Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

NOM attacks civil unions in Illinois; Bill may be voted on today

NOM Exposed Right-wing

by Andy Kelley
New Media Organizer, Courage Campaign

In developing news, Illinois could vote to pass the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (SB 1716), creating civil unions for same-sex couples, as soon as today.

Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn has pledged to sign the bill if passed telling the Chicago Tribune on Monday “I do think this is the time for Illinois to do this. This is a good way to show employers — big businesses all across the country — that Illinois treats everyone with tolerance.”

Despite their previous claims to not oppose civil unions, the National Organization for Marriage is hard at work urging their supporters to contact their legislators and urge them to oppose passage of the bill, calling it “same-sex marriage by a different name.”

Advocates of the bill are not allowing this challenge by out of state, Washington DC based interests to go unanswered. As Chicago Pride reports:

Gay rights activists continue to encourage the LGBT community to contact their legislators on Tuesday morning by calling the Illinois Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000. EQIL has also established a hotline to help people identify their legislators, that number is 773-477-7173.

We will continue to bring you updates as this story develops.


Good news. The Daily Herald is reporting that the bill has passed the state house and will move to the state senate for consideration:

By a 61-52 vote, lawmakers voted to allow civil unions, which would give nonmarried partners both gay and straight additional rights and benefits under state law.


  • 1. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Dirty Rats!

  • 2. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Hmmm… must be a slow day if I am first up!!! Brian Brown repeatedly said he does not oppose CU's since they are not real marriages. Good thing his followers are becoming fewer and far more radical. Good luck IllinoisYour victory is a win for us all!

  • 3. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:49 am

    I looked at Brian Brown's history on Civil Unions and what I found was that he – (since 2003 – the furthest back I could find him in the news) – he has been against civil unions. He may have done a turnabout recently, just to get some of those on the fence's votes…but I truly think he's been against it all along.

  • 4. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I take it back… Brown is consistent in being against CU's. Brown seriously fears that CU's will lead to the Apocalypse via Marriage Equality.

    SCOTUS should never have legally approved to gays having rights over their own bodies!!!

  • 5. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:51 am

    BTW, two more weeks and I will be in Russia with my wonderful fiancé!!!

    Share your thoughts and feelings in put in your requests for souvenirs now!!! (For good measure send requests to the Facebook account.)

    Felyx… and especially Kevyn!

  • 6. Franck  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Oooh boy, there had better be photos, you know. LOTS of photos!

    And in other news, I heard Secretary Gates just officially signed off for repealing DADT. They might get rid of that aberrant soon enough yet (one out of too many, but still one).

    And in yet other news, one of my Australian contacts today called me a "married man", and when I remarked on it, he replied that he'd always considered me as one, piece of paper or not. I admit, I did blush. Heh, the power of a simple pair of words…

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1257 days, as of today.

  • 7. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:06 am


  • 8. fiona64  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:37 am

    I wouldn't even know what to ask for, LOL.

    Like Franck, I want to see photos!


  • 9. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:58 am

    If I can find a video camera in time that I like and can manage to put up with having video (I am super shy really) then maybe we will post video.

    Just a though.

  • 10. BK  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Ask for a babushka doll set… even though they can get quite expensive. 🙂

  • 11. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 9:32 pm


    Make sure you write this on our facebook page. Also let us know where you live so I can get it to you when the time comes.


  • 12. Kathleen  |  December 1, 2010 at 3:38 am

    I just want to see the two of you together. That would be the greatest gift.

    (also, I'm still 'awaiting friend confirmation' on your facebook page)

  • 13. fiona64  |  December 1, 2010 at 4:14 am

    I think that it's metrioshka dolls (sp?). Babushka is "Grandma." 🙂


  • 14. Ann S.  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:20 am

    According to Wikipedia, it's a matryoshka doll, or a babushka doll.

    I have a set a bit similar to the political leaders one pictured here, that my father once brought me from the USSR. The largest is Gorby, then Brezhnev, then Khrushchev, then Trotsky.

  • 15. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:48 am


  • 16. StraightForEquality  |  November 30, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Me too.

  • 17. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:55 am

    For anyone who missed it in other thread, live video of Pentagon press conference re DADT

  • 18. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:00 am

    And meant to subscribe

  • 19. EricinSanDiego  |  November 30, 2010 at 5:56 am

    To rephrase their own speech: NOM are just "Nazi's by a different name"…I hope for all our sake that human evolution will cut short the bloodlines of all inbred ignorants.

  • 20. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:00 am

    They've had me on the edge of my seat at work all day! And I'm hitting refresh on my computer far more frequently than needed.

    I've followed the Prop 8 case since it first began debate but couldn't vote on it as an out-of-stater. Now something is finally happening where I am!

    Please send happy thoughts and prayers IL's way today! And thank you all so much for your support.

  • 21. JonT  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:03 am

    Good luck Rebecca! (and subbing)

  • 22. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:03 am

    I'm with you there in spirit, Rebecca!

  • 23. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Fingers and toes crossed Rebecca!!

  • 24. Ann S.  |  November 30, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    I’ve got my fingers crossed for you and everyone in Illinois!

  • 25. Richard A. Jernigan  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Once again, the NOMbies are sticking their noses in where they don't belong! You would think that after all the times they have had those noses bitten, slapped, or otherwise been disciplined, that they would learn to get the hell out of everybody's private lives and just get with the program. Equality is going to become the law of the land, and the sooner NOM realizes that and just goes away to grieve the lack of the theocracy they think they want, the better for everyone!

  • 26. Tomato  |  November 30, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Please know that NOM does not speak for all religious folks.

    We are many, but we don't have the money nor viciousness that NOM and FRC use to be heard.

    (I like this video because of both and because the minister who married my wife and I, and who will be at the rally Dec 6 with several other ministers, is in it.)

  • 27. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 1, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Believe me, I know that NOM does not represent the entire religious world. I just wish that NOM and their sheeple would finally realize this fact themselves and get out of everybody's lives. The people I have met here since January have all been more Christian than NOM and their sheeple will ever be. NOM and their ilk are the ones I refer to as CINO's (Christians In Name Only). This designation is bolstered by the Christians I know in my offline life also. And yes, I know some local members of Standing on The Side of Love. Met many of them at the Pride festival in Durham September 25. Thank you for being part of the fight on the side of truth, Tomato!

  • 28. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:09 am

    NOM needs to stop putting their repugnant noses in our personal lives….. ; ) ….Ronnie

  • 29. Manilow  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Why does NOM's hypocrisy continue to amaze me? Shouldn't I be used to it by now?

  • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:18 am

    They really are a piece of work…

  • 31. cc  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

    Civil unions are great, but I fear they might be a step sideways instead of a step forward. It seems the more civil unions we have on the books; the less likely people pull their support for full marriage equality. Don't get me wrong civil unions are better than nothing, but they are not the end all in the debate.

  • 32. nightshayde  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I've seen an opposing viewpoint on this bandied about somewhere (possibly here, but I'm not sure). The reasoning was that if CUs are approved & people get used to same-sex unions on a grand scale, they see that their little segment of society doesn't crumble the instant same-sex couples get legal recognition. Once they're used to CUs (or domestic partnerships), it's easier to get those who were on the fence to support full marriage equality.

    Of course, there will be some people who will get their knickers in a twist over letting GLBTs be treated as equals — but it's harder for them to prove the point that recognizing GLBT relationships will end the world if people see that happily married couples won't destroy either the institution of marriage or the fabric of society as a whole.

  • 33. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:03 am

    Exactly Nightshayde! I have promoted this myself. I will reference the case in England with the four couples suing FOR access to CU's. When heterosexuals want CU's and can prove discrimination it makes the 'gays shouldn't get married' argument so much the more weak!

    We are winning our rights… enjoy listening to NOM squeal in protest. (Squeal Brian Brown… squeal like a Maggie. Soueee Soueee!)

  • 34. Owen  |  November 30, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Totally true. In most instances in the U.S., the states that have gone on to have gay marriage started out with civil unions or an equivalent. Happened in Vermont, Connecticut, D.C., and California. It's definitely a sign of progress and a bellwether of full rights.

  • 35. Badger  |  November 30, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    I comletely agree with this. I come from the UK where there have been civil partnerships for the past 5 years and today two thirds of the adult population now support gay marriage according to some surveys. Since the legal recognition of gay relationships, many straight people are interacting with friends, family and work colleagues who are in CU's and realised that the world hasn't fallen apart. It is a small step to get from where we are now to gay marriage, which may well happen in the UK very shortly. Before CU's the majority of the population were against gay marriage. I agree that full recognition of gay mariage is the ultmate goal, but we shouldn't underestimate the importance of CU's as a stepping stone to getting there in the absence of any sort of recongition of gay relationships, which was the UK situation only 5 years ago.

  • 36. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 1, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Badger, I have a question for you. Do you think the lawsuit from the heterosexual couples in the UK who want CU's instead of marriage will help advance the cause of marriage equality? Do you think this will help bring about a law in the UK that will make civil marriage and CU's available to both LGBT couples and OS couples? It would certainly seem to be logical–make marriage and CU's both available to everybody, and those who want marriage can get a civil marriage, while those who only want a CU can have that, regardless of whether it is a gay couple or a straight couple.

  • 37. Badger  |  December 1, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Richard, that’s a very good question. I agree with you that both marriage and civil unions should be made available to everyone. However, these lawsuits have caused confusion in the minds of the public and I do have a fear that it may not be helpful. Public opinion has moved on to such an extent over the past few years that the idea of a “separate but equal” alternative to marriage for gays and lesbians is seen as inherently unfair. The majority of people in the UK do not see any threat from marriage equality and indeed find a lot of force in the argument that we should not create separate classes of people. They are ready to support marriage equality. The proposal being made by 2 of the 3 major political parties is to convert all existing civil partnerships to marriage and going forward to allow anyone subject to age of consent and consanguinity rules, to marry.
    However, straight couples complaining about their inability to enter into civil partnerships has now raised some doubts in people’s minds about whether civil partnerships really do amount to “second class” status. If that were the case, the argument goes, surely straight couples wouldn’t sue to enter such an institution, so maybe civil partnerships are not such a bad idea after all.
    I think there are some good arguments as to why civil partnerships should exist as an alternative to marriage for everyone but they have not been well made. The risk is that there is a groundswell of support at the moment for marriage equality and my fear is that we may start to divert attention from the well-supported arguments for marriage equality if we are not careful.

  • 38. Isa  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:13 am

    I'm excited about this, but not holding my breath. They've managed to not have civil unions here for years now. But it would be great if they could finally get at least that passed–then we'll just have to wait like everyone else for DOMA to be overturned…

  • 39. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Curiosity question. Are both Illinois houses voting today? Could it be that simple?

    Supplementary question. It would seem that NOM has been caught flat-footed, with no time to rally the troops, stage a bus tour, or fundraise.

    It would be wonderful if it passes. Not marriage, but a win nevertheless.

  • 40. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I guess that second question wasn't a question.

  • 41. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:47 am

    From what I've read, only the House is "iffy" about the Civil Unions bill. If it passes the House today, it would go immediately to the Senate for a vote. The IL Senate is expected to pass the bill with no problem. And the Governor has promised to sign it. (He even supports full marriage equality!)

    The struggle all along was getting enough votes in the state house. I think NOM (as well as much of the state) was caught flat footed by the fact that this will FINALLY come up for a vote. The bill has been in the works for literally years now, and many people expected it to simply fade away and die. (Its predecessor did.) So NOM was given little notice to do their dirty work because Representative Harris, the bill's sponsor, only just decided to call for the vote a week or so ago.

  • 42. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:18 am

    This video is from the live blog…..<3…Ronnie:

    UPDATE 2 (12:15 p.m.): Not all religious institutions are opposed to civil unions. At the capitol earlier today, two dozen clergy members presented a signed statement from over 300 of their Illinois colleagues in support of SB 1716. Rev. Suzanne Anderson-Hurdle from Romeoville said that support for gay couples does not stand in contradiction to her beliefs. Watch it below:…!

  • 43. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Here is the link to the blog…..<3…Ronnie:

  • 44. Tomato  |  November 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    More and more!

    UU churches have been performing marriages since 1959.

  • 45. Michelle Evans  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:22 am

    I agree that civil unions are a sideways step. If this passes, then there is much less incentive to pass full marriage equality in this state.

  • 46. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:54 am

    No, this bill is not the ideal. The LGBT community in IL would dearly love to have full marriage equality. But saying this bill is a sideways step is just plain wrong.

    We certainly don't look at other states that have civil unions and think the step was worthless. We count those as victories on the long, arduous road to full marriage equality.

    And in very practical terms, this bill is much needed in IL. We only have a shoddy domestic partnership registry that has little legal power to do what it says. It is far far from adequate in terms of benefits. (You have to live together for a year prior to your partner getting health benefits, for example. Try telling a "just married" couple that their healthcare doesn't transfer because they kept separate residences before marriage.)

    This is a huge, huge step forward for all gay men and lesbians in IL who haven't seen a single thing happen on the relationship-recognition front in years.

  • 47. Matt  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:12 am

    I agree with Rebecca. Architecturally speaking, you can't build a skyscraper without putting a good foundation in the ground first. Full marriage equality should still be the goal but civil unions work as a stepping stone to get there, AND they work to show how ultimately, only full equality under the law will suffice because of the inequities between state and federal law.

  • 48. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Hope it gets passed for our "Rebecca in Chicago" !

    …so true "Try telling a “just married” couple that their healthcare doesn’t transfer because they kept separate residences before marriage…" I just had to prove been "living together with my partner for at least 1 year to sign up for benefits. What about Christian ethics of not living together or having sex before marriage? These laws and folk-ways are so absurd!

  • 49. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:21 am

    ps. if this was passed in UT I would be ECSTATIC!

  • 50. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:23 am

    If it were passed in Utah I would come back home!

  • 51. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:25 am

    My Gosh! I didn't know you were from Lehi!

  • 52. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:28 am

    oops…LOL! I am REALLY tired and emotionally spent today. *sigh* not sure where I got "Lehi" from….

  • 53. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Thanks for the support Gregory! I need it considering how much they're keeping us on the edge all day!

    I agree with you. It's the epitome of irony that, in order to get domestic partner benefits, we must "live in sin" (as my girlfriend says jokingly) for a year first! Oh, the hypocrisy!

  • 54. Ann S.  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:39 am

    I believe it's the same here in California. Opposite sex couples aren't required to do this.

  • 55. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Hi Ann and Rebecca IC! …its not a Utah thing(1 year rule)…most business here won't allow any benefits no matter how long together…its specifically a requirement from my employer. I was rather annoyed at that stipulation when signed up for insurance…but then I decided progress is progress….Like Illinois is going through…if this passes, still a step in the right direction.


  • 56. Ann S.  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Gregory, from your company's perspective they probably want to know that your relationship is serious. You are unable to prove it by getting married, unfortunately, so I guess this is their substitute. It's a shame that you had to jump through that additional hurdle, but I can sort of understand it.


  • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:39 am

    thx 4 hug! needed it! Back at you! Been a bit melancholy for several days. Coming out of it though : )

  • 58. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Progress in the right direction. This video might help.

  • 59. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Lovely video (and LOVELY person, Mary Bonauto) Thank you LLB –

  • 60. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:16 am


    Any official legal recognition is progress. If this is the best that Illinois can do right now, and it is not vetoed, as it was in Hawaii, it counts as a vote FOR, as opposed to a vote AGAINST. And a defeat for NOM &Co.

  • 61. Richard A. Jernigan  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Look at what happened in VT, and in DC. They had DP's and CU's first, and now have full marriage equality. And I believe the same thing happened in CT, NH, MA, and IA.

  • 62. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:22 am


  • 63. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Step one, DP/CUs become legal and nothing bad happens to marriages. Step two, same-sex partnerships are no longer the scary "other" in the minds of most people. Step three, marriage equality. NOM keeps arguing that step one isn't true.

  • 64. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:56 am

    NOM's Underpants Theory:

    Step one – Gays get married.

    Step two – ???


    Still waiting to hear Brown's explication of step two.

  • 65. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I think step two is OS couples stop procreating…right?

  • 66. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Hmmm…. still not exactly sure how that works… particularly considering how much procreating goes on BEFORE marriage.

  • 67. anonygrl  |  December 1, 2010 at 2:31 am

    The NOT underpants theory would have step 2 be "billions of years pass, the universe collapses in on itself and all life ends as the stars go out".

    In fact, I am going to run with that theory… gay marriage leads ultimately to the death of the universe.

    Please note, that not allowing gay marriage does the exact same thing in the exact same time frame.

  • 68. Straight Ally #3008  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:19 am

    @Felyx: One thing's for sure, the last step for NOM is and always will be, "Profit!"

  • 69. Joe  |  December 1, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    As to the universe, it's expected that in about 10 billion years the sun will expand and go supernova, the expansion will overtake nearly all the planets in the solar system, and the increased gravity will suck in the others.

    But well be gone by then. Cause in three billion years our galaxy will collide with the andromeda galaxy and throw all our orbits off.

  • 70. JonT  |  December 2, 2010 at 5:27 am

    'As to the universe, it’s expected that in about 10 billion years the sun will expand and go supernova, the expansion will overtake nearly all the planets in the solar system, and the increased gravity will suck in the others. '

    If I may… 🙂

    It will actually be in about 5 billion years. Also, our sun is way too small to go supernova. What *will* happen is that the core will start burning helium instead of hydrogen. Surrounding the core, will be a shell of burning hydrogen, ever expanding outward as more helium becomes available (and burns) in the core. (Hydrogen fusion creates helium…)

    The sun will expand, exiting it's main sequence phase and entering it's red giant phase.

    It's diameter will grow to encompass Venus' orbit, and might reach Earth's as well. Either way, the Earth will be a burned cinder, stripped of it's atmosphere by then 🙂

    'But well be gone by then. Cause in three billion years our galaxy will collide with the andromeda galaxy and throw all our orbits off.'

    We will collide with Andromeda in about 3 billion years. But space is huge. It's possible our star system won't even notice, since we are kind of in the 'boonies' with regard to our galaxy..

    And hey, we might still be around in some form… Should be a good party 🙂

  • 71. Ray in MA  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Nope Ricky,

    MA and Iowa did not go the CU route.

    Got out of Jail and proceeded directly to Go.

  • 72. Richard A. Jernigan  |  November 30, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    My goof. But even CU's are a start, especially once they are in place and people begin to see the inequities that still remain until we have full marriage equality nationwide. And that will be better than what we may be facing here in NC. The Repugnicants have already said that a "marriage amendment" is the first priority of the new legislative sessions in NC in January after getting the state's economy "fixed."

  • 73. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    What do you want to bet the economy will prove to be too tough for the Repudi-can'ts so they decide to tackle 'social issues' first!

    I am exceptionally skeptical that something as complex as the economy can be 'fixed', social programs continued to be funded and all this while lowering taxes across the board…

    Gay hating on the other hand is really easy.

  • 74. Catherine  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:00 am

    We have Civil Unions here in New Jersey. The state congress tried to get marriage equality passed before Christie was sworn in as governor but couldn't manage it. Christie has sworn he won't ever sign such a bill. While I had hoped to hold out for full marriage equality, my partner and I decided that we needed the legal recognition of our relationship for benefit purposes. So, we are being married (that's how we are treating it) on December 18th! The minister from my church will perform the ceremony, my daughter is the flower girl and our friends will all be in attendance as we pledge ourselves to each other. For me, this is a step forward and I'm very happy to be able to have at least this recognition. We will always consider this our wedding even if we have to "convert" our civil union to a marriage some time in the future – as I hope we will be able to do some day.

  • 75. Lesbians Love Boies  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:02 am

    Congratulations. It is a wedding and I personally see it as you and your fiance are getting Married!

  • 76. Kathleen  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Congratulations, Catherine. Wishes for a joyous day.

  • 77. Ann S.  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Congratulations! It sounds as though it will be a lovely wedding.

  • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Congratulations on your upcoming wedding. BZ and I are continuing the fight here in NC, because we are hoping that our CT marriage certificate will enable us to be grandfathered in when NC finally does begin recognizing out of state same-gender marriages.

  • 79. Ronnie  |  December 1, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Yes congratulations….<3…Ronnie

  • 80. Alan E.  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Lunch time. just checking in.

  • 81. Carpool Cookie  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:50 am

    All I can say is, being unpredictable and inconsistent is a trademark of The Insane

  • 82. Alan E.  |  November 30, 2010 at 6:53 am

    DADT survey reesults via <a>Joe.My.God.

    <a title="View DADT Survey Findings on Scribd" href="; rel="nofollow">DADT Survey Findings

  • 83. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:12 am

    MINOR UPDATE: The version of the bill in the IL Senate has c;leared committee by a 6-2 vote. This means the Senate can vote on the bill immediately if the House passes it.

  • 84. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  November 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    little woot!

  • 85. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:18 am

    GIANT WOOT!!!!

  • 86. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:45 am

    DADT Report

  • 87. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:35 am

    whoa! 267 pages….itching to read….busy at work though… : / Thank for posting!

  • 88. isa  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:17 am

    the other thing about this is that lots of couples in IL are already married somewhere else (Iowa's just next door!) so this would mean that we get some of the protections that were supposed to come with our vows in our home state. Now if they could just hurry up and DO IT already!

  • 89. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Sec. Gates's blunt message to the Senate and Sen. McCain

    McCain will have his say in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. After that, he has one vote. He needs 40 to filibuster. If the moderates do the right thing, that threat can be neutralized.

  • 90. Felyx  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Does anyone have a live feed of the Illinois Senate voting?

  • 91. karen in kalifornia  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Well? What happened?
    I heard that 3 equality supportive votes in the Assembly didn't bother to show up.
    Who are these clowns?

  • 92. NetAmigo  |  November 30, 2010 at 9:47 am

    NOM is basically correct. Civil unions will lead to gays and everyone else using the word marriage to describe gay unions. The California Supreme Court recognized that gay civil unions are marriage in the Prop. 8 ruling. So did Walker's decision. NOM will oppose anything that benefits or encourages gay parents and their children because they are religious bigots and religious fanatics. Time is not on NOM's side. Neither is the scientific mental health community. And the general public is not far behind.

  • 93. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 9:52 am

    UPDATE 7 (5:37 p.m.): State Rep. Ron Stephens (R-Decatur), the first to stand in opposition, suggests that the Greek and Roman civilizations fell because of "open homosexuality." Honestly.

    (me) interesting….one of NOM's sheeple…I mean followers said the same exact thing on their Fascist Destroy……I mean "Protect" marriage Facebook page……I guess this state rep who is supposed to be educated doesn't know that it is already LEGAL to be LGBT in America….or "open homosexuality" as he puts it…..what does this have to do with Civil Unions?….I'll give you a hint…..NOTHING!!!!… has everything to do with that Fascist Porcine wanting to force us back into the closets against our will…that's really American of you Rep. Stephens…..I'm holding 2 fingers up for you….can you guess which ones?….(Hint: not a thumb, not a pinky, a certainly not a ring finger…you couldn't afford to put ring on it)…… <3…Ronnie

  • 94. Matt  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:07 am

    That quote of Stephens is a common talking point, but one that ignores the vast difference between being gay in ancient Greco-Roman times and in 21st century America.

    Plus, I'm pretty sure that 300-odd years of political instability and a bloke named Atilla the Hun had more to do with the fall of the Roman Empire than we glbt folks.

    I'm listening to the chamber's broadcast now, and with the number of congratulatory comments being directed to the bill's sponsor, it seems like it's going to pass.

  • 95. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:09 am

    They certainly do give us credit for many big world events – don't they?

  • 96. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:20 am

    I just love the complete arrogance that comes out of the anti-gay side here in America…playing on their illogical & irrational stupidity….So the Greek & Roman blah blah blah…they were just 2 nations…well today in 21 century…we now have 10 countries..i.e. 10 NATIONS….that have legalized Marriage Equality…why haven't they fallen?….Oh that's right because AMERICA is center of the world…"God"s country….even though American (the country is only 234 years old)…better yet…"God" will destroy the world when one state legalizes it…but wait…then why didn't "God" do it when Massachusetts became the perfect image of America?…or Vermont, NH, CT, Iowa, DC (our nations capital)…How come "God" didn't bring his wrath down on the Coquille Nation when those original Americans legalized Marriage Equality within their tribe?…..I gve the anti-gay side a hint…..


  • 97. Ann S.  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:24 am

    They would say that those nations and states haven't fallen yet, but they will any second now . . . just wait . . .

  • 98. BK  |  December 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    don't stop waiting yet! keep waiting . . . and if it doesn't happen this decade, it will the next! Just you wait and see . . .

  • 99. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Gee, while we laying blame for such catastrophes on the doorstep of the homosexuals, might as well add the homeless, unemployment, drug use, etc. Such a good group of scapegoats. Gosh, if you'd all just give up the nonsense that homosexuality is not a choice, all of the ills of the world would disappear. Such power you have. Such ridiculous thinking by those who CINOs, as Richard A. Jernigan refers to them.

    Still waiting to hear about Monday.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 100. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Someone was asking for a video link. Audio and video links here.

  • 101. Owen  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:00 am

    I'm reading an interesting book about chemistry throughout world history that suggests the Romans may have been weakened by lead poisoning because they used lead pipes as well as a lead sweetener in some of their foodstuffs.

    But nevermind that – THE SCARY GAYS ARE RESPONSIBLE!

  • 102. Alan E.  |  November 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    It was each other's "lead pipes" they were playing with…

  • 103. Matt  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:26 am

    SB1716 has PASSED the IL state house, 61-52!

  • 104. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:26 am


  • 105. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:56 am

    times 100!!!

  • 106. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:30 am

    I can't watch what is going on right now..but here is the live feed

  • 107. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:03 am

    they've moved on to other measures….

  • 108. Ronnie  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:32 am

    HAHA!!!!…take that NOMoes…..hehehehe…<3…Ronnie

  • 109. JonT  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Excellent! A good gay day 🙂

  • 110. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:33 am


  • 111. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Congratulations Illinois!

  • 112. Isa  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Yay!!! My mom and her wife have been married for 10 years and FINALLY will have some legal protections! As JonT said, what a good gay day!!

  • 113. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:57 am

    That's lovely to hear Isa : )

  • 114. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Congrats to your Moms Isa!

  • 115. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:04 am

    good for Huffington to post right away : )

  • 116. Justin  |  November 30, 2010 at 11:47 am

    YES! NOM fails again! I'm so happy. Congrats, Illinois.

  • 117. DaveP  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Well done, Illinois!! : )

  • 118. Peter  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Earlier reports had a link to NOM's action alert. These links no longer work. Did NOM erase this action alert? Anyone get a screen grab?

  • 119. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    This is from the link on the action alert for NOMExposed…….

    Which now they want apple to put the Manhattan Project back…which Apple will NEVER do!

  • 120. Kathleen  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    I like that they put "app" in quotes and had to explain what it is. They're so "with it."

  • 121. Sagesse  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Um… LLB…. that would be the Manhatten Declaration, not the Manhatten Project. God forbid NOM should become a nuclear power :).

  • 122. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    No, but that might be the best laugh I have had all day!

  • 123. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    tee hee!

  • 124. BK  |  November 30, 2010 at 7:58 pm

    Haha bye-bye San Fran…

  • 125. Ray in MA  |  November 30, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    This is not Equality. I'm not impressed.

  • 126. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Ray, please put things into perspective. This is the most important thing that's happened for gay rights in IL in my lifetime!

  • 127. BK  |  November 30, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    He *is* in Massachussetts, so… But for everybody in states where there are no marriage OR civil union rights for lgbt people, this is a great occasion. 🙂

  • 128. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 1, 2010 at 12:34 am

    "This is the most important thing that’s happened for gay rights in IL in my lifetime!" WOOT!!!!!!

  • 129. Ray in MA  |  December 1, 2010 at 10:24 am

    BUt I'm thrilled that your happy!!!

  • 130. Rebecca in Chicago  |  November 30, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Yay Yay Yay!!!!!!

    I was in class and missed all the action, but I'm soooo happy!

    My girlfriend and I just talked about having a wedding when we get our civil union!

  • 131. Ann S.  |  November 30, 2010 at 3:37 pm


  • 132. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  December 1, 2010 at 12:27 am

    !!!!!!!!! : D

  • 133. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  December 1, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    So happy that those in IL will now have some legal protection for their unions. Definitely a step forward in my opinion. Wonder how long before NOM will be attemping to get a repeal on the next ballot in IL. Probably already have that option going. After all, can't let those activist legislators make laws that the good people of IL should have the right to vote on, just like those activist judges in IA had no right to make SSM a law. Hopefully, not as easy to get a ballot measure passed in IL as it is in CA.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 134. BK  |  December 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    I already posted this under the 'Disqualifying Judge Reinhardt' thread, but here it is again for all you who may want to know:

    “In Illinois, where Democrats dominate both state legislative chambers (and will next year, even after new lawmakers are seated) the votes were split: 32 to 24 in the State Senate on Wednesday, and 61 to 52 in the House a day earlier.

    Supporters of gay rights widely praised Illinois’s decision, but many said the eventual goal remained legalizing same-sex marriage, not a separate civil union system.”

    Wonderful news! Now all that’s left is to sign it into law! I’m so proud of (many of the) lawmakers there. Obviously not the ones who voted no, but… 🙂 Three cheers for equality!

  • 135. BK  |  December 1, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Oh, and btw, h/t to Dave in ME for finding the article! 🙂

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!