An Illinois House Committee on Human Services has approved a civil unions bill for legislative debate. Openly gay representative Greg Harris, who pushed the a similar bill last year, hopes that despite the narrow passage (5-4), the measure will garner widespread support from the general House.

Illinois is ready now for civil unions. The outpouring of public support shows it's ready for civil unions, and I hope one day it will come around to the concept of same-sex marriage.

Though not technically marriage - a mission Harris abandoned after politicos squashed last year's nuptial-centric measure - bit will extend certain rights to gay couples, such as insurance benefits.

Harris' move provides the perfect example of the change in activist tactics. Gone are the days when marriage dominated the debate. More astute activists understand that referring to the contentious institution can do more harm than good. Thus, the debate's slowly but surely focusing exclusively on simple rights, with marriage as an end goal. As Ray Henry reports:

Gay marriage advocates...say they're still committed to marriage and will still support marriage bills -- even if those efforts are likely to fail. They say they are testing whether lawmakers who summarily reject gay marriage will approve rights that enjoy more popular support.

"The holdup is about marriage, not about the protections," said Jenn Steinfeld, who leads the advocacy group Marriage Equality RI. "So we're giving them an opportunity to show us that."

Unfortunately, not all opponents understand the distinctions. Illinois Republican representative Paul Froehlich insists that civil unions still threaten the sanctity of marriage: "If it can be defined to mean anything, then it may mean nothing". Something tells us he won't be voting for Harris' bill if it goes to vote this spring.

llinois bill would allow civil unions of gay couples [Chicago Tribune]
Go for marriage or get civil rights? Advocates debate [Planet Out]