Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

Full story: Fox News 1,568
Big change is coming to the lives of the lesbian couple at the center of the fight for same-sex marriage in California no matter how the Supreme Court decides their case. Read more

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1147 May 2, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Change scares the shit out of you religious types.
A XBox laxative will do that.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1148 May 2, 2013
Shit Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Near? I bet I could show your posts to several doctors and ALL of them would say you passed senile years ago.
I happen to have a letter, signed by THREE psychologists that states I am safe and able to live on my own.

Smile.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1150 May 2, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Some lines are too diminished to be repeated...
Your intellect is apparently too diminished to address parts of some posts.
Get That Fool wrote:
So 'today' is gay civil rights...not marriage 'equality'??? LOL!!!
Marriage is a fundamental civil right. People who aren't intellectually retarded like you know know this.
Get That Fool wrote:
You prove my point...black people were there...but it wasn't a 'black' civil rights movement...it was a movement for all people of color...blacks just suffered the brunt of the prejudice and institutionalized racism...
Yesterday you said "the civil rights movement pertained to ALL people"; today you say "it was a movement for all people of color". Not only do you try to revise history, you also try to revise your assertions from one day to the enxt.
Get That Fool wrote:
That doesn't change the intent of the movement...it was meant for ALL to vote...NOT just WOMEN....
Men already had the right to vote; the intent of the women's suffrage movement was to obtain the same right universally for women. The culmination of the women's suffrage movement was the passage of the 19th amendment to the US constitution which stated:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The disenfranchisement of black men after passage of the 15th amendment didn't occur because of their sex so wasn't addressed by the women's suffrage movement or remedied by the 19th amendment. Unfortunately, black women were subjected to the same discrimination and disenfrachising tactics as black men so all too often were unable to exercise their newly guaranteed right to vote.

Sex, as a characteristic of humans, was often used historically as a classification within laws to treat people differently. That's why sex has been ruled by SCOTUS as a quasi-suspect class within equal protection consitutional law.
Get That Fool wrote:
You read something..but you don't 'understand' what it means...you have 'no' clue what you are talking about....you are quoting other people that aren't saying what 'you' are saying....
You're talking to yourself in your mirror again.

You're the one who has no f-ing clue what you're talking about with regards to the history of the women's suffrage movement or the black civil rights movement. Further, you have no understanding of "classes" as they pertain to the law, which is why consitutional law in general and equal protection cases in particular utterly flummox you.
Get That Fool wrote:
NOPE...never out for themselves only as gays 'ADMITTEDLY' are....
And yet women's suffrage didn't remedy the disenfranchisement of black men nor universally secure the right to vote for black women. Nor did the black civil rights movement address the discrimination faced by all gays or even gays that were black. That you refuse to acknowledge these results doesn't negate the fact it occurred. But it's a perfectly OK outcome because the citizens participating in those movements weren't required to address the grievances of other groups facing dsicrimination when they exercised their right to petition government to address their own grievances. Just as it's perfectly OK for gays to focus on having their marriages legally recognized since they aren't required to address the grievances of polygamists.

Because you're unable to posit any reasons for prohibiting legal recognition of same marriages that would pass even rational basis scrutiny in an equal protection case, you've reduced yourself to whining and sniveling about whether the advocacy positioning phrase "marriage equality" is suitably inclusive in your opinion. That again merely demonstrates your intellectual bankruptcy.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1151 May 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, one, polygamists seek to maintain the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, the other, SSM advocates, seek to maintain the number, two, of the relationship.
You're assuming all polygamists have a heterosexual orientation and would only have sex with the opposite participants in a polygamous relationship or marriage. Some or even all the participants could be bisexual and engage in sex with opposite and same sex participants in the their polygamous relationship or marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
However polygamists can use the precedent set by SSM to advocate for their version of marriage on religious grounds, freedom of association, and any other standing they choose to employ.
Polygamists have always been able to assert those legal arguments when challenging anti-bigamy laws. In fact, they already challenged anti-bigamy laws on freedom of religion grounds and SCOTUS ruled against them in Reynolds v. United States. That occurred 135 years ago in 1878. So your assertion that current SSM advocacy and judicial activities sets "precedent" enabling polygamists to use first amendment or other legal arguments to challenge current marriage restrictions is patently false and without merit.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If the marital standard of one man and one woman recognized as husband and wife is no longer valid, why should the number be maintained?
I'm neither challenging nor defending the restriction on the number of participants in a marriage. Nor does the existence of that restriction affect me personally. So why should I justify it either way in a discussion with someone who claimed to have no opinion regarding anti-miscegenation laws?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Think about that. "Personal prejudice".....exactly. If homosexuality is no longer morally unacceptable, then it stands to reason that other consenting adult relationships, and/or sexual behaviors can, and will be viewed as also morally acceptable. Polygamy, as with same sex sexual behavior was considered for most of American history as contrary to the morals of a "Christian nation". Polygamy has gotten a boost from legal SSM, we both know that.
No, it will have "gotten a boost" from the fact SCOTUS ruled before the advent of same sex marriage litigation that:

1. Intimate relationships and private sexual conduct among consenting adults falls within the the consitutionally protected sphere of privacy rights, and
2. moral disapproval of behavior, conduct or even an entire minority group of people is not a consitutionally permissible justification for laws discrimating against the behavior or conduct or for infringing the civil rights of a minority.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<Sigh.......actually I was referring to leash laws. You asked me if I "go around policing the couplings of animals in your back yard or local parks to comply with your idea of 'nature'?". I do tell my dog to stop when he tries to impregnate the cat. Would that count?
Perhaps neither of us understood the point the other was making.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"....maybe. I always wondered why there wasn't a female version of that show.....perhaps a "Lesbian Pal for the Straight Gal".
To maintain the stereotypical premise of "Queer Eye", the "Lesbian Pal" concept would have to focus on things like how to use power tools, do home improvement projects and make bad party food. Perhaps not the most entertaining of concepts...
Pietro Armando wrote:
No St Paddy's Day celebration? Cinco de Mayo? Chinese New Year? Columbus Day? San Genaro festival?
I generallty celebrate things that have relevance or personal meaning in my life. The events you named don't have such significance to me nor does anyone in my social circle celebrate them such that I'd join them as a social acitivity.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1152 May 3, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sometimes even more conservative too
True, but people typically don't develop prejudices against a human characteristic later in life if they didn't learn the prejudice while growing up.
Pietro Armando wrote:
A few waves at best.....don't forget the sea wall of 32 state constitutional amendments
A single SCOTUS ruling could sweep your "sea wall" away although I don't think that's a likely outcome of current litigation. It will probably require successive waves to erode the sea wall one consitutional amendment at a time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Bravo! Well said.

Say hello to the polygamists
All it takes is one consitutionally acceptable reason to continue to say "no" to legally recognized polygamy. But it's by no means a certainty that polygamists will fail in new legal challenges.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not so fast......the "ultimate legal accomplishment of marriage" is to publicly recognize a man and and woman as husband and wife, thus establishing the kinship you state.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Kinship is a legal accomplishment resulting from exercising one's fundamental constitutional right of marriage. You're comflating what marriage accomplishes with the requirements that must be met in order to exercise the right of marriage. A marriage results in a legally related husband and wife only if you require the participants to be one man and one woman. However, even though not all all states or countries specify one man and one woman as a requirement of marriage all the marriages performed within those jurisdictions still establish legal kinship. So kinship is conferred regardless of the sex (or the number, for that matter) of the marriage participants.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Same as with your right to marry, it already exists. In fact any consenting man can marry any consenting woman, and vice versa of course, provided they meet basic requirements set forth by the state, of legal age, not already married, etc.
Unfortunately for you, equal protection under the law isn't the same thing as the equal application of the law (which is what you just described). After all, anti-miscegenation laws were applied equally to both whites and people of color (any consenting white person could marry any consenting white person and any consenting person of color could marry any consenting person of color subject to any other specified restrictions placed upon marriage within the jurisdiction). Yet anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional because they didn't pass the appropriate level of scrutiny applied to equal protection cases.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As did men, Catholics, Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All referenced those that went before them.
Except sex, religion and race/ethnicity are all different classes and only the latter two are deemed suspect classes while the first is deemed a quasi-suspect class and for which there are different bases of judicial scrutiny.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, but it certainly helps their cause. Soon there might not be a reason for go moment to recognize marriage at all. If so would the right still exist?
The existence of rights in our society is based on their specific enumeration in or inference from language within our constitution, not on whether anyone chooses to exercise the right.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1154 May 3, 2013
Uh-oh....can anybody explain this????

Antoine Dodson
Hide Ya Penises ...
I'm NO LONGER GAY Breaking

Antoine Dodson -- the flamboyant home intruder thwarter -- says he's "no longer into homosexuality" ... so you can run and tell THAT, homeboy.

Actually, Dodson posted a statement on Facebook explaining that he's decided to "renounce myself" -- because, "I want a wife and family, I want to multiply and raise and love my family that I create."

He explains, "I could care less about the fame and fortune, I've giving all that up to know the true history of the bible. For I am the True Chosen Hebrew Israelite descendant of Judah."

FYI -- the Hebrew Israelies (also known as the Black Israelites) believe they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites ... but they don't consider themselves as "Jewish." They also believe in Satan.

As for Dodson, he explains, "As True Israel I know that there are certain things we just can't do. And I totally understand that now. I don't need a Mercedes Benz, I don't need a big house in Beverly Hills all I need is the Most High and my family (Israel). I have been awaken by the great and so should you."

He concludes, "Hate me if you must, bash me if you must, I won't break, do what you will, for this is my calling."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/03/antoine-dodson-...
Visit the TMZ Store: http://tmzstore.com

Well, that says it all...doesn't it???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1155 May 3, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a fundamental civil right. People who aren't intellectually retarded like you know know this.
Not 'every type' of marriage is though...as we all know...
Yesterday you said "the civil rights movement pertained to ALL people"; today you say "it was a movement for all people of color". Not only do you try to revise history, you also try to revise your assertions from one day to the enxt.
Last I checked..white was a color too....
Men already had the right to vote; the intent of the women's suffrage movement was to obtain the same right universally for women.
Not 'JUST' for women...for EVERYONE! What don't you get???

Gays are the only ones out for themselves...you've made that apparent....

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1157 May 3, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Not 'every type' of marriage is though...as we all know...
SCOTUS has only ruled "marriage" a fundamental right. It hasn't provided a list of types of marriages that aren't permissible; it's only ruled certain restrictions (such as anti-miscegenation laws) as unconstitutional.
Get That Fool wrote:
Last I checked..white was a color too....
It doesn't matter whether "white" is a color. The phrase "people of color" has a recognized definition which doesn't include white people:

people of color
noun

a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks)[syn: color]

link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/people...

Guess your Alzheimer's is acting up again. Or perhaps it's just your lack of education and general illiteracy. With you, it's hard to tell.
Get That Fool wrote:
Not 'JUST' for women...for EVERYONE! What don't you get???
You should read a real history book sometime and not your overused copy of "History for Bigots". Women's suffrage was about gaining the right to vote for women, not people (in this case, men) who already had the right to vote.
Get That Fool wrote:
Gays are the only ones out for themselves...you've made that apparent....
US history shows any minority or disadvantaged group fought for their own interests. Had each group addressed the interests of all people there would not have been the need for subsequent groups to repeat the process. That you lie and try to pervert history doesn't change that fact.
Murphy

United States

#1158 May 3, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What a snappy response, Fido.
I know you're not a child. It takes awhile to become a narrow-minded bigot.
I heard BIG BOSS MAN banned your annoying queer azz from the cafe and I'm glad about that!!!

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1159 May 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:

The legal accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. Siblings are already related by blood.
KiMare wrote:
Kinship does not establish the rights and privileges of marriage.
Are you really trying to assert that any kin is 'married'???
Do you see how your denial is making you silly stupid? Amazing...
Smirk.

My comprehension is not the problem, your logic is. I simply followed your assertion to the logical end and exposed how stupid it was.
My assertion makes no claim about the rights and privileges that may be attached to marriage since those are established by laws other than the ones defining the parameters of marriage. My assertion merely states the legal result of what marriage accomplishes.

Nor did I assert "any kin is married". That's your misrepresentation of my words based on your own faulty logic. I stated marriage confers kinship on previously unrelated parties, not parties that are already related by blood. If A confers B, it does not logically follow that B confers A.

Your brain is starved for oxygen; take your head out of your mangina.

Gag.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1160 May 5, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
People can marry whoever they want without state sanction.
Not true. Bigamy and sibling marriage is criminalized in many states while same se marriage is not criminalized in any state (it is merely not granted legal recognition in some states).
Pietro Armando wrote:
If one wants the state involved one must accept the restriction on a "person's choice of a marriage partner".
If one feels the restrictions infringe their right to equal protection under the law, then one can petition government to remove the restriction. Citizens with valid legal claims don't have to accept anything just because you say so.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only if the state allows SSM.
Which proves your assertion the legal accomplishment of marriage is joining a man and a woman as husband and wife does not address the reality of marriage in all states or countries.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides first cousins can still marry in some states.
Restrictions on permissible consanguinity is a different restriction than the one governing the sex of the participants. Which is why same sex marriage and incest marriages are different issues.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Now that's funny. Doesn't the state regulate marriage to some degree on the basis of "genitalia".
Only because genitalia are just another means of identifying the sex of a person and thus are related to the restriction on the sex of the participants of a marriage. States that legally recognize same sex marriages don't share your obsession with others' genitalia.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Okay.......and.....?
Referring to heterosexuals or heterosexuality is not using "sexual political identity labels"; it's referring to sexual orientation or the people having a particular sexual orientation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I did respond, the state does not mandate husband and wife procreate, nor prohibit marriage applicants based on the ability or desire to procreate.
Then why should there be a restriction on the sex of the marriage participants? What compelling government interest do you assert to which prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriages is the answer?
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
I'm glad you finally did some research to fill in your obvious lack of knowledge regarding anti-miscegenation laws. However, you're merely reasserting what I've said in response to your previous erroneous statement:

"There is no need, nor desire on the part of government to mandate people marry within their own ethnic/racial/relgious/economi c gropup."

Now if only you can learn the difference between race and ethnicity...
Pietro Armando wrote:
I didn't realize my coherency is degrading, thanks for letting me know, I work at building up my coherency, wouldn't want it to degrade any further.
You're welcome. But I see you didn't answer who "Lo Cal" was or why you referred to me as such.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As it pertains to marriage, yes it is.
That's your personal opinion, not a fact. Nine and soon to be ten states prove you wrong as well as a number of other countries.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If not why bother licensing marriage at all, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
Why did it matter at one time that whites and blacks not marry?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1161 May 5, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
50.8 % female. Close enough.
For people with no regard for accuracy or facts, perhaps. But still enough to prove your statement false.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Smarter than the average bear.
Hardly. Even those of average intelligence know 50.8 does not equal 49.2 (which you don't).
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, and I've stated such on a few occasions.
And it's not relevant to same sex marriage since it addresses a different restriction. One, which you've noted is not universally defined among the states either.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, but in most of the world, husband and wife establishes kinship.
Assertions regarding the nature of something must include all current instances, not only some of them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite. If same sex first cousins can marry, and there's no risk of sexual reproduction,for the obvious reason the pair is of the same sex, why should same sex siblings be barred from marriage? Please you that superior intellect and explain this. "Establishing kinship", won't work here.
Sure it does. The general rule is marriage creates kinship between previously UNRELATED parties. Siblings and first cousins, regardless of their sex, are related by blood. States can make exceptions to rules just as they impose restrictions. So if states make an exception for first cousins, then it would be an exception to the consanguinity restriction, not the sex restriction.

Really, this isn't rocket science.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1162 May 5, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Terra Firma wrote:
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. Siblings are already related by blood.
<quoted text>
My assertion makes no claim about the rights and privileges that may be attached to marriage since those are established by laws other than the ones defining the parameters of marriage. My assertion merely states the legal result of what marriage accomplishes.
Nor did I assert "any kin is married". That's your misrepresentation of my words based on your own faulty logic. I stated marriage confers kinship on previously unrelated parties, not parties that are already related by blood. If A confers B, it does not logically follow that B confers A.
Your brain is starved for oxygen; take your head out of your mangina.
Gag.
Kinship is acknowledged in marriage because it most often results in 'kin'. The union of two family 'kins' creating a new branch on a family tree. Sometimes that branch never develops kin and dead ends.

A ss couple can NEVER establish a family tree or kinship.

Definition of KIN
1 a group of persons of common ancestry : clan
2 one's relatives : kindred

Don't call putting your head in someone's ass marriage. It clearly isn't.

Smile.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1163 May 5, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinship is acknowledged in marriage because it most often results in 'kin'. The union of two family 'kins' creating a new branch on a family tree. Sometimes that branch never develops kin and dead ends.
The participants of marriage are established as kin of each other's respective families. Hence the terms father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law. It does not require procreation to establish kinship between the families. And legal adoption of a child can continue the branch of the tree because it maintains the kinship by law even if not by blood.

I'm sure people who adopt appreciate you denigrating their selfless acts to help children who either no longer have biological parents or have been removed from their care permanently for whatever reason.
KiMare wrote:
A ss couple can NEVER establish a family tree or kinship.
Just as ignorant on this topic as so many others, I see. What a surprise. Not.
KiMare wrote:
Definition of KIN
1 a group of persons of common ancestry : clan
2 one's relatives : kindred
Same sex partners with legally recognized marriages do in fact have in-laws and relatives.
KiMare wrote:
Don't call putting your head in someone's ass marriage. It clearly isn't.
Then you should stop doing it and calling yourself married. And as divorce is man's will and not God's intent, you and the divorced sl*t you call a wife are nothing but fornicators and adulterers and have no moral ground on which to presume to lecture others about marriage.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
You won't be on your Judgment Day.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1164 May 6, 2013
KiMare'a wrote;

Kinship is acknowledged in marriage because it most often results in 'kin'. The union of two family 'kins' creating a new branch on a family tree. Sometimes that branch never develops kin and dead ends.

A ss couple can NEVER establish a family tree or kinship.

Definition of KIN
1 a group of persons of common ancestry : clan
2 one's relatives : kindred

Don't call putting your head in someone's ass marriage. It clearly isn't.

Smile.
Terra Faka wrote:
<quoted text>
The participants of marriage are established as kin of each other's respective families. Hence the terms father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law and daughter-in-law. It does not require procreation to establish kinship between the families. And legal adoption of a child can continue the branch of the tree because it maintains the kinship by law even if not by blood.
I'm sure people who adopt appreciate you denigrating their selfless acts to help children who either no longer have biological parents or have been removed from their care permanently for whatever reason.
<quoted text>
Just as ignorant on this topic as so many others, I see. What a surprise. Not.
<quoted text>
Same sex partners with legally recognized marriages do in fact have in-laws and relatives.
<quoted text>
Then you should stop doing it and calling yourself married. And as divorce is man's will and not God's intent, you and the divorced sl*t you call a wife are nothing but fornicators and adulterers and have no moral ground on which to presume to lecture others about marriage.
<quoted text>
You won't be on your Judgment Day.
Nothing you said changes the facts.

In fact, you bring up an interesting point. If a childless couple divorces and remarries, do they have two sets of kin? No. However, if that couple had children, they would forever be tied to each others family through their children.

The rest is so silly stupid, it is only evidence of the degree of denial the attempt to equate ss couples with marriage has led to.

-Ss couples cannot mutually procreate.

-Adoption can extend the family name, in name only. It does not establish 'kinship' in the true sense of the word. That is a simple fact that even adoptive parents acknowledge.

-At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Ss couple are a defective failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.

-Neither my wife nor I have ever been divorced. The slut lesbian in me has never been married.

-If salvation on Judgment Day is by performance, none of us will be smiling.

Smile.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1165 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
Kinship is acknowledged in marriage because it most often results in 'kin'. The union of two family 'kins' creating a new branch on a family tree. Sometimes that branch never develops kin and dead ends.
A ss couple can NEVER establish a family tree or kinship.
Definition of KIN
..........
Of course they can. You can not change the letter of the law to mean what you would like it to mean.

Marriage establishes legal kinship. Adoption establishes legal kinship. Having biological creates kinship.

Try again.

You need to PROVE the state interest in preventing gay folks who are similarly situated with straight couples, from establishing the same forms of legal kinship that straight folks can.

So, please provide the documentation proving that no straight person who is either infertile, chooses not to have biological children, or adopts, is allowed by law to form legal kinship bonds with any other adult through marriage.

If those straight couples are indeed allowed to marry, then gay folks would need to have that same right as well, as they are similarly situated.

After all, it would be hypocritical to apply a separate legal standard to ONLY gay folks, when they are similarly situated to straight folks who are actually encouraged to legally marry.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1166 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
......
-Ss couples cannot mutually procreate.
.........
The same is true of a large number of opposite sex couples.

You would need to ban ALL such couples from marrying, if you are trying to say that the ONLY legal reason for marriage is procreation.

Silly, of course. But, then, your arguments are usually silly.
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#1167 May 6, 2013
SS marriage is impossable not fesiable, no such thing, It is a false thing showing our children, needs to be thrown out of the court system. Its like saying it ok to lie,rape and murder.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1168 May 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
..
-Adoption can extend the family name, in name only. It does not establish 'kinship' in the true sense of the word. That is a simple fact that even adoptive parents acknowledge.
........
Adoption establishes LEGAL kinship, which is what we are talking about here, and with marriage as well. Not genetic kinship.

In marriage, that's actually forbidden, in a great many cases.

You seem to be unable to grasp the basics, here.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#1169 May 6, 2013
Nobody wrote:
SS marriage is impossable not fesiable, no such thing, It is a false thing showing our children, needs to be thrown out of the court system. Its like saying it ok to lie,rape and murder.
No, in fact it is very real and has been for a long time.

sad that people like you can actually deny the real facts in front of your face. cult mentality...nothing more. go repeat your proven mythical cult mantras some more when faced with the real world...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Family Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Rome community rally against proposed education... 48 min Andrew Cuomo 33
News Sissy Spacek: I made movies for a break from th... 1 hr Childless 1
News Child of Lesbian Moms Says Same-Sex Marriage Is... 2 hr Marcavage s Emission 513
News 15-Year-Old Illegal Alien Charged with Murderin... 3 hr Mr_SKY 3
News It is now 03-25-15...And he's 6 hr John 1
News If you must smoke, do it away from the kids 6 hr Compassion 1
News Half of teachers have seen an increase in young... 7 hr VACCIDENTS 9
More from around the web