Last week, state Sen. Heather Steans, a Chicago Democrat from the 7th district, introduced the Equal Marriage Act in the Illinois State Senate — the first time gay marriage has ever been addressed in Illinois’ highest legislative chamber. But are genuine progressive ideals the impetus for this legislation, or is it a Machiavellian bid for reelection?
Although the State Senate has never seen this kind of proposed legislation, it’s no stranger to the State House. State Rep. Greg Harris has spent the last two years incessantly introducing similar legislation, but never with any success. His most recent attempt was HB 0178, the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, which would, among other things, redefine marriage as a union between two persons instead of a man and a woman. Since March, though, the bill has slowly been dying in committee, where it is likely to remain.
Sen. Steans has come under fire because her bill is essentially just a Senate version of Harris’ failed one. Because all of Harris’ attempts have thus far proved futile, the Senate version isn’t expected to pick up much traction either. Instead of being a legitimate attempt at establishing marriage equality in Illinois, the bill has been considered a publicity stunt on Sen. Steans’ part.
Steans, whose district includes a portion of a prominent gay community, is facing a tough Democratic primary from Jim Madigan, the first openly gay man to run for the State Senate. Madigan has accused Steans of orchestrating a publicity stunt, the Equal Marriage Act, to woo the LGBT community, an important demographic in the race for the 7th district.
“If the civil union bill does not pass in the General Assembly in these final weeks of the legislative session, Sen. Steans will have to explain to voters and the LGBT community why she spent her time preparing a publicity opportunity rather than working to persuade legislators to pass the bill that was already teed up for her by two years of my community’s time, money and effort,” Madigan said in a press release.
Unfortunately for the LGBT community, Madigan’s assertion has some validity. Instead of spending time in Springfield ensuring the passage of Harris’ bill, Sen. Steans spent time working on her own bill, a carbon copy of the failed Harris bill. If Steans were truly working in the best interest of the LGBT community, it would have behooved her to have spent more time ensuring the success of the Harris bill before working on her own legislation.
So what does this mean for the gay community in Illinois? Nothing new. Though Illinois is home to many progressives who wave the liberal banner, gay marriage is fairly low on the realistic agenda in Springfield. The bill proposed by Steans is no exception. Her bill is expected to meet the same demise as the one it mimics.
This inconsistency is further compounded by public sentiment toward gay marriage. A 2005 study showed that nearly two-thirds of Illiniois residents support rights for same-sex couples; 31% of residents supported same-sex marriage, while 34% supported civil unions. Also, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn expressed his support of same-sex marriage earlier this year. Despite this support, little progress has been made. Illinoisans may have to accept that, no matter how much perceived support for the gay community exists, the state’s politicians seem to care more about winning votes by advocating marriage equality than passing actual legislation.
In the Illinois General Assembly, Democrats, who are more likely to support the bill, have a 70-48 majority, while the State Senate has Democrats up 37-22. The majority of these Democrats, however, are largely concentrated in the Chicago area. Though this region is more densely populated than the rest of Illinois, some legislators could be resistant to enact a law that only pleases one relatively small geographic area of the state.
Illinois’ resistance can also be explained because of its legal differences with states that already allow gay marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont are the only states that perform same-sex marriages, with New Hampshire joining the group in January of 2010. One commonality between all these gay-friendly states is that “marriage” was never explicitly defined by their constitutions, nor did they have any statutes that barred gay marriage. Illinois, on the other hand, currently has a specific statute prohibiting “a marriage between two individuals of the same sex,” according to 750 ILCS 5/212. Because Illinois already has language that defines marriage, many legislators may feel more hesitant to change the current law than those in states where marriage isn’t defined.
The lethargy to act on marriage equality is surprising to most in a state as blue as Illinois. The Land of Lincoln will just have to wait until the Illinois General Assembly reconvenes next time, perhaps in a non-election year, before any substantial gay marriage legislation can be taken seriously.