SPRINGFIELD, IL -- Both the Illinois House of Representatives and Senate have passed the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act" commonly known as the "civil unions" bill. It now goes to Governor Pat Quinn who made a campaign pledge to sign it into law.
"We are very disappointed that the Illinois General Assembly succumbed to emotional manipulation instead of reasoned justifiable evidence regarding the government's recognition of the public purpose of marriage," said Illinois Family Institute's executive director David Smith. "Proponents engaged in embarrassing and maudlin displays of sentimentality intended to emotionally manipulate rather than intellectually persuade their colleagues."
The House vote was 61-52, and the Senate 32-24. Illinois is now among the unfortunate minority of states with legalized civil unions. The state has the dubious honor of being not only one of the most politically corrupt states in America, but also one with a dearth of wise and courageous leaders.
While in the Senate there were quite a few courageous lawmakers who spoke out in opposition to SB 1716, during the House floor debate, only two conservatives had the courage to do so.
Even when four state representatives argued deceitfully from the floor that this bill was needed to assure hospital visits for homosexual partners, not one conservative representative made clear that on April 15, 2010 President Obama issued an executive order mandating hospital visitation for same sex partners that applies to any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funds, which is virtually every hospital.
Here's what our lawmakers should have said:
-- Civil unions are, in reality, legalized same-sex marriage.
-- Homosexuality is not analogous to race, and bans on same-sex unions are not analogous to bans on interracial marriage.
-- Homosexual activists in IL have stated publicly that civil unions are their stepping stone to marriage.
-- Every adult male and female in IL is free to marry.
-- Homosexuals are not pursuing a right they don't have, but rather they're seeking to eliminate one of the central defining features of marriage via civil unions.
-- Defining marriage as a sexually complementary institution is ethically legitimate.
-- If homosexuals are permitted to jettison sexual complementarity, there is no rational reason why polyamorists should not be permitted to jettison the criterion of numbers of partners.
-- The government has no reason to provide affirmation or benefits to relationships that do not serve the public good; and relationships based on same-sex attraction and volitional homosexual acts do not per se serve the public good.
-- The government's involvement in marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with whether two people love each other.
-- Once same-sex "marriage' -- which is now a mere stepping stone away -- is severed from both procreation and gender, it becomes meaningless as a public institution, and even heterosexuals will become less invested in it.
"Today is not merely a sad day; it's a tragic day for Illinois," said Smith.