Ives’ Statement Regarding Comments on Redefinition of Marriage

Ives's Statement Regarding Comments Made on the Redefinition of Marriage

March 14, 2013-Springfield, Illinois - It is unfortunate that certain comments I made recently in regards to the redefinition of marriage on a Catholic radio program have been misinterpreted.

I understand there is disagreement over the issue of whether or not to redefine marriage but it is unfortunate that political opponents have attempted to redefine or purposely misinterpret my views on this important matter by pulling two comments out of an approximately 20 minute discussion. 

I have made my position very clear but for the purposes of additional clarity, let me restate it:

Like millions of Americans of all partisan stripes including in the Illinois House, including in the nearly three dozen states that have rejected the redefinition of marriage by popular referenda, I properly understand the institution of marriage and the word "marriage" to be defined as the union between one man and one woman. I have no comment on a person's sexual orientation or personal relationships. That is their private business and I have no interest in meddling in a person's private affairs. 

I have simply made statements in defense of the attack on marriage from certain vocal constituencies who seek to redefine it out of existence. I do not believe it is the government's place to redefine marriage.

The institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years. It predates government. In fact, government was in part created to protect the institution of marriage because of its critical importance in building civilization. Marriage is today what it has been from time immemorial, the foundation of family and thus the foundation of civilization. As a wife and mother of five, my interest, as I have previously and repeatedly expressed, is to protect the institution of marriage for future generations just as those who came before preserved it for me.

The people who disagree with me have chosen to ascribe meaning to my words that they did not have, just as they are attempting to assign a meaning to the word “marriage” that it does not have.

It is also worth noting that, currently, my position on marriage is the majority position in the Illinois House.


This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Todd Scalzo March 14, 2013 at 10:17 PM
Not surprisingly, this statement makes things worse. It does nothing to sway anyone who was offended by the original comments and, in fact, insults their intelligence. It makes the whole matter worse by blaming them and then drawing the false equivalency of misinterpreting "marriage" to be the same as misinterpreting calling gay people "weasels." (what is the proper context for that, Ms. Ives?) In 2 months, Ms. Ives has managed to make herself a total pariah in Springfield (including her own caucus). Now we have to endure 2 more years of these self-righteous, intolerant comments with no legislative achievements. Besides being an embarrassment to herself and Wheaton, Ms. Ives is a waste of taxpayer dollars and representation in Springfield. She is clearly unable to recognize when she's made a mistake or take responsibility for her own actions. She just wants to bask in the warm glow of the few who adore her and denounce the many who don't. She's not a leader; she's a narcissist. Hopefully, she'll be gone soon.
Jeff Sand March 15, 2013 at 07:06 AM
"It is also worth noting that, currently, my position on marriage is the majority position in the Illinois House." Why don't we see about that *after* the vote.
SE Rice March 15, 2013 at 11:09 AM
You have simply stated once again that institutionalized inequality should be accepted and that some people get rights through marriage that others do not and should not have. "Protect the institution." Should the institution of "separate but equal" have been protected too? Other injustices have existed worldwide for thousands of years too. Should they be protected by law and ignored as well? Religions should protect the sacrament of marriage. Laws should protect the citizens and this law ignores the rights of too many.
Ghost of Joseph Napier March 15, 2013 at 02:13 PM
Ms. Ives, you can restate your position repeatedly, but those who refuse to listen will not hear.
Susan Barrett March 15, 2013 at 05:55 PM
Dear Ms. Ives, Protect the institution of marriage from what??? No one is interested in taking away the rights of a man and a woman to marry. The issue is allowing all people to have the right to marry the person they choose. You are an extremely narrow minded and ignorant person who somehow got elected to public office. I can only hope that the voters have seen your true character and come to their senses in the next election.
Gerard Schilling March 15, 2013 at 08:26 PM
Language, words, history, culture and religion all have roots and meaning. For all of recorded history going back to tribes and clans marriage ( between a man and woman) was given a special place because it was instinctively realized for child rearing and species survival society needed a stable unit. To turn all of this on its head to satisfy one tenth of one percent of the population who for whatever the reason want to GLBT it is reckless, immature and pandering by corrupt lawless and narcissistic politician who think they will get votes. Further to have this group shove this life style down the throats of our children by mandating teaching approval and the benefits of this nonsense is child abuse of the worse kind! You need not to apologize for your valid views on this subject. Stay true to your beliefs and 80% of the people agree with you!
Chuck Harless March 16, 2013 at 01:05 AM
Her comments were extremely insensitive and hurtful. I've been in a long term monogamous same sex relationship, and it is the furthest thing from disordered. How dare she say that! We are not trying to weasel our way in to marriage and trying to get to the children. Wtf? I've had it with horrible bigots like her. She needs to be voted out.
Kelly P March 16, 2013 at 03:04 AM
Back track much? Yet still an ignorant response. Someone preserved marriage for you? Did that ensure your straightness? Will your "preserving it" ensure your family's "correct" sexual orientation? Do not play now like certain relationships do not bother you. If they did not bother you, you would have responded professionally to my reaching to your office about the Marriage Fairness Act and responded about the MARRIAGE FAIRNESS ACT and not about "homosexual marriage" as you called it. That's not an insult, by the way, gay people know they are gay. Its just an ignorant attempt at a stab....about something that doesn't bother you personally.. A no vote will not make us all straight by the way. It will just delay equality. Have you looked at a penny lately? I am your constituent and you are ignoring my family.
Seth Dibblee March 16, 2013 at 09:05 PM
Two consenting adults of the same gender who want to enter a marital relationship with one another do not represent any "attack on marriage." If the current divorce rate is any indication, marriage--both as a civil and a sacramental institution--has problems of its own these days. The fact that two men or two women want to settle down isn't one of them.
D Smith March 16, 2013 at 09:38 PM
Satan tried to offer Jesus all the kingsoms of the world. Why, because they are under his control. What was bitter will now be sweet, what was sweet is now bitter. Those who are last will be first and those first will be last. It is inevitable and what needs to happen as we drive closer to the end.
David Wesley Neubecker March 19, 2013 at 02:58 PM
Gerard, as a gay man who has a partner of 13 years and two children, I find your comments equally offensive. We are simply asking that OUR government treat our families the same as any other family. This trash that you spew from your keypad is abusive to my children. As my Mom would say, "clearly you weren't raised right". The sooner you realize that it is important to remember the number one rule: treat others as you would want to be treated, the better off all of society will be.
David Wesley Neubecker March 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM
You would think that conservative legislators would embrace the concept of more stable families in their communites- regardless of how those families are structured. I can't think of a more conservative institution than marriage. Same-sex families are here whether you like it our not. The only fair thing to do it grant them the legal status to protect their children and remain stable.
Vettelover March 19, 2013 at 03:17 PM
Ms. Ives, You might get the idea from the few comment made here that you really aren't in the majority anywhere. Certainly not on a national scope as a clear majority endorse same sex marriage and equality for all. Leave your personal agenda at home and vote your consituents desire. This is why states should not have a vote on something that is a national issue. No ratification, just inforcement of the "future national Law on equality" which the supreme court will hand down soon.
Five and Fly March 19, 2013 at 06:17 PM
Stick a fork in Jeanne's political career, She's done... BTW here is a short list of those who "endorsed publicly" Jeanne Ives in to office... some are up for office in April and need some electoral attention as well Phil Suess, Wheaton City Councilman Chris Heidorn, Milton Township Supervisor Gary Muehlfelt, Milton Township Highway Commissioner Marty Keller, Milton Township Trustee and MTRCC Vice- Chairman Marie Jensen, Milton Township Trustee Chris LeVan, Milton Township Republican Committee Treasurer Jay Olsen, Village of Winfield Trustee
Southeast Side March 19, 2013 at 08:00 PM
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause "The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process." This means that *everyone* must be treated equally by the law. Thereby, not allowing same-sex couples to marry is unconstitiutional. Why does Jeanne Ives hate America?
Tyler March 19, 2013 at 08:18 PM
The amendment says person, not couple. Any person, whether gay or straight, that marries a person of the opposite sex has equal treatment. Likewise, any person who enters a civil union with the same sex also receives equal treatment, regardless of whether that person is gay or straight.
Tyler March 19, 2013 at 08:21 PM
Also, there sure is a lot of intolerance here from people wanting tolerance.
CountyLeaks March 19, 2013 at 09:17 PM
So we would have been better off with this guy? http://countyleaks.blogspot.com/2013/03/smoked-out-dupage-county-board-chairman.html
David Wesley Neubecker March 19, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Tyler, Is that really your arguement? That gays are allowed to married members of the opposite sex? Is that your idea of a healthy marriage? You must either be a divorce attorney or a marriage counselor...because those are the only people I could see benefiting from that arrangement. And as for the "intolerance" statement- I do have a hard time tolerating someone that openly states that me and my family deserve to be treated as second class citizens. I hope we never see the day come when we, as American citizens, tolerate subjecting a whole class of people to second class citizenship when they have done no harm to others. That is not what our country is about.
Five and Fly March 20, 2013 at 01:23 AM
Hey Leaks, what does your linked BS have any thing to do with Jeanne's HOOF in Mouth disorder?
CountyLeaks March 20, 2013 at 02:00 AM
Five and Fly said on Mar. 2, 2102 at Illinois Review: "Chris Hage is the best. He's a true friend of the conservative cause." http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/03/hage-boasts-affirmation-of-illinois-profamily-groups.html Or is this research some "linked BS"? I challenge you to refute the facts and public records at CountyLeaks.
Five and Fly March 20, 2013 at 03:21 AM
You seem to be a friend of Mrs Ives, Mr. Leaks? Question? how does bashing Hage going to cure Rep Jeanne Ives Hoof in mouth disorder, or change the fact that Jeanne, by general agreement by both, left and right sides, to be a classic fool.
CountyLeaks March 20, 2013 at 01:00 PM
Interesting. Those in favor of a long-time paid political operative with a long list of conflicts holding the position of DuPage County Election Commission Vice Chairman happen to also be critical of Rep. Ives. You're in favor of the political hack at the Commission, obviously, for political reasons. What if the paid political operative were a former candidate you didn't approve of, or perhaps a Democratic paid political hack? Would you object then? Is everything okay because it happens to be YOUR GUY in there?
Gerard Schilling March 20, 2013 at 07:28 PM
David you don’t want to be treated the same you want special privileges based on some convoluted interpretation of equal rights. Nobody cares what you do in the privacy of your bedroom but when it comes to putting this nonsense in our schools and portraying it as normal and natural is offensive to me and my family.
David Wesley Neubecker March 20, 2013 at 07:43 PM
Gerard, Thankfully every poll taken shows that your type of attitude is disappearing as generations change. Thankfully the Supreme Court will step in a settle this once and for all. I'm sorry that me and my family is so offensive to you. But I will continue to stand up for my families right to be treated equally under the law. One day, my children will live in a more just and equal society and they won't believe that there were people like you with so much hatred and misunderstanding in your heart.
Gerard Schilling March 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM
You use your children as a shield and hopefully one day they don’t turn on you for your shallow, self-serving, rationalizations to justify your behavior. Surely men or women can love, nurture, treasure and raise them as well or better then male/female couples. However, there is a huge difference between this type of arrangement and calling it a marriage and portraying it as natural and equal to a married male/female couples. I don’t hate you or anybody else and wish you luck because you are going to need it when these children come of age.
M D March 21, 2013 at 02:02 PM
David, actually (and unfortunately), our country has many examples of tolerating the subjecting of whole classes of people to second class citizenship (see: Women, Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese, Japanese, German, Irish, Italian, Jewish and Hispanic for starters). On the bright side, we eventually overcome our foolish biases in the name of the "good old days" and officially "accept" these groups. Some people just need to be reminded that the USA was founded on radically progressive ideals - that anyone, regardless of their station in life, should have the opportunity to make the life they wish, and the government's role is to ensure there are no barriers to equality that would prevent this from happening.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something