* I told subscribers about this possibility earlier in the week…
Gay and lesbian couples celebrated yesterday after the Illinois legislature approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. However, the new law would require couples looking to wed to wait until the summer of 2014. An immediate effective date would have required 10 more votes than the measure received in the House.
But an amendment that Oak Park Democratic Sen. Don Harmon filed today to House Bill 2747 might speed up that timeline. The measure could not be taken up until after January 1, when the vote threshold for an immediate effective date drops back to the standard majority. The proposed amendment would allow the same-sex marriage law to go into effect anytime after HB 2747 was passed and signed into law.
“Whether that’s Valentine’s Day of next year or some other date, we could make sure folks have access to equality earlier than they would.” Harmon said he does not yet know if there is interest among his colleagues to take another vote on same-sex marriage, especially at a date even closer to the spring primary elections. “I don’t know if there’s an appetite to do so, but it seems silly at this point to be delaying people’s marriage plans based on our legislative calendar.”
The House just released its schedule and the chamber isn’t returning next year until January 29th for the governor’s State of the State address. The next regular session day will be February 4th.
Your thoughts?
- Elo Kiddies - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 10:51 am:
Wouldn’t that allow Republicans who voted no to stave off a primary opponent to switch their vote to yes? Then they could run in the general as supporters of the bill.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 10:54 am:
Has anyone reported what the status of the Darby v Orr lawsuit is in the wake of the marriage vote?
- Jolly1 - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 10:57 am:
Please Please pass HB2747 ASAP and let the Gay couples get married. Maybe then we can finally move on to some real issues that need addressed.
- Montrose - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 11:01 am:
“Maybe then we can finally move on to some real issues that need addressed.”
a) Marriage Equality is a real issue.
b) If you think items like pension reform are/were being held up by marriage equality, you clearly have no idea how things operate in Springfield.
- MrJM - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 11:22 am:
Other people’s civil rights always seem so trivial, huh?
– MrJM
- A guy... - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 11:37 am:
Don’t think you’d see much change in the vote that was just recently taken. I’m guessing most members would just as soon be working on something else a month before the primary. Weddings take time to plan for people who are looking at this as a truly momentous opportunity. June 1 is probably soon enough. I’m willing to bet there will be a lot of June weddings.
- ChrisB - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
I don’t see the point, unless the effective date will be before December 31 for the tax benefits.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy this passed, but weddings take a ton of planning. Getting the place for the reception may have been the most stressful part, and we were a year out when we got it. With the backlog of people waiting to get married, I doubt there will be any availability next year, and maybe even through 2015.
Obviously none of this matters if people go the small ceremony route, but I’m just assuming people are going to want to celebrate and celebrate big.
- Seriously - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:02 pm:
Stay with me for a moment.
One side of this argument is based on religion. Marriage is a relgious ceromony with religious implications. The term and definition are rooted in Biblical theory and tradition. Somewhere along the way the state confiscated it.
Civil Unions have all the same civil requirements or obligations as legal marriage without the religious connections.
Why not Ammend HB2747 to eliminate “marriage” all together. Get government out of marriage. Put marriage back into the church like other ceromonies and acts of biblical obediance (confirmation, baptism, etc.) that the state is silent on or has no public interest.
Just asking.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:05 pm:
===Why not Ammend HB2747 to eliminate “marriage” all together.===
The argument is over. The bill passed.
And if you think gay marriage is radical, try getting legislators to vote to “eliminate marriage altogether.”
C’mon.
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:09 pm:
Montrose and MrJM- yes you have valid points, but Jolly1 speaks for me too. I don’t have a dog (or horse, or turtle) in this race. I don’t care about marriage,(although in that situation for 40+ years), religion, or gays, either pro or con. Pass the bill and move on…
- Served - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
The sooner it takes effect the better. For instance, if someone in a “civil union” that intends to re-register as married passes away before they “marry” on June 1, then their husband/wife won’t be eligible for federal benefits.
The vote on this amendment should take no time at all and it’s the right thing to do for the people involved. The policy passed, let’s bump the timeframe if we can.
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
Seriously and Rich are both right. “Marriage” should be replaced by “Civil Ceremony” as the legal term/contract; but it ain’t gonna happen…
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:15 pm:
oops, should have been “civil union”
- Joan P. - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:36 pm:
“weddings take a ton of planning. ”
No, they don’t, not unless you want a big ol’ fancy one.* Otherwise, “Hey, hon, if you’re free this afternoon, let’s head on over to the courthouse and get married” works just fine.
*Actually, I have a friend who found a venue, bought her gown, and organized a very nice wedding and reception in TWO WEEKS. Near the Christmas holidays, too.
- Seriously - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
@ Rich
The bill is passed and now we redefined marriage, so let me ask it in a different way; state regulations are supposed to be about public protection. Marriage, regardless of how you define it, is about economics…not public protection. So, if there is no public protection why is the state regulating it?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 1:41 pm:
===state regulations are supposed to be about public protection===
First, this isn’t a regulation. It’s a law.
Second, All regs are not about public protection.
Third, go find a sponsor.
- Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Nov 7, 13 @ 5:54 pm:
Well, it sure might at least actually be somewhat risky, with SUCH a tiny margin in both the Senate, and eSPECially in the House, once some of these Reps. who so dramatically changed their tune and voted in favor, head back to their Districts for the Christmas (and Other) Holidays. What if a couple of them got “cold feet” all of a sudden and FLIPPED their votes again?! Not likely but stranger things have happened in Springfield before…! And yet, assuming it worked out as Mr. Harmon plans, the date could be pushed up to please many I suppose…