RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie 'always-the-victim' Gallagher did nothing to earn her anti-gay reputation » Anti-gay activists still don't realize 'recruitment' claims make them look ridiculous » Florida pro-discrimination activist John Stemberger's history leaves no room for LGBT people » Read: Federal Judge strikes down Florida marriage ban; stays ruling » Video: Southern Baptists promote upcoming anti-gay (and pro-'ex-gay') conference » The marriage debate per anti-LGBT, pro-discrimination activist » AFA's daily prayer equates homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/22/2009

Civility spreading midwestward?

by Jeremy Hooper

IllinoisLots of promising coupling-centric stuff is going on in the northeast. But now some nice noise is popping out of the Prairie State:

The Illinois General Assembly is expected to approve a measure next week that would legalize civil unions, according to an LGBT activist.

Rick Garcia, political director for Equality Illinois, said Thursday he's "absolutely" expecting the full state House and the Senate to pass a civil union measure either Tuesday or Wednesday. The bill has support from Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D).

Illinois poised to approve civil unions [Wash. Blade]

A C.U. system would be a nice step, for sure. Then maybe the lawmakers could look to the west at their pals in neighboring Iowa, peer through the corn fields and see that full equality has not corrupted a damn thing, and then bump up the system so that C.U. instead stands for Complete Uniformity. That is, after all, the inevitable endgame.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. For now: Power through the rights so that our local families and children will finally get some protection!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

It's also more ammo for the argument that a separate class is inherently unequal.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | May 22, 2009 2:59:37 PM

I agree with you RainbowPhoenix. I'd rather see all the separate rights attained without the umbrella "civil union" because it's just plain offensive to me. But hopefully this'll be a stepping stone like it was in Vermont & (hopefully) New Hampshire.

Posted by: Bruno | May 23, 2009 1:07:24 AM

Bruno: Yea, civil unions are offensive to most of us (this site has been a MAJOR civil unions critic over the years). But I think what RainbowPhoenix is saying is that this will be a good thing, as having this system will prove that separate is unequal, and that they must be bumped up to full marriage. That's exactly what we've seen happen in every last civil union state (with New Jersey civil unions likely to evolve within a year).

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 23, 2009 8:37:19 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails