Posted on 07/01/2003 3:49:34 PM PDT by 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." |
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.
I'm sure that the relevance is how TEMPORARY man's laws seem to be.
No. I get to use exactly, and no more than, what every other man gets to use. Likewise my wife gets to use exactly, and no more than, what every other woman gets to use. We don't have any special rights and don't see why anyone else would need special rights.
1. To eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation -- with laws written to apply equally to both straights and gays.
Sexual orientation is a myth. All behavior is chosen and some behaviors are approved and healthy (heterosexual relations between a man and a woman married to each other) and others are not (homosexual relations or murder)
2. To decriminalize private sexual expression between consenting gays that is already legal between consenting straights.
A 'gay' already has the right to perform any sex act that I have the right to perform. Why does he/she need special rights?
Just because he chooses to perform perversity doesn't mean that we have to approve it. If we approve his perversion then what do we say to the child molester, the beastiophile or the necrophiliac. None of these behaviors is healthy to the individual or to society and none of them should be approved.
3. To achieve benefits and legal recognition of gay relationships that are on par with those associated with straight relationships.
Until a 'gay' relationship can produce (without external help) children then it doesn't qualify as a real relationship. Every union of a man and a woman can theoretically produce children. If they choose to do so or not has no relation to the fact that they could. Two men, or two women can never produce offspring.
Marriage as an institution exists only to promote the healthy rearing of the next generation. Only a household of one man married to one woman is the best environment for that to happen.
Apples and oranges comparison here. There are biological differences between men and women (or haven't you noticed) that make them both ideally suited to be married to each other and horribly incompatible in public restrooms (rape, public sexual behavior, lack of privacy etc). Whereas the difference between mentally healthy people (heterosexual) and 'homosexuals' is just chosen behavior
This argument is ridiculous. If you test a relationship by its ability to produce children, you are invalidating a great many loving straight relationships.
Only relatively recently have we been able to determine the fertility of each member of a union. The only union that has any chance of procreating is a man and a woman. That is what marriage is based on, the potential for reproduction. Encouraging this reproduction is what all the marriage traditions and laws are about. We can not force people to have children but we must preserve the incentive for them to have children. Our future depends on it.
me->"Marriage as an institution exists only to promote the healthy rearing of the next generation."
you->Well, then. Why don't people just get divorced once they've accomplished that?
Because traditionally the grandparents helped with the raising of the children. All marriage laws derive from and provide benefit to the children.
Try telling your wife some time that the only reason you married her was so that she could have your kids. That's worth at least a week on the couch...
I did. We had some very great 'consumating' activities after that. She knew when we were dating that I was looking for a life partner and a mother for my children. Deep down, every woman wants to be a mother and seeks the proper father for her children. Especially in the area where I live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.