Same-sex marriage might be harder to clear in House

2013-02-24T05:30:00Z Same-sex marriage might be harder to clear in HouseBy Hannah Douglas | hannah.douglas@lee.net pantagraph.com

SPRINGFIELD — The same-sex marriage measure that narrowly cleared the Senate last week might see more difficulty winning approval in the House.

Gov. Pat Quinn acknowledged during a stop last week in Normal that the measure currently lacks the necessary 60 votes for passage. But he told reporters he plans to contact members of the House individually to seek their support, similar to what he did when he lobbied members to approve the civil unions law in 2010.

“There’s still persuasion to do in the House,” Quinn said.

The pending vote on gay marriage comes just two years after the General Assembly approved a law legalizing civil unions between same-sex couples. Of the 61 who approved the measure in the House at the time, just 36 remain. That leaves supporters needing to round up at least 24 more “yes” votes.

Many of the newer members of the House say they are opposed to gay marriage.

State Rep. Adam Brown, R-Champaign, was sworn into office just 12 hours after the lame-duck legislature voted in favor of civil unions in 2010.

Not only would he have voted against legalizing civil unions, but he said he also opposes gay marriage.

“I believe marriage is a holy union between one man and one woman and I’ll continue to stand behind that position,” Brown said.

“I would say 99 percent of my constituency, those who have contacted me, is against gay marriage,” Brown said. “My job is to represent my constituents and uphold what they believe.”

State Rep Sue Scherer, D-Decatur, said she thinks legalizing same-sex marriage is premature.

“We’ve had civil unions and it hasn’t even been two years,” Scherer said. “The purpose of the civil union was to give people in this situation the rights they felt they deserved. I think that needs to have time to go through the system before we go further.”

State Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, one of four openly gay lawmakers who co-sponsored the proposal, did not indicate when votes will be taken in the full House. He said he is confident the measure will be approved.

“I think it will do very well because I think we’re being very careful to be respectful of protecting religious freedom and also treating all Illinoisans equally under the eyes of the law,” Harris said.

“This is an issue where people have strong feelings, so we need to educate people about both sides,” Harris said. “We respect all religions in this bill, but we also respect all families in this bill … as soon as we explain those things, people will realize it’s a good vote.”

The proposal is next scheduled for the House Executive Committee on Tuesday.

The legislation is Senate Bill 10.

Copyright 2015 pantagraph.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(27) Comments

  1. ChubbyAlaskaGriz
    Report Abuse
    ChubbyAlaskaGriz - March 02, 2013 2:28 am
    Should our leaders not be expected to handle more than one issue at a time? Should voters not expect politicians to be able to talk and chew gum at the same time? Are we to just accept that they are under-achievers, capable of handling only one task at a time?
  2. ChubbyAlaskaGriz
    Report Abuse
    ChubbyAlaskaGriz - March 01, 2013 1:21 am
    Wrongs, whether legislated/mandated or not- tend to eventually be ignored by the people. Clearly, discriminationg against gay citizens and having two different brands of equality for heterosexuals and homosexuals is a standard that's unfair, faulty and so flimsy it's busting apart at the seams. Soon it will be nothing but a shameful embarrassing memory. Something furture generations look back on and cringe in response to.
  3. wswsr
    Report Abuse
    wswsr - February 24, 2013 10:54 pm
    This effort that is consuming so much time of our elected officials in Springfield ... Can we extend some effort on matters of importance , like keeping the state out of bankruptcy !
  4. HellsBelle
    Report Abuse
    HellsBelle - February 24, 2013 8:29 pm
    I try to avoid posting on these things because, honestly, it hurts. To see people debating on my life, the one I live quietly every day with my same sex partner and our child, without knowing me is awful to read. How many of you know a gay person? How many of you would tell my eleven year old daughter that her mother is a sinner, that she doesn't deserve the same basic rights? Please don't cast stones if you live in glass houses and think about the people, not the institution. Judge not, right?
  5. Chadwick Snow
    Report Abuse
    Chadwick Snow - February 24, 2013 7:54 pm
    This is a twelve year old law and states are going the other way. Note is states that states are not REQUIRED to recognize such marriages. I believe in states rights, that's fine. However, DOMA will be struck down in courts as it pertains to federal rights.
  6. Chadwick Snow
    Report Abuse
    Chadwick Snow - February 24, 2013 7:52 pm
    Well, Colonel, you were taken in. First, he explained his vote on 92.9 FM which is a conservative talk radio station. Of course, he would use the pretense of protecting the first amendment. BTW - same sex marriage has nothing to do with the first amendment. No church, no minister, no parishioners, need to have anything to do with same sex marriage. So, their freedom of religion is in no way infringed upon by the presence of same sex marriage. The nonsense you spew forth about the oath of office being violated if a representative votes for same sex marriage is ludicrous. So, again,I applaud Barickman for his vote but do snicker when I hear how he explained it on a right wing radio program.
  7. Oscar Matilda
    Report Abuse
    Oscar Matilda - February 24, 2013 5:41 pm
    Those of you, who are suffering from severe cases of homophobia: Don't forget that interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Imagine that, just as recent as a few decades ago you could not marry someone from another race. The time has come and passed that all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation should enjoy the same marriage rights as you homophobics do. No, don't worry nobody will want to marry their goats after this. Even if they did all you have to do is not to socialize with them. If they invite you for dinner you can nicely turn down the offer saying "my heterosexual human spouse is allergic to goat hair; please forgive us for not accepting your dinner invitation". Believe me Jesus and/or God would love you more if you are a generous person who is respectful to all others.
  8. Oscar Matilda
    Report Abuse
    Oscar Matilda - February 24, 2013 5:39 pm
    Those of you, who are suffering from severe cases of homophobia: Don't forget that interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. Imagine that, just as recent as a few decades ago you could not marry someone from another race. The time has come and passed that all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation should enjoy the same marriage rights as you homophobics do. No, don't worry nobody will want to marry their goats after this. Even if they did all you have to do is not to socialize with them. If they invite you for dinner you can nicely turn down the offer saying "my heterosexual human spouse is allergic to goat hair; please forgive us for not accepting your dinner invitation". Believe me Jesus and/or God would love you more if you are a generous person who is respectful to all others.
  9. BC
    Report Abuse
    BC - February 24, 2013 3:56 pm
    Voting was once limited to white male property owners only. We changed what our forefathers laid down as law. Women were once not allowed to vote or own property, we also changed that law. We changed laws and made all citizens equal with integration. Tell me Colonel Kurtz how are those alterations any different than this revision of law? Your constitution loosely gives you the right to own a gun. That right is not being violated. It does not say the government can't limit what type of guns you own. At the time our constitution was written there was no such thing as an illegal alien, anyone who wished to come here did. Politicians have violated nothing when it comes to guns and gay marriage and more than those laws have changed over the years that altered the original law. If you want strict interpretation of the Constitution pertaining to guns, it gives you the right to own a one shot muzzle loader, anything more violates the type of guns our Forefathers were referring to.
  10. Colonel Kurtz
    Report Abuse
    Colonel Kurtz - February 24, 2013 2:40 pm
    Marriage definition by the federal government:

    The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.
  11. Colonel Kurtz
    Report Abuse
    Colonel Kurtz - February 24, 2013 2:11 pm
    BTW, I support civil unions.... but not gay marriage..... I think the homosexual community should share benefit rights but should not be able to infirnge on what our government defines as marriage, between a man and a woman. That is a clear violation of the oath these illinois politicians pledge to protect and uphold the constitution and the laws of the land. Once again, poltical expediency for power.... gay marriage, drivers liecense for ILLEGAL aliensm, and soon to be unconstitutional gun control. These "politicians" have violated their oath and should be legally removed for doing so.....
  12. Colonel Kurtz
    Report Abuse
    Colonel Kurtz - February 24, 2013 2:06 pm
    No I don't. He clearly stated his posotion was because this bill protected religious freedom. The previous bill put forth did not do that. His vote was out of what he percieves as protecting the 1st ammendment right of the church. He clearly stated this on the radio. He knew no matter what the bill would pass so he wanted to show his support of the bills measure to protect the rights of the church. Once again, he CLEARLY explained all of this on the radio. Please inform yourself of the truth before rambling on about what you assume.......
  13. MRS
    Report Abuse
    MRS - February 24, 2013 2:04 pm
    Again, apples and oranges. The Arch Bishop is not God. God created different skin colors, He did not create homosexuals. That sin as all sin entered through Adam and Eve as a result of disobeying God.
  14. Euler 314
    Report Abuse
    Euler 314 - February 24, 2013 12:19 pm
    •The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.

    •Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.

    •Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

    Fact check.
  15. Chadwick Snow
    Report Abuse
    Chadwick Snow - February 24, 2013 12:14 pm
    You don't think he was playing both sides of the fence? By that definition, all other republicans are anti-religion. No one would vote for a bill that FORCED clergy to perform marriage ceremonies. His support was intended to garner votes from the younger segment of the electorate. A smart move on his part.
  16. Colonel Kurtz
    Report Abuse
    Colonel Kurtz - February 24, 2013 12:03 pm
    he explained his definition on the radio. it was not in support of gay marriage, it was the fact the bill respected the rights of religion in not having to peform the ceremonies. It was on cities 929 last week. he made it clear what his position was, protecting the 1st ammendment rights of the church.
  17. jm2
    Report Abuse
    jm2 - February 24, 2013 11:43 am
    Isn't the defnition of marriage between a woman and a man? Why does that need changed? What is wrong with a 'civil union' for those of the opposite sex as long as that union is recognized legally as equal to a marriage. Why do people see the need to change the definition of marriage? Just askin'?
  18. Boarderthom
    Report Abuse
    Boarderthom - February 24, 2013 11:07 am
    From ArchBishop Desmond Tutu's latest book -
    This is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about - our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups. (page 54)
  19. Colonel Kurtz
    Report Abuse
    Colonel Kurtz - February 24, 2013 11:04 am
    isn't gay marriage banned fderally under the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton? How is it legal for states to go against a federal law (sarcasm)? When our pensions are 97 billion dollars in the hole, our budget is in shambles, our credit rating is droppiing, don't you think our politicians should focus on that?
  20. MRS
    Report Abuse
    MRS - February 24, 2013 10:13 am
    You are comparing two separate issues. Homosexuals murder,molest children and all manner of sin just as a heterosexual does. God speaks about murderers and child molesters too. I guess you can say God treats everyone equally and give each of us choice. You mentioned churches. No, we do not do background checks. All are welcome in my church. We don't sit around bashing homosexuals, in fact the only thing ever said is he who is without sin cast the first stone and marriage is sanctioned by God and God established marriage between one man and one woman. That is why the anatomy of men and women are different. The only problem we have is a lack of God. Put God in the equation and everything changes. Yes, there will still be homosexuals. That is because sin entered through Atom and Eve. Christians won't sanction any sin even though we are all sinners. We strive to please God not the state of Illinois.
  21. Chadwick Snow
    Report Abuse
    Chadwick Snow - February 24, 2013 9:53 am
    This is an issue where younger voters do not see the basis for discrimination. Those legislators that oppose same sex marriage do so to their own detriment in the future. There is a reason that Jason Barickman chose to take the course of action he did.
  22. smile2
    Report Abuse
    smile2 - February 24, 2013 8:13 am
    over the past few months I've read several comments about this issue. Many people have talked about the religious aspect of gay marriage. It's funny to me that these same people only care about the homosexual sin and not the sins that heterosexuals who can legally marry commit. Murderers can marry, pedophiles can marry, etc. But homosexuals are who we are worried about? Really? I wonder, do churches do back ground checks on couples before agreeing to marrying them. All sins are suppose to be created equal. Aren't they?
  23. BC
    Report Abuse
    BC - February 24, 2013 7:32 am
    That's what an overwhelming majority said about integration and voting rights for women. Those too would have gone down to defeat if put to a public vote.
  24. justnotrite
    Report Abuse
    justnotrite - February 24, 2013 7:10 am
    Hoping it does not pass.
  25. Boarderthom
    Report Abuse
    Boarderthom - February 24, 2013 6:19 am
    "Love the sinner, hate the sin", so says the religious right.
    "Love the religious bigot, disagree with the religious bigotry", says I.
  26. Boarderthom
    Report Abuse
    Boarderthom - February 24, 2013 6:18 am
    Whether you are an evangelical Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin (not all do), or a gay activist working for equal access to civil rights (getting a marriage license at one's county courthouse is a civil right), it seems we all need to go through a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. As the Dalai Lama has said, "All of us want to be happy. No one wants to suffer. If we act and behave with that in mind, then it will be a good thing".
  27. BC
    Report Abuse
    BC - February 24, 2013 5:47 am
    A marriage is a legal contract. When tied to a religious ceremony it becomes a religious holy union. Churches should be free to exercise their individual beliefs, including not performing the religious ceremony in their church. Private providers should also be free to not provide goods or services for such a celebration if that violates their beliefs. There are enough churches, including gay churches, that would provide the religious portion and plenty of vendors who don't hold religious beliefs against same sex marriage. The legal contract should be made available with all the rights granted to anyone who choose to enter into the legal contract. This is not asking for special treatment, it does not go beyond what is already granted to the majority.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

activate-button-3 FULL ACCESS

Happening today

Add an Event More

Featured Businesses

More Businesses