(AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
A bill squeaked through a legislative committee last Wednesday in the Illinois House that would give same-sex partners the same rights and benefits as "married couples." The House bill, HB2234, known as Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, takes an important first step toward addressing the issue of gay marriage.
The bill is sponsored by the chairman of the committee, State Rep. Greg Harris. Another state legislature, Deb Mell, who is the daughter of Alderman Dick Mell and the sister-in-law of former Governor Rod Blagojevich, is a strong proponent of the bill.
"I find it very strange that I can be elected to the General Assembly and vote on rules and laws, but these don't apply to me and my family," said Mell, D-Chicago. "We're not protected."
State Rep. Greg Harris, the chairperson of the committee and the sponsor of the measure, said in a statement published on the Windy City Media Web site that “this is legislation about fairness and establishing equal rights for everyone in our great state. At the heart of the debate over this bill is a fundamental question: Do the people that this bill applies to deserve the same rights as everyone else? The answer is ‘absolutely.'”
Opponents argue that civil unions amount to gay marriage by another name.
The Mormon Church is opposed to any legislation conferring any rights to same-sex couples. The Mormons have been at the forefront of fighting such measures as California's Proposition 8.
Gay rights advocates fear that Mormons in Nauvoo might try to undermine civil unions up for debate in Springfield today. They point to the church's overwhelming financial support of California's Proposition 8, the successful ballot measure that made it illegal for lesbian and gay couples to marry.
To use other templates select the template button to the right of the source button above.
The California Supreme Court listened to oral argument on Thursday surrounding issues on California's Proposition 8. Some of the issues the court may address is what to do with the 18,000 same sex couples who were married prior to the vote on Proposition 8.
Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.
During Thursday's oral arguments on a trio of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, Chin and Chief Justice Ronald George seemed to anticipate the difficulty in reconciling the state constitution's promise of equality with its commitment to giving voters wide discretion to pass laws.
Chin, who was not part of the court majority that ruled last year to legalize same-sex marriage, twice asked whether the court should direct the state "to employ non-marriage terminology" and instead make only civil unions or domestic partnerships available to all.
This is an issue that will not go away. Both sides are well-entrenched in their positions. Stay tuned.
Comments
"The Mormon church is opposed to any legislation conferring any rights to same-sex couples."
False. They were vocal and "at the forefront" of Prop. 8, but in Illinois, it it not a Mormon event: just an individual...[I had inserted here an article refuting the Mormon church's involvement in Illinois by a gay news paper.]
As much as people would like to blame things on a highly misunderstood group, not everything is their fault.
Let's find the real reasons for this battle and leave the mormons alone.
That is delusional. It is the Mormons that are paying the tab for many of these items. The Mormons are disingenuous. And why would they oppose Prop 8 in California, but they are ok with this Illinois thing. Please.
"The Mormon church is opposed to any legislation conferring any rights to same-sex couples."
Absolutely false.
Hitler also liked to tell blanket lies about religious groups in order to stir up hatred for them.
The Mormon church does hate anything that is not Mormon, and this goes well beyond the tax-paying citizens of the LGBT community. If you knew history, you'd know that President Carter had to threaten the Mormon church in 1978 with taxation if they didn't stop preaching segregation. They hated Black people. Suddenly, when faced with taxation...they liked Black people...amazing!
Mormons have ZERO credibility, they lied and CHEATED the CA election board claiming donations of 2 thousand, when it was 190 thousand. They sent out BLACKMAIL letters to donors on No on prop 8, demanding 10 thousand.
They admitted sending these letters, and each letter is a FELONY, caring a four year sentence, where are these TRIALS?
Mormons are stealthily attacking gay rights in Hawaii and Illinois..ENOUGH!
I can fully appreciate two states Missouri and Illinois telling this cult to get the HELL OUT, before they migrated to Utah.
Mormons make themselves hated, then act like picked on martyrs. Well that act has grown STALE.
The Mormons cannot deny the role they played in California's Proposition 8 fight and its spills into Illinois.
This is going to be interesting. Nauvoo is a little town of about 1100 people. Of those 1100, maybe 1/3 are LDS - and I think this a generous estimate since 50 years ago there were ZERO members living there. So I will put money - alot of it - on the table that says Illinoians will blame any failure of same gender legislation in their state on the Mormons. In California, it was the blacks and hispanics that made the difference, but you never hear about this because it is unpopular to pick on them. But it is perfectly acceptable to pick on the Mormons because that's what our liberal media does - and gets away with. If you ask me this piece, and most of the comments, are just another example of the putrid vomit that results from our lousy excuse for media. So much for fair and balanced.
The Utah legislature KILLED every meager minimal LGBT Human Rights Bills for their OWN gay sons and lesbian daughters, even the cruel bill which denies a partner the right to hospital visits, and to openly discriminate in Housing and Employment. THAT is what this cult wants to export to SANE states...Oh HELL NO!
BOYCOTT Utah = HATE STATE
Utah's Mormons will lose an entire generation of the LGBTs and progressive youths, who will take with them Utah's FUTURE. These youth who have gay and lesbian friends all their lives, support LGBT equality, including marriage, by 61%. Utah's loss of this generation will be another state's GAIN.
Dr. B
Find me a single piece of LGBT rights legislation the Mormons didn't actively oppose.
PS. Godwin's Law.
A blatant error has been made in this report. It is incorrect to state that "The Mormon Church is opposed to any legislation conferring any rights to same-sex couples."
The Mormon Church's official website at www.lds.org clearly states "The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."
Such an extreme error of fact should warrant an official correction, or even an apology.
Get real Chris Cooper. The Mormon Church was lying when they made that statement. They proved it when they acted against all five LGBT rights bills in Utah (*after* that statement) then moved to kill the Illinois Civil Unions bill. They wish to eradicate all forms of rights for LGBT people, period. Their actions speak far louder than any words they speak.
Well thank you John Presta, very helpful for my social activist letter I am writing for school. I'm writing to the Sen. Dick Durban about gay marriage. It is still in the works, and due by tomorrow, but I think this will be of great help to writing my letter.
"[The question is] Do the people that this bill applies to deserve the same rights as everyone else? The answer is ‘absolutely.'”---Actually the answer is: "absolutely not". Just because a person or group of people decide that he or they have a right to a legal institution or the legal benefits of that institution that, by definition, does not apply to him or them, their wanting them or deciding that they should have that or those rights DOES NOT IN ITSELF PROVE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THEM. So now they demand that they should have the right to CHANGE the definition of the legal institution itself to include them based on their peculiar deviant behavior. Nonsense. They have NO right to the institution of marriage, nor do they have any right to LEGALLY CHANGE the definition of that institution in spite of their demand that they do. Nor is it any sort of "discrimination" to refuse their demand to effect these changes to accomodate them.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!