39 Comments - Justice - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 8:00 am: Sounds like a reasonable approach….however, I think it will ultimately come down to money and insurance benefits. Not sure if the religious elements will fight against it as hard as the insurance companies will. - Take a closer look - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 8:23 am: First let me say that I have no problem with same-sex couples being given considerations when it comes to legal protections, but maybe we should break it down this way. There are now leagal ways to be able to visit a partner in the hospital, make healthcare decisions, funeral arrangements, etc. I believe through power of attorney documents and through a last will and testement to mention a couple, same sex partners would have these rights. What it comes down to is healtcare insurance and pension benefits. Why can’t laws be changed to affect just those types of benefits and leave the marriage word out of it. This legislation is not bad, but for government to “recognize” a relationship may open a big can of worms. Why not change guardianship laws to allow anyone dependent upon another whether they are in a “relationship” or not to be able to benefit from insurance benefits and surviving pension benefits. I know of many siblings in their older years that take care of each other and could greatly benefit from a change in the laws. I just believe that to be fair and equal, our legislators should take a closer look at this and come up with a solution that would benefit all. - Leroy - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 8:41 am: I support this concept as long as it doesn’t discriminate against people that want to marry multiple partners. (i.e. One husabnd, many wives, or many husbands, and many wives, for example) No need for the state to continue to pick and choose who can get married, and who can’t. I feel over time, history will evolve and one day our children and grandchildren will look back at debates over the concept of having multiple husband/wives the way we now look back on debates over bans on interracial marriage and the right of women and minorities to vote. Not discriminating on who can get married is the right thing to do. - IL Dem - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 8:49 am: Simple answer: yes. Its the right thing to do. - Kuz - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 9:11 am: Of course this is the right thing to do. I am married, which was a commitment I made to my wife and to God. Independent of that commitment, I signed a marriage license with the state that conferred benefits onto one other person, who can legally speak for me. There is absolutely no harm to the state, insurance companies, or anyone else if that person happened to be male rather than female. Meanwhile, Leroy is being facetious. I hesitate to even address polygamy seriously (since no one in Illinois is advocating for it) but having multiple partners recognized in law creates a conflict of proxy power: who is next of kin? Who has legal standing in court? Marriage, from a legal point of view, is not a holy union or a vehicle for procreation. It doesn’t require God’s blessing, or even love. It is a legal contract between two people. All Rep. Harris’ bill does is allow full participation in that contract. - Pat Hickey - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 9:17 am: Harris’ proposed legislation is intelligent and respectful. This should pass. - Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 9:28 am: I bashed Rep. Harris for his prior bill as being out of touch with Illinois. I now give credit where credit is due. From the summary, this seems like solid legislation that we should all support. If there is political fallout from something like this, so be it. It is the right step to take now. - RBD - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 9:37 am: Yes. Rep. Harris is right about historical perspectives. - Larry McKeon - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 9:53 am: Rep. Harris has done an excellent job of crafting a piece of legislations that addresses the issues and avoiding the unnecessary debate about the institution of marriage which has clearly been settled in state law over a decade ago. The issues here are primairly economic followed closely by heathcare and dependent children of a committed same-sex couple who have been in a long-term committed relationship. Sure, the religious conservatives will rally against the legislation laying false claims that this would undermine the institution of marriage. If there is a threat to the institution of marriage is does not come from committed same-sex couples but from heterosexual couples that abandon their civil and faith-based commitments at alarming rates. I personally believe that no-fault divorce has been and continues to be the single greatest threat to marriage. More about this issues as the legislation and discussion develops. - shelbyville - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:00 am: This would be good. I have a friend of the same sex, that I have known since she was 12. She has some depression and was hit by a drunk driver, 25 years ago. She is in poor health, w/o insurance. This would give me the opportunity to put her on my insurance and give her my benefits after I am gone. By the way, I am married. Would that matter? And I don’t intend to live with her. She’s a smoker. - Objective Dem - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:04 am: In the short term, it is a big step forward and an okay compromise. But it still treats gays/lesbians as second class citizens. I don’t think it would have been acceptable for inter-racial couples to be limited to “civil unions” because the term “marriage” upsets too many people. I think a better approach would be for the state to limit itself to civil unions, and leave marriage to religion. - ZC - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:39 am: This seems to be the new compromise - “Marriage Lite” or “Shhh! Just Don’t Call It Marriage.” It is OK as a placeholder; it meets real human needs in the immediate present, which is nothing to sneer at. In the long run I predict the next step will be taken. As a gay marriage supporter, I will be patient. I think time is on my side. And “Objective Dem” raises a concern that social conservative should have (although it’s probably overblown, I haven’t seen any data to support this claim): it would be no small irony if a measure taken to “strengthen” traditional marriage winds up undermining it in the eyes of a gay-tolerant generation coming up the pike. There are more and more young heterosexuals who won’t get “married” unless gays are allowed to join in as well. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:45 am: Do you people even know what “discrimination” is? It is when you CHOOSE. When society chooses, it can choose for good reasons or bad reasons. We have had a long history of some bad choices, such as racial discrimination or gender discrimination. We do not allow government to discriminate because of WHAT a person is. OK - you say you know that. Now, lets look at GOOD discrimination. Marriage is GOOD discrimination. How? By NOT applying taxes on marriage, society is encouraging it’s future. We cannot support the massive social programs we surrounded ourselves in without future taxpayers, can we? We need children, and right now our population is not what demographers would call “booming”. Everytime you vote yourselves a government benefit, you have to have someone’s kid pay for it. We need kids. Now, that established - we give marriage benefits to help offset the costs of having children. It goes way back - back to the days when being married meant financial security, social standing, child rearing, sex, care in old age, and more than three children; one to replace each parent, and one spare for society. If we give marriage benefits to any couple, why be married at all? Since marriage benefits have been given to gay couples in northern European countries like The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, and Denmark - total marriages DROPPED. They didn’t increase - they dropped. Did this happen because of gay marriage? Looks like it did people. In many cases there was an increasing rate of marriage throughout the 1980s and 1990s before this “discrimination” ended. Coincidence? You better hope so if you want to keep believing we are not wrecking marriage by ending this “discrimination”. But these facts do not bode well for your fantasies. Pass that Kool-Aid and take more sips before you start paying even higher taxes to offset the damage your policies are creating. There is no reason to be married if everyone gets marriage benefits. - Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:51 am: “There is no reason to be married if everyone gets marriage benefits.” Maybe VM got married for the economic benefit. That wasn’t even the most remote factor for me. And the right is concerned that the LEFT is going to destroy the institution of marriage. Pathetic. - yinn - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 10:52 am: I agree with Objective Dem that the state should recognize only civil unions & leave marriage to the churches. There! You’ve covered church/state separation & equal access in one fell swoop. Let the bigamists & polygamists lobby for their own unions. - Objective Dem - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:04 am: Vanilla man, Here is an article from Slate that directly addresses the right’s myths about gay marriage destroying the state of marriage in Europe: http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/ I agree with you that marriage is a good thing that supports stability and should be supported by the state. Thats why I think gays and lesbians should have equal access. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:05 am: Skeeter - you should have been told like I was - “Marry up!” - Pat Hickey - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:15 am: VM, To have done otherwise would have been a mathematical impossiblity and in defiance of the very laws of direction - there is only one path for the poor lad and that is verticular~! - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:25 am: Nope - I could have married you Pat! And thanks to Skeeter and friends, we may start to dream of that wonderful day - with FULL BENEFITS. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:26 am: VanillaMan, Do you really think that most couples choose to wed or not based on societal benefits? I didn’t. My partner and I co-habitated for years and years until we decided that children should be considered. At that point in time, our Catholic upbringings took over and we decided that we didn’t want our children born out of wedlock. So we got married (did the pretty too with a priest, Church etc.). Imagine our surprise when our tax bill went UP? Quite a bit actually. Fortunatly we also bought a house around the same time so the mortgage interest etc. eroded the increase. Most surveys indicate that gay folk make up no more than 3% of the population. That means we probably don’t have to fear for not having enough people bearing offspring. Further, last I checked, other than cultural pressure, there is no reason that marriage actually has to be part of the childbearing equation. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:27 am: Just don’t tell Bill - he’s very jealous of our special relationship. He doesn’t know I work for a Big Bad Business. - Pat Hickey - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:36 am: You sweet, sweet man VM! Ciao! - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:39 am: Do you really think that most couples choose to wed or not based on societal benefits? Duh! Most couples? YES. What happened to you? Social benefits is definately a reason you hooked up in the first place. You would not have been attracted enough to make a commitment to someone you didn’t believe enhanced your stand in society. Your spouse is a complete package, not just the Hallmark Card moment. Please be honest. Marriage is more than an emotional commitment. We all know it is, we just don’t want people calling us “discriminatory”, and other ugly unfashionable names. When you find yourself agreeing with a group all the time, you are no longer a supporter, you are a victim. Ask Bill. Stand up for the institution and traditions that got you where you are today. You wouldn’t be where you are without them. When it comes to your children, first do no harm. Respect the past that enriches your life, and try not to tear it down. - Pat Hickey - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:43 am: Point well taken VM - while I am in full support of the Harris legislation; which dignifies the love between sames with societal rights; your point hits home - the Catholic Church’s Pre-Marriage Inventory seemed to be dominated with fiscal and fiduciary concerns over and above the expected language of love. - Underdog - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:51 am: Let’s hope Vanilla Man and his ilk never seize the reigns of government - I’d hate to have to my marriage dissolved because my wife and I can’t have kids. As for Harris’ bill - if this is what it takes to move closer to full equality for gays and lesbians, then I’m all for it. As long as debates like this continue, public opinion will keep moving further away from discrimination. As ZC says, time is on our side. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 12:09 pm: “When you find yourself agreeing with a group all the time, you are no longer a supporter, you are a victim. Ask Bill. Stand up for the institution and traditions that got you where you are today. You wouldn’t be where you are without them. When it comes to your children, first do no harm. Respect the past that enriches your life, and try not to tear it down.” Huh? I agree with the gay rights folks most of the time because I believe in equality, liberty, and fraternity. The institution of marriage is not what got me where I am today. I married later in life long after I had established myself in a career and taken up good habits like saving and investing. My own parents’ marriage broke up when I was a tot. Some traditions are good. Catholicism has a lot of good traditions, but it has some I can do without, which is why I now worship with an Episcopalian parish (albeit one that is very, very Anglo-Catholic). But tradition must be evaluated by every new generation to see if it is still relevant. Times change, technologies change, attitudes change. All of those changes can make traditions irrelevant. I think this bill does the most needful thing–gives real benefits to real people, without infuriating the anti-same-sex-marriage folks. - Bill - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 12:24 pm: VM, You promised me you wouldn’t tell anyone! In some cases I find your infatuation and obsession with me interesting and flattering but in this context I think it is a little dangerous. What if your boss finds out? - Bill - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 12:26 pm: and Pat…. Find your own right wing fanatic and leave mine alone. - Pat Hickey - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 12:53 pm: Frailty, thy name is gender neutral. - Jechislo - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 12:54 pm: This bill won’t be enough; in the short term it will be, in the long term it won’t. This is only a small stepping stone until same-sex relationships are 100% as ‘legal’ as heterosexual marriages. It’s just a tactic to take it a bite at a time. It won’t stop until they finally win legalization of same-sex marriages. I say no to the bill. - Bridget Dooley - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 1:18 pm: Bravo to Rep. Harris for moving forward with this legislation! Ultimately I agree that the government should not be dealing in religious tradition and should ultimately resort to civil unions for all, this is an important step in recognizing equal rights for all. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 2:20 pm: Yes Bill. I worship you. But please no “right wing” talk. On this issue, I am definately in the majority. There is a real reason why this proposal and others are not put on a ballot. They would lose BIG. But you know how poorly democracy plays in the Democratic camp. They don’t want to favor the masses when they can’t follow their elitist rulers properly. And who’s Pat? Just a momentary infatuation, I promise. - dan l - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 2:23 pm: Acceptable. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 5:18 pm: VanillaMan your comment was a perfect description of the old phrase, “Lies, damned lies and statistics.” I would suggest to you that Stanley Kurtz is not a reliable source and ask that you don’t use him any longer. - Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Mar 15, 07 @ 11:10 pm: The comparison of this with the right of minorities and women to vote makes my stomach turn. No, it’s not “gay marriage”, but it is LEGALLY about the same thing. People should have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but why do we have to have it rubbed in our faces and then be told we have to subsidize their sexual lifestyles (e.g., through increased insurance premiums to cover their “partners”)? What if in 20 years society reverted to ancient Greek & Roman practics and didn’t feel the revulsion we feel toward pedophelia? Are we to give “rights”, then, to pedophiles and their “partners”, rather than protecting the victimized child? Afterall, these are all societal perceptions when taken in the context of thousands of years of human history. C’mon,already! - ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 16, 07 @ 4:40 am: =Social benefits is definately a reason you hooked up in the first place. You would not have been attracted enough to make a commitment to someone you didn’t believe enhanced your stand in society. Your spouse is a complete package, not just the Hallmark Card moment. I’m confused. I took Christianity to be a radical rethinking of how humans interact with dominant culture and thus, my social status related society was irrelevant to whether I lived by God’s Will. Jesus was far more radical in His requirements for us to live by than the dominant culture of the time. The social benefits of something then are irrelevant. Of course, we all interpret that Will differently, but as such, the government’s job is to let us do that and not impose our particular will on others. - Skeeter - Friday, Mar 16, 07 @ 6:50 am: What? Snidely is offended? We can’t OFFEND anyone with our words or our legislation. That wouldn’t be “polticially correct.” For all the right wing’s outrage over “politically correct”, it is clear that when THEY are offended, the conduct must stop immediately. Now that he mentions it, there are parts of marriage that offend me. I am deeply offended that sleaze balls like Hyde and Gingrich and Guiliani would make a mockery of marriage but due to THEM, my insurance rates will increase. Like Snidely, I am tired of having to subsidize their disgusting lifestyles. Here’s a way to solve the problem: Let’s bar right wing Congressmen or Mayors from marriage. That would be a reasonable start. Then we can worry about the rest. - Bill - Friday, Mar 16, 07 @ 7:02 am: Skeet, You would also be doing their girl(boy?)friends a really big favor. - Shallow Pharnyx - Friday, Mar 16, 07 @ 7:44 am: Whoa, Snidely. Gay partners rights to pedophile “partners” rights is quite a stretch! Ain’t gonna happen. Partner implies choice. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.