SPRINGFIELD — A high court decision this week holding that state law still treats property rights of married and unmarried couples differently has been altered.

The crux of the decision that upheld an old precedent against cohabiting couples is still very much intact. But the justices struck language suggesting the same-sex couple at the center of the case could have done more to acquire the same rights as married couples.

In the initial version of the opinion released Thursday, Jane E. Blumenthal v. Eileen M. Brewer, the majority justices wrote that it was not irrational to keep those rights from a same-sex couple even though gay marriage was only recently legalized. The couple still had recourse, Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier wrote.

In short, the couple could have gotten married in another state like Massachusetts, an early adopter of same-sex marriage, “despite the inconvenience,” the justices wrote.

Illinois would not have recognized the marriage, the court acknowledged, but then Eileen Brewer and Jane Blumenthal could have filed claims similar to the ones in the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor, which held that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples under certain federal laws was an equal protection violation.

Or the couple could have filed a constitutional case against Illinois’ now-defunct ban on same-sex marriage, much like the plaintiffs did in the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage across the country.

“Yet, Blumenthal and Brewer chose none of these options,” the Illinois Supreme Court’s 5-2 majority opinion stated. “In light of the possible remedies available at the time of the former domestic partners’ relationship, Brewer cannot now claim that her state and federal due process and equal protection rights were violated.”

But the high court backed away from that reasoning Thursday afternoon. That’s when it posted an updated version of the opinion with the relevant section, Paragraph 88, omitted. The court did not explain its rationale for updating or correcting the opinion.

The case stemmed from a dispute between Cook County Circuit Judge Brewer, and Blumenthal a physician, who shared a Chicago home and raised children together for years before ending their relationship in 2008.

When Blumenthal filed claims to divide ownership of the home in court, Brewer countered with a handful of claims of her own, including ones dealing with unjust enrichment and equitable division.

A lower court ruled that the 1979 Illinois high court decision in Hewitt v. Hewitt, which relied on a state law prohibition against common law marriage, barred Brewer’s counterclaims.

An appellate court ruled in Brewer’s favor, noting the public policy tide has shifted dramatically in favor of what some would consider “untraditional” relationships since the Hewitt decision. Cohabitation is no longer criminalized; same-sex couples, nonmarried couples and their children have more rights now and that the old precedent no longer makes sense, the panel found..

But the justices ruled the appellate court overstepped its authority in trying to overturn Hewitt, and that “despite all of these numerous changes to other family-related statutes, the statutory prohibition against common law marriage set forth in [S]ection 214 of the Marriage and Dissolution Act has remained completely untouched and unqualified.”

Michael T. Reagan, a sole practitioner in Ottawa who has brought hundreds of cases to the Supreme Court, said while there was a lot of attention on the merits and details of the case, the decision placed an important focus on fundamentals.

“I think this case is yet another example of why it is invaluable to constantly follow the work of the Supreme Court,” said Reagan, who was not involved in the case. “The opinion taught lessons about fundamental concepts such as appellate jurisdiction and the hierarchical structure of the court system. The court has made it clear in several recent opinions that an appellate court must follow Supreme Court opinions and that one appellate panel may not overrule any other appellate panel.”

But a partial dissent, authored by Justice Mary Jane Theis and joined by Justice Anne M. Burke, criticized the majority for doubling down on “an oddly myopic and moralistic view of cohabitation.”

They called the Hewitt decision a “sweeping and near-defamatory statement,” and one that “etched into the Illinois Reports the arcane view that domestic partners who choose to cohabit, but not marry, are engaged in ‘illicit’ or ‘meretricious’ behavior at odds with the foundational values of ‘our family-based society.”

They agreed with the majority’s handling of claims related to the couple’s home, but would have remanded to the trial court the lone claim dealing with the value of Blumenthal’s medical practice.

“Hewitt’s flaws, both linguistic and legal, have become more apparent with time. Our holding there is a court-made rule that this court should overrule,” Theis wrote.