Talk:Same-sex marriage in Illinois

Exclusive pro-same-sex bias
This article is blatantly non-neutral, exclusively covering the advancement (or mere non-advancement) of pro-same-sex legislation, and utterly omitting the existence of anything contrary, despite contrary legislation actually not only being introduced, but passed, signed, and in force for the last 15 years. Even the title is a non-neutral, implying that the goal to be focused on is "Recognition of same-sex unions in Illinois" in a state that has never recognized same-sex unions, instead of "Marriage and civil union law in Illinois" or "Status of same-sex unions in Illinois" or something neutral like that. Before I rewrote the first sentence, the article started with simply "Illinois does not currently have a civil union law." as if it were the of LGBT marriage politics in Illinois or something. It still begins with a 2005 survey &mdash; a bit old considering the subject, especially considering that this article was created in December 2007, and the survey was performed December 2004, so it was already 3 years behind when it was added to this article. (Unfortunately, the same surveys dated 2006–2010 don't seem to address this topic.) Even when citing the survey, the article pointed out the two types of "yes" responses yet omitted the "no", as if opposition was just a side issue one could calculate later if one was interested that sort of irrelevant response. The article then exclusively discusses 2 failed/stalled bills from 2007 on. This article needs the history of contrary legislation, particularly the Marriage Protection Act, since it's actually the law in force. The 2009 versions of the bills still have a chance of coming to a vote in the current 96th General Assembly, but the claim of one bill's status has, as its source, a Chicago Tribune article with no relation, and the other's status has no citation at all. The claim that governor Pat Quinn supports the act is a WP:BLP claim whose citation is a broken link on a pro-gay-rights website. In short: The title needs to be changed to a neutral subject, rather than implying a one-way march towards someone's idea of manifest destiny in which the opposing elephant in the room is either characterized as an unwelcome delay or simply omitted as being out of scope; and the treatment of the issue needs to be likewise neutrally scoped. --Closeapple (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Statutory Text Section
User:Rrius, why are you deleting this section? The page talks about proposed legislation, and so a brief section on the current law is relevant. As a gay citizen of the State of Illinois, I think people have a right to see what exactly the current law says. This is not a long section and it is pertinent to the topic. Please explain your rationale for deleting. Thank you.

This is the text that User:Rrius is deleteing:

Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act --Denovo1 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sec. 201. Formalities.) A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
 * (Sec. 212. Prohibited Marriages.) (a) The following marriages are prohibited:...(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex.
 * (Sec. 213. Validity.) All marriages contracted...outside this State, that were valid at the time of the contract or subsequently validated by the laws of the place in which they were contracted or by the domicile of the parties, are valid in this State, except where contrary to the public policy of this State'.
 * (Sec. 213.1. Same‑sex marriages; public policy.) A marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of this State.
 * As I said in my edit summary, it is enough to say it is not legal. Quoting three sections of statutory language is completely unnecessary to make that point. This is short article, so going into such detail to make a very simple point is gives WP:Undue weight to it. I moved the link to a ref, so people who want to read the language can click through to find it. -Rrius (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment you made was totally uncalled for:
 * 17:56, 20 June 2010 Rrius (talk | contribs) (6,442 bytes) (→Current Statutory Provisions: yet another idiotic use of boldface) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denovo1 (talk • contribs)
 * Then I retract the word "idiotic". Can we get on with the real discussion instead of taking offense at nonsense? -Rrius (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to say? It seems you have already decided that it's going to be your way.  Would my contribution make any difference to you?  I think, perhaps, it's better left alone for others to weigh in on.  --Denovo1 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda figured you'd respond to my points. In any event, I'd like to propose a compromise. My main problem is that it is unnecessarily cumulative to quote at length four different statutory provisions. Therefore, I propose the opening sentence be modified to read as follows:
 * Illinois does not recognize same-sex unions: state statute prohibits "marriages between 2 members of the same sex", and no provision is made for civil union or domestic partnership.
 * Let me know what you think. -Rrius (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for trying, but I personally think that would be too wordy for the intro. I think the intro reads well as it does now, especially the matter-of-fact style of the first sentence. I just thought that it would make sense to have a "Current Statute" section preceding the "Proposed Legislation" section to help put it into context, especially considering the "Proposed Legislation" section discusses a specific amendment to the current statute (see the second to last sentence). Also, the before and after style of a "current law" section and then a "proposed legislation" section just seems to be a logical sequence. Finally, I think that mixing the statutory text into the article, as you have proposed, no offense, would give the article a bias tone. On the other hand, the albeit formal style of listing the current statutory provisions would make it read more neutrally.

What if there were only two provisions, as below? Still too much?

Full Statutory Text: (750 ILCS 5/) Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act --Denovo1 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Current Marriage Statute
 * 750 ILCS 5/201. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
 * 750 ILCS 5/212. (a) The following marriages are prohibited:...(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex.
 * Yes, I do think it is too much. Prose is preferable to a list, and it takes up far more space than the text you are rejecting as too wordy. If you think the adding the text to the first sentence is too much, it could be created as a separate sentence. I should say at this point that I'm a lawyer. I say that not to try to awe or anything, but so that you may give some thought to the following: when you want to explain what the law is to someone, especially a non-lawyer, it is far better to explain what the law says than to throw some bits of statute at them. A simple sentence stating what the law says, including a quotation of clear language from the statute, is far more effective at communicating to the reader what the law says than a list of four bits of statute complete with inscrutable citation. I'd ask you to please work with me on coming up with normal prose that would do the job. Here is a new version:
 * Illinois does not recognize same-sex unions. State statute prohibits "marriages between 2 members of the same sex", and no provision is made for civil union or domestic partnership.
 * I realize that you think the the language makes the lead wordy, but it makes only slightly more sense to start a new section just for that sentence than it does to create section that presents too much legalese (and without context). Finally, please don't include the "==" for sections of proposed text on the talk page&mdash;it makes navigating the talk page confusing. -Rrius (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would consider putting the short summary in the intro, then starting a new section for current legislation, with the statutory wording above in that section. This article needs a current legislation section anyway; as I discussed in the previous Talk topic above, this article is in desperate need of covering the actual acts of the state that have really happened and become law, rather than the current implication in the article that only coverage of movement in a specific direction (and the direction that has been least effective in Illinois, no less) is worth mentioning. --Closeapple (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. That may be because you are using the vague word "legislation", which usually refers to bills before a legislature, but can also refer to laws that have been enacted by a legislature. If you are talking about the current state of the law, it's not clear why you think it appropriate to both say what the statute says (that SSM is not legal), then to quote the three ways it says it (one of which is spread over two different statutory provision). There really isn't much of a need to go into the state of the law so far as the ban on SSM is concerned, as it's pretty straight forward, but there is some call for talking about the anti-discrimination law, gay adoption law, and (IIRC) hate crimes law. -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that there doesn't seem to be any explanation of how the ban on SSM came about, yet there is a whole "Proposed legislation" section on (unsuccessful) bills to the opposite effect. Surely the ban on SSM has a political and legislative history as well.  As for adding the statute text: it seems to me that there should at least be an explanation that both in-state and out-of-state same-sex marriages are unrecognized under state law, and that same-sex marriage has been declared to be against public policy (which carries its own legal consequences). --Closeapple (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The statute as originally written already effectively banned SSM through section 201, but with the Hawaii "scare" about SSM in the mid nineties, they added the ban on recognition of out-of-state marriages and the explicit prohibition in section 212(a)(5) in May 1996. I can try to track down sources, but I figured by giving you as much as I can remember, you can try too. I will add a note about recognition of foreign marriages. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I've gone ahead and added a section on current law, please take a look and tell me what you think. -Rrius (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. Thanks for all your work.  --Denovo1 (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ACLU file suit against gay-marriage ban in Illinois

 * --Javaweb (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Covered now. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you --Javaweb (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Gay marriage now legal in Illinois
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/illinois-house-votes-gay-marriages-20795167 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-gay-marriage-illinois-20131105,0,7759837.story http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Illinois-Gay-Marriage-Vote-230660881.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.26.78 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, actually it isn't legal until the governor signs the bill and it goes into effect in June 2014. Moncrief (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I went ahead and kicked this page over to "Same-sex marriage in Illinois" in anticipation of Quinn signing the bill in the next few days. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 17:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems like a smart move to me. Moncrief (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also added a line to the opening sentence and a Chicago Tribune citation making clear that Governor Quinn will sign the bill, so same-sex marriage in Illinois is virtually certain. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 23:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)