Lesbian couple in gay marriage case p...

Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

There are 1581 comments on the Fox News story from Mar 24, 2013, titled Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision. In it, Fox News reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1066 Apr 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It's defined however a society chooses to define it.
True, as did 32 states in their constitutions.
Or they can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances via either the judicial or legislative process. Which is what they've done. Sorry you don't understand the rights of citizens on the US.
Oh but I do. I was addressing the obvious. Gay folks don't want the institution of marriage. They want the name.

Here's what I wrote:

Pietro Armando wrote:
If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
And you speak for all polygamists on what basis? Personal experience? There's no requirement in a polygamous marriage that only opposite sex participants can have sex. Polygamy would seem to be ideally suited for bisexual humans.
Technically speaking only opposite sex participants have sex, aka sexual intercourse, aka coitus. Not quite sure where u were going with that.
Failure to advocate for another group petitioning government to address their grievances is not the same as opposing it. There is no constitutional requirement for a minority group to address the grievances of every other minority group along with their own grievance. If polygamists or incest practitioners or whatever other group you wish to toss on the backs of same sex marriage advocates can convince legislators to change laws or jurists to to agree with their constitutional arguments, then so be it.
See therein lies the elephant in the room of the SSM movement, polygamy. The rainbow coalition cannot petition the government eliminate the marital standard of one man AND one woman, which applies to everyone, without arguing that polygamists version of marriage shouldn't be included. There's really not to many restrictions the state places on legal marriage. Number, two, and nature, opposite sex, are basically the primary ones. Age of consent, and able to consent, are the others.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1067 Apr 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't really matter; the only real issue is how long it takes to rescind or void them. That can be done with a single SCOTUS ruling or state by state as the bigots opposing gay civil rights die off and become a minority among voters. You're very close to being drowned by a demographic tsunami of younger people who don't understand your bigotry.
Actually those younger people don't marry, certainly not at rates as their parents, and grandparents did. Perhaps they're "bigoted" against marriage in general.
No, the only real key is "when", not "if".
Time will tell.
So were cell phones. Do you really think the Prop 8/DOMA cases were about cell phones too?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...

Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

Olson responded by saying that polygamy raises questions "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody — it is an entirely different thing."

"If a state prohibits polygamy," he said, "it’s prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."
And how many was it 10 years ago? The key is the trend and it's not going in the direction you want.
The trend, is actually, moving away from marriage in general.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1068 Apr 28, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the fact you and your fellow bigots have lied and claimed the push to gain legal recognition of same sex marriage was ever about anyone other than gays isn't my problem. The phrase "marriage equality" has always been used by gays to refer to the issue for which gays were fighting. You and your ilk manufactured the fiction that somehow gays are responsible for addressing the legal and civil rights concerns of every other minority in the US even though there is no constitutional requirement to do so when exercising the right to petition government to address one's grievances.
You really ought to read the constitution sometime rather than whining when others exercise constitutional rights you don't understand.
Now now......just because the catch phrase, " marriage equality", is being co opted by the poly people is no reason to get your panties in a bunch. After all it was never specified that it was "Gay marriage equality", but just "marriage equality". Fair is fair. There's enough room under the rainbow banner for everyone. Remember August 19th is National Polygamy Day.
jhhkh

Covina, CA

#1069 Apr 28, 2013
khhjkh

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1070 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Conjugal as in husband AND wife, or pertaining to husband AND wife.
<quoted text>
"My need to procreate...."? Been there, done that.
Sorry Pete, but you've been told that a married couple is NOT required to CONSUMMATE their marriage, nor PROCREATE in their marriage, nor have to have CONJUGAL anything in their marriage.......and therefore it is IRRELEVANT to whom can marry whom!!!

Likewise, I've already had a child, and now in my marriage, neither my wife nor I need to procreate in order to be married in the eyes of the State!!!

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1071 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
True, as did 32 states in their constitutions.
As did California but that attempt has been ruled unconstitutional. Still, even if all such prohibitions aren't struck down by SCOTUS, they can still be rescinded the same was they were made part of each stat's constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh but I do. I was addressing the obvious. Gay folks don't want the institution of marriage. They want the name.
"Separate but equal" has already been tried and failed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Here's what I wrote:
Pietro Armando wrote:
If gays and lesbians want to be included in that institution thyr have to enter into it, as many have for centuries, the same way, by accepting a,person of the opposite sex as one's, respective, legally recognized husband or wife.
Sorry, others aren't bound by your definition of the "institution of marriage". The institution is what society defines it to be.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Technically speaking only opposite sex participants have sex, aka sexual intercourse, aka coitus. Not quite sure where u were going with that.
Not according to modern dictionaries. Apparently your dictionary s is from several centuries ago like your general views in the topic.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]See therein lies the elephant in the room of the SSM movement, polygamy. The rainbow coalition cannot petition the government eliminate the marital standard of one man AND one woman, which applies to everyone, without arguing that polygamists version of marriage shouldn't be included.
Sure they can. Gays are merely asking to remove the restriction on the sex of the participants of marriage; they're not asking to change the number of participants. Which is why polygamy is a separate issue.
Pietro Armando wrote:
There's really not to many restrictions the state places on legal marriage. Number, two, and nature, opposite sex, are basically the primary ones. Age of consent, and able to consent, are the others.
See, even you acknowledge the sex of marriage participants is a different restriction than the number of participants. There is no "elephant in the room"; there is only the fiction you've created that gays and polygamists are addressing the same marriage restriction.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1072 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually those younger people don't marry, certainly not at rates as their parents, and grandparents did. Perhaps they're "bigoted" against marriage in general.
Whether they marry or not doesn't impact their eligibility to vote.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Time will tell.
It already has. Sticking your head in the sand won't protect you from the demographic tsunami.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...
Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?
It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
Olson responded by saying that polygamy raises questions "about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody — it is an entirely different thing."
"If a state prohibits polygamy," he said, "it’s prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."
So? Olsen likely responded much the way Justice Sotomayor anticipated when asking the question in the first place since she is perceived as a liberal jurist and supportive of gay rights. Olsen indicated there are a number of reasons that could be offered as justification for not allowing polygamy. Only one of them needs to be deemed a compelling government interest in order to meet the requirements of strict scrutiny that permits a fundamental right like marriage to be restricted.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The trend, is actually, moving away from marriage in general.
And yet here you are trying to prevent people who want to marry from doing so.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1073 Apr 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Now now......just because the catch phrase, " marriage equality", is being co opted by the poly people is no reason to get your panties in a bunch. After all it was never specified that it was "Gay marriage equality", but just "marriage equality".[/QUOTE"]
Sure it was specified. Name a legal challenge brought by gays to gain legal recognition of same sex marriage that ever sought to change the number of participants allowed in a legally recognized civil marriage. I'll wait.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]Fair is fair. There's enough room under the rainbow banner for everyone.
Well, if you wish to broaden the coalition currently under the rainbow banner to include polygamists, then you'd better come out of your closet and become a GLBT activist so you can try to make that happen.

You still can't seem to get it through your thick skull that although any citizen is allowed to petition government to redress their grievances, exercising that right doesn't require one to address the grievances of every other minority in addition to your own grievance. After all, when women won the right to vote they didn't address all the voting restrictions or impediments placed on blacks at the time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember August 19th is National Polygamy Day.
And June is Pride month. The fabulousness of GLBT folk just can't be contained in a single day. LOL

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1074 Apr 28, 2013
Sorry; messed up the formatting in my previous attempt to post.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Now now......just because the catch phrase, " marriage equality", is being co opted by the poly people is no reason to get your panties in a bunch. After all it was never specified that it was "Gay marriage equality", but just "marriage equality".
Sure it was specified. Name a legal challenge brought by gays to gain legal recognition of same sex marriage that ever sought to change the number of participants allowed in a legally recognized civil marriage. I'll wait.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Fair is fair. There's enough room under the rainbow banner for everyone.
Well, if you wish to broaden the coalition currently under the rainbow banner to include polygamists, then you'd better come out of your closet and become a GLBT activist so you can try to make that happen.

You still can't seem to get it through your thick skull that although any citizen is allowed to petition government to redress their grievances, exercising that right doesn't require one to address the grievances of every other minority in addition to your own grievance. After all, when women won the right to vote they didn't address all the voting restrictions or impediments placed on blacks at the time.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember August 19th is National Polygamy Day.
And June is Pride month. The fabulousness of GLBT folk just can't be contained in a single day. LOL
Nobody

Irving, TX

#1076 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, whiny FOOL, what you don't get is polygamists have been challenging anti-polygmay laws unsuccessfully for almost 150 years. If they suddenly start winning in the court room it might be because previous judges and Justices based their opinions on their religious beliefs and personal prejudice rather than the constitution. Much like how jurists from that era justified "separate but equal" and anti-miscegenation laws even though today they are considered blatantly contrary to the 14th amendment.
Every citizen has the right to petition government to address their grievances. I'm sorry you hate it when your fellow citizens exercise their constitutional rights.
Its not so much as rights, "its stupidity" marriage between ss.
Quest

Dickerson, MD

#1077 Apr 29, 2013
Nobody wrote:
<quoted text>Its not so much as rights, "its stupidity" marriage between ss.
It's not stupid if you are gay, Dear.

If you are gay, marrying a straight person is "stupid."

Do you always think things are "stupid" just because they don't involve YOU? I know a couple of people like that, and they don't have many good friends.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1078 Apr 29, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct...the only definitive statement to come out of that article was "There is no gay gene"....the end....
You have already established that you believe whatever you want, and the facts be damned. Kinda makes you look stupider than dirt.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1079 Apr 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Pete, but you've been told that a married couple is NOT required to CONSUMMATE their marriage, nor PROCREATE in their marriage, nor have to have CONJUGAL anything in their marriage.......and therefore it is IRRELEVANT to whom can marry whom!!!
Lo Cal.....of course a married couple is NOT REQUIRED to CONSUMATE nor PROCREATE. It doesn't change the the conjugal nature, as in the relationship between husband and wife, of the union.
Likewise, I've already had a child,
Via the old fashioned way, or the stork? ;)
and now in my marriage, neither my wife nor I need to procreate in order to be married in the eyes of the State!!!
Why would you think the state would REQUIRE procreation?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1080 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
As did California but that attempt has been ruled unconstitutional.
Not by SCOTUS
Still, even if all such prohibitions aren't struck down by SCOTUS, they can still be rescinded the same was they were made part of each stat's constitution.
Yes they can.
"Separate but equal" has already been tried and failed.
Exactly, so why do you advocate for the genders to be seperated in marriage? Seems ironic that you would argue for gender segregation in marriage by claiming racial segregation in marriage is wrong
Sorry, others aren't bound by your definition of the "institution of marriage". The institution is what society defines it to be.
My definition? Wow...never realized the idea of marriage as a union of husband and wife orginated with me. Society can determine the "institution" is a monogamous male female union only, a polygamous male female union, a same sex gay male union, and/or same sex lesbian union. It could include siblings too.
Sure they can. Gays are merely asking to remove the restriction on the sex of the participants of marriage;
Only "merely"? Is that all? Well if that's all Gays are asking for....after all...no one after them will ask for any other restrictions to be removed...Gays have guarenteed that. If you remove the "restriction on sex of the participants" are you not in fundamentally redefining marriage itself? If so why does the government need to be involved? Why does it matter that two men/women marry?
they're not asking to change the number of participants. Which is why polygamy is a separate issue.
Hmmmmm...sound great in theory and its a nice way of saying gays aren't like "those people" (polygamists). However the reality of the matter is the standard you seek to change, one man and one woman, once changed opens it up to further change. One man one woman applies to all. Why should it be changed for gays, and not for polygamists? Why not gay polygamists? let's combine the two movements and really go wild.
See, even you acknowledge the sex of marriage participants is a different restriction than the number of participants.
I also acknowledge the sex of the marriage particiapants as in nature, opposite sex, is different than the number of participants. Nature vs number.
There is no "elephant in the room"; there is only the fiction you've created that gays and polygamists are addressing the same marriage restriction.
We both know there is. Even America's favorite polygamist family, The Browns, have come out publicly in favor of SSM. Why not return the favor?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1081 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether they marry or not doesn't impact their eligibility to vote.
Apparently they didn't get the memo. Would all those various constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman have passed if all those young supporters had voted?
It already has. Sticking your head in the sand won't protect you from the demographic tsunami.
Not quite yet...
So? Olsen likely responded much the way Justice Sotomayor anticipated when asking the question in the first place since she is perceived as a liberal jurist and supportive of gay rights. Olsen indicated there are a number of reasons that could be offered as justification for not allowing polygamy. Only one of them needs to be deemed a compelling government interest in order to meet the requirements of strict scrutiny that permits a fundamental right like marriage to be restricted.
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

Think about that statement. Is it okay to ban plural marriages? Incest, even same sex? Why bar same sex siblings from marrying? If SSM is legal in some states, and first cousin marriage is also legal in said states, why not allow same sex siblings to marry?
And yet here you are trying to prevent people who want to marry from doing so.
People can marry without state recognition.They can marry their brother, sister, cousin, stranger, more than one, on a plane, on a train, on a boat with a goat....sorry went a bit too far.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1082 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you think of "racial equality" too?
Is that what you think of "unisex" too?

[
When gays talk about "marriage equality", it's in the context of their marriages being legally recognized on par with those of straights,
"Gays and straights"? Rather limiting...what happened to the "B" in BGLT? Let's keep it simple, either opposite sex, or same sex.
not in the context of addressing the marriage grievances of all other minority groups in the US.
What "all other minority groups in the U.S. could there possibly be in regards to this issue? There's really only one other, polygamists/plural marriage practitioners. The the exclusionary usage of "marriage equality" exposes the hypocracy of the movment. So don't get mad when its co opted, or pointed out. Slate magazine did that for ya.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
From a constitutional standpoint, it doesn't matter. Infringing a fundamental right like marriage and/or disadvantaging a minority group by law triggers various levels of judicial scrutiny which laws that discriminate must pass in order to be considered constitutional.
Suppose the state, or maybe just the Feds withdrew any and all recognition of marriage, would the "fundamental right to marry" still exist?

The dirty little secret here is that everyone has the same right to marry, as marriage has been understood, and still is in 32 plus U.S. states, a union of husband and wife. No more no less. What is being argued here is not that two men/women can marry, but rather how should marriage be defined.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1083 Apr 29, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not by SCOTUS
At Federal Trial and Appellate courts it's been ruled unconstitutional; SCOTUS will rule by the end of June.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes they can.
Exactly, so why do you advocate for the genders to be seperated in marriage? Seems ironic that you would argue for gender segregation in marriage by claiming racial segregation in marriage is wrong
No one is advocating mandatory gender segregation within marriage. That was what was wrong with anti-miscegeneation laws: they mandated racial segregation. In case you haven't noticed, a majority of marriages still aren't interracial. However, voluntary segregation by marriage participants passes constitutional muster in the case of race as it would in the case of gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
My definition? Wow...never realized the idea of marriage as a union of husband and wife orginated with me.
I didn't say the idea of male/female marriage originated with you. However, you did assert it as the definition of of the institution of marriage with which gays should comply when the reality is that definition is no longer universal within the US.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Society can determine the "institution" is a monogamous male female union only, a polygamous male female union, a same sex gay male union, and/or same sex lesbian union. It could include siblings too.
Yes, society could and in some places already has (except for your incest marriage example, as I'm not aware of any legal jurisdiction that's legalized sibling marriage).
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only "merely"? Is that all?
Were you that indignant when the restriction on interracial marriage was removed too?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Well if that's all Gays are asking for....after all...no one after them will ask for any other restrictions to be removed...Gays have guarenteed that.
Really, there's no need for you to post a blatant lie, even in jest. Gays have no control over what other citizens may or may not do.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If you remove the "restriction on sex of the participants" are you not in fundamentally redefining marriage itself?
No. Just because gays have been discriminated against in most societies is no reason to continue to do so. Since the fundamental accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between participants that weren't previously related by blood, it works just as well for same sex as opposite sex participants.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If so why does the government need to be involved? Why does it matter that two men/women marry?
Why does it matter to the government if one man and one woman marry? After all, there is no longer any legal stigma associated with illegitimacy since SCOTUS ruled it a quasi-suspect class. And siblings can have private consensual sex and procreate now regardless of whether they have legal recognition of their coupling.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmm...sound great in theory and its a nice way of saying gays aren't like "those people" (polygamists).
That's your projection, not what I said.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1084 Apr 29, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
However the reality of the matter is the standard you seek to change, one man and one woman, once changed opens it up to further change. One man one woman applies to all. Why should it be changed for gays, and not for polygamists? Why not gay polygamists? let's combine the two movements and really go wild.
If that's how you feel, go for it. However, when citizens exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances, they need only address their own grievances, not those of other minorities or nor whatever grievances you'd heap upon them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I also acknowledge the sex of the marriage particiapants as in nature, opposite sex, is different than the number of participants. Nature vs number.
Same sex couplings occur in nature in species other than humans too. Do you go around policing the couplings of animals in your back yard or local parks to make sure they comply with your idea of "nature"?
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know there is.
It's your fiction; own it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Even America's favorite polygamist family, The Browns, have come out publicly in favor of SSM. Why not return the favor?
I have no problem if they wish to exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances regarding polygamy. I'm not standing in their way of doing so.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1085 Apr 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently they didn't get the memo. Would all those various constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman have passed if all those young supporters had voted?
Almost all of the state constitutional amendments were passed before the most recent generation of gay rights-supporting voters became eligible to vote. And a not insignificant number of older voters who opposed same sex marriage have died in the mean time. As I said, it's a matter of when, not if.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Not quite yet...
Really? How many states passed new constitutional amendments prohibiting legal recognition of same sex marriage this last election cycle? One. How many states defeated such an amendment? One. How many states voted to allow legal recognition of same sex marriage? Three.

Again, it's only a matter of when, not if.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.
Think about that statement. Is it okay to ban plural marriages? Incest, even same sex? Why bar same sex siblings from marrying? If SSM is legal in some states, and first cousin marriage is also legal in said states, why not allow same sex siblings to marry?
Unlike you, Justice Sotomayor knows fundamental rights can in fact be restricted if they pass the test of strict scrutiny (which is demonstration of a compelling state interest narrowly tailored using the least restrictive means of implementation). I'm sorry you can't recognize a rhetorical question by a Justice that's widely perceived as a supporter of gay right to enable counsel for the plaintiffs against Prop 8 to make a point in oral arguments.

Polygamists have been challenging anti-bigamy laws for almost 150 years. The only case of which I'm aware that reached SCOTUS is Reynolds v. United States in which polygamists asserted a freedom of religion argument against anti0-bigamy laws and lost. If polygamists assert different constitutional arguments in federal law suits, perhaps the outcome will be different this time.

As for incestuous marriage, siblings are already related by blood which makes the purpose of creating kinship through marriage moot. The state police power of public safety to prevent genetic defects has also been invoked to prohibit such marriages. But las with polygamists, no one is stopping incest marriage supporters from exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievance.
Pietro Armando wrote:
People can marry without state recognition.They can marry their brother, sister, cousin, stranger, more than one, on a plane, on a train, on a boat with a goat....sorry went a bit too far.
But state legal recognition with its associated legal privileges and benefits is the real issue here, isn't it? At least for same sex marriage. Your favorite polygamists the Browns apparently aren't trying to gain state legal recognition of their "spiritual marriages" but instead are simply asking not to be subject to criminal prosecution for co-habitating under the same roof and calling themselves "spiritually married" even though they have no civil marriage licenses for those "marriages".

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1086 Apr 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what you think of "unisex" too?
I'm not the one who used the term "Orwellian" in reference to removing a restriction on marriage that discriminates against a minority group.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"Gays and straights"? Rather limiting...what happened to the "B" in BGLT? Let's keep it simple, either opposite sex, or same sex.
Well, the GLBT community isn't blessed with one, all encompassing word to refer to themselves collectively like you and your comrades are with the word "bigots".
Pietro Armando wrote:
What "all other minority groups in the U.S. could there possibly be in regards to this issue? There's really only one other, polygamists/plural marriage practitioners.
Really? How many times have you yourself mentioned siblings/incest supporters? And others on your side have mentioned underage children, animals and inanimate objects.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The the exclusionary usage of "marriage equality" exposes the hypocracy of the movment.
It's no more hypocritical than people who refer to themselves as "pro-lifers" but also support capital punishment.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So don't get mad when its co opted, or pointed out. Slate magazine did that for ya.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
I'm just telling you how gays have used the term. I'm not responsible for how you or others redefine it nor are gays bound by your redefinition of it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Suppose the state, or maybe just the Feds withdrew any and all recognition of marriage, would the "fundamental right to marry" still exist?
Yes. It's been ruled a fundamental right by SCOTUS in accordance with amendment IX of the US constitution.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The dirty little secret here is that everyone has the same right to marry, as marriage has been understood, and still is in 32 plus U.S. states, a union of husband and wife. No more no less. What is being argued here is not that two men/women can marry, but rather how should marriage be defined.
Your "equal application of the law" fallacy is exactly what bigots used to justify the "separate but equal ruling" of Plessy v. Ferguson, anti-miscegenation laws and segregation laws. All of which rational, fair minded citizens now find abhorant and contrary to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. You should reconsider the company you keep.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Man charged after lubricant dispenser filled wi... 10 min Gov Corbutt of th... 33
News Gay club lube dispenser filled with acid 12 min Raul 24
News Indiana lawmakers to discuss ongoing LGBT right... 1 hr TerriB1 12
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Poof1 16,160
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 3 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 59
News Prostate massage: the secret to a better sex life? (Sep '15) 3 hr Raul 6
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 3 hr Lawrence Wolf 158
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr sgt Wiitold Kowal 38,911
More from around the web