Durkin Blasts Lame-Duck Action in Illinois Congress
The Western Springs Republican (District 82) said that Illinois government is attempting to circumvent a thoughtful discussion on several controversial bills.
Photos
Illinois State Rep. Jim Durkin (R-82nd, Western Springs) is speaking out against some state lawmakers' attempts to pass new laws, including banning assault weapons and allowing same-sex marriage during Springfield's lame-duck session, The Doings Oak Brook reports.
According to the paper, while Durkin has not yet stated clear support or opposition to either assault-weapons bans or same-sex marriage, he said that rushing bills through without extensive discussion and public input is unfair, and that he intends to sponsor a new bill "to prevent lame-duck session abuses."
“I’ve had it with the 11th hour passage of bills which do not get the thorough vetting before the public and members of the legislature," the paper quoted Durkin as saying. "It’s sickening to watch this process play out... It should disgust the voters in Illinois."
Jeff P
10:02 pm on Thursday, January 3, 2013
Representative Durkin and Republicans like him will not be viewed kindly by history for their opposition to same-sex marriage. What's actually "sickening" to me as a voter of Illinois is that my elected officials in Springfield continue to discriminate against loving, committed couples.
It's also maddening that he wants to just drag the process out for figuring out a sensible solution for regulating automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Enough is enough -- why do we have to wait until the spring session for action? So the NRA can wage a campaign to water down any efforts?
I'm sad that he represents my voice in Springfield; we deserve better.
Edward Andrysiak
10:37 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
Jeff..I think most people would agree that same sex folks are entitled to the same rights. I do. The objection is calling yourself MARRIED. That has traditionally meant to break down into "husband and wife" so employers and everybody else could properly identify the parties to the "contract". If you called yourself somehing other than "married" folks might agree to the "union". When gay couples who would be "married" introduce themselves...what do you call each other? Certainly it is not husband or wife is it. What ever you call each other then is what you should call your "union"...not marriage. You might do better achieveing your rights as a contracted couple. The problem is pushing the word "married" down everybody elses throat to achieve some kind of acceptance. Married has for ages meant man to woman. If you want same sexs to legally join and have the same rights...call it something else! Heard this before?
As to your position on guns...why do you think taking them away is a "sensible solution"...I doubt you recognize the real problem.
Ben
8:22 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
These days, when we try to move in a more thoughtful, humane direction, Republicans in congress have been there to try to stop us. Durkin's statement is a perfect example: he's apparently against marriage and for the assault weapons. He should have the courage just to vote on it and go on record.
Tom Koz
9:12 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
In THIS instance I happen to support Rep. Durkin. The Illinois Senate was attempting to push through legislation without giving hardly ANY time for the public (their bosses) to review / comment on their proposed legislation. They took bills that were approved in the house, TOTALLY re-worded the entire proposed legislation and it's original intent, and then attempted to rush it through!!! Laws should NOT be passed without giving the citizens ample time to review and comment on proposed legislation!!! Have either Jeff P, or Ben, read the proposed bills??? I highly doubt it. the bills had NOTHING to do with "automatic" weapons, and I doubt Ben can correctly define an "assault weapon"!
Brad Drake
9:57 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
This was well said by Rep. Durkin. The abuses by government to "force-in" any regulation or law is wrong.
"What's actually "sickening" to me as a voter of Illinois is that my elected officials in Springfield continue to discriminate against loving, committed couples."
- Jeff, why doesn't Illinois just follow the lead of other states and hold a statewide vote to decide the fate of same-sex marriages? Why should our politicians, who can't even balance a budget, be allowed to decide this? The people of the state should be the ones to decide.
"It's also maddening that he wants to just drag the process out for figuring out a sensible solution for regulating automatic weapons and large capacity magazines."
- There is not a single state in the union that permits ownership of fully automatic weapons for civilian purposes. They are illegal. The "assault weapons" that people choose to "assault" are actually single fire rifles ranging in caliber. An AK-47 or AR-15 that is sold may look intimidating, but it actually is a single fire rifle. The options for burst or auto which are found in government and military models do not exist for civilian use. So, actually, your "assault weapons" are no more or less dangerous than standard hunting rifles. I also recall when the Brady Bill was in effect and I purchased a .22 caliber target rifle. I was limited to 10 round magazines. Do you know what I did? I bought 4 magazines. Outlawing high capacity magazines is a joke.
SmartMan5
10:44 am on Friday, January 4, 2013
I agree with Brad. All valid points. I just want to add that the gay marriage issue is important to a select few and should be on the back burner until they fix the fiscal issues (pensions, high taxes, deficit and inefficient and corrupt spending).
Mouse
1:43 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
"I just want to add that the gay marriage issue is important to a select few and should be on the back burner"
Spoken like someone who has never been in a position where they had absolutely no rights with respect to a long-time partner. Your bigotry is stunning.
m hardy
10:21 am on Saturday, January 5, 2013
Navel-gazing restricts your ability to see the interconnectivity of society. If in your purview "the gay marriage issue is important to a select few”, then the Suffrage and Civil Rights movements would have only been important to a select few as well.
Rights issues do not deserve the back burner. A white knuckled clench to define “marriage” as man and woman, has the relevance of defining a phone as a box wired to a wall with a tethered handset.
SmartMan5
2:42 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
You miss the point. It is about priorities. Let's keep them focused.
Darren McRoy
3:20 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
To reiterate a point from the article: Rep. Durkin hasn't come out for or against the content of these bills (though he has previously voted against civil unions.) His objection, as stated, is to the pace of passage.
f. leghorn
3:26 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
If these are issues that the people of Illinois support, why use underhanded tactics to get them through? If gays have suffered for so long without the ability to marry eachother in Illinois, why can't they wait another week? Will anyone feel safer in Chicago the day after "scary looking guns" are banned? Have faith in the direction that this state and country has taken. The leftist utopia is coming fast enough. There is no need to mash the accelerator any harder.
Jeffrey Ownby
4:25 pm on Friday, January 4, 2013
He would love it if it was something he supported. Hypocrites.