Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Clergy access bill sails through House
Next Post: Workers go, bosses stay
Posted in:
* I hadn’t thought of this angle, but Rep. Greg Harris explained yesterday that his civil unions bill might help a whole lot of senior citizen couples…
Harris’ House Bill 1826 would let couples opt for civil unions, rather than marriage. Each partner in a civil union would have legal protections and obligations that already are available to married people. For example, one partner could make crucial decisions, such as those involving medical care, on behalf of the other.
The issue is especially relevant to senior citizens who have been widowed and have entered another relationship, Harris said.
Often, such couples struggle with the decision of whether to remarry because their Social Security and pension benefits could be cut, he said at a state Capitol news conference. If they don’t marry, they lack the legal standing to make health-care and other decisions for one another. […]
“This is not just a civil union bill for same-sex couples,” [Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria] said later. “Most people, when they react to it, only react to the same-sex-couple issue.”
There’s no word yet on when Harris will call his bill.
We’ve had several civil union debates over the years, so I’m wondering today what you think of this particular angle.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Clergy access bill sails through House
Next Post: Workers go, bosses stay
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good angle. Could set up a battle for the ages! AARP vs. the Homophobe lobby
Comment by Left Leaner Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:11 am
While not taking a position either way on the civil unions issue (at least not here), a simple power of attorney for health care ought to do the trick, if unmarried seniors are worried about that issue.
Comment by team america, world police Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:13 am
If true, then put a minimum age of 62 for a civil union and you lose the same-sex argument.
Comment by Vote Quimby! Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:14 am
Standard Operating Procedure for Democrats-
Muddy and confuse so you can get the end result you want.
How can you possibly require Photo IDs to vote. Come up with all sorts of examples as to why its difficult. Then hope the issue goes away and the Democratic Machines in all the major and minor cities continue with the illegal and stuffed voting.
Same thing here. Older, unmarried opposite sex couples will have trouble making decisions for each other so we need civil unions legalized.
Of course, the ultimate objective is to dilute the value of marriage as has been known for centuries.
How about solving the problem of the old, unmarried couple by handing out a one page form they can sign to give each other all this decision making power.
You’d think all these elite liberals hanging around these “presitige” law schools could run some off on their copiers.
Comment by True Observer Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:23 am
I’m not opposed to civil unions, but the seniors angle seems to me to be a stretch. If it’s a question of decision-making, I think a power-of-attorney should do the trick.
I think the bigger issue here is gramma and granpa are shacking up, living in sin. What will the grandkids say?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 10:29 am
Ah, just what we need. More breakdown of the traditional family unit.
Comment by anon Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:14 am
Let’s get the state out of the marriage business all together. Civil unions for everyone!
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:24 am
Like you said - it’s another angle in the hopes of getting a bad idea passed citizens.
Want legal pot? Let’s claim it is for medical reasons!
Want more social programs? Let’s claim it is for the kids.
Honestly, isn’t it time we move beyond Barbara Walter-style justifications for bad policies?
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 11:37 am
What makes anyone think that a civil union won’t be treated as a marriage for retirement, social security and tax purposes? Is there really a value in treating people as married for some purposes but not for others?
And legal standing to make health-related decisions is a matter of completing a power of attorney form.
Comment by Anon Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:02 pm
What we seem to have in this debate is a definitions issue. Perhaps we need to separate Marriage from Civil Union, with a Marriage being something that takes place in a Church and a Civil Union being a Contract between two people that the Government recognizes.
All current Marriages on file will be considered Civil Unions in the eyes of the Government and in the future a Couple would go purchase a Civil Union License from the Government and have the option to be given a Marriage Certificate from the Church of their choice if they so desire.
As far as the Senior Citizen angle on Civil Union it strikes me that a medical or unlimited power of attorney would meet the needs. In my opinion a Civil Union should bear the same Social Security penalties as Marriage since for all intents a purposes the two contracts are essentially the same.
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:07 pm
A civil union is not a marriage. I would like to see “marriage” for religious reasons and civil unions for those who don’t feel the need for God in their union.
Comment by Leigh Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:25 pm
The issues complained of can be taken care of with powers of attorney. I recently held a power of attorney for a senior citizen (now deceased) and had to make those decisions for her when she was unable to do so.
The power of attorney would probably cost as much as the paperwork for a civil marriage.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 12:30 pm
So the senior can keep the benefit of the old marriage while gaining the benefit of a new civil union? Aside from the difference in names, this proposal would essentially legalize bigamy.
Comment by cover Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 2:09 pm
Illinois better embrace civil unions soon. I agree that we should get the state out of the marriage business and leave it to the religious (and irreligious) folks to define and practice. The California Supreme Court just struck down the state ban on gay marriage and hopefully other states will follow. If the homophobes and religious people who believe that gay/lesbian unions are taboo do not want state-sanctioned gay marriage they should embrace a civil union bill that also gets the state out of the marriage business.
Both sides could win. The gay rights community can point to achieving same sex civil unions that can be accompanied by all the trappings of marriage (e.g., ceremony). The anti-gay rights community can point to a civil union bill and say that there will be no state-sanctioned gay marriage in this state.
Comment by CivUneMan Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:00 pm
VoteQuimby, what do you mean by this?:
“If true, then put a minimum age of 62 for a civil union and you lose the same-sex argument.”
What, no such thing as a gay person 62 years old or older?
I like Harris’ idea. Good angle.
Comment by Tony @ 30 Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:06 pm
This is a smokescreen to pave the way for civil unions granting a de facto “marriage” to gays. The Social Security Administration would most certainly amend its regulations to close the loophole for seniors, sending them back to using powers of attorney for health and property decisions. After the seniors what, then, would be left? Hmmm …
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, May 15, 08 @ 3:22 pm