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.

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."

Read the full story on the Doings Oak Brook website here.

SmartMan5 January 04, 2013 at 08:42 PM
You miss the point. It is about priorities. Let's keep them focused.
Darren McRoy January 04, 2013 at 09:20 PM
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 January 04, 2013 at 09:26 PM
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 January 04, 2013 at 10:25 PM
He would love it if it was something he supported. Hypocrites.
m hardy January 05, 2013 at 04:21 PM
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.


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
See more »