Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** New Quinn, Kirk ads, plus full debate audio
Next Post: Drilling down into the debate
Posted in:
* The Paul Simon Institute has released some more Illinois poll numbers…
Which of the following three statements comes closest to your position on the legal rights of gay and lesbian couples in Illinois?
* Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry 33.6%
* Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to form civil unions, which would give them some legal rights 33.9%
* There should be no legal recognition of relationships between gay and lesbian couples 26.5%
* Other/Don’t know 6.0%
* The Question: What’s your position? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 11:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** New Quinn, Kirk ads, plus full debate audio
Next Post: Drilling down into the debate
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m in favor of gay marriage. People should not be discriminated against for immutable characteristics.
Comment by Tangerine Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Civil unions, yes. Long past time to give “life partners” the same rights to visitation at hospitals, for wills, insurance, health care, and other legal documents, etc.
Same rights as commonlaw hetero couples, why not? Commonlaw couples “live in sin” without a religious marriage, but governments choose to grant them most rights of church-married people. The dichotomy makes no sense.
I look at it as a civil rights issue, not a religious one. What any particular church allows or doesn’t is their own business, as it should be, and nobody is trying to force them to change. The state performs weddings for non-religious couples now, and I think if a gay couple wants to go before a judge to solemnify their relationship, that doesn’t have any impact on hetero marriages. Indeed, hetero marriages wind up in divorce so often now, that I see little sense in the argument that gay marriages would hurt hetero marriage any more than heteros have hurt it themselves.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:06 pm
Allowed to marry. There is no constitutional reason for the state to dictate whether the rights of married people to jointly own property, have custody of children, etc. are conferred to people of different or like gender.
Comment by State Sen. Clay Davis Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:09 pm
Are gay and lesbian couples required to pay Illinois and federal income, sales, and property taxes?
Comment by David Ormsby Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:11 pm
Almost everyone has a gay friend or relative. It’s 2010. Time for them to have the chance to be as miserable as the rest of us. Glad to see less than a third of Illinois embracing intolerance on this subject.
Comment by Chubs Mahoney Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:11 pm
Hm, first post didn’t show up, maybe everything is stuck in moderation? I will repeat;
Civil unions, heck yes, way past due, its a civil rights issue to let the partners have equal footing under the law for contracts and other legal issues like insurance and inheritance and hospital visits.
My church doesn’t believe in gay marriage, but nobody is saying to force churches or religions to change what they do. That’s their own business, as it should be.
We already have commonlaw marriage where a man and woman co-habitating long enough get to treat the relationship the same as one solemnized by a judge. I don’t see a difference between that and a civil union for a same sex couple.
I’ve know gay people and gay couples that had long term stable relationships the same as hetero couples. Look at the amount of divorce in hetero marriages now, and it seems that gays can’t hurt the “institution” any worse than heteros have done already.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:12 pm
The main group of people that argue against it use God and religion as their point. Separation of church and state makes that a mute point. They are human beings and every human being deserves the same rights as the next. Love is the same no matter what race, religion, or sexual orientation you are. And I consider myself a strong Christian, just one that knows I have no right to discriminate.
Comment by Soooo... Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:13 pm
And way to go Gregor!
Comment by Soooo... Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:14 pm
It’s hard for me to understand why this issue is still open for debate. Legalize it and apologize to the gay community for being late to recognize their civil rights.
Comment by Come on, now Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:16 pm
Coming from a guy that endured 12 years of Catholic schools in Glen Ellyn and Wheaton, I don’t see why we can’t have gay marriage. Also, I’m sure this will eventually be profitable for divorce attorneys since half of our heterosexual marriages end in divorce anyways. Let ‘em marry.
Comment by Davey Boy Smithe Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:19 pm
I am a civil unions proponent. But I also think that every hetero union should be a civil union. Marriage is an institution of the church, let them make their own definition. Let the government worry about civil unions - aka how people want to share their benefits, etc.
In other words, you take marriage out of the equation for everyone and separate church and state and then the issue becomes much less volatile.
Comment by A.B. Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:19 pm
If the state is going to confer the “right” to “marry” on anyone, then it can’t withhold it from two consenting adults. Exceptions would need to be made for incest and first-cousins, for obvious reasons, but I don’t think that’s a biggie in most circles.
If the government wants to get out of the marriage business altogether, I’m fine with that, too. Government can sanctions civil unions for adults, and leave marriage to the churches.
The history of legal marriage as an institution is very short. It’s inevitable that it should evolve to reflect real practices among human beings.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:19 pm
Gregor:
IL doesn’t recognize common-law marriage. In fact, only a few states do (don’t remember which ones off the top of my head… it’s been a few years since family law).
Comment by Tangerine Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:20 pm
They should be allowed to marry. The institution of marriage is NOT conveyed solely by religious groups. Justices of the Peace, others who have the license to marry, and even captains of ships at sea have the ability to wed individuals. There should be a separation of church and state on this issue. If a particular religion is against this that is their perogative but their views should not shape public policy.
And for those people who wail and gnash their teeth and quote religious teachings specifically against Gay and Lesbian life styles; there are religious laws against murder, theft, etc. yet we still allow prisoners to wed others, even if they are on death row. It is against the laws of God that clergy should not have sex with young children, yet it is only recently that certain religions have become proactive in this area. It used to be that divorce was against the laws of certain religions and you could be excommunicated if you took that path. Unless of course you had the connections, ie; Frank Sinatra, to get your marriage of many years annulled. So religions have not had good track records on their policies being the best for acceptable behaviors. Their policies should not be public policy.
Comment by Irish Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:25 pm
===In other words, you take marriage out of the equation for everyone and separate church and state and then the issue becomes much less volatile.===
Well said A.B. I agree. Let the civil authorities record the legal contract between two consenting adults. Churches can choose to perform ceremonies as they wish that add the religious/spiritual aspect to the contract.
At the end of the day, marriage is a contract between two parties, nothing more. Catholics like me believe it’s also a sacrament, but I wouldn’t expect David Orr to care about my sacramental records.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:26 pm
marriage is a wonderful institution. everyone should be allowed to marry. anyone who thinks my marriage is threatened by anyone else’s marriage (whether gay or straight) doesn’t have any regard for, or appreciation of, the institution of marriage…
Comment by bored now Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:27 pm
The state should grant a civil marriage license to homosexual and heterosexual couples. They are taxpayers and citizens and I can think of no reason to bar same-sex couples from state recognition of their union. If anything, it benefits the state to have a record of the joint relationship and responsibilities.
If they want to get married in a church, that should be up to the church.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:32 pm
tangerine: That may be the hook for the legislation: recognize commonlaw in Illinois and leave out any specificity as to genders. I have seen situations where a long-time life partner was shut out of the end stages of a dying partner’s life due to the legal gray area around this topic. That’s a similar problem for hetero couples and nobody should have to face that.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:32 pm
Let them be as miserable as any other heterosexual married couple, they certainly have the right to.
Comment by Me Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:35 pm
Abolish “marriage”–let it be a thing for churches and let everyone regardless of gender have civil unions–a legal status. The entwining of religion and law in what we call marriage is anachronistic and left over from ancient days when there was no separation between church and state.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:39 pm
Any right granted to heterosexual couples should be exactly the same for same sex couples. Any argument against this is bigotry.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:41 pm
“Let them be as miserable as any other heterosexual married couple, they certainly have the right to”
What Me said!
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:42 pm
Marriage is a civil contract which confers both rights and resoponsibliites on both parties.
It is time for Illinois to legalize these unions.
At the end of the day, marriage is a contract between two parties, nothing more. Catholics like me believe it’s also a sacrament, but I wouldn’t expect David Orr to care about my sacramental records. - Good point 47th I dont recall my parents registering my first holy communion or confirmation with the county clerk. It is time for everyone to have the civil event at the court house and let the churches handle the religious service how ever they wish.
I have never understood how these unions are a threat to anyone or any religion.
I have not checked the DesMoines Register but would guess it really has turned into a non event in Iowa. I believe most kids today already think it is legal in Illinois so why can the General Assembly figure out how to do the right thing? But then again we are talking about our elected officials who would just perfer to let the courts tell them what to do.
Comment by Anon3 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:42 pm
Civil unions are fine. Access to medical records, hospital visitation are important matters.
Redefining, changing what has been the definition of what constitutes marriage seems based on changing social parameters seems arbitrary.
It may make more sense in the long run for the government to get out of the business of defining what constitutes marriage to get out of the controversy of selecting who is ‘worthy’ of a government sanction.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:47 pm
Marriage.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:49 pm
Any chance we can see the crosstabs on that poll? Would be interesting to see the breakdown by age.
Comment by quicknote Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Marriage should be between a man and a woman. Period. You cannot avoid the fact that studies show the family unit is generally more stable and leads to a more stable society as a whole with families made up of “traditional” one mand, one woman families.
What I am frustrated with is that for decades, the gay rights movement said, we just want the people to decide. Now that they are voted down in virtually every state, they have decided it is somehow a constitutional right. You lost, move on.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:52 pm
Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry. Because a marriage is a legal relationship with myriad legal benefits/consequences. (And “’cause it makes me feel uncomfortable” is an illegitimate argument for discrimination.)
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 12:52 pm
I’m gay, and I’ve been with my partner for 20 years this year. As David Ormsby alludes to above, I pay the same taxes as anyone else. Why shouldn’t I have the same right to marry?
And I’m not trying to change “what constitutes the definition of marriage” anymore than blacks in the South were trying to change the definition of lunch counters. I just want the same rights everyone else enjoys.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:00 pm
Civil unions is an absolute. Marriage? No.
They should have the same rights with regards to estates, Hipaa, etc as heterosexual couples. However, a distinction needs to be made between marriage and unions. Call my position “the defense of marriage” act.
My concern is for the possibility of lawsuits/legal action against religious institutions who will not recognize these “marriages” if it becomes legal.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:00 pm
this is a little off topic, but this would seemingly contradict the Coaliton Against the Death Penalty folks who’ve been on a public crusade to abolish DP in recent weeks.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:01 pm
@Logical Thinker - what do you think the distinction should be, and who do you think would sue religious institutions that wouldn’t recognize marriages under a new law?
Comment by State Sen. Clay Davis Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:05 pm
I think A.B. has hit it on the nose. The gov’t should only be in the business of civil unions and not in the business of marriage since that is a religious activity. Call it separation of church and state, if you will. I differ from the question posed by the Simon Inst in that I would confer ALL rights and responsibilities upon the civil union that are conferred on married couples right now. Why quibble? If a church wishes to hold ceremonies for same sex couples that would be their choice. No church or religion should be forced to accept such compulsion.
Comment by DuPage Dan Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:10 pm
- My concern is for the possibility of lawsuits/legal action against religious institutions who will not recognize these “marriages” if it becomes legal. -
This is a ridiculous scare tactic. No one is trying to force churches to do anything.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:13 pm
gregor-well said both times. 100% agree. looks like this site is much more than thirty something for legally sanctioning the unions. GOOD
Comment by wizard Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:16 pm
oops, that should be 60 something percent not 30.
Comment by wizard Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:17 pm
All of you who make the distinction between marriage and civil unions, are you telling me I can’t get “married?” I’m an atheist. A license and some witnesses are fine with me, but don’t tell me that’s not getting married.
And, btw, first cousins can marry in Illinois, so long as they’re over 50 years old.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:18 pm
I also agree with A.B. Everything should be a civil union and it should be a right of everyone. It doesn’t matter now where you get married. The document that is granted and signed is a legal document of the county. The ceremony at a church is for show and is not legally necessary. If couples want to continue to have a wedding in a church that is fine but it is totally irrelevant to the legal status of two people. Religious institutions would of course have a right to pick and choose who has a ceremony at a church, but in the end that does not deny the legal bond.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:18 pm
@Cheryl44:
It doesn’t matter to me what it is called. Call it marriage. I don’t care. Just legalize it already.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:20 pm
Legal marriage.
Whatever changes Illinois makes, I hope they will be through statute rather than some future court order. If the General Assembly passes a bill, the civil union/marriage decision will be something we accomplish together. If a court orders, we get more culture war fuel.
Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:25 pm
STL,
Really? No one tries to force churches or their agents to do anything? Ask Catholic Charities in Washington DC about the the DC Council’s policy of providing spousal health benefits. If you take any DC funds (and DC relies on Catholic Charities for a ton of social programs, not Catholic Charties on the government teat) and provided spousal benefits to employees, you had to provide them to “married” gay employees, too. So Catholic Charities decided to drop spousal benefits rather than either violate its principals or close a few ministries. DC has not been the only place where this conflict has arisen (California, Massachusetts).
To answer the question, I am 31 and oppose all legal recognition of gay unions. Gays and lesbians already have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do, and can fill out all durable power of attorney/medical decision forms as the law is currently written.
As a side note, the real question, which is conveniently ignored by most people who have been trying to reconfigure society’s mores for the past 50 years, is, “What is the meaning and purpose of human sexuality?”
Comment by South Side Mike Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:29 pm
Full marriage rights. Gay marriage has existed for over 10 years in Europe and for a few years now in the states. The world has not ended and no ones heterosexual marriage has been adversely affected.
I’m not sure why this is even a question anymore. I know it is probably a generational issue.
Comment by Chathamite Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:30 pm
SSM, if you take government money, you abide by government rules. That’s not the same for actual churches. But if they want to participate in taxpayer funded social programs, they have to follow everybody’s rules.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:35 pm
Full gay civil marriage, no question about it. In the end there needs to be a decoupling of the religious sacrament from the state sanctioned part of inheritance, parenting and tax rights.
SSM, to suggest gays and lesbians have the same right to marry is a complete mockery of gays and lesbians and of the institution of marriage. It’s a truly outrageous comment that deserves every condemnation coming its way. You’ve not only demeaned the people you criticize but also the institution you claim to protect.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:38 pm
“Gays and lesbians already have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do, and can fill out all durable power of attorney/medical decision forms as the law is currently written. ”
Absolutely incorrect. There are over a thousand places in federal law where advantages are given to legal marriages that are not available to same sex couples, and you can’t just ‘contract around’ them. For example, my employer provides health benefits for my partner as it does for the spouses of my straight counterparts. The benefits for spouses are tax free, but I pay around $2,000 in extra taxes each year on the benefits my partner receives. There no way to just fill out some form or document to get around that. Talk about the opposite of a ‘marriage tax’.
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:39 pm
I like what pot kettle said.
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:41 pm
- Gays and lesbians already have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do -
This statement would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that morons like you apparently believe it.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 1:43 pm
Rich,
Not to go too far off topic, however, your statement of:
“But if they want to participate in taxpayer funded social programs, they have to follow everybody’s rules.”
Brings us to TARP. There were banks who did not WANT the money from the government and were told that HAD to take it. In that sense, the power for the government to intervene and essentially force institutions to accept edicts/laws which they do not want to does exist.
I’m not sure why so many people are taking issue with what I said about civil unions. I am essentially saying the same thing as Obama and Clinton. What’s wrong with that? Also, only 34% of Illinoisans want gay marriage. The other 66% do not.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:01 pm
@Logical, I’m not taking issue, I’m just trying to understand your position.
You said there should be a distinction btw unions and marriages. What should the distinction be besides the word “marriage”?
You said you were worried that churches that disagree with potential gay marriages could face lawsuits. Who do you think would sue them and why?
Comment by State Sen. Clay Davis Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:07 pm
I’m open to the idea of civil unions… marriage maybe… as long as it is not required by religious institutions. Let’s look to our mankind brothers and sisters in foreign lands (from which some of us have ancestors). Spain, Ireland, England, Canada, recently Argentina, and I’m missing some do have civil unions/marriage for same sex partners - separate from their strong religious backgrounds - we can’t do that? Israel (one of the toughest military in the world) and England, and others I’m not aware of, allow gays to serve openly - wow… we’re not strong enough to allow that and remain the strongest military in the world? Can’t believe it.
Comment by open Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:07 pm
==As a side note, the real question, which is conveniently ignored by most people who have been trying to reconfigure society’s mores for the past 50 years, is, “What is the meaning and purpose of human sexuality?”==
Do you really want the government to answer that?
I guess you are alluding to the concept that marriage is an institution created to foster heterosexual procreation followed by a pair of opposite gender parents raising children into adulthood. However, this is clearly not how marriage works in the US. (There is no fertility test prior to granting a marriage license nor is there a requirement that both parents contribute to raising the children nor is there a requirement that they stay married, etc.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:15 pm
Clay,
I think the ONLY distinction should be in the actual word “marriage” vs “union.” I think that they should be given the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples. As such, they probably would be subjected to “marriage” penalties with taxes (I’ll let the politicans figure out how to rebrand it differently), estate tax issues (but allow for the spousal transfer) and I’m sure there will be the equivalent of divorce with these unions.
I am uncomfortable with using the word “marriage” because it is both a religious designation AND a legal one. However, unless both agree to use it, the potential for abuses exists.
Your final question: “who do I think would sue and why?” is pretty easy. I think an organization like the ACLU would get involved because churches would refuse to perform the “marriage” ceremonies. All it takes is one case and one judge (witness the recent repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”). Additionally, the government could use the whip of repealing preferential tax treatment through section 501(c) to those who fail to comply. I don’t think it’s that far of a stretch.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:18 pm
===I don’t think it’s that far of a stretch. ===
Only if you assume that we live in Cuba.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:22 pm
I don’t think the ACLU would care *unless* the churches were denying people their legal rights in some way. No one has a legal right to force a church to host a ceremony that the church doesn’t want to host.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:28 pm
Logical thinker, You are completely wrong on a judge making a church marry two homosexuals. The United States has a strong division on this type of church state issues and I can NEVER see the day when the state interferes with sacraments in a church.
As Rich mentioned it is a different case when a religious group is providing a public service paid for by government. Likewise, there has been one case where a church was force to rent a gazebo to a gay couple for marriage, but they weren’t force to perform a marriage and the gazebo was considered public space for a number of reasons.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:29 pm
The marriage license is granted by the state and all of the paperwork takes place in the Clerk’s office. I see no reason why a minister or judge should have to sign off on the paperwork; you should be able to walk out of the office with the paperwork complete. If you feel the need for a ceremony (with clergy, judge, or anyone else officiating and all the witnesses you want), I don’t see why the State should be involved at all.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:35 pm
Civil unions, more broadly defined than even the gay rights advocates are pushing. I don’t know why a supportive relationship has to be based on sex, hetero or otherwise, to be recognized by the state. Why can’t any two (or more) adults agree that they are going to look after each other and have the state recognize that compact for property ownership, benefits sharing, etc. (including enforcing some of the compact after the relationship unravels, through a “divorce” proceeding) without inquiring about their sexual relationship? If this notion offends you, note that this approach could let you carry your saintly, aged mother and your adult, unemployed child on your health insurance.
Comment by Pat Robertson Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:37 pm
Cheryl,
Let’s present a hypothetical: Let’s advance a premise that there is gay “marriage” and it becomes legal. In that sense, there is a LEGAL distinction that people have the right to marry. It’s black and white. Let’s then assume that a gay couple of the Catholic faith believes that they should have the right to marry in their own church. They will be refused.
However, then they start to claim that they have the “RIGHT” to marry and they are being denied their “RIGHT” to wed in a church. They begin both a legal campaign and a PR one. The most obvious lever that the government has to force churches to extend the same “RIGHTS” to gay couples is in the tax code. It’s not an issue of church v. state in this sense; it’s a matter of compliance with tax code. Again, it’s not that big of a stretch.
We’ve become a society that anytime the word “RIGHT” is thrown around, it is used as a moral club to beatdown anyone who disagrees. I fully expect and believe that if the distinction of “marriage” is extended to gay couples, that the lawyers will jump on it to the detriment of religious institutions.
Objective Dem:
“Likewise, there has been one case where a church was force to rent a gazebo to a gay couple for marriage, but they weren’t force to perform a marriage and the gazebo was considered public space for a number of reasons.”
–You can already begin to see the slippery slope in your very argument. If you don’t see it yourself, I can’t help you.
Comment by Logical Thinker Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:40 pm
I’m all in favor of either “marriage” for everyone or “civil unions” for everyone. It needs to be equal. If you think otherwise, you are effectively saying homosexuals are second class citizens.
Could you imagine if the County Clerk asked everyone applying for a marriage license to provide their faith. If it was an interfaith marriage the clerk might say “Sorry, but your faith objects to you marrying outside your faith. So we will give you a civil union license instead. Its basically the same, but just remember you aren’t married.”
The government can never force any faith to perform a marriage ceremony they don’t want to. Doesn’t matter if it is for interfaith marriages, homosexual marriages, inter-racial marriage, a shot-gun marriage, or any other type of marriage that they don’t recognize. It has never happened and never will.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:41 pm
Allow gay marriage. I don’t understand how the quality of my own marriage is in any way affected by allowing gay people the same right.
Comment by Bluefish Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:53 pm
Logical Thinker,
What you view as a slippery slope is a long established constitutional principle of church/state separation. Bottomline is if you accept money from the state, you lose some rights. There are some limits on church behavior, simply saying you are a church doesn’t mean you can do anything you want. But the flip side is there are very few infringements on sacraments.
By the way, the ACLU would likely take the case fighting for church/state separation not for imposing state rules on the church.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 2:57 pm
Civil unions for everyone, as long as they are consenting adult human beings in possession of their legal rights. Government should stay out of defining marriage and leave that to churches.
Comment by Aldyth Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:09 pm
Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry.
Comment by (618) Democrat Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:11 pm
@ Everyone on here who supports civil unions rather than marriage equality…
Would you trade your marriage for a civil union?
No?
Then why should my relationship be treated differently? Riddle me that!
Comment by Chathamite Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:16 pm
I don’t care whether same-sex marriage is legal. If it’s legal, the ceremonies should only be performed by judges. No Christian church should consider performing the ceremonies, since that would contradict the Bible.
Comment by Conservative Veteran Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:18 pm
What’s my position? Well, I like to be on top but then again I am a workhorse. I don’t fault anyone who feels differently. It’s an awfully personal question. I’m surprised you care. Personally I don’t care what other people are doing in their bedrooms.
Comment by We Todd Did Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:19 pm
Logical Thinker — I appreciate your trying to sketch out a situation where the lawsuit against a church would happen. While that scenario, including the expected PR campaign, sounds plausible, you’re forgetting one very important element. In such a case the church (whether Catholic or any other denomination) would simply declare that the couple is not abiding by/adhering to the tenets of the faith and therefore is not a member. The Catholic church would likely have no problem excommunicating your gay couple. If they’re not members, the church doesn’t have to marry them.
Surely you don’t think there’s some scenario in which the State could tell churches who it must accept as members? ‘Cuz that just isn’t gonna happen under the separation between church and state. Nor can a church’s selectivity for it’s membership be a basis for revoking 501(c)(3) status.
Comment by Monstrum Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:23 pm
A correction to a previous post:
Illinois has not permitted or recognized “common law marriage” since 1905.
If the State of Illinois can barely afford to pay its bills now, how can it afford to provide insurance and medical benefits to same sex couples also?
Is this really about “marriage” or a benefits grab?
Nothing in our current legal system prevents same sex couples from have powers of attorney for healthcare and wills being drafted. There are lawyers who can draw the papers up.
Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:27 pm
Make marriage and all the legal rights involved available to any couple who wants it. There are gay couples in my family and their kids are doing great. Got some cousins working on their 3 marriages with multiple step kids involved. Good kids who have learned to adjust to change. The Churches will find their own way or their followers will simply move away. If marriage between two people effects your marriage, it must not be a very strong one. Married couples face far worse/more important issues in their relationship than if the neighbors are gay or straight.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:31 pm
===Is this really about “marriage” or a benefits grab? ===
Would you say that about two heterosexual people who wanted to get married?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:31 pm
First of all, Logical, I don’t see why anyone would be Catholic if they’re gay.
However, if they are, they know the rules of the church. The church I grew up in would not allow weddings if either of the people involved were not a member or if either were divorced. We had members who were divorced; there were members who were married to non-members. They just knew they couldn’t use the church for or expect the minister to perform the ceremony.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:33 pm
Conservative Veteran,
A church (or other house of worship) definitely has the right to not perform a gay marriage ceremony because they view it as contradicting the bible.
However, I disagree with your statement that “No Christian church should consider performing the ceremonies, since that would contradict the Bible.” There are numerous churches who do not believe it contradicts the Bible for valid theological reasons. It doesn’t make them less “Christian” it just means they have a different interpretation of the Bible.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:44 pm
I’m not religious so I find the religious aspects of marriage completely meaningless. I do think that marriage, as a legal contract, should be available to couples regardless of sexual orientation. So if two heterosexual same-sex (or not) friends want to “marry” civilly in order to take advantage of the legal aspects of marriage-my single friends tell me they pay more, as singles, in several arenas– that’s fine with me. Marriage has its uses, but it probably needs a do-over in the 21st century. Particularly the parts which treat various arrangements differently from an economic perspective.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:45 pm
All other arguments aside, think of the revenue that could be generated if we’d just let everyone have the right to drop $40 on a marriage license.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 3:51 pm
Most of the talk has been about rights. Cheryl44 brings up another important line of argument which is the economic development impact.
I could see the ability to attract gays and lesbians to get married here bringing in some tourism dollars.
The bigger issue is in the battle to attract young smart professionals, Illinois is at a disadvantage. If you are gay/lesbian, why do you want to move to a state that treats you like a second class citizen?
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:08 pm
What is the cost to the taxpayers for health care, pension, and survivor’s benefits for G-L partners of government employees? What about the increase in health care premiums that must necessarily result from the addition of G-L health care and other benefits in the private sector?
Insurers and employers are already grappling with HC reform - major expansion of health care benefits. Assuming G-L partners deserve benefits equal to marrieds, can we afford it?
Comment by Easily Entertained Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:11 pm
- ===Is this really about “marriage” or a benefits grab? ===
Would you say that about two heterosexual people who wanted to get married? -
Bigotry at its finest.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:22 pm
* Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to legally marry
I believe refusing gays this right is in violation of their civil rights.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:25 pm
Easily Entertained,
Based on your comments, human rights should not be given to specific groups due to a health insurance price tag. Why don’t you give up your health insurance?
Comment by So Blue Democrat Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:32 pm
I don’t think it’s a benefits grab but I would note that he new federal health care law when fully implemented will make it possible for all citizens to get health coverage whether married or not…definitely a step in the right direction. Now it’s time to stop using the tax code to “reward” marriage, whether heterosexual or not. We should all be grateful to the gay community for shining a light on some of the flaws, and inequities, in the current system.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:39 pm
I second So Blue Democrat’s remarks about the price tag. Under the logic of those who question providing equal benefits to straights and gays, we would be perfectly justified in denying health benefits to spouses of other arbitrary groups. We’d save a lot of money if we denied health benefits to white spouses of government employees. Does that sound OK to you?
Comment by ChicagoR Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:45 pm
Chathamite: Would I trade my marriage for a civil union? No,why should I when there is no benefit? On the other hand, I am not religious, so if the choice were civil union or nothing, I would have accepted the civil union.
I am not religious, but a lot of people are-the civil union vs. marriage debate is just a means to an end: a legal union gets you the same rights and responsibilities without keeping the religious nuts stirred up.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 4:58 pm
Conservative Veteran, as a Christian scholar, you need to lay it down Chapter and Verse where Christ defined marriage.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 5:17 pm
Here’s the Annenberg take on the difference between legal marriage and civil union:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 5:17 pm
In about 25 years when folks my age have the reins on most city councils, state legislatures, and in Congress, we will look back at questions like these with embarrassment. I take comfort in that.
Roughly 85% of QOTD responses are in support of full marriage rights–a far cry from the poll’s 33%. Why the difference?
Perhaps those who think often and closely about public policy (as Cap Fax readers do) more clearly see the obvious injustice of the status quo. Or it could be that those who oppose gay marriage have learned to keep quiet about their belief.
Unfortunately, I think that the latter is just as likely as the former.
There remains a huge swath of folks who continually cast ballots ensuring gay couples are less than under the law–people who would never dream of admitting so in a public forum. Essentially a corollary to the “Bradley effect.”
These silent voters will drag out the process for full equality much longer than necessary, leading more gay couples and their families to needlessly suffer along the way.
Comment by Paul Richardson Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 6:17 pm
I look at this debate, and I think of what it would have sounded like 50 and 100 years ago if we replaced “gay” with “Inter-racial”.
I think we are on the path to eventual parity in civil marriage rights between hetero and gay. I think this is part of an inevitable evolution.
What churches allow or don’t allow will not be the government’s business unless the government is paying some church to provide a public service. Furthermore, trying to “force” a church to do something its faith doesn’t agree with is so clearly unconstitutional, I can’t imagine a court anywhere that wouldn’t summarily dismiss any such complaint.
It wasn’t so long ago everyone thought the idea of a Black President was science fiction, either. Civilr rights didn’t stop advancing in 1964, nor in 2008. Like or or don’t like it; you had better get used to it.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 7:51 pm
The Republic will survive regardless…not that big of a deal eaither way. But it’s irritating to non-gay families, R or D. They don’t understand the push for this. Obviously it’s not ‘marriage’ as that term has been defined for centuries….the proponents know they’re being Orwellian same as everyone else. At some point they’re going to get push back. Is this silly idea worth it?
Comment by Park Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 8:35 pm
==Conservative Veteran, as a Christian scholar, you need to lay it down Chapter and Verse where Christ defined marriage.
==
Mt. 19:5-6
Comment by Justme Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 8:52 pm
Park,
Marriage has not been defined this way for centuries. Marriage is a constantly changing concept. The idea of “love” as the basis for marriage is relatively recent. The idea that you can get no-fault divorce is a recent concept.
There is a concept called “progress” that means things are allowed to get better. Just because we did something in the past doesn’t mean we can’t change it for the better.
The idea of civil unions or no unions, effectively tells gays and lesbians that they are 2nd or 3rd class citizens. People will push back. The bigots pushed back against equal rights for women, blacks and other minorities because they didn’t want to see the status quo change. After all thats the way things had been for centuries.
I’m sorry if it is irritating that you have to hear people discuss wanting equal rights. Maybe if they had some empathy or educating themselves they would understand the multi-levels of discrimination that occur because their are no marriage rights.
Up until recently it was much easier for a gay man to be single than in a relationship because if he was with another man on a regular basis, it would be relatively clear that he was “gay.” That meant he could be fired from his job. And bigots would say, oh gays are disfunctional and aren’t capable of having a relationship, even though it wasn’t their choice. Now that gays have fought for their right to be in a relationship, the bigots do everything in their power to break up this relationship and diminish it. Try adopting a kid if you are gay in a number of states or from a number of adoption agencies. If you lie and say you are single you have a better chance. If your lover is from another country, forget any chance of them being able to move here permanently. They are just a visitor in the eyes of the feds. Health insurance may be available through domestic benefits, but you have to pay federal taxes for the full value. Want of visit your dying lover in the hospital; you better have the right papers with you or you will be in the waiting room rather than with them. After they die, you better hope every paper is in order or the family may screw you over. I can provide names of people this has happened to. Its not some nonsensical slippery slope. It is risk for every gay and lesbian who has a partner but doesn’t have the right to marry.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 9:13 pm
@Justme - You mean when Jesus absolutely forbids divorce? Are you saying Illinois should forbid divorce?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 9:14 pm
Just me,
First off your biblical phrase is “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” which is affirmative of people getting married but doesn’t say anything against gay marriage.
Second, if you really are serious about the US government having laws based on the Bible, lets start with stoning people who commit adultery. We should ban red dresses and eating shellfish. If people use the Lord’s name in vain they should be punished. But few people really are serious about following all of laws and regs in the Bible. For some it is a matter of picking and choosing. But for others, including myself, it is understanding that the true meaning of Christianity is understanding that rigid rules based on past practice aren’t as important as loving your neighbor as yourself.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 9:23 pm
Yes. Legalize same-sex marriage already. I’ve been married fifteen years, and no one else’s marriage (gay or straight) is a threat to my marriage. Everyone deserves equal rights.
I respect the right of my church (and other churches) to refuse to marry same-sex couples, though I happen to disagree with the church’s position. Still, there’s no reason at all not to recognize marriage as a secular right that churches can embrace or reject.
But on the secular (civil) front, it’s a no-brainer. Not to mention that supporting same-sex marriages is actually an affirmation of marriage as an institution, contrary to all the nasty rhetoric all around us. People committed to taking care of each other over the long haul? Sure, bring it on.
Comment by Steve Downstate Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 9:35 pm
–Mt. 19:5-6–
Justme, that’s a direct answer to the tempting questions by the Pharisees as to whether a man can divorce his wife, as Moses had allowed, back in the day. You may not like the answer to that question, but it’s also silent on a lot of things.
If you read Matthew a little further, you’ll see that Christ said marriage between a man and woman may not be for everyone.
I was calling out Conservative Veteran who said “No Christian church should consider performing the ceremonies, since that would contradict the Bible.”
Although that’s clearly wrong, and “The Bible” is full of contradictions, it really has no bearing to how we arrange our civil laws here in the republican democracy of the USA.
Still, I’d recommend everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof, continue reading Matthew and the rest of The Gospels. Can’t hurt.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 10:05 pm
I feel a lot of love on this blog tonight.
Seriously Rich, you might have been hitting the delete button hard tonight, but I’m re-reading the 90+ comments on this volatile subject tonight and the overwhelming majority are thoughtful and fair, if not necessarily true or original. This is not an easy subject for anonymous commentary and debate, but I’m proud of all of my Cap Fax friends who brought some positive vibes and kept this from becoming a shouting match.
Well done everybody. How come all blogs aren’t this cool? I guess Rich attracts a better class of people.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 18, 10 @ 10:45 pm