Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52049 comments on the CBS2 story from Nov 30, 2010, titled Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions. In it, CBS2 reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS2.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38050 Feb 28, 2013
"The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."

Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." ( p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement, Perry.)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38051 Feb 28, 2013
Gill v. OPM
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38052 Feb 28, 2013
Marriage means different things to different people. Everyone is free to attach whatever meaning they choose for themselves, to their own marriage.

But from a legal perspective, marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gender is not a restriction.

While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

Since: Jan 13

Ina, IL

#38053 Feb 28, 2013
Now, are the surviving spouse of same sex marriages going to get survivor benifits such as pensions and SSI?

The "actuaries" used to calculate fund payments have not included same sex marriages. In fact, based on census data there is a ratio established using specific numbers of married and singles.

Simply stated, there is not enough money in SSI, pension funds or other survivor benifits to include payments to a survivor of a same sex marriage. Including them will deplete our funds and the security of our future retirements.

Since: Jan 13

Ina, IL

#38054 Feb 28, 2013
Elliminating survivor benifits to the survivors of same sex marriages would save those funds and protect the security of these retirement funds.

Changing the actuary numbers used would emediately reduce payments to all retirees.

Increasing payments into retirement funds would help include same sex into the actuaries, however, there would be 40 to 50 years worth of fund deposits missing.(Years worked until the death of one spouse.)

My bet is, if same sex survivor benifits were eliminated, they would not have gotten married in the first place.
mother Superior

Saint Louis, MO

#38055 Feb 28, 2013
That's exactly what they want my dear.
Marriage BENEFITS!
1Patriot wrote:
Elliminating survivor benifits to the survivors of same sex marriages would save those funds and protect the security of these retirement funds.
Changing the actuary numbers used would emediately reduce payments to all retirees.
Increasing payments into retirement funds would help include same sex into the actuaries, however, there would be 40 to 50 years worth of fund deposits missing.(Years worked until the death of one spouse.)
My bet is, if same sex survivor benifits were eliminated, they would not have gotten married in the first place.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#38056 Feb 28, 2013
1Patriot wrote:
Now, are the surviving spouse of same sex marriages going to get survivor benifits such as pensions and SSI?
The "actuaries" used to calculate fund payments have not included same sex marriages. In fact, based on census data there is a ratio established using specific numbers of married and singles.
Simply stated, there is not enough money in SSI, pension funds or other survivor benifits to include payments to a survivor of a same sex marriage. Including them will deplete our funds and the security of our future retirements.
Yes, blame the gays for Congress borrowing money (and not paying it back) from the Social Security Trust Fund. You anti-gay types have lost your minds.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#38057 Feb 28, 2013
1Patriot wrote:
Elliminating survivor benifits to the survivors of same sex marriages would save those funds and protect the security of these retirement funds.
How about we eliminate YOUR benfits and only give benefits to gay couples?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38058 Feb 28, 2013
AnnieSprinkle wrote:
<quoted text>
pro·cre·ate
/&#712;pr&#333;kr& #275;&#716;&#257;t/
Verb
(of people or animals) Produce young; reproduce.
Homosexuals have produced young. I looked up the word you asked me to look up, even though you did not afford me the same courtesy and instead for the second time told me to "sit on it". To be perfectly honest it's irresponsible for you to use the word demeaning in that context, because it diminishes truly demeaning sexual issues like rape and rape culture. By further continuing to call me 'blonde' as though that matters and alleging your opinions are 'scientific fact', you have made it categorically clear that you cannot carry on intelligent debate even a little bit. In the event that you choose to address anything of importance in my comment rather than ignoring it and only responding to the bits you have copy-and-paste responses for, I will continue this conversation. I can tell you like to argue, so I look forward to it.
PS I hate to break it to you, but for a large majority of people in the developed world homo-, hetero- and bisexual alike, orgasms and intimacy ARE the big picture of sex. Even in the event that a couple is trying to conceive, those things are still the focus of the actual event. This is in response to your assertion that homosexual sex is an attempt to mimic hetero sex, which is absurd. It also illustrates that you know very little of lesbian sex which in no way resembles hetero penetrative intercourse in most situations.
Of course homosexuals have reproduced silly girl! However, I said A 'homosexual couple' cannot procreate. The only option is that one of them utilizes a default opposite gender substitute. The result is a child who is deliberately destitute one natural parent and one parental gender for the sake of the homosexual couple. Criminally atrocious narcissism.

You keep saying anal sex is not demeaning, then you get offended when I just suggest you to experience it. Seems to me you are proving yourself wrong...

Did you really suggest that speaking of anything else as demeaning diminishes the issue of rape??? I won't say you are blonde, but my lip is bleeding right now...

If you think something I've said is unscientific, simply post a rebuttal from a legitimate source. It is easy for anyone to do but blondes...

Heads up honey, not just some humans limit mating behavior to sex, but ALL animals do too. The constraint of marriage is not just to address the likely consequence of children, but to mark the vow of monogamy and the pursuit of sexual union that embraces body, mind and spirit. Something a vast number consider sacred. Something that distinguishes human sex from animals.

As to mimicking heterosexual sex, every aspect of homosexual sex can only do so. They are absent the natural opposite partner. At every level, the complementary half is missing.

Damn, my lip is bleeding again!!!

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38059 Feb 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Marriage means different things to different people. Everyone is free to attach whatever meaning they choose for themselves, to their own marriage.
But from a legal perspective, marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gender is not a restriction.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.
BS

At the most fundamental level, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples are a defective desolate contradiction to the very focus of evolution. Literally 'unmarriage'.

No matter how blusterous you pontificate with gay twirl legality, you have yet to get past first base.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38060 Feb 28, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> How about we eliminate YOUR benfits and only give benefits to gay couples?
How about you man up and get your own benefits like marriage did. Leave the protections of mothers and children alone!

Snicker.
blue bird bus

United States

#38061 Feb 28, 2013
The rainbow tribe says welcome home; lovin you...now let's get them joints passed around main circle and usher in the coming of the anti christ. Go ki mare you are really moving this site into the future. I'm proud of you. You are a gay revolutionist. The beatles sang were talking about a evil lution. Never mind all that let me get a hit off the global joint so I can sing strawberrie fields forever. Gooo ki mare you tell em. All we are saying is give gay a chance....everybody is talking about bagism, everybody is talking about fagism, the ism the ism ism ism. Goooo ki mare. Youu are ny worst nightmare
blue bird bus

United States

#38062 Feb 28, 2013
Middle finger
blue bird bus

United States

#38063 Feb 28, 2013
All you homosexuals are going to break the internet system if you keep typing away at this crap. A system overload was on the news today...stop. if we mess up the www.com what will we do with our lives? Stair at the wall ? How about we do zen buddism and chant ohhhhmmmmmmm all day instead
blue bird bus

United States

#38065 Feb 28, 2013
Lilith_Satans_Who_re wrote:
What???
. Oh my......you can't read can you ? That was a test. If you can read and write that means nothing to me.....you don't know how to think,because you are not free. You have been manufactured by your american culture. Made in the u.s.a is sewed into your forehead. Wake up lilith satan whatever you are
blue bird bus

United States

#38067 Feb 28, 2013
While you ponder on that satan. I'm gonna have more beer. And maybe take a hit off the bong. Free your minds. What we are doing is a evil lution. Such dorks. Beer scares you....them drunks are too rowdy. Drunks are stupid.
blue bird bus

United States

#38068 Feb 28, 2013
Jim morrison in the movie the doors with val kilmer. The television set is going bonkers with army helicpoters on the news vietnam is raging like a beast caged in the heart of the city, people are peace protesting, hey jim hey jim hey jim..............everyone is in his face like evil clowns triening to make him cry. Hey jim just sell out. Hey jim just sell your soul to car commercial. Hey jim...be a sober dork like us. So any way morrison blurts out ; I think I'm having a nervious breakdown. Right then and there he became free you dork dork dork dorks
blue bird bus

United States

#38069 Feb 28, 2013
Yes, bring the nurse so I can fondle her. it should be against the law to think. They should have a new police force on patrol for thought crimnals. Maybe topix in the future will be a alert system for thought crime. A bait trap...
blue bird bus

United States

#38070 Feb 28, 2013
Maybe I'm on the list now by argueing with you dorks. Done gave them my intel. Operations. Why is it sanity is always the question ? Is it against the law to think so insane? Maybe that is what thought crime is you stupid dork.....come to my house so I can get you drunk. Well do beer bongs all night. Do you want my address???
blue bird bus

United States

#38071 Feb 28, 2013
Ill give you all my address I ain't a dork. A scared american...I ain't that dork no sir. Need my phone number???? Come on dorks. Computer geeks. Geeks no life. Scared little rabbits. Like rob zombie said ruuuuunnnn rabbit run

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.

Canton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lacy Dean Sago FWB Apr '18 FWB 1
Dr. Dwayne P. Bernard Grahm hospital (Sep '14) Oct '17 Anon 5
News Greenwood Cemetery map is offered to help locat... (May '06) Mar '17 Greenwood Cemetery 13
1 dead in natural gas explosion, several buildi... (Nov '16) Nov '16 openmind693 1
News Topless 'Midget' Wrestling Costs Bar Its License (Sep '08) Aug '16 Jillian Dworak 14
Ryan Voice (Apr '13) Aug '16 Jillian Dworak 9
biggest regret... please help :( (Jul '15) Aug '16 Bean 2

Canton Jobs

Personal Finance

Canton Mortgages