ILCS » Chapter 750 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

750 ILCS 5/213.1 (2026)

(Repealed)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(750 ILCS 5/213.1)
    Sec. 213.1. (Repealed).
(Source: P.A. 89-459, eff. 5-24-96. Repealed by P.A. 98-597, eff. 6-1-14.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781 (Ill. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781 (Ill. 2016). “Additionally, Blumenthal and Brewer could have filed a legal action seeking to overturn, on constitutional grounds, Illinois’s ban on same-sex marriage (750 ILCS 5/213.1 (West 2012) (repealed by Pub.”
Gray v. Orr, 4 F. Supp. 3d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “Nearly twenty years later, Illinois amended its Marriage Act to explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages, 750 ILCS 5/212(a)(5) (2006), and to declare same-sex marriages to be contrary to Illinois public policy, see Public Act 89-459; 750 ILCS 5/213.1 (2006). In 2011, the Illinois…”
In Re Marriage of Weisbruch, 710 N.E.2d 439 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “See 750 ILCS 5/213.1 (West 1996). Thus, the relationship cannot be considered marriage-like because they could never be legally married.”
In Re Est. of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “See 750 ILCS 5/212(a)(5) (West 1996) (prohibiting marriages between two individuals of the same sex); 750 ILCS 5/213.1 (West 1996) (declaring that "marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of [Illinois]"); 750 ILCS 5/201 (West 1996)…”
In re Est. of Hall, 707 N.E.2d 201 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “See 750 ILCS 5/212(a)(5) (West 1996) (prohibiting marriages between two individuals of the same sex); 750 ILCS 5/213.1 (West 1996) (declaring that “marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex is contrary to the public policy of [Illinois]”); 750 ILCS 5/201 (West 1996)…”
In re Marriage of Weisbruch (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “Citing these definitions, petitioner contends that she and Diesel cannot be involved in a conjugal relationship because there is no sexual activity between them. She further contends that their relationship cannot be conjugal because Illinois has a public policy against same-sex…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.