let me comment further by saying I support the idea of a man of cloth not having to do the ceremony.

I do feel though that the certificate type to sign should be the same one. If people wish to consider it a civil union because the ceremony took place in front of a justice of the peace thats their prejudice, however the documentation for legal purposes is whats important.

If that is the only difference, I am fine with civil union (domestic partnership) but it needs to carry with it the recognized term for spouse, that way organizations and the government can’t beat the system by saying that spouses count but not partners or some other Bull Monkey.

I don’t really have a personal stake in this, and it’s not likely it will directly affect me. I can totally respect your wish that they had called it Marriage, but I fear that could have prevented the bill from passing at all.

I’m still pretty enthused. What does it all mean? Well, there’s a lot of stuff said in the papers, so I made it my business to go read the actual bill, and in my humble non-lawyerly opinion, I’m impressed.

Under this bill, as far as Illinois is concerned, you guys are married, except for the M-word (section 5). If there’s an Illinois law (regulation, policy, etc.) that applies to married couples, it applies to you (section 20). Your out-of-state marriage is recognized as a civil union in Illinois (section 60). The words are in there. You have my congratulations on your civil union!

Under a civil union, a gay couple could (heavens forbid!) get a divorce under the Illinois Dissolution of Marriage Act (a piece of law I know more of than I wish to) (section 45). That’s pretty much like being married.

Absent a date in the bill, I’m guessing the act becomes effective on June 1, 2011 according to section 10 of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution.

Religious groups are so hung up on the word Marriage, I wish it could get unhooked from the language of the state. I don’t like the idea that there’s the idea of a second-class civil union behind a first class marriage, and any issues of “sanctity” seem to belong somewhere else other than in law. Give the M-word to the various churches, and civilly unify anybody who wants to, equally, and give them the same rights and status under law. In my opinion.

Still, it’s steps. And for once, I can be proud of my state government.