Justin's Political Corner

Feeling self-satisfied by a state marriage bill that failed to come to a vote, the Illinois Family Institute is now working to deny that civil marriages even exist for same-sex couples, and is calling on those in currently legal marriages to break their relationships and “repent.” Happy Pride Month!

This call comes via a column penned by noted evangelical John Piper, which the IFI is heavily promoting on its site. In said column, Piper reduces gay people to having “same-sex attraction” that “is a brokenness that is part of humanity’s fallen condition,” claims that there’s no such thing as a marriage between a same-sex couple and that states that say otherwise are engaging in a “prostitution of language,” and encourages his supporters to guide gay people through a process of divorcing ours spouses and “repenting.” I’m not being facetious with that last line—Piper seriously lays out a thirteen-point plan for how his side can “lead us out” of our marriages and our orientations.

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 Representatives. 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 legislators, 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 legisature 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.”

New Hampshire

In 2009, openly gay then-Rep. Jim Splaine (D) brought a marriage equality bill to the floor without even a favorable committee recommendation. Despite having only about 130 firm commitments in the 400-member House, the bill narrowly lost by a 182-183 vote — a positive surprise even to the sponsor. “I had been in the legislature for 30 years off and on at that point, my first term being in 1969, and I knew that one or two votes can be found SOMEWHERE,” he recalled. After obtaining the printout of the initial roll call, “those of us for the bill lobbied those few members who we thought might switch their votes. Within 20 minutes, a re-vote was held and the bill passed 186 to 179.

For Splaine, having an accurate breakdown of where people stood proved hugely important: “The fact that we knew who our 182 supporters were and who were left on the other side certainly allowed us to switch those votes to our side on the second vote. On follow-up votes in the next few weeks, our supporters were able to hold strong, but at times they weren’t all there for votes and that’s when we almost lost the bill. But knowing who we could still appeal to gave us a chance to do ‘at-home’ lobbying, and get a few more supporters. We eventually got to over 200 supporters as the weeks went by, and since then efforts to repeal the bill fell flat.”

He echoed the importance of LGBT legislators and constituents winning votes with their personal tales: “Our mantra was ‘Let’s show our faces and tell our stories.’” To win, Illinois and everywhere, LGBT folks must look at legislators “in their eyes, face-to-face, and talk with — not “to” or “at” them, but with them — about our story.”

New Jersey

A 2009 vote on marriage equality in the New Jersey Senate fell seven votes short (losing 14 to 20). Last year, the same body endorsed a similar bill by a 24-16 margin. While Governor Christieswiftly vetoed the bill — suggesting that LGBT civil rights should be put up for a popular referendum — activists are mulling a possible override attempt.

Steven Goldstein, founder of Garden State Equality, told ThinkProgress that he is optimistic that both Illinois and New Jersey will soon see marriage equality: “I would be surprised if marriage equality did not come to Illinois later this year, because of the skill of the extraordinary legislators who have spearheaded the effort, as well as then U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act coming down later this month, which many people believe will make marriages in states that already have them forced to recognized federal benefits.” Noting that both states have civil unions, he observed that same-sex couples in those states would be denied federal recognition, rendering their civil unions “even more unequal than they already are.” Such a ruling could be the final push for many legislators: “I hear from legislators all the time, who are on the fence or are pro-equality but haven’t voted that way in the past, who are looking for a new external reason. They’re proactively mentioning DOMA.”

Goldstein advised against disappointed activists being “armchair quarterbacks” on the Illinois process. “Every state is different and the path to marriage equality varies,” he explained.

New York

The 2009 attempt to pass marriage equality vote in the New York State Senate was in many ways the “worst case scenario.” Though supporters thought they had the votes, several Senators bolted when it became clear that the bill would fall short of a majority — and the bill was defeated 38-24. Activists defeated some opponents in the 2010 elections, organized a major campaign to win over others, and prevailed 33-29 in 2011.

Brian Ellner, a senior strategist for the New York campaign, said legislators were not harder to convince just because they had voted against it once: “A lot of people have been evolving on this issue over time. Some of that takes place quickly and dramatically… from the President to the Vice President to Republican Senator Rob Portman (OH), and others. Legislators had the same story line, they become convinced by changing times and fundamental fairness.” While some activists were demoralized by the 2009 disappointment, he added, “many people were committed to working that much harder, energized and angered.”

Ellner’s key to winning over the needed votes is knowing where legislators stand. “The more intelligence you have,” he explained, “the more you’re able to target specifically which legislatures you need to move, the more helpful it is for anyone running this kind of campaign. If you don’t know which of 25-30 legislators to go after, to persuade, you’re really diluting your resources.”

Illinois

In light of these observations, ThinkProgress also spoke with two key players in Illinois about the next steps.

Openly gay Rep. Greg Harris (D), the chief House sponsor of the stalled marriage bill, noted that the successes in other state are instructive. “Often people don’t see things in the lens of even recent history, must less the history of equality struggles of all kinds,” he said, “You have steps forwards, you have setbacks, you move ahead, and you finally win.”

Harris said that he and the advocacy groups “have a fairly good sense of who is a hard no, a hard yes, who’s leaning which way.” As the opponents in Illinois are rabid, “we need to be sure that the moms, dads, grandpas, and grandmas from PFLAG are also getting out there,” and that they and LGBT constituents convey to their legislators that marriage equality is important to them and their families. “Our state has plenty of other issues… huge issues – our bond ratings were downgraded the other day, we have a monumental unfunded pension crisis, just went through a state budget where people were fighting to maintain education and human services, and gun control. Some people looking at this are saying “didn’t we just do civil unions?” But since Friday, Harris senses a turning tide. “The fact that it has become such a huge issue in the news here, the dialogue around it… I’ve talked to some, it’s caused them to search long and hard about this. [The Friday floor speech by openly lesbian Rep.] Deborah Mell — what she said really cast this issue in a way that forced colleagues to think about family and what they stand for.”

Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, said that his group did not have a clear sense of which representatives had been unwilling to pass the bill at this juncture, but expressed optimism that the legislative sponsors would share that information going forward. He said activists are mobilizing to win the needed votes later this year. “Almost instantly after the non-vote happened, we’ve been in touch with the chief sponsors to understand what we have to do. The next morning, Equality Illinois was already in Rockford and Quad Cities, fair-minded parts of IL without lawmakers in support of [civil marriage].” While he is hopeful that a favorable DOMA ruling could add to the momentum for the bill, Cherkasov said, “There’s clear momentum already and that’s hopefully them doing the right thing and passing the marriage bill.”

(Springfield, IL) – Insider: The Illinois same sex marriage bill had its deadline date for approval extended into the summer.

House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) acted quietly on Friday night before the House adjourned to extend the bill’s deadline for approval until August 31.

State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) told a packed House chamber on Friday evening that he had to put off a vote on the proposal until November.

However, were Governor Pat Quinn to call lawmakers back to Springfield in the summer for a special session to address pension reform, which also was left without resolution, he could include Senate Bill 10 in a special session proclamation.

If Quinn declines to include marriage equality in any order to lawmakers to return to Springfield, Madigan could call a House special session of his own at the same time to take up the legislation, an insider noted.

“It’s a fascinating move,” said one, long-time lobbyist. “It suggests that there is plan to get it done.”

A veteran Democratic lawmaker briefed on Madigan’s step said, “A potential summer special session would channel the energy and anger of marriage equality backers into productive versus destructive advocacy.”

Nevertheless, during a summer session, House lawmakers would need to amend the bill and change the effective date from “30 days” from a gubernatorial signature to January 1 in order to avoid a 3/5th or 71 vote requirement, an insurmountable hurdle.

Amending the bill’s effective date would also require an Illinois Senate vote to concur with such a change.

A deadline extension by itself resolves none of the political problems associated with the bill’s opponents, but it may give advocates an incentive to work to resolve them before summer’s end.

Stay tuned.

h/t: Illinois Observer

Same-sex couples in Illinois will have to wait even longer for equal rights. In a move that shocked many community members and advocates, the Illinois House ended its current session without calling a vote on the Marriage Equality Bill, SB10. The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act will now sit in legislative limbo until the fall’s “veto session,” where bill sponsor Representative Greg Harris has said he will once again try to put it forward. This current failure in the Illinois General Assembly follows a successful Valentine’s Day vote by the Illinois Senate of 34 to 21, as well as vocal support from Governor Pat Quinn, who has said he would sign the bill into law.

A visibly emotional and upset Rep. Greg Harris made the announcement from the house floor, saying the 60 votes needed for passage simply weren’t there and that colleagues had asked for “more time” for a vote. “I have never been sadder to accept such a request,” Harris said through tears. “In the meantime, I apologize to the families who were hoping to wake up full and equal citizens.”

The stalled marriage bill comes at a time when Democrats hold a veto-proof majority of 71 Dems to just 47 Republicans. Yet pressure from the politically powerful Catholic Church in Illinois as well as some conservative African-American clergy seemed to have peeled off enough support from the bill among some conservative-leaning downstate Democrats, a portion of Black Caucus members, as well as Republicans for the needed 60 votes to fall short.

The current defeat also comes after an earlier unsuccessful attempt by marriage equality advocates in Illinois to pass the marriage equality bill during the lame-duck legislative session in early January. At that time, the bill was successfully voted out of the Senate Executive Committee, but was not considered by the full chamber due to procedural hurdles.

It seems the long road to full equality in “The Prairie State” will continue to wind on, at least for now, as marriage equality supporters look ahead to both the veto session in the house and the current marriage lawsuit making its way through the Illinois court system brought by Lambda Legal and the ACLU.

Illinois Civil Unions: Separate And Unequal

In 2011 Illinois passed the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, a so-called “everything but marriage” law that provided strong civil unions through the state legislature. The act reads broadly about what it provided for same-sex couples, stating:

This Act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to provide adequate procedures for the certification and registration of a civil union and provide persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses. (750 ILCS 75/5)

In short, anyone in a civil union got the same state benefits as someone who is married. The act even put in purposefully broad language about being “liberally construed” to implement the purpose and spirit of the law.

Yet almost immediately, problems with civil unions arose. There was a drawn-out legal battle between Catholic Charities and the state of Illinois over the $30 million in taxpayer dollars that the religious charity received for foster care and adoption services, and their refusal to grant those services to same-sex couples in civil unions, which ended in a loss for the church. This led to a growing tension between the church hierarchy and advancing civil rights. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago likened the city’s pride parade to the Ku Klux Klan, sparking outrage, protests and an eventual half-apology from the cardinal.

There was also the case of the Springfield, Ill., Joint Labor/Management Insurance Committee deciding not to cover health benefits for the civil union partners of city employees. The committee used the different relationship status of same-sex couples and married heterosexual couples to carve out the exemption to civil union spouses. They cited the benefits for same-sex couples being too costly, which is an argument that would never be accepted when applied to a more universally understood institution like full marriage. Public outrage eventually made them change their decision and cover all couples equally.

Perhaps the most illuminating example is the confusing decision by the Illinois Department of Revenue saying that couples in civil unions “may not file joint Illinois returns,” and that the new civil unions law “did not change the Illinois income tax laws.” After much pushing from legislators and the community, the department reversed their decision, allowing same-sex couples in civil unions to file jointly in the state. Yet this confusion within the state government itself over the law shows just how easy it is for civil unions to fall short.

In a show of just how unequal civil unions were, 25 gay and lesbian couples represented by Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois brought a lawsuit seeking to overturn Illinois’ 16-year-old ban on same-sex marriages. Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan decided not to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage and agreed with the lawsuit that the ban is unconstitutional. Cook County Clerk David Orr, who is the subject of the original suits, also agreed that the law was unconstitutional and refuses to defend it as well. A judge granted two downstate Illinois county clerks permission to defend the ban. The Thomas Moore Society, a conservative Chicago-based not-for-profit law firm that opposes gay marriage, filed that request to intervene on behalf of Effingham County Clerk Kerry Hirtzel and Tazewell County Clerk Christie Webb.

Illinois State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) has made clear that the current civil unions law does not offer full equality. “I think the lawsuits that we are seeing move through the courts right now are showing clearly that … all over the state, there are numerous instances where families are being denied their basic rights under civil unions,” Harris said.

In fact, research has shown that in area after area — whether tax law, health insurance, hospitalization, family issues, personal finance or actions by state and local officials — same-sex couples, even ones in civil unions, are treated unequally, denied their basic rights or singled out for discrimination.

These are all glaring examples of why separate is never equal and why moving toward marriage equality was vitally necessary, even if difficult. Civil unions have created a lower class of recognition that, while providing much-needed rights and protections, reinforced the idea that LGBT relationships were less than their heterosexual counterparts. Creating this new, separate and different level of rights and recognition among committed couples only created further inequity, confusion and discord.

Civil unions were considered a first step but never an end goal.

Strong Opposition

Among the strongest opposition to marriage equality was the highly influential and politically powerful Catholic Church. In September 2012 the Catholic Conference of Illinoisannounced the formation of a Defense of Marriage department, whose sole purpose was to fight any future attempts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. The stated goal of the department was to protect the “stature of the nuclear family — which provides love, stability and confidence to children, as well as organization to society.” The Defense of Marriage department started throwing out incendiary (and scientifically unfounded) claims about the “dangers” of marriage equality: “The effects [of same-sex marriage] are evident in the performance of children in school, in truancy and crime rates, and in an ailing culture that too often values feeling good over self-giving, and individuality over the common good.”

Even then-Pope Benedict XVI himself continued the attacks, on marriage equality, saying that gay marriage was a threat to the traditional family that undermined “the future of humanity itself.”

And the Catholic Church wasn’t alone in its opposition. Anticipating the fight over passage of a marriage equality bill, the Coalition to Protect Children and Marriage was unveiled by equality opponents on Dec. 18, 2012. It included the extreme anti-equality organizations like the Illinois Family Institute, Concerned Christian Americans, the Eagle Forum of Illinois, the Illinois Citizens for Life PAC, the Abstinence and Marriage Partnership, Lake County Right to Life and Family-Pac.

A group of of conservative African-American clergy also provided fierce opposition. Bishop Larry Trotter, co-chair of the African American Clergy Coalition, released a statement applauding the bill’s current failure, writing, “Today our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has won! Pastor James Meeks, Bishop Lance Davis and I are so proud of the God fearing Black Caucus members who withstood the pressure of the LGBT forces and allowed God’s word concerning marriage to remain between one man and one woman in Illinois.”

But even this concerted and powerful religious-based opposition, though seemingly successful in swaying some members of the Illinois House, wasn’t enough to stop full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples from enjoying majority support from Illinois voters.

A Right Delayed, A Right Denied

The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act has far-reaching implications for Illinois’ same-sex couples. Under the bill, marriage in Illinois would have changed from an act between “a man and a woman” to one “between two people.” What the law means is simple: ALL couples in Illinois would have the same rights and responsibilities that come with full marriage equality. No one will have to awkwardly say that they are “civil unioned,” then explain what that means to those who don’t know. Couples would all just be married, gay or straight. The confusion over the “separate and unequal” status of same-sex couples, and the problems we have seen under the civil unions law, will come to an end within the state.

These civil unions could have been converted to full marriages within a year of the law going on the books, with out-of-state marriages being recognized immediately. And despite the objections and scare-tactics used by the religious based opposition, the legislation would not have required religious organizations to solemnize a marriage of gay couples, nor would church officials have been forced to allow their facilities to be used by same-sex couples seeking to marry.

The new law could have also meant a financial boon for Illinois. A recent study from The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that extending equal marriage to same-sex couples could add up to $103 million to the state economy and $8.5 million in new state and local tax revenue.

Marriage equality in Illinois would have also had far broader impact on same-sex couples in the state as the U.S. Supreme Court takes on the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” which denies same-sex couples federal benefits equal to their married heterosexual counterparts. The court is expected to rule in June, long before the veto session of the Illinois House. If the act is struck down, the federal government will recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, giving gay couples the full array of rights available to married heterosexual couples. If the law is overturned, couples in Illinois could have seen full marriage equality both within the state and federally in the same year.

But for now, same-sex couples in Illinois will have to continue the long process of watching legislators, judges, politicians, priests, organizations, and every other possible person weigh in on what their relationships should or shouldn’t be. They will have to continue to navigate the maze of what it means to be a same-sex couple simply wishing to declare their love—and access the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.

May we see the light at the end of the tunnel this year with a YES vote for same-sex marriage in the fall session!

H/T: Waymon Hudson at Huffington Post

As you may have known last night, the Illinois House of Representatives gutlessly decided NOT to vote on the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act (IL SB10), which was the bill that would’ve made Illinois the 13th state to legalize marriage equality. This was a bill that I personally thought was going to pass (or at least voted on). Alas, it wasn’t.

As a result, I am really upset at the Illinois House and at House Speaker Michael Madigan especially for allowing a non-vote to happen. Also, ANY Democrat that votes NO to marriage equality in the fall session should get a primary challenger!

The viciously homophobic Illinois Family Institute declared last night’s non-vote a “victory for ‘traditional marriage’”:

The bill to legalize same-sex “marriage” has failed to advance in the Illinois House before lawmakers adjourned for the summer. In a bit of political theater, the bill’s sponsor, homosexual activist Greg Harris (D-Chicago) wept as he stood on the House floor to announce that he didn’t have the votes to pass the bill. In a liberal state like Illinois, this is a truly remarkable victory. 

As Christians we know that all good things are gifts from God, and the retention of sexual complementarity in the government’s definition of marriage is a very good thing. The failure of this bill is a good thing for children, for parental rights, for religious liberty, for the common good, and for truth. 

Despite what the bill’s supporters claim in a dishonest attempt to stigmatize supporters of natural marriage, the retention of sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage bears no kinship to bans on interracial marriage. Nor does it signify injustice to those who seek to marry someone of the same sex. The failure of this bill signifies that marriage has a nature which the government merely recognizes and regulates, central to which is sexual complementarity. 

We should praise and thank God for this victory in an ever-expanding war on truth, and then redouble our efforts to preserve true marriage. Those who have worked so hard deserve a moment to celebrate and rest—but not for long. Representative Harris has promised to bring this bill back in the Fall Veto Session.

Dear IFI, you may be celebrating in the short-term, but just you wait until the SCOTUS verdicts on DOMA and/or Prop 8 go against your side and the Illinois legislatures vote again on this issue in November, you won’t be celebrating then. This non-vote on IL SB10 in the house is NOT a “victory” at all, it is just a delay of the game or even a defeat.

Homophobic cranks at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) also gloated last night’s non-vote in the House as a “victory.”
NOM:

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today celebrated the failure of legislation to come to a vote late this evening in Illinois seeking to redefine marriage, thus preserving marriage in the state as the union of one man and one woman. The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Greg Harris, announced this evening that he did not have the votes to pass the measure and would not bring the legislation to a vote. Assuming this is the case, the bill is thus dead until the fall when the Legislature reconvenes for a veto session. 

“This effort to redefine marriage in Illinois was one of the most fiercely contested legislative battles in the country this year,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “This is a great victory for our allies and supporters, as well as Illinois families who have worked tirelessly with us to preserve marriage in Illinois. We are gratified that our collective hard work has paid off in this stunning victory.” 

“So much for the inevitability of gay marriage,” said Brian Brown. “With a coalition that included strong support from the African American community as well as so many others throughout the state, we did what nobody in the intelligentsia thought was possible. This is a huge victory at a pivotal time, and totally undercuts the lie that somehow same-sex marriage is inevitable.”

What you’re really doing, NOM, is that you’re only delaying the inevitable passage of marriage equality in the state.


But here’s the good news: When the Fall Veto Session resumes, hopefully we’ll get marriage equality passed and done right!! Pray for it to be passed this fall!!!


Chicago Phoenix:

SPRINGFIELD — Illinois gay and lesbian couples will not wake up to the promise of full marriage equality on Saturday. 

In a devastating and unexpected blow to marriage equality supporters Friday, the sponsor of a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage was unable to call the measure up for vote before time ran out on the legislative session. 

The sudden and resounding defeat for marriage proponents ends an intense, emotional, and at times nasty months-long debate over the issue in the Spring legislative session, but hope remains for another shot in the November veto session. 

All of that was felt in the House chamber when Rep. Greg Harris, the bill’s sponsor stood to speak minutes before adjournment.
The entire room fell silent. 

Harris rose from his chair, and in a tearful message to the Illinois House, said he was unable to convince enough of his fellow lawmakers and achieve a 60-vote majority required to pass the bill. Those assembled in the gallery erupted, shouting “Call the vote!” But Harris stood, momentarily crippled by the response, and then continued to explain.
The state General Assembly will return for the veto session later this year.

More on the IL marriage equality fight, see the #IL4M tag on Justin’s Political Corner: http://justinspoliticalcorner.tumblr.com/tagged/IL4M


Twitter/Instagram hashtags in support of IL SB10: #IL4M, #ILove, #ILequality, #ILSB10, #FightBackIL

(cross-posted from JGibsonBlog)

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Lawmakers in Nigeria passed a bill Thursday banning gay marriage and outlawing anyone from forming organizations supporting gay rights, setting prison terms of up to 14 years for offenders.

Nigeria’s House of Representatives approved the bill in a voice vote, likely sending it immediately to President Goodluck Jonathan for him to potentially sign into law in Africa’s most populous nation. Whether he will approve it remains unclear, and both the United States and the United Kingdom raised concerns over a measure that could put foreign funding for AIDS and HIV outreach programs in jeopardy.

Nigeria’s Senate previously passed the bill in November 2011 and the measure quietly disappeared for some time before coming up in Thursday’s session of the House. Under previous versions of the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars.

Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly.” Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.

While the bill read Thursday during the House session appeared to be similar, The Associated Press could not immediately obtain a copy of the version lawmakers passed. If there are differences between the House and Senate versions, a joint committee of lawmakers will have to first iron out those differences before sending it to the president.

Presidential spokesman Reuben Abati did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Gay sex has been banned in Nigeria, a nation of more than 160 million people, since colonial rule by the British. Gays face open discrimination and abuse in a country divided by Christians and Muslims who almost uniformly oppose homosexuality. Across the African continent, many countries already have made homosexuality punishable by jail sentences.

Nigeria’s proposed law has drawn the interest of European Union countries, some of which already offer Nigeria’s sexual minorities asylum based on gender identity. The British government recently threatened to cut aid to African countries that violate the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. However, British aid remains quite small in oil-rich Nigeria, one of the top crude suppliers to the U.S.

A spokesman for the British High Commission in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, could not be immediately reached for comment.

The measure also could affect HIV and AIDS outreach programs funding by USAID, an arm of the U.S. government. Nigeria has the world’s third-largest population of people living with HIV and AIDS. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy could not be immediately reached.

(Chicago) –Insider: The same sex marriage bill remains within striking distance, but, still, lacks the votes to pass the Illinois House.

A top Democrat told The Illinois Observer on Wednesday night, “The roll call is in the high 50s. It’s close; it’s almost there.”

The magic number to pass the House is 60.

The legislation, Senate Bill 10, received a big boost this week with a pledge of support from State Rep.LaShawn Ford (D-Chicago) who bucked the opposition of his powerful, local ministers.

The House Black Caucus and Latino Caucus have been the principal Democratic holdouts against the legislation sponsored by State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago).

Polling this spring in the districts of African-American legislators revealed overwhelming opposition by rank-and-file African-American voters.

Additionally, vocal opposition by black clergy has further frightened members of the legislative Black Caucus from publicly embracing the bill.

Some pro-marriage equality activists, who have been chafing at the Illinois House’s inaction this spring while other states have swiftly approved their own same sex marriage bills, have grown increasingly frustrated with House Speaker Michael Madigan, arguing that he only needs to “twist some arms” to get to 60.

“Madigan is loathe to force a member to vote against his or her district and to anger a majority of his or her constituents,” said an insider. “That’s how expensive primary challenges are created, which waste money needed to beat Republicans in the fall.”

The insider also noted that a string of controversial votes taken during the spring legislative session could ignite multiple primary contests for Democrats next year.

“The pension vote and the conceal carry vote have already exposed multiple Democrats to potential primary challenges,” said the insider. “A risky same sex marriage vote will just expand the pool of Democratic incumbents staring at a primary fight.”

And the insider noted the irony of the “twist some arms” attitude of activists.

“You know, this group and other groups always want Madigan to ‘twist some arms’ of lawmakers for their pet project and then they will turn around three days later and slam him for his ‘dictatorial’ control of the House,” said the source. “He can’t win.”

The legislature is scheduled to adjourn on Friday, May 31 at midnight.

“In 36 hours, a lot can happen in this place,” said the top Democrat.

Stay tuned.

H/T: David Ormsby at Illinois Observer

With two days left in the Illinois legislative session, President Obama reiterated his support for a marriage equality bill there, telling attendees at a fundraising dinner in Chicago Wednesday night that passage of the bill is “the right thing to do.”

“Here in Illinois, we’ve got a vote on same-sex marriage that’s going to be coming up in the state legislature. And I just want to say for the record it’s something that I deeply support,” Obama said at the event held to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The remarks came at a dinner held at the home of Bettylu and Paul Saltzman in Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood, which the DCCC estimated would be attended by 70 people. Obama made no mention of the marriage measure in his earlier speech to a larger audience, which the DCCC estimated at 150 people, at the Hilton Chicago.

The Illinois Senate already passed a marriage equality bill, but the bill has not been brought to a vote yet in the Illinois House, where supporters have claimed they have the 60 needed votes for passage but confirmation of those numbers has been hard to come by.

H/T: Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed