Comments on: Lawsuits Planned To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage In Illinois http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45090 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:38:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Priya Lynn http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45090/comment-page-1#comment-124751 Priya Lynn Wed, 30 May 2012 21:22:41 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45090#comment-124751 Phil, while there may be a moral distinction between people who oppose marriage and those that oppose both marriage and civil unions I've never had a need to draw such a distinction. Phil, while there may be a moral distinction between people who oppose marriage and those that oppose both marriage and civil unions I’ve never had a need to draw such a distinction.

]]> By: Phil http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45090/comment-page-1#comment-124749 Phil Wed, 30 May 2012 21:17:21 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45090#comment-124749 I don't disagree, in principle, with the legal theory that civil unions are unlawful discrimination. However, I think that if we, as a movement, are okay with this both as a legal theory and legal strategy (suing for marriage equality specifically because civil unions are a form of unequal treatment), then we lose the right to draw a moral distinction between people who oppose SSM and people who oppose both SSM and civil unions. I don’t disagree, in principle, with the legal theory that civil unions are unlawful discrimination.

However, I think that if we, as a movement, are okay with this both as a legal theory and legal strategy (suing for marriage equality specifically because civil unions are a form of unequal treatment), then we lose the right to draw a moral distinction between people who oppose SSM and people who oppose both SSM and civil unions.

]]> By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45090/comment-page-1#comment-124734 Timothy Kincaid Wed, 30 May 2012 20:18:49 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45090#comment-124734 <blockquote>The ACLU case will argue that the right to privacy in Illinois’ Constitution protects against a ban on gay marriage. California’s constitution had a similar right to privacy cited by that state’s high court in upholding a right to same-sex marriage. That law is under review in federal appellate court.</blockquote> No, that law is NOT under review. "That law" was found to be in violation of the California constitution. What is under review in the federal appellate court is whether Proposition 8, an amendment to California's constitution, is a violation of the US Constitution.

The ACLU case will argue that the right to privacy in Illinois’ Constitution protects against a ban on gay marriage. California’s constitution had a similar right to privacy cited by that state’s high court in upholding a right to same-sex marriage. That law is under review in federal appellate court.

No, that law is NOT under review. “That law” was found to be in violation of the California constitution.

What is under review in the federal appellate court is whether Proposition 8, an amendment to California’s constitution, is a violation of the US Constitution.

]]> By: Kate http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/05/30/45090/comment-page-1#comment-124728 Kate Wed, 30 May 2012 18:17:33 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=45090#comment-124728 Good to hear! I just got a notice in the mail today from my life insurance company, which is based in Dallas, not Illinois, informing me that they support (or at least are complying with) the Illinois state law on civil unions with regards to insurance benefits. They will recognize the legal relationship of any two Illinois residents in a civil union, regardless of gender, in providing benefits to spouses or children. They did have to point out that Federal level benefits, such as those dealing with taxes, are still an issue because of DOMA. But I thought that was pretty cool, to spend the money to mail the notice to all of their customers. Good to hear! I just got a notice in the mail today from my life insurance company, which is based in Dallas, not Illinois, informing me that they support (or at least are complying with) the Illinois state law on civil unions with regards to insurance benefits. They will recognize the legal relationship of any two Illinois residents in a civil union, regardless of gender, in providing benefits to
spouses or children.

They did have to point out that Federal level benefits, such as those dealing with taxes, are still an issue because of DOMA.

But I thought that was pretty cool, to spend the money to mail the notice to all of their customers.

]]>