Fed Judge: Gay Couples can Wed in Chi...

Fed Judge: Gay Couples can Wed in Chicago

There are 24 comments on the EDGE story from Feb 21, 2014, titled Fed Judge: Gay Couples can Wed in Chicago. In it, EDGE reports that:

A federal judge says gay couples in Chicago don't have to wait until June to marry.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Feb 21, 2014
GREAT ! But why just in Chicago ? Why not in all of Illinois ?
david traversa

Argentina

#2 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
GREAT ! But why just in Chicago ? Why not in all of Illinois ?
Whenever Parisians complain about Paris and are asked " Why don't you go somewhere else ? " they invariably answer , " There is nowhere else " .. Chicagoans are the same .

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Feb 21, 2014
david traversa wrote:
<quoted text>Whenever Parisians complain about Paris and are asked " Why don't you go somewhere else ? " they invariably answer , " There is nowhere else " .. Chicagoans are the same .
Nobody listens to the weenie surrender-monkey French !

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#4 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
GREAT ! But why just in Chicago ? Why not in all of Illinois ?
Perhaps because the lawsuit was specifically filed against the clerk in Chicago?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Feb 21, 2014
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps because the lawsuit was specifically filed against the clerk in Chicago?
I don't know.

Her legal reasoning seemed to be that ALL gay people have been illegally denied their fundamental right to marriage for so long, tat it should not be delayed any longer.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 21, 2014
The federal district covers Cook County.
david traversa

Argentina

#7 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody listens to the weenie surrender-monkey French !
Point missed .. and Chicagoans are VERY fond of Paris .. I should know.. I lived there for twenty years .. and no , I was never threatened , shot at , or bothered in any way at all

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Feb 21, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The federal district covers Cook County.
ONLY Cook County ? If so, then that explains it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
ONLY Cook County ? If so, then that explains it.
Haven't found the judge's ruling yet, but the only named defendant in the case is the Cook County Clerk and her ruling would technically only apply to him. The other counties in the district, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, La Salle, Lake, and Will have just been told, this is what happens if they were to ask, or not start issuing licenses of their own volition, but it's up to them. As for the other counties, anybody that gets asked for a same sex marriage license before June 1st, might as well pass them out.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Feb 21, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Haven't found the judge's ruling yet, but the only named defendant in the case is the Cook County Clerk and her ruling would technically only apply to him. The other counties in the district, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, La Salle, Lake, and Will have just been told, this is what happens if they were to ask, or not start issuing licenses of their own volition, but it's up to them. As for the other counties, anybody that gets asked for a same sex marriage license before June 1st, might as well pass them out.
Well, with the multitude of legal actions challenging the bans now ongoing in so many states, in both state courts and federal courts, I think the question will get to SCOTUS faster than many people anticipated. I'm guessing that if they don't settle the question in their next term, then they certainly will do so in the term after that. And I am very optimistic that we shall prevail.

And when we DO prevail at SCOTUS, you will hear a lot of screaming and yelling by the theologists, demands to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn SCOTUS's decision (as well as calls from certain quarters for their impeachment). But all those calls will go nowhere.

STAY TUNED........ SAME BAT-TIME ! SAME BAT CHANNEL !
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#11 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, with the multitude of legal actions challenging the bans now ongoing in so many states, in both state courts and federal courts, I think the question will get to SCOTUS faster than many people anticipated. I'm guessing that if they don't settle the question in their next term, then they certainly will do so in the term after that. And I am very optimistic that we shall prevail.
And when we DO prevail at SCOTUS, you will hear a lot of screaming and yelling by the theologists, demands to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn SCOTUS's decision (as well as calls from certain quarters for their impeachment). But all those calls will go nowhere.
STAY TUNED........ SAME BAT-TIME ! SAME BAT CHANNEL !
To late to ratify a constitutional amendment now
.
The screechy homophobes need 38 states to ratify
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_...
.
We passed that threshold a long time ago
.
So when we see republican losers campaigning to pass an anti-gay amendment; they're full of malarkey

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Well, with the multitude of legal actions challenging the bans now ongoing in so many states, in both state courts and federal courts, I think the question will get to SCOTUS faster than many people anticipated. I'm guessing that if they don't settle the question in their next term, then they certainly will do so in the term after that. And I am very optimistic that we shall prevail.
And when we DO prevail at SCOTUS, you will hear a lot of screaming and yelling by the theologists, demands to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn SCOTUS's decision (as well as calls from certain quarters for their impeachment). But all those calls will go nowhere.
STAY TUNED........ SAME BAT-TIME ! SAME BAT CHANNEL !
This will all be over no later than next summer at the very latest and it wouldn't surprise me if it's not decided before then. I expect the Virginia case and perhaps one or two companions to be heard next term. There's a tidal wave a coming, the sooner they act the better. The opposition have resigned themselves to the reality that the bans are toast, the court is going to put them out of their misery as soon as they can.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Feb 21, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>This will all be over no later than next summer at the very latest and it wouldn't surprise me if it's not decided before then. I expect the Virginia case and perhaps one or two companions to be heard next term. There's a tidal wave a coming, the sooner they act the better. The opposition have resigned themselves to the reality that the bans are toast, the court is going to put them out of their misery as soon as they can.
I think it twill take longer than that. 2 years.
Marcavage s Trick

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody listens to the weenie surrender-monkey French !
This is what you get when you correspond in any serious way with the racist pedo. I don't know why posters do anything but abuse it verbally.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Feb 21, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
I think it twill take longer than that. 2 years.
There's no need for them to have this play out any longer than necessary. Summer 2015 at the absolute latest and it wouldn't surprise me to have it happen as early as this fall.
The Troll Stopper

Christiansburg, VA

#16 Feb 21, 2014
To the gay couples of Chicago I say: Mazel Tov!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Feb 22, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>There's no need for them to have this play out any longer than necessary. Summer 2015 at the absolute latest and it wouldn't surprise me to have it happen as early as this fall.
While I appreciate your optimism, I wish it were based on something other than wishful thinking.

The SCOTUS has given ZERO indication they are in any hurry to hear another marriage case.

In fact, many justices have specifically said the opposite. Even Justice Ginsburg indicated a slow-go approach would be better.

So while there may be no need for this to play out any longer than necessary, the SCOTUS was pretty clear in both the Windsor & Prop 8 arguments that their intent is to allow this to play out in the lower courts.

I would LOVE to be wrong about that, but I prefer keeping my expectations realistic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Feb 22, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>There's no need for them to have this play out any longer than necessary. Summer 2015 at the absolute latest and it wouldn't surprise me to have it happen as early as this fall.
Btw, I'm not being critical per se, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind your optimism.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Feb 22, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
While I appreciate your optimism, I wish it were based on something other than wishful thinking.
The SCOTUS has given ZERO indication they are in any hurry to hear another marriage case.
In fact, many justices have specifically said the opposite. Even Justice Ginsburg indicated a slow-go approach would be better.
So while there may be no need for this to play out any longer than necessary, the SCOTUS was pretty clear in both the Windsor & Prop 8 arguments that their intent is to allow this to play out in the lower courts.
I would LOVE to be wrong about that, but I prefer keeping my expectations realistic.
They know that they are going to have to do in Perry Every state but Kansas is either in state or federal courts defending their bans and these cases are heading for the SCOTUS fast. I expect one or more of them to be ready to hear by the next term and they aren't going to duck again, not while the tide is on the side of what they need to do. If Loving Jr is past the Appeal level by this summer, you can bet the house on them taking it. This will make a lot less noise in 15 than 16 and if they could do it after the elections this year, probably quieter still.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Feb 22, 2014
They know that they are going to have to do what they didn't do in Perry.

Makes a lot more sense that way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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 Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 6 min anonymous 559
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 3 hr Brucie 27,198
News A Gay Couple's Guide to 5 Great Things To Do In... 4 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 4
News FEATURE-Gay and intersex asylum seekers find pl... 5 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Iowa lawsuit pits gay rights against religious ... 5 hr cpeter1313 6
News Iowa lawsuit pits gay rights against religious ... 5 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 8
News 83% of Russian people consider gay sex a repreh... 5 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 9
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 5 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 678
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 12 hr Tre H 17,180
More from around the web