Updated: Same-sex marriages OK'd in Champaign County

Updated: Same-sex marriages OK'd in Champaign County

URBANA — Third-year law students Laura Meli and Marissa Meli Wednesday became the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in Champaign County.

Their bid for local history followed less than an hour County Clerk Gordy Hulten's announcement that he would begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples immediately.

By the end of the day two more same-sex couples had filed for marriage licenses at Hulten's office.

Champaign County became the second county in the state to make same-sex marriage legal. Cook County was the first to do so last Friday after a federal court ruling by U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. In her order, Coleman wrote that "there is no reason to delay further when no opposition has been presented to this Court and committed gay and lesbian couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry."



Here is the original complaint filed in Cook County seeking to allow same-sex marriage. 

Here is the memorandum in which Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan supports the plaintiffs' position.

Here is Cook County Clerk David Orr's memo saying he would not fight the lawsuit.

Here is U.S. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman's ruling issued Friday.


Same-sex marriage, under legislation approved last fall, was to have begun in Illinois on June 1.

"However, after consulting with State's Attorney Julia Rietz, I have come to the conclusion that the rationale of the case applies to all citizens of Illinois and that Champaign County residents should have no fewer Constitutional rights than those in Cook County," Hulten said in a statement. "Furthermore, given the ruling, denying a license to a same sex couple would provide no benefit to the County and would likely result in litigation at taxpayer expense."

Rietz said Wednesday that she had spent hours on the telephone with Hulten, discussing the legalities of his decision.

"My husband was getting really annoyed because we were on the phone all weekend," she laughed.

Hulten's decision could be challenged, Rietz said, even though same-sex marriage statewide is an inevitability.

"I read an article about a Pennsylvania judge who ordered a clerk to stop issuing same-sex couples marriage license," she said. "But everything is subject to litigation either way.

"Gordy's concern was, because one of the options was to say that if someone came in seeking a marriage license before June 1 that he could deny them and they could go in and file an injunction citing the Cook County case," Rietz said. "But he wasn't comfortable with telling somebody 'No, go sue us.'

"But on the other side somebody could file a request for an injunction, asking that a judge order him to stop issuing marriage licenses (to same sex couples). We'll have to wait and see."

Rietz said she would defend Hulten's decision, if there is a court challenge.

"I represent the county clerk," she said.

One legal argument in favor of Hulten's decision is that because the Illinois attorney general's office was involved in the Cook County case, "what applies in Cook County therefore applies in the whole state," Rietz said.

Other organizations, including Lambda Legal, researched the issue "and provided Gordy with a brief," she said.

Ultimately, she said, the decision was Hulten's.

"I don't tell any county official, 'Yes, you can' or 'No, you can't.' My job is to tell them the legal arguments. But this is his final decision.

"I didn't say, 'I wouldn't do this if I were you.' I agree with him, but the final decision is his. Hopefully people will see that this is the direction the state is going. It will be statewide as of June 1. Why should people have to go up to Cook County? Why should Cook County be any different than another part of the state of Illinois?"

Hulten said he hoped other Illinois counties "will see what we're doing and look at our rationale for it and understand what we're doing and follow our lead," he said.

Hulten said he had received "a handful" of inquiries from same-sex couples about marriage licenses since Friday's court ruling.

"I don't have any concerns," said Hulten, a Republican. "What's unconstitutional is unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional in Chicago, it's unconstitutional here. I don't see any reason for someone to have to sue us in order for us to realize that."

Laura Meli, 27, originally from Chicago, said she and her partner Marissa, 28, originally from Green Bay, received the marriage license Wednesday but would be married later.

"Today ... we saw on Facebook that Champaign County had decided to legalize marriage for everybody," she said. "We were just getting out of bed and were headed to class (at the University of Illinois) and we drove over here because we wanted to be Number One. We got out. We look terrible but it's really super important to us.

"We're blessed. We're so happy to have the marriage solemnized here in Champaign because it's been our home for the last three years and all our friends and colleagues our down here."

Laura Meli said they already had received a marriage license in Cook County on Friday "but we didn't get it solemnized. We could have extended the option to get married but we didn't. We just have the piece of paper that says we can.

"But we got one today from Champaign and we're actually going to execute it in Champaign."

They have 60 days to execute the marriage license, she said.

"It's really important for my sister to be here, and she's studying abroad in London now, so we're waiting for her to get back and then we'll do it sometime in April," Laura Meli said. "Judge (Arnold) Blockman officiated at our civil union last February. We're law students and don't have a lot of money so what we're planning on doing is legally tying the knot sometime in the next 60 days and then next year, when we have a little bit more time to plan and money, we'll have a full-blown ceremony.

"We're third-year and we're studying for the bar and there's just not a lot of time."

Hulten, currently unopposed for reelection this fall, said there was nothing political about his order.

"This is the right thing to do," he said. "It's the right thing to do in terms of the law, based on the Friday court case."

A marriage license in Champaign County is $75, Hulten said, but if a couple has a civil union, a marriage license from Champaign County will be free.

"The logic is that they've already paid for something once," he said.

Chicago-based Equality Illinois this morning praised Hulten for his decision, and called on other county clerks to begin issuing licenses.

"Clerk Hulten recognized both the humanity of helping gay and lesbian couples to fulfill their dreams and the legal soundness of following the decision of a federal court that denying marriage licenses was unconstitutional," said Bernard Cherkasov, the chief executive officer of Equality Illinois.

"It is simply time for the other county clerks to follow suit," said Cherkasov. "As we saw in the immediate rush to the Cook County clerk's marriage bureau after Friday's ruling, gay and lesbian couples are eager and ready to take the step that not only grants them and their family the legal benefits and rights of marriage but also bestows society's recognition that their love is equal."


Sections (2):News, Local

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
thinks wrote on February 26, 2014 at 10:02 am

Thank you, Mr. Hulten, for this humane and just decision. I expect that many on the left would not have expected this ruling from a Republican, and that gives us all the more reason to applaud your actions. As an Independent, I sometimes worry about the demonizing of one party and ideology over another. This goes to show that when elected officials act on principle (i.e., in accordance with the law), society benefits.

cgirl wrote on February 26, 2014 at 10:02 am

Yay! Go Champaign!

wayward wrote on February 26, 2014 at 11:02 am

Excellent news!  Glad to see Champaign County be one of the first to do this.

spangwurfelt wrote on February 26, 2014 at 12:02 pm

Good on Gordy. That was the right decision.

Huh wrote on February 26, 2014 at 12:02 pm

"couples have already suffered from the denial of their fundamental right to marry." There are only two fundamental rights, Death and Taxes. There are millions of people that are denied this "Fundamental right to marry" according to the government. Siblings aren't allowed to marry each other. Parents aren't allowed to marry their offspring. Children aren't allowed to marry either. I am quite sure that the state won't allow an eight year old to marry, no matter how much love they feel. People aren't allowed to marry their pets. Leona Helmsley would have married her dog, she at least left it $12,000,000 though. Although there doesn't seem to be a limit on the amount of times a person can marry, the courts here still require them to get a divorce between each marriage. Why are polygamists denied the right to marry more than one spouse at a time? Despite the very vocal minority, gay marriage still isn't popular. It was even banned in California, after being overwhelmingly passed by the citizens of the state. If not for judicial fiat, there still wouldn't be gay marriage in the US. Our country has moved away from the "will of the people" to the will of the few activist judges.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2014 at 1:02 pm

In some regions of the country, and among some populations; incest maybe contributing to "the will of the people". ;)

Same sex marriage is not hurting others.  If it does not harm others, why should the will of "some" of the people stop it?  I am not gay, or a minority member; but I am vocal about others imposing their will on issues that do no harm to them.  The majority of people polled feel the same way I do.  Those opposed are the minority.

spangwurfelt wrote on February 26, 2014 at 1:02 pm

Princeton SRA poll from December, latest poll data I have.

Support or strongly support same-sex marriage: 53%.

Oppose or strongly oppose same-sex marriage: 41%.

Most national polls over the last year land around this mark.

See for yourself - http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

In other words, the "very vocal minority" you castigate is ... your side. Put away the Fox News and come look at the real world.

spangwurfelt wrote on February 26, 2014 at 3:02 pm

By the way - "If not for judicial fiat, there still wouldn't be gay marriage in the US."

Yes, that would explain why both houses of the Illinois legislature passed a bill legalizing it, and then the guv signed it. Don't know if any of them were driving a Fiat at the time.

Local Yocal wrote on February 26, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Profile Picture

For the struggling conservative:

Appellate Judge Bob Steigmann makes an interesting point regarding the relationship between the State and marriages: If marriages are defined as a religious ceremony, then as such, the State doesn't have the right to define what comprises them in a strict Constitutional sense. Steigmann theorizes that the State really shouldn't be allowed to sanction a heterosexual union let alone any other kind. In fact, he observes, nobody has a problem with Old Testament patriarchs Abraham or King David having multiple wives. Steigmann ironically observes, current rules against polygamy don't adhere to "good 'ol fashion religion."

That's interesting conversation at the law school, but in practical terms, the State does have an interest (or should have) in relationships that involve bestiality, pedophilia, coerced relationships, sexual slavery, and violence. So some paremeters have to be in place in what constitutes "my husband, my wife." It would surprise some to know that Illinois statutes do make sexual adultrery illegal when it is "open and notorious."

What's really at issue here and I don't know why conservatives can't get on board with this: how can the State prohibit whose name any of us write down when it comes to bequeathing our finances, our property, custody of our children, our medical information, our financial information, our insurance coverages, and any number of other worldly transactions that spouses or members of our household, i.e. "our loved ones", we choose to be entitled to?

It's juvenile and hypocritcal (when you consider the State would defend the right to publish gay porn) for a state official or bank or hospital or insurance company to deny someone access to another's worldly goods because "they were consensually touching it in the bedroom." It's really a bizarre legal standard. (Or maybe the motive is simply to save a company money or allow the state another chance to confiscate someone's accumulations.)

For those that say, "But God said...." it's been decided long ago that the States on this side of the Atlantic Ocean cannot determine what anyone's God said and enforce what anyone's God said. (BTW: the State cannot tell a church to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Only places of "public accomodation" will be forced to allow gay couples to use their facilities.)

For those of us who think gay marriage signals the further depravity of civilization, we may have to content ourselves with Edith Bunker's advice: "...then let God tend to it."
But as for our stuff and children, the State needs to be reminded the rule is: "Don't tread on me," a right that should be granted to everyone, regardless of how adults consensually rub it in the bedroom.

chumberley wrote on February 26, 2014 at 7:02 pm

Where's the Like button?!?!?!  LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE

highspeed wrote on February 26, 2014 at 4:02 pm

If it is a religious ceremony then why do states make you get a license? Oh thats right, gotta make some money off of it!

Trailmom wrote on March 03, 2014 at 12:03 pm

States make you get a license because marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. And I don't care what their sexual orientation is, it is legally binding.  Everyone should have the chance to choose with whom they are agreeing to share your finances, property, etc.  States actually sanction religious leaders to perform marriages.  So it appears to me that marriage is far more than a religious union.

BTW, if you think the states charge alot for a marriage license, look at how much churches charge to perform what is essentially a legal function.