From STLToday.com: When I was a kid, many families had a regular night to eat out. Ours was Thursday. We rotated among Carroll's, the Revere Room, the Clay-Mor, the National Trail Inn, Northgate and other lost gems of Collinsville's culinary past.
It also was restaurant night for a couple — friends of my parents — who dined on the same circuit. Our conversations were always warm. Childless themselves, the two lavished attention on my sister and me. They acted like any middle-aged married couple of the 1960s, except they weren't married. They couldn't be. They were two single women, living their lives together.
The precise nature of their relationship was beyond my youthful curiosity. Once I was mature enough to grasp the obvious, the questions in my mind did not range to inheritance rights, health insurance coverage or whether one might make medical decisions for the other.
Now, decades later, the Illinois Legislature has decided to confer rights and protections that those nice women at the next table probably would have found hard to imagine.
Not everybody's happy about it, and I find that hard to imagine.
Illinois is about to become the nation's 11th state, plus the District of Columbia, to provide some kind of legal recognition to same-sex couples.
The House passed SB1716 on a 61-52 roll call Nov. 30, and the Senate 32-24 the next day. A little Republican support (six votes) put it over the top in the House. Gov. Pat Quinn has promised to sign the bill into law, effective June 1, 2011.
Essentially, it provides husband-wifelike legal status to couples — homosexual or heterosexual — without religious connotation or the M-word. Hence, we say "civil union," not "marriage."
It feels like a small step. You see, we've already had state-sanctioned civil unions for a long time.
I wanted to become a partner in one almost 20 years ago. When I fell in love with my wife, she had an adorable 5-year-old son. But since he already had a perfectly viable father, Chris was not available for me to formally adopt.
What is adoption if not a civil union? People with no common blood enter a formal agreement that binds them as if they were kin. It guarantees rights of access and decision making. It provides a legal basis for each to share assets with — and take care of — the other.
Oh, the naysayers will quickly suggest that there is a huge difference: There is no sexual component to adoption. But homosexual civil unions aren't about sex either. They do not authorize any bedroom behavior that hasn't already been legal in every state since at least 2003, with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
Those who want Illinois statutes to reflect their judgment of homosexuality as an abomination didn't lose the battle in 2010. They lost it in 1961, when the Legislature made Illinois the first state to remove laws regulating sexual conduct between consenting adults. (Missouri rescinded its last restrictions in 2006, after the Lawrence case had rendered them meaningless.)
For the sake of political correctness, SB1716 is titled the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act." The "religious freedom" part up front just means that if you don't like it, don't bless it. Officially: "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body. Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."
Otherwise, the unions work a lot like the, well, that M-word. Unionists (unitees?) have to be at least 18, not closely related and neither married nor civilly united somewhere else. They get a license from the county clerk. They can dissolve the union under the same terms as a divorce.
For the record, these people still will not be related in federal eyes for such things as joint income tax returns or Social Security benefits. That's because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed to protect the unions of we straight people.
In that regard, I have discussed the new Illinois law with my wife. We are happy to report that we think our marriage can survive it.
Showing posts with label historic civil union bill passes both Illinois houses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historic civil union bill passes both Illinois houses. Show all posts
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Civil Unions Advance in Illinois
From NYT: CHICAGO — Illinois lawmakers on Wednesday approved legislation allowing civil unions in this state, and the governor has indicated he will sign it, making Illinois one of only a handful of states to grant to same-sex couples a broad array of legal rights and responsibilities similar to those of marriage.
Advocates of the legislation, who had pressed the matter for years, pointed to the outcome as a sign that acceptance of gay men and lesbians is growing and not only on the coasts.
“Sober, clear-minded, cautious Midwesterners are taking this action,” said Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois, a gay-rights group.
Opponents complained about the timing of the vote (during a fall session before newly elected legislators arrive) and said they feared civil union legislation might ultimately harm the institution of marriage. “This will be the entry to a slippery slope,” Ron Stephens, a Republican state representative, said. “The next thing we’ll see will be consideration of gay marriage.”
Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while New Jersey grants civil unions similar to the measure expected to take effect here in July. Four other states grant domestic partnerships with broad legal rights — bonds that some experts said carry many of the rights provided under Illinois’s new legislation if not the precise ceremonial recognition suggested by civil union.
The Illinois provision will provide couples many legal protections now granted to married couples, including emergency medical decision-making powers and inheritance rights. The legislation allows heterosexual couples to seek civil unions, too.
The result in Illinois comes at a shifting moment in the national battle over gay rights. With huge Republican gains in state capitols following the election last month, opponents of same-sex marriage predict a powerful push-back against recent efforts to legalize such unions. Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said she had renewed hope for constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman in places like Minnesota, Indiana and Pennsylvania.
In Illinois, where Democrats dominate both state legislative chambers (and will next year, even after new lawmakers are seated) the votes were split: 32 to 24 in the State Senate on Wednesday, and 61 to 52 in the House a day earlier.
Supporters of gay rights widely praised Illinois’s decision, but many said the eventual goal remained legalizing same-sex marriage, not a separate civil union system.
Advocates of the legislation, who had pressed the matter for years, pointed to the outcome as a sign that acceptance of gay men and lesbians is growing and not only on the coasts.
“Sober, clear-minded, cautious Midwesterners are taking this action,” said Rick Garcia of Equality Illinois, a gay-rights group.
Opponents complained about the timing of the vote (during a fall session before newly elected legislators arrive) and said they feared civil union legislation might ultimately harm the institution of marriage. “This will be the entry to a slippery slope,” Ron Stephens, a Republican state representative, said. “The next thing we’ll see will be consideration of gay marriage.”
Five states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage, while New Jersey grants civil unions similar to the measure expected to take effect here in July. Four other states grant domestic partnerships with broad legal rights — bonds that some experts said carry many of the rights provided under Illinois’s new legislation if not the precise ceremonial recognition suggested by civil union.
The Illinois provision will provide couples many legal protections now granted to married couples, including emergency medical decision-making powers and inheritance rights. The legislation allows heterosexual couples to seek civil unions, too.
The result in Illinois comes at a shifting moment in the national battle over gay rights. With huge Republican gains in state capitols following the election last month, opponents of same-sex marriage predict a powerful push-back against recent efforts to legalize such unions. Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said she had renewed hope for constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman in places like Minnesota, Indiana and Pennsylvania.
In Illinois, where Democrats dominate both state legislative chambers (and will next year, even after new lawmakers are seated) the votes were split: 32 to 24 in the State Senate on Wednesday, and 61 to 52 in the House a day earlier.
Supporters of gay rights widely praised Illinois’s decision, but many said the eventual goal remained legalizing same-sex marriage, not a separate civil union system.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)