On the heels of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declaring Prop 8 in California unconstitutional, Illinois Representative Greg Harris has introduced a marriage equality bill in his state, as reported by ThinkProgress.

Rep. Harris from Chicago brought forth the Religious Freedom and Marriage Freedom Act that would not only grant same-sex couples the right to marry, but it would also allow gay couples who currently have civil unions in the state to convert to marriage.

The Chicago Phoenix reports that Rep. Harris concedes that achieving marriage equality in Illinois will “not…happen quickly, [and] it’s not going to happen without a lot of hard work.” Still, Harris’ bill has garnered the support of two other out lawmakers Debra Mell and Kelly M. Cassidy.

I applaud the lawmakers in Illinois for attempting to advance gay rights in their state. I look forward to watching how this bill progresses and whether or not Illinois will be the next state to understand what true equality is.

As you’ve no doubt noticed in the news and in various blogs (including this one), the subject of marriage equality has become a hot topic. We currently have 6 states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont) and Washington D.C., where gay marriage is allowed. Gay marriage might also be in the immediate future for citizens in Washington and New Jersey (and perhaps even California, again, depending on tomorrow’s ruling by the Ninth District Court of Appeals).

Still, many people claim that gay marriage is something that should be decided by popular vote, not the government and not the courts. Luckily, Buzzfeed posted some interesting maps about previous civil rights issues.

Take a look at the maps posted below. If you are an African-American, a woman, in an interracial relationship, or know someone who fits one or all of those previous categories (and you most likely do), then you (or the people you know) would most likely still

• be a slave
• not have a voice in the government
• be viewed as property
• be unable to wed a person of a different race

Where would your civil rights be if they were put to a nation wide vote during the years the maps demonstrate below?

Unless you were a caucasian male, you would have none. What. So. Ever.

Map Depicting Slavery Laws Prior to Emancipation Proclamation (1863)

Map Depicting Woman’s Suffrage Laws Prior to 1920 Amendment

Map Depicting Segregation Laws Prior to Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Interracial Laws Prior to Anti-Miscegenation Laws Deemed Unconstitutional (1967)

Map showing Gay Marriage Rights (2012)

Tomorrow, the Ninth District Court of Appeals will rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned marriage equality, in California. I posted about this in November and December of last year.

In a matter of hours, we will find out whether or not those in favor of banning same-sex marriage were able to convince the three judges on the panel that retired Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the case. Judge Walker, who struck down Prop 8 in California, is accused of bias since he is also gay.

Those following the case believe that the ruling will be in favor of Walker’s decision, which will uphold the ban on Proposition 8.

Naturally, I’ll post the results of their decision tomorrow.

(story via Towleroad)

With Washington State a stone’s throw away from having marriage equality, New Jersey is the next state where homosexual couples might be able to legally wed. I posted a couple of weeks ago that politicians in New Jersey had advanced a bill that would bring about marriage equality to the state. Well, as reported on Queerty, the bill “is on its way to the legislative floor.”

Yesterday, “The Assembly Judiciary Committee approved the measure with a 5 to 2 party-line vote after hearing more than 6 hours of testimony from dozens of supporters and opponents,” as reported in On Top Magazine. The bill, which already passed the state Senate, will now go before the Assembly for a vote.

If the bill passes there, it will be presented to Governor Chris Christie, who is now promising to veto the bill. Instead, he wants the citizens to vote on the issue and is calling for a referendum to do just that.

According to Bloomberg, Christie knows that the state favors gay marriage based on the following comment he made: “The polls that I’ve seen show that if this goes to the ballot, I lose.”

If that’s the case, Christie could save the state and its citizens the trouble of having to go through such a referendum and simply sign the bill if it passes through the Assembly, who represent the will of the people in his state.

But that would mean actually governing for the people and not for himself, something Christie is apparently incapable of doing.