Monday, April 10, 2006

Who will protect marriage now?

Today, in what would be a further blow to conservatives, it appears the much-championed effort to redundantly ban gay marriage in Illinois is running quickly out of steam.

An e-mail sent today by the Illinois Family Institute indicates that with only 10 days left to go in their petition drive, the group has not reached it's signature goal.

The group recently sent out a fundraising appeal saying they needed to raise $75,000 to reach their goal, leading to speculation they were planning on hiring canvassers to collect signatures. At $6.50 per hour for paid canvassers, that would mean the group is 100,000 - 200,000 signatures short.

Even if the group reaches it's goal, it's likely their referendum will be knocked off the ballot. That's because the group needs to file atleast 283,111 valid signatures in order to be placed on the ballot, but they only plan to file 300-350,000 signatures total. Most campaign managers would rcommend filing closer to 500,000 signatures, and if fewer that 400,000 are filed, a successful challenge is highly likely.

With un-conservatives Judy Barr Topinka, Dan Rutherford, Christine Radogno and Carole Pankau dominating the statewide ticket, will conservatives turn out in November without the anti-gay referendum?

15 comments:

Anonymous,  6:44 PM  

Their agenda isn't ant-gay, it's pro-family...nice play on words though YDD.

Anonymous,  6:58 PM  

No anon 6:44 their agenda is anti-gay. If they want to be pro- family, they have many options that do not include giving a rat's ass about how two consenting adults choose to live their lives.

They can adopt unwanted children or support birth control, rather than calling women who make a personal decsion "baby killers." They can sign petitions to support universal health care, a pro-family issue if there ever was one.
Hell, they can even demand that right-wing nuts stop voting for and parroting the crap from people who preach the pro-family mantra, but can't seem to stay married. They can sign petitions to ban divorce...let's see how that one works.

A couple who chooses to marry has no impact on my marriage, my family, my personal beliefs. Too bad the "Party of Lincoln" has been reduced to a bunch of gay bashing morons who can't keep their noses and situational morals out of other people's bedrooms.

Anonymous,  9:16 PM  

Where gay marriage, and even so called gay rights was on the ballot for referendums even in so called liberal Oregon or Colorado it has ALWAYS failed. The pro family/anti-gay rights forces ALWAYS won. Even in California where Hollywood, Silicon Valley and all the Dems were against it.
Actually minorities voted in higher percentages against it.

If it were on the ballot in Illinois, the anti-gay marriage would pass 2 to 1.

Yellow Dog Democrat 9:27 PM  

Anon 9:16 -- Are you the same anonymous who said that Alan Keyes was going to toast Barack Obama? What Illinois do you live in? Or are you from Maryland too?

Anon 6:44 -- You say pro-family, pro-life, and pro-Second Amendment; I say anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-gun safety. You pick your words, I'll pick mine. Thanks.

Anonymous,  9:43 PM  

Heck, why stop with banning divorce? Let's also ban unmarried couples from living together. How about prohibiting unmarried couples from having children? Come on you so-called pro-marriage and pro-family advocates. Let's get serious about protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Jeff Trigg 10:28 PM  

The best and only way to protect the sanctity of marriage is to not let government define marriage and to get government completely out of the marriage licensing business.

With this referendum, they are not only giving government the power to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, they are also giving the government the power to define marriage as being between two men, or two women, or only a white man and white woman, or only a white Catholic man and white Catholic woman, or ...

It is not the proper role for government to define marriage. Our founders got along quite well going to their churches to get married without needing a government license. Marriage and family values were in much better shape before government got into the marriage business. That is an undeniable fact.

Yellow Dog Democrat 10:47 PM  

Anon 9:43 - You forgot about banning infertile people from marrying. After all, if the purpose of marriage is pro-creation, as Sen. Bill Brady says, people who are biologically incapable of producing a child shouldn't be allowed to marry. That would include women "of a certain age."

steve schnorf 11:55 PM  

Dog, you are on a roll!!

Bill Baar 7:02 AM  

I think gov only got into the business of licensing marriage after the civil war to verify eligbility for Veteran's survivor benefits.

I'd hate to see this on the ballot even though I think it would bring out social conservatives who would also hold their noses and vote JBT while there.

I don't want marriage constitutionalized one way or the other. I don't want it defined by a judge either.

Harriet 11:28 AM  

To be honest, Gov. Blago's biggest problem won't be with social conservatives; it will be with disaffected Democrats, especially downstate.

When he showed up that the Peoria County Democrats meeting, he was given polite applause. But an attempted "4 more years" chant did NOT catch on; mind you there were 300+ of the county's most rabid Democrats there.

As far as the anti-gay bill: yeah, that is pretty much a joke.

Anonymous,  12:11 PM  

Pick whatever words you want YDD, that doesn't make them right.

Skeeter 1:00 PM  

Anonymous said...
Their agenda isn't ant-gay, it's pro-family...nice play on words though YDD.

6:44 PM

Are you trying to tell me that whether some homosexuals marry impacts your family? Is your family that weak? If so, you really should seek some sort of family counseling.

I have to tell you that as a married guy, I am not all that concerned that somebody else's marriage is going to damage mine. Moreover, I am more concerned with what people like Henry Hyde are doing to marriage. People like that gave it a bad name.

I also strongly agree with Trigg. I was married in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know why the State of Illinois should have any say in that whatsoever.

Jeff Trigg 8:22 AM  

And using government (with a gun pointed at our heads) to define moral bankruptcy is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants from the world. Creeping moral relativism isn't the problem with out society. The idea that government is God or "the church", is the real problem. Don if you aren't out stoning the gays, you are guilty of a little moral relativism and bankruptcy yourself.

Anonymous,  12:44 PM  

Based on your politics Skeeter, I hope you're not taking eucharist.

Skeeter 4:06 PM  

Anonymous said...
Based on your politics Skeeter, I hope you're not taking eucharist.

12:44 PM

Same to you, my nameless friend.

Actually, I believe in the power of redemption. Even people like you can be saved.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP