By Wesley Pruden
-
The Washington Times
Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.
The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes.
Everybody who imagined himself anybody raced to Copenhagen last year for the global-warming summit, renamed "climate change" when the globe began to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there's no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year, says he'll be too busy with congressional business (buying stamps for the Christmas cards and getting a haircut and a shoeshine) even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all. This year, they're all staying home, learning to live like lame ducks.
The Senate's California ladies, cheerleaders for the global-warming scam only yesterday, can't get far enough away from Cancun this year. Dianne Feinstein says she's not even thinking about the weather. "I haven't really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you," she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. She still loves the scam, but "no - no, no, no, it's just that I'm not on a committee related to it." She's grateful for small blessings.
Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her "signature" issue only last year, obviously regards that signature now to be a forgery. She would like to be in Cancun, but she has to stay home to wash her hair. She's not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. "I'm sending a statement to Cancun." (Stop the press for that.)
This is another lesson that Washington's swamp fevers inevitably subside. Who now remembers Smoot-Hawley, Quemoy and Matsu, and the Teapot Dome? But these were once issues on which the survival of the known world rested. The only global-warming news of this week was the announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the eardrums of one and all, a platform for endless argle-bargle about the causes and effects of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there's no longer an appetite for killing jobs.
Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, a splashy daylong exercise in gasbaggery starring the usual suspects assigned to drone on for most of the day about the coming global-warming disasters, the melting of the North Pole and the rising of the seas that would make Denver, Omaha and Kansas City seaside resorts. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an "environmental attorney" who talked about how "clean energy" is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, as bored as everyone else, didn't bother to return after lunch.
The members of the committee can now retire with their scrapbooks of clippings to recall the happy days of hearings about global warming (some of them before "global warming" became "climate change" and "liberals" became "progressives"), about how clean energy could replace smelly oil wells and provide Democrats with the means to enact sweeping climate-change legislation. Who could have foreseen that the only "sweeping" would be the sweeping out of so many Democrats?
When the thrill is gone, the thrill is gone, as star-crossed lovers have learned through the ages, and when a scam collapses, it stays collapsed. The thought is enough to warm hearts all across the globe.
- Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/?page=1
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
CNN Reporter Put On Watch List After Criticizing TSA
Big Sis has a history of pursuing political witch hunts
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010
In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it’s revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.
As we highlighted earlier this week, a reported TSA memo was circulated at the height of last month’s opt out controversy which “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”
In response to the story, former Congressman Bob Barr filed a Freedom of Information Act request which demanded to know if the TSA had categorized those leading the charge against invasive security measures, namely Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, and John Tyner, via the websites drudgereport.com and prisonplanet.com, as “domestic extremists”.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Homeland Security has engaged in political witch hunts against Americans critical of big government. Earlier this year, Big Sis was caught spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
The TSA itself has also listed journalists critical of its policies as potential terrorists, ostensibly as a punishment and a warning to other reporters that if they broadcast anything negative about the agency then they will be bracketed together with Al-Qaeda members and be forced to endure copious amounts of hassle and harassment every time they wish to fly.
Shortly after he began a series of investigative reports that were critical of the TSA in May 2008, CNN journalist Drew Griffin was placed on a watch list that at the time had swelled to over a million names. TSA claimed that he was unfortunate enough to share the name with another Drew Griffin who had been legitimately placed on the list, but then denied that he was on the list altogether and blamed the airlines. The airlines responded by saying they were merely following a list provided to them by the TSA.
“Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA,” said Griffin. “Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket,” Griffin reported. “What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I’m not on the watch list, and don’t even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even.”
Given the fact that the TSA has made a habit out of deceiving the American people and spinning the truth about airport security, the notion that Griffin was deliberately targeted by the TSA as a punishment for his critical reports about the agency is almost a given.
The fact that the TSA curtailed its so-called ‘imperative’ security measures for several days around Thanksgiving as a political ploy to deflate the opt out day protest shows that the agency will go to any lengths to deflect criticism.
The TSA has now announced that it will check the name of every traveler against a government watch list 72 hours before they fly, greasing the skids for “domestic extremists” who exercise their first amendment right to speak out against the TSA to be harassed and hindered.
Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was later confronted on the Griffin case by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Chertoff parroted the TSA line in claiming that Griffin merely had the same name as another suspected terrorist.
The outcome of Bob Barr’s FOIA request is eagerly awaited as it will give an insight into how the TSA responded internally to the national outrage surrounding body scanners and pat downs, while also giving an indication as to whether people like Matt Drudge and Alex Jones were placed on a watch list for having the temerity to stand up to children being sexually molested by low-paid thugs in uniforms.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-reporter-put-on-watch-list-after-criticizing-tsa.html
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010
In light of new reports alleging that the TSA is creating a watch list of individuals who criticized the agency as a form of collective punishment, it’s revealing to note that CNN journalist Drew Griffin was also put on a TSA watch list immediately after he filed reports critical of the organization back in 2008.
As we highlighted earlier this week, a reported TSA memo was circulated at the height of last month’s opt out controversy which “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”
In response to the story, former Congressman Bob Barr filed a Freedom of Information Act request which demanded to know if the TSA had categorized those leading the charge against invasive security measures, namely Matt Drudge, Alex Jones, and John Tyner, via the websites drudgereport.com and prisonplanet.com, as “domestic extremists”.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that Homeland Security has engaged in political witch hunts against Americans critical of big government. Earlier this year, Big Sis was caught spying on Tea Party groups as well as State Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
The TSA itself has also listed journalists critical of its policies as potential terrorists, ostensibly as a punishment and a warning to other reporters that if they broadcast anything negative about the agency then they will be bracketed together with Al-Qaeda members and be forced to endure copious amounts of hassle and harassment every time they wish to fly.
Shortly after he began a series of investigative reports that were critical of the TSA in May 2008, CNN journalist Drew Griffin was placed on a watch list that at the time had swelled to over a million names. TSA claimed that he was unfortunate enough to share the name with another Drew Griffin who had been legitimately placed on the list, but then denied that he was on the list altogether and blamed the airlines. The airlines responded by saying they were merely following a list provided to them by the TSA.
“Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA,” said Griffin. “Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket,” Griffin reported. “What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I’m not on the watch list, and don’t even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even.”
Given the fact that the TSA has made a habit out of deceiving the American people and spinning the truth about airport security, the notion that Griffin was deliberately targeted by the TSA as a punishment for his critical reports about the agency is almost a given.
The fact that the TSA curtailed its so-called ‘imperative’ security measures for several days around Thanksgiving as a political ploy to deflate the opt out day protest shows that the agency will go to any lengths to deflect criticism.
The TSA has now announced that it will check the name of every traveler against a government watch list 72 hours before they fly, greasing the skids for “domestic extremists” who exercise their first amendment right to speak out against the TSA to be harassed and hindered.
Former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was later confronted on the Griffin case by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Chertoff parroted the TSA line in claiming that Griffin merely had the same name as another suspected terrorist.
The outcome of Bob Barr’s FOIA request is eagerly awaited as it will give an insight into how the TSA responded internally to the national outrage surrounding body scanners and pat downs, while also giving an indication as to whether people like Matt Drudge and Alex Jones were placed on a watch list for having the temerity to stand up to children being sexually molested by low-paid thugs in uniforms.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnn-reporter-put-on-watch-list-after-criticizing-tsa.html
Fed aid in financial crisis went beyond U.S. banks to industry, foreign firms
By Jia Lynn Yang, Neil Irwin and David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 2, 2010; 12:15 AM
The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.
The Fed's efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota. The central bank's aid programs also supported U.S. subsidiaries of banks based in East Asia, Europe and Canada while rescuing money-market mutual funds held by millions of Americans.
The biggest users of the Fed lending programs were some of the world's largest banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain's Barclays, according to more than 21,000 loan records released Wednesday under new financial regulatory legislation.
The data reveal banks turning to the Fed for help almost daily in the fall of 2008 as the central bank lowered lending standards and extended relief to all kinds of institutions it had never assisted before.
Fed officials emphasize that their actions were meant to stabilize a financial system that was on the verge of collapse in late 2008. They note that the actions worked to prevent a complete financial meltdown and that none of the special lending programs has lost money. (Some have recorded healthy profits for taxpayers.)
But the extent of the lending to major banks - and the generous terms of some of those deals - heighten the political peril for a central bank that is already under the gun for a wide range of actions, including a recent decision to try to stimulate the economy by buying $600 billion in U.S. bonds.
"The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America," said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. "Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions."
The Fed launched emergency programs totaling $3.3 trillion in aid, a figure reached by adding up the peak amount of lending in each program.
Companies that few people would associate with Wall Street benefited through the Fed's program to ease the market for commercial paper, a form of short-term debt used by major corporations to fund their daily activities.
By the fall of 2008, credit had frozen across the financial system, including the commercial paper market. The Fed then purchased commercial paper issued by GE 12 times for a total of $16 billion. It bought paper from Harley-Davidson 33 times, for a total of $2.3 billion. It picked up debt issued by Verizon twice, totaling $1.5 billion.
"It is hard to say what would have happened without the facility, and how its absence might have affected GE, but overall the program was extremely effective in helping stabilize the market," GE spokesman Russell Wilkerson said by e-mail.
Verizon spokesman Robert A. Varettoni said that it was "an extraordinary time," adding that there was no credit available otherwise at the time.
The data revealed that the Fed continued making purchases into the summer of 2009 - after the official end of the recession - showing that it was still concerned about a fundamental part of the financial system even as economic growth was returning.
The disclosure shows "how really profound the financial crisis was in the fall of 2008 and the firepower the Fed mustered in response," said analyst Karen Shaw Petrou of Federal Financial Analytics.
Foreign-owned banks also benefited from the Fed's commercial-paper facility. The Korean Development Bank, owned by the South Korean government, used the program to the tune of billions of dollars, including a $407 million short-term loan on a single day. Many foreign banks, including the French BNP Paribas, the Swiss UBS and the German Deutsche Bank, took extensive advantage of various programs. Even a major bank in Bavaria benefited, as well as another one headquartered in Bahrain, a tiny island country in the Middle East.
Another Fed program allowed investment banks for the first time to borrow directly from the Fed as officials sought to stem the panic that had taken down Wall Street titan Bear Stearns. The central bank assisted 18 companies through this program. Among the biggest beneficiaries was Citigroup, which in a single day in November 2008 borrowed $18.6 billion from the Fed.
The data also demonstrate how the Fed, in its scramble to keep the financial system afloat, eventually lowered its standards for the kind of collateral it allowed participating banks to post. From Citigroup, for instance, it accepted $156 million in triple-C collateral or lower - grades that indicate that the assets carried the greatest risk of default.
Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher defended the Fed's actions during the financial crisis, saying the central bank "stepped into the breach" in its role as a lender of last resort.
"That's what we are paid to do," he said. "We took an enormous amount of risk with the people's money," he acknowledged. But the crisis lending programs are now all closed, he said, "and we didn't lose a dime, and in fact we made money on every one of them."
The banks universally hailed the Fed on Wednesday.
"In late 2008, many of the US funding markets were clearly broken," Goldman Sachs said in a statement, echoing similar comments made by Bank of America and Citigroup. "The Federal Reserve took essential steps to fix these markets and its actions were very successful."
By 2009, Goldman and other Wall Street firms were reporting their best profits ever. That allowed these banks to pay out huge salaries again, but it also drew the ire of lawmakers and ordinary Americans.
Sanders, for one, said these banks got off easy while receiving extraordinary aid. In rescuing these firms, the Fed never required them to lend to small businesses, modify the mortgages of homeowners or invest in a way that would create jobs.
"We bailed these guys out, but the requirements placed upon them had very little positive impact on the needs of ordinary Americans," Sanders said.
yangjl@washpost.com irwinn@washpost.com hilzenrath@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870_2.html?sid=ST2010120106876
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 2, 2010; 12:15 AM
The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.
The Fed's efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota. The central bank's aid programs also supported U.S. subsidiaries of banks based in East Asia, Europe and Canada while rescuing money-market mutual funds held by millions of Americans.
The biggest users of the Fed lending programs were some of the world's largest banks, including Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Swiss-based UBS and Britain's Barclays, according to more than 21,000 loan records released Wednesday under new financial regulatory legislation.
The data reveal banks turning to the Fed for help almost daily in the fall of 2008 as the central bank lowered lending standards and extended relief to all kinds of institutions it had never assisted before.
Fed officials emphasize that their actions were meant to stabilize a financial system that was on the verge of collapse in late 2008. They note that the actions worked to prevent a complete financial meltdown and that none of the special lending programs has lost money. (Some have recorded healthy profits for taxpayers.)
But the extent of the lending to major banks - and the generous terms of some of those deals - heighten the political peril for a central bank that is already under the gun for a wide range of actions, including a recent decision to try to stimulate the economy by buying $600 billion in U.S. bonds.
"The American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multitrillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America," said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime Fed critic whose provision in the Wall Street regulatory overhaul required the new disclosures. "Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions."
The Fed launched emergency programs totaling $3.3 trillion in aid, a figure reached by adding up the peak amount of lending in each program.
Companies that few people would associate with Wall Street benefited through the Fed's program to ease the market for commercial paper, a form of short-term debt used by major corporations to fund their daily activities.
By the fall of 2008, credit had frozen across the financial system, including the commercial paper market. The Fed then purchased commercial paper issued by GE 12 times for a total of $16 billion. It bought paper from Harley-Davidson 33 times, for a total of $2.3 billion. It picked up debt issued by Verizon twice, totaling $1.5 billion.
"It is hard to say what would have happened without the facility, and how its absence might have affected GE, but overall the program was extremely effective in helping stabilize the market," GE spokesman Russell Wilkerson said by e-mail.
Verizon spokesman Robert A. Varettoni said that it was "an extraordinary time," adding that there was no credit available otherwise at the time.
The data revealed that the Fed continued making purchases into the summer of 2009 - after the official end of the recession - showing that it was still concerned about a fundamental part of the financial system even as economic growth was returning.
The disclosure shows "how really profound the financial crisis was in the fall of 2008 and the firepower the Fed mustered in response," said analyst Karen Shaw Petrou of Federal Financial Analytics.
Foreign-owned banks also benefited from the Fed's commercial-paper facility. The Korean Development Bank, owned by the South Korean government, used the program to the tune of billions of dollars, including a $407 million short-term loan on a single day. Many foreign banks, including the French BNP Paribas, the Swiss UBS and the German Deutsche Bank, took extensive advantage of various programs. Even a major bank in Bavaria benefited, as well as another one headquartered in Bahrain, a tiny island country in the Middle East.
Another Fed program allowed investment banks for the first time to borrow directly from the Fed as officials sought to stem the panic that had taken down Wall Street titan Bear Stearns. The central bank assisted 18 companies through this program. Among the biggest beneficiaries was Citigroup, which in a single day in November 2008 borrowed $18.6 billion from the Fed.
The data also demonstrate how the Fed, in its scramble to keep the financial system afloat, eventually lowered its standards for the kind of collateral it allowed participating banks to post. From Citigroup, for instance, it accepted $156 million in triple-C collateral or lower - grades that indicate that the assets carried the greatest risk of default.
Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher defended the Fed's actions during the financial crisis, saying the central bank "stepped into the breach" in its role as a lender of last resort.
"That's what we are paid to do," he said. "We took an enormous amount of risk with the people's money," he acknowledged. But the crisis lending programs are now all closed, he said, "and we didn't lose a dime, and in fact we made money on every one of them."
The banks universally hailed the Fed on Wednesday.
"In late 2008, many of the US funding markets were clearly broken," Goldman Sachs said in a statement, echoing similar comments made by Bank of America and Citigroup. "The Federal Reserve took essential steps to fix these markets and its actions were very successful."
By 2009, Goldman and other Wall Street firms were reporting their best profits ever. That allowed these banks to pay out huge salaries again, but it also drew the ire of lawmakers and ordinary Americans.
Sanders, for one, said these banks got off easy while receiving extraordinary aid. In rescuing these firms, the Fed never required them to lend to small businesses, modify the mortgages of homeowners or invest in a way that would create jobs.
"We bailed these guys out, but the requirements placed upon them had very little positive impact on the needs of ordinary Americans," Sanders said.
yangjl@washpost.com irwinn@washpost.com hilzenrath@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870_2.html?sid=ST2010120106876
Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines say letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.
Their assessment, expected Friday at a Senate hearing, was likely to become political ammunition for Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans fighting to keep Congress from repealing the 1993 law that prohibits gays from acknowledging their sexual orientation. Democrats have promised a vote this month to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law, although its chances of passing this year were considered dim.
"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Testimony from Amos and the other service chiefs was obtained in advance by The Associated Press.
President Barack Obama has called on Congress to overturn the ban on openly gay service. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed and ordered a 10-month study looking at the attitudes of service members toward gay troops.
Released earlier this week, the study found that about 30 percent of troops predicted problems would occur if "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed.
Most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield.
"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said.
His assessment was generally backed by the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who led the Iraq war under President George W. Bush. Casey said the policy shift, if implemented properly, wouldn't keep the Army from doing its job, and he predicted repeal would pose only a moderate risk to his force.
But, he added, changing the law now would "add another level of stress to any already stretched force" and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.
Gates and Mullen have said they believe resistance can be addressed through training and education. They also cite experience with gay troops as a mitigating factor. According to the study, 84 percent of Marines in combat roles who find they're working with a gay comrade said they did not see any negative impact on unit morale or cohesion.
"In terms of actual disruption experienced, as opposed to predicted disruption, the distinction between combat arms communities and the force as a whole is negligible," said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the No. 2 officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Air Force and Navy chiefs were expected to offer considerably milder assessments of repeal than their Army and Marine counterparts. According to the study, some 70 percent of airmen and sailors predict few problems with lifting the ban.
The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change. But, he said, he did not think any long-term damage would occur if certain steps were taken, such as increased training, and he recommended repeal.
The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, predicted the risk to his force would be moderate. He suggested, however, deferring any policy changes until 2012 so as not to place any "additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time."
McCain has dismissed the military study as flawed because it did not ask troops whether they thought the law should be repealed in the first place, focusing instead on the impact repeal might have. McCain also contends that Pentagon leadership was glossing over serious objections expressed by troops in Marine and Army combat roles at a time of two wars.
Cartwright counters in his testimony that implementing change at a time of war might actually be preferable because troops are focused on their mission.
"The challenges associated with making a change of any kind that seem enormous during periods of inactivity become less distracting when you are defending your nation and comrades," he said.
---
Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101203/D9JSD7TO0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The top uniformed officers of the Army and the Marines say letting gays serve openly in the military at a time of war would be divisive and difficult, sharply challenging a new Pentagon study that calculates the risk as low.
Their assessment, expected Friday at a Senate hearing, was likely to become political ammunition for Arizona Sen. John McCain and other Republicans fighting to keep Congress from repealing the 1993 law that prohibits gays from acknowledging their sexual orientation. Democrats have promised a vote this month to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law, although its chances of passing this year were considered dim.
"If the law is changed, successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level, as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus of preparing units for combat," the Marine commandant, Gen. James Amos, said in remarks prepared for delivery to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Testimony from Amos and the other service chiefs was obtained in advance by The Associated Press.
President Barack Obama has called on Congress to overturn the ban on openly gay service. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, agreed and ordered a 10-month study looking at the attitudes of service members toward gay troops.
Released earlier this week, the study found that about 30 percent of troops predicted problems would occur if "don't ask, don't tell" were repealed.
Most of the troops with concerns were serving in combat roles. Nearly 60 percent of troops in the Marine Corps and in Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said they thought allowing gays to be open about their sexual orientation would hurt their units' ability to fight on the battlefield.
"I cannot reconcile, nor turn my back, on the negative perceptions held by our Marines who are most engaged in the hard work of day-to-day operations in Afghanistan," Amos said.
His assessment was generally backed by the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, who led the Iraq war under President George W. Bush. Casey said the policy shift, if implemented properly, wouldn't keep the Army from doing its job, and he predicted repeal would pose only a moderate risk to his force.
But, he added, changing the law now would "add another level of stress to any already stretched force" and be more difficult on the Army, particularly its combat units, than the recent Pentagon study suggests.
Gates and Mullen have said they believe resistance can be addressed through training and education. They also cite experience with gay troops as a mitigating factor. According to the study, 84 percent of Marines in combat roles who find they're working with a gay comrade said they did not see any negative impact on unit morale or cohesion.
"In terms of actual disruption experienced, as opposed to predicted disruption, the distinction between combat arms communities and the force as a whole is negligible," said Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the No. 2 officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Air Force and Navy chiefs were expected to offer considerably milder assessments of repeal than their Army and Marine counterparts. According to the study, some 70 percent of airmen and sailors predict few problems with lifting the ban.
The chief of naval operations, Adm. Gary Roughead, said it was likely that some highly trained combat sailors, including Navy SEALs, might refuse to re-enlist in protest of the personnel change. But, he said, he did not think any long-term damage would occur if certain steps were taken, such as increased training, and he recommended repeal.
The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, predicted the risk to his force would be moderate. He suggested, however, deferring any policy changes until 2012 so as not to place any "additional discretionary demands on our leadership cadres in Afghanistan at this particularly challenging time."
McCain has dismissed the military study as flawed because it did not ask troops whether they thought the law should be repealed in the first place, focusing instead on the impact repeal might have. McCain also contends that Pentagon leadership was glossing over serious objections expressed by troops in Marine and Army combat roles at a time of two wars.
Cartwright counters in his testimony that implementing change at a time of war might actually be preferable because troops are focused on their mission.
"The challenges associated with making a change of any kind that seem enormous during periods of inactivity become less distracting when you are defending your nation and comrades," he said.
---
Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101203/D9JSD7TO0.html
NYT-Editorial----The House Rebukes Mr. Rangel
The tragic tale of Representative Charles Rangel’s ethics violations has ended with a deserved vote of censure by his peers in the House, despite the once powerful lawmaker’s pleas for a less humiliating reprimand.
Mr. Rangel, summoned to the well of the House to be rebuked for having “violated the public trust,” insisted that his failures were of repeated sloppiness not corruption. That admission came only after two years of arrogant denials and evasion during the inquiry.
In the end, he could not challenge the facts of the many ways he brought discredit on his own legacy. Among the 11 violations of ethics rules and federal laws cited, were soliciting funds from special interest donors to a university center bearing his name and failing for years to fully disclose his income and pay his taxes. The latter is particularly scandalous considering the New York Democrat was once the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the nation’s chief tax writer.
The mood on the House floor was appropriately grim. Meanwhile, watchdog groups on the right and left united in warning that voters expect something far better of lawmakers and far more vigilance from Congress. They put the incoming Republican speaker, John Boehner, on notice not to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, to do real investigations and stiffen the committee’s spine. The nonpartisan office contributed a 329-page report in the Rangel investigation and must remain a vital force.
We are not sure the committee has learned its lesson. This week, Representative Maxine Waters was supposed to go on trial for alleged ethics violations. That has now been postponed after the announced discovery of additional e-mail evidence. What the committee has not explained is why the two chief investigators on the case were also removed this week.
Ms. Waters has denied allegations that she set up a meeting to seek Treasury Department help for a bank in which her husband owned stock. She is understandably demanding an explanation for the sudden sidetracking.
Taxpayers disgusted by Mr. Rangel’s actions and Congress’s go-along-get-along attitude must demand more, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03fri4.html?ref=opinion
Mr. Rangel, summoned to the well of the House to be rebuked for having “violated the public trust,” insisted that his failures were of repeated sloppiness not corruption. That admission came only after two years of arrogant denials and evasion during the inquiry.
In the end, he could not challenge the facts of the many ways he brought discredit on his own legacy. Among the 11 violations of ethics rules and federal laws cited, were soliciting funds from special interest donors to a university center bearing his name and failing for years to fully disclose his income and pay his taxes. The latter is particularly scandalous considering the New York Democrat was once the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the nation’s chief tax writer.
The mood on the House floor was appropriately grim. Meanwhile, watchdog groups on the right and left united in warning that voters expect something far better of lawmakers and far more vigilance from Congress. They put the incoming Republican speaker, John Boehner, on notice not to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, to do real investigations and stiffen the committee’s spine. The nonpartisan office contributed a 329-page report in the Rangel investigation and must remain a vital force.
We are not sure the committee has learned its lesson. This week, Representative Maxine Waters was supposed to go on trial for alleged ethics violations. That has now been postponed after the announced discovery of additional e-mail evidence. What the committee has not explained is why the two chief investigators on the case were also removed this week.
Ms. Waters has denied allegations that she set up a meeting to seek Treasury Department help for a bank in which her husband owned stock. She is understandably demanding an explanation for the sudden sidetracking.
Taxpayers disgusted by Mr. Rangel’s actions and Congress’s go-along-get-along attitude must demand more, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/opinion/03fri4.html?ref=opinion
Rangel Censured Over Violations of Ethics Rules
DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
WASHINGTON — Representative Charles B. Rangel, his gaze steady and his hands clasped before him, stood silently in the well of the House of Representatives on Thursday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi somberly read a resolution censuring him for bringing discredit to the House
Ms. Pelosi issued the punishment minutes after the House voted 333 to 79 for the censure, the most severe sanction it can administer short of expulsion.
The vote made Mr. Rangel, a Democrat, the 23rd member of the House to be censured, and the first in nearly three decades.
After receiving his punishment, Mr. Rangel, 80, asked for a minute to address his colleagues and told them: “I know in my heart I am not going to be judged by this Congress. I’ll be judged by my life in its entirety.”
Mr. Rangel and his allies had pleaded for mercy, arguing that his transgressions, which included failure to pay income taxes and misuse of his office to solicit fund-raising donations, deserved the more lenient punishment of a reprimand. But that effort failed, 267 to 146.
The censure marks a staggering fall for Mr. Rangel, who has represented Harlem for half of his life, and had risen to become one of the most prominent and well-liked members of Congress. Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, called upon Mr. Rangel to appear before her, and, in a subdued tone, read the one-paragraph resolution noting his 11 violations of Congressional ethics rules.
Still, talking to reporters after leaving the House floor, Mr. Rangel’s old pugnacity returned as he denounced the vote as partisan.
“I am confident that when the history of this has been written,” he said, “people will recognize that the vote for censure was a very, very, very political vote.”
Referring to misdeeds of others who had been censured, he said: “I did not curse out the speaker. I did not have sex with minors. I did not steal money.” When a reporter asked him what he felt as he stood in the well, he asked, “Are you a licensed psychiatrist?”
Only two Republicans, Representatives Peter T. King of New York and Don Young of Alaska, voted against the censure resolution. African-American members largely stood with Mr. Rangel, too, with just one member of the Congressional Black Caucus casting a vote for the censure.
“I have never heard anyone question Charlie Rangel’s integrity,” Mr. King said in his remarks on the House floor.
Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War and the civil rights movement, has been one of the most recognizable political figures in New York and Washington, known for his feisty advocacy of liberal policies. When Democrats seized control of the House in 2006, he earned the title of his career: chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
That prominence, however, was short-lived. In July 2008, news reports detailed his acceptance of several rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan real estate magnate at prices far below market. Mr. Rangel denied any wrongdoing but asked the ethics committee to investigate.
In the months that followed, new problems emerged, including his failure to pay taxes on rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic or to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on financial disclosure forms.
Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising for a City College school being built in his honor also became part of the ethics inquiry because he used Congressional stationery and postage to request donations and asked for contributions from companies and executives with business before Congress.
In one case, Mr. Rangel’s committee helped preserve a tax loophole worth hundreds of millions of dollars for an oil-drilling company that pledged $1 million.
Mr. Rangel denied using his office to benefit donors or to enrich himself, saying he was guilty only of bookkeeping errors. But under heavy pressure, he gave up his cherished chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
After dragging out the ethics investigation for two years with aggressive legal challenges, Mr. Rangel walked out of a public hearing on the matter last month, saying he no longer could afford a lawyer. The ethics committee brushed aside his objections and found him guilty of 11 of 13 charges against him.
While the vote on Thursday seemed a foregone conclusion, suspense built when Mr. Rangel’s allies forced a floor vote on a motion to reduce the punishment to a reprimand. They argued that his misconduct did not approach the seriousness of others who had been censured, and that such a sanction would be extreme. The last two members who were censured, for example, had each been found guilty of having sexual relations with a Congressional page.
Mr. Rangel received unexpected support from Representative John S. Tanner of Tennessee, a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
“As a lawyer, I also respect precedent,” said Mr. Tanner, who urged his colleagues to vote for a reprimand. “I have searched this record and find no activity involving moral turpitude, or any activity that could be classified as one with criminal intent.”
Representative Robert C. Scott, a Virginia Democrat who took part in the ethics committee’s investigation, also urged members to use restraint in meting out punishment.
“He knows he messed up,” Mr. Scott said. “He knows he will be punished. He just asks that he is punished like everyone else.”
The remarks echoed those contained in an e-mail that Mr. Rangel had sent to some 25,000 constituents and admirers over the past week, in which he asked them to call their representatives and seek mercy for him.
“I brought it on my myself, but I still believe this body has to be guided by fairness,” Mr. Rangel said, repeatedly asserting that he had not tried to enrich himself by his actions.
But other members said Mr. Rangel’s violations were too serious to warrant only a reprimand.
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the ethics committee, said that in the past, censure had been used for members who had used unparliamentary language and that Mr. Rangel had promised voters that Democrats would run the most ethical Congress in history.
“We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard,” Ms. Lofgren said. “Mr. Rangel himself has acknowledged that.”
Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who sits on the ethics committee, said members needed to take a firm stand in order to restore the public’s trust in Congress, which is near all-time lows.
“Credibility is exactly what is at stake at here,” Mr. McCaul said. “The credibility of the House of Representatives before the American people.”
Mr. Rangel’s long battle over the ethics charges has transfixed New York City’s political establishment and set off speculation about how long he will remain in office. Several Democrats are eyeing the seat, but no major figure dared to challenge Mr. Rangel this year, when he easily won re-election.
After the censure vote, reporters pressed the congressman about whether he would serve out the rest of his term, and run again. “At my age,” he replied, “I don’t buy green bananas.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/nyregion/03rangel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON — Representative Charles B. Rangel, his gaze steady and his hands clasped before him, stood silently in the well of the House of Representatives on Thursday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi somberly read a resolution censuring him for bringing discredit to the House
Ms. Pelosi issued the punishment minutes after the House voted 333 to 79 for the censure, the most severe sanction it can administer short of expulsion.
The vote made Mr. Rangel, a Democrat, the 23rd member of the House to be censured, and the first in nearly three decades.
After receiving his punishment, Mr. Rangel, 80, asked for a minute to address his colleagues and told them: “I know in my heart I am not going to be judged by this Congress. I’ll be judged by my life in its entirety.”
Mr. Rangel and his allies had pleaded for mercy, arguing that his transgressions, which included failure to pay income taxes and misuse of his office to solicit fund-raising donations, deserved the more lenient punishment of a reprimand. But that effort failed, 267 to 146.
The censure marks a staggering fall for Mr. Rangel, who has represented Harlem for half of his life, and had risen to become one of the most prominent and well-liked members of Congress. Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, called upon Mr. Rangel to appear before her, and, in a subdued tone, read the one-paragraph resolution noting his 11 violations of Congressional ethics rules.
Still, talking to reporters after leaving the House floor, Mr. Rangel’s old pugnacity returned as he denounced the vote as partisan.
“I am confident that when the history of this has been written,” he said, “people will recognize that the vote for censure was a very, very, very political vote.”
Referring to misdeeds of others who had been censured, he said: “I did not curse out the speaker. I did not have sex with minors. I did not steal money.” When a reporter asked him what he felt as he stood in the well, he asked, “Are you a licensed psychiatrist?”
Only two Republicans, Representatives Peter T. King of New York and Don Young of Alaska, voted against the censure resolution. African-American members largely stood with Mr. Rangel, too, with just one member of the Congressional Black Caucus casting a vote for the censure.
“I have never heard anyone question Charlie Rangel’s integrity,” Mr. King said in his remarks on the House floor.
Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War and the civil rights movement, has been one of the most recognizable political figures in New York and Washington, known for his feisty advocacy of liberal policies. When Democrats seized control of the House in 2006, he earned the title of his career: chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
That prominence, however, was short-lived. In July 2008, news reports detailed his acceptance of several rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan real estate magnate at prices far below market. Mr. Rangel denied any wrongdoing but asked the ethics committee to investigate.
In the months that followed, new problems emerged, including his failure to pay taxes on rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic or to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on financial disclosure forms.
Mr. Rangel’s fund-raising for a City College school being built in his honor also became part of the ethics inquiry because he used Congressional stationery and postage to request donations and asked for contributions from companies and executives with business before Congress.
In one case, Mr. Rangel’s committee helped preserve a tax loophole worth hundreds of millions of dollars for an oil-drilling company that pledged $1 million.
Mr. Rangel denied using his office to benefit donors or to enrich himself, saying he was guilty only of bookkeeping errors. But under heavy pressure, he gave up his cherished chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
After dragging out the ethics investigation for two years with aggressive legal challenges, Mr. Rangel walked out of a public hearing on the matter last month, saying he no longer could afford a lawyer. The ethics committee brushed aside his objections and found him guilty of 11 of 13 charges against him.
While the vote on Thursday seemed a foregone conclusion, suspense built when Mr. Rangel’s allies forced a floor vote on a motion to reduce the punishment to a reprimand. They argued that his misconduct did not approach the seriousness of others who had been censured, and that such a sanction would be extreme. The last two members who were censured, for example, had each been found guilty of having sexual relations with a Congressional page.
Mr. Rangel received unexpected support from Representative John S. Tanner of Tennessee, a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
“As a lawyer, I also respect precedent,” said Mr. Tanner, who urged his colleagues to vote for a reprimand. “I have searched this record and find no activity involving moral turpitude, or any activity that could be classified as one with criminal intent.”
Representative Robert C. Scott, a Virginia Democrat who took part in the ethics committee’s investigation, also urged members to use restraint in meting out punishment.
“He knows he messed up,” Mr. Scott said. “He knows he will be punished. He just asks that he is punished like everyone else.”
The remarks echoed those contained in an e-mail that Mr. Rangel had sent to some 25,000 constituents and admirers over the past week, in which he asked them to call their representatives and seek mercy for him.
“I brought it on my myself, but I still believe this body has to be guided by fairness,” Mr. Rangel said, repeatedly asserting that he had not tried to enrich himself by his actions.
But other members said Mr. Rangel’s violations were too serious to warrant only a reprimand.
Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California and the chairwoman of the ethics committee, said that in the past, censure had been used for members who had used unparliamentary language and that Mr. Rangel had promised voters that Democrats would run the most ethical Congress in history.
“We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard,” Ms. Lofgren said. “Mr. Rangel himself has acknowledged that.”
Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who sits on the ethics committee, said members needed to take a firm stand in order to restore the public’s trust in Congress, which is near all-time lows.
“Credibility is exactly what is at stake at here,” Mr. McCaul said. “The credibility of the House of Representatives before the American people.”
Mr. Rangel’s long battle over the ethics charges has transfixed New York City’s political establishment and set off speculation about how long he will remain in office. Several Democrats are eyeing the seat, but no major figure dared to challenge Mr. Rangel this year, when he easily won re-election.
After the censure vote, reporters pressed the congressman about whether he would serve out the rest of his term, and run again. “At my age,” he replied, “I don’t buy green bananas.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/nyregion/03rangel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Amid emotional debate, House OKs civil unions
By CHRIS WETTERICH
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
After an emotional and tear-filled debate, the Illinois House Tuesday approved landmark legislation that would require the state to recognize same-sex unions, giving couples in civil unions most of the legal rights granted to married people of opposite genders.
Under the bill, couples in civil unions would have the right to visit their life partners in the hospital or make medical decisions if one is incapacitated.
The bill passed with a 61-52 margin. Sixty votes were required for passage.
The term “marriage” would continue to be reserved for unions of men and women, although unmarried opposite-sex couples also could obtain civil-union status.
Religious organizations would not be required to recognize or bless a civil union. Civil unions are not recognized under federal law.
Gov. Pat Quinn – who campaigned on the issue, lobbied members and was on the floor of the House for much of Tuesday’s debate – lauded the House’s action. Quinn said he would sign the bill if it passes the Senate, where a vote is expected today.
“My religious faith animates me to support this bill,” Quinn, a Catholic, told reporters after the vote. “I think, as a matter of conscience, this was the right vote.”
‘Slippery slope’
Opponents of the measure included Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Family Institute. Opponents said legalization of civil unions will lead eventually to approval of full-fledged gay marriage.
“I think this is a step down a slippery slope. Call me an old-fashioned traditionalist,” said Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville, who said the fall of societies such as ancient Greece and Rome could be tied to homosexuality.
“One of the commonalities is open homosexuality becomes accepted in the higher society,” Stephens said. “Here we are at that precipice again.”
Two openly gay House members -- Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, and Rep. Deb Mell, D-Chicago -- pleaded with their colleagues to pass the legislation.
Some opponents argued that instead of passing civil unions, same-sex couples should obtain powers of attorney and reach other legal agreements with their partners. Harris, the bill's sponsor, said hiring a lawyer could be costly and same-sex partners would have to come up with documentation for every conceivable situation.
Harris told the story of the late Rep. Larry McKeon, who was also openly gay. McKeon sought to be at his life partner's bedside when he died, but forgot to bring a signed legal agreement giving him that right.
“The hospital turned Larry away. They said he did not have the proper documentation with him. They did not consider him next of kin,” Harris said. “He returned to the hospital and missed the passing of his life partner by mere minutes.”
‘We are a family’
Mell, whose partner, Christin Baker, was on the House floor with her, said, “I love my state. I'm proud to live here. But my state does not treat me equally.
“It will take my money. It will take my taxes. It will let me make laws. But God forbid something happen to Christin.
“I’m not able to speak to her wishes. The doctor has to go to her family, and I’m not considered family. I assure you we are a family, and we deserve the same rights you enjoy.”
Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said other states that have passed civil unions saw supporters go to court and sue for full marriage rights under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
“Are you ready for gay marriage? Because that's what could come out of this,” Reis said. “I don't think we’re ready for this. I don't think the people of Illinois want this.”
While many Republicans voted against civil unions, Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, and Rep. Mark Beaubien, R-Barrington Hills, spoke and voted in favor of the bill. It was one of the last votes Black will cast in the General Assembly because he is retiring after this session.
Age differences
Black talked about how Illinois’ late U.S. senator, Everett McKinley Dirksen, who, as Republican leader in the Senate, got his party to sign onto civil rights legislation.
“I’m in my seventh decade of life,” Black said. “People my age have difficulty with this. Younger people do not.
“Everett McKinley Dirksen was a leader and a statesman. He realized civil rights was an issue that was past due. ... He never voted for a piece of civil rights legislation. He said, ‘There is a time that I'd rather be right than consistent.’ I intend to vote aye."
“My only statement is there comes a time,” Beaubien said. “Now is the time.”
Religious leaders were not united against the bill. Equality Illinois, a supporter of the bill, released a list of 300 clergy members who support civil unions. One, the Rev. Martin Woulfe of the 300-member Abraham Lincoln Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Springfield, said civil unions are a civil rights issue.
“I believe that every couple, every adult couple, has a fundamental right to have a relationship which is blessed by a religious community that will accept them but also is entitled to basic human rights and civil rights in our society,” he said.
Chris Wetterich can be reached at 788-1523.
Senate Bill 1716 -- what it does
Same-sex or opposite-sex couples can enter into legally recognized civil unions. Among the rights to which those in a civil union would be entitled:
-- Make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated
-- Make burial or cremation decisions
-- Allow hospital visitation
-- Inherit property
The civil union process
Those who want to enter into a civil union would fill out a form with a county clerk and pay a fee (the fee isn’t specified in the bill). The county clerk would issue a license and a certificate declaring the civil union is not prohibited by law.
The civil union then could be certified by a judge, retired judge, public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages or “in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group.”
Once a civil union is certified, the county clerk would give a copy of the certificate and the date and location of the civil union to the Department of Public Health.
States that allow civil unions
California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington
What's next
A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the bill will be called for a vote in the Senate Wednesday.
What the bill says
“A party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law.”
Link to read Bill
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09600SB1716ham001&GA=96&SessionId=76&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=44423&DocNum=1716&GAID=10&Session=
http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1743710201/House-OKs-civil-unions-bill
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
After an emotional and tear-filled debate, the Illinois House Tuesday approved landmark legislation that would require the state to recognize same-sex unions, giving couples in civil unions most of the legal rights granted to married people of opposite genders.
Under the bill, couples in civil unions would have the right to visit their life partners in the hospital or make medical decisions if one is incapacitated.
The bill passed with a 61-52 margin. Sixty votes were required for passage.
The term “marriage” would continue to be reserved for unions of men and women, although unmarried opposite-sex couples also could obtain civil-union status.
Religious organizations would not be required to recognize or bless a civil union. Civil unions are not recognized under federal law.
Gov. Pat Quinn – who campaigned on the issue, lobbied members and was on the floor of the House for much of Tuesday’s debate – lauded the House’s action. Quinn said he would sign the bill if it passes the Senate, where a vote is expected today.
“My religious faith animates me to support this bill,” Quinn, a Catholic, told reporters after the vote. “I think, as a matter of conscience, this was the right vote.”
‘Slippery slope’
Opponents of the measure included Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Family Institute. Opponents said legalization of civil unions will lead eventually to approval of full-fledged gay marriage.
“I think this is a step down a slippery slope. Call me an old-fashioned traditionalist,” said Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville, who said the fall of societies such as ancient Greece and Rome could be tied to homosexuality.
“One of the commonalities is open homosexuality becomes accepted in the higher society,” Stephens said. “Here we are at that precipice again.”
Two openly gay House members -- Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, and Rep. Deb Mell, D-Chicago -- pleaded with their colleagues to pass the legislation.
Some opponents argued that instead of passing civil unions, same-sex couples should obtain powers of attorney and reach other legal agreements with their partners. Harris, the bill's sponsor, said hiring a lawyer could be costly and same-sex partners would have to come up with documentation for every conceivable situation.
Harris told the story of the late Rep. Larry McKeon, who was also openly gay. McKeon sought to be at his life partner's bedside when he died, but forgot to bring a signed legal agreement giving him that right.
“The hospital turned Larry away. They said he did not have the proper documentation with him. They did not consider him next of kin,” Harris said. “He returned to the hospital and missed the passing of his life partner by mere minutes.”
‘We are a family’
Mell, whose partner, Christin Baker, was on the House floor with her, said, “I love my state. I'm proud to live here. But my state does not treat me equally.
“It will take my money. It will take my taxes. It will let me make laws. But God forbid something happen to Christin.
“I’m not able to speak to her wishes. The doctor has to go to her family, and I’m not considered family. I assure you we are a family, and we deserve the same rights you enjoy.”
Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said other states that have passed civil unions saw supporters go to court and sue for full marriage rights under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
“Are you ready for gay marriage? Because that's what could come out of this,” Reis said. “I don't think we’re ready for this. I don't think the people of Illinois want this.”
While many Republicans voted against civil unions, Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, and Rep. Mark Beaubien, R-Barrington Hills, spoke and voted in favor of the bill. It was one of the last votes Black will cast in the General Assembly because he is retiring after this session.
Age differences
Black talked about how Illinois’ late U.S. senator, Everett McKinley Dirksen, who, as Republican leader in the Senate, got his party to sign onto civil rights legislation.
“I’m in my seventh decade of life,” Black said. “People my age have difficulty with this. Younger people do not.
“Everett McKinley Dirksen was a leader and a statesman. He realized civil rights was an issue that was past due. ... He never voted for a piece of civil rights legislation. He said, ‘There is a time that I'd rather be right than consistent.’ I intend to vote aye."
“My only statement is there comes a time,” Beaubien said. “Now is the time.”
Religious leaders were not united against the bill. Equality Illinois, a supporter of the bill, released a list of 300 clergy members who support civil unions. One, the Rev. Martin Woulfe of the 300-member Abraham Lincoln Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Springfield, said civil unions are a civil rights issue.
“I believe that every couple, every adult couple, has a fundamental right to have a relationship which is blessed by a religious community that will accept them but also is entitled to basic human rights and civil rights in our society,” he said.
Chris Wetterich can be reached at 788-1523.
Senate Bill 1716 -- what it does
Same-sex or opposite-sex couples can enter into legally recognized civil unions. Among the rights to which those in a civil union would be entitled:
-- Make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated
-- Make burial or cremation decisions
-- Allow hospital visitation
-- Inherit property
The civil union process
Those who want to enter into a civil union would fill out a form with a county clerk and pay a fee (the fee isn’t specified in the bill). The county clerk would issue a license and a certificate declaring the civil union is not prohibited by law.
The civil union then could be certified by a judge, retired judge, public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages or “in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group.”
Once a civil union is certified, the county clerk would give a copy of the certificate and the date and location of the civil union to the Department of Public Health.
States that allow civil unions
California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington
What's next
A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the bill will be called for a vote in the Senate Wednesday.
What the bill says
“A party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law.”
Link to read Bill
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09600SB1716ham001&GA=96&SessionId=76&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=44423&DocNum=1716&GAID=10&Session=
http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1743710201/House-OKs-civil-unions-bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)