Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-S...

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

There are 52019 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.

“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

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

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

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

Calvert City, 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

Maryland Heights, 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

Waterloo, 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.
Horatio Caine

Miami, FL

#35327 Aug 28, 2012
Third, the ACLU and Lambda argue that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the privacy rights of same-sex couples under art. I,§ 6 of the state constitution. The privacy language has been applied only to privacy of personal information and evidence gathering by law enforcement officials; it has never been applied to conduct. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how the right of privacy, which is a shield to protect persons from unwarranted government intrusion into their private affairs, can be converted into a sword for demanding public recognition of a private relationship.

With the exception of the California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Marriage Cases, no state or federal reviewing court has upheld a privacy-based challenge to a law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, and several courts, including the Arizona Court of Appeals, Standhardt v. Superior Court (2003), the Hawaii Supreme Court, Baehr v. Lewin (1993), and the Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County (2006), have rejected such challenges. Indeed, in one of the cases advocates of same-sex marriage frequently cite, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, in striking down the Texas sodomy law, stated that the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Fourth, the ACLU and Lambda argue that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the prohibition of sex discrimination under art. I,§ 18 of the state constitution. But that prohibition has no application to a law that treats men and women equally. Neither a man nor a woman may marry someone of the same sex; both may marry someone of the opposite sex. With the exception of a two-judge plurality opinion of the Hawaii Supreme Court, Baehr v. Lewin (1993), which has been described by one constitutional law scholar as one of the ten worst state supreme court decisions of all time, no state or federal reviewing court has accepted the “sex discrimination” argument against marriage laws. Such arguments have been rejected by the California Supreme Court, In re Marriage Cases (2008), the Kentucky Supreme Court, Jones v. Hallahan (1973), the Maryland Court of Appeals, Conaway v. Deane (2007), the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson (1971), the New York Court of Appeals, Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the Vermont Supreme Court, Baker v. State (1999), the Washington Supreme Court, Andersen v. King County (2006), the Washington Court of Appeals, Singer v. Hara (1974), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Dean v. District of Columbia (1995), four intermediate courts of review in New York and three federal district courts, Wilson v. Ake (2005), Smelt v. County of Orange (2005), and In re Kandu (2005).

The fact that advocates of same-sex marriage uniformly oppose public votes on state constitutional amendments that would define marriage as a union of a man and a woman is telling evidence that they do not believe what they say. If advocates of same-sex marriage believe that the people of Illinois are now prepared to accept same-sex marriage, let’s have the General Assembly put the issue on the November ballot and we’ll see who wins. Same-sex marriage should not come in the back door, via an arguably collusive lawsuit in which no one charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law actually defends it.
Wise Up

Glen Carbon, IL

#35328 Aug 28, 2012
Homophobes R Todays Nazis wrote:
"Did it Hurt" -- the divorce rate is much lower among gay married couples than it is among straight ones. They also do a better job of nourishing and educating their children. Gays commit fewer crimes, and are far less likely to abuse their children.
Get your facts straight, or just keep on hating blindly. Your choice.
Where do you get your information? Look it up here...
http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_a...

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#35329 Aug 28, 2012
Ah, the blessed scroll wheel on my mouse...so easy to drive right by the spam....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35330 Aug 28, 2012
If we look at human relationships as trees, marriage is the ONLY species that bears human fruit (except for my in-law tree which bears human nuts).

Sometimes the tree is defective or sick, and doesn't bear fruit as a healthy one naturally would. Other times the tree is old or dying and stops bearing fruit.

We know a tree by it's fruit. How can a gay union tree that NEVER bears fruit be called a marriage tree?
Blair

Burlingame, CA

#35331 Aug 29, 2012
Gay ‘marriage’ in high demand? Not according to the U.S. census

The pressure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples keeps increasing. The impression is given that thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians are unable to do the one thing they want to do more than anything else: That is, have a wedding.

As if to prove the point, the US Census Bureau announced that it would be counting same-sex households in the 2010 Census. In August the Bureau announced that there are nearly a million. I was surprised by the small number.

But this past week, they reduced their estimate of same sex couple households by nearly thirty percent. In fact, it turns out that there are fewer than 650,000. That’s about six tenths of one percent of total US households.

But an even greater shocker for me was the number of same-sex married households. Gay marriage is legal in six jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, it’s been the law since 2004. Same-sex couples can get married, for example, in Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and live anywhere because nobody’s enforcing DOMA anymore in view of litigation. And yet there are only 131,729 households headed by married same-sex couples. That’s two-tenths of one percent of married households. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

This census data exposes the two biggest myths created about gay marriage.

The first is that there’s a huge demand for it. No way! In fact, there’s hardly any demand at all. Gay couples are not lined up at city halls hoping for a marriage license.

The second myth is the so-called “marriage equity” argument: That this is just another civil rights movement. Are you going to tell me that it was possible to fuel the civil rights movement with 646,000 couples, when only 131,000 had a real stake in it? It’s laughable.

I have never believed that gays wanted to marry. Their behavior by its very nature is too promiscuous. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive.

For us to redefine marriage, thereby altering thousands of years of human history, ignoring all of the benefits marriage offers to individuals, cultures, civilizations and — above all — children, for the sake of 646,000 same-sex households, only 131,000 of which are married, is madness.

Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral. And that’s what’s behind the blacklisting, boycotting, and suing anybody who even questions homosexuality. They don’t want anyone telling them that how they live is morally problematic. Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it.

Does this take the church off the hook? No. For years we have helped deconstruct marriage, winking at cohabitation and allowing easy divorce. We’ve allowed politicians to pass bad divorce laws and to loosen the moral standards surrounding marriage. Now it’s all coming back to haunt us. But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a tiny minority.
livinlife

Carbondale, IL

#35332 Aug 29, 2012
I'm straight but have gay friends and family I support them highly u can't help who u fall in love with as long as ur happy and in love who r we to stop u the way I see it is if u don't like gays then that's u don't be around them but still support them an let them be happy an treated equal an how do we no we won't have kids are grandkids that r guy ur gonna support ur kid hopefully if they r so y not so others the same support everyone should be able to chose there love and the way they chose to live there life's I feel as if saying gays can't get married is taking a piece of there freedom away an that's not fair nor right let them be them its only fair and it shows them there still considered an equal
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#35333 Aug 29, 2012
No! Absolutely not! It is not a lifestyle choice it is perversion plain and simple. Homosexuals are the driving force behind the attacks on Christians and the assault on American family values.

Homosexuals are also responsible for diseases that have claimed the lives of millions.

Again, homosexuals are responsible for wide spread child molestation and phenomenal damage to organizations that were established to benefit children. ABSOLUTELY NOT,YOUR RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISM HAS FINALLY CAUGHT UP WITH YOU!
livinlife wrote:
I'm straight but have gay friends and family I support them highly u can't help who u fall in love with as long as ur happy and in love who r we to stop u the way I see it is if u don't like gays then that's u don't be around them but still support them an let them be happy an treated equal an how do we no we won't have kids are grandkids that r guy ur gonna support ur kid hopefully if they r so y not so others the same support everyone should be able to chose there love and the way they chose to live there life's I feel as if saying gays can't get married is taking a piece of there freedom away an that's not fair nor right let them be them its only fair and it shows them there still considered an equal
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#35334 Aug 29, 2012
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
No! Absolutely not! It is not a lifestyle choice it is perversion plain and simple. Homosexuals are the driving force behind the attacks on Christians and the assault on American family values.
Homosexuals are also responsible for diseases that have claimed the lives of millions.
Again, homosexuals are responsible for wide spread child molestation and phenomenal damage to organizations that were established to benefit children. ABSOLUTELY NOT,YOUR RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISM HAS FINALLY CAUGHT UP WITH YOU!
<quoted text>
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/24/39096...

scurrilous comments referring to the Leshers and their businesses were appearing on Topix, an online community bulletin board.

jury awarded the couple $13.78 million in a libel judgment. The ruling sends the message that people have the freedom to write what they please online, but they can be held accountable.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#35335 Aug 29, 2012
Marriage and gay unions are clearly distinct relationships. Even a child can tell the difference, especially if one couple is mom and dad.

If we look at human relationships as trees, marriage is the ONLY species that bears human fruit (except for my in-law tree which bears human nuts).

Sometimes the tree is defective or sick, and doesn't bear fruit as a healthy one naturally would. Other times the tree is old or dying and stops bearing fruit.

We know a tree by it's fruit. How can a gay union tree that NEVER bears fruit be called a marriage tree?

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.

West Frankfort Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Retarded!!!! LMAO! 2 hr HA HA HA HA 16
Steven Boner 5 hr Wondering 3
Down fall of Morthland College 6 hr Downfall 6
jade helm 15 9 hr citizen 22
WF park softball 9 hr Former players pa... 3
1% ers 9 hr citizen 55
Dallas Rumsey, WF Fireman 16 hr Beth 12
More from around the web

West Frankfort People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

West Frankfort Mortgages