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

#1087 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
At Federal Trial and Appellate courts it's been ruled unconstitutional; SCOTUS will rule by the end of June.
That they will.
No one is advocating mandatory gender segregation within marriage. That was what was wrong with anti-miscegeneation laws: they mandated racial segregation.
But your are advocating it be codified in law. Part of the issue with bans on interracial marriage bans is that they banned only certain racial pairings not all, and they did fully address mixed race individuals. Blacks couldn't marry whites but they could marry Asians, for example. There are only toe sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
In case you haven't noticed, a majority of marriages still aren't interracial.
I suppose that depends own how one defines "race". At one time in U.S. history, Italians and Irish were considered separate races. Besides people tend to marry within their own ethnic/religious/economic/ social,group anyway.
However, voluntary segregation by marriage participants passes constitutional muster in the case of race as it would in the case of gender.
That depends in the court. What is the point of gender segregation within marriage? It fundamentally alters the very nature of the relationship and the reason for its existence.
I didn't say the idea of male/female marriage originated with you.
You implied it.
Sorry, others aren't bound by your definition of the "institution of marriage". The institution is what society defines it to be.
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.
In the majority of U.S. states it is, and practically speaking, considering the number of opposite sex marriages compared to same sex marriages, I would say conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, it still is.
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).
Why not....it doesn't make sense to bar same sex sibling from marriage. No risk of sexual reproduction there.
Were you that indignant when the restriction on interracial marriage was removed too?
I was a bit young....didn't really have an opinion. Besides my wife and I are of different "racial" backgrounds.
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.
Blatant lie? Okay ya lost me there. I'm trying to maintain the flow here. Gays can public ally voice opinions though.
No. Just because gays have been discriminated against in most societies is no reason to continue to do so.
First "gay" is a relatively modern sexual political identity label. Second, same sex sexual behavior is not new, it's existed, and experienced various levels of tolerance depending on the time and place.
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.
Actually it's to join the sexes, creating kinship is part of that. Some states do allow first cousins to 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.
Monogamous conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, is crucial to a stable society. It connects men and women, and the children.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1088 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
That's your projection, not what I said.
There is a strong disassociation sentiment within the SSM movement towards polygamy, often times bordering on disdain.
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.
So you acknowledge that legal SSM opens the door to legal polygamy?
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"?
Only if they're not on a leash.
It's your fiction; own it.
Again, lost in the flow. Not sure what that line corresponds to.
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.
But will you watch "Sister Wives", and celebrate National Polygamy Day?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1089 Apr 29, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a strong disassociation sentiment within the SSM movement towards polygamy, often times bordering on disdain.
<quoted text>
So you acknowledge that legal SSM opens the door to legal polygamy?
<quoted text>
Only if they're not on a leash.
<quoted text>
Again, lost in the flow. Not sure what that line corresponds to.
<quoted text>
But will you watch "Sister Wives", and celebrate National Polygamy Day?
Just like with heterosexuals....Gays and Lesbians DON'T have to agree with polygamy......PERIOD!!!

I have NEVER watched the show in the first place and don't plan on starting now........like I've stated polygamist could have started their legal fight decades ago......they didn't need to wait until Gays and Lesbians started their fight.......they AREN'T the same and DON'T go hand in hand with each other, but you and those like you have NEEDED to make them somehow be tied at the hip........it has always been a flaw in your argument......sort of like Cooper's about denying the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians will somehow make heterosexuals more procreative responsible......he's lost twice on that argument already......lol!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1090 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Young votes don't vote in general much less for gay rights issues. Time will tell if the trend reverses itself.
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.
So what is the overall win loss record for pro SSM?
Again, it's only a matter of when, not if.
Time will tell...
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.
She did raise a valid question though. What restrictions are not considered discriminatory? Lets see....age of consent? I think that one passes the test. Opposite sex only? I say yes, you say no. Blood relatives....that could be considered discriminatory, as with the number of participants. What else is left?
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.
Bear in mind there has been, in the western civilization in general and the U.S. in particular a moral objection towards polygamy, not to mention other sexual matters. Now thanks to greater acceptance of same sex sexual behavior, and "alternative lifestyles", not to mention pop culture, polygamy is gaining ground in the court of public opinion.
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.
Not quite. If a brother and sister wish to be husband and wife, why should "already related by blood" matter? The only state objection is the risk, which you pointed out, of genetic defects resulting from reproduction. That wouldn't be an issue if the siblings are of the same sex.
But las with polygamists, no one is stopping incest marriage supporters from exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievance.
Exactly, and thanks to SSMers they have precedent.
But state legal recognition with its associated legal privileges and benefits is the real issue here, isn't it?
Ann so you admit it.the SSM movement is a push for state bennies and tax breaks.
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".
They're AMERICA'S favorites. Polygamists have to start somewhere. So where does it end? At what point does it become pointless? Why does it matter who marries, or doesn't marry who?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1091 Apr 29, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one who used the term "Orwellian" in reference to removing a restriction on marriage that discriminates against a minority group.
Actually two restrictions, and two minority groups, fair is fair. The opposite sex standard applies to all.
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".
Waitaminit here....I think I see something. "Bi-bisexual", "G- gays", and "Ots-others"..... There ya have it "bigots"
Really? How many times have you yourself mentioned siblings/incest supporters? And others on your side have mentioned underage children, animals and inanimate objects.
Inanimate objects, or animals are silly. Although there might be some hillbilly s fond of sheep.
It's no more hypocritical than people who refer to themselves as "pro-lifers" but also support capital punishment.
Touché Lo Cal....very good.
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.
I know, but who would've thought others would use that term for polygamists, even Slate magazine.
Yes. It's been ruled a fundamental right by SCOTUS in accordance with amendment IX of the US constitution.
But if the state, or the Feds gets out of the marriage business, does the right still exist.
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.
Lets not use the word bigot, unless you mean the the new definition, see above. Fair minded citizens see the discrimination, waste, and futility of laws intended to keep the "races" separate. Besides there's not enough water fountains to cover every race. We need one for blacks, whites, Italians, Chinese, Irish, Polish, Scandinavians, Native Americans, Mexicans, etc....the list would be endless. Same with locker rooms one for girls, one for boys, and even a few unisex, but no peeking.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1092 Apr 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like with heterosexuals....Gays and Lesbians DON'T have to agree with polygamy......PERIOD!!!
I have NEVER watched the show in the first place and don't plan on starting now........like I've stated polygamist could have started their legal fight decades ago......they didn't need to wait until Gays and Lesbians started their fight.......they AREN'T the same and DON'T go hand in hand with each other, but you and those like you have NEEDED to make them somehow be tied at the hip........it has always been a flaw in your argument......sort of like Cooper's about denying the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians will somehow make heterosexuals more procreative responsible......he's lost twice on that argument already......lol!!!
Hi ya Lo Cal....ya slipped in a response. Too tired to respond, get back to ya later, ciao amica...amico?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1093 Apr 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi ya Lo Cal....ya slipped in a response. Too tired to respond, get back to ya later, ciao amica...amico?
Do you notice when something is brought up that might expose the harm of trying to equate an imposter relationship with marriage, they don't want to talk about it?

Snicker.
Nobody

Irving, TX

#1094 Apr 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
OH well to be ss lovers is like, lying,stealing,murdering,cheat ing, I could name a few other sins. Now I am not saying normal people don't do that,just saying thats were it rates.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1095 Apr 30, 2013
jmac wrote:
Norcal Native posted:
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they do...and polygamists are 'very' grateful to you...
Sorry, they are separate issues.......why? Because Gays and Lesbians just want to be INCLUDED in an already defined institution called "MARRIAGE"
You were never 'excluded' in the already defined marriage institution...
.......pol ygamist want to change the definition of marriage from 2 to an infinite number of participates..........
...as gays want to change the definition by the gender of the participant...where you have one change to suit an interest group, you must justify having denying 'all' interest groups...that's why polygamy is now in the courts again...they feel ssm has given them some leverage....
and again, only fools like yourself hang on to this issue to try and make some point that isn't going to be made and it could have been done before now!!!
Was it done before now??? Did it have the liberal media support it's getting now??? NO! The liberals that carried ssm to the forefront know they can not stop there...or they lose their credibility...
I'm not worried about folks who want to marry more than one other person......not my business and doesn't have an affect on my marriage......
Oh, but every change to marriage effects us all...sorry, but that's a BIG lie!..

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1096 Apr 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like with heterosexuals....Gays and Lesbians DON'T have to agree with polygamy......PERIOD!!!
This is true..but in doing so..they also don't believe in 'marriage EQUALITY'....wouldn't you agreee??

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1097 Apr 30, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Just saying what? That no heterosexual gene has ever been identified? We already know that. And if the epi-genetic theory proves correct, it means sexual orientation has a genetic component and is innate.
The difference is..heterosexuals never claimed 'genes' made us heterosexual...

There is no reseach that confirms your statement at all as genetic or innate...quit lying....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1098 Apr 30, 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.
But didn't have the support of the liberal media behind them until now...why is the liberal media now speaking up for polygamy as well, because they realize the hypocracy for fighting for ssm, and nothing else under the banner of 'equality', and therefore they wish to maintaint their credibility....
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.
Or...just like ssm...they are being pressured by society to do so...
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.
Petititioning the government is not the issue..the timing and their support is the issue...

You should be proud...look what you all have done for marriage 'equality'...history will reflect the homosexual contribution in the destruction of marriage in the U.S. Aren't you just so proud of yourself???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1099 Apr 30, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You were never 'excluded' in the already defined marriage institution...
<quoted text>
...as gays want to change the definition by the gender of the participant...where you have one change to suit an interest group, you must justify having denying 'all' interest groups...that's why polygamy is now in the courts again...they feel ssm has given them some leverage....
<quoted text>
Was it done before now??? Did it have the liberal media support it's getting now??? NO! The liberals that carried ssm to the forefront know they can not stop there...or they lose their credibility...
<quoted text>
Oh, but every change to marriage effects us all...sorry, but that's a BIG lie!..
Sorry, I should have read a few pages back and moved forward...my bad...please continue to post...(-:

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1100 Apr 30, 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.
We never said that..now 'you' are lying...we simply stated the obvious...if you open the door to ssm...polygamy and incest marriages will soon follow...and what do you know....we are now at the point of realizing that prediction....
The phrase "marriage equality" has always been used by gays to refer to the issue for which gays were fighting.
So then you admit you weren't talking about 'equality' at all...you were wanting something only for yourselves...and using the misnomer of 'equality' to get it...(pssst...we always knew 'that' too).....
as your You and your ilk manufactured the fiction that somehow gays are responsible for addressing the legal and civil rights concerns of every other minority
You mean like the civil rights movement of the 60's you all 'love' to bring up???? Wasn't that about 'total' equality, not just equality for 'some' people??? Silly us...we took you at your word that 'equality' meant 'for everybody'....
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.
However...you have to admit...the 14th amd you all wave your rainbow flag around goes further than homosexual relationships...don't you think???
You really ought to read the constitution sometime rather than whining when others exercise constitutional rights you don't understand.
Don't have a problem with people exercising their constitutional right to petition the government...I have a problem with the intentional misrepresentation of the word 'equality'....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1101 Apr 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already established that you believe whatever you want, and the facts be damned. Kinda makes you look stupider than dirt.
Are you saying that these scientists don't know what they are talking about??? I think it is 'you' that believes whatever he wants...and it makes you look pretty st-upid to deny the facts...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1102 Apr 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are gay, marrying a straight person is "stupid."
Then don't marry...no one is forced to in the U.S....

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1103 Apr 30, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true..but in doing so..they also don't believe in 'marriage EQUALITY'....wouldn't you agreee??
Nope, I would agree because they are DIFFERENT issues!!!

Besides, it is folks like you who keep the polygamy issue up front.....it doesn't matter to me one way or the other!!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1104 Apr 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I would agree because they are DIFFERENT issues!!!
Besides, it is folks like you who keep the polygamy issue up front.....it doesn't matter to me one way or the other!!!
Of course they are different issues...different issues are what makes the term 'equality' relevant...

Actually, I'm just letting everyone know what's going on with marriage in our country...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1105 Apr 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I would agree because they are DIFFERENT issues!!!
Besides, it is folks like you who keep the polygamy issue up front.....it doesn't matter to me one way or the other!!!
Its all part of the same issue, reduced to its simplest form. How is marriage legally defined? Remove the single standard, one man and one woman, and it opens the door to further redefinition.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1106 Apr 30, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That they will.
<quoted text>
But your are advocating it be codified in law.
No, Im not advocating mandatory gender separation be codified into law. I'm advoacting the restriction on the sex of marriage participants be removed and then the participants can voluntarily decide whether they want to marry someone of the opposite sex or the same sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part of the issue with bans on interracial marriage bans is that they banned only certain racial pairings not all, and they did fully address mixed race individuals. Blacks couldn't marry whites but they could marry Asians, for example.[/QUOTE}
You really think if anti-miscegenation laws had discriminated against all races equally they would have been held consitutional? Really?

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]There are only toe sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.
Neither the ability nor the desire to procreate is a requirment of marriage in any state in the US. Not all heterosexuals are capable or procreation yet they aren't prohibited from marrying so that's obviously not a real or relevant obstacle to marriage. Unless you're being purposefully discrimnatory.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I suppose that depends own how one defines "race". At one time in U.S. history, Italians and Irish were considered separate races.
Most ethnicities were subject to various types of discrimination when they first emigrated to the US en masse. Americans of Japanese descent were laced in interment camps during WWII simple because of their ethnic heritage without regard to whether they were actually a real security risk. And blacks and Native Americans are especially egregious examples of discrimination and horrible treatment simply because of their race.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Besides people tend to marry within their own ethnic/religious/economic/ social,group anyway.
Which is consitutionally acceptable when it's done voluntarily and not because of a government mandate that requires it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That depends in the court. What is the point of gender segregation within marriage? It fundamentally alters the very nature of the relationship and the reason for its existence.
When you define an institution based on its historical discrimination againsta disliked minority, then of course you'll reach that conclusion. If you look instead at what marriage actually accomplishes (the creation of kinship between people previously unrelated by blood), then neither the sex nor the sexual orientation of the participants is relevant since kinship can be created among gays just as easily as straights people.

[QUOTE who="Pietro Armando"]You implied it.
No, I accurately attributed that defintiion to you as your position on the topic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
In the majority of U.S. states it is, and practically speaking, considering the number of opposite sex marriages compared to same sex marriages, I would say conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, it still is.
Equality under the law is not subject to a minimum head count a minority group must possess relative to the majority in order for a law to be deemed discriminatory.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why not....it doesn't make sense to bar same sex sibling from marriage. No risk of sexual reproduction there.
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. Siblings are already related by blood.

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 Gay pride stabber sentenced to life in prison 3 min Roscoe 4
News At gay pride parades, a year to weave sorrow an... 9 min Roscoe 2
News Ohio Democrats highlight bills on gay rights, L... 11 min Roscoe 1
News OPINION: Orlando murders only reinforce the nee... 16 min Dean 2
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min WasteWater 12,964
News Anti-gay parents compare LGBT student group at ... 25 min WasteWater 22
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 27 min WasteWater 36,032
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 2 hr Ibn Ali Qatari 592
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr lides 37,248
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 4 hr Go Blue Forever 898
More from around the web