Cook County Board Votes to Recognize Same Sex Partnerships

The Illinois Leader ^ | 6-1-2003 | The Leader-Chicago Bureau

[unspun]

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (chicago@illinoisleader.com)  - Opposite sex domestic partnerships not to be included, clerk's office says

Rev Bob VandenBosch, lobbyist for Concerned Christian Americans said today is a "sad day for Cook County and the state of Illinois."

CHICAGO -- Cook County Board of Commissioners voted today in a 13 to 3 vote to set up a registry for same-sex couples, the first such countywide registry in Illinois.

The certificates will be available to Cook County residents in 90 days, but only to couples who are of the same sex. No heterosexual domestic partnerships will be authorized to receive the certificate according to the Cook County Clerk's office.

Cook County Clerk David Orr's office has been preparing for this development. Scott Burnham, spokesman for the Clerk, said today that those who are applying will need to pay $30 and both of the partners will need to come in personally to obtain the domestic partnership certificate.

"When the couple comes in, they will need to fulfill some requirements before obtaining the certificate," Burnham said. "They will need to swear that they are not legally married to someone of the opposite sex, that they are living together in a committed relationship, and they are both over eighteen years of age."

Burnham said that the certificate will provide private sector employers with proof that their employees are in a relationship, opening the way for health care insurance for the other person in the relationship.

“The only purpose that I can see is to incrementally create a new form of marriage in Cook County and then work to expand it to the entire state. It’s a step toward giving rights and benefits to couples who do not qualify for marriage,” Kathy Valente, state director of Concerned Women for America of Illinois said.

The ordinance, which was sponsored by Commissioners Mike Quigley, John Stroger and Mayor Richard M. Daley's brother, John Daley, easily passed the board with one "present" vote. Commissioner Carl Hansen spoke out against the ordinance.

"This is a sad day for Cook County, and for the state of Illinois," Rev. Bob VandenBosch of Villa Park said today. VandenBosch has lobbied against preferential rights for homosexuals at the state capitol for over ten years.

"This ordinance today only muddies up the waters on the issue of marriage," VandenBosch, on the staff of the Quentin Road Baptist Church, said today. "How will these couples register, how will they un-register their partnerships?"

Burnham said that the couples will un-register in a similar way that they register -- likely to be simply filing paperwork, "nothing as complicated as getting a divorce."'

Will bi-sexuals be allowed to register with more than one person in their relationships?

"You need to call Quigley's office for that answer," Burnham said. "I am assuming that only two persons will be allowed to be included in a domestic partnership, just as it is with marriage certificates."

Questions about inheritance provisions, medical care authorization and asset disbursement in case of partnership termination has not been clearly outlined either, the clerk's office said.

"The homosexual movement has always wanted preferential treatment, and now they have it in Cook County," VandenBosch said. "The only hope for marriage to be protected in Illinois is for the church to begin an outcry against this. With the Supreme Court's decision last week, and this decision today, maybe onlookers will finally get involved in protecting our children's future."

_______________ What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this story? Write us at letters@illinoisleader.com.

[unspun]

Woops, there it goes.

[BlessedBeGod]

The certificates will be available to Cook County residents in 90 days, but only to couples who are of the same sex. No heterosexual domestic partnerships will be authorized to receive the certificate according to the Cook County Clerk's office.

They didn't learn anything from the recent Supreme Court ruling, did they?

[LiteKeeper]

If I am not mistaken, this does not fall within the purvue of a County Government. It is probably symbolic, at best.

[unspun]

FYI - Notice that the same status was refused to a heterosexual (or non-sexual) pair sharing the same household.

If it gets to "marriage" it may be time to take up arms.

[garbanzo]

The homosexual movement has always wanted preferential treatment, and now they have it in Cook County

What exactly is preferential here? It doesn't seem to confer any special legal benefits.

[unspun]

It has very real ramifications, grimly enough. This is from an earlier email from CWA Illinois:

CWA Urges Cook County To Stop Homosexual Registry
Commissioners Attempt To Overturn State Law

June 23, 2003 For More Info:
For Immediate Release Kathy Valente 708-895-4570

On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, the Cook County Human Rights Committee is scheduled to vote on a resolution which would establish a registry for homosexual couples. Concerned Women for America of Illinois opposes this measure.

Same-sex marriage by another name?

“The only purpose that I can see is to incrementally create a new form of marriage in Cook County and then work to expand it to the entire state. It’s a step toward giving rights and benefits to couples who do not qualify for marriage,” said CWA of Illinois State Director Kathy Valente.

The Cook County Clerk’s office is ready to recognize homosexual couples by giving domestic partnership certificates for a $30 fee. That same $30 also buys a marriage license.

Illinois state law defines marriage as one man and one woman only. Could Cook County be taking a bold step toward defying state law? The sponsor of the resolution seems to think so.

"Something like this we think would help the state move forward on changing state law." (A quote from Commissioner Mike Quigley in a June 18, 2003 Sun Times article.)

“Marriage between one man and one woman has always been the bedrock of any healthy society. Commissioners may think they’re simply extending benefits, but what they’re really doing is dynamiting that foundation. And our children are most likely to feel the aftershock. I strongly urge a No vote,” said Mrs. Valente.

--30--

Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.


Concerned Women for America of Illinois
P. O. Box 188 u Palos Heights, IL, 60463u Phone: 708-371-7810u Phone: 708-371-7896u www.cwfa.org

[Ed_in_NJ]

UNFAIR to straight shack-ups!

(also to soloists ["I'm seriously committed to myself" types.])

[Servant of the Nine]

Anybody can recognize a same sex relationship.
The question is what are you gonna do about it?

So9

[BritExPatInFla]

Take up arms? Simply because two men or two women can marry in CIVIL (Note, not religious) ceremonies? Are we really going to fall into a civil war over that, I have a feeling you won't have a lot of comrades in arms.....

[unspun]

What exactly is preferential here? It doesn't seem to confer any special legal benefits.

From the article above:

Burnham said that the certificate will provide private sector employers with proof that their employees are in a relationship, opening the way for health care insurance for the other person in the relationship.

I believe it also has ramifications in housing.

[unspun]

Take up arms? Simply because two men or two women can marry in CIVIL (Note, not religious) ceremonies? Are we really going to fall into a civil war over that, I have a feeling you won't have a lot of comrades in arms....

A nation so twisted to call homosexual relations a marriage is twisted enough to rewrite (wrongly) whatever it chooses in life. But of course, it is already so terribly twisted, in condoning the murder of millions of babies in the name of "reproductive" rights.

What is worse, the enslavement of millions, or the murder of millions plus the falsification of what is the fundamental buliding block of the society of all the living (marriage and family)?

It may come to taking up arms, if moralistic people choose to move to a state which would preserve moral sanity and this state is forced to do otherwise. That is feasible.

[glock rocks]

pay $30 and both of the partners will need to come in personally to obtain the domestic partnership certificate.

certificate good for 50% off at KY Trapeze and Saddle Emporium.
Limited offer. Act Now!

[Wil H]

Surely this is is unconstitutional on the basis that the "compelling need for diversity" in a relationship requires that there be more than one sex represented.....:-)

[garbanzo]

Why is that "preferential"? Married couples get the same benefits for doing essentially the same thing - signing a piece of paper in official manner.

[BillyBoy]

13-3?!?! Chicagolady mentioned early that there were at least seven county members who CLAIMED to oppose this. Who caved? There are five Republicans on the city council, two of 'em must have sided with the 'RATs. It better not be Elizabeth Ann Doody Gorman, she won the primary by running as a conservative but has been playing footsie with the 'RATs lately.

I gotta get out of this looney socialist county ASAP...

[IronJack]

In the avant-garde of perversion. Let's see who can get to Gomorrah quickest!

[garbanzo]

I gotta get out of this looney socialist county ASAP...

Saudi Arabia seems to have what you're looking for.

[Ronin]

I think you may be unpleasantly surprised.

I regard civil war, or the fragmentation of the United States of America into two or three different nations as very small, very real possibilities.

You live in Florida, which along with the rest of the East and West Coast makes up the "progressive" (I would use a different word) portion of the United States -- the rest of the country, especially the Heartland, is very emotionally involved in this issue, and they don't like what they are hearing and reading.

By itself, Gay marriage may not be that significant of an issue, but in combination with others, it has the potential to be the final straw that breaks the camel's back.

Frist is talking about a Constitutional Amendment. There are two ways to do that, one involving a Constitutional Convention, and if that happens I won't make any bets on what comes out of it. But I don't think it will be pretty.

[betty boop]

If it gets to "marriage" it may be time to take up arms....

Well dear Brother A, it has been thoughtfully (and justly, IMHO) observed that the Second Amendment is the last line of defense of the sovereignty of the people -- which is the type of political order the Framers thought they had secured in the Constitution, and why the RKBA shows up second only to religious liberty, free speech, and free association in the Bill of Rights.

Of course, we must bear in mind that not all people really want sovereignty, or even understand what it is. It really does require responsibility and self-reliance. That scares the hell out of a lot of people, these days. Or so it appears.

Some people just prefer to live on the ol' Plantation, and let Ol' Massah take care of them, arrange their lives for them in specific detail. I don't have a clue what to do about that problem. (I gather that some people these days are just "slaves by nature"....)

In any case, I don't think anybody in his right mind would relish a second civil war. The "bright boys and girls" over at Handgun, Inc. and the U.S. Senate are alert to this danger; which is probably why they want to disarm America. They say they fear the "crime problem." But that's a lie. The truth is they fear their own people.