Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Gun stuff and poll results
Next Post: Quinn, Hynes, Giannoulias and Meeks all upset at guv’s tax plan *** Updated x1 ***
Posted in:
Even though I always say that a committee vote doesn’t mean much, it’s still kind of surprising that this bill passed a committee on the first try…
A plan to recognize civil unions for same-sex couples narrowly advanced out of a House committee Wednesday despite opposition from faith-based organizations.
By a 5-4 vote, members of the House Human Services committee approved a bill that would give same-sex couples the protections married couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, child custody and survivor benefits.
“It’s a question of equality,” state Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the bill’s sponsor, said. The civil union bill is Harris’ second attempt at giving gay couples legal rights.
Harris, who is the only openly gay state lawmaker, said he intends to call the bill for a vote by the full House floor this spring. His proposal needs the approval of the House, the Senate and Gov. Blagojevich before it becomes law.
The bill faces an uncertain future, as many Republicans, family organizations and faith-based groups are promising a fight. “Government shouldn’t recognize a lifestyle that’s been considered immoral,” said David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.
More…
“It was clear the time is not now for marriage,” said Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the sponsor of the civil-union and gay-marriage proposals. “When it will come back, I don’t know. Clearly the appetite of this legislature is not to have that discussion.”
But some lawmakers opposed the civil-union legislation, approved 5-4 in the Human Services Committee, saying it draws little distinction from traditional marriage.
“There is a fine line, and I think Rep. Harris crossed it,” said Rep. Mary Flowers (D-Chicago), who opposed the bill in committee. “I think what he did is make this, indirectly, same-sex marriage but called it something else. … Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
The civil-union legislation follows a gay-rights victory two years ago when the General Assembly passed legislation that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. But that measure took several years of effort to pass, and the civil-union legislation clearly will meet strong resistance.
Four other states currently recognize some form of same-sex unions. The proposal wouldn’t allow gay couples to file taxes jointly, but would give them marital state tax deductions.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Gun stuff and poll results
Next Post: Quinn, Hynes, Giannoulias and Meeks all upset at guv’s tax plan *** Updated x1 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Whether Democrats or Republicans are in control, it’s usually a good idea to have your financial house in order before tackling the social issues.
Considering the state’s current fiscal crisis…
Comment by Dieter Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 9:10 am
The tax thing wouldn’t bother me. I think the battle over marriage or civil unions are more social. Taxes are just a side effect.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 10:24 am
“Government shouldn’t recognize a lifestyle that’s been considered immoral,†said David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.
That’s the best he can do? Immoral by whose standards? My Church doesn’t say that monogamous homosexuality is immoral. What makes his Church trump mine?
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 10:55 am
We keep looking for solutions to expand insurance coverage to the uninsured. One method, allow same sex couples to be joined and enjoy the same legal benefits, including the ability to cover your mate as a family member on insurance.
The Marriage is defined as tag line is not a persuasive argument. Words have the legal definitions we ascribe them under the law. The law contains many definitions where words are ascribed certain meanings for purposes of application of the law. If the refernece is to the religious definition of marriage, it is rirrelevant, we afre talking about an action under state law to confer the benefits and protections of those laws. Including rights in a seperation, rights to pursue litiagtion if your loved one is killed by another, rights to inheriutance, rights to make medical care decisions, rights to insurance and so forth.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:01 am
“Government shouldn’t recognize a lifestyle that’s been considered immoral,†said David Smith, the executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.
By that way of thinking, many things could be considered immoral by some. 50 years ago it was “immoral” for a black and a white to marry.
There are just more important things to fight about. Like the financial situation our state is in.
Comment by BBpolNut Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 11:26 am
Dieter and BBpolNut,
Life goes on despite checkbook issues, whether at home or in state government. Love is part of life (and marriage is but one expression of love).
Comment by NW burbs Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 12:27 pm
For those who doubt whether recognition of civil unions is a moral issue, please consider all of the Bible passages in which Jesus decries 1040 returns filed jointly by unmarried couples.
– SCAM
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:16 pm
I agree with Dieter, the state’s financial issues are far more pressing then this. Fix up the state’s fiscal health and then deal with bills related to civil unions and the like.
Comment by RMW Stanford Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 1:22 pm
If we waited for the government to get its fiscal house in order before we addressed concerns of social equlaity, we’d still be waiting for women to get the right to vote.
Comment by nrthsdr Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 6:13 pm
Civil unions make perfect sense, I don’t feel this threatens the institution of church-sanctioned marriage at all. Typically gay couples create their own, more meaningful and personal ceremonies outside of a church anyhow, it is not about the word ‘marriage’. Its about legal status of a dependant.
It is a fact that there are gay people living the same way commonlaw hetero couples live, in a long-term monogamous relationship that’s functionally identical in every other way, and i feel strongly that if we can let commonlaw hetero couples enjoy legal recognition and status for things like insurance, taxes, medical, inheritance, or other legal paperwork, without any religious ceremony required, then there’s no reason to deny it to another pair of like individuals just because a long-term couple is gay. It smacks of segregation.
I have known of several such long-paired gay couples over the years; they were all good people, who cared for each other and lived and loved like a married couple in all but law. When one of them got really sick, and there was no next of kin, the hospital STILL would not accept the surviving partner’s input on making medical decisions, or visitations, or later, even burial decisions.
That’s just stupid, as well as unjust. If a commonlaw husband can put his wife on his company insurance, a Domestic Partner should be able to do the same.
I’ll never “understand” gay people, but I understand they ARE people, and I think this is just a plain and simple human rights issue. You don’t have to call it a marriage, anymore than you call it a marriage when a man and woman move in togegther and live that way for a decade or more.
But we can and should level the legal playing field for these people. And we need to do it now. There is no excuse to delay for reasons of the budget negotiations. That again smacks of the same delaying tactics used by closet segregationists trying to slow the advance of the human rights of black men and women. That was wrong in that case and it is wrong in this one. It is a human rights issue about legal status and that’s all it needs to be. Let’s leave their bedroom out of the discussion, as it is irrelevant.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 6:57 pm
Under our current contract gay employees are allowed to add their partner on their group policy.
AFSCME says an employee on the bargaining unit demanded this be included in the contract on order to endorse it.
I voted against the contract because of it but it passed with overwhelming support.
At least I voted my values and beliefs.
Comment by stateworker w/ MBA Thursday, Mar 22, 07 @ 8:50 pm
I believe Gay and Lesbian Couples should have the same rights as Married Couples! People talk about immoral, I come from Divorced Parents and a difficult child Life .I can tell you alot about “immoral”
Comment by Michael and Kevin Tuesday, Mar 27, 07 @ 8:18 am