47 Comments - Anon - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 10:34 am: I wouldn’t say Equality IL’s endorsement has “ruffled some feathers”, since the article you linked to was written by an openly paid staffer on her campaign and contains several major inaccuracies. - Aldyth - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 10:51 am: As far as I’m concerned, any two consenting adult human beings who want to be married should get to be married. When marriage equality became the law in neighboring Iowa, I didn’t witness the sky falling, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse riding in the neighborhood, mass immorality suddenly rampaging through the streets, nor did my or my neighbors’ marriages suddenly fall apart. - reformer - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:05 am: Not all Democrats would vote for it. Downstaters and targets would vote No or Present. Only a handful of Republicans voted for civil unions. If civil unions are too radical, same-sex marriage won’t get many GOP votes. Consequently, I don’t see it passing any time soon. - Anon2 - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:15 am: I don’t think the primary paid a roll in the introduction of the legislation. Rep. Cassidy would support equal marriage regardless of timing. There is a reason she has the endorsement of so many progressive groups. Even if equal marriage will not pass this spring, I applaud Reps Greg Harris, Deb Mell, and Kelly Cassidy for their leadership on this issue. - Ryan from Carrollton - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:15 am: What next? Catholic Charities has been run out of the adoption business because of the Civil Union law passed last spring. The Obama Administration has decreed that employers provide to employees insurance covering contraception and abortion inducing drugs. Now this. It seems as though the political left in this country is doing everything in its considerable power to undermine religious beliefs. In the meantime, our state and country are wallowing in an endless sea of debt, and Illinois lost out on the building of a major manufacturing plant by Cat. The basis for transforming the legislature from a part-time to a full-time one was to better debate issues and legislation. Instead of spending all our time focusing in on the real problems in this state like the budget, pensions, and paying service providers that haven’t been paid in months; we have legislators introducing bills such as this. I know that this piece of legislation has next to no chance of getting anywhere this spring, but it is taking the focus off of the seriously pressing issues and placing it on a feel-good, we care, potential election year ploy like this. - Robert - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:32 am: Gay marriage would give our state a competitive advantage over neighboring states that don’t allow it, recruiting gay-owned businesses and gay professionals to Illinois. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:39 am: The arguments against this are so weak, it’s hard to understand why it won’t pass. The quotes from David Smith are typical. Marriage is for procreation and families. Seriously? My brothers have both been married for over 20 years and neither couple has produced a child. I don’t think they ever planned to have kids. Do people getting married need to commit to bearing children? Of course not. ==But in 10 years, anything is going to go…== Really? How is that a serious argument against anything? I guess that’s when we will see the Four Horsemen Riding in from Iowa looking for a multi-party gay marriage. - Brendan - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:39 am: It’s election-year puffery to help Kelly Cassidy edge Paula Basta with LGBT voters in her tight race to hold onto the seat Carol Ronen to which appointed her. No different than when Heather Steans introduced her election year marriage equality bill which went NO WHERE when openly gay candidate Jim Madigan ran against her. - AC - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:41 am: I’ve come to appreciate the importance of social issues taking up the legislators time. It keeps them away from other more destructive activities. Every minute the spend debating this gives them less time to make unconstitutional pension changes. That said I thought civil unions were a reasonable compromise. - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:45 am: AC don’t underestimate the power of “look, a kitty” legislation. I don’t mean to suggest those involved are not serious. But, let’s get serious about the horrific mess the state is in right now. I know some here might suggest that legislators can do more than one thing at a time but I dispute the notion. - Rahm's Parking Meter - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:45 am: I know Rep. Cassidy well, and this is not something that was unveiled “just because it is convenient.” This is something personal for her, and she feels strongly about. Plus, where has this ruffled feathers? Several members of the GLBT community are backing Kelly because she is a good representative for the district, focusing on fighting for small businesses, fighting crime, etc… - ChicagoR - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:46 am: “That said I thought civil unions were a reasonable compromise.” I’m sure that many people in the South thought that allowing blacks to ride in the back of buses was a “reasonable compromise” with those who didn’t want them on the buses at all. But that dang Rosa Parks… - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:56 am: Frankly, it’s a bit bizarre to suggest that a lesbian who has been married herself is only supporting equal marriage because of her primary with another lesbian. Cassidy was chosen for her experience and ability to hit the ground running. For someone who took the job with only two weeks left in the legislative session, she has already been remarkably effective and earned the respect of her colleagues for being smart and capable. These are very tough times in Springfield which it’s best to have someone like her there. - AlphaBettor - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:00 pm: I live in Cassidy’s district. I’m voting for Basta because a) I’m tired of Carol Ronen singlehandedly appointing every legislator on the Far North Side, and b) Cassidy voted for the speed camera bill. - Aaron - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:05 pm: So Ryan from Carrollton, civil rights and equality are wrong? We shouldn’t be focusing on those issues? Are you willing to say the same thing about gun laws? Guns laws are a kind of rights issue. Additionally, the idea that legislature’s should not be allowed to work on multiple, complex issues in a large, complex world is a laughable concept. What YOU do not want is two people who love each other as mates being able to have their union equally recognized as heterosexual’s unions are. And your “abortion inducing drugs” bit is laughable. Contraceptives do not induce abortion. Also, abortion has nothing to do with this post, so nice try with your strawman. - reformer - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:16 pm: Pot Calling The slippery slope is clearly at work with this issue. Civil unions were never the ultimate goal, just the next feasible step down the slope. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:42 pm: Brendan, this is a far cry from when Steans ran against Jim Madigan. We’ve actually made progress since that race by passing civil unions. The next logical step is marriage. Harris and Mell are unopposed in the primary. I highly doubt they wanted to file this bill just to help Cassidy’s campaign. And what was Cassidy supposed to do? Keep her name off the bill? I’d rather she stands up and fights for equal rights. - Shock & Awww(e) - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:53 pm: This is surely the best time to introduce another round of divisive social issues. Nothing like setting priorities, is there? Meanwhile, Michigan announced yesterday they have managed a $457 million surplus. A key component of their success has been emphasizing focus and attention on fiscal issues over social issues. How many bills have Reps. Harris, Mell and Cassidy newly filed that deal with pension reform, workers comp., the budget, revenue, etc.? Guess we’re not quite there yet, are we? - Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 12:53 pm: I saw Cassidy speak and there are a couple reasons I would vote for Basta over Cassidy. Basically, the more people who get voted out of the General Assembly and Congress, the better at this point. They all need a wake-up call that they need to do a better job. The specific thing that irked me about Cassidy was that when she talked about taxation in Illinois she said she hoped that some outrage (the CME/Sears give-away IIRC) would start a conversation about the need to amend the Illinois Constitution to allow a graduated income tax. Cassidy was talking about amending the Illinois Constitution in this way that suggested members of the media or some third party was supposed to achieve consensus on the issue and then once it was free of controversy then Rep. Cassidy would bless us with doing her part. She’s from an educated, liberal district. If Cassidy isn’t willing to say, I’m sponsoring the amendment then she can get another job and maybe Paula Basta will take more responsibility in her approach to the job. - soccermom - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 1:06 pm: That whole “marriage is only for those who can be fruitful and multiply” thing is nonsense. Is Mr. Smith saying that women past menopause should not be allowed to marry? How about people who are unable to have children because of disease or injury? Some bishops do refuse the marriage sacrament to people who are physically unable to consummate; should we take it a step further, and offer marriage only to those who have a doctor’s certificate verifying their fertility? And hey — what happens when one of the parties is no longer fertile? Is the marriage null and void? Sheesh. - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 1:27 pm: Taking the extreme position of negating marriage unless it is strictly for procreation allows for the opposite side to ridicule you. Reasonable people object to same sex marriage for highly personal, often religious reasons and do so not necessarily because they hate gays or lesbians. The civil union law was touted by some as a decent comprimise but known by many as a step towards same sex marriage. Comparing civil unions to “allowing blacks to ride in the back of buses (w)as a “reasonable compromise” is a poor comparison. The civil unions are essentially marriages by a different name. Those who use civil unions, whether they are same sex or not, enjoy the same rights as those who are “married”. It seems, in some ways, that there is a desire to have the right to use the word marriage no matter what. Whose ox is being gored? - 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 1:37 pm: Ryan from Carrollton Separation of church and state The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion. As far as I see the things you bring up, this part of the constitution addresses it. Not everyone is Catholic, and many Catholics I know use birth control. I don’t think this country is doing everything it can to undermine religious beliefs but it’s within the constitution. Should we outlaw pork because of religious beliefs? Or meat on Friday? or let stores sell these things because it offends some religions? If you don’t eat pork, meat etc. By going to a store that does you are supporting a business that sells what is against your religion because you are supporting that establishment by buying other things, therefore they can pay the electricity to run the coolers/freezers for the meat you can’t eat due to religion. So now insurance companies have a birth control Rx benefit, you don’t have to use it, if you have religious beliefs that won’t let you. Just like you don’t have to buy Pork from a store that carries it, if your religious beliefs are against that. - Floydhastwomoms - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:01 pm: For the decade and a half that I have been involved in LGBT politics, Kelly Cassidy has been one of the leaders in our community. There is not an organization or issue involving the advancement of LGBT rights (and womens rights) that Kelly has not been a vocal advocate. There are no feathers to be ruffled only appreciation to be given to Kelly and Greg and Deb for their leadership on this issue and so many important others. - ChicagoR - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:28 pm: DuPage Dan, I stand by my comparison to “riding in the back of the bus”. Riding in the back is essentially as good as the front. You still get to the same place, don’t you? The issue is that you are being stigmatized and told you can’t do what others do. Same way with civil unions. Why must society stigmatize some couples and say “you can’t call your relationship a marriage”? - Don't Worry About the Government - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:29 pm: I think there are definitely more pressing issues that should be considered for substantive debate; such as going through the budget line by line to find real place to cut waste and fraud. That being said, who cares who gets married? It’s not as though straight marriage is on the up and up or is producing such stellar results for American society that they shouldn’t share in their happiness (misery?). - Skeeter - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:30 pm: Kelly looked slightly crazy yesterday with her “no texting while biking” proposal, and very reasonable today on this one. Hopefully her ideas will continue to improve as the week goes on. - Ryan from Carrollton - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:36 pm: 3rd, The government is not mandating that individuals who have a religious aversion to the eating of pork to shop in those stores. If someone who has an objection to eating pork wants to, they may shop at a store that does not provide it. Additionally the government is not mandating that they either purchase or consume the pork. With this case the federal government is mandating that religious institutions provide insurance coverage for those services to their employees or face a penalty. The Catholic church is not the only religious institution opposed to this new rule. I was listening to the radio yesterday and a number of Muslim clerics in the U.S. read letters to perishoners, for lack of a better term, stating their opposition to the new rule and vowing civil disobedience if not overturned. - Soccertease - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 2:46 pm: Think maybe the same sex marriage and banning cell phones while driving bills were introduced to take some of the focus away from the budget mess? - reformer - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 3:30 pm: ChicagoR By comparing civil unions to Jim Crow, aren’t you comparing Rep. Harris to, say, George Wallace? - ChicagoR - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 3:37 pm: Reformer: Absolutely not. Harris took civil unions only because that was the attainable goal at the time. Now he’s going for the next step toward equality. Wallace never led toward equality, incrementally or otherwise. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 3:50 pm: Ryan: You aren’t being forced into a gay marriage are you? Unless you are I don’t see how any religious rights are being violated. dupage dan: What is your point about having personal and religious objections? So what? You are not entitled to not be offended. And religious objections certainly have no place in determining public policy. - been there - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:07 pm: Polygamy?!? Reminds me of a downstate Democrat who said during Illinois House debate on ERA that if it was ratified, next we’d be seeing a push for equal rights for horses. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:10 pm: Demoralizd, you missed a part of the debate that seems to have been removed. - Indeedy - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:13 pm: This marriage bill won’t help Cassidy in the primary but it won’t hurt, either. What may hurt is lingering taint of Carol Ronen and the stale and for-sale party politics on the north lakefront. I’ll never understand why otherwise smart legislators like Steans and Cassidy continue to hold onto Ronen instead of just taking her out. - Esquire - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:28 pm: I’m only a bill, I’m just a bill, and I’m sitting on Capitol Hill (Springfield does not rhyme and why is that not a crime)… School House Rock from Saturday mornings! LOL! - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:31 pm: Demoralized, Just trying to point out that folk are unhappy with their religious traditions being challenged. It is not necessarily my position. I am perfectly aware I do not have a right not to be offended. Nothing in my posts indicate that. I am merely engaging in a debate. You appear to have little sympathy for folk who don’t think like you. I have to wonder what the hurry is here - that kind of impetus may be necessary in a life/death situation (eg- passing legislation to protect vulnerable children) but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. I don’t remember hearing folk say civil unions are like the back seat of the bus when it was first proposed. Not being allowed to create a legal relationship at all would be more comparitive, IMO. “Hey, you can live together, you just don’t get the same rights (seats) as we do”. Civil unions afforded those rights. The only difference is a word. - mark walker - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:37 pm: This isn’t election year puffery, but one step in a long process. The Civil Unions bill took at least six years of intense and responsible effort by Harris and many others. It also took some evolution of the thinking within the general American culture. In twenty-five years, the bulk of America will wonder why this took so long. I remember the debate in the House on the civil union bill, when a GOP rep claimed with great assurance, that acceptance of homosexuality was what led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Such fears and ignorance will fade away as we progress as a society. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:53 pm: Four things. 1) Cassidy only voted for the speed cam bill after she forced a compromise to allow a transition period during which we’ll get warnings and the graduated fine system of $50 from 6-10 over. Without her efforts, it would have been $100 fine for 6 over. I HATE the speedcams, but that was good work. 2) Carl Nyberg - you misunderstood her point. We’ll never change the constitution until the public rises up and expresses outrage over our current system. That’s not remotely the same thing as saying she won’t touch it until it’s not controversial. 3) How many times did Civil Unions have to be untroduced before it passed? Five? Seven? Introducing it now doesn’t mean they’re fighting on it now. It means they’re starting a process that may eventually lead to marriage equality. As Rich said, it’s just one of many many many bills. 4) I’ve seen people texting while biking. It’s insane and it should be outlawed. - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:54 pm: Just noticed that from the time I typed that post until I hit “say it”, Mark walker made the same point on civil unions. Good point Mark! - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 4:58 pm: ChicagoR, I disagree with your assertion. The seats in the back of the bus were allocated to blacks because it was farther away from the exit, was noisier and smellier. Just wasn’t the same - hence the exclusion. Civil unions are essentially the same as marriage except the name is different. As I recall the legislation was written to insure that anyone entering into a civil union had those rights, whether they were same sex or opposite sex. A civil union rather than a religious one. I am sure if you belonged to a church that was willing to unite same sex couples in a ceremony in the church but you then signed a civil union license rather than a marriage license it would hardly compare to the indignity of being forced to ride in the back of a bus, enter buildings from a back entrance, being denied the right to sit at a lunch counter, being denied the right to vote, live in certain areas, drink from the same fountain as others. Rosa Parks decision to sit at the front of the bus challenging that policy was an act that challenged the whole of Jim Crow, not just a seat on the bus. This country/culture has come a long way from the days when certain ethnic/cultural/orientation groups were systematically denied basic human rights, including the right to live without fear of being attacked and harmed. It is amazing to think that we could be debating such an issue as this without nearly as much hatred as was once displayed by those too ignorant or twisted to be called human. - Burning Down da House - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 5:28 pm: Equality Illinois is in downstate Gallatin County. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 5:57 pm: dupage dan: I have little sympathy for bigotry and inequality. And you are right. I don’t really care what others think or have to say on this subject because there is absolutely no good argument to be against this other than those that are religious based. And, as I said, religion has no business influencing public policy. - LincolnLounger - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 6:48 pm: DuPage Dan — Be against marriage equality if you must, but you surely must know that civil unions is ABSOLUTELY NOT just another term for marriage. There are hundreds of benefits from taxes to testifying against a spouse, etc., that are not conferred with civil unions. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 10:56 pm: I want to vote on Ryan’s civil rights. - Sulli - Thursday, Feb 9, 12 @ 11:35 pm: Every time I hear Carol Ronan’s name I feel a hand in my pocket. - ChicagoR - Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 6:10 am: Dupage Dan: While I agree that the “separate but equal” nature of civil unions vs marriage doesn’t rise to the level of the whole of Jim Crow, it is still in fact “separate but equal”. And as Brown and other cases pointed out, that’s inherently unequal. Just because it isn’t as bad as some other violations of human rights doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be remedied. - peacelover - Friday, Feb 10, 12 @ 8:21 am: DuPage Dan- “What’s the hurry”?? You’ve got to be kidding me! Equal rights have been denied gays forever and finally there are signs of progress. Civil Unions vs. marriage is more than “just a word” - it’s a matter of basic civil rights. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.