Illinois takes up gay marriage bill
An openly gay Illinois state representative, Greg Harris (D-Chicago), has authored and introduced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry in that state.
The new marriage bill, officially called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act would “provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage.” The bill also makes it clear that no church would be required to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
However, even the legislations author admits it will be tough to get the measure to a vote in the House and conservative groups already have made it known they will fight the marriage bill.
Gay Marrige opponents also say they will work to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage they hope will make it on the ballot in 2010.
In 2007, a civil union bill introduced by Harris died in committee when that legislative session ended. Nevertheless, Harris said that he hopes that even if this measure also fails to gain footing in the Illinois General Assembly this year, that the debate will help advance a measure allowing same-sex marriage in Illinois sometime in the near future.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/HB/09600HB0178.htm
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f9a3a26e-62bc-45e0-b240-5899c3b22dc6)
(3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
“Although we traditionally have viewed ‘marriage’ as limited to a union between a man and a woman, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment.”
Whatever your private religious beliefs are on homosexuality, you cannot remain true to our Constitution and its unique message and guarantee of full equality for all its citizens, and continue to actively oppress gay Americans, their constitutional rights to freedom, and the pursuit of their own happiness. Otherwise, you allow it to become a worthless piece of paper with no meaning or strength.
Although the original ruling is very lengthy and detailed, here is a brief snippet of some very beautiful legislative literature, courtesy of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
It does not matter which state constitution is referred to though, because all of our state constitutions, and especially our national one… are born from the premise that all American citizens are considered equal under the law. I believe these few paragraphs are enough to capture the truth, logic, and justice of their words.
Supreme Court 1
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil union does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.
Supreme Court 2
We also conclude that our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.. for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and therefore, our statutes discrimination against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Supreme Court 3
A cognizable constitutional claim arises whenever the government singles out a group for differential treatment. The legislature has subjected gay persons to exactly that kind of differential treatment by creating a separate legal classification for same-sex couples who, like opposite-sex couples, with to have their relationship recognized under the law. Put differently, the civil union law entitles same-sex couples to all of the same rights as married couples except one.. that is, the freedom to marry, a right that “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men and women” and “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. a, 12, 87 S, Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967)
Supreme Court 4
We do not doubt that the civil union law was designed to benefit same-sex couples by providing them with legal rights that they previously did not have. If however, the intended effect of a law is to treat politically unpopular or historically disfavored minorities differently from persons in the majority or favored class, that law cannot evade constitutional review under the separate but equal doctrine. See Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. (1954)
Supreme Court 5
In such circumstances, the very existence of the classification gives credence to the perception that separate treatment is warranted for the same illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination in the first place. Despite the truly laudable effort of the legislature in equalizing the legal rights afforded same-sex and opposite-sex couples, there is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have a constitutionally cognizable injury.. that is, the denial of the right to marry a same-sex partner.
Supreme Court 6
Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state and national constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice.
To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons, and another for all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these constitutional requirements, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.
These constitutional changes or laws do not ban anything, they simply provide a definition of the term marriage. They do not change the suspect class for LGBT. They do not take away ‘Equal Under The Law’. They do not suddenly allow sexual discrimination. They do not compel the state to confer any special privilege to marriage. But they do cause a conflict in the law that the Court must now interpret or strike down.
The supporters of constitutional definitions, such as Prop 8 in California, have set up their followers.
The court has two choices to solve the conflict. Invalidate Prop 8 and allow SSM or uphold Prop 8 and subject any laws that confer benefits only to married couples to strict scrutiny, which few laws survive. In essence establishing Civil Unions as the only valid form of recognized civil partnership as these are available to all or taking the state out of the marriage license business all together.
Either way, once a decision is made, the fight will start in all 50 states.
Check Mate…
What I find ironic is that it is actually the heterosexual marriages that have the most to loose if these bans stay in place.