Windy City Times Thinks Jack Franks Might Be Favorable to Gay Marriage

A colorful "Defend Marriage Illinois" sign can be seen here.

A colorful “Defend Marriage Illinois” sign can be seen in this demonstration in front of Jack Franks’ office.

From an analysis of who might vote how by the Windy City Times:

Dist. 63, Jack Franks ( D ): Franks voted for civil unions in 2010 but told the Daily Herald in an interview before that that he opposed same-sex marriage. He was also the target of a protest against the bill recently. According to Richard Small, a gay constituent, approximately 50-100 people demonstrated, urging him not to pass the bill. In 2012, he was not endorsed by Equality Illinois. Insiders suggest he is a “yes” vote. Springfield office: ( 217 ) 782-1717. Email:

= = = = =
With Republican opponent Steve Reick in the wings, it seems unlikely that the so-called “insiders” are correct…at least not yet.


Windy City Times Thinks Jack Franks Might Be Favorable to Gay Marriage — 15 Comments

  1. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Any corruption of this is wrong.

    Then these others raise children in their wrong way of life.

  2. Yea, all those heterosexual unions do such a fine job of raising their dregs.

    70% of my property taxes, goes to provide an infinite number of programs, to solve all the problems created at home and warehouse them in those daycare centers called Public Schools.

  3. “Then these others raise children in their wrong way of life.”


    Go back to Neverland Tinkerbelle.

  4. Pretty sick to use ignorant kids as political pawns.

    Who does this?

  5. Fair Play, that is not a fair statement.

    Families came out to make their wishes known regarding traditional family.

    Now if you would rather have Pyle teach your children, all about sex education, then you go right ahead.

    Just something to think about.

  6. @AnotherWatcher – Just so I understand what you just said:

    I can either have my kids protest or be molested.

    Just clarifying your statement.

  7. Fair Play, your quote was ” Pretty sick to use ignorant kids as political pawns”.

    I think your statement was an example of Pyle standards, and those who feel otherwise are ignorant.

    Good luck with your children, if you have them.

  8. I guess the question I have to pose to those in favor of DOMA is “What are you afraid of?” I mean, really, what’s the concern? That same sex people are free to openly express their love and mutual respect? Afraid that God will punish you for tacitly endorsing something subjectively called sinful? Afraid your children will catch gayness? Concerned insurance rates and benefit packages will go up if gays are permitted to marry? As a conservative, I often felt compelled to defend social institutions, especially marriage, in order to maintain our society and way of life–I get that. But marriage does not define our society, or any society–it’s merely a small component of it. Marriages end, families split, sometimes with violence. Who are we to condemn another for who they love? Especially when orientation is a matter of chance, not choice? Most modern, western religions advocate compassion for those who are different–God is the sole judge, not you or I. Children are more aptly hurt from a lack of a loving, stable home than the gender composition of their parents, neighbors or some strangers from across town. Truth of the matter- any two people who share an adult, consensual, loving and productive relationship should be entitled, under Equal Protection and “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” to marry. Any position less than that creates a second class of citizen, endangers to legitimize the founding principles of America and is egregiously wrong.

  9. @anotherwatcher – “Fair Play, where is your Fair Play for the traditional family and their values, were you not taught to be tolerant?” is what you said. I would ask, please define to me “traditional family.” If I were to ask you in 1960 what that was, you would probably say, “one WHITE man and one WHITE woman” as interracial couples were unable to marry in some states. So, i’m going to need some clarification on what you mean by traditional marriage. By the way, up until the 1960’s, you used to be able to marry your cousin in America. In fact, President Roosevelt was married to his cousin. “Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered “unnatural” in evolutionary terms.” (Source: Is that the traditional marriage you are talking about?

    The sad thing is, I posted some great links to a Ted talk by LZ Granderson from CNN where he talks about ‘the gay agenda,’ but Cal was too scared to allow you all to watch them because you might start thinking.
    Also, @anotherwatcher, here are a few court cases that have set a precedent for the possibility that constitutionally gay marriage is acceptable. But Cal probably won’t want you to see these, but here goes (not my words fyi source is

    1. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.”
    Also, many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple.

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because “…it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.” [42]
    If you are a fiscal conservative, consider the revenue from gay marriage in the form of marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [4] The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city’s economy and $184 million to the state’s economy over three years. [43]
    For all you people against abortion, in the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. [44] A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. [45] A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were “as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents.” [46] As Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues, “We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents.” [68]

    Do you want to stop mental illness in the U.S.? The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, “…allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [47] A 2010 analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders.

    I could go on, but here’s the link AND there are opposing views to BOTH SIDES which is most important when making a decision.

    Your move Cal, sensor or allow? I hope you will allow me to “bring to light matters of public interest and to encourage public participation in the governmental process” (your words) by allowing this comment.

  10. We have Jack Roeser and Steven Robert Verr to thank for Jack Franks holding office.

    These insipid self absorbed “conservatives” got Jack Franks elected in 1998 and 2000.

    Thanks, you two.


    I hope you’re both very happy.

  11. Mark, you missed the mark (no pun intended).

    Is civilization bound to collapse because marriage is redefined?

    Several eastern cultures marry out of obligation (as did the West pre-Victorian era)…love, as a basis for marriage, is a relatively modern construct (and one could easily argue a failed one at that–look at our divorce rate).

    Society hasn’t imploded as a result of failed marriages–has it?

    In the large scale of what constitutes social capital-marriage doesn’t even make the list–that’s my point.

    What matters is a competent, compassionate and loving environment.

    But, if I’m wrong–correct me and show me how the contemporary-Western definition of marriage is so deeply entwined in society…please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *