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 1,595)

Showing posts 31,881 - 31,900 of47,113
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 08

Mattoon, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37131
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

-YUM- wrote:
Second conversation,,, this one to the governor,,,, wth happened with medical pot bill?????????? You need to get on that!
Sounds to me like he and most of the idiots in office are already on it, or something stronger, what a bunch of crappola!!
Flocko

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37132
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Opinion

Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions

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.
Flocko

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37133
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.
Flocko

Phoenix, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37134
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.

Professor Stone parrots the public opinion polls purporting to show that a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, but those polling results have not shown up in the only poll that counts, the one on election day. Thirty states, most recently North Carolina, have amended their constitutions by popular vote to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Stone’s only explanation for these results is that “single-issue, single-minded voters, well-funded by religious organizations and driven by religious fervor, can effectively block the will of the majority.” Thus, by a remarkable feat of verbal prestidigitation, tinged by an anti-religious prejudice, Stone manages to turn a majority vote into a minority point of view.

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.
hey sweet cheeks

Oak Lawn, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37135
Jan 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Then they were just sick twisted perverted idiots that made God sick so he killed them all. Whatever he fixed what he didn't want. You'd think they'd learn.
where have you been --we missed you bullcrap post on topix--post somr pictures THATS WHAT WE WANT TO SEE !!
Mac1978

Evansville, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37136
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Saluki Rod wrote:
I wonder how long it'll take the Neo-Nazi Far Right Christians to mobilize against this? It's just letting gays be married, what's the big freaking deal? I'm straight, and see no harm to society.
The bible sees harm. Don't hate us for believing in our religion. You're just as bad by criticizing us.
Only god can judge, yet it is our job to tell others about the grace if the one and only Lord and savior, share that he died on the cross to forgive all the worlds sin, and as long as we accept him and praise him, and tell others of his greatness, we will be accepted into the gates of Heaven!
We stand up for what our God wrote in scripture, and FIRMLY BELIEVE!
Fear no one but The Lord, God Almighty!
You will answer to God when your time comes as all of us will. I have done my part in sharing to you the TRUTH. It is up to you to accept and stand firm, or let it go in one ear and out the other and have to come before my Father when your time is up, regretting that you accepted this sick, twisted society ran by Satan and his puppets.
You have been informed!
I will pray for you and many others in this exact situation.
Jesus Loves YOU!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37137
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mac1978 wrote:
<quoted text>The bible sees harm. Don't hate us for believing in our religion. You're just as bad by criticizing us.
Only god can judge, yet it is our job to tell others about the grace if the one and only Lord and savior, share that he died on the cross to forgive all the worlds sin, and as long as we accept him and praise him, and tell others of his greatness, we will be accepted into the gates of Heaven!
We stand up for what our God wrote in scripture, and FIRMLY BELIEVE!
Fear no one but The Lord, God Almighty!
You will answer to God when your time comes as all of us will. I have done my part in sharing to you the TRUTH. It is up to you to accept and stand firm, or let it go in one ear and out the other and have to come before my Father when your time is up, regretting that you accepted this sick, twisted society ran by Satan and his puppets.
You have been informed!
I will pray for you and many others in this exact situation.
Jesus Loves YOU!
Amen

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37138
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mac1978 wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible sees harm. Don't hate us for believing in our religion. You're just as bad by criticizing us.
Only god can judge, yet it is our job to tell others about the grace if the one and only Lord and savior, share that he died on the cross to forgive all the worlds sin, and as long as we accept him and praise him, and tell others of his greatness, we will be accepted into the gates of Heaven!
We stand up for what our God wrote in scripture, and FIRMLY BELIEVE!
Fear no one but The Lord, God Almighty!
You will answer to God when your time comes as all of us will. I have done my part in sharing to you the TRUTH. It is up to you to accept and stand firm, or let it go in one ear and out the other and have to come before my Father when your time is up, regretting that you accepted this sick, twisted society ran by Satan and his puppets.
You have been informed!
I will pray for you and many others in this exact situation.
Jesus Loves YOU!
"I've told you about god, so now you have to believe or burn in hell - because I told you! Ha!"

What a bizarre religion.
boss

Shorewood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37139
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ok everyone....give it up,......
Logic Lessons 4 Fundies

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37140
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Mac1978 wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible sees harm. Don't hate us for believing in our religion. You're just as bad by criticizing us.
Only god can judge, yet it is our job to tell others about the grace if the one and only Lord and savior, share that he died on the cross to forgive all the worlds sin, and as long as we accept him and praise him, and tell others of his greatness, we will be accepted into the gates of Heaven!
We stand up for what our God wrote in scripture, and FIRMLY BELIEVE!
Fear no one but The Lord, God Almighty!
You will answer to God when your time comes as all of us will. I have done my part in sharing to you the TRUTH. It is up to you to accept and stand firm, or let it go in one ear and out the other and have to come before my Father when your time is up, regretting that you accepted this sick, twisted society ran by Satan and his puppets.
You have been informed!
I will pray for you and many others in this exact situation.
Jesus Loves YOU!
Your disgusting version of religious superstition should be kept private and personal just like your dirty underwear
.
Thank you
show us your stuff

Oak Lawn, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37141
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Southern Lady01 wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen
post some pics or be quiet
Worm

Hollywood, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37142
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Ignore him the syphilis has went to his brain!

CDC: Syphilis cases rise 134% among Homosexual and Bisexual Men

Wed Aug 03, 2012 18:51 EST







ATLANTA, Georgia, August 3, 2012 - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that minority homosexual and bisexual men account for a disproportionate number of new syphilis cases. About 15% of people with untreated syphilis eventually develop long-term complications, including damage to the brain, nerves, heart and blood vessels that can prove fatal.

The national syphilis rate hit an all-time low of 2.1 cases per 100,000 people in 2000, but using data from 27 states, the CDC observed a rising U.S. syphilis rate largely among men. In 2009, the rate among men was just under 8 cases per 100,000 versus 1.4 cases per 100,000 women.

CDC researchers found that between 2005 and 2008, the syphilis rate among African-American homosexual and bisexual men rose at an 8-times faster rate compared with their Caucasian counterparts. The 2008 syphilis rate among African-American homosexual and bisexual men was 19 per 100,000.

Hispanic homosexual and bisexual men had more than twice the increase of Caucasian men. The 2008 syphilis rate among Hispanic men was just over 7 per 100,000 and among Caucasian men 4 per 100,000.

In addition, the CDC noted a shift in the age group most affected by syphilis. Reuters published news that while ten years ago, outbreaks of the STD were largely reported among homosexual and bisexual men in their 30s,“since 2005 teenagers and men in their 20s have shown the biggest increase in syphilis cases”. In 2008,“20- to 29-year-olds had the highest rate at around 12 cases per 100,000.”

In an interview with Arthur Goldberg of JONAH, a non-profit international organization dedicated to educating the Jewish community about the social, cultural, and emotional factors which lead to same-sex attractions, highlighted the essence of the disproportionately rising U.S. syphilis rate among minority homosexual and bisexual men. He commented,“Unfortunately the lack of education within the minority communities concerning the alternatives for healing and the ability to change homosexual ideation is primarily responsible for this spike.”

“Citizens need to be given the information as to options about sexuality,” Goldberg continued.“Equal access to ‘ex-gay’ information is essential.”
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/trends.htm
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
"I've told you about god, so now you have to believe or burn in hell - because I told you! Ha!"
What a bizarre religion.
bob

Terre Haute, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37143
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bullscrap is all
The Lone Gunmen

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37144
Jan 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

ObamaCare regulations decree unmarried homosexuals ‘are treated as family members’

Tue Jul 24, 2012 14:28 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2012,– Although same-sex “marriage” is not recognized by the federal government, President Barack Obama has continued to change federal benefit regulations to grant unmarried homosexuals the same rights as married couples. The purpose of the regulations is “to ensure same-sex domestic partners are treated as family members” and “have access to these benefits to the same extent as spouses of Federal employees and their children.”

The Obama administration has imposed a series of new government rules extending federal benefits to the same-sex partners and stepchildren of unmarried homosexuals, but not unmarried heterosexuals.

One controversial proposed rule would allow the children of same-sex partners to remain on federal workers’ taxpayer-funded insurance until they turn 26.

The last regulatory change was accomplished by “tweaking” the federal definition of the word “stepchild.”

The government is accepting comments on the proposed measure until September 18.

Another new rule grants “same-sex domestic partners,”“former same-sex domestic partners,” and “persons with whom the employee or Member has agreed to enter into a same-sex domestic partnership” an insurable interest in the homosexual partner.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Others extend federal coverage for child care to “children of same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees,” presumably from a previous heterosexual union;
or make domestic partners eligible for pay and perks available to married couples.

The Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) explained these benefits are available only to homosexual cohabitants rather than heterosexual ones, because “marriage is not an option for same-sex couples wishing to obtain federal benefits.”

The federal diktats were written in accordance with President Obama’s June 2, 2010, memorandum on the “Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees.”

President Obama has publicly endorsed same-sex “marriage,” and has been known to implement his agenda through executive orders or other federal regulations when one of his favored bills cannot pass Congress.

The regulations follow a familiar pattern of executive power. In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adopted a rule forcing all landlords who accept Section 8 to rent to homosexual and transgender individuals by redefining the word “family.”

The new benefits will pad the bottom line of already generous federal worker benefits. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute found,“In 2010, federal workers enjoyed average benefits of $42,462, which compared to average benefits in the U.S. private sector of just $10,771.” Federal workers’ pay rose faster than that of private sector workers in 2011, and they have suffered less income decline than private sector employees since the recession.

Earlier this year, President Obama suggested that the insurance premiums that military retirees pay to Tricare increase 300 percent. Some retired veterans will pay five-times more money for their health benefits.
boss

Shorewood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37149
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Take a chill pill my little heroin junkie.....you just love the attention dont you ...you little bitch......
Obama wrote:
Just shut the F up and stick a dick in your Liberal mouth.<quoted text>
the liberal

Saint Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37150
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Only if you hold it for me :)
Obama wrote:
Just shut the F up and stick a dick in your Liberal mouth.<quoted text>

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37151
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay unions are a direct and defective conflict with evolution's fundamental purpose. Literally,'unmarriage'.

Snicker.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37152
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

KiMare wrote:
Gay unions are a direct and defective conflict with evolution's fundamental purpose. Literally,'unmarriage'.
Snicker.
You are a direct and defective conflict with common sense, literacy, and purpose. Literally, "unhuman".

Troll on, Mangaina Man.
test

Sugar Grove, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37153
Jan 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

test
new 32

Palatine, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37155
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

new 32

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 31,881 - 31,900 of47,113
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••