Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Couples sue Illinois over gay marriage issue
http://abclocal.go.com ^ | 05/30/2012 | Jessica D'Onofrio

Posted on 05/30/2012 10:43:38 AM PDT by massmike

More than two dozen gay and lesbian couples filed suit Wednesday against the state of Illinois because they cannot get married.

While civil unions are legal in Illinois, gay marriage is not. Gay couples can only apply for a civil union.

Some said they hoped to change that with two lawsuits that include more than two dozen couples from the Chicago area, Bloomington and Marion.

The couples will argue it is unconstitutional for the state to deny them the right to marry. They hope their fight will make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The lawsuits are backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a New York-based gay advocacy group.

Wednesdays lawsuits were filed against Cook County Clerk David Orr because he is the public official charged with administering the law and marriage licenses.

Orr released a statement reading, "I hope this lawsuit is the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all. I am fully in support of the right for people to marry, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. Nobody should have to pass a gender test to get a marriage license."

(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; illinois; sourcetitlenoturl

1 posted on 05/30/2012 10:43:40 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: massmike

They can all get married. just not to each other.


2 posted on 05/30/2012 10:55:28 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Gay couples can only apply for a civil union.

At one time--and not a long time ago--the civil union was supposed to be the answer to their "prayers." Now nothing will do except a massive church wedding with the bride(s) dressed in white. Somebody needs to do a quick review of the Tale of the Fisherman's Wife.

3 posted on 05/30/2012 10:55:56 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Oh great! Another opportunity for some blackrobed judge to tell us citizens that we don’t know jack and they will impose their wisdom upon us.


4 posted on 05/30/2012 11:06:15 AM PDT by american_ranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massmike

The Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this homo “marriage” issue sooner or later. That’s why Definition of Marriage needs to become a constitutional amendment.


5 posted on 05/30/2012 11:15:31 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Government needs to spend trillions so science can make it possible for gays to conceive.
At the very least they should make it impossible for hetrosexuals to conceive. Just to be fair.
Its a matter of Civil Rights.


6 posted on 05/30/2012 11:15:43 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american_ranger

It’s the ONLY way they can push their perversion.


7 posted on 05/30/2012 11:31:03 AM PDT by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Can’t they just live together and be happy.


8 posted on 05/30/2012 11:38:52 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; Impy; LMAO; ..
RE:”The couples will argue it is unconstitutional for the state to deny them the right to marry. They hope their fight will make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The ‘right to marry’ ???

I don't recall marriage being a US constitutional right. In fact don't recall serving in the military being a constitutional right either. Where is that found in the US constitution? The ERA amendment failed to get passed.

Remember in the late 1970s when libs claimed the ERA would NOT create a right to Same-sex marriage? Now they claim it's been there all along anyway without ERA.

9 posted on 05/30/2012 11:46:20 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

” Remember in the late 1970s when libs claimed the ERA would NOT create a right to Same-sex marriage? Now they claim it’s been there all along anyway without ERA. “

Uh....”situational ethics” or “situational lies” ?


10 posted on 05/30/2012 11:51:31 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massmike
More than two dozen gay and lesbian couples filed suit Wednesday against the state of Illinois because they cannot get married.

Not true. They can get married. Marriage = union of one man and one woman. The union they want, two men or two women, is not marriage.

11 posted on 05/30/2012 12:49:37 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Okay mr Cook County Clerk David Orr.

And I love my new Fender guitar can I marry it? In fact I love my two newest Fender guitars so can I marry both of them? And yeah I already have a wife, a real woman no less, but that's irrelevant, right. The *goal* is for me to be happy, correct (you putz).

Plus these two guitars are different 'colors' so they're minorities and you can't discriminate on that. (where's my friggen lawyer I'm suing!)

I'm In Looooove Mr Orr!

:-)
12 posted on 05/30/2012 1:14:29 PM PDT by Condor51 (Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

I just want to marry my dog.


13 posted on 05/30/2012 1:45:56 PM PDT by Gator113 (***YOU GAVE it to Obama. I would have voted for NEWT.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: massmike
A competing CBS News story on the same suit added the info that the other suing party is, of course, Lambda Legal, which has been working on this project for over 30 years with an army of over 600 gay attorneys at any one time. It would be a hazardous exercise to guess how many queer lawyers have been working their butts off to screw America since the 1970's.

From the CBS story,

he lead plaintiffs, Chicago Police Detective Tanya Lazaro and software analyst Liz Matos, believe the civil unions that became legal in Illinois last year are insufficient.

“It sends a powerful message that these loving relationships are inadequate and undeserving,” said John Knight, the ACLU’s Director of LGBT and AIDS projects.

http://tinyurl.com/cpfeop3 [This link likely short-lived and volatile, since it's a TV-news story.]

Uh, yeah, John, that would be correct.

This is the legal attack Lambda has been preparing for, for over 20 years. This is the big one. This is the one that destroys marriage and removes its solid evidence of heterosexual normality -- which is what this is all about.

Welcome to socialist realism in the world of law.

14 posted on 05/30/2012 1:49:15 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith; wagglebee; Morgana
Here is an idea for an image for a gay marriage ping list


15 posted on 05/30/2012 1:53:54 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
The union they want, two men or two women, is not marriage.

You evil closet case! Why are you hating on these loving couples (who are more loving, and probably get more every night, than you do, or your parents or grandparents), and refusing to reconcile with their warm wonderfulness?

You need to be re-educated!! Off with your head! You ... you .... medievalist you! You ..... Christian!!

(Etc., etc., etc. -- just trying to get all the memes out there for discussion.)

16 posted on 05/30/2012 1:54:29 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

17 posted on 05/30/2012 1:56:54 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

They don’t really want it limited to 2 people, or even just adults in the long run.


18 posted on 05/30/2012 1:58:00 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: massmike

So besides being perverts these people are idiots?
Sue based on what?
They have no “right” to be legally married.
You can’t marry your sister, you can’t marry a child, you can’t marry a dog.


19 posted on 05/30/2012 1:58:04 PM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Antoninus; scripter; Clint N. Suhks
This is the lawsuit Evan Wolfson said was in preparation back in 2001 after the James Dale case went south and he was interviewed about it by 365gay.com.

This is the big one, the long-awaited Supreme Court attack on marriage itself, the one that removes marriage as a heteronormal, society-stabilizing institution.

20 posted on 05/30/2012 2:06:27 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
They don’t really want it limited to 2 people, or even just adults in the long run.

They want it reduced to gibberish. In the long run, they don't want families to exist at all ..... certainly nothing resembling a Judaeo-Christian "family".

It's the father-mother-family cluster that outs them as the pervs, the outliers, the deviants. That's why they want it all to go away, and this court case is their grand, final attempt to legally rewire reality out of existence.

21 posted on 05/30/2012 2:12:08 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

No one is attacking “love”. The government doesn’t tell anyoine and cannot tell anyone who or what we can love because love is subjective, quite literally in the eye of the beholder.

What is under attack is marriage. That’s objective and monogamy, one man married to one woman, is the natural and historical standard. The only other potential standard is polygyny - one man to many women. No other “marriages” are normal.

Homosexuals are attempting to rationalize their neurosis to be “normal” something it never can be. All the evidence to date points to homosexuality as a mental illness needing treatment not acceptance. The APA violated its charter and the medical adage to first do no harm when they removed homosexuality from the DSM. They did so based on no scientific evidence, just political action and subversion by a homosexual cadre bent on normalizing homosexuality.

Imagine yourself as a counselor and the patient stating that they love sticking things in their rectum. What’s your conclusion? Normalcy? It’s absurd on its face, yet here we are.


22 posted on 05/30/2012 4:15:06 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
The only other potential standard is polygyny - one man to many women. No other “marriages” are normal.

Concur. Even Tibetan-style polyandry works poorly, it seems to me, and I don't know of any other polyandristic societies. Polygyny works, but (anecdotally) only with a number of wives N, where n > 3, and where polygyny is accepted.

The Chinese did a good film about polygyny once, called Raise the Red Lantern -- it introduced one of their really good actresses as one of the four wives of a very busy husband, who was kept all the busier by wifely intriguing.

The APA violated its charter and the medical adage to first do no harm when they removed homosexuality from the DSM. ......It’s absurd on its face, yet here we are.

Bump. But consider, however, the left hand of Providence, which as things have turned out since 1972 and the APA cabal, has dealt harshly with the cabalists and their "beneficiaries". Consider the death toll alone, and wonder.

23 posted on 05/30/2012 4:50:43 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Good points all and I'd seen, but forgotten until now Raise the Red Lantern.

I'd like to see a study on your comment that "polygyny works, but (anecdotally) only with a number of wives N, where n > 3, and where polygyny is accepted." I'm curious to see if that's true. Do wives behave better in volumes greater than 3 or is intrigue compounded? From the Bible stories alone, at least the ones I readily recall, you appear to be correct.

24 posted on 05/30/2012 5:02:50 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: massmike

The more I consider this the better this news is. Opening this up gives us a chance to revisit the APA’s decision in 1972/73 to remove homosexuality from the DSM. It was done politically without a shred of science to back it up.

Let conservative bloggers discuss and debate this. Let the truth come out. What the opposition will do is relate any discussion of the psychological aspect of homosexual behavior to homosexual repression. They’ll mention how many societies jail or even execute homosexuals.

Those societies happen to be repressive socialist tyrannies or repressive Moslem tyrannies. This works out to a double win for us. Homosexuality can and should be treatedas a mental illness. We don’t jail manic depressives or hypochondriacs. We treat them and have compassion on them. A cure should be looked for.

We can turn this debate around and we can win.


25 posted on 05/30/2012 6:45:29 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Under what authority do the poor downtrodden homosexual sex practitioners seek the 'orifice diversity' and 'orientation justice' marital innovation?

God says no, the people say no -the government is under BOTH the people and God.

26 posted on 05/30/2012 7:06:17 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massmike

This is how it began in MA, with two lesbians filing a suit to be able to get married. It’s interesting that less than 6 years later, those same two women were the first homosexual couple to file for Divorce.


27 posted on 05/30/2012 9:14:39 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Do wives behave better in volumes greater than 3 or is intrigue compounded? From the Bible stories alone, at least the ones I readily recall, you appear to be correct.

One of the rarer and more interesting concordances of Biblical and Greek history is the story of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) and his wives. The names are differently recorded, but the story told is the same. The great queen insulted Xerxes by refusing to come to dinner one night when she was summoned (she was displeased with the numbers of his concubines), and Xerxes, in a funk, married 300 women in retaliation. (One of these was Hadassah, or Esther, whose full name was probably Esther Hadassah, which is Old Babylonian -- Akkadian -- for "Ishtar is her guiding star". The rabbis teach that Hadassah was her personal, and Esther her court, name. They can't have been pleased that her name -- and Mordecai's ["Servant of Marduk"] -- honored the false gods of Babylon.)

Going forward, Xerxes's household policy led to generational rivalries sometimes intermediated by power-playing chamberlains (eunuchs) like Bagoas (q.v.), leading to coups and civil strife .... which sooner cost Persia her eastern, Sogdian provinces (which had been out of the empire longer than 100 years when Alexander showed up to "reclaim" them), and later on brought Philip of Macedon sniffing.

28 posted on 05/30/2012 10:34:13 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; sickoflibs; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; NFHale; stephenjohnbanker; PhilCollins; ...

And before they wanted civil unions they rejected marriage and even the idea of monogamy as “heteronormative” (gayest word ever) BS.

The dem overlords wussed out and only passed civil unions here. They don’t want to lose even more downstate votes.

You know what gays, get married, you well off gay men go marry young men who will divorce you and take half your money. Lesbians you get married, visit the sperm bank for a “family” and then fast forward 5 years and find your self in a custody battle with someone of no relation to your children.

Pass gay marriage today Illinois, call it the “Divorce Attorney’s Enrichment Act of 2012”. They’ll pass the $ on to you via campaign contributions. Everyone wins!

I’ve decided just now I’m entitled to marry the person of my choice too no matter who it is. I think I’ll go with a supermodel that I’ve never met. I shall sue to force the government to compel her to marry me. Then I’ll divorce her, take half her money and marry both of her sisters. It’s my constitutional right after all. What you can’t find that in there? Check on the back, Thomas Jefferson put it on the back.


29 posted on 05/31/2012 2:03:02 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Impy

A federal marriage amendement ends this.

No civil unions, no anything goes marriage. period.

only co-habitation contracts.

pull the rug out from under their legs.


30 posted on 05/31/2012 6:55:26 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

it is not a “god” argument.

Ayers had stated he participated in “hedonism events” (a tamed phrase for family consumption) in order to challenge what was normal. By his own abnormality it made all society free from the normal. (make you wonder what happened with his protoge)

The fundamental fact is the is no reason for society to reward mere orgasm success. The meme is “two people in love”. There is no love test under the law. never has been.

This is also based on the mythology of “born that way”. All other behavior EXCEPT THIS ONE is learned but this one hedonism fetish is immutable?

Logic and reason has to be used to destroy the homosexual arguments. Faith alone only surrenders the field to the abnormalists.


31 posted on 05/31/2012 7:08:57 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Someone needs to explain to gays once and for all that one of the main reasons that marriage is between a man and woman and that gives them special rights under the law is because they can PROCREATE! Gay lifestyle is not normal! If a straight married couple can raise a child with good values under a 2 person household I firmly believe they are more likely to become productive citizens.

Sure gays can adopt but that will just lead to them teaching their children their gay way of life, further contributing to the pursuit normalizing homosexuality.

32 posted on 05/31/2012 7:11:09 AM PDT by 3rdcoastislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Impy; All
POST OF THE DAY!!! BRAVO!!!
33 posted on 05/31/2012 7:23:44 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (We may die, but DISCO LIVES FOREVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Impy

BUMP


34 posted on 05/31/2012 10:05:46 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson