Editorial - State Journal Register---- A ho-hum and then some
Editorial - State Journal Register---- A ho-hum and then some
Springfield, Illinois
Friday, July 07, 2006
Copyright by The State Journal Register
Back in May the Illinois Family Institute, the group leading the charge to amend the Illinois Constitution to ban gay marriage, named The State Journal-Register its “leading critical paper.” We took that as an honor.
“Again last month, in yet another negative editorial reflecting the newspaper’s official viewpoint, the Journal-Register suggested that if Protect Marriage Illinois (a group associated with the Illinois Family Institute) was unable to find “enough signatures to even get their question on the ballot ... their question will have been answered.
“Well, we easily exceeded the required number, yet the Journal-Register has not given one ounce of credit to the successful grassroots effort of collecting more than 421,000 signatures - a feat that hasn’t happened in Illinois in over 28 years.”
Oops. Not so fast. Looks like we will be holding that ounce of credit for just a while longer. We know that won’t please Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Illinois Family Institute, but it looks like a lot of those signatures his group collected were not valid. And as this group would surely point out, rules are rules.
A statistical sampling by the State Board of Elections says nearly 10 percent of the signatures collected were invalid for various reasons. The signatures are needed to place an advisory referendum on the fall ballot asking Illinoisans if they want to change the state constitution to ban gay marriage - even though marriage is already defined by state law as being solely between a man and a woman.
The Illinois Family Institute and its offshoot Protect Marriage Illinois seem desperate for our approval. LaBarbera wrote in an op-ed essay on our opinion pages in early May that more than 300,000 signatures would be delivered to the State Board of Elections urging the group’s anti-gay marriage initiative.
“If it survives a promised “gay” challenge, the Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) effort will be the first citizen advisory referendum to make it on the ballot in Illinois in 28 years,” wrote LaBarbera. “That’s huge news, but all The State Journal-Register’s editorial writer could muster was a ho-hum.”
Actually, we mustered some righteous indignation as well. But let’s not split hairs. The truth is, yes, Protect Marriage Illinois collected an impressive amount of signatures for its initiative. And if enough of those signatures are valid - as we said, that part is not looking good - the referendum will go on the ballot in November. The referendum would be advisory only.
And if the referendum goes on the ballot, we suspect it will unfortunately stand a good chance of passing. Whoopee! We still don’t plan to hold a parade for LaBarbera and his group. This vote has much more to do with the majority (heterosexuals) being uncomfortable with the minority (homosexuals) than with protecting anyone’s marriage.
We think it would be unfortunate to amend either the state or the national constitutions to specifically deny a group of people certain rights. That is not in keeping with traditional values - traditionally we view our constitutions as granting people rights - not denying them.
We know that banning gay marriage is a top priority for Protect Marriage Illinois. We are just as confident that is not a priority for the majority of people in this state. In fact, a poll last month conducted by the Chicago-based Glengariff Group showed only 40 percent say they would support a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Even fewer support a federal ban.
Show those folks a committed gay couple. Change the word “marriage” to “legal union.” And we suspect the support for a ban would plummet even further.
Springfield, Illinois
Friday, July 07, 2006
Copyright by The State Journal Register
Back in May the Illinois Family Institute, the group leading the charge to amend the Illinois Constitution to ban gay marriage, named The State Journal-Register its “leading critical paper.” We took that as an honor.
“Again last month, in yet another negative editorial reflecting the newspaper’s official viewpoint, the Journal-Register suggested that if Protect Marriage Illinois (a group associated with the Illinois Family Institute) was unable to find “enough signatures to even get their question on the ballot ... their question will have been answered.
“Well, we easily exceeded the required number, yet the Journal-Register has not given one ounce of credit to the successful grassroots effort of collecting more than 421,000 signatures - a feat that hasn’t happened in Illinois in over 28 years.”
Oops. Not so fast. Looks like we will be holding that ounce of credit for just a while longer. We know that won’t please Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Illinois Family Institute, but it looks like a lot of those signatures his group collected were not valid. And as this group would surely point out, rules are rules.
A statistical sampling by the State Board of Elections says nearly 10 percent of the signatures collected were invalid for various reasons. The signatures are needed to place an advisory referendum on the fall ballot asking Illinoisans if they want to change the state constitution to ban gay marriage - even though marriage is already defined by state law as being solely between a man and a woman.
The Illinois Family Institute and its offshoot Protect Marriage Illinois seem desperate for our approval. LaBarbera wrote in an op-ed essay on our opinion pages in early May that more than 300,000 signatures would be delivered to the State Board of Elections urging the group’s anti-gay marriage initiative.
“If it survives a promised “gay” challenge, the Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) effort will be the first citizen advisory referendum to make it on the ballot in Illinois in 28 years,” wrote LaBarbera. “That’s huge news, but all The State Journal-Register’s editorial writer could muster was a ho-hum.”
Actually, we mustered some righteous indignation as well. But let’s not split hairs. The truth is, yes, Protect Marriage Illinois collected an impressive amount of signatures for its initiative. And if enough of those signatures are valid - as we said, that part is not looking good - the referendum will go on the ballot in November. The referendum would be advisory only.
And if the referendum goes on the ballot, we suspect it will unfortunately stand a good chance of passing. Whoopee! We still don’t plan to hold a parade for LaBarbera and his group. This vote has much more to do with the majority (heterosexuals) being uncomfortable with the minority (homosexuals) than with protecting anyone’s marriage.
We think it would be unfortunate to amend either the state or the national constitutions to specifically deny a group of people certain rights. That is not in keeping with traditional values - traditionally we view our constitutions as granting people rights - not denying them.
We know that banning gay marriage is a top priority for Protect Marriage Illinois. We are just as confident that is not a priority for the majority of people in this state. In fact, a poll last month conducted by the Chicago-based Glengariff Group showed only 40 percent say they would support a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Even fewer support a federal ban.
Show those folks a committed gay couple. Change the word “marriage” to “legal union.” And we suspect the support for a ban would plummet even further.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home