Despite a push by gay lawmakers, the effort to legalize gay marriage in Illinois is unlikely to get off the ground this year, the chief sponsor of a marriage proposal said.
State Rep. Greg Harris (D–Chicago) told the Chicago Sun-Times that reeling in Medicaid and pensions programs as well as approving an overall budget would take precedence during the homestretch of the General Assembly’s spring session.
“I never say never,” Harris quipped. “[But] I don’t think there will be a push before the end of this session.”
His bill, HB 5170, would delete a provision outlawing marriage between individuals of the same sex.
It was first introduced on Feb. 8 and, perhaps unsurprisingly during an election year in which fiscal issues have been front-and-center, remains pent up in the House Rules Committee.
... Recent poll numbers in Illinois outline the political difficulty of moving from civil unions to marriage in the Land of Lincoln.The last statewide poll on the topic conducted by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University was during the fall of 2010, when a third of registered voters said they supported gay marriage. Back then, the civil unions measure passed with only one vote to spare in the Illinois House.
21 Comments
They can only pass it if they ram it in. Like in Maryland and other states.
He have to force it through, just like they did in Maryland.
I don’t see how gay SO CALLED “marriage” was forced through in Maryland. It is going to REFERENDUM (look that up sw) in the fall, and it will most likely get VOTED DOWN like it did in ALL other states that were DEMOCRATICALLY allowed to vote on it!!!
Take it easy Regina
How about a compromise? Marriage equality gets legalized in Cook and Lake counties, and the rest of the state can stay just as homophobic as ever.
Homosexual marriage is impossible. Marriage is only possible between opposite sex couples. Changing definitions, laws does not change essence. Calling an apple a cabbage does not impart "cabbageness" to the apple. So it is with the vain and useless attempt to call same-sex unions a marriage
Since same-sex siblings still can't get married, no matter how much they love each other, does that make everyone a "siblingphobe?" Just wondering. Or does it mean that all same-sex couples are "equal," but some are "more equal" than others?
Hmmm.
Since incest is illegal, siblings cannot marry, DOE.
Sodomy used to be illegal too. Is incest also part of societal evolution?
"Since incest is illegal, siblings cannot marry, DOE."
The argument for SSM is that any loving couple should be able to marry, regardless of gender. So, why not include siblings in marriage, and make incest legal? Isn't the big argument for homosexual behavior that we should stay out of others' bedrooms? So, why not incest, and sibling marriage?
Situational ethics makes morality very murky, doesn't it?
When siblings start to lobby for marriage, we can address it. Otherwise, it's just another false slippery slope argument.
GZeus,what you don't like is a "false slippery slope argument" but what you do like is "progress" and "the right side of history"?
Trends are trends,and some of them are for the worse and need to be reversed.
@Daughter of Eve
"The argument for SSM is that any loving couple should be able to marry, regardless of gender."
No, only YOU are telling yourself that DOE.
The argument for SSM is:
1) Any TWO people
2) Who are both consenting adults of legal age
3) And are NOT related to each other
That covers it. Now, if two siblings, or a Mother and Daughter etc etc (as per your silly argument) want to fight for legal marriage rights, then by all means, they can formulate and present their case if they wish...but we all know that will never happen because they won't get very far.
It bears repeating over and over again: there is ABSOLUTELY NO rational basis to prevent same-sex couples (who meet the above criteria) from full legal marriage rights.
"No rational argument," huh?
You've come to the right place. Welcome to NOM.
Give it a couple of years.
So, some have their minds made up and are resistant to facts, but for those truly wondering what effects SSM has on society at large, here's a link that will open up new ideas:
"What Marriage Neuterists don't understand, can't hurt them?"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-marriage-neuterists-dont.html
Want real equality? Don't accidentally sell your real rights down the river, out of stubbornness and myopic identity politics.
Dean,
Here we are not discussing a slippery slope nor are we discussing future predictions in the aftermath of a government imposing SSM.
Your short list is arbitary, given the SSM argumentation used to promote the SSM idea. It is that argumentation which swallows far more than you claim.
I am confident you would demonstrate that by answering the following:
The prototypical sibling relationship is platonic. Acting on such a nonsexual friendship is not illegal.
People can be attracted to one another in loving friendship for reasons that have nothing to do with sexual behavior and much to do with a lifetime commitment. Adult siblings are capable of consent -- your own short list thus has this in-built tension that you need to resolve with good reasoning rather than blunt assertion.
Being born related is far more obviously an inborn characteristic than being "born gay", you might agree. And marital status is not the same thing as the legal status of siblings; yet you would deny siblings access to the extras of marital status for no other reason than they are born related.
In SSM argumentation it is insisted that sexual behavior is not a legitimate basis for eligibility laws. Surely you do not imagine that SSM law would make same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for participants.
That lack of a legal requirement means the siblings would do nothing wrong by showing up for the license to SSM and consenting to be SSM'd.
Question:
Why would you invoke laws against incestuous sexual behavior to bar the platonic sibling friendship from the very status and government benefits that you demand for the same-sex sexual relationship?
Michael,
"Marriage equality" ??? Equality? Really?.... homosexuals believe a rectum has equality with a vagina... it's DOESN'T! How many babies have been born to same-sex couples??? NONE, never has been, never will be! But it's equality??? Lies and more lies! Homosexual propaganda marketing homosexuality as something normal. Same-sex so-called "marriage" is not just an attack on a traditional one man, one woman only institution; it's an attack on the order of nature itself. Homosexuals need help for their affliction; not tolerance and special rights for their behavior! Homosexual marriage is a crime against nature!
Why is it homosexuals always talk about "gay rights" like homosexuals are a different species. Homosexuals are human males & females and have all the same rights as the rest of us. It's not man, woman, and "gay". What makes humans homosexual is behavior. For instance:
EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE already has the exact same right to get married... ANY man can marry any woman he chooses and ANY woman can marry any man she chooses, with the usual exceptions for age, relationship, etc... there is no discrimination or loss of rights; the FACT is homosexuals aren't seeking equality, they want a SPECIAL right for their behavior.
Oedipus wants to marry his mother and sister, they are in love. As it now stands Oedipus can't marry the women he loves. Who are you to keep him from marrying his true loves; are you going to give them "Oedipus rights" or just allow "Gay" rights ? Who are you to judge, after all who cares who you sleep with, fall in love with, have sex with? Right?
How can you give homosexuals a special right to marry , but not Oedipus. Force everyone to pray at the alter of sodomy, but not the alter of incest...... how can you give tolerance to one perversion but not the other?
Chairm, you blew me away with the "people are born related" argument.
Excellent!
The more I read Chairm's posts (as well as the other brilliant marriage supporters), the more it is confirmed that ssm is a laughable idea.
Ash,
In that case, I'd draw your attention to the discussion taking place here:
http://www.nomblog.com/21674/?doing_wp_cron#comment-101202