50 Comments - hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:44 am: Until the federal government recognizes gay marriage, these folks can never get the tax benefits or filing status that straight couples can so in that sense there is no difference between civil union and gay marriage at the state level. Once you take the tax consequences out of the picture, I have a hard time seeing much difference in terms of the benefits between civil unions and marriage (hospital visitation rights for example) other than just structurally and by appearances you seem to be setting up a separate but equal system with a different tier of rights for gays. - Chathamite - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:46 am: I want to marry my partner, not civilly unite with them. There are a ton of issues that still remain unsolved in states like NJ and NY where they do have civil unions but not full marriage rights, specifically with taxation of health benefits. If civil unions and marriage were “practically the same” then why are they seperate? - Really?? - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:46 am: Civil unions are not the same as marriage. If it was, they would just call it “marriage”. The Sun-Times editorial spells out the legal differences very well. Civil unions, while a good first step, are a far cry from extending the same rights to gay couples that are currently in place for heterosexual couples. Mr. Gilligan is wrong. - ChicagoR - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:46 am: It also depends on how the state sets them up. If they state in the law that it gives all the same rights as marriage, then the difference are really the tax ones that hisgirlfriday mentions, plus the perceived second class status that it conveys. (Sitting in the back of the bus gets you to the same place as the front of the bus, but I still don’t want to be confined there by law.) - Eternal optimist - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:51 am: I would agree that they would be “practically” the same at our state level. If you provide all the same rights afforded to married couples, then what does it matter what name you give it. It’s still a duck. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:53 am: Gilligan’s statement is reflective of the true reasons for his opposition. He isn’t concerned about the legal distinctions between civil unions and marriage, of which there are several. He is hostile to the “recognition” of homosexuality as “normal” that is implicit in the legislature’s taking action on either bill. For him, they truly are “the same” because either would officially “normalize” homosexuality. - justbabs - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:56 am: They are not the same unless civil unions are available to all couples. - EazyTurner - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:56 am: While the intent is the same, establishing civil unions is not the same as marriage. In England, there is an ongoing controversy over a heterosexual couple who applied for a civil union license instead of a marriage license, as civil unions are intended only for homosexual couples. This is simply an attempt to tie in gay marriage with civil unions as civil unions have majority support amongst the citizens of this state wheras gay marriage is still a divisive issue. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 10:57 am: When civil unions = straight marriage = gay marriage then it would be equal. Until then the Federal tax/social security/employment issues are not part of the package. Civil unions are a nice 90% step but still not a full 100% step to equality. - UISer - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:02 am: They are not the same. Everyone should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law and public government. We don’t need to force churches to marry same sex couples. However, if a couple gets married in a court house, they are still “maaried” not in a civil union. I know I’m supposed to stay on topic here, but I am a young Catholic, and whole heartidly disagree with my church on this issue. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:02 am: Legally, they are “practically the same,” and therein lies the rub. The Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution guarantees all persons equal protection under the law, not “practically equal” protection. Imagine the outrage if we passed legislation creating a “practically equal” public education system that provided blacks and Latinos with a certificate of completion of high school that was identical in all other ways to a high school diploma, but it was called something else. Like a “GED”. Although a GED is “practically” equivalent, any idiot knows they are not equal. Civil unions legislation, while perhaps well-intended, will ultimately fail the legal test because it attempts to find a middle ground where no middle ground exists, just as other attempts at “separate but equal” have failed. That’s why attempts to implement civil unions have been held to deny equal protection by other courts. When it comes to equality, there just is no middle ground. Either being gay is legal and gay Americans are entitled to equal protection, or being gay is illegal and therefore not entitled to equal protection. We should just tell Gilligan and his cohorts to stuff it, pass full marriage equality, and tell them if they don’t like it they can move to one of the many countries like Uganda, Somalia or Pakistan where homosexuality is illegal. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:06 am: I was surpired at Gilligan’s statement because I don’t believe the Catholic Church would recognize a civil union as a valid marriage. The Church wouldn’t recognize any marriage outside of the Church as a valid marriages. If the argument against Civil Marriage is it would somehow “normalize” homosexuality, that’s the case Gilligan should have made. I really don’t think it’s the Governments job to decide what kind of sexual ethics is “normal” or not. Legal or Illegal one thing, but normal and not normal something government not really well suited to sort out. - MrJM - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:07 am: ‘Is Mr. Gilligan correct when he says that civil unions and gay marriage are “practically the same”?’ They are practically the same. And as long as the First Amendment protects a churches’ right to discriminate, neither civil unions and gay marriage should concern Robert Gilligan or the Catholic Conference of Illinois. – MrJM - Brown - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:08 am: Brown v BOE said it best: Separate but equal is “inherently unequal.” - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:08 am: Mitch Daniels is right. Social issues need to take a back burner to jobs/economy/taxes. If legislators decide to make the two equal, that’s fine by me. If there remains a difference between the two, that’s fine with me too. As things are, proposed civil unions are only a subset of marriage, but I feel there is no constitutional challenges needed. The government provides tax breaks and other incentives to select groups all of the time, think minority ownership of businesses tax breaks. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:09 am: Stick to the question, please. Nobody asked about Mitch Daniels. - K in VA (IL native) - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:10 am: Are civil unions the same? Simple way to get an answer: Ask any heterosexual married couple whether they’d cheerfully change their status to “civil unionized.” I rest my case - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:19 am: Right on YDD. When you put it that way, there is no question about the injustice on this issue. - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:21 am: @k in Va I know many non-religous heterosexual people who balk at the requirement for a religous solemnization to validate their licensed marriage. They consider it quite an insult, and it’s what keeps Ethical Humanists in business givng an almost secular service to these marriages. That’s really the problem here is the law mixes religion into a civil marriage. - bored now - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:26 am: i don’t think there is a real answer to the question. it depends on where you’re sitting. the problem with all this is that governments offer defacto validity to marriages preformed in churchs, and everyone conveys on them benefits. the state has no business recognizing one church institution, or preferring one type of union over another. we need to decouple completely the connection between civil marriages (those recognized by the state and for which tax deductions,etc, exist) and those preformed for religious (sacramental) purposes. the church can take a roll here; it doesn’t need the state to do so… - Lisle Mike - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:29 am: I think that the biggest problem is the word “marriage”. In many if not most religions, marriage is a sacrement or involves a holy blessing. The same religions (for the most part) do not support same sex unions. Don’t have to like it or hate me on this, it is just what it is. A civil union is not unlike incorporating. The two become one individual under the law. I know this will stir up and I am sorry, it is not my intent. I have many gay friends who don’t want anything but to be left alone and I agree with them. Don’t we have bigger issues to deal with? - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:34 am: Bored Now gets it. And we can carry it one step further and ask why Illinois Counties need to issue marriage licenses in the first place (they didn’t always…licensing marriage a pretty recent practice). The sad story around this argument is I suspect Gilligan’s fear is normalizng an ethic, and the SSM goal is also normalizng an ethic and whatever Illinois does isn’t going to effect peoples judgements as to what’s normal one way or the other very much. Rand Paul got it right and the best solution is getting Counties out of the marriage licensing business all together. If people want to draw up a Marriage contract, they should see a Lawyer. If they want a religous solminization of the Marriage see a Priest. Leave Government out of it, and certainly dont’t turn to the Government for any kind of recognition that you’re choices are normal or not. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 11:39 am: Roman Catholics are, for all intents and purposes, practically the same as Anglicans. YDD is right on. - A.B. - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:07 pm: I think that the basic issue here is the origins of the word marriage. Its roots are in faith. From my perspective, when a government entity recognizes marriage, it is treading dangerously close to the line between church and state. With that in mind, we should simply STOP recognizing marriages and start recognizing civil unions for everyone. Once marriage is no longer in the equation and it is simply a recognition of the church, THEN civil unions are simply the formalized process by which we legally share benefits, taxes, etc. Once we reach that plateau, WHO CARES? Who really cares who shares health insurance, or tax responsibility, or who can make end of life decisions? Whether it is a penis or a vagina or something in between, who cares? - Montrose - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:07 pm: I agree with those that have said the basis of Gilligan’s statement is philosophy, not functionality. The church’s view is that homosexuaility is wrong, thus government codifying that it is not, regardless of the name used, is going to rub them the wrong way. That being said, it is not the same thing. This is where I agree with Bill Barr and Bored Now. Let religious institutions have marriage, let governments have civil unions, and call it a day. They are two different things and we shuold create a structure where that is recognized for all parties, regardless of sexual orientation. - Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:13 pm: 47th Ward….. “Roman Catholics are, for all intents and purposes, practically the same as Anglicans.” no, not at all. but to the question, no marriage and civil union are not the same thing. and the same thing should be available for everyone, rich or poor, straight or gay, any two people who walk through the door together and make the difficult decision to live life together. in France, there is a civil ceremony (don’t know if they allow same sex partners to do this ceremony) and if a couple desires, they may have a religious ceremony. I do think government should sanction civil unions or marriage, but not both. I’m married, but I would be fine with the state just having civil unions. the state is not a religion. my religion, my church sanctified my union as a marriage. and that is where marriage belongs. the government should make everyone’s unions civil….it’s a legal matter. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:21 pm: Amalia, I think we agree on the merits. I was pointing out that Gilligan probably would disagree that Roman Catholics are the same as Anglicans in much the same way I disagree that civil unions are the same as marriage. This is an issue of legal rights, not semantics. - Angry Republican - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:36 pm: Yes, civil unions are for all intents and purposes practically the same as marriage. - cermak_rd - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 12:55 pm: No they are not alike in all ways. As has been mentioned, they carry different federal and tax benefits. I agree with many here that the state should only issue civil unions and if people want to be “married” they could stop by their local religious or ethical institution (or have a friend get ordained by mail or internet) and be solemnized accordingly. The state used to argue that it was in its interest to be involved in marriage because of the children, but with a 40% out of wedlock birthrate, that argument is a bit thin now. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:01 pm: Separate is inherently inequal. Civil unions are not the same as marriage until all the legal rights and obligations of marriage are conferred on legal unions. - Amalia - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:02 pm: 47th ward, thanks, i missed your sarcasm. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:07 pm: I agree with the sentiment that civil unions should be the province of the state in that persons wanting to form a personal union can do that and all the benefits of such an arrangement be conferred upon them. If couples want to take this a step further and have a church sanctify the union the should be free to do so. Disconnect the 2. If this occurs, civil unions would be available for everyone, knocking out the need to perhaps force reluctant churches/religions to perform ceremonies that they decline to do so. Seperation of church and state would prevent the gov’t from forcing those churches to perform the ceremonies. In that event, a civil union would be the “same” as a marriage to the extent that it could be, while protecting the right of religion enshrined in the constitution. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:51 pm: Mr. Gilligan’s opinion is representing his group. He is not saying the two conditions are the same. And I am not saying whether or not I agree with him. I don’t understand the criticism about his expressing his opinion since he was not asking anyone here to accept it. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:54 pm: Further, it is difficult not discuss the merits of the bill when the second part of the question asks if the legislature should consider differences in such legislation. - Out of Place - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:54 pm: From the bill: “a party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law.” It is very nearly, but not quite, the same. A significant part of the idea behind this legislation is to set up a separte but equal condition so that an appeal to the judiciary to correct the condition by legalizing same-sex marriage can be made. - ZC - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 1:55 pm: No, they are not the same, or gay rights activists would not be demanding full marriage equality (as they should). I agree with YDD long term but I don’t think the current Supreme Court is willing to go anywhere near there, and just finally admit that being gay is not in any way a choice for millions of Americans, it is a core identity and putting some kind of social stigma on gay men makes about as sense as launching a “Try Homosexuality!” campaign for millions of straight men. But, if the Supreme Court finally acknowledges the truth, that means gays will finally be allowed to marry not just in Illinois, but in Alabama, Utah, Texas, South Carolina, etc. The Supremes are not going to go there. Not yet. In the interim, politically fighting just for some basic civil rights and legal protections for gay couples in Illinois is a good political step. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 2:18 pm: ===Further, it is difficult not discuss the merits of the bill when the second part of the question asks if the legislature should consider differences in such legislation. === You read too much into that. I asked, should the GA recognize the differences, if any. - Dr Kilovolt - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 2:18 pm: I am with Dupage Dan. If marriage is so sacrosanct as the churches would have us believe, then what business does government have in licensing it? Government should issue civil union licenses, which convey all the legal benefits of so-called “marriage” to any and all pairs of consenting adults who apply, and leave churches free to “marry” or discriminate against whomever they wish. Equal protection, separation of church and state. Sadly, just like instant runoff voting, it probably won’t happen in our lifetime. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 2:19 pm: ===He is not saying the two conditions are the same. And I am not saying whether or not I agree with him. === Then why the heck are you even bothering to post your non-comment? - Irish - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 2:36 pm: What YDD said. Amen - Ghost - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 2:43 pm: From a societal perspective they are the same. it is a legal proceeding designed to convey rights and responsibilites under the law. - DRB - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 3:36 pm: The associated press has an article out which says Quinn wants this voted on during the veto session. Gov Quinn, as much as you are concerned about this topic, is there any other state business which might be more critical at this moment? Let’s see, we have a state which cannot pay it’s bills, has a $13 billion or so budget problem, has a significant unemployment problem, is not attracting business development, and civil unions seems to be the first topic Gov Quinn is interested in addressing. Tell me Governor, how will civil unions ‘be good for Illinois’ economy?’ Tell me how civil unions are going to solve the budget issues in this state. - Ghost - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 3:40 pm: DRB, huh? you mean every peice of legislation should grind to a halt in the name of efficiency until just one of the many isues and problems the State addresses is handeled? Goverment being a complex process, perhaps it can handle more then one thing at a time, and need not surrender addressing any problems. The budget solution is not going to be easy or quick, no need to sit aound thumbs twittling on everything else. - Montrose - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 3:42 pm: *Tell me Governor, how will civil unions ‘be good for Illinois’ economy?* I am sure wedding planners, florist, caters, and a few other wedding-related businesses could give you a clear answer to your question. - dumb ol' country boy - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:07 pm: yes Rich they are the same…. just different words union and marriage. It’s like the same argument between synthetic pot and real marjuana..no difference. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:09 pm: They are not the same as long as the government refuses to recognize that civil unions are the equivalent of marriage. When it does, as has happened in some states, civil unions are not necessary. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:11 pm: Congratulations, Lamar. You’re now banned for life. Moron. - Reformer - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:20 pm: Rep. Harris took the same-sex marriage bill he first introduced and simply replaced the word marriage with civil union. So legally they are virtually equivalent. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:33 pm: Reformer, one does not follow the other. - anon sequitor - Wednesday, Nov 10, 10 @ 4:38 pm: There should be two means of marrying (legally uniting) a couple, straight or gay: Civil marriage - performed by any individual legally empowered to perform a marriage Religious marriage - by a Priest, Minister or other religious official legally empowered to perform a marriage. That way, if a church official doesn’t want to marry someone, they don’t have to. But if a couple finds minister willing to marry them, the minister can do it, without restrictions. The religious marriage is still intact, and so is a civil (non-religious) marriage. The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize non-Catholic marriages now anyway, so it doesn’t change or limit the rules or beliefs of their faith at all. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.