UPDATE 3x: House Republicans Mathias, Mulligan and Myers and Democrat Dugan are out today. The civil union proponents need the votes of Mulligan and Dugan -- we may see the vote on SB 1716 delayed. May force the delay all the hot social issues today.
UPDATE 2x: House reconvenes at 10:00 am. IR commenter Judge Don Lowery responds to Harris' Social Security claims: "Do not be misled, if civil unions pass,the social security admin will simply issue an edict that civil unions are the same as marriage. They will then cut benefits and save money. This will not benefit senior citizens in any way."
UPDATE 1x: Apparently, there is at least one important difference. We've just learned that SB 1716's sponsor Rep. Harris was on Springfield tv last night saying that SB 1716 will benefit senior citizens. Supposedly if two unite with this legalized civil union proposal, the union is not considered marriage under federal law and Social Security benefits. Thus, senior citizens united in civil unions -- same sex or opposite sex -- will have the best of both worlds. No cut in Social Security and the companionship benefits of marriage.
We've been reading that Illinois may not be ready for same sex marriage, but a vote on same sex civil unions in the Illinois General Assembly appears to be on its way as soon as this week. Pressured lawmakers often tell voters that they do not support same sex marriage, but they could vote for same sex civil unions as a compromise.
So what is the difference between "civil union" and "traditional marriage" in Rep. Greg Harris' SB 1716?
Not much, according to Section 20 of the bill's wording, same sex civil unions provide the same protections, obligations and responsibilities as oppositie sex traditional marriage :
Section 20. Protections, obligations, and responsibilities. A party to a civil union is entitled to the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses, whether they derive from statute, administrative rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil or criminal law.
SB 1716 has similar requirements to traditional marriage as to who may participate. Same sex civil unions may take place only if both persons are 18 years or older, they cannot be closely related by blood or adoption and they cannot be legally bound in another legal relationship such as marriage or another civil unions.
And to dissolving a civil union, the proposed law's Section 45 is pretty clear the two are the same:
Section 45. Dissolution; declaration of invalidity. Any person who enters into a civil union in Illinois consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of Illinois for the purpose of any action relating to a civil union even if one or both parties cease to reside in this State. A court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of a civil union if at the time the action is commenced it meets the grounds for dissolution set forth in Section 401 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. The provisions of Sections 401 through 413 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act shall apply to a dissolution of a civil union. The provisions of Sections 301 through 306 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act shall apply to the declaration of invalidity of a civil union. [Emphasis added]
The law also allows for civil unions to take place between two persons of the opposite sex as well as persons of the same sex. So, if the same qualifications apply for two persons to enter and end atraditional marriage as for civil unions --except that a civil union may consist of same sex partners -- what is the difference? Clearly, not much.
The gay activist website ChicagoPride.com writes: "Civil unions are not the same as full marriage and the bill would not force religious denominations to recognize or sanctify relationships they oppose," but what's a "full marriage" and what determines that it's not a "full marriage"?
From all appearances, a vote for same sex civil unions is a vote for same sex marriage.
When SB 1716 passed the Illinois Senate the first time, it contained completely different wording. SB 1716 became the same sex civil union bill when it was amended in the Illinois House. SB 1716 will need to be voted on in the House and return to the Senate for a consensus vote before the end of this veto session.
Proponents of civil unions see this veto session as the last chance for a while, as the 11 new Republican House members are on the whole more socially conservative than those leaving in January 2011.
