Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


This Act may be cited as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act
May 31, 2013 4:35 AM   Subscribe

Today is the last day in session for the Illinois House before the summer break, and LGBT advocates are hoping that when they convene at 10:30am, they will address and vote on SB10, legislation already passed by the state Senate to enact marriage equality in the state of Illinois.

A press conference was held yesterday afternoon, urging House Speaker Michael Madigan to call for a vote.

Opponents of the gay-marriage bill are mounting a similar effort to defeat it, , while sides have been focusing heavily on the African-American community.

President Obama, while in Chicago on Wednesday to raise money for House Democrats, stated, "“Here in Illinois, we’ve got a vote on same-sex marriage that’s going to be coming up in the Legislature,” Obama told donors at his second fund-raiser of the night. “ I just want to say for the record it’s something that I deeply support.”

Chicago Tribune Editorial: Stand up for marriage equality


Illinois Unites for Marriage coalition partners

The Illinois Family institute claims that if the bill passes, it will be because of "bribes and payoffs being offered to key lawmakers"

SB10 was passed by the state Senate on Valentine's Day,, when many believed that Illinois would become the 10th state with marriage equality. Today, if the bill passes, and is signed by Governor Pat Quinn, it will be state #13, along with the District of Columbia.

Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Could Add up to $103 Million to State Economy and $8.5 Million in State and Local Tax Revenue

ILove Marriage in Illinois

Letter to the Editor: Illinoisans don't want gay marriage
Live feed of the floor
posted by roomthreeseventeen (99 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
This Act may be cited as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act

I probably would have given marriage top billing there, but whatever it takes, I guess.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:48 AM on May 31, 2013


Great post, roomthreeseventeen.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:50 AM on May 31, 2013


Please let this be a good day.
posted by tzikeh at 4:52 AM on May 31, 2013 [8 favorites]


Ugh, that letter to the editor. Such hate.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:54 AM on May 31, 2013


I fear that this is going to founder on the rocks of the social conservatism of the religious leaders in the Chicago area's African American community. As far as I can tell, if it does pass it will entirely by Democratic votes, the GOP have even thrown over their state party chairman over the temerity of the gentleman to suggest that supporting marriage equality was the right thing to do.
posted by hwestiii at 5:01 AM on May 31, 2013


I was actually surprised by how little hate was in that letter to the editor. That's not to say that the speaker isn't motivated by hate, obviously he is, but that he seems to know that his hate won't be persuasive. Instead he focuses on arguments like "we've already got civil unions so why does it matter" and "shouldn't they be doing something about the real issues." There's nothing about destroying traditional marriage or God or natural law.

All those arguments are wrong, but they've got rhetorical force. That he ignored the real hateful arguments tells me he knows they won't sway anyone. That editorial reads like a white flag to me.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:16 AM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


The Illinois Family institute claims that if the bill passes, it will be because of "bribes and payoffs being offered to key lawmakers"

In sharp contrast to Citizens United or the "Monsanto Protection Act" or...?
posted by Foosnark at 5:18 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Seems a bit racist to blame it's potential failure on " the Chicago area's African American community" when the entire state GOP is opposed. Why aren't you blaming the white people who vote for the GOP?
posted by Benjy at 5:19 AM on May 31, 2013 [12 favorites]


I love these regular announcements that yet another country or US state has legalized gay marriage or is on the verge of doing so. The gay marriage movement is the gift that keeps on giving these days.

That editorial reads like a white flag to me.

Yes, when I clicked through to that letter I was expecting vitriol, and it was pretty mild considering. I think most anti-gay marriage types are realizing the war is lost, if not quite over.
posted by orange swan at 5:23 AM on May 31, 2013


I was actually surprised by how little hate was in that letter to the editor. That's not to say that the speaker isn't motivated by hate, obviously he is, but that he seems to know that his hate won't be persuasive.

Civility is a wonderfully effective cover for rage.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:29 AM on May 31, 2013


Let's get to the important question: is there a theme song? Washington and Minnesota each had one.
posted by Area Man at 5:31 AM on May 31, 2013


Just saw this: rally today in Springfield
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:38 AM on May 31, 2013


Yeah, I'm really regretting not trekking down to Springfield already. Like I'm going to get any work done today.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:41 AM on May 31, 2013


From what I can tell:

The measure needs 60 votes to pass. In March, the word was that they were 12 votes short. It's been assumed that it hasn't been voted on until now in an attempt to get those votes.

Only 2 of the 47 republicans in the Illinois house seem likely to vote in favor. More could theoretically swing over, but that definitely cannot be counted on at all. So, that appears to mean that at least 58 of the 71 house democrats needs to vote in favor for it to pass. Some democrats from conservative districts have already indicated they're going to vote no; I'm not sure exactly how many that is.

Attention from both sides of the issue is being focused on the democratic African American block, because they are considered swing votes on the issue. It sounds like that could be as much as a 20 vote swing one way or the other (or some unknown split, of course.)

The word now appears to be that the number who would vote yes on the bill is "in the high fifties". So ... very, very close, but far from guaranteed.
posted by kyrademon at 5:50 AM on May 31, 2013


My partner and I are getting married in our home city , Chicago, (Gulp) tomorrow. I've been holding my breath all week about this. I would really love to be able to say my civil union is now full marriage.
posted by Lieber Frau at 5:52 AM on May 31, 2013 [8 favorites]


Seems a bit racist to blame it's potential failure on " the Chicago area's African American community" when the entire state GOP is opposed. Why aren't you blaming the white people who vote for the GOP?

So this is kind of complicated. On the one hand, I definitely see a dynamic in this discussion of "Oh, if only African-Americans [religious ones in particular] weren't so homophobic, we'd have this dealt with." It was there after Prop 8 (where the numbers didn't support the idea, but obviously black people turned out to vote for Obama and then voted yes and that was what did it). You saw it a little in Minnesota and it probably would have been a thing had the amendment passed. On the other hand, in Illinois, if the Republicans all vote no, they can't stop the bill from passing, as there aren't enough of them. If this fails, it honestly may be a matter of a failure to get the votes of a couple of African-American representatives from the Chicago area because their votes are more in reach than GOP votes. Of course, then it gets into the question of who to blame and on some level, that's a failure to reach out to people whose votes really are obtainable, rather than it being their fault.

This has been in the works in Illinois for ages and ages. Someone (who I think was Greg Harris's predecessor) used to introduce a bill just about every year (the inclusion of religion in the title was in those bills, too), basically to make people acknowledge the issue, with no hope or intent of there ever being a vote. So I only hope to hell that they timed this right.
posted by hoyland at 5:55 AM on May 31, 2013


...democrats from conservative districts have already indicated they're going to vote no...

I think State Senator Scott Dibble made an excellent point during the debate over the same-sex marriage bill here in Minnesota.

It doesn't really matter if 51% of the people in your district oppose same-sex marriage now, in five-ten years the majority will support it. You need to vote yes on this bill now if you want to keep getting elected not so much in the next election, but in the three elections after that.

I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of it.
posted by VTX at 5:58 AM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


Wow, reporting earlier this week seemed to indicate they had the votes. Everything I read this morning suggests the outcome really is uncertain. Has the Speaker decided not to allow a vote unless he knows they have 60 votes or will he put it up if they are close?

If this fails, it honestly may be a matter of a failure to get the votes of a couple of African-American representatives from the Chicago area because their votes are more in reach than GOP votes.

Is that true? Why shouldn't suburban Republican votes be just as in reach? I'm guessing many of their districts are actually fairly supportive of gay marriage.
posted by Area Man at 6:01 AM on May 31, 2013


Hoping all the more for your sake, Lieber Frau!
posted by orange swan at 6:01 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


This Act may be cited as the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act

I probably would have given marriage top billing there, but whatever it takes, I guess.


I love that the name of the act references Religious freedom front and centre.

Anti-marriage equality advocates keep claiming that they are just trying to protect religious freedom, when (of course) they are the ones hurting religious freedom by imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. My religious beliefs - and those of millions of others - support marriage equality, and no other church should tell my church (or synagogue) that we can't marry two consenting adults because their beliefs don't allow it.

I want to hear more about religious freedom from marriage equality advocates. True religious freedom = marriage equality.
posted by jb at 6:03 AM on May 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


> "Is that true? Why shouldn't suburban Republican votes be just as in reach? I'm guessing many of their districts are actually fairly supportive of gay marriage."

They actually have been trying to swing those over as well (and as I mentioned, two such votes have swung), and also some of the democratic reps from heavily Catholic districts. The African American block, however, is by far the largest of the potential "swing" groups, which is why it's getting most of the attention right now.
posted by kyrademon at 6:08 AM on May 31, 2013


They actually have been trying to swing those over as well (and as I mentioned, two such votes have swung), and also some of the democratic reps from heavily Catholic districts. The African American block, however, is by far the largest of the potential "swing" groups, which is why it's getting most of the attention right now.

Obviously, the lobbying efforts should be focused on whatever reps or groups of reps are most likely to support the bill. I don't quibble with that one bit. If this fails, however, I'm just hoping we can avoid the "blame the blacks" narrative we saw in California.
posted by Area Man at 6:13 AM on May 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


Lieber Frau, congratulations. If the bill passes today, and is signed let's say Monday, you can get legally married on July 3rd, I believe, in Illinois.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:25 AM on May 31, 2013


Seems a bit racist to blame it's potential failure on " the Chicago area's African American community" when the entire state GOP is opposed.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but that's not my intent. Think back to the health care vote in the US house a few years ago. In the end, the struggle was for the last few D votes, since there was no percentage to any Republican to vote for it. In this case the last D holdouts on marriage equality are in the same position as Bart Stupak in the ACA vote
posted by hwestiii at 6:41 AM on May 31, 2013


But the only reason it's remotely a struggle in IL is because of the gazillion anglo conservatives, not the relatively few black ones.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:48 AM on May 31, 2013


But the only reason it's remotely a struggle in IL is because of the gazillion anglo conservatives, not the relatively few black ones.

This is absolutely true. Illinois is really two states, the Chicago metro area which is heavily D in the core city, and largely R in the surrounding "collar" counties, and "downstate", or everywhere else, which is largely rural, white, and very heavily R.

If I were going to go after R votes on this, I'd be looking at folks in Lake, McHenry, Du Page, or Kane counties. I think it's going to take a while for the values that make it even possible for the vote to be close on this to percolate into the downstate regions.
posted by hwestiii at 7:07 AM on May 31, 2013


I just wish that the Justices of the Supreme Court could see or even experience a fraction of the anxiety, fear, and uncertainty that I (and I'm sure others) feel every time my rights get voted on by strangers in a room somewhere, probably far away. This is not some academic issue of fairness to us. Certainly, fundamentally, this begs the question "Can I marry the person I love?" But more than that, this is "What if I'm offered a job in Chicago?" This is "Can I live close to my family and friends?" This is "Will the child I adopt have the right to a birth certificate that reflects both of her parents?" This is a question of whether we will be permitted to participate fully in our own country. And when groups of people in distant lands decide the answers to those questions on my behalf, I am left feeling like a stranger in my own country. I have a right to be here.
posted by jph at 7:10 AM on May 31, 2013 [17 favorites]


My biggest fear right now is that politics won't let it come to a vote. Even if it loses, I want everyone to have to cast it publicly and then have to explain themselves to progressive groups if they didn't vote for it. The flip side of not voting so you won't lose is that you don't know why you lost.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:23 AM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's just sad that we have to vote on if human beings have rights other human beings have.
posted by stormpooper at 7:25 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is that true? Why shouldn't suburban Republican votes be just as in reach? I'm guessing many of their districts are actually fairly supportive of gay marriage.

You must not be talking about the western suburbs.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:30 AM on May 31, 2013


You must not be talking about the western suburbs.

I don't know Chicago that well, so maybe that was just ignorant. I was just thinking of some people I know who live in the suburbs there, are republican, don't like Obama and want lower taxes, but who also don't have a problem with same-sex marriage.
posted by Area Man at 7:34 AM on May 31, 2013


DuPage County at least is extremely conservative Evangelical. Wheaton Illinois has more churches per capita than any other town in the US.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:36 AM on May 31, 2013


This feed is now live.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 AM on May 31, 2013


Since Illinois has the 5th largest population of Hispanic people in the USA who have surpassed African-Americans as the state's largest minority group, it might be worth mentioning (again) two poll results from last year that show Latino support for gay marriage at levels *above* those in the general population:

1. Majority of Latinos Support State Recognition of Gay Marriage

Nearly six-in-ten Latino voters (59%) said their state should legally recognize same-sex marriage while 32% said their state should not. But among all voters, about half (48%) favored legalization of gay marriage while nearly the same share said they would oppose it (47%).

2. Latino Support For Gay Marriage Outpaces General Population

Latino disdain for same-sex marriage and other legal protections for gay individuals has also been overstated, she said. "The data shows much higher levels of support for gay marriage in the Latino community than assumed and often reported,” Rodriguez-Nogués said. “I think what we are seeing is an issue and a conversation that needs a little more light and air."

In fact, Latinos are slightly more likely than the general public to support legalizing gay marriage and strongly endorse hate crimes protections and civil union options for homosexual couples, according to an April poll released by NCLR and the public opinion research company Social Science Research Solutions.


I continue to find this interesting because of articles like this in the conservative press that mention Hispanic churches among the "numerous" churches "keeping pressue on lawmakers" to vote no on gay marriage in Illinois. Those churches may not be representative, at all.

shakespeherian: Wheaton Illinois has more churches per capita than any other town in the US.

Just as an aside, that's one of those civic pride factoids I find really hard to believe without citation.
posted by mediareport at 7:58 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't know that it's well-researched it is, but: Cite
posted by shakespeherian at 8:03 AM on May 31, 2013


Yeah, "The Genius Edition of Trivial Pursuit" doesn't quite cut it. But I won't belabor the trees and ignore the forest; I get that it's a conservative area.
posted by mediareport at 8:09 AM on May 31, 2013


I've always believed that factoid too. But probably because every person I knew from Wheaton in high school and college was super religious. Now that it's being questioned I think that might be part of it. It's not necessarily the number of churches but the strength of them that makes one feel that way.

Watching the live feed reminds me that between this and anxiously reading court arguments, marriage equality has been a civics lesson I should have probably had a long time ago.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:11 AM on May 31, 2013


What's this "Out of the record" business?
posted by PMdixon at 8:13 AM on May 31, 2013


I don't know, but I love the little "have all voted who wish?" sing song he does when something comes up to vote and then calls out those who haven't voted yet.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:20 AM on May 31, 2013


Yeah, "The Genius Edition of Trivial Pursuit"

Especially since there is no "Genius Edition," though there are several Genus Editions.
posted by stopgap at 8:24 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ugh, that letter to the editor. Such hate.

I was actually surprised by how little hate was in that letter to the editor. That's not to say that the speaker isn't motivated by hate, obviously he is

Civility is a wonderfully effective cover for rage.


I am a STAUNCH supporter of gay marriage. And I am also gay. But this is a boat load of crap right here. What you all seem to be saying is that the ONLY motivation against gay marriage is hate. And those who are civil in their opposition--like that letter writer--are the most hateful. And there is not, by definition, any principled ground for opposition to gay marriage, other than hate. Textbook case of demonizing your opponent and creating a fake double bind to trap them.

That being said, I hope Illinois does the right thing and joins the other states that have embraced gay marriage.
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 8:26 AM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


(To clarify, the "10:30" cited in the OP is Eastern time, not Central...the discussion of bills is already ongoing and right now they're talking about education funding.)
posted by psoas at 8:33 AM on May 31, 2013


God, I'd forgotten how irritating and obtuse state legislators are.
posted by PMdixon at 8:39 AM on May 31, 2013


Sooo... I just called my Illinois House Representative, Carol Sente (D-59th according to my voter registration card), and talked to her Springfield secretary, who told me ... get this, are you sitting down? oh, and by the way, both I, and the Rep. Sente are white, as well as most of her constituents... her secretary told me she **"did not know"** how the Rep would be voting and that she hadn't discussed it with her. I hadn't revealed my position on the issue prior to asking what the Rep's was, but the fact that she wouldn't have a positive position on this issue at this point is shocking to me. You could knock me over with a feather. I told her secretary that I hoped that she would support the gay marriage bill, and tell Mike Madigan to bring it up for a vote.

I am shocked and appalled at the situation.
posted by Reverend John at 8:55 AM on May 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's just sad that we have to vote on if human beings have rights other human beings have.
As a married gay man who's pushing 50, let me tell you this: I understand your sentiment, but I am not sad at all. I am amazed that this happened in my lifetime, to be honest. Things are never perfect, and we should always strive to make them better, but we should be happy when they move in the right direction.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:55 AM on May 31, 2013


Ooh. There seem to be some rumors flying that LGBT couples have been invited by Madigan to be present...
posted by jph at 9:00 AM on May 31, 2013


From Carol Marin ‏@CarolMarin

The signs suggest same sex will pass. Speaker Madigan has invited same sex families to his private box.
posted by PMdixon at 9:01 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


The signs suggest same sex will pass. Speaker Madigan has invited same sex families to his private box.— Carol Marin (@CarolMarin) May 31, 2013

posted by jph at 9:01 AM on May 31, 2013


If this turns out to be New York, Take One, I will be severely disappointed. Just... God, I can't believe that we keep going back to Dylan, but

YOUR OLD ROAD IS STUPID AND BACKWARDS AND OFFENSIVE / SO FUCKING GET OFF OF THE NEW ONE, YOU BIGOTED PIECES OF SHIT

That's how the song goes, right? I'm pretty sure that's how the song goes.
posted by tzikeh at 9:28 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sooo... I just called my Illinois House Representative, Carol Sente (D-59th according to my voter registration card), and talked to her Springfield secretary, who told me ... get this, are you sitting down? oh, and by the way, both I, and the Rep. Sente are white, as well as most of her constituents... her secretary told me she **"did not know"** how the Rep would be voting and that she hadn't discussed it with her.

I grew up partly in the 59th. Honestly, this does not surprise me. Unless something has changed in a big way, it's not a safe Democratic seat--if you're a Democrat you win it by worrying about how your voters are physically going to vote. Growing up, I had the sense that the Republicans cared much more about their money than they cared about social issues (except social issues that might involve taxes, of course, god forbid they spend money on other people), but they didn't exactly like gay people much either. I can't imagine someone representing where I grew up standing up and saying "Damn it, this is the right thing to do" and voting yes. I can just about imagine them voting yes, but not being noisy about it. (Though I see that your state senator voted yes and has a thing about it on her website, so maybe things have changed.)
posted by hoyland at 9:49 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


LGBT families have started to move into Madigan's box in the House chamber. #IL4M— Windy City Times (@WindyCityTimes1) May 31, 2013

posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:52 AM on May 31, 2013


I never understood this. It's all just friction! How the creator of the universe would care so much about penises in butts is beyond me. Probably the best argument for atheism I have is that there's no way god is as petty as his followers claim.

Whatever. I don't even know how lawfully gay marriage can be illegal as its clearly the religious nut jobs imposing their desert fantasy trip on the rest of us. Why democracy doesn't work. Clearly against the constitution but since (at least for now) the majority of people are Christian we're not going to do anything about it. Two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 9:56 AM on May 31, 2013


Um. I appreciate your sentiment that this isn't something that should be the subject of public debate and certainly not when it is animated by religious opposition.

But I respectfully beg to disagree. My relationship is not just friction...
posted by jph at 9:59 AM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


All sex is friction. A relationship with someone you love is separate from sex and is only tangentially related. My opinion of course, but I've always viewed sex as a path to love, but not the only one. If love is a mountain sex is a bike or a hiking stick. Why we should define the mountain in relation to the stick does not seem to make sense.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 10:03 AM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


Or is love the path to sex???
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 10:08 AM on May 31, 2013


Often love can lead to sex. And often sex can be without love, which doesn't denigrate the worth of the sex. But love is the greater of the two virtues.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 10:13 AM on May 31, 2013


The House floor is slowly filling up so it must be getting close. I don't think there's any upside for Madigan for failing to pass it or bring it to a vote; conservatives aren't that strenuously opposed, but liberals are passionately in favor, and we're getting gay marriage in Illinois within the next year anyway, by lawsuit. Civil Unions have been fairly popular and didn't raise much opposition.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:13 AM on May 31, 2013


Love and sex are different things and the paths run next to each other and sometimes overlap but they're different paths. Also sex has a bike lane but love doesn't but we're working on that for the next council meeting.
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:15 AM on May 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


If love is a mountain sex is a bike or a hiking stick. Why we should define the mountain in relation to the stick does not seem to make sense.

Don Draper? Is that you?
posted by psoas at 10:21 AM on May 31, 2013 [2 favorites]


[Please cut it out with the free-association derail thing.]
posted by cortex at 10:26 AM on May 31, 2013


Any Illinois MeFites currently in Springfield? Do we have anyone on the ground?
posted by tzikeh at 10:48 AM on May 31, 2013


How long does Madigan have to bring up the vote? I realize today's the last day of the session, but how long can this session conceivably go?
posted by dinty_moore at 11:23 AM on May 31, 2013


Just recently someone said that there were 8 House Resolutions left. That was about three lengthy resolutions ago. Not sure if those resolutions are the only other things on the agenda, but folks are also hearing that the buses have arrived and there is a long line of people waiting to get in.
posted by jph at 11:26 AM on May 31, 2013


I've seen in chats -- though have no offical source -- that it is much like the U.S. Congress, the legislative "day" lasts as long as they want to stay in session.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:27 AM on May 31, 2013


dinty_moore: "How long does Madigan have to bring up the vote? I realize today's the last day of the session, but how long can this session conceivably go?"

Conceivably all night, but usually only for the budget. I am hearing they're going into committee at 1:45, which I think means they will vote before then because the gallery is pretty full, but if not before 1:45 rumor is they'll come back around 3.

(I'm not in Springfield but I have a bunch of friends who are and who are reporters, or aides for the legislature or governor's office, I'm getting lots scuttlebutt but really nobody knows when they're going to get to it.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:34 AM on May 31, 2013


1:45 is in 9 minutes; I don't think the lengthy debate is going to start before the break.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:36 AM on May 31, 2013


In recess until 2:30 p.m., tune back in then I guess.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:37 AM on May 31, 2013


The legislative session can also last indefinitely. I don't know about this year, but in the past it's been a relatively common thing for the session to last past the official "last day" because the legislators had not yet passed the state budget, which they are required to do before adjourning. That's my recollection, anyway.
posted by hwestiii at 11:40 AM on May 31, 2013


Man, if this passes, Pride is going to be so sweet this year!

And my best friends, together for 17 years*, will finally get to marry. I'm so nervous/excited about this vote today!

*We think it's 17 years. They met at Pride, so each year on Pride Day (because some well-meaning friend invariably asks how long they've been a couple), they debate it. One insists it's been x years, the other says x+1. The discussion, every single year starting about 8 years ago, gets a bit heated, too, but in a crazy hilarious way. If these two dudes are not the most perfect candidates for marriage, then I just don't know...
posted by heyho at 11:48 AM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


The potential to end the "when is our actual anniversary?" fight might be the best unexpected side effect of marriage equality.

(I am just barely being hyperbolic.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:06 PM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'm starting to think that sausage making is too kind a metaphor.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:08 PM on May 31, 2013


Carol Marin is tweeting from the press gallery

Rich Miller tweets and Capitol Fax live coverage. (Capitol Fax is a bit hard to follow until you get used to it but nobody's more thorough on the Illinois Statehouse.)

Livestream link again. If the sound goes out, they're shifting between matters and turn off the microphones when moving around. You didn't actually lose sound. :)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:15 PM on May 31, 2013


People on Twitter seem to be getting restless and hilarious

Glen Allen Walken ‏@GlenAllenWalken 2
Coming soon: David Blaine will make the entire Illinois House of Representatives disappear, allowing them to avoid this vote. #IL4M
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:22 PM on May 31, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'd appreciate if Il. could hold off on this for a couple of days because, shit, man, I just don't have time to come up with a clever facebook meme for them at least until Monday, when it will be too late.

(Unless some of you wags can quickly suggest me things I can photoshop in about 20 minutes.)
posted by klangklangston at 1:42 PM on May 31, 2013


Well, at the rate they're going, you'll have time.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:51 PM on May 31, 2013


Two generic baseball players making out. Their uniforms are visible: one is a cubs player and the other a whitesox player.
posted by Area Man at 1:56 PM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


Wait wait wait, I don't know if Illinois is ready for crosstown marriages yet. That might be a step too far.
posted by dinty_moore at 1:57 PM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


I'm pretty sure if you took a poll, support forsame sex marriage would beat support for crosstown marriages every time. That's why we shouldn't allow voting on such things.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:58 PM on May 31, 2013 [4 favorites]


Derail from listening to the live stream: So do I have this right, and they just passed a bill allowing carrying guns on the beach in Chicago? Guess I'm never going to the beach again, that'a a total recipe for bloodshed.
posted by dnash at 2:20 PM on May 31, 2013


What you all seem to be saying is that the ONLY motivation against gay marriage is hate. And those who are civil in their opposition--like that letter writer--are the most hateful. And there is not, by definition, any principled ground for opposition to gay marriage, other than hate. Textbook case of demonizing your opponent and creating a fake double bind to trap them.

There may be principled grounds to oppose gay marriage, just as there may be principled grounds to oppose divorce or abortion.

But as long as those principles are religious principles, there are no principled grounds to impose them on someone else who does not share those principles, not in a country which claims to have freedom of religion and belief.

No one is asking people who oppose same-sex marriage to marry someone of their own sex. No one is saying that churches or religious groups who oppose marriage equality will be required to perform same-sex marriages, any more than they are asked to perform any other marriage they may oppose (second marriages, inter-faith marriages, etc). (State officials are another story - if a state official refused to perform an inter-racial or inter-faith marriage on the grounds that it violated their personal beliefs, they could rightly be fired as well.)

The fact that groups like NOM are fighting so hard against marriage equality, and not against divorce (which is actually a threat to existing marriages, unlike marriage equality), strongly suggests that their concerns are not about the integrity of marriage but are based on bigotry against same-sex couples. They do not believe that those couples deserve the same rights and responsibilities that any opposite-sex couple can opt to enjoy - and I haven't heard any explanation for this belief that was not based on imposing their religious beliefs on others or was based on discrimination by gender/sexual orientation.
posted by jb at 2:23 PM on May 31, 2013 [9 favorites]


Yes. At least there was a great joke in there about *where* you'd conceal it at the beach. Silver linings... y'know?
posted by jph at 2:23 PM on May 31, 2013


The concealed carry thing is due to a ruling against the state's existing gun laws which were found unconstitutional in the face of recent Supreme Court rulings. I'm guessing that on the floor of the legislature, that may have been a bigger deal than marriage equality, which is why it is also only getting real action on the last day.
posted by hwestiii at 2:33 PM on May 31, 2013


Yeah, if you're against that sort of thing, the concealed carry law is worse than just on the beach in Chicago. It's most everywhere. It just happens that it will be banned some places (CTA and Metra buses and trains, casinos, government buildings and stadiums); public parks are actually a grey area to my understanding, including the beaches.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:48 PM on May 31, 2013


I dream of a world where two pistol-packing men or two pistol-packing women can get married on a beach in Chicago.
posted by Area Man at 2:49 PM on May 31, 2013 [3 favorites]


(I mean "a grey area" because I don't understand, not that the law isn't clear.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:49 PM on May 31, 2013


I'm so glad the dry-cleaning amendment passed. I was worried.
posted by kyrademon at 2:50 PM on May 31, 2013


Reports on twitter that Rep. Harris just entered the chamber and is smiling.
posted by Area Man at 3:34 PM on May 31, 2013


Harris (sponsor) and Madigan (speaker) are both in the chamber now, but Capitol Fax is reporting: "Unless Madigan can somehow pull this one out, the people I'm talking to say the gay marriage bill has hit a wall"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:51 PM on May 31, 2013


Lots of chatter on Twitter that they aren't going to vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:25 PM on May 31, 2013


Yes, it's being widely reported that it won't come to the floor, and that's what I'm hearing from friends in Springfield too.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:28 PM on May 31, 2013


:(
posted by hwestiii at 4:29 PM on May 31, 2013


Oh, fuck everything.
posted by tzikeh at 4:32 PM on May 31, 2013


The Senate already passed it so clearly it doesn't have enough support to be voted on in the House. And I am sure it's more complicated than that, but I've been watching this all day, hoping that I'd see one more state say I'm equal, and my relationship with my partner is equal to a heterosexual one. Disappointed is an understatement.
posted by trogdole at 4:53 PM on May 31, 2013


Supposedly Harris has said no vote. According to 'a source'.
posted by hoyland at 4:54 PM on May 31, 2013


Harris is making a very moving personal statement apparently about why he will not call for the vote, the gallery is really angry it appears that there will be no vote, the chair is threatening to have the gallery cleared.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:15 PM on May 31, 2013


Harris is speaking ... there will not be a vote today.
posted by kyrademon at 5:15 PM on May 31, 2013


Ugh. Sorry this thread is ending so badly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 PM on May 31, 2013


It's ok, y'all. We're gonna win; they're gonna lose. Seriously, there's very, very little doubt possible about that.
posted by mediareport at 7:15 PM on May 31, 2013


Greg Harris and Deb Mell on SB10
posted by readery at 4:45 AM on June 3, 2013


« Older Paolo Soleri Is The True Legend Of The Arizona Arc...  |  "A fundamental shift in the re... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments