Ill. prosecutors refuse to defend gay marriage ban

Jun 21, 2012 Read more: Connecticut Post 54

Twenty-five Illinois couples were prepared for a long legal fight when they joined lawsuits challenging the state's ban on gay marriage.

Read more
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#42 Jul 1, 2012
no big O wrote:
Ya you didn't read quite right. I didnt say they told them not to issue them, I said they told them they wouldnt be prosecuted IF they didnt. By not prosecuting they are doing the a same thing The big O is ... the clerks could choose not to issue, and based on the States Attorney beliefe in the law being unconst. they simply will not adjudicate the case until of course the law is ruled on.....
Hon, what you aren't getting is that it really doesn't matter what law the AG believes to be unconstitutional, they are still required to abide by it. In your hypothetical you're claiming the requirement that clerks have to do their jobs is believed to be unconstitutional, the AG can neither advise clerks to violate the laws requirements or permit them to do so on their own until the question of the requirement's is answered by the courts. Unless a court stays the effect of a law while the question is answered, it stays in force no matter who says it is unconstitutional.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#43 Jul 19, 2012
I like this article better.....

Judge Grants Thomas More Society Motion to Intervene
July 4th, 2012 by admin
July 3, 2012 (CHICAGO)– Today, Judge Sophia Hall granted the Thomas More Society’s motion to intervene on behalf of two downstate county clerks in Illinois’ same-sex marriage case brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal. The motion was not opposed by the other parties in the case.

The clerks have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, which will now be briefed. The parties have until August 20 to file their response and the Thomas More Society have until September 19 to reply. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss will be held on September 27, 2012 at 10:30am before Judge Sophia Hall in courtroom 2301.

Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society, said,“We are grateful for the opportunity to serve as special Assistant State’s Attorneys for Tazewell and Effingham Counties in Illinois, and we are honored to represent these County Clerks in mounting a robust effort to defend Illinois marriage laws — laws that we believe to be fully constitutional, under established law — and thereby to assure that this case will be professionally defended and litigated, if need be, all the way up to the Supreme Court so that marriage laws will be uniform and fully enforceable throughout our entire State of Illinois.”

A copy of Judge Hall’s order authorizing the Society’s intervention and setting a briefing schedule and hearing date may be found here.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#44 Jul 19, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
I like this article better.....
Judge Grants Thomas More Society Motion to Intervene
July 4th, 2012 by admin
July 3, 2012 (CHICAGO)– Today, Judge Sophia Hall granted the Thomas More Society’s motion to intervene on behalf of two downstate county clerks in Illinois’ same-sex marriage case brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal. The motion was not opposed by the other parties in the case.
The clerks have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, which will now be briefed. The parties have until August 20 to file their response and the Thomas More Society have until September 19 to reply. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss will be held on September 27, 2012 at 10:30am before Judge Sophia Hall in courtroom 2301.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society, said,“We are grateful for the opportunity to serve as special Assistant State’s Attorneys for Tazewell and Effingham Counties in Illinois, and we are honored to represent these County Clerks in mounting a robust effort to defend Illinois marriage laws — laws that we believe to be fully constitutional, under established law — and thereby to assure that this case will be professionally defended and litigated, if need be, all the way up to the Supreme Court so that marriage laws will be uniform and fully enforceable throughout our entire State of Illinois.”
A copy of Judge Hall’s order authorizing the Society’s intervention and setting a briefing schedule and hearing date may be found here.
I think the judge is wrong. Why should a particular religious group be allowed to intervene ? If it was a group of rabbis or a group of imams, would the judge have allowed them to intervene ?

Why should Roman Catholics be allowed to impose their narrow views on peope who choose to be non-Catholics ?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#45 Jul 19, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the judge is wrong. Why should a particular religious group be allowed to intervene ? If it was a group of rabbis or a group of imams, would the judge have allowed them to intervene ?
Why should Roman Catholics be allowed to impose their narrow views on peope who choose to be non-Catholics ?
Religious freedom is in the 1st amendment of our constitution...didn't you know????

The people that intervened happened to be Christians. They have just as much right to be heard in the court as you do....

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#46 Jul 19, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Religious freedom is in the 1st amendment of our constitution...didn't you know????
The people that intervened happened to be Christians. They have just as much right to be heard in the court as you do....
No, they don't.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#47 Jul 19, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
I like this article better.....
Judge Grants Thomas More Society Motion to Intervene
July 4th, 2012 by admin
July 3, 2012 (CHICAGO)– Today, Judge Sophia Hall granted the Thomas More Society’s motion to intervene on behalf of two downstate county clerks in Illinois’ same-sex marriage case brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal. The motion was not opposed by the other parties in the case.
The clerks have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints brought by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, which will now be briefed. The parties have until August 20 to file their response and the Thomas More Society have until September 19 to reply. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss will be held on September 27, 2012 at 10:30am before Judge Sophia Hall in courtroom 2301.
Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of Thomas More Society, said,“We are grateful for the opportunity to serve as special Assistant State’s Attorneys for Tazewell and Effingham Counties in Illinois, and we are honored to represent these County Clerks in mounting a robust effort to defend Illinois marriage laws — laws that we believe to be fully constitutional, under established law — and thereby to assure that this case will be professionally defended and litigated, if need be, all the way up to the Supreme Court so that marriage laws will be uniform and fully enforceable throughout our entire State of Illinois.”
A copy of Judge Hall’s order authorizing the Society’s intervention and setting a briefing schedule and hearing date may be found here.
They might as well skip over the motion to dismiss, that ain't happening. Even with the good Catholics of the Thomas More Society rushing to its defense, discrimination against same sex couples will soon end in Illinois. They should have just gone with the summary judgment which was inevitable when the original defendants refused to defend the restriction. It would have achieved the exact same result and been a lot less expensive.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#48 Jul 19, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
I think the judge is wrong. Why should a particular religious group be allowed to intervene ? If it was a group of rabbis or a group of imams, would the judge have allowed them to intervene ?
Why should Roman Catholics be allowed to impose their narrow views on peope who choose to be non-Catholics ?
Technically speaking, the interveners are the two county clerks who are acting as fronts for the good Catholic lawyers from Thomas More. Without them, their motion would have gone nowhere.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#50 Jul 20, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>They might as well skip over the motion to dismiss, that ain't happening. Even with the good Catholics of the Thomas More Society rushing to its defense, discrimination against same sex couples will soon end in Illinois. They should have just gone with the summary judgment which was inevitable when the original defendants refused to defend the restriction. It would have achieved the exact same result and been a lot less expensive.
There is no discrimination...marriage laws do not state for 'heterosexuals' only.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#51 Jul 20, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they don't.
Yeah, they do....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#52 Jul 20, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
There is no discrimination...marriage laws do not state for 'heterosexuals' only.....
And both Whites and Blacks had the same right to marry, as long as they married someone of an approved race. That argument did wonders for the state of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, it should do the same for Illinois' opposite sex only marriage law. Equal application does not equal equal protection dear, those who would choose to form a hopefully lifelong relationship with someone of the same sex are clearly denied equal protection by such a limit on their rights.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#53 Jul 20, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>And both Whites and Blacks had the same right to marry, as long as they married someone of an approved race. That argument did wonders for the state of Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, it should do the same for Illinois' opposite sex only marriage law. Equal application does not equal equal protection dear, those who would choose to form a hopefully lifelong relationship with someone of the same sex are clearly denied equal protection by such a limit on their rights.
Why is it that when people bring this subject up, they only refer to black and white Americans. Are you aware that a white person could also not marry an Asian person nor a Native American person ? Several of our white senators, past and present, including Mitch McConnell, the present Senate Minority Leader, are married to Asian persons. Prior to 1967, this would have been illegal in many states.

This is not just a black American\white American issue.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#54 Jul 20, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
Why is it that when people bring this subject up, they only refer to black and white Americans. Are you aware that a white person could also not marry an Asian person nor a Native American person ? Several of our white senators, past and present, including Mitch McConnell, the present Senate Minority Leader, are married to Asian persons. Prior to 1967, this would have been illegal in many states.
This is not just a black American\white American issue.
Because moron, the argument that the law doesn't discriminate because both gays and straights have the same right to marry, as long as they marry someone of their legally approved sex, is merely a revision of the argument used by the state of Virginia to defend their anti-miscegenation law. The state of Virginia actually argued that both Whites and Blacks had an equal right to marry as long as they married someone of an approved race. Yes, other races were discriminated against under anti-miscegenation laws, but they were not brought up in the arguments before the Supremes.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#56 Jul 20, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Because moron, the argument that the law doesn't discriminate because both gays and straights have the same right to marry, as long as they marry someone of their legally approved sex, is merely a revision of the argument used by the state of Virginia to defend their anti-miscegenation law. The state of Virginia actually argued that both Whites and Blacks had an equal right to marry as long as they married someone of an approved race. Yes, other races were discriminated against under anti-miscegenation laws, but they were not brought up in the arguments before the Supremes.
you obviously missed my point.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#57 Jul 20, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
you obviously missed my point.
I didn't miss your point cupcake, I was explaining how you missed mine.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pat Quinn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner Cuts Funds For Indig... Apr 11 Matt Kennedy 1
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) Apr 9 KankaFred 51,757
News Illinois Cops: Concealed Carry Law A 'Non-Event... Jan '15 SSG MP American Joe 3
News a New Illinois cyber bully law lets teachers ac... Jan '15 utopiannightmare 1
News Illinois government worker pension system remai... Jan '15 Sean Tankarian 1
News Rauner names Meeks as Illinois State Board of E... Jan '15 reality is a crutch 1
News Coleman Trial Still The Talk Of Town In Waterloo (May '11) Jan '15 Satellite guy 2
More from around the web