Chicago, IL (September 14, 2005) - Many social conservatives would argue that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers is the right thing to do. Schwarzenegger argues that he'd be upholding the will of the citizens of California, defaulting back to vote in 1999 on Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was placed on the ballot to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. (Essentially, it is a state-wide Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law federally by Bill Clinton.) Equally, social conservatives are mostly likely lamenting the Massachusetts Marriage Amendment defeat today.

In the very short time since Massachusetts had first started issuing same sex marriage licences, public opinion polls in Massachusetts have show overwhelming support for civil marriage equality, and today's vote reflects that support. In fact, an April 2005 poll showed that more than 60% of Massachusetts voters support protecting civil marriage equality. Similar polls conducted by Equality Illinois show similar results in civil unions in Illinois. A fact that statewide candidates show heed.

In California, Schwarzenegger "believes gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationship," according to the governor's press secretary, Margita Thompson. "He is proud that California provides the most rigorous protections in the nation for domestic partners."

A state appeals court is considering appeals of a lower court ruling earlier this year that overturned Proposition 22 and a 1978 law that first formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. How Schwarzenegger will position himself remains to be seen. He has until October 9th to formally veto the bill. It seems strangely un-Republican that Schwarzenegger would want the decision to come from the courts.

"Log Cabin Republicans take the Governor at his word, that if, and when, the courts of California join the legislature in recognizing the right to civil marriage equality, he will uphold and support that decision," said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans.

In Illinois, marriage is also already defined as a union between a man and a woman. The courts have upheld it ever since it was first written into law. The threat of the gay couple next door suddenly getting a legal marriage doesn't exist. So why is there such a huge push by select group of social conservatives to amend the Illinois Constitution?

An Illinois Marriage Amendment isn't about gay marriage. It is mostly about big government sticking its nose into heterosexual relationships and furthering the agenda of the Illinois Family Institute to impose its views on the rest of society. Gay and lesbian Illinoisans are collateral damage and an easy smoke screen in its crusade.

The Illinois Family Institute has a long history of targeting gays for legal abuse. Earlier this year, IFI opposed SB-3186, the non-discrimination bill prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and credit based on one's sexual orientation. In 2004, IFI opposed including gays with other minorities in protection from hate crimes (SB-2597). The list goes on. IFI doesn't just want gays to not be married; it wants gays to be unemployed and without health insurance and without legal protections from abuse.

IFI seems to believe that gay people should "miraculously" reform and marry someone of the opposite sex to have same rights; in essence, gays should just play it straight. How many women would like to be in a marriage to a gay man who could never fully love her and could never fully satisfy her emotionally or physically? How many fathers would wish this for their daughters? Alas, love and honesty don't seem to matter to IFI.

The current proposal from IFI asks voters to do what they failed to do in the past: Ban domestic partnerships for both straight and gay people and prevent local governments from offering health insurance to domestic partners of their employees.

Domestic partnerships are recognized by most large employers in Illinois and by several local governments. Polling shows a majority of Illinois voters support legal recognition of domestic partnerships.

Rather than debating the merits of already-illegal marriage for same-sex couples, we should be debating how to secure certain legal rights for domestic partners, such as the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, make medical decisions for the incapacitated, have fair access to health care benefits and have legal responsibility for each other's welfare.

Gays aren't their only target. The Illinois initiative would remove all possibility of extending such limited rights to people who have chosen to live together: senior citizens who don't remarry due to loss of benefits, people of different faiths whose religion prohibits interfaith marriage, people who have been divorced and aren't ready to marry again, and gays and lesbians who aren't allowed to marry the person they love and so on.

Even worse, although passage of this initiative would intentionally eliminate health insurance for hundreds of families of government workers who currently have it, private employers are only a lawsuit away from having their benefits challenged by the center in the courts.

Before you sign this type of petition, ask yourself if you want to be affiliated with this agenda. Ask yourself if you want to do harm to your fellow Illinoisans who, for whatever reason, are unmarried. Ask yourself if you want our state Constitution to take away rights instead of give them. I ask you to decline to sign.