Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52071 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.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37474 Feb 5, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Honest minds want to know. Is that too much for you???
Honest minds don't talk about fruits and nuts, and then claim that they're being clever.

Why do you refuse to listen to internal lesbian?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#37475 Feb 5, 2013
G-Wiz wrote:
so gays want what straight people already have right? impossible until scientists make it possible for them to bear children. sorry you guys will have to live in sin until then. waa, we cant be married waaa
Gays do not have abortions
.
Gays do not use birth control
.
Gays do not have accidental pregnancies
.
Gays 'do' have absolute control over our baby making process without the need for straight people or sorry-ass homophobes; sugar
http://www.quitecurious.com/wp-content/galler...
Andrew Singer

San Luis Obispo, CA

#37476 Feb 5, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Honest minds don't talk about fruits and nuts, and then claim that they're being clever.
Why do you refuse to listen to internal lesbian?
The factless QUEEN listens to HIS internal lesbian every day, thus explaining his whiny little bitch posts!(S)he is "stamping her wittle feeties" as she reads my post hammering factless' bitchy "wittle" ass this very minute!!

LMFAO!!!

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37477 Feb 5, 2013
Andrew Singer wrote:
<quoted text>
The factless QUEEN....
LMFAO!!!
Calling kimare a factless queen is pretty bitchy.

I love it.

His posts are as barren as my mangina.
Illegal

Wilmington, IL

#37479 Feb 5, 2013
Nothing legal about being gay.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37480 Feb 5, 2013
No US law has ever required procreation ability or intent for marriage.

Several SCOTUS cases affirm procreation is not a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage to remain a fundamental right. Whether or not to procreate is a private decision, beyond the proper reach of the government, and independant of marriage:

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
P
lanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Andrew Singer

San Luis Obispo, CA

#37483 Feb 5, 2013
Mother Superior wrote:
If you want the same rights.....
Then start acting the same way as US!!!!!!
What, like hillbilly Paris trash?? Sorry, unclear on your meaning. LOL.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37484 Feb 5, 2013
Mother Superior wrote:
If you want the same rights.....
Then start acting the same way as US!!!!!!
you want us all to act tedious and boring?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37486 Feb 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
No US law has ever required procreation ability or intent for marriage.
Several SCOTUS cases affirm procreation is not a requirement for the fundamental right of marriage to remain a fundamental right. Whether or not to procreate is a private decision, beyond the proper reach of the government, and independant of marriage:
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”
P
lanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
As you are well aware but deceitfully leave out, all these cases reference these decisions.

Please, post those in fairness, otherwise you disgrace your position.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37487 Feb 5, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
As you are well aware but deceitfully leave out, all these cases reference these decisions.
Please, post those in fairness, otherwise you disgrace your position.
Smile.
Which part of "intimate and personal choice" are you unclear on? These matters are matters of choice; there is no requirement to breed. If there's no requirement to breed how can you possibly continue to claim that marriage rights are about progeny?

I've never bred, but someday soon your wife will leave you and marry me. Yes, we'll have to leave the state, but she wants to get out of Hooterville anyway.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#37488 Feb 5, 2013
Procreation is a private decision which does not alter the fundamental right of the individual to marriage. No procreation intent, or even ability, is required, as made clear in Turner and others.

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
Nun Atol

Alpharetta, GA

#37489 Feb 5, 2013
Mother Superior wrote:
If you want the same rights.....
Then start acting the same way as US!!!!!!
Oh! But we 'do'; Mother Superbra
.
Since 1979!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpe...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#37490 Feb 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Procreation is a private decision which does not alter the fundamental right of the individual to marriage. No procreation intent, or even ability, is required, as made clear in Turner and others.
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
Why don't you post the SCOTUS decisions yours are based on?

Isn't that dishonest?

What are you afraid of?

Isn't the oath, "The truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth"?

Smile.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#37491 Feb 5, 2013
I'd just like to say, what is wrong with a room full of men wearing tutu's, women makeup and wigs. Just doing the most perverted filthiest acts with each other that would make a true man sick. And what's wrong with sister Sally dressing like grandpa. Lol, lol...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#37492 Feb 5, 2013
Mother Superior wrote:
If you want the same rights.....
Then start acting the same way as US!!!!!!
Sorry, we can't act that stupid. Its something that people like you are just born with...
Unbelievable

Cincinnati, OH

#37493 Feb 5, 2013
So... all gay people dress as the opposite sex now?

Who cares what people do with their lives? They don't care about what you are doing with yours.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#37494 Feb 5, 2013
Docrahrah wrote:
I'd just like to say, what is wrong with a room full of men wearing tutu's, women makeup and wigs. Just doing the most perverted filthiest acts with each other that would make a true man sick. And what's wrong with sister Sally dressing like grandpa. Lol, lol...
Ha ha ha ha ha

A true man doesn't feel compelled to crap in others.
Mother Superior

Waterloo, IL

#37495 Feb 5, 2013
I just think of how predictable you are HA HA!!!!
You to jon jon!
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, we can't act that stupid. Its something that people like you are just born with...
Dolan

Saint Louis, MO

#37496 Feb 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Procreation is a private decision which does not alter the fundamental right of the individual to marriage. No procreation intent, or even ability, is required, as made clear in Turner and others.
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
All that I want to ask is this....
Name me one law that 'regulates'- a "choice" about
a sexual lifestyle. Laws regulate how we function in
society...not about whether you like hotdogs
or i like pie. Plenty of non-dism laws on the
books, which allow for your lifestyle "choice". What
you do in a sexual environment, as it is with me...
your business. Don't need any laws to regulate
your sexual choice...or mine.
You follow the same societal rules as the rest of
us...which is to keep order in how society operates.
Your sexual choices is not a society-ordered function...
yours is only sexual...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#37497 Feb 5, 2013
Mother Superior wrote:
I just think of how predictable you are HA HA!!!!
You to jon jon!
<quoted text>
You made a prediction after someone did something? Wow...how lame.

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.

Lake Villa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
IH Rent - Invitation Homes Complaints (Feb '14) Sun Laura B 122
NAMFS - REO Property Preservation SCAMMERS (Jan '15) Sun Contractor 2
Tear down Antioch bowling alley Sun Real Longtime Res... 22
home choice stores (Aug '09) Aug 1 chi-city 21
News TLC Coffeehouse Serves Antioch Community Aug 1 Locally owned 26
News Antioch buys 50 acres for $1 million to boost g... Jul 29 My kids eat veggies 19
Finally someone is getting things done in Antioch Jul 29 Lodvus M 22
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lake Villa Mortgages