Whether, under the Illinois State and U.S. Constitutions, where a same-sex couple did not enjoy the legally recognized rights and benefits of civil union or married parties at any time during their relationship in the State in which they reside, any such rights, benefits, and obligations can be imposed on them after their relationship is over by the later enactment of a statute that now first recognizes civil unions, such that one party may now by dissolution of a civil union action obtain rights in the property of the other, even when those rights were not recognized and did not exist during their relationship

QUESTION PRESENTED The Supreme Court of Illinois denied leave to appeal from a decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, which had upheld a ruling of the circuit court that certain assets were civil union assets after the parties ended their relationship and union, when the State of Illinois did not recognize civil unions during the length of the parties’ relationship but later enacted a statute recognizing civil unions, and the parties had traveled to another state to engage in a civil union ceremony at one point during their relationship. The question presented for review is: Whether, under the Illinois State and U.S. Constitutions, where a same-sex couple did not enjoy the legally recognized rights and benefits of civil union or married parties at any time during their relationship in the State in which they reside, any such rights, benefits, and obligations can be imposed on them after their relationship is over by the later enactment of a statute that now first recognizescivil unions, such that one party may now by dissolution of a civil union action obtain rights in the property of the other, even when those rights were not recognized and did not exist during their relationship.