Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Nov 30, 2010 Full story: CBS2 51,332

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

Full Story

“Bacon Bacon ”

Since: Dec 06

SW Burbs Chicago

#55118 May 17, 2014
All marriages are civil unions........Not all civil unions are marriages. hmmmmmm.........
apophis

Oswego, IL

#55119 May 17, 2014
Ok listen fucktards....There is no God or devil..yes there is a superior being or some other crap to get the universe going . reality is there is no way creating heavens and earth in 7 days.it took millions of years.thats reality.plus no physical evidence of these bible stories...example feeding thousands with a leaf of bread and a fish, living days in a whale, living in a den of lions (they'd shred you up), rising from the dead (even though zombie movies/shows are cool), the so called ark, David and a giant (unless the occasional person hit 7 feet or taller back then), and so on.there will be an apocalyptic event...When the sun dies millions of years from now.
Who cares

Schaumburg, IL

#55120 May 17, 2014
At least you agree that there is a higher power or being to put it all in motion, cause there's very little chance (exponentially) it'd happen on accident looking at exactly how the universe was formed and the earth was formed to support life. Even related to microbiology & molecular level stuff. But this country was founded on freedom of religion, even if its no religion, and its a long, off topic argument anyway. Just didn't like the kids posting hateful stuff using demon names
CDC

Columbia, IL

#55121 May 18, 2014
No physical evidence.
Google it.
Quit spending so much time on facebook.
apophis wrote:
Ok listen fucktards....There is no God or devil..yes there is a superior being or some other crap to get the universe going . reality is there is no way creating heavens and earth in 7 days.it took millions of years.thats reality.plus no physical evidence of these bible stories...example feeding thousands with a leaf of bread and a fish, living days in a whale, living in a den of lions (they'd shred you up), rising from the dead (even though zombie movies/shows are cool), the so called ark, David and a giant (unless the occasional person hit 7 feet or taller back then), and so on.there will be an apocalyptic event...When the sun dies millions of years from now.
apophis

Oswego, IL

#55122 May 18, 2014
CDC wrote:
No physical evidence.
Google it.
Quit spending so much time on facebook.
<quoted text>
idiot...This has nothing to do with Facebook
apophis

Oswego, IL

#55123 May 18, 2014
apophis wrote:
<quoted text> idiot...This has nothing to do with Facebook
oh..I don't have time for Facebook..It's too much drama...Even though there's been times to laugh at people's drama on there.im too busy with work and a family

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55124 May 18, 2014
Who cares wrote:
Whose next with the hateful crap? The demon cthulu or pazuzu?! Get a life... Hey, don't get stuck behind the devil in a post office or DMV! He takes many forms!.. Not really funny, but a joke. Like you kids. Get your lives right. Hope everybody reading gets the difference between Christ and satan. I don't usually preach soo much but these angry, evil kids need it
Get Thee behind me Satan!!
Rrrrr

Ballwin, MO

#55126 May 19, 2014
People are morons wrote:
When did you decide to be straight? I thought so. We are all human and we all should have equal rights.
Testing

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55127 May 20, 2014
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."

Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me...

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55128 May 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. "
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me...
Matt Walsh has an opinion, like you. That opinion, like yours, has done nothing to slow, stall, or prevent the progress of marriage equality in this country. His ramblings, like yours, have probably done more to help marriage equality than either of you will ever know.

Carry on, you trampy, trailer-trash, tranny troll trucker turelette.
Ace

Christopher, IL

#55129 May 20, 2014
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Matt Walsh has an opinion, like you. That opinion, like yours, has done nothing to slow, stall, or prevent the progress of marriage equality in this country. His ramblings, like yours, have probably done more to help marriage equality than either of you will ever know.
Carry on, you trampy, trailer-trash, tranny troll trucker turelette.
Dusty you're on topix all the time. Just when do you ever have time to please your man? Maybe your husband needs a good women to take care of him?
PS. did you know the underpenning on your home made mobile home is missing, or did you pawn it to pay your internet bill?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#55130 May 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me...
So many words to say absolutely nothing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55131 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...
Registered Earth Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
So many words to say absolutely nothing.
LOL, you wish.

He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.

But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#55132 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole....
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...
<quoted text>
LOL, you wish.
He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.
But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!
Smile.
He did no such thing. He expressed an opinion. I could find someone who writes a blog about trampy, trailer-trash, tranny troll trucker turds and copy and paste that. Would my post, of someone's opinion, make you any less of a troll? Of course not.

You love to say that words define reality. We have the word marriage, and that's like a kick in the clitty to you. Tough shit.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

freshroast666@gmail.com

#55133 May 21, 2014
My sincere congratulations to Greg's state of Pennsylvania where his impact is obvious!

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/20/130077...
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#55134 May 21, 2014
hmm.
so let's do a quick state count review, just as a refresher.

1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Hawaii
5. Iowa
6. Maine
7. Maryland
8. Massachusettes
9. Minnesota
10. New Hampshire
11. New Jersey
12. New Mexico
13. New York
14. Oregon
15. Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island
17. Vermont
18. Washington
19. Illinois (as of June 1 2014)
20. Washington D.C.

Rulings being awaited by appellate courts sometime in the near future :
1. Utah
2. Oklahoma
3. Michigan
4. Idaho
5. Arkansas
6. Texas

There are approximately 70 courts cases working their way through the legal justice system in various states.

Things sure are turning around for all American citizens.

Probably by the end of the year 2014, more than half of the United States will allow legal same sex marriage.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55135 May 21, 2014
Ace wrote:
<quoted text>Dusty you're on topix all the time. Just when do you ever have time to please your man? Maybe your husband needs a good women to take care of him?
PS. did you know the underpenning on your home made mobile home is missing, or did you pawn it to pay your internet bill?
Hey,you spelled your name wrong
"ass"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#55136 May 21, 2014
And SS couples are still only ever mutually sterile, pointless duplicate gender halves of marriage.

Clearly inferior.

Marrage at the most.

And there is not one Damn thing you can do about it.

Smile.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#55137 May 21, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:
"First, let me explain this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” deal. That isn’t an arbitrary designation. It isn’t fueled by hate. It isn’t bigotry. It isn’t intolerance. It’s simply the recognition of an utterly unavoidable reality. The union between a man and woman, in principle, has a power and a capacity which no other union could ever possess. For this reason it certainly is not “equal” to any other union. It IS different. That’s not to assign labels of inferiority or superiority, that’s simply to point out an obvious distinction. A man and a woman can create other humans. They can form families. They can bring forth life. This difference is not an aberration or a matter of mere semantics. It’s something important, serious, profound. This relationship has a potential that is completely unique. It has attributes that can not be emulated by any other forms of human relationships. What does all this mean? It means it is NOT equal because equal, by definition, means “sameness.” Sameness, by definition, can not apply to two relationships that are characteristically separated by such a vast and remarkable distinction. Societies across the globe, until recently, have recognized the power of the male-female bond and appreciated the fact that the survival and propagation of civilization DEPENDS ENTIRELY on this bond. Again, no other relationship bears that responsibility. So, in light of this, most societies have afforded it a certain respect, both out of necessity and sound philosophy, and this bond was given a label: Marriage. Marriage is, or at least was, the CONTEXT in which families are FORMED and MAINTAINED. That’s why it’s important. That’s why it’s different. To “open up” the definition of marriage to include relationships — even relationships between individuals with strong emotional connections — that do not share these essential components, is to actively undermine the importance of the family. Undermining the family isn’t a byproduct, it’s the whole point. Proponents of this move have also completely failed to offer a new definition. They’ve made their opposition to the “traditional” one known, but they will not suggest an alternative. If there is no alternative, then they must publicly admit their intention to obliterate the institution, rather than “redefine” it. If they wish to keep the institution then they must explain where the new lines will be drawn and — importantly — why. Definitions require lines of distinction. The “old” version of marriage drew a clear, obvious, logical, purposeful, meaningful and objective line. What about the new? Is marriage simply a romantic agreement between two individuals who love each other? If so, that opens up a whole slew of alternate manifestations of marriage, which either leaves the definition so “open” as to fade it into oblivion, or else it requires the pioneers of this edited thing to begin making a thousand stipulations until, before long, they’re doing exactly what they accused traditional marriage advocates of doing, only they’re now doing it for increasingly arbitrary and superficial reasons."
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/26/let-me ...

LOL, you wish.

He just exposed your marrage as a fraud.

But hey, I give you credit for the most reasoned response you've ever posted!

Smile.
You have a "Mirage"....
Where you appear to have a "Marriage"
While you whoop it up with two
married Parishioners.

Frown
Rams Are Satan

Prague, Czech Republic

#55138 May 21, 2014
I look forward to God wiping out the tiny evil and sick big mouthed homosexual community. All deserve to die.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 33 min shinningelectr0n 1,189,812
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr david 184,801
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr IBdaMann 51,386
want 2 hr piyush91 1
Dear Abby 2-26-15 2 hr Kuuipo 8
wishes 4 hr iyya 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr David Morrison 99,159
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:18 am PST

Bleacher Report 7:18AM
Best Options to Replace Briggs This Offseason
Bleacher Report 8:12 AM
Buzz: Colts Eyeing Trades for Veteran WRs Including Marshall
Bleacher Report 1:14 PM
Could Bears Ever Get Fair Trade Value for Forte?
Bleacher Report 1:40 PM
Wayne Undergoes Surgery on Triceps
NFL 2:44 PM
Reggie Wayne had surgery, mulling Colts future