The Illinois
board of elections agreed on Friday with a hearing officer
that an advisory referendum on same-sex marriage doesn't
have enough signatures to be on the November ballot.
But opponents of marriage equality have taken their
fight to federal court, contending that the process to
get a referendum on the Illinois ballot is burdensome and
unconstitutional. "Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat in
federal court, it's not going to be on the ballot,"
said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for Lambda Legal.
The nonbinding
referendum would not ban same-sex marriage. Antigay groups
want it on the ballot so that they can ask voters whether
the state should amend its constitution to ban
same-sex marriage. At the state fair in Springfield,
Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he was pleased that it looks as
if the referendum won't be on the ballot because he is
opposed to changing the state's constitution.
Supporters of the
referendum submitted more than 330,000 signatures, but
a sample verification fell short of the state's
requirement. The requirement is that more than 95% of
a sample's signatures be valid; only 91% were.
Although the
referendum's supporters lost their case at the federal
district court level, they are hopeful the appellate court
will intervene, said Peter LaBarbera, executive
director of the antigay Illinois Family Institute.
"It's not near over," LaBarbera said.
A 1996 Illinois
law already prohibits same-sex marriage, but opponents
fear that courts could overturn the law unless the state
constitution is changed. More than 40 states have
taken steps to define marriage as the union of one man
and one woman either through constitutional
amendments or with statutes.
A June poll
showed that a majority of Illinois voters said they oppose
same-sex marriage but that only 40% support asking state
lawmakers for a constitutional amendment to ban it,
according to the Chicago-based Glengariff Group. Fifty
percent were opposed, and 10% were undecided.
Both Blagojevich
and his Republican challenger, state treasurer Judy Baar
Topinka, have said the 1996 state law makes a constitutional
amendment unnecessary. Amending the state constitution
is a lengthy process. The most common approach would
be for both chambers of the legislature to vote by
three-fifths majority to put an amendment on the ballot,
where it would have to be approved by three fifths of
voters. (AP)
