Hoping to piggyback off the landmark Iowa State Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on gay marriage, Illinois gay rights activists are busy organizing in support of State Rep. Greg Harris' (D-Chicago) civil unions bill (HB 2234).  Although the Iowa decision explicitly rejected civil unions as an "alternative remedy," legislators think Harris' bill would broaden the conversation over gay rights and ensure that all Illinois residents in committed relationships are provided the same protections and benefits --including medical decisions -- currently available to heterosexual spouses. "Illinois never wants to be behind Iowa on doing anything,” Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) quipped to the AP Friday.

After passing the House Youth and Family Committee by a 5-4 margin in early March, the House has yet to take up the bill for a full vote. But Speaker Michael Madigan gave HB 2234 an exemption from the usual deadline for action, extending the reading period until May 8. As a result, gay rights groups such as Equality Illinois have more time to ramp up pressure on lawmakers. This coming Saturday, buses will take canvassers to suburban locations represented by many of the undecided state reps. The following Wednesday, organizers will formally lobby lawmakers at the in Springfield.

Opponents continue to offer weak justifications for resisting the bill.  Family PAC's Paul Caprio told CBS 2 on Saturday that a legal civil union law in the state of Illinois would make it "much easier for them to adopt children," ignoring the fact that state law already permits adoption by GLBT Illinoisans -- married or single.  Furthermore, there exists near “universal professional consensus” that adoption applicants should be judged on their qualifications, not sexual orientation.

David E. Smith, executive director of the conservative Illinois Family Institute, told the AP that rights aren't denied in Illinois because gay couples can seek power of attorney to dictate legally who can make decisions about health care, death, and other crucial issues. But Smith fails to offer any valid reasons why gay partners should face an additional legal hurdle to earn the fundamental rights enjoyed by their heterosexual friends and neighbors.

The SouthtownStar editorial board took apart some of these arguments in an elegant editorial yesterday. Here's an excerpt:

We've heard all of the arguments against it. "Civil union" is just fancy legalese for gay marriage. Approve this, and you're condoning sexual behavior some consider deviant. It flies in the face of Christian values, as outlined in the Bible.

But here is the great thing about our country: Our form of government does not discriminate based on religious views, it doesn't monitor what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, it values the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say these inalienable freedoms apply only to those who happen to be in the majority or happen to be of the same race or happen to be Christian or happen to be heterosexual. Being gay does not make you a second-class citizen.