ONTD Political

Illinois gay marriage supporters look to next session (It's only a matter of time, folks--HONEST!)

3:54 pm - 01/04/2013
Gay marriage, assault weapons ban votes delayed in Illinois Senate
January 04, 2013|By Ray Long and Rick Pearson | Clout Street

SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois Senate left the State Capitol later today without voting on measures to legalize gay marriage and outlaw assault weapons, leaving the fate of those controversial issues in doubt.

A committee advanced the same-sex marriage bill late this afternoon, but the sponsor acknowledged she did not have enough votes to win approval on the Senate floor.

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, dismissed a question on whether she ever had a solid 30 votes lined up to pass the legislation. "Oh, no, no, no," Steans said. "We really did have the votes. We were just missing members today."


Such are the political dynamics of a lame-duck session in Springfield: some lawmakers who are in their final days of service don't show up to work, making it difficult to pass tough legislation.

The Senate’s failure to take a final vote also came after a furious lobbying pushback by the Catholic Conference of Illinois and Cardinal Francis George.

The Senate Executive Committee advanced the measure on an 8-5 vote following a lengthy debate that featured testimony from both sides of the issue.

"It's not often that we really have a chance in this chamber to be taking a look at something providing a basic civil right and advancing fairness," said sponsoring Sen. Steans. "Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons we all do--for commitment, family, mutual responsibility.

Steans said gay couples have suffered from the 2nd-class status. Underscoring Steans' point was emotional testimony from Mercedes Santos and Theresa Volpe, a lesbian couple from Rogers Park who got a civil union in Illinois.

"Right now, we are in a civil union, but it is not enough," testified Theresa Volpe.

Springfield Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki testified against the proposal, saying, "It would radically redefine what marriage is for everybody." He maintained the "natural family" is undermined by the legislation.

"Neither two men nor two women can possibly form a marriage," Paprocki said. "Our law would be wrong if it said that they could.

"The basic structure of marriage as the exclusive and lasting relationship of a man and a woman, committed to a life with the potential of having children, is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God," Paprocki said.

At the same time, an effort to ban semi-automatic assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines --- backed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel --- also lacked the votes needed for passage. Opponents argued the measure was too broad and unworkable.

With no action on those two controversial issues, senators were preparing to return home. A final day of the Senate’s lame-duck session remains an option for Tuesday, the day before the next General Assembly is inaugurated. But that could depend on whether the House takes any action. House members are scheduled to be in Springfield from Sunday through Tuesday.

rlong@tribune.com

Source

So, the bill made it out of committee but didn't come to a vote on the IL Senate floor...YET. It could still happen on Tuesday. After that, I don't know if they have to to go back and start over or what. Politics is/are confusing!
tigerdreams 5th-Jan-2013 12:12 am (UTC)
committed to a life with the potential of having children

This may be slightly OT, but do any of these people actually think that anyone believes that "the potential for having children" is something they care about, in and of itself? While I would disagree vehemently, I could believe that someone thought that marriage was about actually having children; that's the sort of position that someone might conceivably take a firm emotional stance on. Of course, that would cause them to lose a lot of support from their own side, from infertile couples, elderly couples, childless by choice couples, etc. But the ~potential for children~ isn't something that I can honestly imagine anyone getting sincerely worked up over, in and of itself -- except when it's used as a transparent code-word for "heterosexual." And it's a really transparent code-word -- like, not-even-trying level transparent. idk, I guess I just feel like, if you're going to pretend not to be a bigot, don't insult my intelligence by putting in so little effort. Sorry, I may just be babbling at this point; I haven't slept much.
1trackmind 5th-Jan-2013 01:14 am (UTC)
I think there are some people who believe that. They are also the type to ignore things like one partner being infertile due to medical issues or age because "a miracle could happen."

As someone who has negative interest in having kids I've always been more than a little annoyed at the notion that because I don't want kids I should die alone and a virgin.
moonshaz 6th-Jan-2013 04:59 am (UTC)
...do any of these people actually think that anyone believes that "the potential for having children" is something they care about, in and of itself?

Well, don't forget that the source of that quote is a (presumably) celibate Catholic priest. And the more quotes I read like this and the drivel recently spewed by Cardinal George, the more firmly convinced that I am that those guys live in their own little bubble in which reality plays little if no role. I'm pretty sure there ARE priests who are a little more in touch with reality, but the ones who tend to rise to positions of power all seem to be living in the bubble. (Look at the current Pope, for Thor's sake.)

Now whether these guys really DO care deeply about things like "the potential for having children" (whatever the fuck that even means) is anyone's guess. But the ones who rise as high as bishop or cardinal seem to be EXTREMELY well-versed in spouting all the right lines. AND even if they secretly don't believe what they're saying, they'll never admit it, because it would get them in a mess of trouble with their big boss in Rome.

[Disclaimer: not Catholic, not raised Catholic, but I married into a family with many Catholics in it (NOT including my husband) and have spent most of my adult life in a very heavily Catholic area and so have had lots of opportunities to observe.]

Edited at 2013-01-06 05:00 am (UTC)
1trackmind 5th-Jan-2013 01:11 am (UTC)
I just wanted to say I adore your icon.

If it doesn't happen next session maybe the one after. It took multiple attempts to get it passed in WA, as I recall.
moonshaz 6th-Jan-2013 05:04 am (UTC)
Thanks on the icon. I made it myself, using an image I yoinked from somewhere and I am more than happy if anyone wants to gank it. :)

As for the gay marriage law, if it doesn't happen this session, I think there's an excellent chance it will be passed in the next one. For one thing, the support is still going to be there, and for another, I'm convinced that Illinois is ripe for this and that it really IS just a matter of time!
1trackmind 7th-Jan-2013 05:07 am (UTC)
I'd expect to see a lot more states legalizing same-sex marriage soon. Especially if the Supreme Court rules the way I think they will at least on the inheritance case.
kyra_neko_rei 6th-Jan-2013 04:33 am (UTC)
Springfield Catholic Bishop Thomas John Paprocki testified against the proposal, saying, "It would radically redefine what marriage is for everybody."

Funny, and here I thought straight marriages would still stay straight.

He maintained the "natural family" is undermined by the legislation.

They'll still be married. That sounds far fairer to them than not being married is to us.

"Neither two men nor two women can possibly form a marriage," Paprocki said. "Our law would be wrong if it said that they could.

Watch us, you obnoxious shitpickle.

"The basic structure of marriage as the exclusive and lasting relationship of a man and a woman, committed to a life with the potential of having children, is given to us in human nature, and thus by nature's God," Paprocki said.

So which wife was Solomon married to? How about Abraham? And what about Zachariah and Elizabeth, who were married even though they were barren for most of their lives?

And, no. Shut the goddamn hell up about nature. It is our nature to love and be loved in whatever direction our orientation calls for. Sometimes with the hope for children, sometimes without.
moonshaz 6th-Jan-2013 05:19 am (UTC)
As a married, straight person, I have NEVER understood the argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to "weaken" marriage for straight people. It just makes NO fucking sense to me whatsoever that giving other people rights I've always been able to take for granted could possibly affect me OR my marriage in ANYTHING but a positive way.

WHEN this law is passed in my state, my straight ass is going to celebrate a WHOLE fucking bunch.
This page was loaded Oct 21st 2014, 10:21 am GMT.