Illinois House votes to allow same-sex marriage

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20795167&ref=https://www.google.co.uk/

It now goes to the Senate who already approved this bill earlier this year by a 34-21 margin. Governor Quinn has promised to sign marriage into law once it reaches his desk.

So, with Hawaii set to approve it tomorrow and the New Mexico Supreme Court widely expected to rule it legal any day now, the number of states with SSM will almost certainly increase to 17. Or 38% of the US population.

IMO this is fantastic news. It means however that the number of states who can resolve the issue legislatively has decreased to just three: Wyoming, Indiana and Pennsylvania. The rest will have to persue it through referendums. As much as I hate the thought of people voting on other people's marriages, I think it gives the cause more credibility.

Oregon will be the first state to vote on overturning its anti-marriage amendment next year.

 

A brave new world it is, I'm telling you. We do not care about healthcare, wars in the Middle East, our president being a schmuck, illegal aliens overrunning our States; we care about making few gays feel good about their civil unions which they now can call a marriage...

 

Because law-makers obviously cannot use a single afternoon of their time to pass a bill that means that thousands upon thousands of citizens in their state are no longer treated as second-class citizens...

The "there's better things to deal with" gets my vote for one of the bizarre arguments against SSM.

 

Every one is on the promote degeneracy band wagon. It is the direct result of electing the commander in chief of moral degeneracy to office twice. Invite the devil to play at the dance and he's gotta get paid.

 

eh, let em' marry.

doesn't hurt anyone

 

Good. Now they can get back to fixing our looming pension crisis.

Unfunded liability grows for Illinois teacher pensions - Reuters

 

Absolute drivel. Massachusetts, California and Connecticut had legalised it before Obama was elected in 2008. Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington DC and New York had same-sex marriage before he "came out" for it just before the 2012 presidential elections.

It has virtually nothing to do with him. In fact, Bush did more for helping the cause than Obama. Support is good, obviously, but facing opposition is what really spurs people to act and fight for what is right.

So far three states have approved it by popular vote. Expect Oregon, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada and probably Arizona and Michigan to follow suit by 2016.

The people must have their say on these discriminatory amendments.

 

SSM has been legal in Ontario for 10 years and legal in Canada for 8 years and nothing much has changed.
In fact the only time I think about it is when I read it becoming legal in other parts of the world.

For straight people it makes no difference to our lives.

 

I can't imagine why anyone would care if gay people marry or not. What's the difference? Glad we're progressing as a nation however.

 

More good news. The tide has well and truly turned. Its become nothing more than a waiting game really.

 

Immoral lemmings following the immoral lemmimgs in front of them right off the moral cliff to their own doom. Too bad that the rest of us will have to pay the price for their degeneracy too. It is what it has always been, a false social issue brought on by the hi-jacking of the noble civil rights movement. There is nothing about being gay that makes them inherently identifiable except through special knowledge, that is, they have to verbally say that they are gay, otherwise no one would know without it being revealed. So if there is no outward evidence that a person is gay, how is morality violated through discrimination toward a person who belongs to a group exercised with out special knowledge that he/she/it is gay?

 

Apocalyptic pronunciations of doom and the sky falling if gays get married get ignored because there's no evidence this is the case. It's existed long enough for people to realise these claims are BS.

Whether or not it's a matter for "civil rights" as you think they should be has zero bearing on a democratically-elected legislature's ability to recognize a same-sex couple's relationship, or indeed the right of the people to approve it. Surely you agree the PEOPLE have the right to decide in the upcoming referendums whether or not they want to sanction such relationships?

 

See the point your making though is pretty hilarious.

Why?

Why do religious people have "Special" rights then? The only way you know persons religion is by them expressing it. Their religion is their own so why do they go around pushing it onto other people? Why are they given special rights and protections?

Oh that's right...because you're theory is full of crap.

 

True. Just because a whole room full of moral dengerates vote to make moral degeneracy the operant function of the state makes it legal. But not less immoral. Of coarse they are allowed to be decieved by a false social issue and vote to enact perversity.

I note that you predictably ignored my correct observation that there is no outward signifiers that indentifies gays as gays without special knowledge and so there can be no discrimination aganst them.

 

Any true advocate of small government would support getting the government out of the personal business of gay people.

Short of removing government from marriage altogether, the next best thing is allowing gay marriage.

 

Exactly.

Unfortunately I cannot take many libertarians seriously on the "I oppose same-sex marriage because the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage" because many I have spoken to are currently in civil marriages!

 

Can you cite a specific event that happened after a country/territory/state legalized gay marriage, that you believe happened as a result of said country legalizing gay marriage?

 

I didn't respond to that because you are veering somewhat off topic. The issue is whether or not people and their elected representatives have a right to allow gay marriage. And apparently you agree, so kudos to you.

The idea that gay people aren't discriminated against is ludicrous, however. Whether or not it's obvious doesn't mean that anti-gay discrimination isn't something worthy of our condemnation just because it requires that the person actually confirm it. If that were true, I could say that there is no such thing as anti-Christian or anti-religious discrimination. How is one "confirmed" to be Christian without them saying so?

 

Who brought up religion. You. Not me. Christophobic elements arrive uninvited. Religion is a constitutionally protected segment, for good reason. Actual morality needs to be protected as our current discussion demands. Homosexuals are not a protected segment, for good reason. Acute immorality needs to be combated, as our current discussion demands. And since you broached the topic, Romans 1 will answer all your questions, truth enlightens darkness profoundly. Though I try never to bring it up, this is a spiritual battle and the forces of darkness appear to be winning in the short term, but in the long term their destruction is assured and will be complete and disasterous for those who took up this cause in the service of darkness.

 

So when ya gettin' married? Oh wait you're not from here.

 

What's your point? I support and celebrate same-sex marriage wherever it's recognised.

- - - Updated - - -

Yawn.

"My religion has nothing to do with it but here's my religious views!"

 

You brought up the fact that homosexuals are anonymous unless they choose to say they are.

So is a persons religion. Why do the religious thus demand "Special" rights for themselves. Why do they force their personal choice onto others?

As for the rest of your "argument" don't make me laugh. The light shall rise up and destroy the darkness...of people wanting to be treated as if they were people and have all the same rights as everyone else.

You keep your blown out of proportion religious zealotry. It really makes your side of the argument look like what it is...crazy and driven by religious intolerance.

 

OK.

http://illinoisfamily.org/marriage/approving-same-sex-marriage-harmful-to-children/

 

I would read the whole thing but it begins with a proven lie - that "heterosexual marriage has suffered since same-sex marriage was legalised".

Marriage rates have been declining steadily since way before gays could marry. There's no data to suggest that the legalisation of marriage equality has caused a drop in opposite-sex marriage rates or increased divorce between heterosexuals.

It's yet another desperate lie from the right who will say ANYTHING to prevent legal equality for same-sex couples. Fear-mongering is their weapon, but the truth just crippled their capability to sway the public.

 

It is precisely on point. Civils rights applies to those for who some intrinsic physical traits that set them appart from others. Gays have no such luxery. Though I must conceed the point.

They may be discriminated against, but only after it is known, not before. Why condemn that which is not obvious. I think they should be shamed back into the closet where they belong. I have a history with gays, that I'll not bore you with. And through direct observation and experience I know that the so-called "gay" lifestyle is hidious and in my case extremely destructive spiritually and physically. I use the most insulting and condemning words I know to describe them as it is my purpose to do so. I have zero sympathy for them and their falsely created plight.