CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

The Conservative — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 08:16:57 -0000

"One of the interesting side effects of PeteyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s petition drive was that you could drive around the western suburbs, see a Protect Marriage Illinois sign in a yard, and know that that familyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s marriage was threatened by homosexuality."

This is such nonsense and a result a sick mind. Perhaps it is just that homosexual marriage is just sick and wrong and against God's law. That is not homophobia, that is following God's law.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Shallow Pharnyx — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:29:10 -0000

BB-
Let's start with a legal understanding of our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (some people leave it out): Amendment I - Freedom of Religion
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Courts have long interpreted the founding fathers to mean "separation of church and state". I believe this means leave it to families and churches to teach morals/values. I want my values taught to my child; not state sanctioned values.

If you read the Bill of Rights you will note that Amendment 18 (later repealed) was the only Amendment limiting rights- all others give or expand rights.

There are plenty of laws that don't legislate morality (except for criminal law, I guess you could argue):
taxing ways and means
voting age
presidential requirements
balanced budgets
estate divisions
etc., etc., etc.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Bill Baar — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:45:31 -0000

...have a problem with legislating morality...

What should we legislate then?

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Shallow Pharnyx — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:54:32 -0000

VM-
I want to give you a little insight into the review. I assisted in checking the signatures against registered voter records (I'm straight and very happily married- I just have a problem with legislating morality). Most of the signatures I questioned were not registered voters. I don't think the signers had any fraudulent intent, I just think they got caught up in the signing frenzy. The majority of the sheets I worked on had groups of 3 or more with the same last name. Maybe 2 or 3 of the signers were registered voters but the rest weren't. Guess what? The signers were required to be registered voters!! Go figure. I envision families were signing and no one wanted to be left out so even the unregistered signed. There were a few other reasons signatures were invalidated- the signers were not Illinois residents, the notary public's term had expired and yes, sometimes the same signature and address appeared on more than 1 petition. I will say that there were an inordinate amount of petitions from jurisdictions throught the state that were certified by Peter LaBarbera. Enough to question the logistics since the certifier claims to have witnessed the signing.

Just thought I would share some factual insight.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Veritas — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 11:08:12 -0000

Topinka's one hope for receiving votes from the base just went up in smoke. Social conservatives will not show up at the polls for Topinka, but they may have cast a ballot for her if they were already in the booth. Since it looks like the marriage amendment will not be on the ballot, there really is no reason to expect statewide turnout of the Republican base. Eseentially, what I'm saying is Topinka will not pick up the "well I'm here anyway" vote.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Bill Baar — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:29:08 -0000

I salute those families brave enought to admit that their hetero marriages were in trouble.

IFI ought to pay you to go around the State presenting this position.

It's serious stuff to people on both sides of it.

You do serious damage to supporters of same sex marriage (and do you support same-sex marriage or do you support some half-way civil marriage provision?) when you ramble about an institution many have failed terribly with yet, consider basic to our lives.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Scott — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:18:40 -0000

Anon and Vanilla, no law should be passed that detracts from a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't care if a million people signed the thing. It is not a valid argument.

If 500,000 people signed a petition to segregate Illinois public schools, would you support it?

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

IVote — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:00:33 -0000

I think I'm starting to get the idea -- Republicans (conservative ones, at least) want MAJORITY rule, and they don't want no stinkin' court to stick it's collective nose in and rule otherwise. . . I'm sure President Gore would agree! But no, we have this silly little thing called the Electoral College that stopped the majority from ruling, and then those "unelected judges" (on the Supreme Court) stuck their noses in. . . hmmmm, we ALL know how loud the Republicans shouted about the unfairness of THAT, don't we?

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Anon — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:34:37 -0000

Your right I think all the democrats who won with a majority in this state should resign and let the minority republicans take over.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

NoGiftsPlease — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:07:54 -0000

Maybe we should have a referendum to decide whether we should allow people to drive a gas guzzling car be limited to only 1? Maybe we should have a referendum on whether people can dye their hair hideous red? The point is, even if "the majority" agreed that it was wrong to do, there are many areas of our personal lives that we do no let "the majority" decide. The "majority" decided that it was a crime against marriage for whites and blacks to marry. The "majority" thought that liquor should be against the law and that women should not vote. The "majority" has made many bad decisions in the past, and and the areas the "majority" has a legitimate interest in should be strictly limited.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

A.J. — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:03:57 -0000

Whether this amendment gets on the ballot for this November could literally be the pivotal factor determining the outcome of major GOP elections [federal, statewide, and local]. There is a major fear - and quite justified - that voter turnout, among our party's base, may be low in this election. Something needs to be on the ballot to motivate conservatives to GOTV, in a non-presidential election year. The 6th and 8th U.S. House Districts are two major elections for which this could be a problem. On the other hand, it was this precise type of election process that helped push President Bush to re-election last time.

The supporters of "democracy" are being hypocritical on this issue... They claim to favor populism, but don't want the people to be able to vote on the issue of marriage. They believe - quite correctly - that a measure like this will get the Republican Party base motivated and out to the polls, not only that, but that the initiative will receive solid bipartisan support.

We need to get the PMI question on the ballot this November.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Anon — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:25:29 -0000

I will state it one more time Cook county voided 64% of the signatures the rest of the county's voided no more then 12% you don't think that is strange?

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Anon — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:20:28 -0000

This is my opinion but it is a law passed by the general assembly and signed by the governor that an advisory referendum be put on the ballot if the signatures are collected and valid. That has been denied by the by a county clerk who found an unusually high number of invalid signature causing the voters to be denied the opportunity to vote on the referendum.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:10:06 -0000

Don't you have to be a registered voter for your signature to count?
So, if they haven't registered to vote why should their opinion come into play for a state-wide measure?
They were only required to gather about 7.8% of the 2002 GE turnout to get the measure on the ballot. Makes it even less of the total registered voters, less than 4%.

Is that really the will of the people? That is less than half the registered voters in suburban Cook.

As to fraudulent issue, I believe there have been several discussions on this site as the nature of the signatures collected and their methods. But as I cannot clearly recall them I will not restate anything. But if they were not sensible enough to get registered voters to circulate petitions and have the first question be "Are you registered to vote in Illinois?" then I don't think they have a right to complain about "Draconian" laws. That I know they did because you don't hear that word too often.

I think my basic point is, it's not a hard hurdle to clear on a state-wide basis and the law isn't hard to follow when you care to.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

T$ — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:01:49 -0000

To complain that filing legal challenges to an advisory referendum about a topic that effects nothing but the tender sensibilities of of the signers is somehow subverting democracy is nothing short of idiotic.

Save your melodrama.

We live in a republic. The people elect representatives. The representatives write the laws. Ballot initiatives are political - this is certainly the case here.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Anon — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:36:16 -0000

The will of 421000 signers, if this does not get on the ballot will be denied. That vote was denied to this state by a democrat run Cook county clerkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s office. I think there should be a civil rights law suit filed against them. For you that are against this you should hope that some day there isn't something that you want on the ballot that a corrupt clerk will throw off by disqualifying 64% of the signatures when the rest of the state is throwing of 6% at the most on average

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

doubtful — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:35:12 -0000

Not counting legally cast votes for an elected official is not the same as disallowing an advisory measure so the comparison to FL 2000 is a bit of a stretch.

If you want to take a poll (which is all that is), then go take a poll. If you want a legally binding referendum on the ballot, that's a different issue.

However, we have law makers whose job is to construct laws within the boundaries of the state's Constitution as needed. If the people want different laws then they should elect different lawmakers.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Bubs — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:28:46 -0000

VM,

The Petition should indeed be on the ballot, to give the people a say, but it is not "clear" why it is not, other than the PMI folks obviously screwed the pooch (but, of course, only through a lawfully sanctioned man-dog marriage.)

Never forget that logistical support for PMI has been loudly claimed (and reclaimed, in case anyone missed them trying to get credit in the first claim) by the FTN thugs, a/k/a The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

That certainly clarifies the problem.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

VanillaMan — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:45:56 -0000

OK, lets see just how democratic our state is in reality regarding this issue:

421,000 signatures were collected
347,912 got under the first hurdle
283,111 were required to be on the ballot.

Then the "Democratic" National Committee started funding opposition to this drive by sending money to Democratic counties, such as Cook. Naturally, this meant that it was their job to find enough signatures to invalidate the proposal.

So, even though 421,000 Illinoians wanted this on the ballot, the DNC killed it because they didn't want voters to vote on it. Exactly how is this serving the public? Does anyone really believe there were tens of thousands of fraudulent signatures, or isn't it more believable that a cadre of political hacks backstabbed the movement because of it's powerful political impact on the November election? C'mon! 'Fess up!

Thats just plain wrong. We all know that this state actively ruins every attempt to break through the miasma that is Illinois' two party system. Take a look at how the Greens are getting shafted.

It is clear that this proposal had enough support to make it on the ballot, but anti-democratic politics killed it behind the scenes.

Sadly, it seems that this situation is perfectly find for a lot of you folks. This is because you don't agree with those 421,000 signatories. Well, whether you agree or not, using this method to prevent this many voters from getting a chance to put something on the ballot is disgusting. It isn't right.

We have enough ugly politics out there to be perfectly comfortable dissing 421,000 citizens. Once again, how is it that the party that blew a gasket over the Florida vote in 2000 can sit with a cheshire cat grin when it screws over 400,000 Illinoians?

But then after reading through what has been posted so far, obviously a lot of you guys think you know SO MUCH more marriage and family issues than these people. It is a wonder how you guys get your heads through doorways with that much arrogance!

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

LiberalYeoman — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:13:07 -0000

I am for letting any advisory measure on the ballot, as long as it is brought forth within the bounds of the law.

If memory serves, the proponents of the measure first had complaints about the rules governing what is allowed on a state wide ballot. I have no problems with the standing requirements. If we don't have certain benchmarks then every ballot we take will be ludicrously long with advisory measures.

If they can get on the ballot within the law I say let's rumble.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

VanillaMan — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:42:54 -0000

So to summarize so far: "Power to the People" - except when WE think they're wrong.

And you guys wonder why voters find your opinions so arrogant. But then, you probably think they are just a bunch of fools anyway?

Let Democracy rule! Let the people vote!

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Dundeer — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:35:26 -0000

This is another Jack Roeser failure. Look at the creepy people who are on the bandwagon with this. Especially the NOBerweis people.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Left Leaner — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:37:28 -0000

Thanks for the clarification TJ. I should have been clear that I was referring hypothetically to the referendum leading to a law that, in the end, would not pass constitution muster.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Truthful James — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:59:54 -0000

Leftleaner --

It certainly is. And thank goodness that tates can decide under law differently,

But this is an advisory referendum. No laws come out of it.

Re: “Protect marriage” referendum hits another roadblock

Left Leaner — Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:53:05 -0000

Well said Scott. Many on the right love to invoke the constitution when it suits their purpose, but are loath to apply that very same document when it doesn't suit their purpose.

I agree with some of you. Put the referendum to a vote. I may very well pass. Then, let the courts shoot it down. It may not happen immediately, but it will happen because discrimination of this kind does not stand the test of time in this country. Judges - liberal and conservative - are going to find it increasingly difficult to find referendums like these constitutional.

The brilliance of those who wrote the constitution is that they realized that even 100% of the citizens could be wrong sometimes and the courts were needed to save citizens from their own bad choices sometimes. The "majority rules" right of today can't stand this principle - but it always comes to pass.