Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office has filed a notice in Cook County Circuit Court saying it will present arguments in support of two lawsuits that question the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.
The lawsuits, filed Wednesday, are against the clerk of Cook County and claim that his refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates those couples’ rights to due process and equal protection under the Illinois Constitution.
Today's filing said that the attorney general will "present the Court with arguments that explain why the challenged statutory provisions do not satisfy the guarantee of equality under the Illinois Constitution."
Minnesota for Marriage comments:
Minnesota for Marriage (MFM) said the filing today of a lawsuit in Illinois by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) underscores the importance of Minnesota voters enacting the Marriage Protection Amendment to avoid marriage being redefined by a state judge here.
“Every day that goes by without a marriage amendment in our state constitution is a day that Minnesota’s definition of marriage is in jeopardy of being redefined by an activist judge,” said Chuck Darrell, communications director for MFM. “A constitutional amendment is needed because statutes can be changed by politicians or struck down by judges at any time. Today the ACLU filed a lawsuit in Illinois. They could file one tomorrow in Minnesota. There is already a case pending in our state courts to redefine marriage. The only way to make sure that voters always control the definition of marriage in Minnesota is to enact the Marriage Protection Amendment.”
23 Comments
I love how any judge that isn't motivated by anti-gay bigotry is an "activist". It's such a lame argument.
I love how marriage corruption supportes refuse to acknowledge that Civil Union is the name they gave to thier Trojan Horse.
Yes, the "civil unions" scam strikes again.
The cynical, chortling contempt which the marriage corruptors thankfully cannot hide is, consistently, their downfall.
"Whether ya like it er not........"
---Gavin Newsome, the man who lost Prop 8.
What are you talking about? Civil unions are merely a stop on the road to full marriage equality. Nobody ever said they were a final destination.
Glad to hear it straight from the horse's, uh, mouth. Civil unions were always intended to be a Trojan Horse, a stop on the road to complete marriage corruption.
I hope everyone reading this thread will take note.
Yes this is exactly what happened in CT and why these people cannot be trusted. They are liars and back stabbers.
They fought and got their civil unions. The CT Legislature tried to do the right thing by passing them while protecting marriage. No sooner had they gotten their civil unions when they cry babied their way down to the courthouse. Looking for activist judges who would be willing to thumb their nose at the people they found them. CT judges imposed marriage corruption on the state. The people were bypassed and stabbed in the back.
This is why the vote is needed in MN and why a state like Illinois needs a vote.
Uh... no Barb. Nice try rewriting history there. No Trojan horses, no trickery - those deceitful tactics are reserved for the pro-bigotry lobby. The general consensus among gay rights supporters has been that, although they're better than nothing, civil unions are a separate by equal solution that fail to protect families as well as civil marriage does.
Once again, private groups will have to step in and defend state laws in court, as the government officials charged with, and paid for, the defense of said laws abdicate their duties to appease a special interest group.
14th Amend,
the offensive false claim by same-sex couples to be "families" needs to be prohibited,not protected!
Standards of conduct are not "bigotry" against those inclined to violate them,they apply equally to everyone.
Depending on what the county does, there may be no parties with standing to defend this law in court and/or appeal an adverse judgement It is outrageous that the attorney general is not even goign to try to defend these laws.
P:
Every state which listened to the lies of the marriage corruption movement, assuming that "civil unions" would settle the matter, now can expect a similar assault, wherever the Democrats hold power.
It was all a scam, part of the Gramscian and Alinskyite "Rules for Radicals" playbook.
I don;t blame them for using the playbook- if it were my intention to subvert and destroy a society from within their is simply no better set of marching orders than Alinsky's.
I do, however, blame the weak minded equivocators who, even at this late date, mewl about "civil unions", as if they had not already been exposed as the perfect dupes they in fact have been all along.
There may be a possibility that some other county attorney would be willing to defend the law and that the could be allowed to intervene. If this case doesn't get to the state supreme court somehow, that there may be the bizarre situation where the law is considered unconstitutional in only one county?
Louis E. - The fact that consider the mere existence of gay families to be unacceptable conduct is indeed bigotry. Stop kidding yourself. If you're going to be such an outspoken bigot, the least you can do is embrace the label.
"Glad to hear it straight from the horse's, uh, mouth. Civil unions were always intended to be a Trojan Horse, a stop on the road to complete marriage corruption."
NOMers claim that CUs are just as good as marriage. When they are not, which is always the case, we sue.
Sorry, Babs, you speak out of both sides of your mouth too often.
14th Amend,
Maybe you should blog somewhere else and leave us bigots here be... then work on new material, the bigot charge is prehistoric by now, and by the way, using that find of language won’t advance your arguments, you only making yourself sound retarded. Just adding hire to a flame…
...fire, my post @ 13
Leo,
Bigot is all 14th has to fall back on. When you build your entire defense on a foundation of lies and falsehoods your options become quite limited really fast.
I'll continue to comment and I'll continue to correctly use the word bigot correctly to describe those engaging in bigotry. Those who use words miscreants, perverts, sodomites, degenerates, etc. to describe LGBT people and "pets" to describe their children (as one nasty woman on this blog did today) really are in no position to complain about being called bigots.
You keep using that meme. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Bigot:
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
The very fact that you have not been banned proves that you are tolerated by those who disagree with you. I, for one, keep hoping you come up with a rational defense of your demands for new rights.
Now that you mention it 14th; I've had the honor of being banned from most every marriage corruption blog I ever entered; for writing all the same things I write here - unsing my real name.
God, will you people just give it up already. Honestly, your battles are completely pointless, and it's getting rather ridiculous saying its a redefining of marriage. Seriously...
Shawna:
Totally.
14th, a child is not an accessory to a pair of Prada shoes or a Louis Vitton hand bag. Marriage is much more than using a child as a pet and calling yourself a family.