If this is correct, homosexuals in (more or less?) committed relationships with other homosexuals (only couples allowed thus far) already had all the tax and civil benefits they could ask for in Illinois.
Q: What is the difference between marriage and civil unions?
A: Civil unions are a political compromise that some states have used to grant spousal rights to same-sex couples. In Illinois, civil unions are allowed for same-sex and heterosexual couples.
They offer many of the rights and benefits of marriage, but the term “civil union” is often misunderstood and has a second-class connotation. And it can confer different rights in different states.
In Illinois, civil unions allow tax relief, emergency medical decision-making power and the right to control disposition of remains, among other things.
Confusion about civil unions, however, can cause couples to be denied benefits or treated differently. Legalizing same-sex marriage will do away with the distinction.
So, if there had been any remaining legal liability in a civil union (hospital visitation or whatever), it could have been addressed through a change in the civil union law. But that wasn’t enough. The legislature of the state of Illinois has ruled that it must also publicly declare that men and women are interchangeable in a marriage relationship.
How can they possibly justify this declaration except on theological grounds?
Physical anatomy provides no justification. A single man and a single woman fit together. All else is masturbation. If the idea is that all erotic stimulation is the same, and is a basis for the institution of marriage, then Illinois is going to have to allow men to marry their porn collections.
What about monogamy and faithfulness? Despite decades of no-fault divorce and propaganda, “open” marriages are still not the norm among heterosexual married couples. The situation is quite the opposite among same-sex couples, at least among men. Couples who not only can’t have real sex, but who don’t even have expectations of faithfulness in the relationship, are being stuffed together with people who do have real sex and do expect faithfulness in the relationship. Why should these two classes belong together?
In terms of socialization, same sex marriage is obviously an inward-looking relationship that diminishes human personality. Marriage in which the two people in the relationship are actually anatomically capable of real sex also leads two very different people (on different sides of the gender divide) to learn about each other, adapt to one another, and adjust to one another, in order to bond with one another. It forces each to confront and submit to “the other.” Now, loving the other gender is being removed from marriage. Men get to make marriage a place of hyper-masculinity and women of hyper-femininity. It really is a kind of incest—of turning in on oneself and one’s own against the alien world. On what rational basis does one justify the claim that the devotion of oneself to the other gender in another person is the same relationship as amplifying one’s own gender?
If one brings children into the picture, all of the above questions give rise to derivative questions. Of course, in the utopia of no-fault divorce, no child has the right to prevent his parents from abandoning him or her as a couple. We’ve pretty much told children for decades now that they are burdens to parents rather than a rationale for marriage as a social institution.
But the main point here is that claims that this law is about “reason” or “rights” or “fairness” are all transparent idiocies. People have a vision of a pansexual utopian escape from reality and they are determined to make the world conform to their desires and infatuations.
It is from first to last a theocratic endeavor. They want to impose a vision of “heaven” on earth.
I have an idea where that will actually take us. I think you do too.