Illinois Senate approves civil unions, measure heads to Gov Quinn

From Chicago Tribune: SPRINGFIELD --- Civil unions for same-sex couples would be allowed in Illinois under historic legislation the state Senate swiftly sent today to Gov. Pat Quinn, who is expected to sign the measure.

The bill would give gay couples the chance to enjoy several of the same rights as married couples, ranging from legal rights on probate matters to visiting a partner in a hospital that won’t allow anyone but relatives into a patient’s room.

The Senate voted 32-24 after the House, viewed as the toughest hurdle, passed the measure on Tuesday. (The Senate roll call can be found here. The House roll call can be found here.)

Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, was one of many referencing Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement as she urged colleagues to join her in “bending the moral arc of justice.”
“This is a legacy vote,” Steans said. “It makes a statement about the justice for which we stand.”

Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, said he sees the issue “through the eyes of a father who has a gay child,” a daughter who “doesn’t have the same rights” as his other children.

But Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora, questioned, “Why civil unions now?” when the state reels from high unemployment, home foreclosures, a huge state debt and social services in disarray.

“We are the incompetence laughing stock of government mismanagement and misplaced priorities, and our one-party (Democratic) leadership spends our time on homosexual civil unions,” Lauzen said.

Republican Sen. Dan Rutherford, who was elected state treasurer last month, said he'll vote for civil unions.

"It's the right thing to do," said Rutherford, who will be sworn in come January as a statewide elected official.

Sen. John Jones, R-Mount Vernon, said he has a “lot of good gay friends” that he respects and supports, but civil union “is the wrong path to take,” particularly now when state leaders should be focused on fixing state finances and putting people to work.

“Rome is burning, folks, and we’re sitting back watching it burning,” Jones said.

Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, voted present.

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign it after his campaign pledge to support the measure.

Under the proposal, same-sex couples would enjoy several rights married couples currently have, such as making end-of-life decisions, handling probate matters, sharing nursing home rooms or even visiting partners in hospitals that deny visits by anyone but family.

Business groups did not weigh in on the measure. State officials say they expect some increase in health insurance costs.

The House signed off on civil unions after a debate that sometimes got emotional.

"We have a chance here, as leaders have had in previous generations, to correct injustice and to move us down the path toward liberty," said sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, one of two openly gay lawmakers, his voice breaking with emotion. "It's a matter of fairness, it's a matter of respect, it's a matter of equality."

Opponents charged that civil unions are a "slippery slope" that will erode traditional family values.

"Are you ready for gay marriage?" asked Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, who raised his voice putting that question to colleagues.

The civil unions success is the latest in a quickly evolving attitude about gay rights in Illinois. Only five years ago, lawmakers passed protections against discrimination in jobs and housing for gays and lesbians. It took decades to pass that measure. Illinois has moved toward more liberal stances on social issues since Democrats took control of state government at the start of 2003.

A Tribune poll conducted in late September showed 57 percent approved of legalizing civil unions while 32 percent disapproved.

Approval came despite vigorous opposition from the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which is headed by Cardinal Francis George, who personally made calls to legislators asking lawmakers to oppose the bill. But proponents waged a strong lobbying effort of their own.

The House approved the civil unions measure last night with one vote to spare in a move that surprised many political observers. Democrats made up the bulk of the 61 "yes" votes, with a handful of Republicans signing on as well.

Posted at 12:23:49 PM in Legislature

Illinois House Passes Historic Gay Civil Unions Bill

From Chicago Tribune: SPRINGFIELD — — Illinois took a major step Tuesday night toward allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, a sign that gay rights keeps gaining momentum inside a Capitol where it languished for decades.

As onlookers broke out into cheers, the House for the first time ever approved civil unions, with one vote to spare. Supporters expect the Senate to follow suit Wednesday, and Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn campaigned this fall on a pledge to sign it into law."We have a chance here, as leaders have had in previous generations, to correct injustice and to move us down the path toward liberty," said sponsoring Rep. Greg Harris, D- Chicago, one of two openly gay lawmakers, his voice breaking with emotion. "It's a matter of fairness, it's a matter of respect, it's a matter of equality."

Opponents charged that civil unions are a "slippery slope" that will erode traditional family values.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Shopping: Your home for personalized holiday shopping deals >>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Are you ready for gay marriage?" asked Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, who raised his voice putting that question to colleagues.

Under the proposal, same-sex couples would enjoy several rights married couples currently have, such as making end-of-life decisions, handling probate matters, sharing nursing home rooms or even visiting partners in hospitals that deny visits by anyone but family.

Business groups did not weigh in on the measure. State officials say they expect some increase in health insurance costs.

"Most of the major businesses in our country now extend domestic partnership benefits to their employees," said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois. "The state of Illinois already extends domestic partnership benefits to employees. This really is cost-neutral."

If approved, Illinois next summer would join New Jersey in having a civil union law on the books. Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa have same-sex marriage laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The civil unions success is the latest in a quickly evolving attitude about gay rights in Illinois. Only five years ago, lawmakers passed protections against discrimination in jobs and housing for gays and lesbians. It took decades to pass that measure. Illinois has moved toward more liberal stances on social issues since Democrats took control of state government at the start of 2003.

A Tribune poll conducted in late September showed 57 percent approved of legalizing civil unions while 32 percent disapproved.

Approval came despite vigorous opposition from the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which is headed by Cardinal Francis George, who personally made calls to legislators asking lawmakers to oppose the bill. But proponents waged a strong lobbying effort of their own.

Quinn, who is Catholic, took the extra step of standing on the House floor to watch the breakthrough vote. He called passage a "great step forward."

"It's important that we respect the diversity that we have in our state and be a tolerant state of Illinois," Quinn said.

During the debate, Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago, tearfully implored legislators to vote for the bill as her longtime partner, Christin Baker, sat near on the House floor. They plan to get married in Iowa next fall.

"I love my state and am proud to live here. But my state does not treat me equally. It will take my money, take my taxes, I can even make laws for people," said Mell, the daughter of Chicago Ald. Richard Mell and sister-in-law of ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich. "If God forbid something happens to Christin, and she cannot make a decision, by law the doctor cannot ask me anything. I am not able to speak for her wishes. Under the law the doctor has to go to her family and I'm not considered family."

Though unusually quiet during debate, the House chamber echoed at times with vocal dissent.

Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Troy, said he wants to avoid having to "someday explain to my children and grandchildren that no longer in America are we going to give the honor to a man and a woman in marriage."

"I believe that if this should ever pass, the next bill will be legalizing marriage between members of the same sex. And I just think that's wrong. You might think I'm wrong in thinking that … just call me an old-fashioned traditionalist."

Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, R-Des Plaines, offered a different view, saying she had been too sick to travel to Springfield for earlier legislative action, but she got in her car and drove to Springfield on Tuesday when she learned from supporters she might be the 60th vote needed to pass the measure.

"The fact of the matter is there are gay people, and you're not going to abolish the fact that they are gay by not letting them have these rights," said Mulligan, who added that she wanted to demonstrate that not all Republicans are strict conservatives when it comes to social issues. Still, the overwhelming number of the 61 lawmakers who voted for civil unions were Democrats.

Robert F. Gilligan, the Catholic Conference's executive director, said he is disappointed that civil unions passed, but now is focused on lobbying senators to vote it down Wednesday. Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is an avid supporter of the bill, and supporters have considered the House a tougher obstacle

Gilligan said he was particularly dismayed that the bill passed during a lame-duck session. The measure got a boost from as many as a dozen lawmakers who will not return because they are retiring or were defeated in the Nov. 2 election.

Camilla Taylor, a lawyer with Lambda Legal in Chicago, a group that helped draft the legislation, said businesses in Illinois that provide spousal benefits will have to treat same-sex couples who have entered into a civil union the same as heterosexual couples.

"The civil unions bill makes especially clear that businesses aren't acting in good faith if they continue to treat same-sex couples differently with regard to spousal benefits," Taylor said.

She said that in other states where civil unions bills have passed, Lambda Legal has won cases in which businesses have refused to provide spousal benefits to partners in a civil union.

Modesto Valle, executive director of the Center on Halsted, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center in Lakeview, said that if civil unions become law, he expects people will take advantage of it in a measured fashion.

"I don't believe that all of a sudden people will be running out the door to be recognized in their union," he said. "People are going to take this very seriously, just like marriage. Once marriage gets passed in this country, it's not like all gay and lesbian people are going to run out and get married. It's something to be taken very seriously."

rlong@tribune.com

Is Obama's position on gay marriage sustainable?

From The Plume Line: "That seems to be one of the core political questions in the wake of the overturning of Proposition 8. How can the president continue opposing gay marriage while supporting the decision to strike down Prop 8, on the grounds that it's "discriminatory," as the White House said in a statement last night?

Making it more dicey, the White House statement also said that the president continues to push for "full equality" for gay and lesbian couples. How can that not include support for gay marriage?

This morning, senior White House adviser David Axelrod struggled to defend this position on MSNBC. Here's what he said:

"The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time. He felt that it was divisive. He felt that it was mean-spirited, and he opposed it at the time. So we reiterated that position yesterday. The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control. He's supports civil unions, and that's been his position throughout. So nothing has changed."

But as John Aravosis says, everything has changed.

Here's another problem: In the interview with MSNBC this morning, Axelrod clarified that Obama believes that gay marriage is an issue for states to decide, and it's true that Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, which codified a federal ban on gay marriage.

But as Michael Shear notes, his administration has yet to actively seek a repeal of DOMA, and is acquiescing to Congressional leaders who insist that the current political reality dictates that repeal is impossible. And his administration continues to defend DOMA in court against appeals.

Also: Obama has in the past claimed there's no inconsistency between opposing Prop 8 and opposing gay marriage by arguing he thinks gay marriage is wrong but we shouldn't be prohibiting it legally.


"When you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about," he said in a 2008 MTV interview. "Usually constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

But DOMA does just this, and while Obama opposes it, actively moving to repeal is what would turn this argument from mere eloquence to reality.

The problem for the White House is that the Prop 8 decision will force this issue onto full boil nationally, just as the Arizona law did with illegal immigration. And heading into his 2012 reelection campaign, the gay and lesbian community -- an important Dem constiuency -- will be demanding full support for gay marriage, and a repeal of DOMA.

They'll be demanding complete consistency, and won't want to be lectured about what is and isn't possible amid some arbitrarily defined "political reality."


By Greg Sargent | August 5, 2010; 12:38 PM ET

Marriage is a Constitutional Right

From NYTimes.com: "Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation’s most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment’s rights to equal protection and due process of law.

The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.
As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker’s opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail.

The case was brought by two gay couples who said California’s Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum’s outcome was “irrelevant,” he said, quoting a 1943 case, because “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.”

He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals.

One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote. “That time has passed.”

To justify the proposition’s inherent discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, he wrote, there would have to be a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage. But no rational basis for discrimination was presented at the two-and-a-half-week trial in January, he said. The real reason for Proposition 8, he wrote, is a moral view “that there is something wrong with same-sex couples,” and that is not a permissible reason for legislation.

“Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote, in words that could someday help change history, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women.”

The ideological odd couple who led the case — Ted Olson and David Boies, who fought against each other in the Supreme Court battle over the 2000 election — were criticized by some supporters of same-sex marriage for moving too quickly to the federal courts. Certainly, there is no guarantee that the current Supreme Court would uphold Judge Walker’s ruling. But there are times when legal opinions help lead public opinions.

Just as they did for racial equality in previous decades, the moment has arrived for the federal courts to bestow full equality to millions of gay men and lesbians. "

‘Marriage’ benefits costly for gay couples

From Chicago Tribune on January 18 2010: "If Howard Wax and Robert Pooley Jr. were a heterosexual couple, they could’ve gone to their nearest Cook County clerk’s office, paid $40 for a marriage license and been wed.

That would have provided them an array of legal protections – the right to make medical decisions for one another, the ability for one to inherit the other’s property.

Instead, the couple paid $10,000 for an attorney to help them roughly simulate – using wills, trusts and powers of attorney – the protections that marriage affords. It was a price the men, parents of 3-year-old twins, were willing to pay for peace of mind, though they admit it’s far from perfect.

“I feel at least like we’re secure now,” said Wax, who has been with Pooley for nine years. “It’s not perfect, but we’re OK.”

Across the country, there has been a surge in gay and lesbian couples making such arrangements to protect themselves in states like Illinois that do not recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. As the nation continues to fiercely debate gay marriage, some proponents cite the added financial burden in casting it as not just a civil rights issue but an issue of economic fairness.

“Gay couples have to go to an attorney, have a will drawn up, get durable powers of attorney. Not only is it a financial expense, but many of those things can be challenged by people’s biological families,” said Rick Garcia, political director for the gay and lesbian rights group Equality Illinois. “A heterosexual couple that barely knows each other can walk into the county clerk’s office, get a license, get married by an administrative law judge, and all their rights and all their protections are there.”

It can be a difficult reality for same-sex couples to face.

Melissa Walker and Erin Ferguson had a wedding ceremony in Chicago in 2008. A couple of friends who are attorneys offered their services as a gift, helping the couple prepare powers of attorney and wills.

Now Walker is eight months pregnant and said it will cost about $2,000 for Ferguson to adopt the child, along with additional legal costs to make sure their parental rights are protected.

“Erin and I are spending thousands of dollars out of our savings account,” Walker said. “How does it benefit anyone when our child is going to come into this world with a less economically sound family?”

Most estate attorneys advise straight couples to have safeguards like wills and powers of attorney, but they aren’t absolutely necessary.

“There are protections under the law that would help a heterosexual couple if they didn’t have those protections in place,” said Christopher Clark, senior staff attorney in the Midwest Regional Office of Lambda Legal, a national gay and lesbian civil rights organization. “A same-sex couple, without these steps, has no legal protection.”

Even with carefully laid-out legal plans, Clark said same-sex couples still have cause for concern: “We’ve had horrible situations where someone winds up in the emergency room in critical condition or even dying, and the person’s partner is not allowed access to them, regardless of the documents.”And there are other rights that come with marriage that same-sex couples have no way of accessing. They miss out on all manner of federal tax benefits, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act – signed into law by President Bill Clinton – makes it impossible for a surviving partner to receive any of their deceased partner’s monthly Social Security payout. That money simply goes back to the federal government.

In Illinois, if one person in a same-sex relationship is covered by his or her partner’s work health insurance, the premium that company pays is treated as taxable income for the partner who works there. Married heterosexuals don’t face such a tax.

“You can never create – using private contracts – all the same benefits and protections people have by being married,” said Ray Koenig III, a Chicago attorney. “You can try hard, and you can spend a lot of money. But you’ll never get there.”

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of the country continues to oppose gay marriage, 53 percent, while nearly 60 percent of Americans favor letting gay and lesbian couples enter into civil unions. Garcia, of Equality Illinois, said a civil unions bill that would give same-sex couples every benefit the state conveys to married couples will again be considered this year by the Illinois legislature.

Couples like Stephen Lev and Chad Feltrin, however, aren’t waiting around for a bill to pass. Feltrin proposed to Lev, on bended knee in their Andersonville apartment, in April, but they decided they won’t have a marriage ceremony unless same-sex marriage is legalized in Illinois.

“I guess it’s our way of protesting,” Lev said. “I think it’s unfair we’re forced to jump through hoops others don’t have to jump through just to get the same rights.”

Those hoops for Lev and Feltrin included four powers of attorney (two each), two privacy waivers allowing access to the other’s medical records, two wills and a trust for the property they own together.

Wax and Pooley had their children with a surrogate mother in 2006, and it was around that time they realized the importance of estate planning. Kenneth Bloom, their attorney, set the couple up with two revocable trusts to ensure each man’s assets can transfer to the surviving partner and their children, two powers of attorney for each, a will for each and a separate trust for Pooley’s life insurance plan.

“It’s fascinating to do this work for same-sex couples, because there are always very unique circumstances that have to be planned for,” Bloom said. “Same-sex couples are becoming smarter about these legal matters and it’s becoming more common for them to say, ‘OK, we have no legal rights and we’d better do some estate planning.’ ”

Wax said he’s not bitter about the steps he and Pooley have had to take. He thinks great strides have been made in gay civil rights and believes marriage rights for same-sex couples will come eventually, whether in the form of fully legalized marriage or civil unions.

“I don’t care if they call it a tostada,” Pooley said. “I just want the legal issues to be settled out. I don’t like feeling like we’re missing out or being treated differently.”

Shelly Goldstein -- Stupid Callous Homophobic Hateful Legislation

10 Year Old Arkansas Boy Refuses to Stand for Pledge Over Gay Rights

Huffington Post reports on November 16, 2009: "Via Queerty comes a story from the Arkansas Times about Will Phillips, an elementary school student who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance in school because of discrimination against gay people:

"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.


A columnist for the Arkansas News has stood up for Phillips against his angry substitute teacher. Predictably, fellow students have taunted the kid and called him a "gaywad," but he says he doesn't see his quiet act of protest ending any time soon."

Prop 8: The Musical

Fight the Hate! National Protest Saturday November 15

Protests Break Out in SF & LA Over Gay Marriage Ban

Gays on Strike - Wedding Wars Premieres