Illinois citizens to sue for equal marriage rights (Union: lawsuits, legal)

[SunnyKayak]

Illinois residents are to file lawsuits against the state, arguing that the ban on marriages for gay couples is unconstitutional.

read more here Illinois citizens to sue for equal marriage rights - PinkNews.co.uk

[linicx]

Marriage in Illinois is a legally sanctioned civil union between two consenting persons, signified by signed documents from all involved. It is duly recorded in each county in Illinois just as is Birth, Death, Divorce, Annulment and Separation. I think all lifelong partners should have equal legal rights, period.

Dragging the state into court to argue a civil union is not a civil union is frivolous. And forcing the state to defend it is a waste of taxpayer money. The simple solution is for the state to reverse its position. Illinois has 12M people with much bigger life problems.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

I do not see anything wrong with a same sex marriage.

How could I possibly be against two people regardless of their sex if they are happy sharing life with each other?

If the two find happiness and joy together then why intervene?

[linicx]

In March the Governor signed a Civil Union bill into law. It guarantees a same-sex couple who entered into a Civil Union the same rights as any married couple. This group is not satisfied with it. They want a piece of paper with the word marriage on it.

They don't "GET" that in Illinois there is no difference between Civil Unions. The exception is the word Marriage on a ceremonial certificate. It is same process wherein one is just as legal and binding as the other. One civll union has no benefit over the other.

Dictionary: Marriage
[1] the union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law.
[2] a union between partners of the same sex: gay marriage.

Illinois is a state of over 12M residents. I doubt the state legislature will change the wording of one law to please one group, but it could issue a Gay Marriage ceremonial certificate. In Illinois A gay marriage is treated the same as any other legally recognized marriage.

[siiix]

i had a brilliant idea, lets not worry about who can marry who, instead remove marriage as legal form joining people all together, people who want to get married in a church or what ever NON GOVERNMENT institution provide that "ritual" they still could, but legally it would become meaningless, you would still have to form a common law partnership agreement and the word "marriage" would be removed from all legal documents, regulations and laws ... this would also benefit the separation of state and church... legally the church could try to "copyright" the word "marriage" to be only used in a religious ritual, that's up to the courts to decide, and gay movement could go to court to dispute that, again at that point its a civil court decision... let them keep the stupid word "marriage" but remove all legal benefits from such ritual.. religion and state should never be mixed

[linicx]

When you remove the word 'marriage' you offend many especially those married in a religious ceremony. It would foolish to tell a Catholic couple married in the church they really weren't "married" after all it was really just a joke.

When you remove the word marriage to please a few you might as well throw out the bible and offend all who believe. Marriage has been accorded to man and woman for as many centuries as same sex couples have existed. The difference today is same sex couples are no long persecuted or prosecuted.

If it goes before the Wise Nine it will probably be decided that regardless of what a state calls the same-sex union it is a legal and binding document in all US states and all US territories. The states that rebel will find themselves in Federal Court where they will lose again. There is no happy solution for all.

How would you explain to someone who is 90 years old that they really weren't married for 65 years, and their children really didn't have parents who were married? How do you tell your grandkids they can be never be legally married? What do you tell the married couple who becomes American citizens, gee, your legal marriage is now invalid?

[plates]

Yeah, America was able to get by with "separate but equal" before, let's do it again. Let's also ignore that there are many religions that are accepting of gay marriage, that this country is not based on religion, and that what is currently going on is illegal and a denial of a person's rights.


YouTube

[jkrunner88]

Gay marriage is the biggest non-issue on the planet. I literally could not give two ****s about who marries who, and neither should anyone else. If it is that offensive to your religious sensibilities, allow God to be the final judge (if God truly even cares), and not you. There are plenty of Church's, Christian Church's in fact that support gay marriages and will wed gay couples. Why not allow them to get married in those places? No one is forcing Catholic Church's to marry gay couples.

[linicx]

In Illinois a marriage is (civil union) is a marriage regardless of where it is performed. The problem is not Illinois. It is the narrow minded states who do not accept gay marriage in any form. They use the words civil union or union to deny the validity of ILLINOIS LAW.

It is unlikely any Catholic Church will "marry" any gay couple.

.

[ChicagoMeO]

I think everyone is forgetting something - this is what i heard when people on tv were discussing it.. so correct me if im wrong -

marriage between man and woman was originally set up - for the benefit of the children they would probably have. (because gay people cannot naturally have children (two men or two women). And also something that i cant quite explain but i will try - marriage with children in mind - and their protection (legally) would be like this - a long time ago, ideally a man and a woman woudl have a child and it be theirs and they woudl have the bond that parents have unlike when step mothers or step fathers come into the marriage and the bond is not there unless each partner works on it. i knkow many step parents are more loving than a kids' natural parent, but oftentimes, the step parent is not considered best for the child as the natural parents were thought of.. (ok i know this is old time thinking but thats waht they thought back in the old days, to my understanding. so again its to protect the kids. ok it may be archaic, but this is what i heard on tv. you might agree or disagree and its not necessarily my opinion, but i think theres a kernal of truth in there somewhere. ok modern day people might not agree with this old time way of thinking. Basically that a natural father and mother make the best and safest parent for a kid born to them. (((which is why people didn't get divorced and stayed together for the sake of the children)).