Eric Zorn's Chicago Tribune column Change of Subject tackled the issue of religious refusal as it relates to same-sex marriage. In looking ahead to a time when the freedom to marry is granted to all couples throughout the country, religious groups have argued that individual's religious beliefs will be infringed upon, if they are business owners whose services are solicited by a same-sex couple wanting to wed. They believe that religious business owners should be allowed to discriminate based on their religion.

Opponents of SB 10, the marriage bill, fear that Illinois churches will be forced to participate in gay weddings, even though it is against their religion. Zorn points out that there is nothing in the marriage bill that would force churches to participate in same-sex marriages:

Indeed the proposal notes explicitly that all "organization(s) whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion" remain "free to choose which marriages it will solemnize," and free to refuse to offer their facilities for such marriages without fear of being sued.

Opponents of gay marriage say they want more — the restoration of the rights of small business owners to discriminate against gay couples if their "sincerely held religious beliefs" so dictate; the ability for employers to deny married same-sex couples the benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples.

Read the entire article.

The Chicago Tribune has an editorial today about the freedom to marry for all Illinois couples. In light of the recent New Jersey court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and on the heels of the death of DOMA, The Chicago Tribune is urging Illinois legislators to call the bill for a vote in the General Assembly.

It's time for a vote. It's time to get lawmakers on record.
Independent polls consistently show more than half of Americans support allowing same-sex couples to marry. That's the law in 14 states. The shift in favor is clear, and the trend seems inevitable: 70 percent of people under the age of 30 support gay marriage.

Under legislative rules, the bill in the House would require a supermajority, 71 votes, to pass and be effective immediately. There is another course: Amend the bill so it takes effect in mid-2014, which would require a simple majority of 60 votes and another roll call in the Senate.

Read the entire article.

The State Journal-Register posted an editorial urging the Illinois State House of Representatives to pass the marriage bill during veto session, which starts this week.  The article makes clear the distinction between a civil union and a marriage and how the civil union law does not provide the same protections that marriage would.

Illinois’ civil union law, which many view as a progressive victory, was a good step in the right direction when it went into effect in June 2011.

But the law fails to give same-sex couples equal rights and actually subjects them to any number of social and legal indignities every day. They find themselves in limbo — recognized as partners, but not as spouses with legal standing in the event of emergencies; acknowledged as two people in a committed relationship, but unable to identify themselves as married.

Read the entire article.