Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsFriday, May 16, 2008 2:05 PM CDT
Comments Comments (5) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Lawmaker looks to seniors in bid for civil unions bill
By Kathleen Haughney
Kathleen.haughney@lee.net
Advertisement

SPRINGFIELD — A Chicago lawmaker is employing a new approach to push a controversial civil unions bill through the Illinois Legislature: tying the measure to concerns of heterosexual senior citizens.

A group of Illinois seniors, who traveled to Springfield this week argue that without civil unions legislation, heterosexual couples who choose not to marry could be barred from making critical decisions for their partner, such as health care or funeral arrangements.

Jesse Mustin, 64, said he has a number of friends and family members who faced difficult situations when their heterosexual life partner was unable to make crucial decisions for them because they were not legally married.

“Whomever you’re living with all your life should be making those decisions,” said Mustin, who is from Chicago.

State Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, who is currently the only openly gay member of the Legislature, said the bill’s impact on gay and lesbian couples is important, but the effect it would have on senior citizens is often overlooked.

The bill would grant the same legal rights to same-sex couples as it would a married couple, such as hospital visitation, health care choices and funeral options. However, no church or other religious institution would be forced to sanction the union.

“There’s a lot of confusion between the concept of civil unions and same-sex marriage. This is not same-sex marriage,” Harris said.

Opponents of gay marriage have countered that the situation allowed by the measure would be akin to marriage, which they say should be between a man and a woman.

“You don’t need government recognition” to receive some of the benefits of marriage, said David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.

The bill passed an Illinois House committee last year, but it has still not been called to a vote before the full House. Harris said he did not know if the measure would come to a vote.

Currently, state governments in Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire all allow civil unions and Massachusetts will grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. The California Supreme Court Thursday OK’d same-sex marriages.

Voters in Missouri overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 defining marriage as “only between a man and a woman.” Since then, there have been no major efforts by state legislators to legalize civil unions in Missouri.

The Illinois bill is HB1826.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 5 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

BigBrother wrote on May 16, 2008 9:03 PM:

" Meh: My objection is that Mr. Harris is not being honest with the citizens of Illinois. This bill would place the wishes of a civil partner above the wishes of the family. We have wills, medical power of attorney and financial power of attorney to protect the assets and wishes of senior citizens. Many seniors live with a "partner" for convienience or companionship reasons. Their families will lose the control over their assets and not have control over their wishes with this bill. I believe this bill harms more families than it protects. This has more to do with family health insurance and property rights than anything else. If the bill is a good one it should stand on its own merit and not need Mr. Harris to claim it helps people that do not need assistance. "

Meh wrote on May 16, 2008 12:17 PM:

" BigBrother, why make same-sex couples jump through those hoops? If my wife is in the hospital, there's no questions asked. "

BigBrother wrote on May 16, 2008 11:11 AM:

" We already have provisions to allow these important decisions to be made by life partners. They are called Power of medical and power of attorney. Every hospital offers them and you can even get a person to explain them to you. A notary verifies the signatures and away you go. The phrase "don't fix what isn't broke" comes to mind. This is just a boondoggle to take the focus off of the intent of this bill. "

MRS. wrote on May 16, 2008 9:11 AM:

" A church can't be forced to do that. There are plenty of churches that see nothing wrong with that lifestyle so there are two reasons someone might try to force a church to do this. 1.lawsuit and 2. Get ready.... to shove their lifestyle down our throats. I know my church would shutter the windows and we would meet in private homes like the Amish do. Why are people like you bound and determined to force us not to believe God? I sure wouldn't go to a satanic gathering because I don't share the belief they do. Why would a homosexual want to try to force a church to do something they don't believe in. I kno of churches that won't perform weddings if one party has been divorced and that is a heterosexual couple. "

Meh wrote on May 16, 2008 5:47 AM:

" Let's see how many religious busybodies don't read the article and ass-u-me that their church will be forced to marry gay couples as a result of this bill. Go!! "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy