Phil (Phil) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 4:40 am)

The protest here in Champaign was… thin. Its to be expected–the only gay folks left in town are grad students, and every grad student is pretty busy right now.

This week the Illinois General Assembly should be passing their end of session “shell bill” of last minute legislation–which is supposed to be getting an amendment added to it that implements Civil Unions here–very sneaky sneaky sir. I’ve been trying to get more information about it, but our lovely LGBT orgs here in IL have websites devoid of anything current. I’m going to call Naomi Jakobsson’s office today–get it from the source. Watch my Facebook and read my blog for more information as I learn it. Keep having a good time, yo! We’re all so jealous here!

Suleman Hussain (Suleman Hussain) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 8:33 am)

You know, it’s sad but the best way to get updated on IL civil union progress is through wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Illinois

Good Sean (Good Sean) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am)

Well they really didn’t vote against gay marriage, they handed down a decision saying that prop8 was valid. Supreme Courts aren’t little cabals that just get to vote for what they think is right after all.

Also, all kinds of insane kinky sex. all the time.

Jon Hansen (Jon Hansen) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am)

I agree with Good Sean, the Court had to vote in favor of the ban, and I’m glad they did. Morally, obviously, I wish they had decided the other way. But once Prop 8 passed and became a part of the California constitution, the court had their hands tied. How can you find something in the constitution unconstitutional?

Either way, let’s hope the voters get it right in 2010, where I’m sure we’ll see another proposition in favor of changing the constitution to allow gay marriage–or maybe the legislature could step in.

But hey, go Iowa.

Like Bill Murray in What about Bob, baby steps….baby steps…..

Brent (Brent) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm)

The argument was that Prop 8 constituted a major change to the constitution, thus it would be considered a revision (which requires state legislature’s approval, I think), not an amendment. And I don’t think they had their hands tied because they were ruling based on an opinion of what constitutes a major change to the constitution, however, had they overturned Prop 8, it would be pretty much political suicide since the Yes on 8 people threatened to try to remove them from their seats if they overturned the proposition.

The scary part for me is that it sets a precedent in the state that a simple majority can oppress a minority by writing it straight into the constitution. It seems like every issue that is sent to the voters will be in the form of a constitutional amendment and the courts and legislatures will be unable to do anything about it.

Lucas (Lucas) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm)

Nothing as of yet, but our good friend Chris and I have a plan that you have to join us for. We were walking down halsted, drunk of course, and Chris was telling me a story about how one time he won a free locker and trip to steamworks. he never went, but we agreed that it would be really fun to go there, look around, see whats up and then if anyone tried to creep on us, we pretend we found each other and don’t want a third (or if you go, fourth) to join. Apparently there may be some specials for first time visitors so we are planning on getting wasted some night and talking a walk-through tour of the place. You in? You know it will be a blast, and a great story for this ‘ol blog!

Lucas (Lucas) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm)

and by “talking a walk-through tour” I clearly meant “taking a walk-through tour” but, whatevs

Rogue (Rogue) says:
(Posted May 27th, 2009 at 7:49 pm)

oh man…lucas i just told someone that story today! love it….as for other stories…uhhhh….i dont know if i can get in to that. i havent been the best kind of person lately…im sorry =(

Matt Mattingly (Matt Mattingly) says:
(Posted June 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 am)

I don’t know if you got any of the news, Liam, but the bill never ended up getting called for a final vote. There was much bickering over the temporary income tax increase, as well as a number of other bills that seemed rather minuscule in scope compared to the impact that civil union bill would have had….obviously, I think the state missed out on a significant chance for increased revenue.

Just increasing the fee that comes with civil union (like my parents have, as their second marriage to each other didn’t include a “marriage ceremony”) would have been a decent way to raise money, though it would’ve been a modicum of revenue compared to the overall state debt. Alas, it once again goes to the rules committee until the fall session and we’ll probably find once again that the budget issue pushes back all other concerns and prevents the bill from coming up as has been the case for at least, to my knowledge, the last two years or so.

What’s scary was having Dick Cheney today he supported gay marriage so long as it was decided by the states and not by the federal government, which puts him to the left of The President on the gay marriage issue.