Ravings from a Man in an Old White House

About a year ago, one lawyer addressing a group of other local lawyers announced that the Illinois House was considering a bill that would create civil unions while discussing legislative developments in Springfield. I particularly noted this because the lawyer treated it as it was so obviously the right thing and because the lawyers in the room had a financial interest: they were divorce lawyers.

House Bill 1826, which would create the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, is still pending. The “religious freedom” part of the title refers to the fact that no religious organization would need to celebrate civil unions. The bill has the support of the House Democratic leadership. Some of the leaders are co-sponsors of the bill, and Speaker Madigan has had to act multiple times to keep it alive. I have two questions: If the leadership support it, why has it not passed the House? Also, if there is a realistic chance of its passing, why is this issue not being debated publicly? With as charged as the question is, you would think that the bill would have gotten some press. Perhaps it will only get attention if it passes the House. As to why the bill hasn’t passed, I am clueless. Democrats have a huge majority and at least some suburban Republicans would back them. My best guess is that pro-gay representatives are opposing measure as not going far enough (i.e., they want gay marriage), and in combination with conservative opponents of any kind of gay union, they have sufficient numbers to block the measure. I really don’t believe it, and I’m out of guesses.

Note: You can follow the bill, House Bill 1865, on the Illinois House website. For those do choose to follow it, the bill is set for third reading (final debate and passage), and the current deadline for action is 14 March 2008. However, the deadline has been pushed back numerous times, so don’t be surprised if it happens again. To read the text of the bill, you need to read House Amendment 1 House Amendment 2; the original bill was a shell bill, meaning it was introduced with no substantive provisions as a sort of placeholder.