Governor to sign civil unions bill in January

From the State Journal Register, with my emphases and comments:

CHICAGO — Gay couples anxious for Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn to sign into law a measure giving them many of the same legal rights [which they can have right now if they simply fill out the proper paperwork available for free on the State's web site] as heterosexual married couples will have to wait a little while longer.

Quinn, who has promised to sign the civil unions legislation, said Friday he expects to hold a bill-signing ceremony early in the new year. The law still will go into effect in June.

Illinois lawmakers passed the legislation earlier this week. The law would grant official recognition to gay couples and give them rights including inheriting property when a partner dies [which they already have if a will is made], the authority to make medical decisions for one another [which they already have if a power of attorney for healthcare is filed] and to live together in a nursing home.

“The passage this week of the civil unions legislation was historic. It’s a landmark law [yes, but not all landmarks are happy sites], it’s headed my way and I think it will be the law of the land of Lincoln in the coming year,” Quinn said at an unrelated news conference.

Five other states already allow civil unions or something equivalent to it. Gay marriage is legal in five states and Washington, D.C.

Opponents of the Illinois legislation have criticized it as a move toward same-sex marriage [which it is]. But Illinois law will continue to refer only to unions between men and women as“marriage” [but for how long?] and federal law won’t recognize civil unions between gay couples.

Quinn has repeatedly said the new law will help the Illinois economy [which doesn't make a great deal of sense when you consider the added insurance benefits employers will have to provide under the legislation] and make businesses and other large gatherings like conventions want to bring their dollars to the state [and they won't because Illinois doesn't recognize same-sex civil unions?].

“When they’re picking a convention for their particular organization, I think they look for a state that is a welcoming, accepting, hospitable place and that’s what we are in Illinois. We have everybody in and nobody left out [by that logic, only ten states in the union fit the bill. Somehow I don't these conventions only meet in ten states],” he said.

On other legislation, Quinn said Friday:

*He remains skeptical of a proposal to expand gambling to help ease the state’s financial woes.

He doesn’t want Illinois to be the “Las Vegas of the Midwest,” Quinn said.

The Illinois Senate has approved a measure that would add five new state-regulated casinos, including the first one in Chicago. Proponents say adding the new casinos, plus expanding existing ones and installing slot machines at horse tracks could generate about $1 billion in new annual revenue. The state faces a budget deficit that could be as much as $15 billion.

*He needs to analyze legislation revamping the pension systems for Illinois police and firefighters.

Lawmakers this week approved a measure to reduce retirement benefits for future police and fire employees. However, it also requires municipalities to pay more into pension funds over the next 30 years to help catch up with longstanding underfunding, a provision Chicago officials say could force them to raise property taxes by 60 percent.

Quinn called the bill an “important area of reform,” but said he’ll meet with Mayor Richard Daley to talk about his concerns.

Civil union bill likely to impede on religious freedom

The Catholic News Service has a story this morning regarding the response from the Bishops of Illinois on the recent passage in both the State House and Senate of same-sex civil unions and Governor Quinn's desire to sign it into law (with my emphases and comments):

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CNS) -- The Catholic Conference of Illinois, which represents the state's bishops on public policy matters, said it regretted passage of a bill legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples.

The legislation, approved by the House Nov. 30 and the Senate Dec. 1, provides spousal rights to same-sex partners in a civil union and grant them legal rights in surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

Gov. Pat Quinn, a supporter of the measure [and a Catholic], has said he will sign it into law.

The Catholic conference said the measure will "explicitly grant these unions the same status as marriage in state law."

"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Marriage has been established by our Creator in harmony with the nature of man and woman and with its own essential properties and purpose," the conference said in a statement. "The church did not invent marriage and neither has any state [And, as such, neither the Church nor the State can alter or change marriage].

"No ideology can erase from the human spirit," it continued, "the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, mutually commit to each other in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."

The conference said that besides essentially redefining marriage, the measure also "contains the potential for a serious conflict with religious liberty," [the fact of which neither the media nor supporters of the bill have made comment] and it urged policymakers to take such concerns seriously and work out "additional conscience protections" in the coming months.

While the bill states that nothing in its wording "should interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body," the conference said that its language "may offer little protection in the context of litigation religious institutions may soon encounter in relation to charitable services, adoption and foster care [as has already happened in other states where same-sex unions have been legalized without necessary protections for conscience].

In an earlier statement, the conference said that without "explicit protections for religious liberties," it expected the General Assembly or the courts will soon [these are all important and series concerns - and all but certain outcomes - to consider]:

-- Require faith-based institutions that provide adoption or foster care services "to place adoptive or foster children with couples who have entered into a same-sex civil union."

-- Compel Catholic parishes or agencies that provide social services (including retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior care centers and community centers) to make those services available to individuals in same-sex civil unions.

-- Refuse "to protect small employers who do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in a same-sex civil union."

During debate on the bill, State Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat, told her fellow lawmakers that passing the measure "makes a statement about the justice for which we stand."

But an opponent of the measure, State Sen. Chris Lauzen, a Republican from Aurora, questioned why lawmakers were focusing on civil unions and not spending their time addressing the state's high unemployment, home foreclosures, a big state debt and severe problems with its social services system [I find it curious that on Wednesday the Senate passed this legislation knowing the increased cost it will add to municipal and State budgets, but on Thurdsay passed legislation raising the retirement age and lessening the full pensions of new police and firefighters because of the state of the budget].

The Chicago Tribune quoted Lauzen as saying: "We are the incompetent laughingstock of government mismanagement and misplaced priorities, and our one-party (Democratic) leadership spends our time on homosexual civil unions."

Illinois Senate approves civil union

The Illinois Senate yesterday approved SB 1716 granting civil union status for homosexual couples.

From the State Journal Register, with my emphases and comments:

Illinois will soon allow gays and lesbians to enter into unions in which they will have virtually the same rights as a married couple.

Gov. Pat Quinn said Wednesday he will sign Senate Bill 1716, which creates civil unions and passed the state Senate on a 32-24 vote. The bill, which needed 30 votes to pass, received support from 31 of the Senate’s 37 Democrats. The only Republican who voted for it was Sen. Dan Rutherford of Chenoa, who is the state’s treasurer-elect. Six Republicans voted for the measure in the House on Tuesday.

"I think this is a proud day for the people of our state [not for everyone]," Quinn told reporters in his office after the vote. "It's everybody in and nobody left out."

Legalizing civil unions is the latest step toward making sure everyone has the same rights and a natural follow-up to movements that pushed for the right to vote for women and blacks and the civil rights era effort to make sure blacks could exercise those rights, supporters said [these issues aren't on the same level at all].

"I see this issue through the eyes of a father who has a gay child," said the measure's Senate sponsor, Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria. "Within each generation, we have sought to make the American dream more accessible. ... Society does change its viewpoints [Yes, but not every change is good; the Truth is not determined by a majority vote]."

GOP challenges cost

Senate Republican spoke more stridently against the bill than their House counterparts did. They sought to raise doubts about the bill's cost and assailed Quinn and Democratic legislative leaders for pushing it in the midst of a crisis in which the state budget deficit is $13 billion.

"We're under this huge burden of debt," said state Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Decatur. "We have a budget we have failed to be able to balance. It seems to be on everyone's mind, yet we come back here and spend a lot of time on issues like this.

“It's wrong to not show honor and respect to the institution of marriage between a man and a woman,” McCarter said.

Republicans questioned whether the bill would mean state and local governments and private businesses would have to spend more money on pensions and health care. Because the bill gives people in civil unions almost all the same rights as a married man and woman, a company that offers health-care benefits to opposite-sex spouses also would have to do so with same-sex spouses who have entered civil unions [This is one place where the freedom of the free expression of religion will begin to break down].

Koehler said a private business faces the same situation if it hires an unmarried person who might later marry [That's a different matter altogether and wouldn't require someone to violate their conscience].

No business opposition

"That's a risk you take as an employer," Koehler said. He said no businesses had called him to oppose the legislation.

Sen. Jeffrey Schoenberg, D-Evanston, noted that many businesses already offer health and other benefits to those in domestic partnerships – opposite or same sex – because American workers have demanded it.

“Business has already decided,” he said. “They cast their vote on the side of capitalism.”

The legislature’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability said the bill “will not impact any public pension fund or retirement system in Illinois.” The Department of Central Management Services said the state would incur some increased costs related to the state's group insurance system, the state's deferred compensation program and death benefits under workers compensation [It's curious how the primary concern of this reporter is financial, when the issue is really a moral one].

"An estimate, however, cannot be determined due to the unknown number of civil unions that would occur under this bill," CMS said in a fiscal note sent to the legislature.

"These are all guesstimates, at best," said Sen. Dan Duffy, R-Lake Barrington. "How can I support this if we don't know how much money this bill will cost Illinois taxpayers or how we will pay for it?"

Illinoisans want fairness

Rutherford, an ardent fiscal conservative, saw noise in the chamber cease when he spoke.

"I've been all over Illinois (campaigning for treasurer)," Rutherford said. "I've been in your districts. The legislation today, it is opposed by some. And it's uncomfortable for some.

“One thing I do know about the people of Illinois is that they want fairness,” Rutherford said. “The people of Illinois, they don't want discrimination [this isn't a matter of discrimation; everything the bill allows was already possible before it's passage]. It's the right thing to do. I will be voting yes."

Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, lampooned Republican arguments against the bill.

"When I sit here and I hear adulterers and womanizers and folks cheating on their wives and down-low brothers saying they're going to vote against this bill, it turns my stomach!" Hendon said, referring to colleagues whom he did not name. "We know what you do at night. And you know, too. ... Why make it about pensions? ... It's not about pensions. Just say you don't like certain folk.

"You know, I'm a Christian. You might not believe it. But I'm a Baptist -- saved and sanctified, dipped in the holy water when I was 12 years old. I'm going to go to heaven when I die [I'm glad he's so confident of them]. But I'm going to vote for this bill. It ain't going to send me to hell. And it won't send you there, either." [He might be surprised. Remember the words of Jesus: "Not everyone who says, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father" (Matthew 7:21).

***

Civil unions personal for Peoria senator

For state Sen. David Koehler, the decision to sponsor a civil unions bill was an easy one.

“As the father of three daughters,” the Peoria Democrat said, “explain to me why two of them have rights that one doesn’t have [No one has a right to that which is contrary to the natural law. And all of these so-called rights were already possible before this legislation was introduced. I find it curious how supporters of the bill refuse to acknowledge this].”

Koehler’s daughter, Maggie, was on the floor of the Senate and brought her partner, Brennan Kramer, to Springfield for the vote.

Maggie Koehler said she has been working on the issue since before her father, a retired minister in the United Church of Christ, was elected to the Senate. She came out about when Vermont became the first state to have civil unions in 2000.

“This is an early Christmas present,” Maggie Koehler said [And what a sad and dangerous gift it is, with many as yet unacknowledged consequences].

Maggie Koehler and Kramer will hold an engagement party in a few weeks [but this bill is not about the legalization of so-called homosexual "marriage," we've repeatedly been told]. They plan to obtain a civil union in Illinois on Labor Day 2011 rather than getting married in a state that allows full-fledged marriage.

“This is my state,” Maggie Koehler saidd [No, it isn't your state; it is our state].

Opponents of civil unions criticized the use of family stories, such as those of the Koehlers, to pass the bill [And correctly so. The passage of legislation needs to be done on the basis of reason and logic, not on the basis of emotion].

“Proponents engaged in embarrassing and maudlin displays of sentimentality intended to emotionally manipulate rather than intellectually persuade their colleagues,” David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, said in a statement.

Maggie Koehler wasn’t surprised that her father became the bill’s Senate sponsor. David Koehler said he doesn’t fear that voters will oust him out for his actions.

“That’s the risk you run when you’re in public service,” David Koehler said [If that's the risk you take then why was the bill introduced for a vote prior the recent election? Yes, a real courageous move, indeed].

Throughout the debate, opponents accused civil union supporters of eventually wanting full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples [And rightly so. Calls for the legal homosexual "marrage" where already made Tuesday after the House passed the bill, but that must be entirely irrelevant]. Rep. Greg Harris, the Chicago Democrat who sponsored the bill in the House, conceded as much, but said the odds are long [But not undesired by those who support the legislation, and they will move to pass it].

“It was a close vote in both chambers. I think that was instructive,” Harris said. “To sort of the left side of me [there's a surprise], I have people in my community who are very upset. They said, ‘Why didn’t you go for full equality or nothing and hold these people’s feet to the fire and make them all vote for us?’

“We found a center course [No, you didn't; the center - if it exists - was already there; all of these "benefits" were already available to homosexual couples], a moderate course and a middle course.”

But Maggie Koehler holds out hope she will be able to marry Brennan Kramer some day.

“That’s what I want for this entire country,” she said.

What a civil union will do

There are hundreds of rights couples who enter into civil unions will have that mirror the rights of married opposite-sex couples, said Camilla Taylor, senior staff attorney with Lamda Legal. Among the major rights:

-- Hospital visitation [this was already possible before this legislation was introduced]
-- Make medical decisions for a partner if he or she is incapacitated [this was already possible before this legislation was introduced]

-- Automatic inheritance of property and money [this was already possible before this legislation was introduced]

-- Make burial or cremation decisions [this was already possible before this legislation was introduced]

-- Receive health care or other benefits an employer offers to spouses [this was already possible from some companies before this legislation was introduced]

-- Take family emergency and medical leave [this was already possible from some copmanies before this legislation was introduced]

-- Receive non-federal survivor pension benefits

-- A child, whether adopted or conceived through artificial insemination, would automatically be the child of both people in a same-sex union [even though the data shows this is not beneficial to children].

What a civil union won’t do

Because the federal government does not recognize civil unions, those in them could not:

-- File joint federal tax returns [yet]

-- Receive Social Security survivor benefits [yet]

-- Receive immigration benefits or sponsor a foreign-born spouse [I thought this wasn't about marriage?] for citizenship [yet]

-- Federal workers in a civil union could not receive health care or other federal benefits offered to spouses [yet].

Paprocki chides Quinn

Springfield Catholic Bishop Thomas Paprocki on Wednesday challenged Gov. Pat Quinn’s support for legalization of civil unions. Quinn said Tuesday that his faith – Quinn was raised a Catholic -- had inspired him to support civil unions.

“He did not say what religious faith that would be, but it certainly is not the Catholic faith,” Paprocki said in a statement. “If the governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority, and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”

Asked about the bishop's statement, Quinn said, “I follow my conscience. My conscience is not kicking me in the shins today [Yes, such a faithful Catholic]."

There is more to the article.

Illinois House of Representatives approves same-sex civil unions

From the State Journal-Register, with my emphases and comments:

After an emotional and tear-filled debate, the Illinois House Tuesday approved landmark legislation that would require the state to recognize same-sex unions, giving couples in civil unions most of the legal rights granted to married people of opposite genders.

Under the bill, couples in civil unions would have the right to visit their life partners in the hospital or make medical decisions if one is incapacitated [this can already be arranged without this legislation].

The bill passed with a 61-52 margin. Sixty votes were required for passage.

The term “marriage” would continue to be reserved for unions of men and women [But for how long? Rest assured, they will not stop here], although unmarried opposite-sex couples also could obtain civil-union status.

Religious organizations would not be required to recognize or bless a civil union [Again, for how long? They will not be content with this]. Civil unions are not recognized under federal law .

Gov. Pat Quinn – who campaigned on the issue, lobbied members and was on the floor of the House for much of Tuesday’s debate – lauded the House’s action. Quinn said he would sign the bill if it passes the Senate, where a vote is expected today.

“My religious faith animates me to support this bill,” Quinn, a Catholic, told reporters after the vote. “I think, as a matter of conscience, this was the right vote.” [Here we have another fake Catholic does not know his religious faith and has not properly formed his conscience. His words will be a cause of scandal to many and will only lead to further and greater confusion.]

‘Slippery slope’

Opponents of the measure included Chicago Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic Conference of Illinois and the Illinois Family Institute. Opponents said legalization of civil unions will lead eventually to approval of full-fledged gay marriage [Mark our words: it will. And beyond that, to charges of hate speech when the Church simply holds fast to the faith she has received from Christ].

“I think this is a step down a slippery slope. Call me an old-fashioned traditionalist,” said Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville, who said the fall of societies such as ancient Greece and Rome could be tied to homosexuality [there is much more involved in their falls than homosexuality; this is too much of an overstatement].

“One of the commonalities is open homosexuality becomes accepted in the higher society,” Stephens said. “Here we are at that precipice again.”

Two openly gay House members -- Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, and Rep. Deb Mell, D-Chicago -- pleaded with their colleagues to pass the legislation [For what reasons?].

Some opponents argued that instead of passing civil unions, same-sex couples should obtain powers of attorney and reach other legal agreements with their partners. Harris, the bill's sponsor, said hiring a lawyer could be costly and same-sex partners would have to come up with documentation for every conceivable situation [attorney's are not required to file a power of attorney for healthcare or for property in Illinois; living wills in Illinois also do not require an attorney. Perhaps before voting for new legislation, Representative Harris should learn the present legislation on the books].

Harris told the story of the late Rep. Larry McKeon, who was also openly gay. McKeon sought to be at his life partner's bedside when he died, but forgot to bring a signed legal agreement giving him that right [if the ridiculous privacy laws were not passed that make it difficult even for a pastor to learn if a parishioner is in the hospital such legal agreements might not be necessary; the legislature passed these laws and so the legislature could simply remove them].

“The hospital turned Larry away. They said he did not have the proper documentation with him [the hospital was only acting in accord with the law; if the legislators do not like the present law they can change it]. They did not consider him next of kin [which he wasn't],” Harris said. “He returned to the hospital and missed the passing of his life partner by mere minutes.”

‘We are a family’

Mell, whose partner, Christin Baker, was on the House floor with her, said, “I love my state. I'm proud to live here. But my state does not treat me equally.

“It will take my money. It will take my taxes. It will let me make laws. But God forbid something happen to Christin.

“I’m not able to speak to her wishes. The doctor has to go to her family, and I’m not considered family [Again, that can easily be arranged, without this legislation]. I assure you we are a family, and we deserve the same rights you enjoy [You can have the same rights you keep mentioning without this present legislation].”

Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said other states that have passed civil unions saw supporters go to court and sue for full marriage rights under the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

“Are you ready for gay marriage? Because that's what could come out of this,” Reis said [He's right]. “I don't think we’re ready for this. I don't think the people of Illinois want this” [I don't think we do].

While many Republicans voted against civil unions, Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, and Rep. Mark Beaubien, R-Barrington Hills, spoke and voted in favor of the bill. It was one of the last votes Black will cast in the General Assembly because he is retiring after this session [that's convenient].

Age differences

Black talked about how Illinois’ late U.S. senator, Everett McKinley Dirksen, who, as Republican leader in the Senate, got his party to sign onto civil rights legislation.

“I’m in my seventh decade of life,” Black said. “People my age have difficulty with this. Younger people do not [I think he's a bit disconnected].

“Everett McKinley Dirksen was a leader and a statesman. He realized civil rights was an issue that was past due. ... He never voted for a piece of civil rights legislation [there's a rather large disconnect here somewhere]. He said, ‘There is a time that I'd rather be right than consistent.’ I intend to vote aye."

“My only statement is there comes a time,” Beaubien said. “Now is the time.”

Religious leaders were not united against the bill. Equality Illinois, a supporter of the bill, released a list of 300 clergy members [of what denominations? And out of how many clergy in Illinois?] who support civil unions. One, the Rev. Martin Woulfe of the 300-member Abraham Lincoln Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Springfield, said civil unions are a civil rights issue [that's not surprising].

“I believe that every couple, every adult couple, has a fundamental right to have a relationship which is blessed by a religious community that will accept them but also is entitled to basic human rights and civil rights in our society,” he said.

Chris Wetterich can be reached at 788-1523.

Senate Bill 1716 -- what it does

Same-sex or opposite-sex couples can enter into legally recognized civil unions. Among the rights to which those in a civil union would be entitled:

-- Make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated [this can already be arranged without SB 1716]

-- Make burial or cremation decisions [this can be arranged without SB 1716]

-- Allow hospital visitation [this can be arranged without SB 1716]

-- Inherit property [this can be arranged without SB 1716]

The civil union process

Those who want to enter into a civil union would fill out a form with a county clerk and pay a fee (the fee isn’t specified in the bill [that doesn't make a bit of sense, which is also not surprising]). The county clerk would issue a license and a certificate declaring the civil union is not prohibited by law.

The civil union then could be certified by a judge, retired judge, public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages or “in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group.”

Once a civil union is certified, the county clerk would give a copy of the certificate and the date and location of the civil union to the Department of Public Health.

States that allow civil unions

California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington

What's next

A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the bill will be called for a vote in the Senate Wednesday.

What the bill says

“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.”

Read the bill

http://tinyurl.com/Ilcivunion

How lawmakers voted

House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago: Yes

House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego: No

Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield: No

Rep. Rich Brauer, R-Petersburg: No

Rep. Jim Watson, R-Jacksonville: No

Rep. Betsy Hannig, D-Litchfield: Yes

This bill is not at all necessary to achieve what they want. If passed by the Senate, it will lead to the legalization of same-sex "marriages." Legalized same-sex "marriages" will lead to charges of hate speech and hate crimes against the Church.

ACTION ALERT

Here follows an important press release from the Illinois Catholic Conference (with my emphases):

The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI), on behalf of Cardinal Francis George, OMI, and all the Bishops of Illinois, call upon the Illinois General Assembly to reject Senate Bill 1716, the civil union legislation.

“Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage. Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage,” said Cardinal George. “Moreover, the impact of this legislation on the Church’s social service ministries remains an important and thus far unanswered concern. This important legislation is being put before a lame-duck General Assembly and more should be done to engage the people in public debate.”

Marriage was not invented by either the state or the Church, and neither can change its nature. However, laws structure society, and they influence patterns of behavior and thought. In our country, as in most others, marriage is granted unique protections and benefits under the law because marriage is the foundation of family and society. The proposed legislation would further weaken an already fragile institution.

There is an inherent conflict between this legislation and religious liberty. Language in the bill offers little protection in the context of litigation that religious institutions and individuals will face if this bill is adopted. With no explicit protections for religious liberties, it will not take long before the General Assembly or the courts:

 Mandate that faith-based institutions providing adoption or foster care services be required to place adoptive or foster children with couples who have entered into a same-sex civil union.

 Require that Catholic parishes or Catholic agencies providing social services (including retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior care centers and community centers) be compelled to provide these services to individuals who are in a same-sex civil union.

 Refuse to protect small employers who do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in a same sex civil union.

The enactment of marriage-like benefits in civil union legislation will intensify the legal attack on marriage. It will not appease those who wish to redefine the institution of marriage. We need only look to California, Connecticut and other states where nearly identical legislation was passed. In every state where citizens have had the right to vote on marriage, they consistently express their support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the “legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits” of marriage to individuals in a civil union. There are literally hundreds of references to married “spouses” throughout Illinois’ law to which parties to a civil union will now be included. These references are not limited to hospital visitation rights (which are already afforded same sex couples via Presidential Executive Order) or property rights (which can be provided for through legal arrangements). They include benefits from the state Pension Code, the legal guardianship of children and other provisions that govern married life in Illinois.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Accordingly, we stand ready to work with the legislature and other agencies of state government to prevent unjust discrimination and to provide benefits to people judged by the civic authority as deserving – as long as such provision does not include the attempted redefinition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the sake of family.