Illinois poised to approve civil unions

[t0dd]

Source: Pam's House Blend
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11091/the-peters-head-will-explode-il-poised-to-approve-civil-unions

The Illinois General Assembly is expected to approve a measure next week that would legalize civil unions, according to an LGBT activist.

Rick Garcia, political director for Equality Illinois, said Thursday he's "absolutely" expecting the full state House and the Senate to pass a civil union measure either Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill has support from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D).

The House Youth and Family Committee, chaired by Rep. Greg Harris, who's gay, intends to attach an amendment legalizing civil unions to a "shell bill" that's already been approved by the Senate, Garcia said. If the full House votes in favor of the legislation, the bill would be sent to the full Senate within hours for a vote of concurrence.

...Should the measure become law, both gay and straight couples could enter into civil unions. As there's no explicit language regarding an effective date, couples could start entering into civil unions 30 days after the bill is signed into law, Garcia said.

[ccharles000]

1. lets hope

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I'm a bit confused

as far as I know, straight couples in Illinois have been allowed to join in civil unions like forever. My brother and sister in law got married by a judge in Jackson County over a quarter of a century ago.

[FreeState]

4. No they get Civil Marriage - a new category is being created so gays dont mix with unwilling st8s n/

[nevergiveup]

3. baby steps

Illinois has been traditionally a politically centrist state but there have been recent signs of a more liberal bent especially in the Chicago suburbs. Still, having been an Illinois resident all my life I would consider the legalization of civil unions here to be quite remarkable.

[customerserviceguy]

5. It is not a bad way to go, baby steps

If MA had not gone all the way back in 2003, we would not have thirty states that have stained their constitutions with bigotry. At this point, for those places, it will take either a majority of citizens to get over their homophobia, or a majority of the US Supreme Court to get over it's homophobia when the right case gets to it's doorstep.

[mitchtv]

8. Blame MA

I call bulllshit

[Bluebear]

9. Yeah, it's all Massachusetts' fault for granting full equality.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

10. All I can think to say is "fuck you"

[bluedawg12]

12. ...and the republican he rode in on. n/t

[bluedawg12]

11. MA did the right thing and MiniDOMA's predate Ma. and 2003.

Gays and allies struggling for justice and equal rights led to the inexcusable "gay marriage" panic in the United States fanned by RRRwing fanatics.


"Local referenda to overturn equality rights laws across the United States have won repeatedly from the 1970s into the twenty-first century, and statewide referenda have implemented DOMA laws in Alaska and Hawaii in 1998 and in California and Nebraska 2000. The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a similar statute in 1998."
-wikipedia

Court Challenges all before 2003.

Case law (wikipedia)

United States case law regarding the spousal rights of gay or bisexual persons:

Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971) (upholding a Minnesota law defining marriage)
Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1973) (upholding a Kentucky law defining marriage)
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. App. 1974) (ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional on the basis of gender discrimination; because the historical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples are inherently ineligible to marry)
Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (affirming that same-sex marriage does not make one a "spouse" under the Immigration and Nationality Act)
De Santo v. Barnsley, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)(same-sex couples cannot undergo divorce proceedings because they cannot enter a common law marriage)
In re Estate of Cooper, 564 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990)
Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. 1993) (ruled that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated equal protection clause of Hawaii state constitution, prompting a state constitutional amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act)
Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995)
Storrs v. Holcomb, 645 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (New York does not recognize or authorize same-sex marriage) (this ruling has since been changed, New York does recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states)
In re Estate of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (no same sex marriage will be recognized; petitioner claiming existing same-sex marriage was not in a marriage recognized by law)
Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194; 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (Common Benefits Clause of the state constitution requires that same-sex couples be granted the same legal rights as married persons)
Rosengarten v. Downes, 806 A.2d 1066 (Conn. Ct. App. 2002) (Vermont civil union cannot be dissolved in Connecticut)
Burns v. Burns, 560 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman)
Frandsen v. County of Brevard, 828 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2002) (State constitution will not be construed to recognize same-sex marriage; sex classifications not subject to strict scrutiny under Florida constitution)
In re Estate of Gardiner, 42 P.3d 120 (Kan. 2002) (a post-op male-to-female transgendered person may not marry a male, because this person is still a male in the eyes of the law, and marriage in Kansas is recognized only between a man and a woman)

[ShadowLiberal]

6. Great news, that means that gay marriage isn't far behind

Almost all the states that have legalized civil unions for gays have legalized gay marriage (other then NJ that only legalized civil unions 2 years ago, but there's been talk there recently about legalizing gay marriage). Once you get civil unions it's only a matter of time until their presence speeds up the support for gay marriage in the state.

[Athelwulf]

7. Don't forget about domestic partnerships, the other kind of civil unions.

I seem to remember reading that California's domestic partner registry was created a little bit after Vermont got civil unions. So, several years ago. This seems to weaken your hypothesis. But maybe not by much.