Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS2

The Illinois House has approved a measure to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

Comments (Page 1,585)

Showing posts 31,681 - 31,700 of47,001
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36859
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yes, God is winning. Thank you Jesus!!!

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36863
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
....
Thank God no 22 YO straight kid has ever gotten drunk, injured himself, and then tried to blame someone else.

You're a spineless, pointless POS. Have a lovely day, troll doll.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36865
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Several problems with your hypotheses:
A) Sexual orientation and musical appreciation are obviously not analogous to each other.
B) Being gay is no guarantee that procreation will not happen (gay people are not sterile) just as heterosexuality is no guarantee of procreation.
C) Your premise assumes that "normalcy" revolves around procreation as the ne plus ultra of existence. Not only is that far from an objective judgement, not to say a very depressing one also, but you must include heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate as well into that group.

*Stanford evolutionist wrote;

This is unforgivably feeble-minded reasoning and quite frankly, troubling.

You say that being gay is no guarantee against procreation. I'm disturbed by this comment. Homosexual activity does not and can not result in offspring.

Unless you know of cases of male anal sex resulting in fertilization within a male's anal canal, or a woman's tongue containing sperm which she deposits into another woman's vagina through the act of oral sex, I think it's VERY safe to say homosexuality is not reproductive.

This is almost too ridiculous to discuss.

Now, you do bring up the (meretricious) argument that being heterosexual is no guarantee of procreation.

The reason this argument is invalid is because in the example of the heterosexual who decides not to have children, it was the heterosexual's decision for reasons UNRELATED to his genetically predisposed proclivities. Thus this decision is no fault of evolution, as the heterosexual was armed with the correct sexual urges needed to reproduce. Whether he takes that and runs with it, is irrelevant.

While gays may have the ability,(functioning genitals) this is certainly NOT enough. In order to fully promote action, evolution equips two qualities: Ability (just mentioned) AND willingness. The gay is missing the correct WILLINGNESS -the genetic urge to have heterosexual relations. This wrong wiring IS a genetic defect.

Remember healthy instincts differ from defective ones in that healthy instincts are the ones that yield very strong urges towards INCREASING the likelihood of survival.

We have hunger throughout the day because it's a healthy urge to push us to seek nourishment. We have the same urge with thirst as we need hydration. If our brains are healthy we should have a similar hunger for heterosexual sex because it is also pushes us towards survival based behavior: sex that can result pregnancy.

OF COURSE wiring that promotes urges towards the gender that can't lead to pregnancy is anti-survival and consequently defective.

These issues are very black and white. To deny them is to deny the will of evolution.

Now, it's time to put the heat lamp on you.

It is easily proven how homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. As I've said a thousand times, It serves absolutely no productive function in furthering the human species.

In fact it's highly destructive because the afflicted person is damned to stop their genes from entering the next generation AND the genes of their lovers as well.

Aside from rather blindly cheerleading for homosexuality because it's your 'home team,' what practical reason do you have that leads you to believe it's worthy of defense?
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36867
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Gay activists boycott AMWAY after president donates $500,000 to traditional marriage

Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:22 EST
Comments ()
Tags: amway, doug devos, fred karger, national organization for marriage

Amway's Doug Devos

August 10, 2012 – Amway President Doug DeVos donated half a million dollars to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). On August 3, his donation came under attack by gay activist Fred Karger’s Rights Equal Rights organization in the form of a global boycott.

The reason for the boycott, according to RightsEqualRights.com , is to “support our friends and…keep pressure on the mega-donors to NOM and other likeminded organizations and individuals who so vigorously oppose Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) equality.”

NOM has recently urged boycotts of Starbucks and General Mills, who have donated significant sums of money to supporting gay “marriage,” which Rights Equal Rights gives as further reason for the boycott of Amway.

But the difference, according to NOM President Brian Brown, is that “unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company. But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society.”

A spokeswoman for Amway emphasised this difference between private and corporate action.“As private citizens, the DeVos family supports causes and organizations that advocate for policies aligned to their personal beliefs,” she said.

“[The family believes] one of the highest callings of any individual is to express their own personal beliefs as a participant in the democratic process.”

Karger, however, appears determined to continue with the boycott, calling NOM a “known hate group” in an August 9 Huffington Post article.

While NOM says its mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it,” Karger says its “goal appears to be harming Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans.”

“NOM constantly defends anti-LGBT companies like its ally Chick-fil-A and its owner for hateful and bigoted comments and actions,” said Karger.“NOM has that right under our First Amendment and so do we.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

The Rights Equal Rights website states,“A global boycott of Amway will let others know that there are consequences of giving massive amounts of money to take away the rights of a minority.”

Amway has responded, clarifying that it does not discriminate in any way.

“Our employees and distributors come from all walks of life and represent an incredibly diverse set of backgrounds,” said the spokeswoman for Amway.“The Amway opportunity is open to everyone.”

Karger has directed four previous boycotts against other major donors to NOM and Yes on Proposition 8. Two of those donors have settled, donating a like amount to LGBT organizations. One of those companies, Bolthouse Farms, gave $110,000 to homosexualist groups after donating $100,000 to Yes on Proposition 8.

“As…with our four other boycott targets,” Karger says,“we at Rights Equal Rights remain open to a possible settlement of the Amway/Alticor Boycott at any time.”

Amway stands by the statement that Doug DeVos has a right to donate his personal money where he wishes.
mary jo

Markham, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36868
Jan 5, 2013
 
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.
whos huffing on the post ?? you ?? hee heee
Gays Run the World

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36869
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Several problems with your hypotheses:
A) Sexual orientation and musical appreciation are obviously not analogous to each other.
B) Being gay is no guarantee that procreation will not happen (gay people are not sterile) just as heterosexuality is no guarantee of procreation.
C) Your premise assumes that "normalcy" revolves around procreation as the ne plus ultra of existence. Not only is that far from an objective judgement, not to say a very depressing one also, but you must include heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate as well into that group.
*Stanford evolutionist wrote;
This is unforgivably feeble-minded reasoning and quite frankly, troubling.
You say that being gay is no guarantee against procreation. I'm disturbed by this comment. Homosexual activity does not and can not result in offspring.
Unless you know of cases of male anal sex resulting in fertilization within a male's anal canal, or a woman's tongue containing sperm which she deposits into another woman's vagina through the act of oral sex, I think it's VERY safe to say homosexuality is not reproductive.
This is almost too ridiculous to discuss.
Now, you do bring up the (meretricious) argument that being heterosexual is no guarantee of procreation.
The reason this argument is invalid is because in the example of the heterosexual who decides not to have children, it was the heterosexual's decision for reasons UNRELATED to his genetically predisposed proclivities. Thus this decision is no fault of evolution, as the heterosexual was armed with the correct sexual urges needed to reproduce. Whether he takes that and runs with it, is irrelevant.
While gays may have the ability,(functioning genitals) this is certainly NOT enough. In order to fully promote action, evolution equips two qualities: Ability (just mentioned) AND willingness. The gay is missing the correct WILLINGNESS -the genetic urge to have heterosexual relations. This wrong wiring IS a genetic defect.
Remember healthy instincts differ from defective ones in that healthy instincts are the ones that yield very strong urges towards INCREASING the likelihood of survival.
We have hunger throughout the day because it's a healthy urge to push us to seek nourishment. We have the same urge with thirst as we need hydration. If our brains are healthy we should have a similar hunger for heterosexual sex because it is also pushes us towards survival based behavior: sex that can result pregnancy.
OF COURSE wiring that promotes urges towards the gender that can't lead to pregnancy is anti-survival and consequently defective.
These issues are very black and white. To deny them is to deny the will of evolution.
Now, it's time to put the heat lamp on you.
It is easily proven how homosexuality is an evolutionary defect. As I've said a thousand times, It serves absolutely no productive function in furthering the human species.
In fact it's highly destructive because the afflicted person is damned to stop their genes from entering the next generation AND the genes of their lovers as well.
Aside from rather blindly cheerleading for homosexuality because it's your 'home team,' what practical reason do you have that leads you to believe it's worthy of defense?
Malarky!!!
.
We just keep a few straighties around for amusement
.
We don't need your sorry homophobic @ss for reproduction
.
We have this:
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
Cool Hand Luke

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36870
Jan 5, 2013
 
You can believe it sister. They brag about same sex marriage being made legal in Maryland, Maine and Washington but thanks to those laws this can never happen in those 3 states:

.

Lesbians sue to force Catholic hospital to provide same-sex benefits, undermine DOMA

Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:28 EST
Comments (63)
Tags: bill donohue, catholic hospitals, doma, same-sex 'marriage'



NEW YORK, NEW YORK, June 21, 2012 - A New York lesbian couple has sued to force a Catholic hospital to provide them with insurance benefits by challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The same-sex couple has filed a lawsuit against Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield and St. Joseph’s Medical Center because one of St. Joseph’s divisions, St. Vincent’s Westchester, denied them spousal benefits.

The plaintiffs, who have chosen to remain anonymous, are seeking past and future benefits and a declaration that they are entitled to receive them.

Though New York recognizes same-sex marriage, self-insured employers such as St. Joseph’s may still refuse to recognize them because they are governed by federal regulations, rather than state regulations.
Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, defends marriage.
Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, defends marriage.

The lawsuit alleges that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal regulations, is discriminatory and unconstitutional, and therefore cannot justify the hospital’s policy.“It’s just not socially fair,” the employee told the New York Times.

Catholic League President Bill Donohue strongly condemned the lawsuit on Wednesday in a statement calling it an infringement on the hospital’s rights made possible by “sleuth, deception, and a wholesale disregard for the democratic process” and suggesting homosexual activists were the ones trampling on diversity.

“It is not the Catholic Church that is seeking to impose its agenda on others” Donohue said.“It is homosexual activists who voluntarily join a Catholic institution and then seek to upend its strictures.” He noted the employee “surely knew all along…the teachings of Catholicism” on the issues of marriage and homosexuality before coming to the hospital.

DOMA has long been a high-priority target for advocates of redefining marriage. The federal Department of Justice has come under fire for refusing to defend the law in court throughout President Barack Obama’s time in office.

In July 2011, the administration called for the law to be overturned, arguing that the bill signed by President Bill Clinton was “motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals.”

Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down DOMA’s federal marriage definition, ruling that benefits could not be denied to gay couples in states that recognize same-sex marriage. However, the court upheld the section of the law protecting states’ right to define marriage for themselves.
Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they sure did. God will always win. Want to know more? Just read the Huffington Post Article.
Cool Hand Luke

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36871
Jan 5, 2013
 
The opinion, written by a judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush, specifically denied the bill was motivated by prejudice.

Critics said at the time that the rest of his ruling was severely flawed. Liberty Counsel senior counsel Harry Mihet noted the inconsistency of ruling that “states remain free to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves and to ban homosexual ‘marriage,’ as 31 states have already done, but somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself…what marriage means.”

Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Dale Schowengerdt observed that the federal government’s authority to exclude polygamy from marriage’s definition has historically been recognized, while Family Research Council President Tony Perkins argued that DOMA should be subjected to the “rational basis test,” a commonly-accepted legal standard that would recognize government’s rational interest in fostering unions that provide children with a mother and a father.

The assault on DOMA raises serious concerns for religious liberty, as well. A ruling against DOMA and St. Joseph would mean that not even religious employers who bear full financial responsibility for their own services have the right to conform those services to their religious convictions.

In October 2011, Bishop William Lori testified before a the House Judiciary subcommittee that the rhetoric used by the Justice Department against DOMA also pose a deeper threat to religious freedom.

“If the label of ‘bigot’ sticks to our Church and many other churches – especially in court, under the Constitution – because of their teaching on marriage,” he argued,“the result will be church-state conflicts for many years to come.”.

.
Here's the Maryland law, they all read the same:

.

2012 Presidential General Election Question Text
Last Updated 11/07/2012 03:06:01 PM

Return to Election Result Index
NR: not reported

Return to State Ballot Question(s)

Civil Marriage Protection Act (Ch. 2 of the 2012 Legislative Session)
Referendum Petition
Question 06

Establishes that Maryland's civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law

.
Those legislators in those 3 states showed them a new meaning of anal sex!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36872
Jan 5, 2013
 
Gays Run the World wrote:
<quoted text>
Malarky!!!
.
We just keep a few straighties around for amusement
.
We don't need your sorry homophobic @ss for reproduction
.
We have this:
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
I wasn't thinking of anyone's ass, I was thinking of the child absent one parent and one gender.

What are you thinking?

Sad.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36873
Jan 5, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't thinking of anyone's ass, I was thinking of the child absent one parent and one gender.
What are you thinking?
Sad.
One out of every three hetero families has only one parent
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossst...
.
So gays raise the bar

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36874
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
One out of every three hetero families has only one parent
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossst...
.
So gays raise the bar
Do you understand the desecration of truth your statement encompasses???

Anything other than a biological mother and father LOWERS the bar.

A single parent is second to the BOTTOM of choices.

According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on all family types including gay, gays fall BELOW a single parent!

Get real idiot.

Bazinga.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36875
Jan 5, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the desecration of truth your statement encompasses???
Anything other than a biological mother and father LOWERS the bar.
A single parent is second to the BOTTOM of choices.
According to the latest, largest and most scientific study to date on all family types including gay, gays fall BELOW a single parent!
Get real idiot.
Bazinga.
You can only wish; sugar
.
tee hee ;o))

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36877
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep insisting that the reason we have marriage is for procreation, yet there isn't a law on the books in any U.S. jurisdiction that mandates that a married couple must produce children.
In fact, many couples have children outside of wedlock and it's perfectly legal.
So you can't withhold marriage from same-sex partners simply because we don't frequently procreate.
And keep in mind, that gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States and an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian biological children.
Despite what you may think, LGBT people have kids. Just because we are attracted to people of our gender doesn't mean the plumbing doesn't work.

KiMare'a wrote;

VV, Your gay twirl is so silly. Read what you wrote. Do you understand how foolish it is?

1. I don't insist on anything. Evolution insists on procreation. You deny the most basic premise of evolutionary science? First you castigate the Bible, now you shuck science? Now we need to deny the two most significant beneficial influences of society so gays can pretend to be married? Unbelievable idiocy!

2. As noted and answered before, of course people have children outside of marriage. To the severe detriment of the child. What kind of sick A//hole asserts that is a positive thing. Coming from a social worker only makes it extremely disturbing to a civilized people and exposes how twisted your denial has become.

3. "ss couples don't frequently procreate"??? Did you really say that??? Ss couples don't EVER procreate. The result of their union is absolute, total barrenness of human fruit. If anything distinguishes the vast difference between marriage and gay unions, nothing stands more distinct. All you do is emphasize the difference between inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abuse of anal sex with natural and beneficial heterosexual sex.

4. You only remind us of the sad deprivation of children absent their mother and father, and the devastatingly severe impact that will have on their social health. According to the most recent, largest and most scientific study of all family types, including gay, gay couples rank below single parents at the very bottom of default family situations. You brag about that??? Don't worry, I won't forget it.

5. It's not the plumbing that is the problem (other than the sick abuse of it), it's the sexual defect of orientation. The most recent understanding of genetic epi-marker mistakes is quickly explaining and hopefully fixing that defect.

VV, I said it a long time ago, the closer a fake gets to the real thing, the more it's deception is exposed. Your post is an insult to intelligent people and should be embarrassing to you personally and professionally. Get real.

:-)
CUPID

Markham, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36878
Jan 6, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't thinking of anyone's ass,
What are you thinking?
Sad.
im thinking you two need to get together -IT MUST BE LOVE !!
haha

Alton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36879
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
The opinion, written by a judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush, specifically denied the bill was motivated by prejudice.
Critics said at the time that the rest of his ruling was severely flawed. Liberty Counsel senior counsel Harry Mihet noted the inconsistency of ruling that “states remain free to decide the meaning of marriage for themselves and to ban homosexual ‘marriage,’ as 31 states have already done, but somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself…what marriage means.”
Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Dale Schowengerdt observed that the federal government’s authority to exclude polygamy from marriage’s definition has historically been recognized, while Family Research Council President Tony Perkins argued that DOMA should be subjected to the “rational basis test,” a commonly-accepted legal standard that would recognize government’s rational interest in fostering unions that provide children with a mother and a father.
The assault on DOMA raises serious concerns for religious liberty, as well. A ruling against DOMA and St. Joseph would mean that not even religious employers who bear full financial responsibility for their own services have the right to conform those services to their religious convictions.
In October 2011, Bishop William Lori testified before a the House Judiciary subcommittee that the rhetoric used by the Justice Department against DOMA also pose a deeper threat to religious freedom.
“If the label of ‘bigot’ sticks to our Church and many other churches – especially in court, under the Constitution – because of their teaching on marriage,” he argued,“the result will be church-state conflicts for many years to come.”.
.
Here's the Maryland law, they all read the same:
.
2012 Presidential General Election Question Text
Last Updated 11/07/2012 03:06:01 PM
Return to Election Result Index
NR: not reported
Return to State Ballot Question(s)
Civil Marriage Protection Act (Ch. 2 of the 2012 Legislative Session)
Referendum Petition
Question 06
Establishes that Maryland's civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.
For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law
.
Those legislators in those 3 states showed them a new meaning of anal sex!
Luke G. Shut up and blow me again ya closest case gay man nympho! I promise ill be the bottom this time and you can be the top....heehee

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36880
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

STUPID wrote:
<quoted text>im thinking you two need to get together -IT MUST BE LOVE !!
I'm well connected to my ass, but my wife already loves it.

By the way, appropriate post handle.

:-)
haha

Alton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36881
Jan 6, 2013
 
But I do know how you luke love being bottom though...such a champ at it you are.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36882
Jan 6, 2013
 
haha wrote:
But I do know how you luke love being bottom though...such a champ at it you are.
In other words, I bring new meaning to the term,'bottoms up'.

:-)
haha

Alton, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36883
Jan 6, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, I bring new meaning to the term,'bottoms up'.
:-)
Uh...my posts were directed to "cool hand luke". Not you kimare....UNLESS you are cool hand Luke posting under different screen names????

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36884
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

haha wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...my posts were directed to "cool hand luke". Not you kimare....UNLESS you are cool hand Luke posting under different screen names????
:-)
Yeah, it was real clear who you were posting to...
I guess you could call Cool Hand Luke and I a literary chimera. He'd be the right hand, and I with the inherent lesbian, the left.
;-)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 31,681 - 31,700 of47,001
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

49 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min harmonious 1,033,591
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Rogue Scholar 05 167,391
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 35 min Whiny1 4,021
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 51 min Frijoles 64,956
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 55 min prognosticator 96,010
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr litesong 42,928
IL Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Illinois ... (Oct '10) 1 hr DUMP Durbin 6,528
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••