Civil unions are unconstitutional, last time i checked separate but equal was not allowed.

Right on, following in WA's incremental "everything but marriage" footsteps.

Fuck funeral directors and their damn funeral processions that block intersections. Like the guest of honor gives a damn if he's five minutes late to his burial?

IL actually has had a back-door stealth law for over half a century allowing gay couples to get family rights: Adult adoption.

It goes back to the Allerton family. Daddy Allerton was an industrial baron of the rail age. His son Robert Allerton built an estate near Champaign Country, where he collected homoerotic statuary with his life-long chum John Gregg.

Robert Allerton had the resources to lobby the legislature to pass an adult adoption provision. He then adopted John Gregg as his son. John Gregg Allerton later donated the entire estate to the University-- it's open to the public, statuary and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Alle…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Su…

This is good news, and one tiny step forward to full equality.

I know the church is absolutely nuts, and against anything gay (other than their costumes, decorations and music) and I understand their whole marriage hangup, but there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to the hospitals. When The Colonel was in Providence they were totally cool with me. And even when Papa Vel-DuRay was dying in a Catholic Hospital in Iowa, the nun who was the chaplain for the place told me that they acknowledge partners as family, as much as the state allows (that was in the pre gay marriage days). I don't know if Iowa acknowlegdes common-law gay marriage, but if so, they're totally accomodating.

But, stereoptypes aside, most of the nuns I've known were pretty realistic about life. The nuns did all the work (running the schools and hospitals) and the priests just bitched at everyone about what a mess they were. Well, except for the Jesuits. A lot of them were pretty cool. For priests.

Well, here we go. Butthurt Alleged/Loveschild trollercoaster in 3...2...1...

I'm all about hating on Republicans, but in the house, some of the most moving speeches for the bill were by Republicans, including that of Rep. Black, who is part of the part controls in the House. I'm not in favor of the oft pushed false bipartisanship if it doesn't result in anything, but how 'bout some credit where credit is due?

Lauzen was awful, but John Jones was doubly terrible: Jones shielded his no vote behind "priorities" and the some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay excuses.

Anyway, yay for us!

Hey, Andy: if you can get me a link to a speech, I'll post and give credit.

I'm glad these incremental steps are happening, but it seems like such a slow process to do it state by state. When they were debating same-sex marriage here, there were some hold-out provinces (sadly, Alberta was one), so Paul Martin just bypassed them and went the across-the-board, federal route. Certainly simplified things. And what's the big deal with calling it marriage? Some churches won't perform same-sex ceremonies, but many others will, or you can just get it done with a JP, but it's still called "marriage". Sheesh. People need to grow up.

This makes my heart glad.

I'm with you, Kim. This process has been slow, but I'll take all the good news I can get. As Dan would say, "We're winning!"

The vote was 61-52, and the legislation now moves to the state Senate, where it is expected to be passed quickly Wednesday and signed into law by Gov. Pat Quinn. Tuesday afternoon, an Illinois Senate committee advanced its version of the civil unions bill by a 6-2 margin, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Many Democratic lawmakers stood up to announce their support of the bill before the vote--but two Republicans joined them as well. State Rep. Mark Beaubien (R-Wauconda) and Rep. William Black (R-Danville) both stood up and voiced their support.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30…

Yes, my heart is glad. And, I tip my hat to those who stand up and speak on behalf of justice and equality. We need more people like them in this world.

At least parts of Black's speech can be found here, I don't now know much of it was reproduced: http://tinyurl.com/373qald

Looks like the proceedings were live streamed here, but clicking on the link takes you to the archival spot, where it's not yet up? http://tinyurl.com/2eho5z3

I think this is it: http://tinyurl.com/2vlzv84
He had previously opposed the civil union legislation hence his remark on rather being right than being consistent.

The Catholic Church isn't finished wallowing in the child rape pig shit and they still think they should dictate how people live their lives. Fucking swine.

Not to mention that this asshole is coming from the party that is shamelessly and openly going with the "clog-up-the-entire-legislature-until-a-Republican-gets-elected" tactic.

So he's got a lot of nerve talking about time-wasting, especially when it comes to the economy.

(Not that I expect any right-winger to ever acknowledge context, fact, or logic. Ever).

20 years ago - even 10! - even this much progress would have been nearly unimaginable. It is happening, people - not as rapidly as it needs to, but the cultural clock very rarely runs backward for very long. It is creeping forward. We will live to see the day when all citizens have marriage equality. We will.

#11, Canada is a completely different situation. The definition of marriage is and always has been 100% federal jurisdiction. No province could (or did) legalize (or ban) same-sex marriage. The federal bill had nothing to do with provincial opposition which was merely Ralph Klein blowing smoke. It was the only way to legalize marriage nationwide short of having people go to court in each province (which they eventually did in all but 2 or 3 anyway) or have the federal government appeal one of the lower court rulings to the Supreme Court.

I don't believe the American federal government has the right to legislate the definition of marriage to open it up - not that there's the slightest chance of that ever happening. The only way you'll ever have marriage across the United States is through a Supreme Court ruling - so pray (or hope) for an Obama re-election and for some of those bastards like Scalia and Thomas to die (or retire if you're feeling generous)

This morning, I read about the status of two bills in the Illinois legislature: one to provide civil unions, and one to ban the death penalty. The article stated that Francis Cardinal George was lobbying lawmakers intensely regarding one of them, but said nothing of his efforts regarding the other. I suppose it is possible that he was fighting just as diligently to see Illinois permanently ban the death penalty (which the Church obviously opposes), but past experience makes it difficult for me to believe that. If I ever needed to be reminded of why I left the Church behind me, and why it has long since ceded any claim to moral authority, all I needed was the image of a cardinal ignoring the condemned to focus on bullying gay couples.

What kind of fuckwit opposes civil unions? Seems to me that if you oppose civil unions, it's pretty much a confirmation of bigotry.

@22 people who think that two girls who are best friends and roommates will get civilly joined for the health insurance. hyuk.

I wish I were kidding :(