If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   IL judge expedites same-sex marriage for couple, one of whom is terminally ill with two types of cancer. Tag is for the judge   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 36
    More: Hero, Illinois, Lambda Legal, Cook County, same-sex marriages  
•       •       •

2661 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 4:43 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-26 04:47:07 PM
I have two cancers, bone and brain and I just had chemo today

While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-26 04:47:24 PM
FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.
 
2013-11-26 04:48:32 PM

lennavan: I have two cancers, bone and brain and I just had chemo today

While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,


Ohhhh, out of the gate! Douchebag is in the lead.
 
2013-11-26 04:51:23 PM
Sounds like someone is hoping to get health benefits, while the other is looking forward to death benefits.
 
2013-11-26 04:53:58 PM
Thanks for the heads up on the tag, obviousmitter.
 
2013-11-26 04:54:41 PM
It's good but it's sad.

This whole cancer thing sucks.
 
2013-11-26 04:56:56 PM
Text book example of bittersweet...........
 
2013-11-26 05:00:50 PM
Anyone who thinks this is anything but decent and appropriate gets instantly added to my ignore list.  Oh, and they can EABOD
 
2013-11-26 05:03:12 PM
Is one of the cancers the gay cancer...?!??!
 
2013-11-26 05:04:15 PM

lennavan: I have two cancers, bone and brain and I just had chemo today

While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,


Umm, no offense, but you might have worded that post slightly better.

My first thought was that you were saying tood to her havin cancer. I get the feeling you aren't that kind of a farking asshole, though.
 
2013-11-26 05:04:39 PM

lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,


Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

gaslight: It's good but it's sad.

This whole cancer thing sucks.


Yup, you'd think a species on the brink of colonizing the universe would have a better grasp on its own biology.
 
2013-11-26 05:05:29 PM
best ruling i have seen in a while.
 
2013-11-26 05:06:38 PM
There is a state constitutional thing this brings up that may have a big impact down the road.  The reason for the wait involves a change made in the 90's (IL's Constitution is one of the hardest to change) to prevent lame duck stuff.

Earliercommentator is  right, this could be a bad sign for state retirees.....
 
2013-11-26 05:09:37 PM
Good, the pensions were a stupid idea to start with.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:35 PM
CANCER!!!! :::shakes fist:::
 
2013-11-26 05:12:04 PM
dywed88:  Umm, no offense, but you might have worded that post slightly better.

My first thought was that you were saying good to her havin cancer.
I get the feeling you aren't that kind of a farking asshole, though.


I never would have thought of that on my own but now that I look at it again, you're completely right.  I don't think anyone will read it the way I intended it -- that's about the worst worded post ever.  Fme, this is gonna get ugly.
 
2013-11-26 05:12:09 PM

mallorn: FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.


A few items:

First, are there any legal issues compared to if they were in a civil union? If not, then no problem.

Second, the article references a similar option being available for straight people, though I don't know when it would apply.

Third, when will the license be dated? I could see if this was being issued but dated June 1.
 
2013-11-26 05:15:08 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.


Right, because there are multiple mechanisms that result in cancer.  Either this lady had two completely independent mechanisms that resulted in two independent cancers, or alternatively, she has one single mechanism that caused cancer and that cancer spread.  Considering the short timeline left, it is exceedingly likely I am correct because spreading is pretty much the last stage before death.

While you are correct, to your statement I would add "just because it is a different tissue does not mean it is a different kind of cancer."
 
2013-11-26 05:27:02 PM

lennavan: Quantum Apostrophe: lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.

Right, because there are multiple mechanisms that result in cancer.  Either this lady had two completely independent mechanisms that resulted in two independent cancers, or alternatively, she has one single mechanism that caused cancer and that cancer spread.  Considering the short timeline left, it is exceedingly likely I am correct because spreading is pretty much the last stage before death.

While you are correct, to your statement I would add "just because it is a different tissue does not mean it is a different kind of cancer."


While not common it does happen.  I've definitely heard of patients undergoing cancer treatment who have gotten biopsies of what was supposed to be a met, only to find they have have to deal with two different types of cancer now.
 
2013-11-26 05:35:47 PM

mallorn: FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.


This.  While i'm certainly happy that they're getting to get hitched, I'm left wondering a) where did the federal judge get the power to speed things up, and b) if he actually has the power to speed this up (in contravention of the IL Constitution, is it effectivly accelerated for all Illinoians, or just people dying of cancer, or what?
 
2013-11-26 05:51:56 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

gaslight: It's good but it's sad.

This whole cancer thing sucks.

Yup, you'd think a species on the brink of colonizing the universe would have a better grasp on its own biology.


On the brink? I'd say we have something like a one in 10 chance of having effective space travel in 100 years, and a 9 in 10 chance of an ecologically driven economic and population collapse that puts us back to pre-industrial levels of technology.
 
2013-11-26 06:02:29 PM

tulax: mallorn: FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.

This.  While i'm certainly happy that they're getting to get hitched, I'm left wondering a) where did the federal judge get the power to speed things up, and b) if he actually has the power to speed this up (in contravention of the IL Constitution, is it effectivly accelerated for all Illinoians, or just people dying of cancer, or what?



It's just a TRO, so there's no in-depth explanation of reasoning, but I assume his logic is that the existing Illinois statute banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (either under the federal or state constitution), so there is nothing preventing them from marrying before the new statute comes into effect. At least, that was the argument Lambda Legal presented in court that the TRO says it is based upon. That doesn't raise any issues around the emergency legislation rules in the IL constitution, since their marriage isn't dependent on the statute.
 
2013-11-26 06:06:00 PM

Verrai: tulax: mallorn: FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.

This.  While i'm certainly happy that they're getting to get hitched, I'm left wondering a) where did the federal judge get the power to speed things up, and b) if he actually has the power to speed this up (in contravention of the IL Constitution, is it effectivly accelerated for all Illinoians, or just people dying of cancer, or what?


It's just a TRO, so there's no in-depth explanation of reasoning, but I assume his logic is that the existing Illinois statute banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional (either under the federal or state constitution), so there is nothing preventing them from marrying before the new statute comes into effect. At least, that was the argument Lambda Legal presented in court that the TRO says it is based upon. That doesn't raise any issues around the emergency legislation rules in the IL constitution, since their marriage isn't dependent on the statute.


Makes sense. I would understand it as "Sure, we could have a big case to determine whether the ban is constitutional, but that is a moot point in 6 months so just let them have it now because they probably won't be able to get it later"
 
2013-11-26 06:06:03 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sounds like someone is hoping to get health benefits, while the other is looking forward to death benefits.


Yeah, doesn't that sound just a bit like flirting with insurance fraud?
 
2013-11-26 06:16:07 PM
Good. Illinois isn't full of suckage all the time. This makes me happy.
 
2013-11-26 06:17:27 PM

mallorn: FTA:  "Illinois' law allows same-sex couples to get marriage licenses as of June 1, 2014, three years after the state began allowing civil unions. "

From the Illinois Constitution:  "A bill passed after May 31 shall not become effective prior to June 1 of the next calendar year unless the General Assembly by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house provides for an earlier effective date. "

So the judge trumped the Illinois Constitution, not a mere law.  I'm happy for the couple, but I think the distinction needed to be made.  I wonder how that will play out with Illinois pension reform.


so what I get out of that is that Illinois general assembly is a bag of dicks who wanted to make people wait to get married for no good reason. figures
 
2013-11-26 06:24:39 PM

lennavan: Quantum Apostrophe: lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.

Right, because there are multiple mechanisms that result in cancer.  Either this lady had two completely independent mechanisms that resulted in two independent cancers, or alternatively, she has one single mechanism that caused cancer and that cancer spread.  Considering the short timeline left, it is exceedingly likely I am correct because spreading is pretty much the last stage before death.

While you are correct, to your statement I would add "just because it is a different tissue does not mean it is a different kind of cancer."


Got it.
 
2013-11-26 06:24:58 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sounds like someone is hoping to get health benefits, while the other is looking forward to death benefits.

Yeah, doesn't that sound just a bit like flirting with insurance fraud?


How is a marriage different from a Civil Union in these respects?

Federal estate tax and survivor benefits is the obvious one.

And if they wanted that, it would probably have been easier and cheaper to make a quick trip to a state already allowing gay marriages.
 
2013-11-26 06:34:39 PM

dywed88: Dr Jack Badofsky: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sounds like someone is hoping to get health benefits, while the other is looking forward to death benefits.

Yeah, doesn't that sound just a bit like flirting with insurance fraud?

How is a marriage different from a Civil Union in these respects?

Federal estate tax and survivor benefits is the obvious one.

And if they wanted that, it would probably have been easier and cheaper to make a quick trip to a state already allowing gay marriages.


I guess that would depend if their home state would recognize such a marriage.  I don't know, as I don't follow this sort of thing very closely.
 
2013-11-26 06:49:06 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: dywed88: Dr Jack Badofsky: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sounds like someone is hoping to get health benefits, while the other is looking forward to death benefits.

Yeah, doesn't that sound just a bit like flirting with insurance fraud?

How is a marriage different from a Civil Union in these respects?

Federal estate tax and survivor benefits is the obvious one.

And if they wanted that, it would probably have been easier and cheaper to make a quick trip to a state already allowing gay marriages.

I guess that would depend if their home state would recognize such a marriage.  I don't know, as I don't follow this sort of thing very closely.


Illinois had Civil Unions, which I have been told received the same benefits as a marriage. The Federal government will recognize legally granted gay marriages whether your current state of residence/domicile does or not, but they do not recognize Civil Unions. I know the Federal position because I do taxes.
 
2013-11-26 07:43:07 PM
Are you sure... Subby..? Are you sure the tag isn't for the cancer..?
 
2013-11-26 09:17:37 PM

mbillips: Quantum Apostrophe: lennavan: While certainly possible, it is significantly more likely that you have one cancer that is in two locations.Also,

Um, "cancer" isn't one disease. Every single tissue can have different kinds of cancers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

gaslight: It's good but it's sad.

This whole cancer thing sucks.

Yup, you'd think a species on the brink of colonizing the universe would have a better grasp on its own biology.

On the brink? I'd say we have something like a one in 10 chance of having effective space travel in 100 years, and a 9 in 10 chance of an ecologically driven economic and population collapse that puts us back to pre-industrial levels of technology.


But if we run away from home, we won't have to clean up our room!
 
2013-11-27 02:18:47 AM

AngryDragon: Anyone who thinks this is anything but decent and appropriate gets instantly added to my ignore list.  Oh, and they can EABOD


That's really unhealthy, and to be honest a somewhat childish mentality.

You need to have people that disagree with you, otherwise you get groupthink, and that is never a good thing.
 
2013-11-27 04:23:43 AM
yes, groupthink is definitely doubleplusungood...
 
2013-11-27 07:52:49 AM

Theeng: AngryDragon: Anyone who thinks this is anything but decent and appropriate gets instantly added to my ignore list.  Oh, and they can EABOD

That's really unhealthy, and to be honest a somewhat childish mentality.

You need to have people that disagree with you, otherwise you get groupthink, and that is never a good thing.


Normally I would agree with you.  Basic human decency that is selfless and transcends ideological differences is about as close to an inherently good act as you can get though.
 
2013-11-27 08:27:11 AM
I don't see how a judge,legislating from the bench, is deserving of the hero tag. Good intentions don't count.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report