State Rep. Greg Harris talked with Windy City Times about the meaning of the civil-union bill—and the electric atmosphere in Springfield
Last week marked a historic event for Illinois as the state legislature passed the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act.
In fact, the time was apparently so historic that Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn was on the state House and Senate floors when the votes were cast. The Nov. 30-Dec. 1 session—which was the culmination of a years-long battle—was marked by emotional testimony from the measure's advocates and detractors.
However, the measure would not have even been up for discussion had it not been for the efforts of state Rep. Greg Harris, who became the chief sponsor of the bill in the chamber after state Rep. ( and Cook County commissioner-elect ) John Fritchey initially spearheaded it.
Windy City Times talked with Harris about the meaning of the measure as well as the atmosphere and goings-on during a very tense two days.
Windy City Times: First of all, I'm going to ask a very general question: How are you feeling? Are you relieved? Excited?
Greg Harris: I'm just exhausted. This was one heck of a last 10 days to get to the finish line. One of these days I'm going to sit back and soak it all in, but right now there are hundreds of people to be thanked. I'm not stopping until this job is done.
WCT: Let's talk about the measure itself. Same- and opposite-sex couples who wish to enter into civil unions will have the same state rights as married couples.
Greg Harris: Yes, that's right. Traditionally, relationship recognition has been within the purview of the states. It was only with the federal DOMA [ Defense of Marriage Act ] that the federal government ventured into regulating relationship recognition, other than when the Supreme Court decided cases like Loving v. Virginia. But Congress had never ventured what had been considered the territory of the states.
WCT: There is also a part in the new act that prohibits certain civil unions.
Greg Harris: It's parallel to the prohibition of marriage—people who are underage, who need consent—that kind of thing. Also, no bigamy is allowed, for example.
WCT: Obviously, you've been connected with a large number of bills that have gone through [ the General Assembly ] . How does this measure compare with those? Does it have more personal significance?
Greg Harris: There are two answers to that question. How does it compare? Most people tell me that this was the highest-profile piece of legislation that has come before the General Assembly in decades, in terms of public awareness and ferocity of lobbying on both sides.
Also, the pressure was enormous. Following Proposition 8 [ in California ] , and following Maine and following the Iowa judges, this nation has seen a string of defeats for the gay and lesbian community, and this was special for a number of reasons. We had to turn the tide. We had to show that the voice of the people, their elected representatives, supported this. We had to say that we could counter the voices of hate and misinformation that were out there fighting us. And a lot of people around the country felt that the [ short ] -term and medium-term future of marriage equality rested on what happened here in Illinois; we were close to being ready to go, we're one of the largest states in the country and we're in the heartland. This state was a huge prize for either side to win.
WCT: You mentioned the Iowa judges, and you undoubtedly know about their ouster [ during the Nov. 2 elections ] . Are you concerned that conservative groups are going to lobby even harder to oust legislators who voted for the civil-unions bill?
Greg Harris: They very well may—but I think the lesson we learned is that we have to fund-raise as hard, door-knock as hard, lobby as hard and work as hard to: 1 ) protect those who stood by us, and 2 ) probably throw one or two out who were against us.
WCT: Let's go back to Nov. 30. Could you describe what the atmosphere was like that day?
Greg Harris: For the last two weeks, it's just been non-stop. [ Conservative groups ] mobilized hundreds of thousands of voters across the state of Illinois to oppose us, and we were doing the same thing on our side. We were working the editorial boards, and we were lucky to get two, three, four hours of sleep a night doing all this work. The adrenaline is high.
On the day of the 30th, there were meetings with the governor, the secretary of state, the comptroller, the incoming constitutional officers, the mayor of Chicago, the president of the Cook County board, Joe Berrios ( the new assessor ) , the chairman of the Democratic Party, the president of the Senate, [ most of ] the mayoral candidates—it was nonstop.
The sense of moment was huge. The sense of risk was enormous. The sense of importance, on so many levels, was enormous.
From the day we went back for the first week of the veto session, people knew that I was getting close to pulling the trigger. When the cardinal starts calling people, as some reported, it was clear that our opponents knew how serious this was. That's when all heck broke loose. There was definitely electricity.
Come the second week of the veto session, when they knew it was going to be [ Nov. 30 ] , the whole place—every government worker, regardless of the issue—was on pins and needles trying to figure out if and when. And, of course, the whole day on the floor, the House met for hours... I didn't want to pull the trigger on this vote. There were lots of people who were going to cast courageous votes and be with this community, but they really did not want to get strung out if this was not going to pass. And the dilemma I had was that I knew it was now or never; a new legislature is about to be sworn in and this was probably our best opportunity. People were saying, "You've got to call it. You've got to call it," but in the long-term point of view if I called it and screwed it up—forcing them to vote "no" on something—we could be set back a decade.
So, the stakes were a little bit high and, as the chief sponsor of the bill ... Everybody had an opinion of what had to be done but, in the end ... This is why I look five years older than I did on Thanksgiving Day. [ Smiles ] That responsibility rested with me and you know the saying: "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."
When the legislature is in session, there are [ normally ] hundreds of people wandering around the floor. There are conversations, there are golf games going on, there are children screaming, there are people watching God-knows-what on their computers—it's chaos. You have 118 members, plus staff and lawyers; it's mayhem.
None of my colleagues can remember it being [ so quiet ] . Jay Hoffman, who's been there nearly two decades, said he never remembered an issue being debated where the chamber sat in silence—and it was like that for almost an hour and a half. I think the realization of the gravity of the moment hit us.
WCT: How would you assess your success in reaching across the aisle? I noticed that six Republicans in the House voted for the bill.
Greg Harris: I think that shows that it's not a Republican-Democrat issue, and it's not a Chicago-downstate issue. I think that people who worked on this across the state—advocates, lobbyists, seniors, people at churches—have managed to craft this as an issue of fairness, not a political advantage for one party or another and not an issue for personal glamour. Tens of thousands of people from every walk of life worked on this, and that showed. If you look at the roll call, you'll see that there were Black, white, Latino, men, women, city, suburban, downstate folks who were out to do the right thing.
I had never seen such a media barrage like we did the last couple of days. The [ Springfield ] State Journal-Register wrote an editorial—and I had never thought of it this way—that said, "The Illiois General Assembly made a triumphant return to the national headlines over the past two days, this time for actions that did not involve investigating, impeaching or expelling a disgraced governor.
"The results of the House and Senate votes on the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act speak for themselves." It then went on to say, "Does the mature discussion of the civil-union bill indicate a maturing of social attitudes on equal treatment for all under civil law? We hope so."
WCT: Legislators often say that they vote in line with their constituents. Do you feel that people voted that way, or voted out of personal belief?
Greg Harris: I've virtually talked with every member of the legislature. Many of them made the judgement that was right for them; they had to do what their constituents wanted. Many felt that this was one of those transformative issues of justice, and that they had to follow their conscience. There were others who struggled—they really struggled—to try to find the right place to be on this. I think we won because of some of those who struggled; they struggled with how Illinois will be perceived in history, and how history will remember them.
There are 6,000 things we vote on that no one will remember. This may be the one vote that, when their grandchildren go to school years from now, will be remembered.
WCT: How confident were you going in that you had the necessary number of votes?
Greg Harris: The biggest fear I had—if you watch how votes go on tough issues—would be that votes would be slow to go up [ on the board ] . Even if you go in with 60 votes, if the green [ "yes" ] votes only go up to 51 and the speaker of the House asked, "Have all voted who wished?" for the second time and they know that the third time he asks that the roll will be taken, suddenly people will get off, and we'd be stuck with 42 or 43 votes.
In the New York Senate, when they decided to do the slow roll call. There was one guy at the front of the alphabet, and everyone was wondering how they were going to vote. When he voted a particular way, the rest of them fell off.
All of us who have tough bills are always talking to our "yes" [ people ] , saying "Push the button fast." In the old days, that was a different kind of strategy than it is today. Now, people have video—and I can assure you that people on all sides of every issue are recording that board, and they will see if somebody has switched a vote, and will hold that person accountable.
WCT: Could you talk about the impact state Sen. [ David ] Koehler had on the bill? [ Note: Koehler sponsored the bill in the state Senate. ]
Greg Harris: He's a clergyman and small-business owner. He's from Peoria. He's well-respected. And his daughter is a lesbian. His daughter and her partner—they must've been so proud that day—were sitting in the gallery watching their father pass this bill. A sponsor like Dave Koehler makes all in the difference in the world just because of the respect people have for him, and the way he can present the issue to people.
WCT: I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Rick [ Garcia of Equality Illinois ] : How soon will you consider starting the fight for marriage equality?
Greg Harris: Well, I will say this: I can want everything in the world but in my job I have to be able to count to 60 [ the number of votes needed to pass a bill in the state House ] .
WCT: So what's next for you?
Greg Harris: We return because we have a budget problem in this state that has to be dealt with—13 and a half billion dollars, or about 50 percent of all the money we take in. And there's no good answer; there's going to be a lot of pain.
WCT: Anything you wanted to add?
Greg Harris: The reason this [ win ] happened is because—in every one of the 102 counties in the state of Illinois—young people; parents who want their gay child to be loved and protected as much as their straight child; grandparents who hoped that their daughter and lover won't move away and they won't see their grandchild because they can't enjoy equal rights; senior citizens who worry about their own futures; faith-based communities who took this on as a social-justice issue; university groups who thought this was the equal-rights movement of their generation ... Tens and tens of thousands of people across Illinois made this happen.
