Civil Unions Bill Passes in the Illinois House

I agree with YAA. Is something better than nothing when something is so trivial? What if we were fighting for the right to eat at least once daily but only won the right to eat once weekly? We’d still be starved, but is it better than not eating at all? I guess so…

False analogy, Jesus. It would be more like fighting for the right to eat lunch, but getting the right to eat a “noon-ish meal.”

I suppose, Michael. But I think it’s more like fighting for the right to eat lunch, but winning a “noonish meal” that they are forced to eat in a separate room in the dark with no clothes on. It just doesn’t even come close to a win.

Will the “civil unions” be afforded the same and equal rights as married couples? If so, what’s the difference what it’s called. And why should we care? Sorry, I’m a straight male and may not be as educated on the difference if they are the same thing and receive the same benefits. Perhaps we should call all marriages “civil unions” if they receive the same and equal treatment….seems to me it’s becoming a matter of semantics.

Semantics are key. How would you feel about introducing your wife as your civil partner? You didn’t get married, you got united. How would you feel about not being able to see your dying civil partner in the E.R. during his/her last moments because you are non-family and you failed to bring your state civil-union license.

This compares to fighting for the right to vote, then finding out your vote only counts as half a vote because you have an affinity for spandex.

Being from Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is allowed, I just can’t comprehend the arguments against it.

I’m proud to live in a state that decided to recognize peoples’ basic human rights, and did it without too much trouble (there was a strong effort to stop it, but that *mostly* came from out-of-state). And guess what, Christians! The sky has not fallen. So-called “traditional” families have not been weakened. In fact, no one really even thinks about it. In a good way. It doesn’t make the news. It’s just taken for granted that two people can marry if they like, regardless of gender.

I’m sure there are people in the state who are still against it, but too bad for them. I’d like to congratulate Illinois for taking a step towards decency, now just keep on in this direction. It’s pleasant here, you won’t regret it.

Marriages started out as agreements between families. If people considered themselves married, they were. Then governments came along and codified the rights and responsibilities. The Church only got involved in the marriage business in the 12th century or so. Then later, the government took it back.

Civil unions can offer the same benefits in theory. In practice, people and institutions don’t always recognize them. They often don’t know what they are or what legal status they have. So it still happened that people were denied benefits or rights. That’s been documented in New Jersey and some politicians admitted that the law wasn’t quite working.

For the emotional importance of the word marriage, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wnvMSIIiHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwBsnklZpwM (from 5:00 on)

If the homosexual community doesn’t like civil unions, why were they behind this bill? The only reason I can conclude is that they know it is just one step away from same sex marriage and thus the slippery slope argument of those that opposed it seem to be correct.

From the comments here it looks like the next step will be to say that this bill isn’t working so let’s just allow same sex marriage.

A review of the bill however, does say that a civil union partner is a spouse so I would think that those parties could call themselves spouse.

One interesting section in the law is specific language that religious institutions don’t need to perform civil unions. I find it strange that this section was necessary if as those that support same sex marriage say that is not a concern for churches to have… i.e. that it would never be forced upon them to conduct same sex marriages or in this case unions.

One of the big problems with the law unrelated to same sex unions is now some middle ground between living together and marriage for heterosexual couples. Not sure how that will work but it seems unnecessary.

It’s times like this that I am glad to be Canadian. We have had gay marriage nation wide for several years now and guess what! Hetero marriages are still meaningful to the couples involved, people are NOT marrying children or pets and we still have a vastly lower per capita murder rate than the United States.

Hmm. The optimist in me wants to say that the step from no rights for same sex couples to civil unions is large, and the step from that to bona fide marriage is small.

But the pessimist in me thinks that it’s just a bone thrown to the equal rights activists to try to placate them and delay full, unequivocal rights as long as possible.

But either way, full marriage rights for same sex couples is inevitable. I will see it and I will attend some same sex weddings. Use this only for more pressure, not to back off. Don’t rest until we all have complete freedom.

Our 2 lobbyists are also there working hard to keep lawmakers from caving into pressures. And the pressures are great! Things are very fluid as I write this message and there are arms being twisted and necks being stepped on to get the 60 votes needed in the House.

*headdesk*
Don’t these people see the irony and hypocrisy in their own statements???

But I guess it’s only “pressure” when it’s the evil other guys who’s doing it.

Also… “a former lesbian” – really? The levels of stupidity continues to amaze me.

Anyway, I say take the civil unions, but don’t be satisfied with them.

Ditto.

I agree that it’s separate but equal bullshit and that’s unacceptable. Hence, take it and keep it fighting. Keep saying that’s enough.

I really don’t understand why so many ascribe marriage to religion. Yes, there are religious marriages but there are also civil ones. I was in a civil one for four years. He was Baptist; I was Agnostic and we got married by a Justice of the Peace.

They probably included the wording unnecessarily (separation of church and state means a church doesn’t have to marry anyone it doesn’t approve of; i.e., the Catholic Church doesn’t have to marry a member to a non-Catholic unwilling to go through their classes for such, bigoted churches still don’t have to perform interracial marraiges) to placate the religious nutcakes opposing even this much.

I think it’s a good sign that they did put it in even though it was not necessary. Kind of indicates an intent to forge ahead no matter what the religious think. The m word’s around the corner. And, yeah, gay marriage needs to be legal nationwide. It needs to be enacted at the Federal level.

You do realize that the majority voting on the rights of the minority has always, inevitably, been overturned by the courts, right? State-wide referendums are meaningless in the long-term – the only thing that matters is whether or not the Supreme Court rules banning SSM violates the Constitution. I’m also not sure where you get the idea that Kennedy will “probably” vote against it, but I’d argue that his vote might not even be the swing. Scalia, for all he’s been demonized by the left, is more of a “small government” conservative than a theocratic conservative, and I think he very well could see this as an unnecessary government intrusion and a violation of the religious freedoms of the Episcopalian church, Unitarians United, the MCC, Reformed Jews and any other religious organizations that wish to sanction SSM. Further, saying the court is likely to vote against it is saying they’ll go solely on ideology and ignoring the evidence presented in the case. It’s the only hope for the Yes on 8 crowd, because Olsen and Boies simply annihilated any arguments that were actually put forth in court.

It is obvious that these fights will be heading to the Supreme Court, with the first one potentially Perry v. Schwarzenegger over Prop. 8. With its current make up I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriage.

Yeah, I don’t know about that. I mean, you may indeed be correct, I just don’t know.

However, the soon to be completed demise of DADT will be a huge nail in the coffin of defining marraige as being between a man and a woman.

And all of this comes down to the definition of marraige, or more to the point, the re-definition of marraige.

I’ve long said that gays and lesbians have always had the right to marry. It’s the same right that I have.

Only gays and lesbians don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex (obviously).

So the question, I once thought, was do gays and lesbians have the right to re-define marraige?

I once also thought that they did not have that right, but I’ve changed on that point.

However, even if I had been right that gays and lesbians (or anyone for that matter) did not have the right to redefine marraige, it would have been irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is marraige is being/has been redefined.

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that even this Supreme Court could rule in favor of gay marriage.

I hold that the conservative members of SCOTUS do not rule from a sense of theocracy or ideology, but from the law.

Depending on how the case is presented, that is, what argument is put forward in favor of gay marraige, and what the law is, then I easily can imagine this Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage.

Again, I don’t know because I don’t know the specifics of either the arguments of the cases involved or the statutes that actually apply.

Perhaps I should have taken the time to find out about those specifics, but I thought, “Why bother? Gay Marriage WILL happen in the USA.”

And it will.

Further, I’ll state that I think it should (even though I oppose it personally).

Why?

Because marriage in the USA has not been marriage properly understood (properly understood imo) for many years.

Marraige today is not about permanence or reproduction. The wholesale embrace of no fault divorce and contrception in marraige by “heterosexual society” is really what has re-defined marraige.

Gays are not a threat to traditional marraige. Heterosexuals killed traditional marraige years ago.

As a matter of civil and secular law as it currently exists, I see no right or reason to withold the right of “marraige” to gays and lesbians.

But then I would say the same about witholding that right to siblings, polyamorous unions, etc.

I think it wrong to conclude that opponents of “gay marriage” are automatically bigots.

Many, if not most, are operating from the false notion that the traditional marraige definition they seek to protect actually exists anymore.

It doesn’t. There are many marraiges that do meet that traditional definition, but the definition, to the degree that definition means to limit meaning, is kaput.

Put another way, while many claim that “civil union” does not rise to the level of marraige, I contend that marriage was reduced to the level of “civil union” years ago.

At this point, the difference is semantic only.

Kevin,

I agree with you that there are many differences between the two in the practical realm. My point is that in the fundamental sense there is no difference, and this is why the pro SSM movement will have history on its side, so to speak.

More proof, if it were needed, that prayer doesn’t work. Or, and this for me is the more amusing idea, maybe “God” is in a civil partnership him/herself?

Heterosexuals killed traditional marraige years ago.

Viva it’s demise! And no-fault should be the standard always. (We just got it here in New York this year. Talk about behind the times.) No one should be forced to stay in a marriage they don’t want to be in. No one.

It’s a start … but we won’t rest until full marriage equality is granted.