRA will require churches to give benefits to civil union spouses when they transfer from a prior job. That’s wrong - he doesn’t understand how COBRA works.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:07 pm
Cincy-man on goat-natus,
The argument has been around for a long time, and it is extremely weak and childish. However, I believe good ol’ Rick “Man on dog” Santorum is running for President in 2012, do at least you’ll have a candidate to back up your issues.
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:07 pm
—? Is not there a legal challenge that can be made on the behalf of a three-way union?
Given the history of polygamy is one of abuse and control and seldom one of choice, not so much. That in itself sets up a compelling state interest to regulate the institution to two people.
Of course, if three or more people want to shack up and be all crazy, that’s their right in a free society. We just don’t enforce any contracts to come out of that.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:08 pm
Look, opponents, if you are going to be against this, at least be honest about why. What is with all this baloney about pensions and COBRA? That’s not why you oppose this.
Comment by Gutless sheep Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:10 pm
What a historical moment in the Capitol building -debating civil unions in the Senate and Bill Black’s send off in the House.
Comment by umm Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:11 pm
Stick to the bill please. These silly diversions are not helpful. I’ve deleted several comments and will delete more if need be.
Do not feed the trolls.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:12 pm
Sorry Rich.
Anymore updates? I can’t access the feeds. Thanks!
Comment by UISer Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:13 pm
S,
Yes. Hetero seniors would benefit. Instance would be a widow and widower who don’t marry because they’d lose all survivor benefits.
Comment by piling on Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:14 pm
If heterosexuals are allowed to form civil unions under this bill, why would anyone get married?
Comment by Logical Thinker Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:14 pm
Sen Hutchinson speaking in support of the bill, with compassion and strength.
Comment by Fan of Cap Fax Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:15 pm
Sorry, Rich.
I was serious about my only LEGAL concern about civil unions. Believe me, I’ve struggled with this for years and thought someone could help me out.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:19 pm
Sen Haine speaking. Section 15 being discussed.
Comment by Fan of Cap Fax Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:19 pm
is a union between two people held as substandard if it does not involve children?
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:19 pm
===Believe me, I’ve struggled with this for years and thought someone could help me out.===
He told us not to feed you. Sorry, dude.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:20 pm
Arch–
Still going to end up getting e-mails from my pals in the northern part of Kane County
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:21 pm
Logical Thinker — Civil unions don’t give couples any federal rights, nor would they even if DOMA is repealed. Heteros will not get civil unions because they’ll want social security and federal tax benefits that gays still can’t get. If there were equal rights, many heteros I know would indeed choose civil unions over marriage out of respect for the separation of church and state.
Comment by Lee Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:21 pm
==If heterosexuals are allowed to form civil unions under this bill, why would anyone get married?==
Two reasons: (1) religious views, and (2) tax breaks. People who want to have their relationship recognized by a church will still have a formal marriage. People entering into a civil union are not eligible for federal tax benefits or other benefits permitted under federal law. Opposite sex couples who want/need federal benefits will continue to enter into marriages.
Comment by umm Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:22 pm
Sen Haine appreciates the work done on this bill so far, however, he cannot vote in favor of this bill at this time.
Comment by Fan of Cap Fax Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:23 pm
I heard a rumor it will change due to health care reform, but currently domestic partners are suppose to pay tax on the health care benefits received by their partner. This is not true for married couples and is the result of Defense of Marriage Act.
Again, it is worth pointing out that civil unions are a step forward but they are not equal.
Comment by Objective Dem Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:26 pm
Obamarama,
Another day, another time, another thread.
So, for the folks keeping rough count, where does the voting stand?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:27 pm
Everyone who wants jobs and to stimulate the economy should be FOR this bill. Weddings are a multi-billion dollar business in Illinois. Imagine how much money will be generated by civil unions! Hotels, flowers, food, etc. This is a jobs bill.
Comment by think about it Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:27 pm
I move away from my computer and now the audio and video don’t work for the House or Senate, great
Comment by Publius Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:28 pm
I guess I haven’t heard a good anti argument.
I believe a lot of things about marriage that should be the case, however they are not things that should be instituted in law.
As long as they don’t force anything on the church (and it appears they do not) I guess the libertarian in me wins this time.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:28 pm
—==If heterosexuals are allowed to form civil unions under this bill, why would anyone get married?==
I got married because I made a promise to my wife and God. The state just enforces some legal contracts and rights for us. I have always been somewhat offended that the state thinks they have a right to define a sacrament in my church.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:28 pm
Quinn is in the (house) Senate! winding down to the
passage! poignant that it will pass today.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:29 pm
Quinn is now in the Senate Chambers
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:29 pm
==I heard a rumor it will change due to health care reform, but currently domestic partners are suppose to pay tax on the health care benefits received by their partner.==
Unfortunately, while this tax relief was a part of early health care reform discussion, it was not included in the final law that was signed by President Obama.
Comment by Tom in the Burbs Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:31 pm
Quinn just entered chamber. Must be wrapping up soon.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:31 pm
Could we get a ruling from those in opposition on the economic benchmarks that must be reached before the bill can be considered?
Is that, along with the Roman Empire (who knew it was so beloved?), the A-Game? Again, for those looking for reasons why the Illinois GOP was left out of the national GOP statehouse landslide….
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:35 pm
The New Ricky Hendon…..sounds like a tv show.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:35 pm
== I got married because I made a promise to my wife and God. The state just enforces some legal contracts and rights for us. I have always been somewhat offended that the state thinks they have a right to define a sacrament in my church. ==
All be it that my church does not consider it a sacrament, I am completely with you on this…
If in general I am suspicious of government involvement in a great many things, one of the places I am suspicious of government involvement is marriage.
God has his definition of marriage and the state has it’s definition. They are different today, they will be different tomorrow and they were different yesterday.
Let the state have it’s definition.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:36 pm
@Logical Thinker - Because they believe in the religious aspect of marriage.
Comment by Way Northsider Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:36 pm
Love how Ricky has made it about him….
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:37 pm
Who was the Sen. speaking just before Rickey? I missed his intro when my plug slipped.
Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:37 pm
Oh…..Rickey. Rickey, Rickey, Rickey.
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:38 pm
It was Sen. Noland, who gave a very nice speech. I was impressed.
Comment by Scooby Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:38 pm
Ricky Hendon doesn’t fail to deliver.
Comment by Bill F Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:39 pm
==I have always been somewhat offended that the state thinks they have a right to define a sacrament in my church.==
Then you should appreciate that this bill makes it clear the state cannot interfere with or regulate the rights of a religion to choose to ignore or recognize civil unions.
Comment by umm Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:40 pm
Thanks, Scooby. So was I.
Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:40 pm
Yes Ricky you hate politics, you hate hypocrisy, funny I read your book Backstabbers and I didn’t get that impression.
Also I like how called your fellow senators womanizers and secretly gay. Stay Classy
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:40 pm
can someone explain what rickey is saying (as difficult as it is to translate in blog post form) to those of us unable to get the chamber feed?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:41 pm
Thanks Rich and everyone commenting here! I can’t listen to the live debate on my work computer, so I really hope either CapFax or Statehouse News has some video from today.
Comment by MKA1985 Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:41 pm
Is it just me, or is it really awkward for rank-and-file Republicans to argue “Rome is burning” while their leaders sit mum?
If, in deed, this legislation undermines marriage as Republicans claim, wouldn’t we expect to hear from Cross and Radogno?
Madigan and Cullerton have both publicly expressed support for the measure.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:42 pm
Hendon: “It turns my stomach, the hypocrisy. Why make it about pensions … just say you don’t like certain folks.”
Comment by EazyTurner Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:43 pm
hisgirlfriday: Talked about his favorite uncle, who was straight, but didn’t want to marry for a 3rd or 4th time (can’t remember). Then went on to say he hates politics, and hates seeing people who are adulterers, on the down-low, etc., speak against civil unions. He supports the bill not because other politicians called him to ask for his support, but because it’s the right thing to do. He said it won’t wreck the state, like it hasn’t wrecked other states who have civil unions or more. And he said voting for it won’t send him to hell, and it won’t send anyone to hell.
Now take that summary and make it sound crazy. That’s about the gist of it.
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:43 pm
again, very moving listening today, Koehler recognizing his daughter and her partner, the historic nature of this, all of it,
very moving.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:43 pm
Hendon: ” The womanizers, those with the relationships on the down low, who stand up and say they are against this”
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:44 pm
Judging by the cheer I am guessing it passed
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:44 pm
amazing listening to the cheering!!!!!!!!!
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:45 pm
32 yeah - 24 nay - 1 Present
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t say this very often…but BRAVO to the Illinois General Assembly. Well done!
Comment by ILPundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:47 pm
I guess it’s time to start house shopping on the IL side of the river.
Well done, senators, and thank you.
Comment by St. Louis Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:48 pm
great day for Illinois! let the union party planning begin.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:48 pm
Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:48 pm
When is the Governor expected to sign the bill? Any idea when it will go into effect?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:50 pm
Served: You hit the nail on the head with that description of Hendon’s words…
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:50 pm
===Then you should appreciate that this bill makes it clear the state cannot interfere with or regulate the rights of a religion to choose to ignore or recognize civil unions.
I do.
And Oneman–covenant is the appropriate word in my case as well. I just grabbed sacrament from my mind too quickly.
And thanks Ricky. Keeping it high minded.
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:51 pm
Hendon hates hypocrisy and calls out the womanizers while Cheryl Axley and Robin Kelly scratch their heads. Get some more tax money for your relatives, Ricky.
Comment by Old Milwaukee Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:52 pm
Christine Radogno…..very sad, thought you had progressed. Viverito…..Maloney voted for it, what’s your problem? Meeks….no mayor for you. Silverstein….gutless.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:52 pm
A great day for equality, a great day for justice a great day for Illinois!
Comment by (618) Democrat Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:53 pm
===I guess it’s time to start house shopping on the IL side of the river.
LOL–there are so many reasons….
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:53 pm
The vote is now online. You can view it here.
Comment by Scooby Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:53 pm
Silverstein? Anyone know why he voted no? Was he for more than a civil union?
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:54 pm
(voted present ) sorry
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:56 pm
OneMan: Genuine curiosity here, not snark: Has anyone tried to force anything (marriage-related) on churches/etc.? I’m not aware of any, and I’m trying to think of who would an what their motives would be. Would be interesting to hear. I’m a not-particularly-fond-of-religion atheist and I’d be furious if they tried to force religious institutions to marry people they don’t want to…it’s simple religious liberty.
Comment by jaranath Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 1:58 pm
@arch -
You’d have to ask Silverstein, but I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that he’s Orthodox, and homosexuality is explicitly forbidden by the Torah.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 2:00 pm
jaranath, I believe most of the complications have been when same-sex couples attempted to rent a space that was church or religiously-affiliated for a reception, and were denied. Knights of Columbus Halls, for example.
Comment by Served Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 2:00 pm
Good for Senator Rutherford! I’m ashamed that more republicans were not with him.
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Dec 1, 10 @ 2:00 pm