Comments on: Illinois House approves Civil Unions!!

By: ravenbiker

ravenbiker — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:05:51 +0000

Equal but separate? “Civil Unions:” and not “marriage?”

No such thing. It’s a contradiction. IT’S STUPID!

I don’t see the point in celebrating apartheid in any form. Next they’ll conjure up a separate tax bracket for us as well as separate water fountains to drink from.

I would vote for ALL marriages to be CIVIL UNONS —as it should be.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:12:48 +0000

Thank you so much for posting this, thank you to the representatives in Illinois who got the bill this far, thank you everyone who wrote/called/worked to change minds and get those 61 votes. I have seen so much sad news, two-steps-back stories, here and elsewhere in the news that I was starting to wonder if I would EVER see something positive for human rights in this country. Thank you for restoring a bit of my faith in American government, and in the capacity of people to do the right thing.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:02:46 +0000

As a resident of Illinois i’ll remind folks that this isn’t a done deal yet. It ain’t over till Governor Quinn signs it. It still has to get through the Senate, too.

It’s very likely it will make it through the Senate and Quinn has repeatedly promised to sign it, but I’m going to reserve my pom poms for when the ink is dry :)

By: AMPGlass

AMPGlass — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:34:26 +0000

Well, it’s a step towards progress. Of course, all of the Christians and conservatives are up in arms and yelling at people on the facebook page of a local news station. (The southern half Illinois sucks.)

By: anteros

anteros — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:28:08 +0000

progress :-)

By: enough already

enough already — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:28:31 +0000

Living in a country half the year where my husband and I are legally married, with all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexuals who are married, it does seem a slap in the face to be subjected to “different but equal”.
At the same time, we are in a wa r and you fight your battles to win, not to lose.
History has shown that civil unions lead to successful marriage laws. It is not my prefered path, but I’m in this to win, not to lose.

So, no – half a loaf isn’t a whole loaf, but the no-compromise, my-way-or-the-highway position which causes so many liberals to sit home on their hands while our e nemies are out voting is not productive.

Or is there really no difference between Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner?

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 05:29:20 +0000

Porno Pete lives in Naperville, not Aurora. Other than Porno Pete’s residence there, Naperville is a nice place.

By: Simpa

Simpa — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 04:09:44 +0000

Lindoro, you don’t know what you are talking about. CUs are 95% of the loaf. It isn’t enough, and we will not settle for less than full marriage. But CUs actually help tremendously in that effort. CUs are a trial run for marriage. In every state that has had them, support for marriage has materially increased.

NOM and FRC grumbled last year about the Vermont legislature’s adoption of full marriage; they complained that the legislature’s support for marriage had been “conditioned” by court-mandated CUs.

NOM and FRC were right. CUs served as a trial run and did condition the VT legislature to support full marriage, because in 10 years of CUs none of the supposed consequences that feature in NOM’s hysterical ads ever arose. Expect the same outcome in IL in 5 years.

In the meantime, we can enjoy the fact that the 5th largest state in the country now gives us marriage in all but name.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 03:53:16 +0000

I’ll gladly take this ad keep pushing for more.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 02:15:45 +0000

Maybe I’ll take my friends offer to move to Chicago.

I bet you that Porno Pete packs his bags and leaves Aurora! Ha, take that, Petey!