Gay marriage by any other name

Newly-elected Democrat State Rep. Greg Harris will be kicking off his freshman year with one of the most foundation-shaking pieces of legislation ever to hit the House Human Services Committee. 

The bill, which legalizes gay marriage under the pseudonym of "civil unions," will be heard Wednesday morning at 8:00 am.

HB 1826, Harris' pseudo-marriage proposal, will set up a union subcategory regulated by marriage statutes.  Even more disturbing, it may legalize homosexual adoption and require businesses to provide spousal benefits.

Questions abound as to why Speaker Madigan assigned this radical legislation to one of his chambers' most liberal social welfare committees with HB 1826's revamping of traditional family law.  Why not send to a committee affecting civil laws, such as Judiciary I? 

Because Judiciary I is the House's most conservative committee, and the bill would be very unlikely to survive there. 

Therefore, we have to assume to Speaker Madigan supports gay marriage by any other name.  And why do Illinois pro-family and pro-life grassroots help keep these deceptive liberal Democrats in power? 

Here's talking points being circulated among House and Senate conservatives by the United Republican Fund:

Why Conservatives Oppose Civil Unions

• The natural union between one man and one woman is America’s bedrock and demands societal preference and protection for the sake of future generations.

o Same sex unions are a threat to the one-man/one-woman marriage’s protected and honored status.  The proposed unions would be established, maintained and dissolved according to Illinois marital laws.
o Civil unions are designed to overturn traditional sexual morality and set up a system to punish those with dissenting views.

• Civil unions may be overruled by the court system as discriminatory.  The legal establishment of the second category “civil unions,” rather than removing a ban on marriages between persons of the same sex, was ruled by a Massachusetts court as a “demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.”

• The category of “civil unions” being added to “marriage” in Illinois law is a deceptive attempt to present a more publicly palatable legal union category than “same sex marriage,” “gay marriage” or “homosexual marriage.”

• HB 1826’s proposed language does not attempt to differ itself from Illinois’ established marriage legal applications.  Questions have been raised about HB1826’s applications to adoption laws and the Human Rights Act.

o Sec. 105 (a):  Partners joined in a civil union shall have all the same protections, benefits, responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil or criminal law as granted to spouses in a marriage.
o Sec. 105 (c):  This act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purpose, which is to provide both eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the same protections, benefits and responsibilities afforded by the laws of Illinois to parties [in] a marriage.

• Homosexual civil unions are unnecessary, because legal instruments such as power of attorney are available to all adults, regardless of sex.  Power of attorney effectively allows will drafting, property sharing, heir designation, hospital visitor dictations as well as medical decision authority.