Illinois Civil Unions Bill Passes Senate, Gov. Quinn Will Sign Into Law

Less than 24 hours after it was passed by the Illinois House of Representatives, the state Senate voted to approve a measure that would allow gay couples to enter into civil unions.

Governor Pat Quinn has already pledged to sign SB1716, the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act," which was co-sponsored by openly gay Rep. Greg Harris.

The measure passed in the Senate by a 32-24-1 vote Wednesday, and the passed the Illinois House by a 61-52 majority vote on Tuesday.

"This is a legacy vote," Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago) said on the Senate floor. "It makes a statement about the justice for which we stand." The Chicago Tribune reports that Steans was referencing the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King, urging colleagues to bend "the moral arc of justice."

Civil unions would provide legal recognition of gay couples and give them some of the same benefits automatically available to married couples, including the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, disposition of a deceased loved one's remains and the right to make decisions about a loved one's medical care.

The Illinois Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act will also protect the rights of religious institutions to define marriage as they choose, and will be available to any couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, in a committed relationship who are: 18 years of age or older, not in an existing marriage or civil union, and are not related. It would take effect July 2011.

Supporters of the bill expected it to pass the state Senate, but many onlookers were curious about how Sen. James Meeks would vote. Meeks ultimately voted against the civil unions bill, which is consistent with his history--but a damaging blow to his mayoral campaign.

Meeks serves as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church, and has made many offensive statements about homosexuals in the past. In 2007, he was named one of the "leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Since announcing his bid for mayor, he has tried to cozy up with the gay community--a vocal base of Chicago voters.

The Capitol Fax blog spoke with Meeks before Wednesday's vote:

Sen. James Meeks said this morning that he intends to vote "No" on the civil unions bill when it comes up for a vote today.

This isn't much of a surprise since Meeks' record hasn't exactly been pro-gay. But there had been some speculation that he might change his mind now that he's running for mayor of Chicago. But Meeks said if he voted for the bill he'd be deemed a flip-flopper who was pandering for votes ahead of the mayoral election and he planned to stick to his principles.

Meeks, a Democrat, told reporters after the vote that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman--even though the vote wasn't actually on gay marriage.

Many lawmakers took to Twitter to congratulate Rep. Greg Harris on victory. The openly gay Harris co-sponsored the bill and worked tirelessly for its passage.

"We have a chance today to make Illinois a more fair state, a more just state, and a state which treats all of its citizens equally under the law," Harris said on the House floor Tuesday. "We have a chance here, as leaders have had in previous generations, to correct injustice and to move us down the path toward liberty."

While most debate on the Senate floor was in support of the bill, some opponents stood to voice their opposition to it.

"Why civil unions now?" Sen. Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora) asked, according to the Chicago Tribune. ". . .We are the incompetence[sic] laughing stock of government mismanagement and misplaced priorities, and our one-party (Democratic) leadership spends our time on homosexual civil unions."

On Tuesday, Republicam Rep. Ron Stephens blamed "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome, implying that civil unions would lead to the decline in American civilization. (Video here.)

Gov. Quinn scheduled a Wednesday afternoon press conference to discuss the civil unions bill.

Check out the Senate roll call here and the House roll call here.

Comments

[Edwin Ayala]

11:18 PM on 01/24/2011

The Gay community finally has a governor who is willing to address their concerns, I commend Governor Quinn for finally bringing fairness to goverment access and consideration to all Illinois taxpayers. It is about time Illinois has a working governor who is willing to make the hard choices to get the job done. I am happy for the gay community; they deserve alot more. God Bless.

[Cyke101]

03:16 AM on 12/03/2010

>>On Tuesday, Republicam Rep. Ron Stephens blamed "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome, implying that civil unions would lead to the decline in American civilization.

[Chi--townfool]

05:42 PM on 12/02/2010

So gays get to marry but I don't get pot? What they could only do one or the other?

[xenas mom]

08:29 PM on 12/02/2010

ah, yes, the sci-fi of slippery slopes...yawn...again

[John Howard]

10:00 PM on 12/02/2010

Strange, my comment is gone but your reply is still there?

Well, the sci-fi that xenas mom is referring to is Postgenderism, the idea that people can use technology to procreate as either sex, or with either sex. It isn't necessarily impossible, and it is a fact that researchers are working on making it possible.

My point was that it should not be allowed, because it is unethical to do the genetic modification and manipulation that is required to change the genomic imprinting to create viable gametes of the opposite sex. It would be too expensive and demand too much energy and harm the environment and threaten our procreation rights, and it isn't a right that justifies all that expense.

Oh, yeah, so my point was that Civil Unions shouldn't have all the protections of marriage, they shouldn't protect procreation rights. They should be defined as "marriage minus procreation rights" so that marriage still continues to approve and affirm and protect the right to procreate offspring together. And Congress should specify that if they are defined that way, they would be federally recognized as if they were marriages.

[Jdaddy1951]

10:32 AM on 12/02/2010

Civil unions are good. Thanks and good work to the political majorities in the State of Illinois.
 
But as long as some people have access to marriage ceremonies and others don't, it's still not good enough. Either get rid of state-sanction marriage ceremonies (churches can do what they like) or give everyone equal access to marriage.

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:47 PM on 12/04/2010

Agreed. I'd like to see marriage no longer state-sanctioned and civil unions only. Let those who want a religious ceremony get married civilly first. Then they can go to the church of their choice. Of course if this ever comes to pass, you will be hearing the haters whining, "persecution!"

[Jdaddy1951]

01:17 AM on 12/05/2010

The haters will whine about something else anyway. They're very reslient. It's all about them.

[zest]

09:13 AM on 12/02/2010

So Meeks is anti civil rights; fascinating.

[MooMoo123]

06:43 AM on 12/02/2010

I notice that a lot of folks argue that this may prove troublesome in the future, because it will give credibility to the argument that "same-sex couples ALREADY have the same rights as marriage!"

I disagree. Here's a case study:

New Jersey legalized civil unions in 2006. As a result of that, a commission was established to review the implications of the new law. Keep in mind that NJ civil unions grant the same rights as marriages (under the state; federally, another topic). As a sidenote, New Jersey also has domestic partnerships geared toward elderly couples who want it (different from and "lesser" than civil unions).

Anyways, here are the findings of that commission.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf

"...this Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children. In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples."

It's a very good read for those that are interested, but the tl;dr summary here is that the commission found that civil unions, legally equivalent to marriage in NJ, were essentially "separate but equal": in other words, not equal at all.

[xenas mom]

08:32 PM on 12/02/2010

We went through this in California in 2008. The fact that the state had registered domestic partnerships available for same-sex couples and the elderly did cause some confusion and did give those opposed to same-sex marriage a too-comfortable out. We heard "You people already have enough rights." quite often. In fact, we heard it from people who attended our wedding and then went on to vote against us in November when Prop 8 was on the ballot. And now Prop 8 is in federal court. It does get very confusing.

[MooMoo123]

08:13 PM on 12/03/2010

Yep, I know. The worst part is, it was NOM and the ProtectMarriage campaign itself saying things like "you already have your rights" and "we're not out to strip away rights, just protect marriage".

However, a look back into the ProtectMarriage campaign's website in 2006, when they were pushing for Prop 8's forerunner (essentially, a more restrictive a constitutional amendment) reveals something quite interesting:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060508183535/www.protectmarriage.com/index.aspx?protect=FAQ

"6. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow “homosexual marriage by a different name”?

Answer: No. By recognizing marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union in California , this amendment would prevent any law from recognizing, or giving rights on the basis of, other personal relationships that attempt to imitate marriage, such as homosexual “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.”

7. Would the ProtectMarriage Amendment allow the Legislature to give, or require private employers to give, the legal rights and benefits of married spouses to other relationships, such as “domestic partnerships”?

Answer: No. Since marriage would be the only legal union that may be recognized under the ProtectMarriage Amendment, no other adult relationships that attempt to imitate marriage could be legally recognized. Since no other type of intimate union would be legally recognized, it logically follows that there would also be no basis upon which to confer rights, benefits, or obligations on such un-recognized relationships."

To put it concisely: they were lying through their teeth, and they KNEW it!

[jcarterla]

09:43 PM on 12/01/2010

Please watch this video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/civil-unions-a-love-story_n_790506.html

[Ramjet]

09:22 PM on 12/01/2010

My partner and I have a civil union from Vermont, obtained shortly after they became legal in that state. We formally moved to Illinois earlier this year from Wisconsin. I just phoned him (I am traveling in NJ) and formally proposed to him again. I hope we can have a ceremony soon in Chicago that will enable us to celebrate with our family members our commitment to each other. What we did in Vermont meant a lot to us at the time, but it was just the two of us and a justice of the peace. Now we can do something with our families present, something that will have legal force where we live. THANK YOU ILLINOIS!

[Terrible Towel]

01:29 PM on 12/02/2010

Congratulations!! :)

[Ioan Lightoller]

07:02 PM on 12/02/2010

Congrats! Our wedding had both our families so I know how wonderful that can be.

[Titanshanks]

08:58 PM on 12/01/2010

It's a good step forward, yes. It's still not the same as marriage though.

How many straight people would opt for a civil union instead of a marriage? I don't think I'd even do it as a sign of solidarity--getting married is important to me, and it's more important than the legal privileges it entails. That right shouldn't be denied to anyone.

[John Howard]

11:28 PM on 12/01/2010

The problem is that it is too much the same as marriage. It needs to be substantially different in order to be politically acceptable and constitutional, and to just make sense.

The difference should be that Civil Unions shouldn't protect the right to procreate offspring together, form the couple's own genes. People should not be allowed to do that with someone of the same sex, because it requires genetic engineering and puts the child at too much risk and costs too much money, among other reasons...

[Patrick Garies]

02:01 AM on 12/02/2010

Civil unions are already politically acceptable and constitutional. Hence why both houses voted to legalize them and the governor will later do so too.

You're right that it doesn't make much sense to create a separate institution, but, in an attempt to please people like you, they went ahead and did it anyway. (Apparently, they failed in that aspect and should have just gone straight to equalizing marriage.)

Marriage has never been about offspring. Heterosexual couples that cannot or choose not to physically produce offspring (including those that only adopt) have never been prohibited from marrying nor have they had their marriages dissolved for that reason. Further, procreation has never been limited to couples in marriage (so marriage doesn't "protect" procreation).

Same-sex couples cannot directly procreate and cannot do so from both partners' genes; trying to prohibit the impossible is pointless. The means by which they /can/ procreate doesn't involve genetic engineering either. (Where do people like you get this nonsense?)

Risks to children haven't been substantiated. I'd challenge you to cite examples of a children harmed specifically because of the parents' same gender.

Money is a non-issue. LGBT persons pay taxes just like everyone else. If we can subsidize the institution for you, you can subsidize the institution for us.

[xenas mom]

08:33 PM on 12/02/2010

You might want to take a look at the Walker decision on California's Prop 8. It's available at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker site, and elsewhere on the web. Your questions are all addressed in his decision. (My guess is you won't agree with the decision, but you still might want to read it.)

[Ryan Kiefer]

08:36 PM on 12/01/2010

Here's to a small step towards true equality.

[Big0725]

08:04 PM on 12/01/2010

Anybody else think that guy is a dead ringer for John Malkovich?

[Titanshanks]

08:59 PM on 12/01/2010

Oh yeah.

[NightEditor]

04:23 PM on 12/02/2010

Yes. Thought it WAS John.

[ChiGuy]

07:49 PM on 12/01/2010

Our state legislators took what they could get by voting for civil unions.
Sadly, as long as the Christians in this country make the most noise, there will never be national unity on same sex marriage.

[blukazoo]

07:37 PM on 12/01/2010

That's good but we won't be equal until the federal government recognizes gay marriage.

[Flip75]

08:12 PM on 12/01/2010

Agreed - this is a nice gesture. Now let's get something that's more than symbolic.

[John Howard]

11:31 PM on 12/01/2010

The federal government should recognize state Civil Unions as if they were marriages, provided the CU's are defined as "marriage minus conception rights."

That would get CU's to more couples much faster, because they would be politically acceptable since they are not stepping stones to marriage.

[Patrick Garies]

02:14 AM on 12/02/2010

Attempting to ban conception is pointless. It could be trivially circumvented by simply entering into the civil union after conception has occurred. That and a court would almost certainly strike that down as an abridgment of a fundamental right without good reason.

I agree that the federal government /should/ recognize civil unions for the time being, at least. However, the moment they do that is the moment they've opened the doors to marriage, so I don't see it happening; people will start asking why Illinois is preferred over Iowa and why an upgrade of civil unions to marriage suddenly causes the unions to cease to exist at the federal level.

[xenas mom]

08:37 PM on 12/02/2010

And what about those of us who are legally married? We don't need a stepping stone; we are already legally married. As to "conception rights": That would be an extraordinarily difficult sell in the public policy arena. Do you REALLY REALLY REALLY want the government telling American citizens whether to procreate or not? Or do just want to be able to discriminate against lesbians and gay men? (My $$s on the latter.)

[AJ Hoffman]

07:34 PM on 12/01/2010

It's not marriage, but it is at least a big step in the right direction. Our work must continue toward full and equal rights though. Citizens of Chicago please take note how the good Rev. Meeks voted. He is a rabid homophobe and a shining example of why clergy have no business being in politics, especially at as high a level as Mayor of Chicago. His past statements and views must be exposed to ensure he has no chance of winning.