Civil unions for Illinois

[Holmes]

SPRINGFIELD — Civil unions gained a strong foothold in Illinois on Tuesday, as House lawmakers narrowly approved the measure granting spousal legal rights to same-sex couples.

...

The measure needed 60 votes to pass — it garnered 61, with 52 lawmakers voting “no,” and two voting present.

Quinn entered the chamber during Harris’ closing speech, and later declared the bill’s passage “right.”

The senate committee also passed the bill 6-2 and should be voted in the chamber today. The article also says that the House narrowly rejected medical marijuana (but may be reconsidered later) and a senate committee passed an abolishment of the death penalty by 4-3.

[Franzl]

Finally. It's a disgrace that a state like Illinois has taken this long to (probably) pass this.

[Holmes]

It is being debated now in the senate. Vote should be soon.

http://live.ilga.gov/senvideo

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I wonder if muon2 can give us any inside scoop here.

[ilikeverin]

Wow, that's a productive lame duck session!

[Holmes]

Passes 32-24-2.

[hawkeye59]

Quinn will likely sign it.

[Joe Republic]

I wonder if muon2 can give us any inside scoop here.

Perhaps he could also explain to us why he voted against it.

[memphis]

Was it a largely Chicagoland vs. downstate vote? That'd be the obvious scenario but you never know.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If I remember correctly... wasnt IL the first US state to de-criminalise homosexuality... back in like... 1961 or something?

[King]

I wonder if muon2 can give us any inside scoop here.

Perhaps he could also explain to us why he voted against it.

Not to mention give us an answer regarding his support for known fascist Bandit the Dog.

[Free Palestine]

I always support the legalization of same-sex marriage in more states.

[muon2]

I've gone through my reasoning before. I think my most recently posted thoughts were here two years ago.

The key to the vote was the large number of downstate lame ducks created by the recent election. Vote counters had them all "no" last spring, but their votes provided the difference this time.

[Alcon]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow, that's a productive lame duck session!

Yup!

Hey, its not like they have a serious budget problem with which to deal.

Obviously, this measure is FAR more important!

[Smash255]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

No evidence or any of that, its just an excuse to be pro-discrimination.

[muon2]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

You make an argument that I think applies well to marriage, but the case here is with civil unions. The IL law creates a class called civil union that is the same as marriage for all aspects of state law, but calls it by a new name. I have a philosophical problem with laws that are a distinction without a difference. In my experience when two laws are passed that have identical content but different names, then there are inevitable conflicts that arise. If a new category is established it should have clearly different application.

In the 1990's there was a big case in IL zoning law that dealt with the confusion between variances and special uses. In many ways they looked the same in the statute. The court found that for these terms to be meaningful in the law they must refer to distinctly different situations, and since the statute didn't draw a difference the court did. I agree with that legal philosophy.

I also think that the separate classification would be useful for other reasons. The proponents of IL civil unions argued that this would create a means for senior citizens of opposite gender to get visitation and health care decision powers for a partner without marriage. I agree that would be very useful as I know seniors for whom that would apply. Part of the reason seniors in that situation don't marry is because of their indivdiual benefits and a desire to not have to change them. They also are not interested in having to divorce should they wish to terminate that relationship. In that case this new law fails, since any benefit based in state law is also present for the partners and termination requires exactly the same divorce procedure as marriage.
 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

You make an argument that I think applies well to marriage, but the case here is with civil unions. The IL law creates a class called civil union that is the same as marriage for all aspects of state law, but calls it by a new name. I have a philosophical problem with laws that are a distinction without a difference. In my experience when two laws are passed that have identical content but different names, then there are inevitable conflicts that arise. If a new category is established it should have clearly different application.

In the 1990's there was a big case in IL zoning law that dealt with the confusion between variances and special uses. In many ways they looked the same in the statute. The court found that for these terms to be meaningful in the law they must refer to distinctly different situations, and since the statute didn't draw a difference the court did. I agree with that legal philosophy.

I also think that the separate classification would be useful for other reasons. The proponents of IL civil unions argued that this would create a means for senior citizens of opposite gender to get visitation and health care decision powers for a partner without marriage. I agree that would be very useful as I know seniors for whom that would apply. Part of the reason seniors in that situation don't marry is because of their indivdiual benefits and a desire to not have to change them. They also are not interested in having to divorce should they wish to terminate that relationship. In that case this new law fails, since any benefit based in state law is also present for the partners and termination requires exactly the same divorce procedure as marriage.
 

So in essence, if I understand your point, you voted against a gay marriage bill, even though that's not what it was called?  Or did I miss it completely?

I'm curious what feedback prior to the vote your consitutents provided to your office.

[Franzl]

My state senator, Bill Haine, had this to say in his explanation as to why he (a "Democrat") opposed this:

"the belief of many people of faith that this discriminates against them (...)".

I've already written my letter to the editor....

[muon2]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

You make an argument that I think applies well to marriage, but the case here is with civil unions. The IL law creates a class called civil union that is the same as marriage for all aspects of state law, but calls it by a new name. I have a philosophical problem with laws that are a distinction without a difference. In my experience when two laws are passed that have identical content but different names, then there are inevitable conflicts that arise. If a new category is established it should have clearly different application.

In the 1990's there was a big case in IL zoning law that dealt with the confusion between variances and special uses. In many ways they looked the same in the statute. The court found that for these terms to be meaningful in the law they must refer to distinctly different situations, and since the statute didn't draw a difference the court did. I agree with that legal philosophy.

I also think that the separate classification would be useful for other reasons. The proponents of IL civil unions argued that this would create a means for senior citizens of opposite gender to get visitation and health care decision powers for a partner without marriage. I agree that would be very useful as I know seniors for whom that would apply. Part of the reason seniors in that situation don't marry is because of their indivdiual benefits and a desire to not have to change them. They also are not interested in having to divorce should they wish to terminate that relationship. In that case this new law fails, since any benefit based in state law is also present for the partners and termination requires exactly the same divorce procedure as marriage.
 

So in essence, if I understand your point, you voted against a gay marriage bill, even though that's not what it was called?  Or did I miss it completely?

I'm curious what feedback prior to the vote your consitutents provided to your office.

Yes. The bill that was originally filed called it marriage and simply struck the same-sex prohibition from statute. The sponsor said that there would not be enough votes in that form so the action was named something else to get those votes, the version passed copid all the language from the marriage statute but without a same sex prohibition. There had been some consideration to undertake something along the lines I suggested, but that was deemed too complicated, so the simple redefinition of spouse under state law was used instead.

Part 2 of the question. Email on the bill ran 112 to support and 438 to oppose. State wide polling in October by the Paul Simon Institute found 33% in favor of gay marriage, 33% in favor of civil unions with some of the same rights, and 24% opposed to either. I'm fascinated that the media reports this law as if it were from category 2 and uses "some of the same rights" in their stories. There is no difference under state law, so any differences occur only because of federal law, which is not what I heard people tell me they think "some" means.

One oddity in the law that I heard mentioned yesterday on local radio is the situation of an existing divorce settlement that provides for alimony unless the party remarries. If the person goes into a civil union instead, it would appear that they could gain the benefits of their new partner (who could be of the opposite sex with this law) yet not lose the benefits from the settlement. I'm sure all new settlements in IL will be written to exclude that case, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a lot of documents out there that will be affected.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Part 2 of the question. Email on the bill ran 112 to support and 438 to oppose. State wide polling in October by the Paul Simon Institute found 33% in favor of gay marriage, 33% in favor of civil unions with some of the same rights, and 24% opposed to either. I'm fascinated that the media reports this law as if it were from category 2 and uses "some of the same rights" in their stories. There is no difference under state law, so any differences occur only because of federal law, which is not what I heard people tell me they think "some" means.

By those email numbers it seems your district doesn't care to draw a distinction between gay marriage or civil unions, even if there were a differentiation in the language of the bills, but that's just my guess....am I far off? 

[J. J.]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

[afleitch]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

I take it you favour making it illegal for the surving spouse in current marriages to get pension benefits? Surely 'sham' arrangements are prevailant in heterosexual marriage too.

[Smash255]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

[J. J.]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

I take it you favour making it illegal for the surving spouse in current marriages to get pension benefits? Surely 'sham' arrangements are prevailant in heterosexual marriage too.

No,those are factored into the system. 

I also would not have have a problem with paying extra for spousal coverage of pensions.  That would include same sex marriages as well different sex marriages.

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

No, but you apparently do favor destroying the pension system.  He is a compromise.  If a pensioner, in the future, wants their spouse to continue to receive the pensioner's benefit after the pensioner dies, the pensioner pays for the privilege.

Obviously, it doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of the sex of the pensioner or spouse.  The pensioner doesn't have to do it.  It doesn't effect anyone that wants to be in a same sex marriage in IL, since they are not permitted.  Since it is prospective, it won't effect anyone getting benefits now.

Seems ideal and representing complete freedom of choice.