The Catholic Church is once again engaging in vindictive retaliation against groups it has funded in the past because of their support of marriage equality. Groups local to Illinois who support the state’s Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights have all been warned that their funding could be in danger because the Coalition spoke out in favor of legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Though the position represented a majority of the Coalition’s members, the Catholic-funded groups didn’t sign on to the statement in advance.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the bishops’ anti-poverty arm, has threatened all the groups that they must leave the Coalition or lose their future funding. Among those that could be impacted are Catholic Charities, Latino Union, Resurrection Project, United African Organization, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Albany Park Neighborhood Council, ARISE Chicago, Chicago Workers Collaborative, Interfaith Leadership Project, and Most Blessed Trinity. A meeting later this week will determine if some minds can be changed or if a compromise can be found.

This is hardly the first time the Catholic Church has punished its own beneficiaries over the issue of marriage equality. In 2012, it cut funding for a homeless agency in Sacramento because the agency’s director supported same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities of Colorado threatened to shut down if the state passed civil unions last year, even though that version of the bill included an exception to allow the adoption agency to continue discriminating against same-sex couples. After Washington, DC legalized marriage equality in 2010, Catholic Charities stopped offering partner benefits to all employees to avoid having to provide benefits to gay employees. That same year, the diocese of Portland, Maine abandoned funding for a homeless shelter that also came out for marriage equality.

If the Catholic Church follows through on this ultimatum with these Illinois groups, it would prove that it places a higher priority on opposing marriage equality than supporting poor people or immigrants.

Last Friday’s decision to postpone a vote on marriage equality in the Illinois House came as a huge disappointment to supporters of LGBT equality. But Prairie State voters can take heart from legislative battles in other states where marriage equality was similarly delayed or defeated — but where the same chambers went on to pass bills soon after.

Like Illinois, legislative efforts to pass marriage equality stumbled in Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York — either failing to obtain a majority or by through postponed consideration. Future attempts to enact legislation later succeeded in three of those states, while the New Jersey legislature’s passage of a bill was met with a Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) veto. As Illinois supporters work to win passage of the bill later this year, ThinkProgress reached out to key players in each of those states and asked them about their experiences.

Three common themes emerged in their responses. Several said Illinois supporters need to make sure they have an accurate target list and focus on the lawmakers who need persuading. Constituents, they suggested, must respectfully tell their personal stories to their legislators and make their representatives understand why this issue matters to their families. Finally, the openly LGBT caucus within the legislature must appeal personally and emotionally to their colleagues, especially those who may not be as attuned to the topic.

Maryland

Perhaps the most analogous case was Maryland’s unsuccessful 2011 attempt to pass a civil marriage bill through the state House of Delegates. Though advocates believed they had the needed votes to pass the bill, they were forced to postpone the vote after some pledged supporters wavered. Unlike Illinois, supporters went through with the debate — hoping their compelling personal stories might sway the handful of votes needed for a majority — before sending the bill back to committee after it became apparent the votes would not be there. Advocates, including Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), the state’s seven openly LGBT Delegates, and LGBT groups, organized a new campaign and successfully pushed the bill through less than a year later. When opponents forced the question onto the November ballot, a majority voted for marriage equality.

Openly lesbian Maryland Del. Heather Mizeur (D) noted that about 10 supporters were willing to be a part of a 71-vote majority but would have voted against the bill if it appeared likely to lose. “It would not have been okay to lose by 12 votes and try to come back the next year to win those back. We wanted to hold onto their willingness to be yes on a winning vote, instead of locking them into a no vote because they saw it was going down,” she recalled. To turn around the vote in Illinois, she suggested, “it could be helpful for them to try to wage an effort to get their supporters to sign some sort of pledge, start getting a vote count, and get a campaign around securing public commitments.” Maryland’s success came, she explained, from working with allies at national organizations, state groups, and really putting together a campaign. “Leave no stone unturned until we’re able to claim victory.”

Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, said that it made little sense to demand a vote in 2011 because there was not going to be an election before the next (2012) session. She noted that while grassroots activists were vital to the successful effort to win the second attempt, so was having a robust LGBT caucus inside the legislature who could remind colleagues, “you know my husband, you know my kids.” Issues like marriage equality, she observed, must be personal. “They’re so close — you really just have to build on that and get those last few votes.”
Read more

Unlike the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council has had no reservations about partnering with the Illinois Family Institute to fight marriage equality in Illinois. In FRC’s Washington Update Monday, Tony Perkins boasted that the marriage bill did not come up for a vote, cheering the tearful announcement by Rep. Greg Harris (D) as an accomplishment:

The LGBT lobby, who assumed their bullying would have the same effect on these legislators as it’s had in other states, were completely blindsided by the churches’ powerful resistance. On Friday, while the Left was preparing for a victory lap, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), tearfully announced on the last day of the session that he didn’t have the votes to bring the bill to the floor.

For our side, which has had its share of setbacks, it was a reminder of what can be accomplished when we stand together. Illinois voters refused to buy the line that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable — and because of their courage, it wasn’t! Join us in congratulating the Illinois Family Institute and the hundreds of pastors who stood their ground on marriage! It was a victory well-deserved, and more than that, a success story every state can learn from.

Harris has defended his decision not to hold a vote amid criticism from advocates for not forcing lawmakers to voice their position on the record.

But FRC doesn’t seem concerned with why Harris, who is openly gay, might have been upset by his bill’s setback. Indeed, by claiming that the LGBT lobby was engaging in “bullying,” the group is trying to paint opponents of equality as victims of some kind, even though allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no impact on their lives. Promoting and cheering the continued second-class status of the gay community is one of the many reasons both FRC and IFI are classified as hate groups.

Friday evening was incredibly disappointing for the LGBT advocates who had been anticipating a vote on marriage equality in the Illinois House for months. At the core of the chamber’s failure to call a vote seemed to be miscommunications between the bill’s sponsor Rep. Greg Harris (D), Democratic leadership, and advocates for the bill. Windy City Times publisher Tracy Baim was unequivocal in her critique of the process:

Harris should step down now as chief sponsor of this legislation. He has proven he is tone deaf to the wishes of both the grassroots and leadership of this community. They almost all called for a vote “no matter what.” Instead, Harris chose to give cover to his political colleagues, rather than follow through on his own on-the-record promise to call for a vote by May 31.

Why did a vote matter now? Because for months, no hard count has been possible on who really was for or against this bill. This limbo caused confusion and depleted valuable resources lobbying dozens more representatives than necessary.

Harris said he has promises from certain reps they will vote for the bill this fall, but we have seen how political promises pan out.

Indeed, a week before the end of the session, Harris promised not only a vote, but a successful one.

It seems the chances for the bill are not yet entirely dead. Friday night, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) — upon whom Baim also cast blame because he “did not flex his [political] muscles” — extended the marriage bill’s deadline for approval until August 31. This means that if Gov. Pat Quinn (D) calls a special session this summer, he could include the marriage equality bill, which he supports. It’s unclear if this will happen or what the bill’s chances would be under such circumstances.

The National Organization for Marriage, reeling from losses in Delaware, Rhode Island, and Minnesota, was quick to gloat about the bill’s demise. Despite not playing a very large role in the state, Brian Brown boasted, “We are gratified that our collective hard work has paid off in this stunning victory.” The Illinois Family Institute, whose hateful rhetoric has dominated the fight, expressed joy over the government’s “retention of sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage.” Both groups referenced the African-American community, continuing attempts to “drive a wedge” between LGBT groups and people of color. Despite suggestions to the contrary, both opposition and support for the bill came from diverse groups, so such generalizations are not applicable.

Marriage equality’s failure in Illinois could perhaps offer some timely implications as the Supreme Court weighs its decisions regarding the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, expected later this month. Marriage equality opponents, led by House Republicans, argued to the Court that the gay community does not deserve protection as a group under the Constitution because they are too politically powerful. As Laurel Ramseyer points out at Pam’s House Blend, the defeat in Illinois serves as a prime example debunking that argument. Indeed, even an openly gay elected official with three openly gay colleagues could not rally the simple majority necessary to call for a vote ensuring that all families be equally protected under the law. The momentum of the past several years should not be construed as victory having already been accomplished, nor should a righteous sense of inevitability be confused with assured success at every step along the way. Hopefully the Supreme Court acknowledges that increasing public support and the need for constitutional protection are not mutually exclusive.

The Illinois House of Representatives adjourned Friday without voting on marriage equality. The Senate passed its version of the bill back on Valentine’s Day, and Gov. Pat Quinn (D) had promised to sign it into law.

As supporters jeered from the gallery, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris (D), announced that several colleagues indicated they were not ready to vote for the bill. He suggested they may support the measure in November at a reconvened session.

In recent days, LGBT advocates and Harris had claimed to have the votes needed.

Recent polling showed 50 percent of Illinois voters support marriage equality, while just 29 percent oppose.

As all eyes are on Illinois to vote on marriage equality before the week is out, a Christian law firm has issued new demands for the right to discriminate against same-sex couples. According to Thomas Brejcha and Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, the proposed bill has the “worst religious liberty protection of any same-sex marriage bill in the country.”

This is a moot point, because some states didn’t even pass a marriage equality bill to have any religious protections. States where Supreme Courts made the final decision like Iowa and Massachusetts have not had any of the problems Brejcha and Breen speak of. Besides, what they define as “religious liberty” is a blatant privilege to refuse service to people because of their sexual orientation in violation of pre-existing nondiscrimination laws.

The Illinois bill already includes protections such that religious organizations will not have to perform or host same-sex weddings, but Brejcha and Breen imagine a society where hospitals and schools can just blatantly ignore the law. They cite the infamous example of a New Jersey church-owned pavilion that lost its tax exemption for refusing to host a civil unions ceremony, even though the case had nothing to do with its religious protections. They go on to suggest that Christian business owners will have to “surrender their livelihoods” if they can’t discriminate:

SB 10 provides no protections for individuals who make their living by providing goods and services for the celebration of weddings, such as cake bakers, florists, and venue owners. Under SB 10, people of faith running these businesses would be faced with the choice of either closing their business or facilitating a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. Already, a downstate bed & breakfast owner has been dragged before the Illinois Human Rights Commission to defend its decision not to host same-sex civil unions. In New Mexico, a Christian photographer has been forced to appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court for expressing her religious liberty to decline to participate in a lesbian commitment ceremony. SB 10 is also silent on the plight of professionals such as doctors, social workers, and counselors who object to same-sex marriage – will they be forced to violate their consciences or have their licenses revoked?

The most important thing to remember about this offensive ruse is that there are no religious protections that could be added to this bill that would actually change whether conservative groups like the Thomas More Society supports the marriage equality bill. Illinois Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki made this quite clear back in January. These are the claims of individuals who already fear losing the fight and are seeking every carve-out possible to allow them to continue treating the gay community as second-class citizens.

It’s crunch time this week for the Illinois House of Representatives to pass marriage equality, and the Catholic Conference of Illinois is trying to mislead potential supporters. Criticizing a Chicago Tribune editorial endorsing the legislation, Executive Director Robert Gilligan offers some confusing suggestions for how same-sex couples in civil unions can get federal benefits:

Lawmakers two years ago approved civil unions, granting participants the same legal benefits given to married couples in the state. The editorial states civil union partners are missing out on federal benefits, legal protections and tax advantages because they aren’t married. These benefits are covered by federal law – not state law. The proper venue to get these benefits is not through an Illinois marriage license, but through legislation in the U.S. Congress.

While it’s true that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the current obstacle for same-sex married couples to access federal benefits, many are optimistic the Supreme Court will overturn that law at the end of June, which means it likely wouldn’t have a chance to apply to Illinois’s law before it takes effect. Gilligan is clearly trying to convince lawmakers that they don’t have to act to protect same-sex couples by misstating how those families can actually access their benefits. Contrary to his claims, the federal government defers to states to define marriage and issue licenses — DOMA is an exceptional law in how it limits which of those marriages the federal government can recognize.

Regardless of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize civil unions for the hundreds of benefits it offers to married couples. The only way for Illinois couples to ever receive them is if they have access to marriage under state law.

Given Gilligan’s opposition to the law, it’s unlikely he has any legitimate interest in ensuring the same legal and economic security for same-sex families as other families enjoy. Instead, this feigned concern is clearly a ruse to sway lawmakers into not supporting access to those very protections.

The National Organization for Marriage has been largely absent from the marriage equality fight in Illinois, allowing the rhetoric of the hate group-designated Illinois Family Institute to dominate. Still, NOM has not been totally silent, repeatedly using the impending vote as an opportunity to fundraise. The only activity they boast, aside from Jennifer Roback Morse’s testimony during a hearing back  in February, is robocalls featuring African-American pastors, on which they’ve apparently spent $125,000.

The tactic is a reminder of NOM’s ever-present effort to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” by co-opting the language of “civil rights.” This argument did not convince state Rep. LaShawn Ford (D), a member of the Illinois House Black Caucus, who endorsed marriage equality this week, applauding how “the gay and lesbian community has taken a page from the Civil Rights Movement.”  Morse, in a post published Tuesday at The Christian Post, called out lawmakers like Ford as “Judas,” and suggested they would not longer be welcome in their pastors’ churches:

These pastors are the constituents of the African American legislators whom the gay lobby is counting on to change their votes. These pastors will speak out against pro gay marriage politicians and will not allow them to speak in their churches. [...]

But the last legislators to come out at the final hour to dismantle the only institution we have that connects children with their parents are going to be very conspicuous. They will stand out as the ones who made gay marriage possible in Illinois. Their constituents, their neighbors, their fellow parishioners are entitled to ask them one very pointed question.

What did they give you, Judas?

The thesis of Morse’s post is that marriage equality is not inevitable, and yet everything about NOM’s tactics imply they know the exact opposite is true. A one-tactic campaign of threatening lawmakers with excommunication from their churches as a ploy for their own fundraising suggests they had no intention of winning in Illinois. And as Jeremy Hooper noticed, this week’s fundraising email seeking “to defeat gay-marriage activists” — as opposed to the more polished “defend traditional marriage” rhetoric of yore — further demonstrates that NOM is sloppy and uncommitted to the Illinois fight, trying to just glean from it what they can before they lose.

The Illinois House of Representatives is in its final few days of meeting, which means the marriage equality bill must come forward before the week is over. This weekend, one more previously undecided lawmaker expressed his support for the bill, which is expected to pass. State Rep. LaShawn Ford (D) told the Oak Park Wednesday Journal that it was a “well-thought-out decision,” and one that he believes “will go down in history” like the Civil Rights Movement:

FORD: When you think about the moral issue, this is about advancing opportunity, the opportunity for all people to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As Democrats we are about opportunity, about including people, not excluding.

What really turns me is how the gay and lesbian community has taken a page from the Civil Rights Movement. I respect the hard work, the tenacity, the fortitude, the organization of the gay community in pursuing this. This should remind the African-American community what hard work [on political issues] does. This will go down in history as an example of how to effect change in the world.

Though the National Organization for Marriage has been largely absent from the campaign in Illinois, the group has worked with an African American Clergy Coalition to do robocalling against the legislation. Ford says he’s not worried about their opposition: “If they see this as against God then this is a call to action for them to go out and save souls.”

In many of the states that have waged marriage equality fights recently, opponents have often coalesced around a coalition consisting of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the state’s Catholic conference, and the state’s “family policy council” affiliate of the Family Research Council. In Illinois, however, these typical players have not united in the same way, seemingly in part because the state social conservative group is the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a hate group in its own right associated with the American Family Association.

IFI’s rhetoric is quite a bit more brazen than what anti-gay groups have used in other states, which may have scared away its would-be allies. As a telling example, NOM posted pictures from an IFI rally last week, but didn’t mention the organization by name nor link to its own post about the rally. Otherwise, NOM’s rhetoric has mostly been limited to threats of retribution against Republicans who might support marriage equality. The Illinois Catholic Conference has issued its own materials opposing marriage equality, and Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has made his share of negative comments, but there seems to be no coordination with IFI.

Today marks three months since the Illinois Senate passed the marriage equality bill, and with only three weeks left for the House to pass it, here’s a look at some of IFI’s rhetoric that is dominating the opposition:

• Today, IFI posted numerous photos from its rally this weekend, including a sign that reads, “The crime against nature will never be equal.”
• Speakers at the rally included ex-gay advocate Linda Jernigan and another hate group leader, Peter LaBarbera, who told the crowd that homosexuality is “unnatural and wrong,” citing HIV rates among men who have sex with men as evidence of “the dangers of homosexuality.”
• In February, IFI’s Laurie Higgins wrote that gay people shouldn’t even be allowed to teach because they’ll put pictures of their partners on their desk that students will see.
• In fact, IFI believes that parents should pull their children from any classroom that attempts to create a safe environment for LGBT students.
• IFI has claimed gays and lesbians already have equality because they can marry the opposite sex like everyone else; same-sex marriage is thus a demand “to be treated specially.”
• IFI recommends language that demonizes the gay community, encouraging opponents of equality to frame their resistance as compassion.

This extreme rhetoric extends beyond the talking points conservatives have traditionally used in these fights, which tend to focus on supposed protections for children, gender norms, and the institution of marriage. By openly condemning homosexuality as unnatural and curable through therapy — as well as enabling the bullying of LGBT youth — IFI sets itself apart. It remains unclear how many votes short the Illinois House is from passage or what is motivating those opponents, but with IFI’s strong presence in the fight, opponents’ will struggle to deliver a cohesive or approachable argument as the vote approaches.