NOM BLOG

AP: Gay Marriage Bill Introduced in Illinois House

 

Once again, same-sex civil unions are not enough for gay marriage activists:

A year after gay couples gained the option of civil unions in Illinois, some lawmakers are beginning a push to authorize same-sex marriages.

Three legislators filed what they call the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act” on Wednesday. It would eliminate the part of state law that now explicitly prohibits gay marriages and would offer same-sex couples the marriage rights now exclusively available to heterosexual couples.

... Lawmakers might be hesitant to support the legislation in an election year, and the measure is likely to trigger strong opposition from conservative groups.

... The gay rights group Equality Illinois said that legalizing civil unions were a step forward, but remain a poor substitute for same-sex marriage.

“Separate is not equal,” said the group's CEO, Bernard Cherkasov. -- Chicago Tribune

17 Comments

  1. Randy E King
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    "1947—In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court misconstrues the Establishment Clause as erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. As law professor Philip Hamburger demonstrates in his magisterial Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, 2002), there is no legitimate basis for reading the Establishment Clause to impose a regime of separation of church and state, much less Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” The idea of separation was “radically different” from the non-establishment guaranteed by the First Amendment and became popular only “in response to deeply felt fears of ecclesiastical and especially Catholic authority.” Moreover, explains Hamburger, the persisting separation myth has in fact undermined religious liberty" Ed Whelan

    Far from enacting a wall of separation between religion and state; these corrupt attorneys have established a reinforced wall around the religion of secularism so as to protect this ill defined ideology from being influenced by this nation’s history and traditions.

  2. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    More people wanting equality, this is a great thing.

  3. AM
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Three legislators filed what they call the “Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act”

    A perfect example of Orwellian newspeak.

  4. Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    If the good citizens of Illinois don't know they already enjoy full marriage equality, they are woefully uneducated.

  5. Randy E King
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    We have left for you this marvelous wooden horse as a token of our fidelity to the laws of nature and natures God.

    Sincerely,

    The Marriage Corruption Movement

  6. roger
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Same Sex Marriage in NOT about equality (benefits could be gained with Civil Unions) but a redefinition of marriage and a top down directed change in the culture of the country; an effort to marginalize religion.

  7. GZeus
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Roger: you are wrong. It's about benefits. Example: 2 married couples (one straight and one gay) from New York cross the river to New Jersey to see the Giants play (yay Giants). One gay and one straight eat bad hotdogs and have to go to emergency room. The gay spouse is not allowed in to see the sick one because even though they are married, they are not in NJ. The straight person goes right in. No problem.

  8. GZeus
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Also, we cant file as married for federal tax returns, even now when legally married in a state that allows it. As I'm sure you know, a single male is taxed incredibly high. So double that for a gay couple. Not American that we pay even more taxes and denied same benefits you get.

  9. Chairm
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    GZeus nothing you said justifies imposing SSM. Try again.

    Meanwhile the bumper slogan, Seperate is not equal, presents a problem for the proponents of the SSM idea.

    On one hand, they assert that sexual attraction is 1) the basis for their claim of unjust discrimination and 2) is morally the same as race and 3) is not a legitimate basis for making laws for eligibility.

    And so they push the uniquely pro-SSM idea whereby the core meaning of marriage is deemed the moral and legal equivalent of white supremacy. I say,uniquely , because this has never been pushed before the SSM campaign's efforts to demonize both the social institution of marriage and those who support its core meaning.

    On the other hand, SSM is segregative and denies equal treatment. First, it is sex-segregative due to the explicit exclusion of either husband or wife.

    Second, it openly depends on sexual attraction as the basis for changing the law; and it elevates the type of arrangement that is segregative by sexual attraction. Whereas the man-woman criterion integrates male sexual attraction and female sexual attraction, SSM is designed to be exlusively one of the other.

    Third, SSM is promoted with the unerlying assertion that the supremacy of gay identity politics is the new formulation for "equality" under the law. SSM argumentation reduces SSM in law to a nonsexual type of arrangement even though the rhetoric and argumentation is steeped in emphases on both homosexuality and gay identity group. Suc a nonsexual arrangement cannot justly exclude related people nor groups of people nor a series of twosomes. SSMers happily exclude on the basis of gay identity politics and sexual attraction even when neither is included as requirements for those who'd SSM.

    So by both what is promoted and what is demoted and excluded, SSMers show themselves and their SSM idea to be the moral and legal equivalent of the racist reliance on the supremacy of identity politics and on segregation as the proposed notion of equality.

    SSMers demand seprate but equal,they do not argue for equal treatment.

  10. Ken Cauld
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    Rodger, NOM, Maggie & Brian do not believe in civil unions or any state recognition of same sex couples.

  11. Randy
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Why should they when SSM activists have already shown that they have no respect or tolerance for others? At one time, I was once for civil unions for same sex couples, But after what the SSM activists have done by telling my family that their votes dont matter in this country and also by SSM activists who falsely accuse me of being a gay basher just, Because I dont approve of SSM. These days, They dont deserve civil unions and guess what. SSM activists only have themselves to blame for that..

  12. Zack
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    We'll see what happens.

  13. John Noe
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    Well put Randy King:

    I will go one step further. It is now the seculars who are violating the seperation of church and state. It is supposed to work both ways. However they want the secular state to violate this and impose the state secular religion on all of us.

  14. Roger
    Posted February 10, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Ken Cauld - I can't speak for Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and NOM, but a number of Marriage defenders have NO problem with providing state recognition and benefits for same sex couples. NON AT ALL......provided that recognition is not predicated on a couples sexual activities, or having to prove "love". Keep the state out of the bedroom. If a Mom wants to get a civil union with her son or daughter they should not be discriminated against because of their sexual proclivities, or lack thereof.

  15. Ash
    Posted February 11, 2012 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Roger, that's a good position to have on civil unions. I'd also be in favor of that kind of schema for any financially independent adults. Unfortunately, gays and lesbians, well, at least the loud, political ones, don't want that. They want the social validation of marriage. They tout the "keep the government out of peoples bedrooms" line, but really, they want society to validate what goes on in their bedroom as just as valuable as the conjugal union. Being lumped in with other couples who are not in a sexual partnership will cut against their fragile egos, while getting them the benefits that they say they need.

  16. Spunky
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    @ Roger and Ash

    Are either of you saying you would fully support equal benefits to gay couples so long as the word "marriage" doesn't apply? Because that would be great! (Not perfect, but great.)

  17. Roger
    Posted February 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    spunky - Full equality of benefits for Gays? That is one one way to spin it; but the benefits for Civil Unions would have nothing to do with being Gay...just any two people who are committed to assisting/sharing benefits with each other. They could be Construction workers, Cowboys, People who love Hip Hop, Skinny people, Short people and of course people who really enjoy sodomy. Anyone who currently is excluded from Marriage benefits for lack of an opposite sex, non-familial relationship.

    Would I support such a proposal? No. It would cost to much. But I wouldn't be out on internet posting arguments against it. .