Gay Rights- Illinois, USA

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Over a year ago I was at a meeting with the legal/political organizations in Illinois working for gay rights. They said that they had a bill for gay unions and they were working behind the scenes on getting votes.

Well, this year that bill has officially died.

Rep. Greg Harris, openly gay and who authored the original bill two years ago, has introduced a new bill, the "Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act":

Creates the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. Makes legislative findings: same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage benefits; the current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits. Provides that the Act does not interfere with any religious beliefs about marriage. Provides that the Act's purpose is to provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage. Provides that parties to a marriage of the same sex are included in the terms "spouse", "immediate family", "dependent", and related matters. Provides that domestic relations, probate, and family law shall apply equally to parties to a marriage of the same sex. Provides that benefits apply equally to same-sex marriages in these areas: causes of actions related to spousal status, for wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium; adoption; family leave; group insurance for State and municipal employees; accident and health insurance protections tied to former spouses and dependents; and taxes and tax deductions based on marital status. Provides that a civil marriage is prohibited between siblings or between an uncle and a nephew or an aunt and a niece. Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that nothing in the Act should be construed to interfere or regulate any religious practice concerning marriage and no religion is required to solemnize a marriage to which it objects. Provides that a marriage is between 2 persons (rather than, a man and a woman) licensed, solemnized, and registered under the Act. Effective immediately.

Linky.

Meanwhile, Rep. David Reis introduced a House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment:

ILCON Art. XIII, Sec. 9 new
Proposes to amend the General Provisions Article of the Illinois Constitution. Provides that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this State. Provides that this State and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status similar to that of marriage.

Linky.

In conclusion, nothing will happen.

 

[Upchurch]

Rep. Greg Harris, openly gay and who authored the original bill two years ago, has introduced a new bill, the "Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act":

Rep Harris has learned the lesson of proper marketing from his more fundamentalist brethren. What good Christian would be against the "Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act"? The name is vaguely reminiscent of the "Academic Freedom" bills.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

All right. Now the gay marriage bill has stalled and he is going ahead with a civil union one, which is getting through committee.

Word on the street is that they are trying to get it through by attaching it to another bill to get it passed before the 30th.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

A civil union bill is a step forward. It's like reserving seats for blacks at the back of the bus whereas before they couldn't use the bus at all.

Homophobia is disgusting. Sexuality shouldn't be a factor ins discrimination for anything.

Religious bigots are always at the root of this vile homophobia!!!

 

[BenBurch]

I'd argue that there should be NO marriage, and it should ALL be civil unions. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should not be involved.

 

[MattusMaximus]

All right. Now the gay marriage bill has stalled and he is going ahead with a civil union one, which is getting through committee.

Word on the street is that they are trying to get it through by attaching it to another bill to get it passed before the 30th.

Yup, I am getting this impression from my contacts as well. I think that it could get passed quickly towards the end of this week, likely on Friday afternoon so as to avoid too much press (Friday's are dead space on the news cycle). And I'm pretty certain that Gov. Quinn will sign it when it gets to his desk as well.

If Illinois instituted gay civil unions I'd be very pleased indeed. It's not full equality, but it is a step in the right direction. Hey, us mid-Westerners can't let Iowa have all the fun, now can we?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'd argue that there should be NO marriage, and it should ALL be civil unions. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should not be involved.

Agreed. In an ideal world this is how it should be. But I'm not holding my breath for the terminology to change anytime soon.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd argue that there should be NO marriage, and it should ALL be civil unions. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should not be involved.

I more or less agree with you, but I think there should be NO state recognition of religious ceremonies. Marriage does have legal and civil meaning, so it is not strictly a religious matter only.

I think we should stop treating religious ministers, priests and rabbis as agents of the state. There can easily be two different concepts of marriage. The legal, civil one should be done strictly by the state. The religious kind should receive no state or legal recognition whatsoever.

We already have models for this. At one time, naming a child was a religious ceremony that was given legal recognition. Now, the legal naming is done by paper documents (seriously, we don't need a legal ceremony for these things at all). You're free to do what you want religiously (christening, baptism or whatever), but it has no legal status at all.

Another model is divorce, at least as it's seen by Catholics (that is, the civil divorce and religious anullment are properly treated as two separate things).

I do agree that the root of this hysteria against gay marriage (in the name of "defending marriage") is at some level the result of church/state entanglement. I don't think it's motivated by hatred, at least not in the numbers we're seeing in these popular elections. I think many people think of marriage as a religious thing that the state regulates--a situation that is contrary to the First Amendment.

The state should no more give legal or civil recognition to a marriage ceremony than it does to a Bar Mitzvah or Confirmation.

ETA: Just to be clear, this is NOT a problem of language. It really doesn't matter if you change it to "civil unions"--if a license for the legal/civil form of whatever you call it can be executed in a religious ceremony, and that religious ceremony receives state recognition as the legal execution of the license, that is church/state entanglement. The solution is separation. Since many people on both sides see great significance in the term "marriage" I have no problem letting that word represent the two different things. I think it should just be made clear that there are two different things--one is a religious ceremony or sacrament or whatever, and the other is a legal and civil status (complete with, as they say, 1000 or so generally accepted benefits).

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'd argue that there should be NO marriage, and it should ALL be civil unions. Marriage is a religious matter, and the state should not be involved.

When did it become a religious matter though? It does not seem like it was 2000 years ago, and individuals like the pilgrims who founded plymouth mass did not see it that way.

Income Tax is fundamentaly religious and should be banned. It is tithing to the state and as such is primarily religious.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think we should stop treating religious ministers, priests and rabbis as agents of the state. There can easily be two different concepts of marriage. The legal, civil one should be done strictly by the state. The religious kind should receive no state or legal recognition whatsoever.

I think this would be better done by letting anyone officiate the wedding cerimony. It is limiting it to only judges and religious officials that is the problem.

 

[maddog]

I more or less agree with you, but I think there should be NO state recognition of religious ceremonies. Marriage does have legal and civil meaning, so it is not strictly a religious matter only.

I think we should stop treating religious ministers, priests and rabbis as agents of the state. There can easily be two different concepts of marriage. The legal, civil one should be done strictly by the state. The religious kind should receive no state or legal recognition whatsoever.
...
Another model is divorce, at least as it's seen by Catholics (that is, the civil divorce and religious anullment are properly treated as two separate things).

I do agree that the root of this hysteria against gay marriage (in the name of "defending marriage") is at some level the result of church/state entanglement. I don't think it's motivated by hatred, at least not in the numbers we're seeing in these popular elections. I think many people think of marriage as a religious thing that the state regulates--a situation that is contrary to the First Amendment.

The state should no more give legal or civil recognition to a marriage ceremony than it does to a Bar Mitzvah or Confirmation.
...

Excellent post, Joe. Re: your 2nd paragraph -- the civil "marriage" is more of a contract. There is no ceremony needed, just a signed and witnessed or notarized contract. And similar to what you said, if a couple wants a religious ceremony, go enjoy, but leave the state out of it!

The Bar/Bat Mitzvah or Confirmation thing -- these are "coming of age" rituals. It is also a good metaphor, because the state's "coming of age" is also relevant -- things like the ability to get a driver's license at ~16, to vote / register for the draft at 18, to drink a beer at 21 (and speaking of dumb rules!!!). If coming of age was handled like marriage currently is, churches would give driving tests, etc.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this would be better done by letting anyone officiate the wedding cerimony. It is limiting it to only judges and religious officials that is the problem.

I disagree. The ceremony isn't necessary from a legal/civil point of view anyway. If people feel the legal ceremony is necessary, then let it be done by an actual agent of the state (a justice of the peace). There's no point in recognizing a religious (or any other non-government) ceremony as having legal or civil status.

The only way to avoid entanglement is to make it clear that your free exercise of religion grants you no official legal or civil status whatsoever.

As Maddog says, what if we let churches administer driving tests? What if we allowed kids who've had a Bar/Bat Mitzvah vote and drink alcohol? What if we let religions handle immigration through a religious ceremony?

ETA: Also, though I'm sympathetic to the "let anyone conduct a wedding" rather than giving special recognition as a government agent to priests, ministers and rabbis, it wouldn't get rid of the problematic and unnecessary entanglement. For one thing, in most places, the situation will be de facto that most people conducting weddings will be judges in the civil courthouse or ministers, priests & rabbis conducting a ceremony that has the dual purpose of being a civil execution of the marriage license AND a religious ceremony or sacrament.

 

[drkitten]

When did it become a religious matter though? It does not seem like it was 2000 years ago

Because there was nothing at all religious about Jewish marriage ceremonies, and the wedding feast at Cana had no religious content whatsoever.

Income Tax is fundamentaly religious and should be banned. It is tithing to the state and as such is primarily religious.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

When did it become a religious matter though? It does not seem like it was 2000 years ago, and individuals like the pilgrims who founded plymouth mass did not see it that way.

In the history of our country, which, as far as I know was the first country to ban a state religion and essentially found the country based on secular ideals essentially codifying the church/state separation, I'm pretty sure the trend has generally been from more church/state entanglement toward less. I don't know about 2000 years ago, but more like 250 years ago, marriage was considered predominantly a religious matter.

Income Tax is fundamentaly religious and should be banned. It is tithing to the state and as such is primarily religious.

Your reasoning and/or history is flawed. Income tax is not fundamentally religious. It is not a tithe. (In fact, many people would be happier to pay 10%!)

 

[HansMustermann]

When did it become a religious matter though?

Marriage? How about some 10,000 years ago? Probably even earlier, but we don't really have much records from before Mesopotamia.

Marriage, religion and politics mixed for the Sumerians in more... interesting ways than nowadays.

E.g., the king of Uruk (and probably some other places) would legitimize his very right to rule, his auctoritas and imperium so to speak, via a sacred marriage with the goddess Inanna. They actually painted and sculpted typical wedding scenes, with the king as the groom and the goddess as the bride, for a coronation. Very likely also enacted those scenes, with the high priestess playing the role of the goddess. She certainly played that role when, once a year, the king had to have sex with her to consumate that marriage by proxy. And, of course, to show/remind everyone that he's still married to the goddess.

(Now that's some stuff you'd be hard pressed to weasel into casual conversation)

In a sense, it's not surprising. _Everything_ was mixed with religion until very recently. From your marriage to your crops to your fire at home, they were all the domain of some deities. Why would anyone think that marriage was exempt from that?

It does not seem like it was 2000 years ago, and individuals like the pilgrims who founded plymouth mass did not see it that way.

I duinno, AFAIK all along the interval that you mention, marriages were performed by a priest, weren't they? Until very recently it was more important to be married in the eyes of God, than for the King (or his bureaucracy) to even know about a marriage.

Plus, look at all the historical examples where a divorce had to be approved by the church, not by secular authorities. Henry the VIII'th, for example, created his own national church just so he could approve his own divorce. Or in Russia they had situations like Dimitri, son of Ivan The Terrible by his 8'th wife, being considered illegitimate because the orthodox church only recognized a maximum total of 3 wives for a man (not at the same time.)

Dispensation to marry a first degree cousin was also traditionally obtained from the church, not from any kind of secular authorities. If a king wanted to marry his cousin or niece or whatnot (and you'd be surprised how often that happened to some dynasties), he couldn't just give himself the right to do that. He had to ask the pope for permission.

Basically long after the kings had freed themselves from the church's delusions of suzerainty over monarchs in other aspects, marriage was still one thing which remained nevertheless the domain of the church.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because there was nothing at all religious about Jewish marriage ceremonies, and the wedding feast at Cana had no religious content whatsoever.

I am not farmiliar enough to know if this is being sarcastic or not. Jews certainly have their own culture and as one of the most identifying traits is the shared religion it can create an impression of connection where there is not one. And are you claiming that these things have not changed in 2000 years?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In the history of our country, which, as far as I know was the first country to ban a state religion and essentially found the country based on secular ideals essentially codifying the church/state separation, I'm pretty sure the trend has generally been from more church/state entanglement toward less. I don't know about 2000 years ago, but more like 250 years ago, marriage was considered predominantly a religious matter.

What does that have to do with if marriage is religious?

Your reasoning and/or history is flawed. Income tax is not fundamentally religious. It is not a tithe. (In fact, many people would be happier to pay 10%!)

What? It was invented by religions, states did things like property taxes and import taxes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage? How about some 10,000 years ago? Probably even earlier, but we don't really have much records from before Mesopotamia.

Please display your evidence.

E.g., the king of Uruk (and probably some other places) would legitimize his very right to rule, his auctoritas and imperium so to speak, via a sacred marriage with the goddess Inanna. They actually painted and sculpted typical wedding scenes, with the king as the groom and the goddess as the bride, for a coronation. Very likely also enacted those scenes, with the high priestess playing the role of the goddess. She certainly played that role when, once a year, the king had to have sex with her to consumate that marriage by proxy. And, of course, to show/remind everyone that he's still married to the goddess.

Ok now show that egypt thought of marriage as being something that was religious.

Or are even atheists religious now because all culture is religious?

I duinno, AFAIK all along the interval that you mention, marriages were performed by a priest, weren't they? Until very recently it was more important to be married in the eyes of God, than for the King (or his bureaucracy) to even know about a marriage.

And was it more important to be married before god or before you society?

Plus, look at all the historical examples where a divorce had to be approved by the church, not by secular authorities. Henry the VIII'th, for example, created his own national church just so he could approve his own divorce. Or in Russia they had situations like Dimitri, son of Ivan The Terrible by his 8'th wife, being considered illegitimate because the orthodox church only recognized a maximum total of 3 wives for a man (not at the same time.)

Sure the catholic church did try to take over a lot of things, what does that prove?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok now show that egypt thought of marriage as being something that was religious.

Or are even atheists religious now because all culture is religious?

Observing that the culture of ancient Egypt was highly religious is not the same thing as saying "all culture is religious".

However, here's a citation for you:
http://www.touregypt.net/HistoricalEssays/lifeinEgypt8.htm
The first sentence is, "The Wedded State was to ancient Egyptian minds the ideal part of the divine order."

Sure the catholic church did try to take over a lot of things, what does that prove?

Hans pointed out that in a squabble over religious laws governing divorce, Henry VIII started a new state religion--not that the Catholic Church tried to take over anything. It proves that marriage has historically had a strong religious component.

Of course it doesn't mean it must remain that way. Virtually all government had a strong religious component at one time or another. For example, the divine right of kings was one thing our founding fathers flat our rejected.

At any rate, it's important to note that marriage refers to two distinct things--a legal/civil status and something religious. I think the solution is the most complete separation of church & state we can attain. This can't happen if we deny the religious aspect of marriage exists.

 

[HansMustermann]

Please display your evidence.

For example: http://www.matrifocus.com/IMB05/spotlight.htm

Warning: depending on your IT department the shown sculptures can be very NSFW.

Ok now show that egypt thought of marriage as being something that was religious.

Egypt doesn't seem as religiously insane about marriage as some other cultures (e.g., the aforementioned Sumerians), but I hope you realize that what we call now a "marriage contract" was written at a temple and stored at a temple's archives.

Note though that other aspects of marriage were just as much the domain of the gods as, well, just about everything else in Egypt. E.g., if you wanted more kids, you'd go pray to Bast about it, maybe wear an amulet of Bast, or maybe do a pilgrimage to the Goddess's great festival in Bubastis.

Or are even atheists religious now because all culture is religious?

I'm not sure if you're joking or it's just sadly lacking context of what you really meant there. How are atheists even vaguely relevant for ancient Egypt?

I mean, _the_ ancient Egypt where everything was based on religion, and even the Pharaoh's right to rule was because of his being the living (avatar of) Horus? The Egypt where the Pharaohs claimed to be the biological sons of Ra? The Egypt whose archers refused to fire upon the Persian army just because they had painted cat heads on their shields, and the soldiers were affraid of angering the goddess if they shot at her image? The Egypt where they lynched a roman soldier for running over a cat (sacred animal of Bast)? The Egypt where they built giant tombs, spent fortunes on embalming (including often paying more to embalm the cat than its owner), and had a whole industry of spell scrolls and amulets for the afterlife? _That_ Egypt?

You have to be kidding, if you see those as atheists

And was it more important to be married before god or before you society?

As I was saying, before God.

Sure the catholic church did try to take over a lot of things, what does that prove?

That the RCC tried to take over things? Nothing. That people actually recognized that authority, even long after Kings and Emperors had denied it any other authority? It proves a lot, I would say.