Marriage Equality Legalization Would ...

Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy

There are 290 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Mar 6, 2013, titled Marriage Equality Legalization Would Add To Illinois' Economy. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The legalization of same-sex marriage would add millions to the Illinois economy as at least half of the state's LGBT population would marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#41 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>When does the new season start?
This summer.(sigh)
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#42 Mar 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
This summer.(sigh)
Can't wait!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#43 Mar 8, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Can't wait!
Me either.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#44 Mar 8, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing consistent is that Scalia fits the law to his personal preferences.
actually, no, quite the opposite. His position would eliminate his ability to fit the law to his preference...

do you see how that is?

He is saying how the Justices feel about what it SHOULD say is not relevant...
if the document doesn't say it, the people should AMEND it...
ya know, like as if we were a representative gov't of the people by the people?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#45 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmm, notice how straight white christian men would never have to bother passing a constitutional amendment to get THEIR equal rights.
I guess it's just a total coincidence that Scalia (a straight white christian man) just happens to hold that view of the constitution.
So all his rights just happen to be guaranteed by the current constitution, but everyone else should have to go through the arduous process of amending the constitution to get their rights. Gee, what a happy coincidence for him.
Is that why the founders intentionally made it difficult to amend the constitution? To keep minorities & women from getting equal rights?
Oh that's right, that's why we have a SCOTUS to ensure the rights of minorities & women AREN'T at the mercy of the majority who just happen to get all their rights automatically.
good creative writing that mocks our form of govt...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#46 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
good creative writing that mocks our form of govt...
So you're saying it's just a coincidence that ONLY the rights of white christian men were spelled out in the constitution? And had nothing to do with the fact the majority at the time were...... gee, white christian men.......

Why should women or blacks have had to pass an amendment to get the right to vote? When did white men pass an amendment to get THEIR right to vote? Oh that's right, they just ASSUMED that right existed ONLY for them.

If equal doesn't mean equal, then the constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, no, quite the opposite. His position would eliminate his ability to fit the law to his preference...
do you see how that is?
He is saying how the Justices feel about what it SHOULD say is not relevant...
if the document doesn't say it, the people should AMEND it...
ya know, like as if we were a representative gov't of the people by the people?
Scalia goes by what HE feels the constitution says, just like all the justices do.

Where in the constitution does it specifically say straight white christian men have the right to vote and no others?

Where in the constitution does it specifically say only marriages between opposite-sex couples are entitled to govt rights & benefits?

Where in the constitution does it say only man-on-woman sex is allowed?

Oh that's right, it DOESN'T.

That's just what Scalia THINKS it says.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#48 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
good creative writing that mocks our form of govt...
I agree, Scalia's opinions are full of creative writing which mocks our form of govt......
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#49 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying it's just a coincidence that ONLY the rights of white christian men were spelled out in the constitution?
no, its the course of history that has it that way..

are you saying that the process of amendment was not supposed to be used and instead the SCOTUS was designed to invent new rights?

you are smart, you know that is not true...
by your logic, we the people vote for money and stuff but as to our basic rights we leave it up to 9 people ALONE to create them?

And so now we will have asystem where the scotus rules, and then we amend to correct the court?
Is that what you think was intended?

then add as we have in Prop 8 that the amendment is then tossed by a court?

not the way i read that document..

If we want gay marriage, we PASS an AMENDMENT...
you gusy are not patient enough to wait becaeu you thinky ou ar eike th eblacks, but they were a one time deal...
in fact you are the slippery slope of that movement...

and again, you are only using lowest common denominator stuff with this christian white male crap...

I say cut all foreign aid...
you say, oh that's just to cut aid to africa you racist...that's all it is...and its called smoke and mirrors...

Here it comes sheeple, the court will soon address it, how many of your word games will be in the decision (its just one marriage there is no such thing as "gay" marriage) and how many of my "stupid" arguments will be in there?

sh!ts about to get real!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#50 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia goes by what HE feels the constitution says, just like all the justices do.
Where in the constitution does it specifically say straight white christian men have the right to vote and no others?
Where in the constitution does it specifically say only marriages between opposite-sex couples are entitled to govt rights & benefits?
Where in the constitution does it say only man-on-woman sex is allowed?
Oh that's right, it DOESN'T.
That's just what Scalia THINKS it says.
this is watered down jerry springer nonsense that deserves no response but calling it what it is!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#51 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, Scalia's opinions are full of creative writing which mocks our form of govt......
you do get that what you are advocating is that terrible buzz phrase of judicial activism?

you are the person who thinks that means "decisions with which I disagree"

whereas it means exactly what you think the role of our justices is...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#52 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no, its the course of history that has it that way..
are you saying that the process of amendment was not supposed to be used and instead the SCOTUS was designed to invent new rights?
you are smart, you know that is not true...
by your logic, we the people vote for money and stuff but as to our basic rights we leave it up to 9 people ALONE to create them?
And so now we will have asystem where the scotus rules, and then we amend to correct the court?
Is that what you think was intended?
then add as we have in Prop 8 that the amendment is then tossed by a court?
not the way i read that document..
If we want gay marriage, we PASS an AMENDMENT...
you gusy are not patient enough to wait becaeu you thinky ou ar eike th eblacks, but they were a one time deal...
in fact you are the slippery slope of that movement...
and again, you are only using lowest common denominator stuff with this christian white male crap...
I say cut all foreign aid...
you say, oh that's just to cut aid to africa you racist...that's all it is...and its called smoke and mirrors...
Here it comes sheeple, the court will soon address it, how many of your word games will be in the decision (its just one marriage there is no such thing as "gay" marriage) and how many of my "stupid" arguments will be in there?
sh!ts about to get real!
Calm down; you're frothing at the mouth.

No one is "inventing new rights", we're just ensuring EXISTING rights are enforced equally.

The right to vote, marry, etc was NEVER specifically limited by the constitution to straight white christian men or opposite-sex couples only etc.(if you disagree, then quote me Art & Sec)

We are ensuring those rights which ALREADY existed are available to ALL citizens equally.

Amendments are for changing the text of the constitution; i.e. changing the minimum age to be President, or how a Senator is chosen, or how the judiciary fuctions, etc.

I don't want "gay marriage"; I expect my marriage to be treated the same as every other legal marriage.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#53 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
this is watered down jerry springer nonsense that deserves no response but calling it what it is!
Then you should have no trouble quoting the Art & Sec of the constitution which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples or limits voting to white men only, etc.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#54 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Calm down; you're frothing at the mouth.
.
umm, no, I am not, not even close..I sipping coffee watching the snow fall and being amused by your position...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

No one is "inventing new rights", we're just ensuring EXISTING rights are enforced equally.
sure, but since gay marriage was denied as a right BY THE SCOTUS, you are just making stuff up...
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

I don't want "gay marriage"; I expect my marriage to be treated the same as every other legal marriage.
who cares what you expect?

What I am foaming at the mouth for is the scotus decision to prop 8 wherein I will point out all my arguments and you will see none of yours...
and it wont be that your were rejected, it would be that your are not even in the game...
sorry, but its true.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#55 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
you do get that what you are advocating is that terrible buzz phrase of judicial activism?
you are the person who thinks that means "decisions with which I disagree"
whereas it means exactly what you think the role of our justices is...
Nope, I'm just applying the same standards you anti-gays use when claiming "judicial activism", which is decisions you disagree with.
The courts role is to rule on what is constitutional.

Goose & gander sweetcheeks.....

In reality there is no such thing as "judicial activism". The courts role is to determine the constitutionality of legislation.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#56 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have no trouble quoting the Art & Sec of the constitution which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples or limits voting to white men only, etc.
sure its the 14 amendment...
and in baker they found you are not similarly situated and thus gays are not entitled to equal treatment under that provision.

whats next?

voting?
I'd say it has been AMENDED to allow votes of all, get that... AMENDED?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendm...

curious...but I am sure the court will find gays marrying is of more import than blacks voting...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#57 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

In reality there is no such thing as "judicial activism".
so sad how many americans like you don't understand how it works...
I think its a symptom of the "me" generation...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#58 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
sure its the 14 amendment...
and in baker they found you are not similarly situated and thus gays are not entitled to equal treatment under that provision.
whats next?
voting?
I'd say it has been AMENDED to allow votes of all, get that... AMENDED?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendm...
curious...but I am sure the court will find gays marrying is of more import than blacks voting...
First, the subject is legislative action to include same-sex couples under the same marriage law as everyone else. This does not require a constitutional amendment (at least in Illinois). It just requires a bill properly enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor.

Second, Baker will be irrelevant when the status of same sex couples as married Americans is denied by the federal government. Baker was dismissed for lack of a federal question, since states define marriage.

What will be relevant in DOMA is the fourteenth amendment, which was purposefully written broadly to include all.[Had its authors meant some Americans, they would have specified which ones.] In this case, the same-sex couples from Illinois are situated similarly to other married couples from Illinois, but they are singled out for disparate treatment.

So the question then becomes what compelling purpose the government has for treating one group of citizens differently from another. Because this is ENTIRELY a federal question, your favorite Baker case is completely irrelevant.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#59 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
umm, no, I am not, not even close..I sipping coffee watching the snow fall and being amused by your position...
<quoted text>
sure, but since gay marriage was denied as a right BY THE SCOTUS, you are just making stuff up...
<quoted text>
who cares what you expect?
What I am foaming at the mouth for is the scotus decision to prop 8 wherein I will point out all my arguments and you will see none of yours...
and it wont be that your were rejected, it would be that your are not even in the game...
sorry, but its true.
The current SCOTUS has never ruled on whether gays have the right to marry.

So you're arguing before the SCOTUS?

It doesn't matter what argument you use or I use, since neither of us are on the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS can do whatever they want and will use whatever arguments they can think of to justify their opinion. I'm sure the bigots like Scalia will use arguments similar to yours.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#60 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
sure its the 14 amendment...
and in baker they found you are not similarly situated and thus gays are not entitled to equal treatment under that provision.
whats next?
voting?
I'd say it has been AMENDED to allow votes of all, get that... AMENDED?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendm...
curious...but I am sure the court will find gays marrying is of more import than blacks voting...
Nope, I just read the 14th amendment, and it doesn't say anything about voting being only for white men or marriage only being opposite-sex couples.

Yes, they CHOSE to amend the constitution for voting; they didn't have to. The courts could have simply said equal means equal.

Try again.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 7 min Ismail 556
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 16 min Frankie Rizzo 12,939
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 26 min Tequila 875
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 39 min June VanDerMark 10,650
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min Terra Firma 37,208
News The Pride parade takes place two weeks after th... 52 min ALLSAM 8
The NE Jade Saturday Thread 53 min Howie 2
News Man Accused Of Firing Paintballs At Stockton Ga... 1 hr Harper 43
More from around the web