65 Comments - tubbfan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:44 am: anything less than full parity is Jim Crow - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:45 am: It absolutely creates an unequal footing for gay couples. And I’m frankly tired of the open bigotry displayed by those who oppose same-sex marriage. You have no right to stick your nose into my life. Nobody is forcing any of you into a same-sex relationship. Get off of your high horses and stay out of my business and I will stay out of yours. You can claim whatever you want, but you are all, indeed, bigots. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:47 am: I agree with Tubbfan. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:49 am: Also, the Catholic Church’s argument is nonsense. Nobody is forcing them or asking them to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. This continued claim that religious individuals are being oppressed is laughable. You don’t have a right to impose your religious values into the law books. If you don’t like it preach about it in your churches and condemn those of us that are gay like you have and continue to do with your bigotry and hate. Just leave me alone. - MrJM - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:52 am: In your opinion, does the state civil unions law create a “separate and unequal” status for gays and lesbians? Yes. Because the law creates a status that is both “separate” and “unequal”. – MrJM - Bill Baar - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:52 am: Defining marriage to license it is inherently discriminating. Counties have to decide what’s a legal marriage and what isn’t under Illinois law. If that discrimination bothers anyone than they had best favor Illinois get out of the marriage licensing business. They’re are plenty of quirly rules too… the person performing the service has to sign off on the certificate and mail if from the county issued. So my minister in Geneva has run over to Dupage to mail off the signed license if it was issued in Dupage. - Deana - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:54 am: I think the real question is, why aren’t we ALL getting civil unions, and then the people who want church marriages can have them? I’ve never been able to figure out why this religious institution is still allowed to have such a serious effect on our civil lives. - Both Sides Now - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:55 am: In my opinion, the state is really only approving “civil unions” no matter whether it is a man and woman or two people of the same gender. “Marriage” is in the eyes of God, and though they may sometimes think they are, the Legislature/Governor/Supreme Court is not God. And as long as the rights given to those who seek and obtain a “civil union” are the same as those who are in a “marriage”, what makes the difference? It’s all a matter of semantics anyway. - reformer - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 11:58 am: When the bill was debated in 2010, proponents did not describe civil unions as “separate and unequal.” How could we go from civil unions being an overdue reform to unconstitutional discrimination in two years? - amalia - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:02 pm: yes. provides marriage to some citizens but not to others. wrong. but, another thing is bugging me about the press release… “…two biological parents….” what about adoption? children may not be biological of both parents, perhaps only of one, and new technologies give all sorts of issues about what biological means in the conception of a child. what about people without children? they veered down the it’s about children road, and they have made a statement that should give pause to those reading it. - What planet is he from? - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:15 pm: What amalia said. According to the US Census, in 2004, 58% of kids under 18 lived with both biological parents who were married to each other. I don’t see how allowing same-sex marriage is going to alter that figure one bit. - Shore - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:16 pm: it’s interesting that while Rutherford has spent the post 2010 election time courting chicago constituencies showing up at events and in places like for jewish bonds and I want to say some gay rights stuff, murphy, brady and dillard are some of the first names you see on this. Different paths. - OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:32 pm: Yeah it does create a sperate and unequal… As long as you don’t force anyone who is authorized to marry people who is not an employee of government to actually perform a marrage they do not want to preform I don’t see what the harm is at this point. However if you want to force my Pastor to perform a ceremony he objects to, I have a problem with it. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:39 pm: What amalia said. They always seem to head down this road. But, we have young couples who marry with no plans to have kids, we have older couples who marry when they are beyond childbearing age, and we allow couples with children to divorce. State licensed marriage is essentially a business relationship. You register with the state to formalize the relationship. If you choose to dissolve the relationship or if a partner becomes ill, incompetent, or dies, the state has laws to indicate the rights and responsibilities of the partners. There is no good reason not to allow same sex marriage and many good reasons to allow it. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:49 pm: ==The legislators also cite several sociological arguments stating that “… the marriage structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents ….” == They’ve been doing some heavy reading, have they? Let’s see the citations. Father Dillard and Father Brady know best. Take that, you adoptive parents, including gay couples. And foster families. And “The Brady Bunch,” (the show, not the guys running the GOP). Not to mention everyone who’s been divorced and does not live full time in the same home as their kids (I bet a few are Republicans). And single parents. Apparently, sociology and virtually every Republican running for governor tossing red meat says you don’t cut the mustard as parents. Because there’s only one “right” way with some of those guys. Yes, it’s separate and unequal. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:54 pm: === Yes. Because the law creates a status that is both “separate” and “unequal”. === Agreed. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:57 pm: ==Yes. Because the law creates a status that is both “separate” and “unequal”.== Exactly! - ZC - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 12:59 pm: Yes it does, no question. On the other hand I do understand the position of those in opposition to this lawsuit. The whole point of the compromise “civil union” legislation was that it -wasn’t- gay marriage … that there weren’t enough votes in the IL House to pass a full gay marriage recognition. Now it turns out legally that the IL assembly -did- in effect did vote for gay marriage, because they approved civil unions (according to this lawsuit). I am all for gay marriage so I personally won’t lose sleep over this, but the tactics here are pretty hardcore. I guess my real concern is, if this lawsuit goes through and is successful, I predict the odds of even passing a civil unions bill and providing that basic level of protection will go down to some extent in other U.S. states. Legislators will point to the Illinois example and say, “See, we cannot pass any recognition of gay couples whatsoever; even if we pass a civil unions bill, that by itself will be used by the courts to force us to go further - so let’s pass nothing.” Others’ thoughts here? This is not an easy issue to my mind at all, and again I am fully pro-gay marriage. I just don’t want to do anything that’s going to have ripple effects for other less gay-friendly states. State policies do influence each other - for example, CA made such a hash of its medical marijuana law, it’s made it harder to pass in other states. - ChicagoR - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:08 pm: “When the bill was debated in 2010, proponents did not describe civil unions as “separate and unequal.” How could we go from civil unions being an overdue reform to unconstitutional discrimination in two years?” Remember the old saying that you shouldn’t “let the perfect be the enemy of the good?” Civil unions weren’t and aren’t perfect, but they are a whole lot better than the “nothing” same sex couples were previously given under Illinois law. - That Guy - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:11 pm: Men’s and Women’s restrooms are seperate and not equal. (more urinals in one than the other) But both serve the same purpose. - Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:21 pm: I’m thinking maybe we should do away with marriage and everyone gets a civil union since the government makes a buck out of it all. - liberty and justice for all - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:29 pm: I just want people’s religious beliefs and views kept out of my way of life and beliefs. I’m tired of being oppressed by right - white - might - religious people who wish to legislate their beliefs on my decent, clean, civil, educated, way of life. Stop the nonsense. My English and German ancestors came here to escape such things. I’m for religions doing a religious thing for who they think should/can marry and the state doing it’s thing for who can rightfully enter into a bond/union. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:31 pm: I continue to be struck by how much young folk in this country seem to devalue marriage as an institution, for themselves, but strongly feel that denying same sex marriage is the civil rights cause of our age. - Captain Illini - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:50 pm: I agree with Chicago R…how did this landmark Illinois law finally taking care of the needs of all of its citizens, and quashing the discriminations of the past by enacting the Civil Union bill now turn into something out of a kafka novel??? Oh…that’s right, because the word “marriage” wasn’t part of the law. I also find it ironic that some who aspouse a non-religious life and defend church and state separation, now want the state to get involved with what is essentially a religious ceremony called “marriage”. Not to be taken out of context, let me state that I’m all for people loving and being with whomever they chose to be with, and getting the same treatment in law necessary for equality…so if there are tweeks needed to make the 2010 Civil Union bill better, great, but the word marriage means what it does, like lamp, or corndog or cat…etc. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:52 pm: dupage dan: And I continue to be amazed at this notion that marriage is an “institution.” Get over it. Your marriage isn’t affected one way or the other. Also, it wouldn’t need to be a “civil rights” issue if people would stop treating me and my fellow gay Americans as second-class citizens. - soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 1:53 pm: The legislators assert that the judicial branch should not rewrite the state’s marriage laws, stating that “to do so would be to place the court in a position of acting as a super-legislature, nullifying laws it does not like. That is not our proper role in a democratic society.” You guys might want to take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:10 pm: @Captain Illini: You clearly don’t get it or you wouldn’t be so flippant with your remarks. - Ian Howell - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:11 pm: Same-sex relationships are simply not equal to traditional marriage. (Please note: I am not suggesting that LGBT people are unequal to heterosexual people.) - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:15 pm: ==Same-sex relationships are simply not equal to traditional marriage. (Please note: I am not suggesting that LGBT people are unequal to heterosexual people.)== Ummm, yes you are. When will people get over this bigotry? - soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:16 pm: I am willing to have my mind changed on this topic. I just want someone to explain how my own heterosexual marriage of many, many years will be affected if the law allows my beloved friends Sam and Chuck to get married. (Rich has taken away my all-caps privileges, or I would share my feelings about reality shows that involve strangers getting engaged or married. That apparently doesn’t demean the institution of marriage. But two men who have been together through good times and bad for 20 years — their union one would harm the concept of marriage as we know it?) - soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:17 pm: Ian - I’m sorry, but if LGBT people are not allowed to marry the people that they love, they are by definition unequal to heterosexual people. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:35 pm: –I continue to be struck by how much young folk in this country seem to devalue marriage as an institution, for themselves, but strongly feel that denying same sex marriage is the civil rights cause of our age.– Those darn kids, making up their own minds on things. I’m pushing 50, and my generation (and that of my parents) demonstrated their value for the “institution” with about half of all marriages resulting in divorce. In 1964, Rocky getting divorced was a scandal and ended his shot for the presidency. By the time Reagan rolled around, no one cared. The kids have it right, though, in recognizing that the pezzonovante of government and certain church “leaders” sticking their noses in the most intimate business of a certain class of citizens, and denying them equal protection under the law, is a civil rights issue. We’ve taught them well. The kids are alright. - crow04 - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:40 pm: Yes, and I think we should fix it by getting rid of marriage as a state institution. Civil Unions for all! - Infidel - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:45 pm: As a devout Christian, I find it absolutely appalling and disheartening that anyone would cheapen my faith by using it to justify discrimination. I’m reminded of some wise words attributed to Dom Hélder Câmara, a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Brazil: “We who are charged with announcing the message of Christ need to learn the incomparable lesson that he taught us by his own example. He taught us first of all with his life, only then did he preach.” My own version is a lot less graceful: What would Jesus legislate? - Carlos S. - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 2:48 pm: ==what makes the difference? It’s all a matter of semantics anyway== Sure, that’s why it is so inane to insist on a distinction. - East Sider - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:10 pm: All I have to say is: Bill Haine is REALLY desperate right now. His poll numbers are not good, and he’s on pander overload. First, his “letter” to Obama, demanding “religious freedom” in ObamaCare (after he supported early implementation of all of ObamaCare in Illinois), then he announces this past weekend that he’s going to introduce legislation to bring back the death penalty (something else that will never happen) and now this nonsense. I still think it’s too little, too late for the senator. He’s worn out his welcome in this district and finally has a legit opponent. - Hal Shipman - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:11 pm: Of course it’s unequal. Take insurance ineligibility and taxation, for example. - yellowrose - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:24 pm: It is regrettable that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are attacked as bigots. Instead, this conversation needs to be raised to the level of honesty, acknowledging the reality that sexual complementarity has been an integral part of the definition of marriage across cultures, religions, and many millennia for reasons that are not inherent to same sex unions. It has continued to be the case even when the understanding of marriage has been changed for the sake of justice, as in limiting it to one man and one woman or removing interracial barriers. Calling different things by different names is not discrimination; rather it is making distinctions based on the nature of the things. Redefining the very meaning of such a foundational institution for all of society isn’t the right of a religious body, nor is it a right to be imposed on all of society by the government/courts. It is absolutely the right, and indeed the responsibility of people of faith, just as it is for all citizens, to be fully engaged in the conversation, without being maligned by the tactics of name calling or calling into question good will, motivations, or intentions. - blogman - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:27 pm: If the civil union bill is thrown out as unconstitutional, then the law reverts to the way it was before the legislation. It does not authorize same sex marriage. - Excessively Rabid - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:38 pm: Of course it’s unequal. But it was a step in the right direction. I would hate to see this go back to square one because it’s not perfect. I side with the folks who say marriage is a sacrament and the state has no business performing sacraments. Civil unions for everybody, churches can marry who they want. Or not. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:41 pm: demoralized, I am constantly amazed at how much people parse comments in these posts. You took issue with the fact that I called marriage an institution. I didn’t create that connection, it is in the cultural lexicon. Get over it. However, I note you don’t address the main point of my post - just parsing the language in it. You don’t even know if I am married or what sexual identity I may have - you just assume. I was just making an observation about what I perceive as a jarring juxtaposition in our culture. Young people seem to be more OK with same sex marriage at the same time they admit to a great deal of ambivalence to the institution. I made no mention of whether or not I was for same sex marriage. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:44 pm: thank you, yellowrose, for your comments. I would hope that serious individuals on both sides of the issue can comment here without being branded haters by either side. - soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:51 pm: Yellowrose — It is not name-calling to say that I consider marriage a fundamental right under the First Amendment. I also think that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, everyone should have the same right to marriage that I do. On a less legalistic level, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be told that, because of your sexual orientation, you’re not allowed to have a legally recognized life partner to help you through life’s most difficult times and share life’s best moments. I understand that many people have religious objections to gay marriage; many people also have religious objections to divorce, yet we allow state recognition of the dissolution of a marriage. I don’t understand why we can’t accept a similar distinction between civil and religious practice on this point as well. And as a proponent of marriage, I would like to add that I think it’s a good thing when people want to make a public, legal, permanent commitment to one another. It troubles me that, in Europe, legal marriage seems to be fading away. I am heartened that our gay friends look at me and my husband, and at the other married couples they know, and say, “We want to be married, too.” - Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:52 pm: Have any of the parties involved commented on the record about what happens if the US Supreme Court does not hear the appeal of Dennis Hollingsworth et al. vs. Kristin Perry et al. (which last stood at the Ninth Circuit striking down California’s Proposition ? Given that we are talking about the U.S Constitution, I am curious how action — or inaction — by the nation’s highest court might affect the strategies playing out in Illinois. - wishbone - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 3:54 pm: “Also, the Catholic Church’s argument is nonsense. Nobody is forcing them or asking them to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. This continued claim that religious individuals are being oppressed is laughable.” +1 The bigotry of the Republican party overshadows any otherwise sensible things they may have to say about government spending and other critical issues. Expanding marriage to all is a conservative position at its core. - 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 4:13 pm: All I want to say is there all of this creates an insurance mess, no matter what your orientation. A guy I worked with just moved out of state with his girlfriend, he said who ever gets a job first will take the other one as a domestic partner. So why not make things legal for whatever your orientaion is? This leads to all kinds of insurance situations, no matter what your orientation is. If they make only legal unions eligible for insurance, then this cuts down the insurance (healthcare fraud) Does the insurance company really have time to investigate domestic partners? If you have a child biologically or adopt, there is legal proof that you can insure the children, no matter what your orientation is. But some states have domestic partners, no matter what orientation because they can’t discriminate against either. - Levois - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 4:19 pm: “I think the real question is, why aren’t we ALL getting civil unions, and then the people who want church marriages can have them?” Why isn’t this being considered at all? - Just Observing - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 4:24 pm: === Men’s and Women’s restrooms are seperate and not equal. (more urinals in one than the other) But both serve the same purpose. === Umm… great point… with that type of common sense Brown v. Board of Education now seems so irrelevant and pointless. - Sunshine - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 4:35 pm: Deana…..ditto. - walkinfool - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 4:46 pm: I’m with Demoralized on all points. Except I’m still optimistic we’ll get marriage equality soon. - amalia - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 5:15 pm: @yellowrose, nope. what is inherent in the vision of marriage that those filing the AC brief have is man, woman, make babies. and for some, who are particularly religious, more to fill the pews. that definition stinks in many ways. first, it actually devalues the bond between people who are married because it defines them in terms of what their bodies can produce not in terms of their love for one another and the commitment they make to one another. if their bodies cannot produce children, so what? the biological children argument is key for the AC crowd because they look at two people of the same gender and think, well, they cannot produce kids biologically together. and I say so what? their love may well be more strong and permanent than the many heterosexual marriages that crumble around us, none of them threatening my own. nor will marriage equality. and, they can have kids, just not in the leaveittobeaver edition of the AC world. I find the AC argument offensive and bigoted, and not just against the LGBTQ community. it’s offensive to me. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 5:18 pm: ~It is regrettable that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are attacked as bigots.~ Nobody is redifining marriage. We just want it available for all couples. Anything less is bigotry. - Komodo - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 5:30 pm: The court does not nullify laws it doesn’t like- it nullifies laws that are unconstitutional. It is obvious that civil unions are a “separate but unequal” status for same-sex couples. If the state wants to regulate legal contracts between couples, it should do so fairly and equally across all couples. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 6:42 pm: Who needs traditions? Let’s knock them all off and pretend we’re the greatest and smartest humans to have ever lived! If folks were so smart all these centuries ago, why did they die? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 6:46 pm: Let’s reinvent marriage. This time let’s include a legal requirement that makes it void when a partner becomes really, really dependant. And demand that they can’t snore. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 6:59 pm: You know, those polyamorous Dutch folks seem to be kind of cool. Let’s start legalizing that next. And why can’t cousins marry? We can fix any of their offspring’s birth defects. Looks obsolete to me now. Traditions are based on what? Thousands of years of human experience? Who needs common sense when we can legally argue something by saying something ain’t fair? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 7:28 pm: VMan, I’m so glad you’re back, so I can ask you: What exactly are you talking about? –Traditions are based on what? Thousands of years of human experience? Who needs common sense when we can legally argue something by saying something ain’t fair?– I’m not sure what you’re saying there, believe me. They are words, but they don’t seem to string together well. I also don’t know how many thousands of years you’re talking about, but I’m confident that the variations of human sexuality have been there since the get-go. Check out Genesis and Exodus, if they mean something to you, and they will curl your toes. But I’m sure you’re a Biblical scholar. Also, I’m quite certain that sexuality among consenting adults is not your or my business. That, my friend, is common sense. There have been many accepted “traditions” over the years — slavery, racism, religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia — that don’t roll well in 2012. That’s a good thing. As you like to say, that’s so 20th Century. I’ve never been sure which of the 60 or so centuries you believe the planet has existed that you think is the good one. But this is the 21st, and the time is now for folks who want to get married to do so in the open without a bunch of ignorant phony Bible thumpers using the power of government to keep them down. And to them I say, salud — and careful what you wish for. - Highland, IL - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 7:55 pm: How did McCarter miss jumping on that bandwagon? - JoeVerdeal - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 9:23 pm: VanillaMan makes sense. Why not make it possible for any sort of “marriage” to occur? Why not support the idea of multiple-partner marriages, for instance? Frankly, I’d like to have another couple of wives. The point that VanillaMan is making is that the concept of marriage….and other social institutions….is based upon human practices and traditions which have developed over a considerable period of time. Those who resist rapid change in the view of society of these practices may find themselves outnumbered in certain quarters…but they are not necessarily wrong and they are certainly not necessarily in the minority in our society. I see quite a few who favor forcing a greater dignity upon homosexual practices who oppose plural marriages. I see this as being more than just a little bit hypocritical. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 9:43 pm: –The point that VanillaMan is making is that the concept of marriage….and other social institutions….is based upon human practices and traditions which have developed over a considerable period of time.– Give us the lowdown, Joe, the history. I think I know. Do you? Start with the Old Testament, and be sure to include the Greeks and Romans. And other cultures outside of the Western canon (we’re all God’s children, after all). Let us know when Ward and June (with no divorce allowed, of course) became the only righteous way. And then let’s pretend that there weren’t “untraditional” relationships on the downlow in those times that weren’t nobody’s business but their own. Love those “conservatives” who are so desperate to peek in others bedroom windows and tell them how to live, under the color of law. What is it you all want to see anyway? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 4, 12 @ 10:06 pm: VMan and Joe make the same tired argument those who oppose gay marriage always make. “You can’t change tradition.” “You have to allow it for multiple marriages.” Baloney. They are bigots plain and simple. And I am making it my life’s work to expose all of you bigots out there for what you are. So keep up your opposition and I’ll keep up my tirades against your hatred. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 7:01 am: Vman - I think you can make a strong policy case that, in the United States, marriage must be limited to two parties at any one time. If people want to engage in other types of relationships, for religious or personal reasons, that’s their prerogative. But they can’t expect civil law to recognize these unions, given that our family law system is based on a legal vision of marriage as a union of two adults. And VMan and Joe — I don’t think we want to base U.S. legal theory on “thousands of years” of human experience. Given that the Chinese practiced footbinding for 1,000 years, that female genital mutilation persists after several thousand years, and that an estimated 2 billion people worldwide are in polygamous relationships, I think we’re better off basing our laws on what Americans want today. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 8:19 am: Apparently, all of the ardent defenders of the status quo haven’t bothered to read the legal brief. The statute being challenged is Section 212 of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which predates the Civil Unions law. The defenders of the status quo argue that gay marriage is morally repugnant and that the purpose of marriage is raising of children. I suspect that the real reason for their opposition is that they find gay sex to be “yucky.” But, let’s take them at their word. Illinois law explicitly allows marriage between first cousins, provided they are over 50 years old. Now, that can’t possibly be for the purpose of having biological children. I’m willing to place a bet that a sizable percent of Illinoisans find it outside of the moral mainstream. And probably “Yucky.” Yet in filing their amicus, Dillard and the rest are explicitly defending the right of cousins to marry. “Dillard Champions Law Allowing Cousins to Marry” is a mail piece that writes itself. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 8:22 am: @Vanillaman - I respect the fact that you normally make arguments that are based on facts, even though I normally disagree with you. In this case, you are dead wrong. Illinois law DOES allow cousins to marry, provided they are biologically incapable of having children. Tell you what, why don’t we just slip gay couples in under Illinois’ Cousins’ exception, and allow same-sex couples to wed provided they are biologically incapable of having kids? - JTM - Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:12 am: It is definitely a case of separate and inequality. It really drives me mad when I hear people talk about “re-defining marriage” as if that is something new. Marriage, in and of itself, has been redefined many times over the history of humanity, with some cultures having very differing views that others do. Up until 1967 (yes, that is only 45 years ago), it was unlawful for a white person to marry anyone who was not white. The courts had to step in and strike down that law in the Loving v. Virginia case. It wasn’t until 1852 when polygamy became an issue in the United States. Marriage is a legally binding ’state-sanctioned’ contract between two adults. In order to dissolve a marriage, one must do so legally through the state, not through the church. Therefore churches should really stay out of the business of saying what defines a legal marriage. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.