Illinois: Gay marriage amendment will not be on the ballot

[SimplyMe]

The Illinois Board of Elections determined "there weren't enough valid signatures to put on the ballot an advisory referendum asking voters if the state constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage."

"Organizers of the gay marriage referendum are claiming in federal court that getting a referendum on the Illinois ballot is both burdensome and unconstitutional because of the complicated process to gather and verify petition signatures, said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the conservative Illinois Family Institute and Protect Marriage Illinois.

"But Labarbera and other gay marriage opponents were rebuffed earlier this month when a district court judge dismissed their claim so now they want a federal appellate court to intervene."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060811gay-marriage,1,1603023.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Is it just me or do others find it ironic that, after bashing gays use of the courts, that the anti-gay marriage groups are trying to overcome their lack of support by an appeal to state court, and having lost are now going to federal court?

 

[Pinp]

The Illinois Board of Elections determined "there weren't enough valid signatures to put on the ballot an advisory referendum asking voters if the state constitution should be amended to ban gay marriage."

"Organizers of the gay marriage referendum are claiming in federal court that getting a referendum on the Illinois ballot is both burdensome and unconstitutional because of the complicated process to gather and verify petition signatures, said Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the conservative Illinois Family Institute and Protect Marriage Illinois.

"But Labarbera and other gay marriage opponents were rebuffed earlier this month when a district court judge dismissed their claim so now they want a federal appellate court to intervene."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060811gay-marriage,1,1603023.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Is it just me or do others find it ironic that, after bashing gays use of the courts, that the anti-gay marriage groups are trying to overcome their lack of support by an appeal to state court, and having lost are now going to federal court?

Ummmmmm apparently you have never met a hypocrite before?



On another note I find it curious that the Anti-gay group in question would challenge Illinois's ballot law as being unconstitutional since the whole Citizen Led Ballot initiative process is Unconstitutional on its face. Though it does technically fall under the 10th Amendment:

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States have a right to institute ballot initiatives since they are not prohibited by the Constitution. They can make any law they want in regards to what ballot initiatives can qualify. In this case Illinois law requires that of Ballot Initiative signatures 95% of a test number of signatures be valid. In this case only 91% were. Sorry, that's the law.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Another example of States' Rights being utilized. Glad to see it.

 

[Pinp]

Another example of States' Rights being utilized. Glad to see it.

Amen!

 

[Texas Lynn]

Rights of minorities should not be subjected to popular vote.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Is it just me or do others find it ironic that, after bashing gays use of the courts, that the anti-gay marriage groups are trying to overcome their lack of support by an appeal to state court, and having lost are now going to federal court?[/FONT]

The majority of the nation is opposed to gay marriage, and about a quarter favor it.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95753,00.html

And to give you a second source, as most people don't like Fox.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

 

[TheMissus]

So what? Majority rule, minority rights.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

It's hardly a case of minority rights. It's reaffirming the definition of the right. Forbidding blacks to marry would be a violation of minority rights. Forbidding homosexuals to marry would be a violation of minority rights, but that is not what is happening here. Marriage is being defined as unity between a man and a woman and people can enter it irregardless of race or sexual preference, but they cannot marry someone of their own sex.

 

[TheMissus]

Defined as unity between a man and a woman only in the states that have passed marriage amendments. Clearly, Illinois has not already passed such an amendment.

You're skirting the issue by bringing up the arbitrary definition of marriage that has been agreed upon in certain spots on a map. Such a definition is not universal, so it has no bearing on the concept of "minority right."

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

And does the United States Constitution define what a life is? Well, seeing as it doesn't...

Catch my drift?



EDIT: btw, is that from that movie... The Corpse Bridge? For some reason your pic reminds me of it, it was good.

 

[Pinp]

Rights of minorities should not be subjected to popular vote.

Normally I would concur with the sentiment. Unfortunately that hasn't become Unconstitutional yet. On the other hand the voters in Illinois appear to have at least a modicum of common sense. Polls suggest fewer than 40% of Illinois voters would support amending their state Constitution to ban gay marriage (link)

It could be that Illinois becomes the first brave state to reject adding religious bigotry to its state constitution. If that happens the tide of irrational hatred (and it IS irrational hatred motivating it despite what others say) will break on the shores of Lake Michigan before receeding. Probably followed right quickly by another blow to the anti-gay agenda when Massachusetts' voters reject a Constitutional amendment.

Never forget that the whole Far-Right's strategy rests on the assumption that voters in every state would enact a ban on gay marriage if they were just given the chance. Any rejection of such an amendment by voters would, quite frankly, cause their heads to explode.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Normally I would concur with the sentiment. Unfortunately that hasn't become Unconstitutional yet. On the other hand the voters in Illinois appear to have at least a modicum of common sense. Polls suggest fewer than 40% of Illinois voters would support amending their state Constitution to ban gay marriage (link)

It could be that Illinois becomes the first brave state to reject adding religious bigotry to its state constitution. If that happens the tide of irrational hatred (and it IS irrational hatred motivating it despite what others say) will break on the shores of Lake Michigan before receeding. Probably followed right quickly by another blow to the anti-gay agenda when Massachusetts' voters reject a Constitutional amendment.

Never forget that the whole Far-Right's strategy rests on the assumption that voters in every state would enact a ban on gay marriage if they were just given the chance. Any rejection of such an amendment by voters would, quite frankly, cause their heads to explode.

Or it could just be common sense as to how a society works, but that might make some people's heads explode. Common Sense.

 

[TheMissus]

Science can help define at what stage life begins. The definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman is rooted in a particular religion. The United States isn't a theocracy.

Btw, the avatar is just some clipart that I found and changed to look more like my husband and I did on our wedding day. It really does strongly resemble Corpse Bride, now that you mention it. Figures, since I'm pale as death. I may as well have been the Corpse Bride.

 

[Pinp]

Or it could just be common sense as to how a society works, but that might make some people's heads explode. Common Sense.

Well of course you realize that there are many kinds of societies in existence today and they all "work". The ones that don't, or didn't work...no longer exist. But that is a subject worthy of its own thread I think.

 

[MartinM]

Forbidding blacks to marry would be a violation of minority rights...Marriage is being defined as unity between a man and a woman and people can enter it irregardless of race or sexual preference, but they cannot marry someone of their own sex.

Of course, marriage used to be defined as unity between a man and a woman of the same race. The bigots back then claimed that there was no discrimination, since everyone had an equal right to marry someone of their own race.

Irony might just be the single most potent force in the Universe.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Another good example would be the Ancient Greeks. A truly male-dominated society, women all but completely stayed out of the social and political life and were not to leave the home without a male of the family with them.


So what does that leave the men at? The men (or boys) encounter with other men, and many of them experiment with other men or what they find at home - a sister (at the time of Alexander the Greeks took over Egypt, and at his death his kingdom split and the general who took Egpyt adopted Egpytian traditions, which was not a big step for a Greek to do).

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Of course, marriage used to be defined as unity between a man and a woman of the same race. The bigots back then claimed that there was no discrimination, since everyone had an equal right to marry someone of their own race.

Irony might just be the single most potent force in the Universe.

Wanna provide a link to a legal document?

 

[MartinM]

Wanna provide a link to a legal document?

Certainly.

 

[bammertheblue]

It's hardly a case of minority rights. It's reaffirming the definition of the right. Forbidding blacks to marry would be a violation of minority rights. Forbidding homosexuals to marry would be a violation of minority rights, but that is not what is happening here. Marriage is being defined as unity between a man and a woman and people can enter it irregardless of race or sexual preference, but they cannot marry someone of their own sex.

This is so far off base I can't believe I'm even addressing it. Saying "Gay people can marry just like everyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender" is like saying "You can be whatever religion you want, as long as it's a sect of Christianity". Or saying "You can marry whoever you want, as long as their skin is the same colour as yours".

 

[SimplyMe]

The majority of the nation is opposed to gay marriage, and about a quarter favor it.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95753,00.html

And to give you a second source, as most people don't like Fox.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Actually, most polls show Americans in favor of homosexual unions with the same right of marriage, just not calling it marriage. For example, a more recent Fox poll (June, 2006) that gave a choice between 1) gay marriage 2) gay civil unions with all the rights of marriage or 3) no legal recognition over 50 percent chose either marriage or civil unions while only 40% chose no legal recognition. Can you give me any reason that the majority favor recognition of gay relationships but not calling it marriage that does not involve religion?