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 1,610)

Showing posts 32,181 - 32,200 of47,083
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37488
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37489
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37490
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37491
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37492
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37493
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37494
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37495
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37496
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37497
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

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.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37498
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Dolan wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
zzzzzz....sexuality isn't a choice.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37499
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

7

NEWTOWN SIDES WITH NRA: VOTES FOR ARMED GUARDS IN SCHOOLS

by JOHN NOLTE 1 Feb 2013

When the rubber hits the road, when the stark and very real choice is either empty political posturing with useless gun control laws or doing something practical to protect your children, the only people laughing at the NRA are a media determined to protect anything and everything involving Barack Obama. Today the Newtown Board of Education made the only choice any parent can: It voted to put armed guards in its schools:

The vote, for now, only represents a request it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan 'would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school,' reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut.

The current push for gun controls by The State and its media is nothing more than another front in the relentless culture wars against Red State Americans and Bitter Clingers. None of the proposed laws would have stopped the Sandy Hook murderer, which should tell you everything you need to know.

Meanwhile, in Democrat-run Chicago, there's a Newtown every month. But the only solution to that problem would be admitting harsh gun control laws and liberalism run amok have failed. So the media would rather Chicago's monthly Sandy Hook goes on than ever admit to such an inconvenient truth.

The NRA proposed putting armed guns in schools, and now the school board closest to this tragedy agrees.

Liberals always depend on others to defend them, and yet oppose sane ideas. Strange people those!
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37502
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Bruser wrote:
NEWTOWN SIDES WITH NRA: VOTES FOR ARMED GUARDS IN SCHOOLS
by JOHN NOLTE 1 Feb 2013
When the rubber hits the road, when the stark and very real choice is either empty political posturing with useless gun control laws or doing something practical to protect your children, the only people laughing at the NRA are a media determined to protect anything and everything involving Barack Obama. Today the Newtown Board of Education made the only choice any parent can: It voted to put armed guards in its schools:
The vote, for now, only represents a request it still needs to clear budget and logistical boundaries since the guards would come from the town's police resources as opposed to the school board itself. But the plan 'would put two eyes and ears -- one armed, one unarmed -- at each Newtown school,' reports Bronxville Patch's Davis Dunavin. The guards, officially called school resource officers (SROs), were already a fixture at all Newtown schools in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, but until this vote they were budgeted only to be a presence at middle and high Schools, according to NBC Connecticut.
The current push for gun controls by The State and its media is nothing more than another front in the relentless culture wars against Red State Americans and Bitter Clingers. None of the proposed laws would have stopped the Sandy Hook murderer, which should tell you everything you need to know.
Meanwhile, in Democrat-run Chicago, there's a Newtown every month. But the only solution to that problem would be admitting harsh gun control laws and liberalism run amok have failed. So the media would rather Chicago's monthly Sandy Hook goes on than ever admit to such an inconvenient truth.
The NRA proposed putting armed guns in schools, and now the school board closest to this tragedy agrees.
Liberals always depend on others to defend them, and yet oppose sane ideas. Strange people those!
It will work if they issue bulletproof vests to all the Gay and Hispanic children

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37504
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
zzzzzz....sexuality isn't a choice.
Additionally, marriage does not require sexual expression. It is independent of sexual behavior. People locked up in prison remain married or can get married, even when sex is impossible.(Turner)

Same with people who are paralyzed or otherwise incapable of sexual function. Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. Like free speech remains a right even if you can't talk. It is a fundamental civil right of the individual.

“Free your mind”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37506
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mother Superior wrote:
Agreed... Marriage should not be about sex.
Yet you argue for "same SEX marriages"
You contradict yourself.
FAIL!
<quoted text>
Same sex as in gender, not having sex... geeze, when you see "sex" on a form you fill out do you think it means having sex, or what sex you are?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37508
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TXgurl wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex as in gender, not having sex... geeze, when you see "sex" on a form you fill out do you think it means having sex, or what sex you are?
Its an idiot troll...don't even try reasoning with it...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37509
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mother Superior wrote:
Agreed... Marriage should not be about sex.
Yet you argue for "same SEX marriages"
You contradict yourself.
FAIL!
<quoted text>
Oh, Momma Inferior, that was a really lame argument. I'll have "nun" of your nonsense.

What do Nuns do in cucumber gardens?

Push-ups.
Mother Superior

Waterloo, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37510
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

I assume you do squat thrusts.
Bless you my dear.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, Momma Inferior, that was a really lame argument. I'll have "nun" of your nonsense.
What do Nuns do in cucumber gardens?
Push-ups.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Feb 13

Is A Reality

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37511
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Mother Superior wrote:
I assume you do squat thrusts.
Bless you my dear.
<quoted text>
Religiously, fervently and vociferously.
Mother Superior

Waterloo, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37512
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

vociferously?
I learned a new word today.
It's good to keep in top physical condition.
Bless you once again my dear.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Religiously, fervently and vociferously.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 32,181 - 32,200 of47,083
|
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.

Other Recent Lake Villa Discussions

Search the Lake Villa Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 1 hr IL has a Spending Problem 3,786
IL Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Illinois ... (Oct '10) 12 hr jimtownhounddogsniffing 6,538
Antioch superintendent to resign in June 13 hr Curious 14
Warm Wishes for a Merry Christmas in Antioch 21 hr Humble Conservative 6
Fear of rival gangs detours motorcycle festival (May '08) Sat BIG 812 272
IL Who do you support for Secretary of State in Il... (Oct '10) Sat Be kuel 505
IH Rent - Invitation Homes Complaints Sat Get it Now 36
•••
•••
•••
•••

Lake Villa Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Lake Villa People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••