The legislative battle over extending equal rights to same-sex couples had its share of ups and downs this past year. State Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago) got things rolling by introducing two measures -- the same-sex marriage and civil unions bills -- for the second consecutive year. While the marriage proposal never made it out of committee, a growing number of lawmakers warmed to civil unions and the legislation gained some traction in the House. As the session drew to a close, however, it became increasingly clear that the bill didn't have the votes to pass. Harris went so far as hatching a plan to sneak the civil unions language into a shell bill that had already passed out of the Senate in hopes of keeping it alive. But the plan was foiled and the session ended with Harris vowing to try again.
In just the few short months since, some high-profile Illinois politicians have vocally expressed their political support for gay marriage. And with Harris at her side, State Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) announced today that she's hoping to build on that momentum by introducing the Equal Marriage Act (SB 2468), the Senate version of Harris' same-sex marriage bill. "This is a mainstream position, this is a moderate position, and it's the right position to have in the state of Illinois," Harris said. "We should get it done and we should get it done now." Watch:
Harris plans to keep his own civil unions proposal alive by reintroducing it in the veto session. But as the Sun-Times Mark Brown notes the Chicago Democrat has no plans of backing down there:
[Harris] suggested that if the measure fails again, proponents may shift strategy next year and direct all of their efforts toward winning full marriage rights. After all, nobody's trying to hide the fact that's the ultimate goal.
"We're a family," Chicagoan Kelly Cassidy said at today's press conference, "and we're simply asking the government that represents us to recognize us as a family and give us the tools to protect our family." Listen to her account of how the current system discriminates against her, her same-sex partner, and their children:
Comments
Mary Smith (not verified) on Fri, 10/02/2009 - 15:12
Marriage has several components. The personal relationship component is specific to each couple and many gay/lesbian couples do this well, as do many heterosexual couples. The legal component consists of governmental policies that give some sort of encouragement and/or benefits to "marriage" but only if it is called "marriage" and not "civil union". If you are not going to give the benefits to all adults couples then no adult couples should have them. I've been married 50 years now and enjoyed tax breaks the whole time. I get a larger social security check through spousal benefits than through my own earnings. I have had health insurance through my husband's work most of that time. I know many gay and lesbian individuals: their sexual orientation was clear early in life. They would never be happy in a heterosexual relationship just as a heterosexual individual would never be happy in a homosexual relationship. "Gayness" or "lesbianness" is not a matter of choice and you can't be persuaded into it or contaminated by it. The gay couples I know take care of each other, do good in their community, pay their bills and their taxes, help out in their families and neighborhoods, and are all around good people. It would have been easier to be straight, but you can't choose to change your sexual orientation.
A Poquette (not verified) on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 20:55
We have rights like anyone else I'm a Citizen of the United State Of American I have the right to vote, serve my country, pay state & Federal Taxes
I'm in a committed relationship of 12yrs
had a handfast "wedding" Were domestic Partners as of 2004 in the state of California WE want it in our State and FEderal
I have the right to be married
Timothy Wells (not verified) on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 20:06
I was so pleased to have read this posting. It is very refreshing to see a senator from the state of IL that is in support of this important legislation that is openly admitting that she is a heterosexual female. I am currently in a relationship with my partner and at is point because gay marriage is not recognized by the state if anything should happen to either of us because we are not considered immediate family not only do we not have any say so were not even allowed in the hospital room to see each other. We pay taxes just like everyone else does and we deserve the same equal rights.
Kanisha (not verified) on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 04:50
Yea! My wife and I are legally married in CA but would love to have this recognized in IL.
Phil (not verified) on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 21:34
Quite simply I see the benefits attached to marriage as societies way of rewarding the relationship that creates members of society. That unique union has a unique contribution to the sustainment of society and a unique reward is proper. Any other relationship does not have the quality that marriage benefits are designed to reward. It would be an injustice to present those rewards from society to people in a relationship that does not make the same contribution.
This is a matter of just compensation not of bigotry.
If however the state decided that the nature of the relationship was insignificant and therefore marriage benefits should apply to homosexual couples, then out of justice and equality those benefits should be extended to ANY set of people regardless of number or relationship including siblings living together, groups of singles like brothers and nuns, polygamists etc.
Further, society already compensates people who wish to adopt with tax breaks and other incentives. So if a gay couple wishes to adopt they are compensated.
However, there should be a provision apart from marriage, civil union most likely, that does extend some partnership benefits to individuals who wish to commit themselves. But this union should be extended to any group regardless of number or relationship etc. out of justice and equlaity.
In short the homosexual union itself does not contribute to society and should be treated as all others of like kind. To treat it as something it is not is a charade.
Andy Harrison (not verified) on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 23:20
The only thing that differentiates a heterosexual relationship from a homosexual relationship in terms of prospective societal benefit appears to be procreation.
We don't grant marriage benefits to heterosexual couples because they have had children, though. Sterile couples receive the same rights from marriage as fertile couples. Unmarried couples with children, regardless of how many they've had and regardless of how long they've been together, do not receive marriage rights.
Your proposed justification for existing marriage laws flies in the face of readily available facts about actual marriage.
Moreover, there is a significant difference between a romantic relationship and a sibling relationship and the other types of relationship which is as easy to recognize in the arena of marriage as it is to recognize in your post above. The absurdity of equating them is the basis of your argument. Arguing that it is logically necessary to equate them if we are to allow gay marriage undermines the entire rhetorical thrust of your argument. You can't have it both ways.
Polygamy could be limited in a similar way. The primary argumets against polgamy - the promoion of abuse, sexual inequality, etc. - are unaffected by the legal status of gay couples. A fortiori, the argument you imply for allowing heterosexual marriage - procreation - would, to be logically consistent, require even stronger support for polygamous relationships than monogamous. More wives equals more babies.
The charade is your argument, sir. Your implied justification necessitates legal recognition of relationships you use as rhetorical bait and militates against many of the relationships you purport to champion.
The purpose of marriage laws is not to get people to have babies, as demonstrated above. The purpose may be to recognize a cherished human emotion - devoted mutual romantic love. Sexual orientation neither diminishes nor enhances that highest of feelings.
If you really analyze the question, I'm sure you'll see your error. I sincerely hope that your arguments are honest mistakes and not, as you say yourself, post hoc rationalizations of trogloditic bigotry.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.