RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

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


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