Civil Unions coming to Illinois?

[MattusMaximus]

Howdy all,

Things are looking promising for the passage of the civil union bill in Illinois before the end of the year, but the usual suspects are gearing up to kill the legislation...

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20101117/news/711189836/

It is important for people to understand that this bill, titled the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, contains within it explicit language which would prohibit the state from forcing religious institutions to perform such unions. Thus, contrary to the claims made by many vocal opponents of equality, separation of church & state is preserved and their religious liberty is protected.

I think the latter point especially is worth pointing out. Bottom line: if you live in Illinois or know someone who does, contact your legislators to have them vote in favor of the bill

Cheers - MM

 

[WildCat]

"Seperate but equal" is good news?

eta: From the link

Civil unions would give couples many of the same benefits as marriage adoption rights, emergency health care decisions and estate planning decisions among them but not all.

Couples with legally recognized civil unions would be unable to file joint income tax returns, for example. One partner can sponsor another to become an American citizen, in a marriage, but not under civil unions.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

"Seperate but equal" is good news?

I don't think you can apply that to a religious institution as opposed to public ones (where the phrase was originally applied). Once you get into having the government tell the churches what they can and can't do (apart from saying "don't have ritual human sacrifice" and the like), you get into some very dangerous legal territory. This seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise, but one that unfortunately will get shouted down as forcing the church to provide gay abortions while burning flags.

Edit: I didn't see that paragraph in the article, Wildcat. That's definitely unfair, thanks for pointing it out. I had assumed they'd be granted all the same legal rights.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think you can apply that to a religious institution as opposed to public ones (where the phrase was originally applied).

Marriage is a public institution. I can get married at city hall, no need for any religion to be involved.

 

[MattusMaximus]

"Seperate but equal" is good news?

If I had my druthers, I'd say go for full equality, but that won't fly right now. While I agree with your sentiments, WC, I think at least getting civil unions would be a step in the right direction. Just look at what happened in Vermont - they started off with civil unions in 2000, and now it has become full-blown marriage equality. I think that day is coming in Illinois, but we have to be realistic when looking at the pace of progress and what is & isn't feasible.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Marriage is a public institution. I can get married at city hall, no need for any religion to be involved.

The word "marriage" has too much religious baggage associated with it. I think every relationship recognized by the state should be defined as a "civil union" - if you want a marriage, go to a church. If you want rights via a civil union, go to the government.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Marriage is a public institution. I can get married at city hall, no need for any religion to be involved.

Yeah, I agree. What the argument is going to be in public, though, is that marriage is a religious rite that was co-opted by the government to allow for tax breaks and so on, and that allowing a gay couple to be recognized as married will damage that rite in some way. I don't like it, but that's what the narrative will be--it always is.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yeah, I agree. What the argument is going to be in public, though, is that marriage is a religious rite that was co-opted by the government to allow for tax breaks and so on, and that allowing a gay couple to be recognized as married will damage that rite in some way. I don't like it, but that's what the narrative will be--it always is.

This is precisely why I think a change in language is necessary, as I mentioned above.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Yeah, that would be an appropriate legal fix, but you have to understand how political narrative works. As soon as anyone seriously proposed that, they'd be labeled as "the guy who wants to kill marriage," and ads would be shown that say that "the new bill wants to remove all tax incentives for marriage and prevent married couples from having visitation rights in hospitals," which would be technically true since you would be shifting the rights to the civil union (which all married couples would ostensibly be granted immediately). It's something that's so ingrained that it would take a very large, focused campaign to accomplish, and not without a few careers ending, in my opinion.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Which is why the current course of action is the most doable, in my opinion. In a perfect world, we could just do the language change, but things being what they are... well, you know.

 

[WildCat]

The word "marriage" has too much religious baggage associated with it. I think every relationship recognized by the state should be defined as a "civil union" - if you want a marriage, go to a church. If you want rights via a civil union, go to the government.

It also has a lot of legal baggage associated with it. There are hundreds of legal rights that come with marriage, and not civil unions.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Right. Piles of new legislation would have to be written/re-written to reflect such a simple change, since marriage has simultaneously become a legal and religious process over time. It's a horrible mess, and I'm personally concerned that incrementalism won't really fix it.

 

[drkitten]

It also has a lot of legal baggage associated with it. There are hundreds of legal rights that come with marriage, and not civil unions.

Well, the state of Illinois can't dictate Federal immigration policy any more than the state of Arizona can. So there's nothing that Illinois can do to allow a gay man to sponsor his partner for American citizenship, because that's not a state issue.

I think that half a loaf is definitely better than no bread at all.

 

[cwalner]

Well, the state of Illinois can't dictate Federal immigration policy any more than the state of Arizona can. So there's nothing that Illinois can do to allow a gay man to sponsor his partner for American citizenship, because that's not a state issue.

I think that half a loaf is definitely better than no bread at all.

Agreed, and when enough states have shared the loaf with us without all of you breeders starving, then enough people will see the rhetoric about gay marraige rights destroying heterosexual marraige as the bunk that it is.

That is when the time will be right to address marraige equality on the federal level and either overturn DOMA or address the issues so that civil unions are accorded the same federal considerations that are currently afforded to marraiges.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well, it is a bit better than "next year", but I've been hearing the same people talk about "rumblings" in the ether for a long time.

Getting rid of marriage isn't a necessity, as is clearly evidenced by the States and Nations with gay marriage.

Though this is one of the reasons why I can be happy that Quinn won over Brady.

 

[EatatJoes]

The word "marriage" has too much religious baggage associated with it. I think every relationship recognized by the state should be defined as a "civil union" - if you want a marriage, go to a church. If you want rights via a civil union, go to the government.

I understand where you are coming from. However, I can see a fight for the word "marriage" even if it was removed from the legal lexicon. Although I suppose watching that fight unfold would reveal the bigots for who they are. "YOU can't use the word "marriage", you're a Lutheran!!!"

I'm an atheist as is my husband. Our wedding ceremony was entirely secular. I am married. I have a marriage. The word "marriage" means something to me. I would not take kindly to those who would claim different.

 

[MattusMaximus]

One step closer to reality folks

http://dailyherald.com/article/20101130/news/712019779/

A major milestone for same-sex couples has passed the Illinois House. By a 61-52 vote, lawmakers voted to allow civil unions, which would give nonmarried partners both gay and straight additional rights and benefits under state law. ...

Passage is expected in the IL Senate within days, and Gov. Quinn has promised to sign the bill into law. Huzzah!!!

 

[Drachasor]

The word "marriage" has too much religious baggage associated with it. I think every relationship recognized by the state should be defined as a "civil union" - if you want a marriage, go to a church. If you want rights via a civil union, go to the government.

I completely disagree as an atheist who wants to be married someday.

And, as an historic aside, secular marriage has a very long history. It's never been a religious-only affair.

 

[Drachasor]

I understand where you are coming from. However, I can see a fight for the word "marriage" even if it was removed from the legal lexicon. Although I suppose watching that fight unfold would reveal the bigots for who they are. "YOU can't use the word "marriage", you're a Lutheran!!!"

I'm an atheist as is my husband. Our wedding ceremony was entirely secular. I am married. I have a marriage. The word "marriage" means something to me. I would not take kindly to those who would claim different.

Here, here!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thus, contrary to the claims made by many vocal opponents of equality, separation of church & state is preserved and their religious liberty is protected.

I disagree that separation is protected. As long as religious rituals performed in churches are given civil recognition, we've got a bad entanglement problem.

I'm fine with civil unions as long as they are the ONLY kind of marriage the state recognizes. Otherwise, we've just got a "separate but equal" problem. (Just being separate--and being differently named--is enough to make it unequal.)