This bill will put more impaired drivers on the road,
more impaired employees in the workplace
and more children at risk.

Before the regular session ended on May 31st, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) and State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) were able to pass legislation to decriminalize marijuana. The bill passed in both the Illinois House and Senate. Any day this dubious bill (SB 2228) will be sent to Governor Bruce Rauner, who will then have 60 days to sign it into law or veto it.

SB 2288 reduces criminal penalties from possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana to a civil law violation of $100 to $200. There are no limits to the number of civil law violations a person can receive, plus their record will be expunged every January 1st and July 1st.

What these lawmakers have done is removed a deterrent to drug use and addiction. They are moving full steam ahead toward full legalization. “Medical” marijuana and incremental decriminalization are the first necessary steps.

“The key to it is medical access, because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision the whole scam is going to be bought. Once there’s medical access…then we will get full legalization.” Richard Cowan, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email or fax to Governor Rauner.  Please urge him to veto SB 2228. Also, please call his Springfield office at (217) 782-0244. A tally report is given to the governor at the end of each day. There is a huge liability issue at stake that the governor should be concerned about. Who will assume responsibility for the increase in road fatalities, psychotic incidents, youth addictions, not to mention employer liability?

Too many lawmakers have been erroneously led to believe that our prisons and judicial system are overrun with “petty” marijuana offenses.  This is NOT the truth.  Please read a former Will County and Cook County Assistant State Attorney as he exposes this myth in an article he wrote exclusively for Illinois Family Institute: Cannabis Myths Exposed

This legislation was co-sponsored by State Representatives Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), Carol Ammons (D-Champaign), Sonya Harper (D-Chicago), Michael Zalewski (D-Riverside), Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein), Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago), Jehan Gordon-Booth (D-Peoria), and Will Guzzardi (D-Chicago).

In the Illinois Senate, this legislation was co-sponsored by State Senators Michael Noland (D-Elgin) , Jacqueline Collins (D-Chicago), Jason Barickman (R-Pontiac), Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), Don Harmon (D-Chicago), Pam Althoff (R-Crystal Lake), Karen McConnaughay (R-West Dundee), Linda Holmes (D-Aurora), Napoleon Harris (D-Harvey), Emil Jones III (D-Chicago), Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago), Donne Trotter (D-Chicago), and Iris Martinez (D-Chicago).

Background

Contrary to one of the reasons lawmakers give for decriminalization, prisons are NOT overcrowded with marijuana users. Click Here and Here  and Here.

Marijuana is NOT Harmless. Cannabis Use is classified as a Disorder in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes medical marijuana outside the regulatory process of the FDA and opposes legalization because of the potential harms to children and adolescents.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s policy statement warns of the negative effects on children.

The American Academy of Neurology warns that medical marijuana legislation is not supported by medical research.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine recognizes “there are several potential medical and public health consequences of marijuana use that require further research.”

Fatal car crashes involving marijuana double after states legalize the drug. States that have relaxed their laws are seeing a 24.4% increase in car fatalities.

Psychotic incidents increase with marijuana use. Click Here and Here and Here and Here and Here.

Children will be affected. As perceived risk decreases, use increases. Colorado has seen a jump in school drug cases.  Click Here and Here. Furthermore, a diminished IQ and cognitive performance and even brain abnormalities have been detected with “casual” use.

Drug use will become a big problem for employers.

With the state our state is in, why would lawmakers make it worse?

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

As a result of three videos from the Center for Medical Progress that have exposed the dark, sickening underbelly of Planned Parenthood, 31 Republicans and 1 Democrat have filed a resolution (HR 671) urging “the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Illinois Executive Inspector General, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Illinois Depart of Revenue to investigate Planned Parenthood’s procedures for abortions, obtaining informed consent, and sale of donation of human fetal tissues across the state.”

Moreover, the resolution urges these same government bodies to “investigate which organizations across the state are involved in purchasing or accepting human tissue from Planned Parenthood.”

The chief sponsor of the bill is one of Illinois’ finest and most courageous lawmakers, Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), who explained to IFI her reasons for pursuing this resolution:

Recent videos reveal the callous way Planned Parenthood treats human life and the women about whom it purports to care. I ask my colleagues in the General Assembly  who are concerned about the rule of law, women’s health, or human decency, to support state investigations into Planned Parenthood in Illinois. Planned Parenthood facilities in Illinois are intentionally unlicensed through a legal loophole, have not been inspected in 15 years, and have put women at risk. In one of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress, Cook County’s Stroger Hospital was suggested as a place to obtain baby parts. Taxpayers need verifiable assurances through the investigative authorities of the state to ensure no federal or state laws are being subverted and especially to ensure that women are not at being put at risk from abortionists who use more invasive surgical procedures in order to increase profits. 

So far, Representative Ives has been joined by the following co-sponsors:

Patricia R. Bellock (R-Westmont), Barbara Wheeler (R-Crystal Lake), Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield), Thomas Morrison (R-Palatine), Margo McDermed (R-Mokena), Terri Bryant (R-Mount Vernon), Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora), Robert Pritchard (R-Sycamore), David Reis (R-Olney), John Cavaletto (R-Salem), Brian Stewart (R-Freeport), Tom Demmer (R-Rochelle), Reginald Phillips (R-Charleston), Randy Frese (R-Quincy), Donald Moffitt (R-Galesburg), Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove), Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon), Charles Meier (R-Highland), Joe Sosnowski (R-Rockford), David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), David McSweeney (R-Cary), Steven Andersson (R-Geneva), Tim Butler (R-Springfield), Dan Brady (R-Normal), Norine Hammond (R-Macomb), John Cabello (R-Loves Park), Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein), Adam Brown (R-Champaign), C.D. Davidsmeyer (R-Jacksonville), Jerry Costello II (D-Red Bud)*, Grant Wehrli (R-Naperville) and Sheri Jesiel (R-Gurnee).

Please take a moment to thank these men and women for their effort to ascertain the truth about the activities of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has long demonstrated its abhorrent lack of ethics through its eager willingness to crush and dismember babies in the womb.

And if you do not see your representative on this list, you know what to do.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to urge your state representative to sponsor and pass this resolution.

**An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified State Representative Jerry Costello as a Republican. IFI regrets the error.**

Join us at our annual banquet and our two special guests: Prof. Anthony Esolen and Pastor Doug Wilson!   They will offer their witness and wisdom, helping us all become better equipped to shape our culture in God-honoring ways.  Your attendance and support is essential to our success!

Illinois Family Institute
Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet

Friday, September 18 , 2015
The Stongate – Hoffman Estates, IL

Secure your tickets now – click here or call (708) 781-9328.

How did they vote?

Yesterday afternoon in an appalling disregard for children’s mental health, parental rights and religious liberty, the Illinois House voted 68 to 43 to pass HB 217, a bill to ban reparative therapy for children who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction disorder.  This bill was introduced by LBGTQ activist and State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago). The bill received eight more votes than the sixty needed to pass!

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below. (Look up your state representative HERE.)

This is an unmitigated disaster for children and families! It is a shame that not one conservative lawmaker challenged this proposal during floor debate.  Not one lawmaker defended children and free speech from the tyranny of Leftists who demand we act, speak and think according to the dictates of their beliefs. Not one lawmaker reminded their colleagues that by diminishing the right to live out our faith, they are establishing the religion of secularism which the First Amendment decisively prohibits.

While a number of representatives were excused from session that afternoon, it is disappointing to report that seven Republicans sided with this pro-homosexual, anti-parental rights, anti-religious liberty legislation, including:  State Representatives Dan Brady (Normal), Tim Butler (Springfield), Michael McAuliffe (Chicago), Bob Pritchard (Sycamore), Deputy “Leader” David Leitch (Peoria), and Assistant Republican “Leader” Ed Sullivan (Mundelein), who also voted to pass same-sex “marriage” in November 2013. Even Republican Minority “Leader” Jim Durkin (Burr Ridge) voted to further the devastation of families who have members struggling with the issue of unwanted same-sex attraction.

However, a number of Democrats did not support this radical agenda, including State Representatives Kate Cloonen (Kankakee), Jerry Costello (Red Bud), Anthony DeLuca (Chicago Heights), Brandon Phelps (Harrisburg), Larry Walsh Jr. (Joliet) and even Assistant Majority Leader John Bradley (Marion).

IFI is grateful for the moral clarity displayed by these and other members of the Illinois House of Representatives who opposed HB 217.

The bill now moves to the Illinois Senate, the more liberal chamber. Unless an outpouring of prayers, along with many visits and calls are made to senators’ local district offices, this bill will likely become law.

We are seeing an unprecedented attack on Illinois families, parental rights and religious liberty by the people who are repeatedly elected back into their positions of authority. Are you registered to vote? Do you vote?

If people of faith do not step out of their comfort zone and speak loudly and publicly; at the very least with their vote, we are assuredly leaving a legacy of tyranny and evil for our children and grandchildren.

Will you please spread the word to everyone that you know in Illinois to pray, visit, and make calls to their state senator? You can look up their address and phone number HERE.  Also,send them an email. Simply click on the link below to send your email. Note: you must be registered with your name and address to send an email to your specific senator.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Urge him/her to vote against HB 217.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute.

Written by Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Marriage is very important to me. Personally, it is a covenant that I made with my wife of over 35 years. It is a sacred trust between the two of us but it is more than that. Marriage plays a significant part in the health of our society and the future of our children. This is why I have fought so hard to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

In November, Illinois became the sixteenth state (including the District of Columbia) to change its definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. You probably didn’t hear too much about the fight in Illinois, which dragged on for several months longer than homosexual “marriage” activists had intended. Why did it take so long for an overwhelmingly Democratic state legislature to approve what homosexual activists promise us is an inevitable part of our future?

The answer is that, for quite a while, the efforts of key black clergy members preserved the traditional definition of marriage in Illinois. Their courageous stand—which included placing relentless pressure on black Democratic legislators—had the opposition gnashing its teeth in frustration. The Chicago Sun-Times reported on their activity in May, noting, “stubborn resistance within the House Black Caucus, a 20-member bloc of African-American lawmakers who have faced a withering lobbying blitz against the plan [to redefine marriage] from black ministers, has helped keep Harris’ legislation [to redefine marriage] in check, with several House members still undecided.”

In the end, however, the well-funded and aggressive campaign to redefine marriage succeeded. It is worth noting that the margin in the House was razor thin. The measure would not have passed without the three Republicans who supported it: Representatives Tom Cross, Ed Sullivan, and Ron Sandack.

As the Associated Press explained, after the bill failed in May, “Proponents then launched another aggressive campaign with help from labor, the former head of the Illinois Republican Party and the ACLU… [Illinois Governor] Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan also persuade[d] lawmakers in the final days.” Shortly after Illinois’ decision, New Mexico’s State Supreme Court ruled homosexual “marriage” a constitutional right.

Homosexual activists have been hailing these victories as an unstoppable tide of change sweeping the nation. They rarely mention the fact that 31 states have already passed amendments to their state constitutions clarifying that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Even with the Supreme Court striking down key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in June, the tide may in fact be turning.

From now on, advocates for homosexual “marriage” face a very different landscape. Only one of the remaining states (which have not redefined marriage) has a Democrat-controlled state legislature. That state is West Virginia, where recent polls suggest that less than 20 percent of the population supports redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.

Thus far, homosexual activists have relied on bullying and on two major deceptions. The first is that all they want out of the redefinition of marriage is rights for loving, committed couples. The second is that homosexual marriage is so incredibly popular that its universal acceptance is inevitable. To be on the “right side of history,” we are told we must get on board now.

The first lie is being exposed before our eyes. Illinois had already legalized civil unions. But as a brief “Civil Unions are not Enough: Six Key Reasons Why” from Lambda Legal explains, “Regardless of whether civil unions and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil unions rather than marriage…those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment…” What homosexual activists want, and have always wanted, is mandatory public approval of their lifestyle.

The widespread support for traditional marriage in the black community has been very difficult for radical homosexual activists to understand. After all, if we are to believe their narrative, blacks should be nothing but grateful for all our gains in civil liberties since slavery. They believe that our own experience with oppression should impel us to go along with whatever homosexual activists tell us to believe.

But those who feel this way completely misunderstand what the Civil Rights Movement was all about. It was not about radically restructuring society. We appealed to the rights given to us by our Creator, who created not only mankind, but placed us in families. The family was the one institution that held the black community together through slavery and segregation. And it is the black community that has suffered most acutely as marriage has been devalued and the family has begun to fall apart.

Homosexual activists would have us believe that the fight is nearly over and that their victory is inevitable. Yet barring action from United States Supreme Court, it seems most likely that the real fight is only beginning. The battle will be waged state by state, and it will test the patience and perseverance of all. Several of the black Democrats in Illinois who voted to redefine marriage are facing primary challengers, as are all three Republicans. Will they face consequences for their decisions? Only time will tell.

This article was originally posted at the Townhall.com blog.

How did they vote?

On Tuesday afternoon, the Illinois House of Representatives recklessly voted 61-54 in favor of genderless marriage (SB 10) with 2 representatives voting present and 1 not voting.
 
The debate raged for over two hours with SB 10 with supporters of the bill filling the time with a constant stream of emotion, personal testimony, and accusations of discrimination. Those who spoke out in favor of natural marriage included State Representatives Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton), David Reis (R-Olney), Rep. Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), and David Harris (R-Mount Prospect).
 
Former House minority leader Rep. Tom Cross joined two other Republicans, Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove) and Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein)  in breaking with the party platform and supporting this radical liberal bill.
 
Responding to the many references to the Civil Rights movement, Rep. Flowers stated, “When I was discriminated against, it is not because of who I love, but because of the color of my skin…Homosexuality has nothing to do with race.” Flowers continued, “Even if the legal definition of marriage was changed, those two people will never be married in God’s eyes.”
 
Rep. Kay declared, “I’ve heard nothing today about the Scriptures. The only thing I’ve heard is about human rights. So I guess we’ve backed away from our heritage in this nation which we seem to do quite regularly for the expediency of what we wish to do at the moment. And ladies and gentlemen, that’s pride. That’s a belief that you’re better than the very foundation…which we find in the Scriptures.”
 
The vote came less than two weeks after an estimated 4,000 people descended upon Springfield supporting the definition of marriage as being between one man and woman on October 23rd.

SB 10 will go to the desk of Governor Pat Quinn who has publicly expressed his eagerness to sign the bill.
 
How Did Your Representative Vote?

CLICK HERE for the roll call.

 

To see the full video or separate segments of the debate, CLICK HERE.

The foolish and false rationalizations State Representative Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein) is providing to his constituents for his betrayal — I mean “evolution” — on marriage bear closer examination.

Here are the relevant portions of his letter:

After personal reflection and discussions with members of our community, I have decided to support civil marriage because it goes to the core of what I believe our State’s—and indeed our Nation’s—Constitution intends: a limited government whose citizens are free to make personal choices with equal protection under the law.

The role of a limited government is to fairly hold all people as equals, regardless of race, creed, or orientation, not to devise rules that make moral judgments of any particular class. Furthermore, each citizen should be left to himself or herself to make deeply personal decisions regarding life and the pursuit of happiness. Constrained by these principles, government should not stand in the way of consenting adults who wish to commit to each other through civil marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Just as I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to make their own choices, I believe that religious institutions and their adherents should be free to make their own choices about this issue without the government’s intrusion. The Religious Freedom and Fairness Act explicitly states within its purpose that “nothing in this Act is intended to abrogate, limit, or expand the ability of a religious denomination to exercise First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution or the Illinois Constitution.” I could not have supported the bill without the guarantee of these strong religious protections.

Sincerely,

Ed Sullivan 

Here are some thoughts about and questions for Rep. Sullivan (questions that Sullivan and all other lawmakers who support the legalization of same-sex “marriage” should be compelled to answer): 

• Sullivan refers to supporting “civil marriage” but fails to address the more fundamental question “What is marriage?” Is marriage something we create out of whole cloth or does it have a nature that we merely recognize? Is it solely about who loves whom or is it connected to sexual complementarity? If it’s solely about who loves whom, then why the binary requirement and why is the government involved at all? 

• Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to more government  involvement in marriage—not less. A revolutionary governmental conclusion that marriage has no inherent connection to gender would be neither reflective of smaller government nor resultant in less government involvement. How does Sullivan arrive at the peculiar notion that the decision by lawmakers to jettison one of the central defining features of marriage constitutes more limited government?

• Sullivan refers to the freedom to “make personal choices with equal protection under the law” while never addressing the role of government in protecting the superordinate rights of children to know and be raised whenever possible by their biological mother and father (or alternatively by a mother and father). Did his “personal reflection” extend beyond the “personal choices” of homosexual adults to the more fundament issue of the personal rights of children? 

• Rights are afforded to individuals not couples. Homosexuals are not demanding a right they don’t have. They are demanding the right to eliminate one criterion from the legal definition of marriage to suit their desires and which will transform not merely the government’s definition of marriage but also the public’s understanding of what marriage is. 

• Sullivan, either in an astonishing display of ignorance or dishonesty, claims that he believes religious “adherents should be free to make their own choices about this issue without government intrusion,” pointing to the bill’s purported religious protections which he claims constitute “strong religious protections.” Oh, really. 

  Someone should ask Sullivan if Christian owners of wedding-related businesses will be permitted to refuse to use their time, labor, gifts, products, and services for same-sex “weddings.” Will Christian photographers, videographers, bakers, florists, caterers, calligraphers, graphic designers,  wedding venue owners, restaurant owners, and bed & breakfast owners be permitted to exercise their religious liberty by refusing to use their gifts in the service of same-sex “weddings”? And will Catholic and Protestant schools be permitted to refuse to hire custodians or secretaries who are in homosexual “marriages”? 

• Did Sullivan’s “personal reflection” include studying deeply the subjects of equality, marriage, and “orientation” Has he read the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense or the essay “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”? Has he read the essay “The Red Herring of ‘Marriage Equality” ? Has he read these essays on limited government and marriage (including three by libertarian economist Jennifer-Roback Morse), all of which argue that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” not only reflects government involvement but actually increases government involvement in non-neutral ways: “Big Government Should Not Redefine Marriage,”  “Privatizing Marriage is Impossible,”  “Privatizing Marriage will Expand the Role of the State,”  and “Privatizing Marriage is Unjust to Children.” 

  Studying these resources will be infinitely more helpful than navel-gazing or talking to homosexual relatives. I suspect, however, that Sullivan is little invested in deep study of this crucial social institution and the relevant public policy. I also doubt the capacity of many lawmakers, including Sullivan, to be persuaded by reason. Emotion carries the day in contemporary America. 

• Sullivan recoils from “rules that make moral judgments.” To learn that a lawmaker has an aversion to moral judgment-making is unfortunate because all laws “make moral judgments.” Why do we prohibit Jim Crow laws? Why do we prohibit marriage between minors and adults? Why do we prohibit two brothers from marrying? Why do we prohibit plural marriages? In fact, Sullivan himself has determined that it’s not moral to withhold marriage licenses from homosexual couples. 

• Sullivan claims that the “government should not stand in the way of consenting adults who wish to commit to each other through civil marriage.” Well, the government prohibits consenting adults who are closely related by blood from marrying, and the government prohibits consenting adults who wish to marry more than one person from marrying. Will further “personal reflection” lead Sullivan to evolve on the issues of plural marriage and incestuous marriage? Will he soon argue that polyamorous citizens “should be left to make deeply personal decisions regarding life and the pursuit of happiness”? If not, why not? Inquiring minds want to know precisely what Sullivan’s reasons are for jettisoning the gender requirement while retaining the binary requirement. 

We should expect and demand more thoughtful lawmakers and more substantive reasons for their positions on the essential issue of marriage—an issue far more important than tax rates or pension-fund reform.

Rep. Sullivan’s email address is ILhouse51@sbcglobal.net and his district phone number is (847) 566-5115.

 Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.