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
32,661 - 32,680 of 49,477 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
blue bird bus

Altona, IL

#38034 Feb 27, 2013
Think ki mare is a school teacher gays and gals....do you ever stop repeating yourself ??? You sound so politcialy correct. Choose your words so it fits the social puzzle. Yes, you can fit that here and fit this there. Good job ki mare.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38036 Feb 27, 2013
blue bird bus wrote:
Think ki mare is a school teacher gays and gals....do you ever stop repeating yourself ??? You sound so politcialy correct. Choose your words so it fits the social puzzle. Yes, you can fit that here and fit this there. Good job ki mare.
Not near so exciting...

I'm just a near senile old man with simple common sense. Hardly politically correct.

Just a heads up, old people don't care if they repeat themselves, especially to fools in denial.

Smile.
Cindy1455

Apo, AE

#38037 Feb 27, 2013
I do not agree
bluebirdbus

United States

#38038 Feb 27, 2013
Honk * honk *...I love old people

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38039 Feb 27, 2013
blue bird bus wrote:
Think ki mare is a school teacher gays and gals....do you ever stop repeating yourself ??? You sound so politcialy correct. Choose your words so it fits the social puzzle. Yes, you can fit that here and fit this there. Good job ki mare.
Teachers rephrase material for comprehension and retention.

Kimare just copies and pastes because he already is senile. He also doesn't really give a rat's a$$ about any of this; he's just being a crank yanker.
blue bird bus

United States

#38040 Feb 27, 2013
I thought you became pope "dusty" we all seen it on the news. Watch out for karma the streets are busy out there. When you see a old person getting ready to cross a street you stop,honk * honk*, wave ,and watch. When I encounter old people like ki mare I make sure the old guy doesn't do circles in the middle of the street. I open the bus door and listen..........if he needs help I turn on my emergency lights ( blink *****blink) then I offer for a free ride or help him/her across the road. I'm not a pope...yet,I know karma is a b*tch.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#38041 Feb 27, 2013
I do know the real reason the Pope is resigning. He's seriously injured his neck from constantly turning the other way.
blue bird bus

United States

#38042 Feb 27, 2013
Thank god...there really are nice people left in the end of this world. Dusty you really are a good person. On a personal level...is this stuff fun or what??? I just found topix about a week ago. I just learned how to work through the internet about two months ago. I am new at any of this cyber stuff. To me this is just a exercise for creative writting. To play chess with concepts with unknown faceless people. It is very strange to me.my goals are to really to strengthen my writting talents and begin work in journalism,poetry,fictional short stories and essays in conspiracy theory. When I write silly stuff it is a bait trap mechanism to pull out answers. People grow cold quick and are at a loss of say sometimes. Writters block maybe. Bless you

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#38043 Feb 27, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Homosexual sex is a redundant half of natural complimentary sex, the design of nature.
Moreover, homosexual procreation desolation is a clear indication of defect.
At the most intimate level, clearly distinct from marriage.
Bazinga!
I'm curious to know why you are so focused on male homosexual behavior. What about lesbians? I want to know your specific crazy thoughts on a couple where both parties can get pregnant and have biological children without adulterous behavior or surrogacy, since you are so focused on procreation.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38044 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Homosexual sex is a redundant half of natural complimentary sex, the design of nature.
Moreover, homosexual procreation desolation is a clear indication of defect.
At the most intimate level, clearly distinct from marriage.
Bazinga!
AnnieSprinkle wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious to know why you are so focused on male homosexual behavior. What about lesbians? I want to know your specific crazy thoughts on a couple where both parties can get pregnant and have biological children without adulterous behavior or surrogacy, since you are so focused on procreation.
Are you trying to shame me? Or just distorting what I say? How silly and childish. I call that 'gay twirl'...

As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart to union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.

While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form. That's not 'crazy' blonde, that is simple scientific facts...

As to your last question, you seem to be asserting that a homosexual couple can procreate. That assertion would be extremely blonde...

Smile.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#38045 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
Homosexual sex is a redundant half of natural complimentary sex, the design of nature.
Moreover, homosexual procreation desolation is a clear indication of defect.
At the most intimate level, clearly distinct from marriage.
Bazinga!
<quoted text>
Are you trying to shame me? Or just distorting what I say? How silly and childish. I call that 'gay twirl'...
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart to union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form. That's not 'crazy' blonde, that is simple scientific facts...
As to your last question, you seem to be asserting that a homosexual couple can procreate. That assertion would be extremely blonde...
Smile.
As usual, you brought the crazy. Homosexual couples can and do procreate with frequency regardless of whether you acknowledge it. Further, you should really look up the word "demeaning" because it doesn't mean what you think it means. The only sex that is demeaning is sex that is unwanted or has aspects that are unwanted by one or more of the participants.

I just have to add, no one is trying to duplicate anything when they have sex. They are trying to have orgasms. Homosexuals aren't having sex because they want to do things heterosexuals do. They're doing it because orgasms are great and intimacy is part of a relationship. If sex only took place because people wanted to have kids, there wouldn't be such a thing as accidental pregnancy, and no one would ever be in a good mood.

I wasn't trying to shame you, and I'm not now. You calling me 'blonde' is interesting, because the entirety of your argument here is based on evolution and genetics, and yet you seem blissfully unaware that there is no biological correlation between shade of hair color and intelligence level. Normally I would just assume you were trying to call me stupid without saying so, but since you seem so hellbent on an argument involving genetics, I found that a fascinating choice. Also I am not blonde.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#38046 Feb 28, 2013
AnnieSprinkle wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you brought the crazy. Homosexual couples can and do procreate with frequency regardless of whether you acknowledge it. Further, you should really look up the word "demeaning" because it doesn't mean what you think it means. The only sex that is demeaning is sex that is unwanted or has aspects that are unwanted by one or more of the participants.
I just have to add, no one is trying to duplicate anything when they have sex. They are trying to have orgasms. Homosexuals aren't having sex because they want to do things heterosexuals do. They're doing it because orgasms are great and intimacy is part of a relationship. If sex only took place because people wanted to have kids, there wouldn't be such a thing as accidental pregnancy, and no one would ever be in a good mood.
I wasn't trying to shame you, and I'm not now. You calling me 'blonde' is interesting, because the entirety of your argument here is based on evolution and genetics, and yet you seem blissfully unaware that there is no biological correlation between shade of hair color and intelligence level. Normally I would just assume you were trying to call me stupid without saying so, but since you seem so hellbent on an argument involving genetics, I found that a fascinating choice. Also I am not blonde.
You need to look up the meaning of procreate. A homosexual couple has never procreated.

As to the meaning of demeaning, oh sit on it!

Pointing out that homosexuals are simply trying to have orgasms does nothing to disprove one single point I made. It simply is an attempt to divert from the whole picture by focusing on a single aspect. One I had already assumed was a goal.

You must dye your hair, because your replies are more perfect examples of blonde behavior!

I'm 'hell bent' on barbarically assaulting denial. Hence I put scientific fact in front of fiction.

Smile.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#38047 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to look up the meaning of procreate. A homosexual couple has never procreated.
As to the meaning of demeaning, oh sit on it!
Pointing out that homosexuals are simply trying to have orgasms does nothing to disprove one single point I made. It simply is an attempt to divert from the whole picture by focusing on a single aspect. One I had already assumed was a goal.
You must dye your hair, because your replies are more perfect examples of blonde behavior!
I'm 'hell bent' on barbarically assaulting denial. Hence I put scientific fact in front of fiction.
Smile.
Scientific fact?

hahahahahaha
ahahahahahah
ahahahahhaha
ahahahahahha
ahahahhahahaha
ahahahahahhahaha
ahahahahhahaha

You're hilarious today.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#38048 Feb 28, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to look up the meaning of procreate. A homosexual couple has never procreated.
As to the meaning of demeaning, oh sit on it!
Pointing out that homosexuals are simply trying to have orgasms does nothing to disprove one single point I made. It simply is an attempt to divert from the whole picture by focusing on a single aspect. One I had already assumed was a goal.
You must dye your hair, because your replies are more perfect examples of blonde behavior!
I'm 'hell bent' on barbarically assaulting denial. Hence I put scientific fact in front of fiction.
Smile.
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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#38049 Feb 28, 2013
"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

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

Bluford, 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

Bluford, 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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Investors never invest their own money (Apr '11) 17 min Halloween 6,571
Jersey Mike's or Subway? 47 min Neighbor 3
Tea Tards Gone Wild 1 hr Whatever 39
Review: Best In Show Dog & Cat Groom (Mar '09) 3 hr JoJo 70
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 15 hr newpoly 1,903
Two Illinois Coal Power Plants Going Offline Thu Romeoville resident 9
Area known as The Hill (Feb '07) Thu truthiness 84
•••
•••
•••

Joliet Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Joliet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Joliet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Joliet
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••