Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Illinois legislator introduces marriage equality repeal bill

Marriage equality

Illinois doesn’t have marriage equality quite yet–the state legislature passed an equal marriage bill in November which will take effect in June–but one Republican state senator has introduced new legislation that would repeal the law before it can go into effect.  BuzzFeed reports:

[W]ith a Senate and House controlled by Democrats — who just voted in favor of marriage equality in November — and a governor who pressed for equal marriage rights in the state, advocates say Sen. Kyle McCarter is simply playing to his base of conservative Republicans.

McCarter introduced Senate Bill 2637 to repeal the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which passed last fall, and amend the state’s marriage statute to redefine marriage as between one man and one woman.

“[McCarter] knows it’s not going to go anywhere,” said Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago), who was he chief sponsor of the marriage equality bill in the Senate. “He’s just doing this to show his constituents.”

It’s an election year, so McCarter is likely just looking for something to put in a campaign ad.  His bill is certain to die a quick death in the legislature, but it does point to the unfortunate schedule that was built into the Illinois marriage equality bill (especially because of its procedural history) forcing couples to wait more than half a year from the date the bill was signed to the day they will be able to wed.

Help us travel to Denver this spring to cover oral arguments in the Utah marriage equality case. You won’t regret it, and you can help EqualityOnTrial be a part of history in the making. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to EqualityOnTrial in the new year to help us continue this mission–any amount helps!


  • 1. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 11:10 am

    yea, not gonna happen

  • 2. karlschneider  |  January 22, 2014 at 11:52 am

    There's always some donkey's aperture trying to show how much he really is one…

  • 3. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    freedom Indiana has packed the Indiana state house for today hearing and phone calls have been going to the committee members , like a million to 1 against the amd so far , you can watch the hearing here

    it's started already

  • 4. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    it hasjust started and already their ripping the amd

  • 5. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    one of the comm mem who voted for it last time is question the validity of the amd 🙂

  • 6. Rich  |  January 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    I just tuned in (a few of the legislators seem never to have understood the purpose of a microphone). This is a list of proponents of the amendment about to speak. Did I miss the opponents?

  • 7. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    no, just a few members of the committee spoke , supporters of the amd will go first with 1 hour , then our side will get one hour to speak ,ripp and destroy this amd

  • 8. Colleen  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    Oh lord. Someone let us know when the good guys come on. I tuned in for a minute and all I heard was "social science blah blah the children blah blah…"

  • 9. KarlS  |  January 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    This guy from Jerry Foulball's "university" is yet another one blathering about "protecting" marriage. What I want to know (and which none of these bigots has yet answered" is From WHAT?

  • 10. Warren  |  January 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    I recall reading that a bill was going to be introduced in IL to move the date up so same sex marriages could begain soon. Any news on that action?

  • 11. Pat  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:34 pm

    yeah I was wondering the same. At first I actually misread the title of this post, thinking it was indeed mentioning the planned bill to move up the date sooner.

  • 12. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    a so-called ex-gay is speaking is speaking jibberish

  • 13. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    i can't wait till our turn , i can't stand jibberish

  • 14. Eric  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Let us know when they get serious about protecting marriage and children from the ex-married and the irresponsible procreators. Study after study has shown that the ex-married and irresponsible procreators have less favorable outcomes raising children. So bad, that specialized courts had to be set up to handle the burden they place on society.

  • 15. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    so boring -__- ,can't wait to see our side to blast this thing

  • 16. Pat  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    thanks for the live blogging… Isn't their 1 hour over soon?

  • 17. Colleen  |  January 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    OK we've got sane people testifying now!

  • 18. Rich  |  January 22, 2014 at 5:21 pm

    So I watched the entirety of the testimony pro and con. I am struck by how compelling the testimony was on the con side. The personal, professional, religious and financial considerations were overwhelming but, in the end, the 9 legislators who voted to advance the bill could not be swayed. So, yes, Indiana, you are in for a divisive, ugly, hate-driven campaign. It will not be pretty and, ultimately, no matter the result, the U S Constitution will have the last say. The Hoosiers are in for a whole mess of trouble.

  • 19. John  |  January 22, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    My thoughts exactly, so disappointed that rational and compassionate thought didn't persuade.

  • 20. Pat  |  January 23, 2014 at 4:34 am

    It makes one wonder about the usefulness of such hearings when all lawmakers have already made up their mind long before. Seems like a useless circus where no one is really listening.

  • 21. Rich  |  January 22, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    And as for Tim Wesco, anyone else want to slap him and give him a time-out in the corner? An obnoxious brat.

  • 22. Zack12  |  January 22, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    He is that but he's also a reminder that that will always be bigots,even in the younger more progessive generations.
    As for the bill passing,this committee was picked by Brian Bosma to ensure there wouldn't be a failure the second time,the deck was stacked from the start.

  • 23. allen  |  January 22, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    I am shocked a district voted for that lil' twerp

  • 24. Deeelaaach  |  January 22, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    Please don't advocate violence, even in jest. If we want to hold the moral high ground, we cannot decry our opponents for doing it while we do the same. Yes, I realize there is a difference between slapping someone and murder, but both acts are still acts of violence. What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

  • 25. Zack12  |  January 22, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    On a different note,here's an update on the lawsuit in Oregon.

  • 26. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 9:01 pm

    that's fine , let them think they won for now, i have one word secret message to share with them (MINNESOTA)

  • 27. Seth From Maryland  |  January 22, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    BIG BREAKING NEWS IN Virginia: Attorney General to declare Virginia's gay marriage ban unconstitutional
    Image (1)
    Create a hardcopy of this page
    Font Size:
    Default font size
    Larger font size
    Mark Herring
    Associated Press
    Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring waves after taking the oath of office during inaugural ceremonies at the Capitol in Richmond on Jan. 11.

    Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:00 am
    BY MARKUS SCHMIDT Richmond Times-Dispatch
    Attorney General Mark R. Herring will announce today that after a legal review he has concluded that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, his spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday.
    Herring will not defend the constitutionality of the ban in federal court in Norfolk, where two same-sex couples are suing to overturn it, said the spokeswoman, Ellen Qualls.
    "The attorney general has concluded that the ban violates the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution on two grounds — one, marriage is a fundamental right being denied to some Virginians, and two, the ban unlawfully discriminates on a basis of sexual orientation and gender," Qualls said.

  • 28. Larry  |  January 22, 2014 at 10:29 pm

    That's good for Virginians. But bad for a lawsuit to get to SCOTUS. Guess Olson and Boies will have to join one of the other lawsuits unless there's some other Virginia official who will defend the law.

  • 29. Mike in Baltimore  |  January 22, 2014 at 10:50 pm

    I'm sure some deluded bigot in the Virginia state legislature will jump in the law suit, wailing and gnashing teeth about the duty of the state's AG is to defend the state's laws and constitution, and since he won't, the legislator has to.

    And as soon as he/she (the legislator) can, the legislator will tell us a bill of impeachment will be filed.

    Etc., etc., etc.

  • 30. Deeelaaach  |  January 22, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    Yup. Any minute now it will happen…

  • 31. Stefan  |  January 23, 2014 at 12:41 am

    They can't do that since they do not represent the state as a whole.

  • 32. bythesea  |  January 23, 2014 at 9:09 am

    I see unconfirmed comments that the Solicitor General of VA will defend the ban (whoever that is), but have not yet seen any source or other reporting of that.

  • 33. Stefan  |  January 23, 2014 at 12:41 am

    The Utah and Nevada cases are already further along, and will likely reach the court for consideration in October.

  • 34. Richard Weatherwax  |  January 23, 2014 at 7:55 am

    The suit was filed against State Registrar of Vital Records Janet M. Rainey and Norfolk Circuit Court Clerk George E. Schaefer. They would be able to fight the suit to the Supreme Court.

  • 35. Pat  |  January 22, 2014 at 11:57 pm

    Wasnt that widely expected that a Dem AG would not defend in court such a law? Or are there bigger direct consequences that im missing?

  • 36. Seth From Maryland  |  January 23, 2014 at 7:13 am

    Herring plans to file a brief today to the Court in Norfolk the new position of the state,

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!