Don’t change the institution of marriage

Various media sources are reporting that liberal activists will try to legalize same-sex “marriage” during the lame-duck session of the General Assembly Jan. 3-9.

State Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, the chief sponsor, used the lame-duck session in 2010 to ram through same-sex “civil unions” because proponents dishonestly promised that civil unions was all they wanted.

State lawmakers who pushed for civil unions, including Rep. Harris and state Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, deceived colleagues into believing that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would not be affected. 

Story Archived

Only the most recent 7 days of articles are available for free. For articles older than 7 days there is a small fee for retrieval from our archive. If you are a registered member of the site, the content is free just by signing in below.

Please sign in with your Comment Member ID and password.

Did you purchase access?

Member ID:
Password:
Forgot Your Password?
Register to comment.

Purchase Access
To allow for flexibility, we offer a variety of options for purchasing articles:
Purchase options


Having trouble?

If you have any technical difficulties, either with your username and password or with the payment options, please contact us by e-mail at archivedesk@shawmedia.com

Blogs

» Out Here
Out Here

Wise saw collapse in support

Last week, Sterling Alderwoman Amy Viering attended her last meeting as a city official. She gave the usual praise one hears at such departures. But one compliment stuck out. At the end of her speech, she turned to City Administrator Scott Shumard and said, "You're awesome."
» Out Here
Out Here

On pensions, Bivins and GOP far apart

Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, joined with many of his fellow Senate Republicans this week to reject a pension bill sponsored by Democratic Senate President John Cullerton of Chicago. The measure passed 40-16. Bivins had a different reason for his no vote.

Reader Poll

How concerned are you that the IRS targeted conservative political groups for additional and often burdensome scrutiny?

Very concerned
Somewhat concerned
Not very concerned
Not concerned at all