Civil unions gain support of youth
Clergy shy away from unfamiliar issue
Friday, March 23, 2007
GALESBURG - A bill that would allow civil unions for same-sex couples was narrowly approved by an Illinois House Committee on Wednesday, but details of the proposal making its way through the state Legislature are still unclear to local religious leaders.Clergy at several local churches contacted by The Register-Mail declined to offer opinions on House Bill 1826 from a religious standpoint, citing unfamiliarity with the legislation.
The legislation would create a separate statute than the state's marriage law, but would grant partners in a civil union most of the legal benefits offered to married couples, including survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights and child custody benefits.
The Human Services Committee approved the measure on a 5-4 vote, pushing the bill forward to the House floor where it could be called for a vote this spring.
If it passes, Illinois will become the fourth state to recognize civil unions, along with Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California allows some benefits for domestic partners as well, but Massachusetts is the only state that recognizes same-sex marriages.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, earlier this year introduced legislation to permit same-sex marriages. When those efforts were opposed by fellow legislators, Harris decided to push for civil unions.
Despite approval by the Human Services Committee this week, Harris doesn't expect easy approval by the full House.
"This is very new territory we're embarking on here," he said. "It's going to be very hard work."
Opponents to the bill said they don't see much difference between civil unions and same-sex marriage.
"It is marriage by another name," said Ralph Rivera, representing the Illinois Family Institute.
Duane Oldfield is a Knox College political science professor who studies the religious right and supports House Bill 1826 as well as same-sex marriage.
He said those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds will likely oppose civil unions as well.
"The Christian basic arguments against them would be the same," he said.
House Bill 1826 also would allow civil unions among opposite-sex couples who did not wish to be married. Oldfield said heterosexual civil unions may not be as controversial as same-sex civil unions, but the argument for them is not as strong.
"Straight couples have the option of marriage but gay couples don't. The case for gay civil unions is much stronger because you don't have the option of marriage," Oldfield said.
Oldfield said the issue of gay marriage has risen on the agenda of the Christian right in the past five years, but there has been movement in opinion polling on the issue since the 2004 presidential election.
"Civil unions are less controversial than gay marriage," Oldfield said, noting that polling also shows differences among generations. "Younger people are much more favorable towards gay marriage, gay rights and civil unions."
Anne Mamary, who teaches philosophy and ethics at Monmouth College, notices difference among generations as well.
"Over the years, students have become more and more accepting of same-sex unions and supportive of legally recognized unions," she said.
She said students who oppose same-sex marriage from a religious standpoint struggle with the issue of discrimination, or "their desire not to be bigots." Some students also are surprised, she said, by differences in the definition of marriage over time.
"There is the idea that marriage is a sacred institution that has never changed, but of course it has changed," Mamary said. "The old definitions of marriage don't seem to make sense to the students."
Copley News Service contributed to this report.
