Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Brian_G]

Largelanguage wrote:

Jazybird58's only way of countering you is using the cliche sock puppet argument.

That's true, can't keep up with the real argument.

[Dusty Mangina]

Only 8 more days until Illinois approves marriage equality! After that, federal recognition.

Lordy, my Kimare is going to be cranky!!!(So will the rest of the haters.)

[chance47]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior...
...

Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...Gay couples are clearly a blunder of the the fundamental goal of evolution.
...

The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.

[Pietro Armando]

Dusty Mangina wrote:

Only 8 more days until Illinois approves marriage equality! After that, federal recognition.
Lordy, my Kimare is going to be cranky!!!(So will the rest of the haters.)

The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy

by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012
Print PDF

[media-credit id=96 align="alignright" width="234"]
I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?
A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.
Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.
When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?
However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.
The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.
“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.
Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.
The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.
The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.
This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.

[KiMare]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.
You can’t just deny people the right to happiness just because you don’t like them. You aren’t royalty, you don’t get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.
You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.
You are on the wrong side of history.

So anyone can get married unless you prove harm?

[Dusty Mangina]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
<quoted text>
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.

I'm sorry, but you make far too much sense for Kimare. He's going to have to copy and paste some old material in order to reply. The old wind bag it's pretty much a one-trick pony.

[Dusty Mangina]

is*

[KiMare]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
Would that be a latent or manifest constraint? And why do you believe marriage isn't above love?
<quoted text>
The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. hmmmm... missed that one at university. Also, doesn't seem to come up on a web search! BUT... if it did, I am pretty certain the goal of evolution would be a lot closer to supporting variety, differences and changes in living species over time than some silly non-evolutionary concern like, say, denying gay people marriage.

1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.

2. Where did I say that?

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Lessons...

4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

Smile.

[chance47]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy
by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012
Print PDF
[media-credit id=96 align="alignright" width="234"]
I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?
A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.
Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.
Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.
When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?
However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.
The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.
“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.
Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.
The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.
The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.
This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.

So what?

[CurlingIron]

It's really hard to believe the iron is really turned on?

[Dusty Mangina]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
Smile.

This is really awkward, because you have yet to prove that this it's anything other than opinion.
I'm so embarrassed.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
lets see
-I don't care.... true
-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true

Right. Those are you arguments against polygamy. They're stupid.

[Frankie Rizzo]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
So what?

Chicken butt!

[Frankie Rizzo]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>

... hmmmm... missed that one at university....

I bet you missed a lot more than that before you dropped out!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

[chance47]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Depends. Doesn't change the constraint.
...

Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...2. Where did I say that?
...

Say what exactly?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Lessons...
....

Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...4. Gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.
...

"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
...Smile.

Thank you, smiles back to you.

[chance47]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Chicken butt!

So what? chicken butt!...

You're a poet? and you know it!

[chance47]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet you missed a lot more than that before you dropped out!
YUK!YUK!YUK!

You gambler types will bet on anything. Stop before the money is gone... there is hope.

http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/

[Frankie Rizzo]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
You gambler types will bet on anything. Stop before the money is gone... there is hope.
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/

There's hope for you drunks too!

http://www.aa.org/...

[KiMare]

chance47 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, it does change the meaning of your claim. One assumes an active attempt to limit gay relationships via marriage laws and the other implies an unintended restriction. Both points can be discussed and the ethical and moral implications of each are very different. You seem to drop that statement as if it is some sort guiding principle beyond the reach or reason of yourself or anyone else.
<quoted text>
Say what exactly?
<quoted text>
Okay, nice try - sorta. I just spent 15 minutes reviewing this link - I even used its own search feature and nowhere did it state The Fundamental Goal of Evolution. I am now even more sure there is no goal at all... but if you can find someone (no hack jobs, now) that has discovered what The Fundamental Goal of Evolution is please do share the link or referrence.
<quoted text>
"Bewary of those who think they know the mind of God". You are sounding borderline insane if you expect us to believe you know what is and what is not meant to be. I would argue if it wasn't meant to be then it doesn't exist! But, since there are gays in love then the only conclusion is that such was meant to be afterall.
<quoted text>
Thank you, smiles back to you.

1. The cross cultural constraint predates gay couples claiming marriage by quite some time making your point pointless.

The statement is a simple fact that you cannot directly refute, hence these games.

2. I said the basic essence of marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. You had no logical counter, so you made up a statement (lied) I never made. Again, where did I say marriage wasn't about love?

3. Maybe you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest', which is the summation of the four points in the link. Or put simply, no mutation occurs if there is not procreation. There is no procreation by gay couples.

4. Point 3; hence gay couples are an evolutionary blunder.

This is simple logic. Perhaps you might try a direct response to the fact; Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

By the way, here is some of the other elements of marriage distinguished from gay couples;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Smile.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>There's plenty of evidence of same sex marriage affecting our prisons:
In the rest of North America, even prison systems are beginning to recognize and accommodate gay marriages. Canada allows same-sex prisoners to wed while still incarcerated. Last October, two male inmates of a federal penitentiary in Quebec province married in the prison chapel. It was the third gay marriage to be performed in a federal prison in Canada since gay marriage was recognized on the national level in July 2005.15 Canada permits “private family visits” for a broad range of relatives including same-sex couples, but the visitor cannot be another prisoner.16 In Mexico, the National Human Rights Commission ruled in February 2007 that conjugal visits must be allowed to same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as are extended to straight couples, and Mexico City’s jail had its first same-sex partner conjugal visit the following July.17
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticl...
If you believe penitentiaries should be places for penitence instead of honeymoon romps and forced same sex marriage.

But stupid, your claim was that there would be FORCED gay marriages in prisons.
There is nothing wrong with gay prisoners being able to marry and visit their significant others just like straight people can.