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.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#35302 Aug 15, 2012
ProCCW wrote:
How do you figure the majority did not support religious views. That is a ridiculous statement, even frm you.
*sigh* look it up. it's a matter of history, you know.
ProCCW

O Fallon, MO

#35303 Aug 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
*sigh* look it up. it's a matter of history, you know.
No kidding? Still a ridiculous statement

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35304 Aug 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
mostly from plato and socrates with a little common sense thrown in. none of it is based on anybody's 'moral code'. that would be a logical impossibility since every one has their own, unique,'moral code'.
BS from weeman.

You are consistent.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35305 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
Still wondering why a lesbian dresses and acts like a man to attract another lesbian.
How does that fit with evolution???
TXgurl wrote:
<quoted text>
Still blinded by stereotypes I see... Have you ever heard of a femme? All lesbians are not butches, dear.
Still stupid I see. I just asked about 'a' lesbian.

Why can't you just answer the question?

What are you so afraid of that you keep trying silly, childish gay twirls?

Anything that can be destroyed by truth should be.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35306 Aug 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.- Martin Luther King, Jr. was thinking of you.
You disgrace God and MLK with your slanders of their words.

Go back in the darkness of your hole where you belong weeman.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35307 Aug 15, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
she seems to overlook the fact that the vast majority of the founders were secular deists.
More like Christian deists. Read Washington's first Inaugural Address. Christian influence permeates the writings, speeches and postings on early public buildings.

Have fun finding Socrates and Plato.

Weeman, you speak with forked tongue so well, you make your father proud!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35308 Aug 15, 2012
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what your inner lesbian did to attract your wife? Glad to know that it worked out well for you.
Naw, the straight man did that. The lesbian was jealous of us both.

<smirk>

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#35309 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw, the straight man did that. The lesbian was jealous of us both.
<smirk>
How do we know that it wasn't really the inner lesbian pulling the strings of the str8 men to attract the wife?

Maybe she got what she was lookin' for by playing you like a fool?

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#35310 Aug 15, 2012
How do we know that it wasn't really the inner lesbian pulling the strings of the str8 men to attract the wife?

Maybe she got what she was lookin' for by playing you like a fool?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35311 Aug 15, 2012
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
How do we know that it wasn't really the inner lesbian pulling the strings of the str8 men to attract the wife?
Maybe she got what she was lookin' for by playing you like a fool?
Because the straight man puts his hand over the slut lesbian's eye when he is with his wife. The lesbian knows she NEVER could get the woman the straight man got. It would have been Janet Napolitano instead of Ann Margret.

Any other questions?

LOL

“It's a bathroom”

Since: Jul 07

Get over it, already

#35312 Aug 15, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Any other questions?
LOL
Not at the moment.
KarmasGonnaGetch a

Benton, KY

#35313 Aug 16, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the straight man puts his hand over the slut lesbian's eye when he is with his wife. The lesbian knows she NEVER could get the woman the straight man got. It would have been Janet Napolitano instead of Ann Margret.
Any other questions?
LOL
Ann Margret looked great in Carnal Knowledge, showing her big ol' titties and nice luscious booty!

<smirk>
<sneer>
<audible fart>
Straight
#35315 Aug 16, 2012
Geeeez you are a creep
KarmasGonnaGetcha wrote:
<quoted text>
Ann Margret looked great in Carnal Knowledge, showing her big ol' titties and nice luscious booty!
<smirk>
<sneer>
<audible fart>
Duh

Lebanon, MO

#35316 Aug 17, 2012
Straight wrote:
Geeeez you are a creep<quoted text>
You are a dim bulb. From previous posts it's obvious he was making fun of "KiMare".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35318 Aug 17, 2012
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

3. Conclusion

The 2005 APA Brief, near its outset, claims that “even taking into account all the questions and/or limitations that may characterize research in this area, none of the published research suggests conclusions different from that which will be summarized”(p. 5). The concluding summary later claims,“Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth”(p. 15).96

We now return to the overarching question of this paper: Are we witnessing the emergence of a new family form that provides a context for children that is equivalent to the traditional marriage-based family? Even after an extensive reading of the same-sex parenting literature, the author cannot offer a high confidence, data-based “yes” or “no” response to this question. To restate, not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief (pp. 23–45; see Table 1) compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them (e.g., Table 2).

Some opponents of same-sex parenting have made “egregious overstatements”97 disparaging gay and lesbian parents. Conversely, some same-sex parenting researchers seem to have contended for an “exceptionally clear”98 verdict of “no difference” between same-sex and heterosexual parents since 1992. However, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that strong, generalized assertions, including those made by the APA Brief, were not empirically warranted.99 As noted by Shiller (2007) in American Psychologist,“the line between science and advocacy appears blurred”(p. 712).

The scientific conclusions in this domain will increase in validity as researchers:(a) move from small convenience samples to large representative samples; (b) increasingly examine critical societal and economic concerns that emerge during adolescence and adulthood; (c) include more diverse same-sexfamilies (e.g., gay fathers, racial minorities, and those without middle-high socioeconomic status); (d) include intact, marriage-based heterosexual families as comparison groups; and (e) constructively respond to criticisms from methodological experts.100 Specifically, it is vital that critiques regarding sample size, sampling strategy, statistical power, and effect sizes not be disregarded. Taking these steps will help produce more methodologically rigorous and scientifically informed responses to significant questions affecting families and children.
Scarlett

Columbia, IL

#35319 Aug 17, 2012
Gee Rhett all I know is this all the gay women I see look like bull dogs, and really should be on
choke collar and chains, and are with others who
are the same. Really women and really "good
looking women want a man" and I do mean a real
man who "knows what to do with a woman in bed".
Rhett

Saint Louis, MO

#35320 Aug 18, 2012
My dearest Scarlett. Please don't be such a prude. I've been
with men, women and even animals. I know you remember our time
together fondly. I did get itchy from our encounter.
I like it dirty but maybe you should take a bath once in a while.
Scarlett wrote:
Gee Rhett all I know is this all the gay women I see look like bull dogs, and really should be on
choke collar and chains, and are with others who
are the same. Really women and really "good
looking women want a man" and I do mean a real
man who "knows what to do with a woman in bed".
Samatha

Dallas, TX

#35324 Aug 28, 2012
Obama puts Gays Front and center on the campaign trail

Thu May 17, 2012 15:41 EST

Tags: election 2012, gay marriage, mitt romney, obama



May 17, 2012- After announcing his support for gay “marriage” earlier this month, President Obama appears to be putting the issue front and center in his campaign, reiterating his stance in a recently released campaign video, and in comments to the media and potential donors.

In an interview filmed Monday for ABC’s the View, Obama said that his current stance was influenced by gay family friends who told him he should support gay “marriage” and not just civil unions because “words matter.”

Obama added that the issue is “going to be a big contrast in the campaign,” since his opponent, Mitt Romney, is in favor of a constitutional amendment that would ban gay “marriage.” His remarks echoed criticisms directed at the presumptive Republican nominee in a campaign video released last week which accused Romney of wanting to “take us back” rather than “move us forward.”

The president was elusive about his own stance on federal involvement in the issue, however, dodging a direct question from co-host Barbara Walters on whether he would “fight for a federal bill” that would legally enshrine gay “marriage.”

In response, Obama merely noted his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and claimed that the issue had “historically been determined at the state level.” He also accused Romney of “federalizing the whole issue” by favoring DOMA.

While the president’s federalist slant on the issue has dissatisfied some prominent gay rights supporters, his position has prompted praise, and in some cases, massive financial donations, from other corners of the movement.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, two up-coming fundraising events, one hosted by a prominent homosexual couple and the other by gay rights groups, are expected to bring in millions for the re-election campaign. The first was scheduled in the wake of the president’s announcement, and the second saw a dramatic increase in ticket sales because of it.

In widely reported comments, the president also called for the repeal of DOMA at a New York fundraiser co-hosted this week by the LGBT Leadership Council, gay singer Ricky Martin, and The Futuro Fund.

“We have never gone wrong when we expanded rights and responsibilities to everybody,” he told an audience of gay and lesbian supporters.“That doesn’t weaken families, that strengthens families.”

Romney has taken a restrained tone in response to the president’s championing of the issue, disappointing some conservatives.

“States are able to make decisions with regard to domestic partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights. Benefits and so forth of various kinds can be determined state by state. My view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman, and that’s my own preference,” he said at a recent press conference in Oklahoma.“I know other people have differing views, this is a very tender and sensitive topic as are many social issues but I have the same view that I’ve had since running for office.”
Horatio Caine

Miami, FL

#35325 Aug 28, 2012
Obama and his Gay minions are determined to push homosexuality down the throats of the American people.
``
The newest front in the battle over marriage
by Paul Benjamin Linton
Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:25 EST
Comments (2)

Tags: gay marriage, illinois, marriage

July 4, 2012 ( thePublicDiscourse.com )- Illinois is now “ground zero” in the ongoing battle to preserve traditional marriage. On May 30, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., filed separate lawsuits in the Cook County Circuit Court (which includes the City of Chicago) on behalf of a number of same-sex couples challenging the Illinois law that reserves marriage to opposite-sex couples (Illinois does, however, already recognize same-sex civil unions). The lawsuits, which raise only state, not federal, constitutional claims, name a single defendant, David Orr, the Cook County Clerk, who has the responsibility and duty of issuing marriage licenses and registering the solemnization of marriages after they have been performed. Mr. Orr, a longtime advocate of same-sex marriage, has announced his support for the plaintiffs’ lawsuits, has expressed his opinion that the failure to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages is unconstitutional, and has stated that he expects his counsel, Anita Alvarez, the State’s Attorney of Cook County, to support his position, which she has now done. She has filed an answer in each case admitting that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantees of the Illinois Constitution.
In the meantime, Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois (and daughter of Michael Madigan, the powerful Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives), has filed petitions to intervene in both cases, not to defend the existing law, which one would normally expect the Attorney General to do when the constitutionality of a state statute is drawn into question, but to attack the law. At this point, there is no one in either case who is willing to defend the law. A lawsuit in which both sides support the same result is, to say the least, odd.
An uncharitable mind might be tempted to believe that these lawsuits are collusive, i.e., that they were brought with the understanding (express or implied) that neither the defendant (Mr. Orr), nor his attorney (Ms. Alvarez), nor the Attorney General (Ms. Madigan) would defend the challenge, resulting in a judgment striking down the statute and enjoining its enforcement. That belief would be reinforced by the fact that many of the plaintiff same-sex couples reside in counties other than Cook, yet did not file their lawsuit in their own counties. As a result, the Illinois law prohibiting same-sex marriage may fall without a single shot being fired in its defense. And if no one defends the law, then it follows that no one is in a position to appeal a judgment invalidating the law. So same-sex marriage may come to Illinois without the Illinois Supreme Court ever having had an opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the existing marriage law.
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
In a further irony, because Mr. Orr was sued only in his capacity as Cook County Clerk, and not also as a representative of a class of Illinois county clerks, an unappealed judgment striking down the marriage statute would bind only him, not any other county clerk in Illinois (there are 102 counties in the State). As a consequence, Illinois may have not one, but two sets of marriage laws, one for Cook County, where same-sex couples could marry, and another for the rest of the state, where they could not. That is obviously an intolerable situation that cries out for judicial intervention at the highest level. It may be hoped that one or more individuals or organizations with a stake in this fight will seek to intervene to defend the law.
Horatio Caine

Miami, FL

#35326 Aug 28, 2012
For now, it seems worthwhile to examine the merits of the two lawsuits. In a Chicago Tribune op-ed piece aptly titled “Marriage on the rocks?” University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone heralds the lawsuits filed by the ACLU and Lambda and predicts that the plaintiffs will prevail in their challenge to the Illinois marriage law. Professor Stone, however, presents a very distorted and one-sided view of the legal and political issues surrounding the same-sex marriage debate, and the lawsuits he welcomes are meritless.

The ACLU and Lambda raise four principal arguments against the state marriage law. First, they argue that reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the “fundamental” right to marry the person of one’s choice, which right is supposedly protected by the liberty language in the state due process guarantee (art. I,§ 2). But, with the exception of a decision of the California Supreme Court four years ago (In re Marriage Cases), which was overturned by Proposition 8, and, arguably, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge v. Dep’t of Public Health (2003), which redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, no state or federal reviewing court has ever held that the substantive due process right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. The right to marry has always been understood to be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex. That is clear from a series of Supreme Court decisions tying the right to marry to the procreation of children, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (1967), Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Turner v. Safley (1987). In a very old case, Maynard v. Hill (1888), the Court characterized the institution of marriage as “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” So much for the “fundamental” right argument.

Second, the ACLU and Lambda argue that reserving marriage to opposite-sex couples denies same-sex couples the equal protection of law guaranteed by art. I,§ 2 of the Illinois Constitution. Presumably, this argument, as it is developed by the plaintiffs (to date, only the complaints have been filed), will claim that classifications drawn on the basis of one’s sexual orientation should be subject to the same rigorous standard of judicial review that applies to classifications based on race (strict scrutiny) or gender (intermediate scrutiny). There is a major difficulty with this argument, however.

In interpreting the state equal protection guarantee, Illinois courts follow federal precedents interpreting the Equal Protection Clause. But there is no Supreme Court decision subjecting classifications based on sexual orientation to the standards that apply to classifications based on race (strict scrutiny) or gender (intermediate scrutiny). In Romer v. Evans (1996), the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which barred special legislation protecting gays and lesbians, under the rational basis standard of review. But the narrow and focused prohibition of same-sex marriage cannot be equated with the breadth and scope of Amendment 2. And every federal court of appeals to have considered the issue has concluded that classifications based on one’s sexual orientation are subject only to the “rational basis” standard of review.

The reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples easily passes that standard. Extending marriage to same-sex couples would not promote either of the two primary purposes for which society recognizes the institution of marriage—providing a stable environment for children procreated by heterosexual sexual activity and providing the benefits of dual-gender parenting for the children so procreated.

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.

Riverdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Calumet City in the 60's & 70's (Feb '10) 4 hr taviz 108
blue island city budget 4 hr Enjoy Your Holiday 15
When will the BIPD solve the Robbie Silva Case (Dec '11) 6 hr Here Comes the Judge 83
city attorney under the influence 9 hr Drunktard 26
We Love Blue Island 18 hr Your Alderman 13
Antonio Manrique - $1 Million Dollar Settlement. (Jun '10) 18 hr BIGG 33
Degenerates Post Here Sat Pot meets kettle 7

Riverdale Jobs

Personal Finance

Riverdale Mortgages