* Equality Illinois…
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing the freedom to marry for all loving couples will be celebrated by every American who believes in our nation’s founding promise of equality.
The court’s historic ruling–beyond its legal meaning–sends a powerful message that LGBT Americans and our families should be treated equally and justly in all facets of life and empowers us to pursue true, lived equality in our communities, at school and work, wherever we build our families, travel or retire.
For the more than 10,000 same-sex couples married in Illinois, our marriages must now be recognized by every jurisdiction in the U.S. and accorded the same legal rights and protections.
Despite this milestone Supreme Court decision, many of the freedoms we enjoy in Illinois, including protections against discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations and recognition of parenting rights, are lost when we cross state lines, and these inequities must still be remedied in each state, in the courts or by action by Congress.
An Illinoisan who works across the border in Indiana to make a living for the family can still be fired if that worker is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. An Illinois couple that might want to get married in the resort communities on the Outer Banks of North Carolina can be refused that right by a magistrate. In some jurisdictions outside Illinois, same-sex married couples traveling with their children could find their parenting status challenged and one spouse might not be able to deal with an emergency on behalf of the entire family.
As we know from our national history, equal laws are just the foundation for securing equal treatment. As we have seen in recent weeks, angry opponents of LGBT equality are determined to exploit and create legal loopholes to continue their attempts to marginalize LGBT individuals and deny us a chance to live equal lives.
And so our fight for a full equality continues in this state and across the nation. As we pause to celebrate today, we know our work to live equal resumes tomorrow.
The ruling is here.
- Jorge - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:19 am:
Finally.
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:19 am:
What a great day!
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:20 am:
I am so happy today with this ruling, and with the Obamacare ruling yesterday. It is a great day for our LGBT brethren. We are moving in the right direction.
- TJ - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:23 am:
Excellent news. There was no legitimate, non-religious argument for why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, other than the weak traditionalist claim that it wasn’t allowed previously so it should continue to not be allowed.
Glad that nonsense is finally a thing of the past.
- Going nuclear - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:24 am:
Fantastic
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:24 am:
Scalia, in all his weird, angry glory from his dissent, one of 4, very rare for all dissenters to give their own dissent….
“If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:27 am:
Congratulations to the 4 GOP GA members who voted for SSM when it mattered.
You four were on the right side of history.
Sen. Oberweis,
Remember when you tried numerous times to oust Chairman Brady because he supported SSM?
Yeah, me too.
My Party still has a long way to go, but a good step in getting there is understanding where we failed as a party of inclusion in this instance and move forward here in Illinois and be seen, and actually be, a party for all in Illinois.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:31 am:
and for those who argue that marriage is about children, the majority opinion has this nice bit…
“This is not to say that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State.”
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:33 am:
Hooray, gay couples get to enjoy divorce as much as heterosexual couples.
- Snucka - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:35 am:
Not gonna lie, I cried a little at my desk.
And is Scalia not a walking, talking advertisement for SCOTUS term limits? Ugh!
- Roamin' Numeral - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:38 am:
Confederate Flag comes down. Health care for all is legal. And SSM is the law of the land.
All in all, it’s been a good week. I wonder what will happen next week.
- GOP - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:38 am:
Ron Sandack, Ed Sullivan, Tom Cross & Jason Barickman helped lead the way with strong support from former Senator Dave Sullivan and former Chairman Pat Brady. I hope they all feel some pride and vindication today. Their efforts were courageous! Of course thanks to Greg Harris, Kelly Cassidy & Heather Steans for leading the charge!!
- Wensicia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:40 am:
Just a few years ago I didn’t think I would live to see this day. Support of the right to a family unit comes first! For everyone!!!
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:40 am:
Long overdue, I was worried they’d punt it down the road with a weak opinion. Happy day!
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:41 am:
- GOP -,
Do not forget Judy Baar Topinka was there too, working to get SSM passed.
That should not be overlooked.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:41 am:
@Snucka, yep, tears flowing. it is truly amazing! feel so happy for people who have been discriminated against, but especially happy for Obergerfell, clutching the picture of his husband, simply wanting to amend the death certificate. so sad. can’t wait to see and hear from him.
- GOP - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:45 am:
Willy,
Great point. JBT must be smiling in Heaven today…maybe even playing the accordion for the celebration!
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:45 am:
The Atlantic had a story about how Scalia’s tantrum/dissent in Windsor laid the legal foundation for federal judges across the political spectrum and across the country to toss state bans of all kinds.
Today’s ruling takes Scalia’s roadmap to its logical conclusion. It will be his lasting legacy.
- Politix - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:46 am:
Three Cheers for Equality IL and all of the beautiful families out there impacted by this. Bout time.
- Jack Stephens - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:52 am:
How long until a clerk refuses to issue a marriage license, because of their religious beliefs, and that isuyebwinds up before the court?
- Tommydanger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 9:56 am:
20 years ago, I would have been appalled by such a decision. Today, I applaud the decision.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:00 am:
@ wordslinger, good point bringing up Scalia from before. that dissent contained some particularly bigoted language. reading his words now, we can see how far we have come. actually as out there as his dissent today is, he writes in a milder fashion now than he did then, so perhaps he has softened as a person if not a jurist.
- vole - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:06 am:
“mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie”
Is Scalia so blind to not see that he reinforces his own argument?
And Roberts: “As a result, the Court invalidates
the marriage laws of more than half the States and
orders the transformation of a social institution that has
formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the
Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians
and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”
The anthropologists will have fun with that because it is a pretty good bet there was some polygamy going on there too.
Well, we could go back to the beginning when eve was created from Adam’s rib or was that the other way around?
Cloning is the word except that doesn’t explain the sex change.
- Huh? - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:09 am:
I just wish my widowed sister could have enjoyed the moment with her wife. It is just short of a year since my sister in law died.
- MrJM - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:12 am:
The Atlantic article Wordslinger referred to: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/the-twilight-of-antonin-scalia/378884/
– MrJM
- the Patriot - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:17 am:
Its a good day for divorce lawyers. A whole new class of clients.
- Todd - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:29 am:
I’m really liking this:
“An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyondthe reach of majorities and officials and to establish themas legal principles to be applied by the courts.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638 (1943).This is why “fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
- Federalist - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:34 am:
No surprise here as I think most informed observers knew that Kennedy would join the four liberal members of the court.
I find it disturbing that the 10th Amendment has again been trashed as this has always been an issue for the states as long as they have been in involved in the legal recognition of marriage. The language used to evade this is ridiculous.
Also ridiculous are the ‘reasonings’ of Scalia and Roberts to talk as if Western civilization will fall apart and that is the reason to vote against it.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, neither side “did themselves proud” in this case.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:34 am:
Todd, strange bedfellows, so to speak?
- Archiesmom - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:34 am:
Well said, Justice Kennedy -
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:39 am:
Painful, but I had to do it, read the Thomas dissent. Contorting himself with long passages on the Magna Carta and John Locke, this quote particularly stings…. “Whether we define liberty as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it. “ And then goes on without irony to write of how people can travel around the country and raise their children as they please without restrictions. (oh, right, welcome to life as gays and lesbians don’t know it in several places.) And then he decries that they want to receive monetary benefits from marriage that would flow from government. wow.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:40 am:
Todd, what rights do you not have that you would like?
- Threepwood - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:42 am:
Federalist:
I respectfully disagree. See Todd’s excerpt. I don’t think we get to, or should want to, vote on who gets civil rights. I think equal protection covers this pretty easily. And I think State’s Rights is a shameful dodge here just as it was in the 1960s, and the 1860s.
- atbat - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:45 am:
“I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
The Statue of Liberty National Monument
The lamp shines brighter today!
- Logic not emotion - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:47 am:
I have some friends and relatives who benefit from this. For them, I am happy.
“For the more than 10,000 same-sex couples married in Illinois, our marriages must now be recognized by every jurisdiction in the U.S. and accorded the same legal rights and protections.”
I hope that everyone sees a parallel in this ruling with people’s 2nd amendment rights and will join me in advocating that a person’s right to carry tools for self-defense and defense of others should also be recognized by every jurisdiction in the U.S. and accorded the same legal rights and protections – just like our marriage and driver’s licenses.
- walker - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:56 am:
Agree with GOP above.
A lot of good, strong Republicans stood up and fought for this change, and took some heat for it. Ten years from now, the bulk of their party colleagues will be fully on board, and laugh at the foolishness in our past.
- Todd - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:00 am:
Amalia — the RKBA is NOT fully recognised even in Illinois. active duty people stationed here can NOT get a carry permit. People from other states are only allowed to carry within their vehicles.
We still have towns tryignto regulate it out of existance and ban as many firearms as possible.
I really like this decision as the referances to fundimental right. That phrase was use repeatedly in Heller and McDonald.
It would be refreshing if liberals and others would now treat the 2A on an equal footing.
from Heller:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right
whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
“interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of
the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition
of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43
(1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very
product of an interest-balancing by the people—which
JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And
whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely
elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home”
No Word, not strange. I believe in the principals of the Constitution.
- Mokenavince - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:02 am:
It’s good to see Illinois is right on it’s thinking on gay marriage and ACA. We lead the country in some things, this has been a great week.
- The obvious - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:03 am:
Next up - Lawsuits on behalf of others who feel just as strongly about marrying each other and should be accorded the same rights: polygamists, bigamists, brother and sister, father and legal-age daughter, etc.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:09 am:
@ Todd, thanks. it will be interesting to see Scalia twist himself on your issues, as his writings on guns have directly pointed the way to limits on firearms.
- Tommydanger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:11 am:
-Next up - Lawsuits on behalf of others who feel just as strongly about marrying each other and should be accorded the same rights: polygamists, bigamists, brother and sister, father and legal-age daughter, etc.-
Don’t forget Fred marrying Dino and maybe George marrying Rosie….Obvious or oblivious? Hmmmm
- nona - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Scalia predicted today’s outcome in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas in 2002 which struck down laws against sodomy:
“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
“The Court today pretends that…we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage as has recently occurred in Canada…Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual & homosexual unions.”
- Moby - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Have to chuckle a little at the irony that the deciding vote was Kennedy, who was appointed by Reagan, who is the hero of most of the people opposed to SSM.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:22 am:
Logic guy, you really think you’ve worked that one out in the old noggin?
Convicted felons can get marriage licenses. CC permits, too?
Inmates can get marriage licenses. CC permits, too?
But if you’re advocating overturning Heller and McDonald, I’d say go for it quickly.
- Federalist - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:23 am:
Threepwood - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 10:42 am:
Federalist:
I respectfully disagree.
Fine, then have the honesty to encourage a constitutional amendment to eliminate the 10th Amendment. Otherwise SCOTUS embarrasses themselves (or at least they should be embarrassed) every time they blatantly ignore it to impose their own personal opinions.
- Federalist - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:27 am:
Tommydanger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:11 am:
-Next up - Lawsuits on behalf of others who feel just as strongly about marrying each other and should be accorded the same rights: polygamists, bigamists, brother and sister, father and legal-age daughter, etc.-
Don’t forget Fred marrying Dino and maybe George marrying Rosie….Obvious or oblivious? Hmmmm
Please, this is not good reasoning as a whole.
However, the issue of poly marriage by consenting adults is a true issue that will probably have to be faced at some time in the future. Very few would want poly marriage compared to gay marriage but that would not diminish their right to do so under the reasoning of this decision.
- foster brooks - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:32 am:
scott walker is having a bad year
- Todd - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:35 am:
@Tommy — The opioon today addressed those issues. I don’t see that happening anytime in the future. I also think conservitives do them selves a disservice by raising these arguements. The Justices cearly talked about 2 consenting adults.
@Amilia — He pointed to some regulations. Not prohibitions. Not bans on non-felons. “elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens. . . ”
yup going to be fun going forward
- Logic not emotion - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:35 am:
Word: Poor attempt at trying to twist the logic. The ruling reinforces the case that there should be automatic / mandatory recognition / reciprocity of concealed carry permits just like there is for marriage and driver’s licenses. A permit or license issued in one state for any of those things should be honored for all those things in all states.
- Threepwood - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:35 am:
Federalist:
Is this where I ask you to have the honesty to encourage a constitutional amendment to eliminate the 14th Amendment?
Please. I’m well aware that this is not a new debate. I’m well aware of the tension between the two. I HONESTLY do not think either destroys the other.
- Threepwood - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:39 am:
Oh, and I agree with you about polygamy, Fed. It won’t happen anytime soon because of the degree of unpopularity you cite, but I expect that, isolated from issues with consent and equality, it will have its day.
- Federalist - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:40 am:
@Threepwood,
We will just have to disagree. No problem with that.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:49 am:
Logic guy, that doesn’t work for you? How about this one?
There are all sorts of state licensed activities that aren’t automatically recognized by other states. Insurance, law, many, many more.
Not only that, but a state law license doesn’t even give you the right to argue before the Supreme Court.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:50 am:
@Todd, but there are prohibitions, like machine guns. do you draw a line?
- ZC - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 11:56 am:
How did this become a thread about gun control?
Also give it time but after this ruling I think non religious based discrimination in the private and public sector, against same sex individuals , is on legal life support.
- worn out - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:00 pm:
Tommydanger
The backwoods path became the road less traveled and is now a federal highway……..obvious or oblivious - of course the latter. I think we are closer though to the Flintstones than we are the Stepford Wives.
- Logic not emotion - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:07 pm:
Word: Consider the nature of the right. I confess that I don’t have your deep understanding of some things. For instance, I can’t even recall which of the enumerated, fundamental rights specifically covers insurance?
Also FWIW: I think many licensed professions are becoming more nationally recognized in scope and I think that trend will continue as states recognize the fluidity of the workforce in relocating and the obstacles posed by arbitrary licensing restricted to state lines. Perhaps a bad example: Does really make sense that the EMT who passed the national exam, is licensed and works in Indiana; yet lives in Illinois can’t professionally respond and assist with a tornado in Illinois without licensing issues. We need to try to eliminate artificial barriers which impede the greater good.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:11 pm:
I feel sorry for UU and UCC ministers today. It’s gonna take two years to get all these weddings done!
- JoanP - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:22 pm:
@Threepwood -
Well, polygamy IS traditional marriage, at least in the Bible.
- Wordslinger - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:23 pm:
Logic guy, I can’t recall an S.C. decision that stated any “enumerated” (impressive word for “listed”) right was absolute and could not be subject to regulation. But keep swingin’.
- Squround - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:25 pm:
If there was an option to “Like” comments on Cap Fax Blog, I am certain GOP @ 9:38 am’s comment would be quite popular. A huge thank you to the Republican elected officials who stood up to demagogues and supported marriage equality!
- Todd - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 12:33 pm:
@ Amalia — yea. All the issues with destructive devices. I lobby for things that go bang not boom.
full autos are a red herring for the most part. the ‘86 amendment capped the number in civilian hands and has only raised the price theorugh the roof for those remaining.
I also supported the ban on guns that looked like cell phones
- MrJM - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 1:01 pm:
“How did this become a thread about gun control?”
Some dudes really love their guns.
– MrJM
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 1:04 pm:
@ Todd, bang not boom, so no silencers?
- Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
It’s a great day for the country. Alas, we have a governor who, during his campaign, said he’d veto equal marriage.
- Todd - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 1:58 pm:
Mr. JM, I made a post an Amalia asked a couple of questions. And in the nature of this blog to have open, hones discussions about issues, I choose to answer.
Later today, about 15 minutes, I will hoist a glass to Sam Yingling, Kelly Cassidy, Greg Harris, Rick Garcia, Sams Partner Lowell and many others. They earned their win today. And they should enjoy every minute of it.
we had our 7 years ago.
Amalia, we can continue the discussion another time.
- Modest Proposal - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 2:25 pm:
Is there a round up of react from Illinois politicos?
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 2:28 pm:
The President is sure in a celebratory and fighting mood today from the pulpit at the Rev. Pinckney’s funeral. Singing Amazing Grace, bringing Luther the anger translator along with him as he tells the South that the cause they fought for…slavery.,.in the civil war is wrong. it is a day of celebration and grief all wrapped up in one.
- Amalia - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 2:29 pm:
@Todd, I feel you should apologize for nothing on the way you blogged today! the perspective of the SSM discussion has bearing on other cases. I do not agree with you but respect your dogged determination.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 2:45 pm:
Tom Cross, courageous?
LOL.
Cross was a late entry and barely made it across the finish line.
If he hadn’t done such a spectacular job of steering his caucus in the wrong direction for a decade, there would have been more GOP votes.
Radogno voted to ban discrimation in 2003, Cross didn’t.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jun 26, 15 @ 3:21 pm:
- YDD -,
C’mon.
BTW, Spam folder full?