- Local every day in
Local Lawmakers React to Illinois Senate's Passage of Same-Sex Marriage Bill
With the bill legalizing same-sex marriage clearing the Illinois Senate, it's now up to the Illinois House to make it a reality. See how your local senator voted.
Illinois took a giant step closer toward legalized same-sex marriage with the passage of the marriage equality bill – SB 10 – in the Illinois Senate on Thursday afternoon.
The Senate passed the bill – with 34 in favor, 21 against and two abstentions. The bill still has one hurdle left to clear when it goes before the Illinois House where it needs 60 votes to pass.
See how each member of the Illinois Senate voted, by clicking on the pdf.
If passed, the state law defining marriage would be changed from an act between a man and a woman, to two people.
State Sen. Bill Cunningham (18th District) said he initially had reservations about the bill after attempts to pass it during last month's veto session. The Beverly Democrat brought his concerns to SB 10’s sponsor, Chicago Democrat Sen. Heather Steans (7th District), representing the city's Far North Side.
“My main reservations were a fear that the law could open up churches and other religious organizations to lawsuits if they refused to provide church halls or other facilities outside of the church that they owned to same-sex couples for a reception or anniversary party,” Cunningham said.
Connect with Patch: Oak Lawn / Beverly-Mt. Greenwood / Evergreen Park
Steans acknowledged it could be potential problem and added an amendment to the bill that places-of-worship and facilities owned by religious organizations would not be forced to violate their personally held beliefs by performing same-sex marriage ceremonies or providing facilities related to the ceremony.
“That was a concern voiced to me by a number of individuals and churches,” Cunningham said. “By virtue of the fact the churches may provide public accommodations to Alcoholics Anonymous, the Boy Scouts or an anniversary party, they were afraid the law would view them as a banquet facility. It required an amendment clarifying that this is not the intent of the law.”
When Steans agreed to make the change—Thursday’s bill was amended clarifying that its sole intent was to afford legalized marriage to same-sex couples—Cunningham said he agreed to support it.
With the first major hurdle cleared for same-sex marriage, the bill next needs to collect at least 60 votes to pass. Illinois House members are due back in session next week, but Cunningham said he wasn’t sure if the bill would make it to the House floor for a vote.
“I don’t know if they’re going to vote on it next week,” Cunningham said. “I got the impression from speaking to [House sponsor Greg Harris] that he had to lay more groundwork before he called it next week.”
Evergreen Park Democrat State Rep. Kelly Burke (36th District), said public opinion in her district--which includes Evergreen Park, Hometown, and parts of Oak Lawn, Chicago Ridge, Hickory Hills, Palos Hills and some of Chicago’s 18th, 19th and 21st wards—has been split down the middle.
“There are a lot of people in favor and a lot of people very much opposed,” she said. “It’s not heavily one way of the other.”
Burke said she has spoken to parents outside of her district who want their gay children to have same marriage rights as their straight children.
“I would imagine now that it’s gotten the vote and made it through one stage I’ll be hearing from a lot more people,” Burke said.
She says she hasn’t yet made up her mind how she will vote on the bill should it be called to the House floor. Burke cited Catholic Charities’ having to drop its state-funded adoption and foster care programs because the civil unions law failed to include a religious exemption.
“I thought [Catholic Charities] did a pretty good job doing those adoptions,” Burke said. “What else lies out there that could at risk? What are the unintended consequences of this bill?”
This story has been updated with new information.
WHAT TO READ NEXT:
Follow Patch on Facebook: Oak Lawn / Beverly-Mt. Greenwood / Evergreen Park
Jim Vondracek
10:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
A note to clarify that while the Catholic church has worked hard and spent a lot of money opposing any law protecting human rights for gay and lesbians, that is not the view of many, many churches, including the Presbyterian, Methodist, United Church of Christ, and my own denomination, the Lutheran church.
The Quiet Man
4:12 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Well Jim you are all wet. If you would bother to read the official statements by the Catholic church you would see that they support ALL human rights for all peoples no matter your race,creed or sexual orintation, they do not support agenda's for the gay lifestyle - big differance.
Jim Vondracek
9:35 am on Saturday, February 16, 2013
I see the distinction you're making, QT, but I think the right to marry is a human right, just as it was 50 years ago when interracial marriage was illegal in most of this country. More importantly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists the right to marry as a fundamental human right, in Article 16.
My larger point is that its in accurate to say that "the church" opposes marriage equality. The Catholic church has been vocal in opposing it and was the largest funder in the campaign against it in California. But, many other churches support the right for all people to marry.
Bob
10:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Two questions for the elusive Senator Cunnigham.
1) Since this will result in extending entitlements to gay couples, how much will this cost the taxpayers in survivor and dependent benefits, such as health insurance? From where wil the bankrupt state and local governments get the money to fund these new entitlements?
2) If this becomes law, what obligations will be placed on public and private schools to teach (or promote) the gay lifestyle to our children? At what age will our children be forced to be subject to gay propaganda put out in our schools under this context? Who will develop what will be taught to our children regarding the value and problems with gay relationshsips, a gay advocate? How will negative aspects of gay relationships be presented in schools (aids, reproductive issues, etc.)? It's likely that ANYTHING negative presented about gay relationships will result in a lawsuit and political pressure for removal so that only promotion of the gay lifestyle will be required to be taught to the children. Will promotioin of the gay llifestyle be required of private schools to achieve accreditation?
Tell us what you did to address these issues before supporting this dysfunctional bill, Senator!
Richard
4:12 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle, nor gay "propaganda." The issue is very simple, current law is treating a class of people differently and does not let them have the same rights that you enjoy and take for granted.
Some of the questions you raise have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality, and I'm sure you know that.
And AIDS is not just a gay issue. Just consider that in Africa those infected with HIV are mainly heterosexuals. The virus does not care about sexual orientation.
While you have all those concerns, you ought to try to get yourself a little better informed.
STM
10:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Why doesn't Illinois concentrate on state budget, lower our taxes, help the working class people instead making it a big issue on same sex marriage or giving illegals drivers licence. I am totally fed up with this state and cook county, all they are doing is stealing from average working citizens. It won't be long and I will be out of here, Indiana here I come.
Nolan
10:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Catholic charities did not have to stop their program. They choose not to adopt to gay couples, so the state funding was taken away (they should not have had it to begin with, seperation of church and state) and apparently the catholic church doesn't have enough money to keep it going themselves (Ha, reallocate funds, have the vatican give up a few gold septures). If there end up being other unintended consequences of the bill, they won't hold up in court because that was not the intent. I hear that used by judges in court hearings all the time.
Ann Last
4:12 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
What is a septure?
The Quiet Man
6:22 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Nolan, that is not what the seperation of church and state is about. The state can do business with a church, any church provided they are not favoring one over another. Also and most importantly the state cannot force you to follow a specific church, or a state sponsored church.
Bob
10:24 am on Friday, February 15, 2013
Its all about avoiding the real problems of the state.
Justplaintired
4:12 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Jim...the Lutheran church as a whole does not support gay marriage. The ELCA does.
Jim Vondracek
9:35 am on Saturday, February 16, 2013
You're absolutely correct, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America supports marriage equality and welcomes all people, including LGBT folks.
Peggy McClanahan
5:29 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
I applaud this vote by my state Senator Bill Cunningham and am glad that it has passed the state senate. Gay couples should have the same protections for themselves and their children that other couples have. I see this as a move that strengthens all marriage and am pleased to be a part of the United Church of Christ which supports marriage equality for all. All persons, straight and gay, and their families are welcome at Pilgrim Faith United Church of Christ in Oak Lawn.
OakLawnGuy
9:55 pm on Friday, February 15, 2013
Nice, Rev Peggy! What is the problem having more couples who love each other? And could provide a safe, stable home for kids?
Vette Nut
10:12 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Richard,
There is a homosexual lifestyle and a homosexual agenda! It is to normalize a deviant behavior and have it accepted as "just another lifestyle choice". It isn't! Its unnatural and perverted. And people wonder why there is such violence and social breakdown. When you kick God out of the schools, this is the result!
Dave W.
5:34 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
If it is SO unnatural and perverted, Nut, why does the Catholic Church expend such energy (and treasure) to protect those who seemingly cannot help themselves from indulging in it? Is it ONLY okay when it is young boys and it is in fact child rape, but not when it is between grown, consenting adults? Just for the men, not the women? God wasn't IN the schools originally, not the public ones...and no God should be in them now...that is what PRIVATE school is for...you hear this much of an uproar about the private ones taking science OUT fo those, and one could easily posit that society will lose much more by being undereducated in science than scared by a cult-based bogeyman.
Do you REALLY think, given all the pain and sadness and grief people like you cause for gay folks that it is some kind of 'choice'? WHO would CHOOSE all that? There is a breakdown in basic logic there.
Who decides what is 'deviant', anyway? Not so long ago, interracial marriage was 'deviant', too...should we reverse that too, Nut?
mj smith
11:53 pm on Tuesday, February 19, 2013
If marriage is such a "religious" thing why do you need a government license to do it?