Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be f...

Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be forced to testify against each other?

There are 19 comments on the www.whas11.com story from Jul 30, 2013, titled Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be forced to testify against each other?. In it, www.whas11.com reports that:

A same-sex couple is at the center of a legal debate. The question that is creating the debate is whether or not the couple can be forced to testify against each other in a murder trial.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.whas11.com.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jul 30, 2013
TRUST ME. You do NOT want to see what the lesbians look like !

(They're typical, certainly not measuring up anywhere near the RAVISHING BEAUTY of Melissa Etheridge).

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#2 Jul 30, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
TRUST ME. You do NOT want to see what the lesbians look like !
(They're typical, certainly not measuring up anywhere near the RAVISHING BEAUTY of Melissa Etheridge).
Really Daniel.....you are only concern with their looks not the fact that they have a legal marriage and one is being forced to testify against their LEGAL SPOUSE.......which has always held that certain conversation between spouses is PRIVILEGED and one can not be forced to testify......and you are here making asinine comments about looks!!!

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#3 Jul 30, 2013
fr Europa Report:

>TRUST ME. You do NOT want to see what the lesbians look like !
(They're typical, certainly not measuring up anywhere near the RAVISHING BEAUTY of Melissa Etheridge).<

Grow UP and get a life. Beauty comes from within, dumpling.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Jul 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Really Daniel.....you are only concern with their looks not the fact that they have a legal marriage and one is being forced to testify against their LEGAL SPOUSE.......which has always held that certain conversation between spouses is PRIVILEGED and one can not be forced to testify......and you are here making asinine comments about looks!!!
Wait a minute dear friend. A domestic partnership or civil union in KY is NOT marriage.

However this will be interesting since the reason they passed the law was because they INSISTED such a union would confer all the benefits of marriage but not the name.

That's the issue on the table. Will the civil union be given what they claimed it would be given.

From where I sit the people of KY voted for a law that has back fired on them as much as the Federal DOMA did with the Windsor decision.

I'm sad this is happening but at the same time this is going to really put the anti gays in a tough spot.

When a State says a civil unions grants all the benefits of marriage, can prosecutors then back peddle on the ORIGINAL INTENT of the law?

I'm surprised FaFoxy and you BOTH missed that part!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#5 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute dear friend. A domestic partnership or civil union in KY is NOT marriage.
However this will be interesting since the reason they passed the law was because they INSISTED such a union would confer all the benefits of marriage but not the name.
That's the issue on the table. Will the civil union be given what they claimed it would be given.
From where I sit the people of KY voted for a law that has back fired on them as much as the Federal DOMA did with the Windsor decision.
I'm sad this is happening but at the same time this is going to really put the anti gays in a tough spot.
When a State says a civil unions grants all the benefits of marriage, can prosecutors then back peddle on the ORIGINAL INTENT of the law?
I'm surprised FaFoxy and you BOTH missed that part!
"Civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are really meaningless terms and are obviously NOT equal to marriage, and EVERYBODY knows that.

And it's not uncommon for agents of the government, such as prosecutors, to make contradictory claims at the same time. Haven't you ever watched how Jack McCoy works on Law & Order ???!!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Jul 31, 2013
Thanks again Rick for a great story. I think we need to post this on every social media venue we can; Twitter, Facebook etc.

Let's see if the anti gays will endorse these women like they claimed they would when they screamed for civil unions as the answer.

Man I have about 7 threads active where cases like this are being discussed.

It may not be nice but I plan on rubbing the phobes noses into this one!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#7 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute dear friend. A domestic partnership or civil union in KY is NOT marriage.
However this will be interesting since the reason they passed the law was because they INSISTED such a union would confer all the benefits of marriage but not the name.
That's the issue on the table. Will the civil union be given what they claimed it would be given.
From where I sit the people of KY voted for a law that has back fired on them as much as the Federal DOMA did with the Windsor decision.
I'm sad this is happening but at the same time this is going to really put the anti gays in a tough spot.
When a State says a civil unions grants all the benefits of marriage, can prosecutors then back peddle on the ORIGINAL INTENT of the law?
I'm surprised FaFoxy and you BOTH missed that part!
The Lesbian couple had a Civil Union in Vermont in 2004 and when Vermont started issuing Marriage Licenses in September of 2009......any Civil Union was converted to an actual legal marriage...so, that question needs to be addressed first......I thought Civil Unions were automatically converted over.......I may have been wrong on that issue, but if their Civil Union was converted to a legal marriage then I don't believe that the Prosecutor can force the spouse to testify.......this case will certainly test the Full Faith and Credit Clause!!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Jul 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lesbian couple had a Civil Union in Vermont in 2004 and when Vermont started issuing Marriage Licenses in September of 2009......any Civil Union was converted to an actual legal marriage...so, that question needs to be addressed first......I thought Civil Unions were automatically converted over.......I may have been wrong on that issue, but if their Civil Union was converted to a legal marriage then I don't believe that the Prosecutor can force the spouse to testify.......this case will certainly test the Full Faith and Credit Clause!!!
Their civil union is valid under KY law as far as I can see. Otherwise this wouldn't even be a story.

Before we jump to SCOTUS let's make sure State Laws are being obeyed. If they aren't then yes this will be a great case.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Jul 31, 2013
Do civil unions really do what the anti gays said they would do?

Well well well. Looks like the claims by the bigots that civil unions will do the same thing as marriage is unraveling in KY.

Exclusive: Will a lesbian couple be forced to testify against each other?

http://www.whas11.com/news/crimetracker/Exclu...

I hope we get this to be a big buzz on the internet. It will be interesting to hear the usual suspects respond,(Hannity, Limbaugh, Nom, AFA, Robertson, O'Reilly, etc.).

I Love it! PLEASE promote this story everywhere: Facebook; Twitter; etc.

Oh and all you anti gays who backed civil unions.....

1. Abiding Truth Ministries (Scott Lively)
.
2. American Family Association (Tim Wildmon; Bryan Fischer)
.
3. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (Peter LaBarbera)
.
4. American Vision (Gary DeMar)
.
5. Chalcedon Foundation (R. J. Rushdoony)
.
6. Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (Gary Cass)
.
7. Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye)
.
8. Coral Ridge Ministries (Robert Knight)
.
9. Dove World Outreach Center (Terry Jones)
.
10. Faithful Word Baptist Church (Steven Anderson)
.
11. Family Research Council (Tony Perkins)
.
12. Family research Institute (Paul Cameron)
.
13. Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment (Wayne Lela)
.
14. Illinois Family Institute (Laurie Higgins)
.
15. Liberty Council (Matt Barber; Peter LaBarbera)
.
16. Mass Resistance (Brian Camenker)
.
17. National Organization for Marriage (Maggie Gallagher; Robert George; Brian Brown)
.
18. Traditional Values Coalition (Lou Sheldon; Andrea Lafferty)

I wonder what CROW tastes like.

Gov Christie are you listening?

LMAO

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 Jul 31, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lesbian couple had a Civil Union in Vermont in 2004 and when Vermont started issuing Marriage Licenses in September of 2009......any Civil Union was converted to an actual legal marriage...so, that question needs to be addressed first......I thought Civil Unions were automatically converted over.......I may have been wrong on that issue, but if their Civil Union was converted to a legal marriage then I don't believe that the Prosecutor can force the spouse to testify.......this case will certainly test the Full Faith and Credit Clause!!!
They ARE married under VT law. And KY has recognised all marriages from VT since day one.

Yup this one probably has LONG Legs!

A lot more likely to travel up the ladder than Godsmack's pet project the florist and the baker!

LOL
qwerty26

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#12 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>...
However this will be interesting since the reason they passed the law was because they INSISTED such a union would confer all the benefits of marriage but not the name.
That's the issue on the table. Will the civil union be given what they claimed it would be given.
From where I sit the people of KY voted for a law that has back fired on them as much as the Federal DOMA did with the Windsor decision...
States that passed a civil union or domestic partnership law as an alternative providing the same benefits as marriage are now moot thanks to the DOMA decision that now confers federal benefits, but only to those who are actually married.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13 Jul 31, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
TRUST ME. You do NOT want to see what the lesbians look like !
(They're typical, certainly not measuring up anywhere near the RAVISHING BEAUTY of Melissa Etheridge).
Post a nice picture of yourself so we can critique your ravishing beauty.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Jul 31, 2013
qwerty26 wrote:
<quoted text>
States that passed a civil union or domestic partnership law as an alternative providing the same benefits as marriage are now moot thanks to the DOMA decision that now confers federal benefits, but only to those who are actually married.
And you base that on what?

How can something that was never legally defined as "Marriage" now be called marriage?

KY does NOT recognise the marriage.

KY DID recognise their civil union befor VT made SSM legal.

And even if what you say is true (which it isn't) KY doesn't recognise Marriage of SS couples. Only civil unions!

The decisions of Windsor and Prop 8 affect specific levels of government and the States as well.

SCOTUS was very clear in making sure the Prop H8 ruling only applied to CA and not the Ninth Circuit (almost said district). SSM is not legal in most of the 9th:
District of Alaska- no
District of Arizona- no
Central District of California- yes
Eastern District of California - yes
Northern District of California- yes
Southern District of California- yes
District of Hawaii- no
District of Idaho- no
District of Montana- no
District of Nevada- no
District of Oregon- no

Eastern District of Washington & Western District of Washington have SSM but that is because they repealed their ban and passed SSM. It's not because of SCOTUS!

It was also very clear about Windsor being only a Federal issue.

I know you are much better at the whole State's Rights vs Federalism than you are showing here.

I stand by my point that when civil unions were passed all the anti gays swore up and down they were fine as long as it wasn't called marriage. They swore up and down civil Unions gave ALL the rights and benefits and privileges of marriage. And we kept pointing out that didn't apply on the Federal Level.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Jul 31, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Post a nice picture of yourself so we can critique your ravishing beauty.
You are one sick and twisted individual!
Dan

Atlanta, GA

#16 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute dear friend. A domestic partnership or civil union in KY is NOT marriage.
However this will be interesting since the reason they passed the law was because they INSISTED such a union would confer all the benefits of marriage but not the name.
That's the issue on the table. Will the civil union be given what they claimed it would be given.
From where I sit the people of KY voted for a law that has back fired on them as much as the Federal DOMA did with the Windsor decision.
I'm sad this is happening but at the same time this is going to really put the anti gays in a tough spot.
When a State says a civil unions grants all the benefits of marriage, can prosecutors then back peddle on the ORIGINAL INTENT of the law?
I'm surprised FaFoxy and you BOTH missed that part!
Appears that the couple received the civil union in Vermont, not Kentucky, so Kentucky never granted these benefits.

Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

"Kentucky Revised Statutes
Section 402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Section 402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:(d) Between members of the same sex;
Section 402.040 Marriage in another state
(1) If any resident of this state marries in another state, the marriage shall be valid here if valid in the state where solemnized, unless the marriage is against Kentucky public policy.
(2) A marriage between members of the same sex is against Kentucky public policy and shall be subject to the prohibitions established in KRS 402.045.
Section 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
(1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky.
(2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts.

No marriage license or recognition, no other relationship or its recognition from other jurisdictions for same-sex couples."

Dunno where this will end up.
Dan

Atlanta, GA

#17 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And you base that on what?
How can something that was never legally defined as "Marriage" now be called marriage?
KY does NOT recognise the marriage.
KY DID recognise their civil union befor VT made SSM legal.
And even if what you say is true (which it isn't) KY doesn't recognise Marriage of SS couples. Only civil unions!
The decisions of Windsor and Prop 8 affect specific levels of government and the States as well.
SCOTUS was very clear in making sure the Prop H8 ruling only applied to CA and not the Ninth Circuit (almost said district). SSM is not legal in most of the 9th:
District of Alaska- no
District of Arizona- no
Central District of California- yes
Eastern District of California - yes
Northern District of California- yes
Southern District of California- yes
District of Hawaii- no
District of Idaho- no
District of Montana- no
District of Nevada- no
District of Oregon- no
Eastern District of Washington & Western District of Washington have SSM but that is because they repealed their ban and passed SSM. It's not because of SCOTUS!
It was also very clear about Windsor being only a Federal issue.
I know you are much better at the whole State's Rights vs Federalism than you are showing here.
I stand by my point that when civil unions were passed all the anti gays swore up and down they were fine as long as it wasn't called marriage. They swore up and down civil Unions gave ALL the rights and benefits and privileges of marriage. And we kept pointing out that didn't apply on the Federal Level.
Kentucky doesn't recognize civil unions, to the best of my knowledge.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#18 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Appears that the couple received the civil union in Vermont, not Kentucky, so Kentucky never granted these benefits.
Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
"Kentucky Revised Statutes
Section 402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Section 402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:(d) Between members of the same sex;
Section 402.040 Marriage in another state
(1) If any resident of this state marries in another state, the marriage shall be valid here if valid in the state where solemnized, unless the marriage is against Kentucky public policy.
(2) A marriage between members of the same sex is against Kentucky public policy and shall be subject to the prohibitions established in KRS 402.045.
Section 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
(1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction shall be void in Kentucky.
(2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be unenforceable in Kentucky courts.
No marriage license or recognition, no other relationship or its recognition from other jurisdictions for same-sex couples."
Dunno where this will end up.
From what I have read so far they were able to apply for benefits in KY under KY's civil unions law.

https://www.google.com/search...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#19 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Kentucky doesn't recognize civil unions, to the best of my knowledge.
Then I am mistaken and will make sure people know that. Thanks.
qwerty26

Rehoboth Beach, DE

#22 Jul 31, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And you base that on what?
...
I stand by my point that when civil unions were passed all the anti gays swore up and down they were fine as long as it wasn't called marriage. They swore up and down civil Unions gave ALL the rights and benefits and privileges of marriage. And we kept pointing out that didn't apply on the Federal Level.
My words must have come out wrong! I was trying to make the point, as you did in your last paragraph, that allowing civil unions based on their being equivalent to marriage is now a moot argument.

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
LET's PARTAAAAYY!!! 1 hr Brown Eye 4
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 2 hr Brown Eye 28,133
News Kim Davis challenger: Man whose marriage licens... 2 hr doom of truth 36
News 22 states ban housing discrimination against ga... 3 hr Islam n Judaism 33
News Lyft driver in Indianapolis orders gay couple o... 3 hr Bouncy House 50
News Church suffering from same-sex motion sickness 4 hr Rinaldo 2
News As a gay teen, Evan Low thought about changing ... 4 hr Bruce 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr SHEWEE 61,743