IFI Condemns 'Planned Subversion' of IL Marriage Law by Cook County Clerk & Chicago Homosexual Lobby

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

IFI Condemns 'Planned Subversion' of IL Marriage Law by Cook County Clerk and Chicago Homosexual Lobby

2/27/04 11:27:00 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: State Desk

Contact: Deb Schloemer, 630-790-8370, or Peter LaBarbera, 630-717-7631, both of the Illinois Family Institute; http://www.illinoisfamily.org

GLEN ELLYN, Ill., Feb. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera today condemned the "planned subversion" of the state's marriage law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and criticized Cook County Clerk David Orr for referring to the law he hopes to overturn as Illinois' "perceived" marriage law.

Homosexual activists such as Chicago's openly "gay" alderman Tom Tunney (D-44th) are now urging the Cook County Board to direct Orr to issue "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples in open defiance of Illinois' defense-of-marriage law, which expressly prohibits "a marriage between two individuals of the same sex."

Speaking Wednesday as a guest on the WTTW-TV program "Chicago Tonight," Orr said, "I don't have any authority at this point to marry people in violation of the perceived Illinois law. I believe ... that there's a conflict between the existing law which says marriage shall take place between a man and a woman, and ... the constitution, which says, 'Thou shalt not discriminate.'"

Orr is strategizing with pro-gay activists and said "one of the options being discussed ... is whether or not one issues a marriage license, or many like they did in San Francisco, as a way of testing the law; as a way of getting into court and hopefully being victorious there." He also viciously smeared advocates of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage by comparing them to past advocates of slavery-a "cheap shot" that steals the noble heritage of the Christian-led abolitionist movement, LaBarbera said.

"Just what does David Orr mean when he says the 'perceived' law on marriage in Illinois?" LaBarbera said. "The law is the law, and if he is plotting to subvert it, he should be removed from his position. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if we began talking about the 'perceived' law against shoplifting, or the 'perceived' ban on drunk driving."

A proposed amendment to Illinois' Constitution (HJRCA 31) codifying marriage as one-man, one-woman is bottled up in the House Rules Committee, despite hundreds of calls to Speaker Mike Madigan requesting that he push for HJRCA 31 to be released to a standing committee.

IFI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization committed to defending marriage, family and the sanctity of life in Illinois.

[Fitzcarraldo]

When was gay marraige passed in Sodom and Gomorrah?

[OpusatFR]

Guess the next step in all these cities is an endless line of court challenges regarding visitation, custody rights, banking, insurance, inheritance, property titles, ad infinitum...

They are going to keep this in the courts and force it.

[kevkrom]

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't a planned, organized effort to violate the law called conspiracy? If any actual organization becomes involved, then doesn't RICO apply?

[unspun]

You've got the ping list, Chief....

[OpusatFR]

Silly....

RICO only applies to people kneeling on sidewalks in front of abortion clinics praying the rosary.

[Jim Noble]

If the Winnetka town clerk was pasing out handguns, to get the perceived handgun ban tested, I imagine he would be stopped.

Don't you?

[Jim Noble]

These "marriage licenses" do not violate the law, since the "marriage" of the individuals named on the "license" is void, both in the natural law and by the state law which gives it voice.

It will violate the law to treat two men or two women who have gone through a sham ceremony as if they were married, which is of course impossible.

The licenses, per se, are meaningless.

[Chi-townChief]

PING (courtesy, unspun)

[unspun]

Thanks, Chief.

Is there a conspiracy to violate the law in the works here?

[TheRightGuy]

BUMP and ping m1

[m1-lightning]

I've never understood why gay right groups say they are treated unfairly when it comes to marraige. A straight man can't marry a straight man. A gay man can't marry a gay man. A straight man can't marry a gay man. The laws apply to all, equally. Some just wish to disregard the law and do what they want. Constitutional amendment; so be it (unless of course we could persuade them all to move next to a volcano)

[TheRightGuy]

A straight man can't marry a straight man. A gay man can't marry a gay man. A straight man can't marry a gay man. The laws apply to all, equally.

Oh, go shut up! You are making far too much sense!
< /sarcasm>

But in the words of the immortal Steve Goodman:
"There are men who love women who love men,
the are women who love women every now and then,
there are men who love men because they can't pretend,
They are men who love women who love men."

[mwl1]

Don't know why anyone can claim discrimination. Anyone -- heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual -- has the exact same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex.

There is no discrimination. Period.

I wish someone would point out to the ignorant talking heads that Utah was not allowed to join the Union until it renounced and prohibited bigamy. Perhaps some Mormons would now like to re-apply for multiple wives.

[reg45]

Q: When was gay marraige passed in Sodom and Gomorrah?

A: Just before the cities were destroyed.