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. Full Story

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1107 Apr 30, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
I was a bit young....didn't really have an opinion. Besides my wife and I are of different "racial" backgrounds.
Would you have an opinion if your racial backgrounds were such your marriage would have been prohibited under anti-miscegenation laws?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Blatant lie? Okay ya lost me there. I'm trying to maintain the flow here. Gays can public ally voice opinions though.
Blatant lie = your assertion (whether in jest or not) that "...no one after them will ask for any other restrictions to be removed...Gays have guarenteed that"
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
True. But's it's mostly faced intolerance in most times and places.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Actually it's to join the sexes, creating kinship is part of that. Some states do allow first cousins to marry.
The sexes "join" quite frequently outside of civil marriage. It doesn't, however, create legal kinship except potentially in the small number of jurisdictions that still recognize common law marriage. Restrictions on consanguinity have never been universal among states.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Monogamous conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, is crucial to a stable society. It connects men and women, and the children.
Then why aren't you busy advocating enforcement of anti-adultery laws and criminalization of divorce and bearing children out of wedlock because of their destabilizing impacts on society? Instead, you advocate discrimination against people who want to marry and create families simply because their marriages and families look different than yours.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1108 Apr 30, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
There is a strong disassociation sentiment within the SSM movement towards polygamy, often times bordering on disdain.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So you acknowledge that legal SSM opens the door to legal polygamy?
Polygamy advocates have always had the consitutional right to petition governement to address their grievances. In fact, they've been doing so for almost 150 years, far longer than those those advocating legal recognition of same sex marriage. While you and others lump them together because they each seek to remove a a restriction on marriage, it doesn't change the fact they target different restrictions. And while you may feel the difference is trivial, it isn't from a legal standpoint. Gays meet the definition of a suspect class established by SCOTUS even if SCOTUS has yet to declare them as such. Polygamists don't. That provides a basis for challenging marriage restrictions on equal protection grounds that polygamists seem to lack. So a successful challenge by gays of restriction on the sex of marriage particpants doesn't mean polygamists can use the same argument successfully if the legal basis doesn't apply to them. That's not to say polygamists might not be successfully based on other legal arguments. But if they are, they'll be arguments they could have asserted for the last 150 years. What will have changed is not the success of gays in their battle but the inclination of jurists willing to evaluate their arguments based on the law rather than their personal prejudice (since most of their previous losses were during the same era as the reprehensible SCOTUS rulings that allowed "separate but equal" and legally sanctioned racial segregation which our society in general now deems abhorrent).
Pietro Armando wrote:
Only if they're not on a leash.
So humans are the only animals you wish to police when they don't conform to your idea of what nature should be rather than what it actually is?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Again, lost in the flow. Not sure what that line corresponds to.
Your reference to both of us knowing about the "elephant in the room".
Pietro Armando wrote:
But will you watch "Sister Wives", and celebrate National Polygamy Day?
No. But neither do I watch "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" or celebrate St. Patrick's day. But I have no issue with those that do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1109 Apr 30, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
No. You're just trolling, using the fallacies: "False Equivalence" and "Slippery Slope".

Again, find a new story about it and start a thread about it.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1110 Apr 30, 2013
Part 1 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Young votes don't vote in general much less for gay rights issues. Time will tell if the trend reverses itself.
People tend to vote more as they grow older, though.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So what is the overall win loss record for pro SSM?
Legal recognition of same sex marriages (and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships as well) is consitutionally prohibited in 30+ states and prohibited by law in the balance of states that don't allow legal recognition of same sex marriage (except for one state I believe that has neither a law or a consitutional amendment against it). But prior to last year, there had previously been only one electoral victory defeating a consitutional amendment in Arizona which was subsequently passed a year or two later). So the tide is turning as the demographic tsunami approaches.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Time will tell...
Indeed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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?
All laws that classify or impose restricftion are generally discriminating against some group or another. From a consitutional standpoint, discrimination is not absolutely forbidden. None of our civil rights are absolute; all of them (including free speech, freedom of religion and marriage) have restrictions. However, in our legal system, we apply various levels of judicial scrutiny (which vary depending on whether a right is deemed "fundamental" or whether a group asserting an equal protection argument is deemed a "suspect" or quasi-suspect" class). If a law passes the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny, it's deemed constitutional even if it has the effect of discrminating against group of people. Likewise, if the fails the appropriate level of judicial scruitny, it's deemed unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
SCOTUS has previously ruled moral disapproval of a disfavored practice or group of people is insufficent justification for state mandated discrimination.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
It goes back to my assertion to ultimate legal accomplsihment of marriage is to establish kinship between people unrelated by blood. How can the state create something that already exists?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Exactly, and thanks to SSMers they have precedent.
Women and blacks have exercised their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances as well. Did they estblish precedent too?

It's a right of all citizens. The ability of incestuous marriage advocates to exercise that right is in no way dependent upon same sex marriage advocates doing so first.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1111 Apr 30, 2013
Part 2 of 2
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ann so you admit it.the SSM movement is a push for state bennies and tax breaks.
State legal recognition of marriage confers significant tangible and intangible benefits. Gays aren't the ones who heaped all those legal privileges and benefits upon themselves; straights did. Gays are taxpayers too; why should they be forced to subsidize those who discriminate against them?
Pietro Armando wrote:
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?
It will end when the majority of Americans finally refrain from illegally discriminating against minorities they dislike (keeping in mind not all discrimination is unconsitutional, only that which doesn't pass the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny). But the fact the US has successive battles for various civil rights by minority or politically disadvantaged groups throughout its history, it seems the majority is rather slow in learning its lessons.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1112 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually two restrictions, and two minority groups, fair is fair. The opposite sex standard applies to all.
Anti-miscegenation laws applied to all as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitaminit here....I think I see something. "Bi-bisexual", "G- gays", and "Ots-others"..... There ya have it "bigots"
Then "others" would have to include heterosexuals as well.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Inanimate objects, or animals are silly. Although there might be some hillbilly s fond of sheep.
Some people draw their slippery slope line differently than you.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Touché Lo Cal....very good.
:-) The reality is labels like that are as much about marketing and public perception as anything else.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I know, but who would've thought others would use that term for polygamists, even Slate magazine.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Pietro Armando wrote:
But if the state, or the Feds gets out of the marriage business, does the right still exist.
Does the US constitution go away if government gets out of the marriage business?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Lets not use the word bigot, unless you mean the the new definition, see above.
Sorry, I'll stick to the correct definition of the word.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
From the SCOTUS majority opinion of Lawrence v. Texas:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1113 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
I'm not lying; that's your area of special expertise.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1114 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
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....
What's the matter, FOOL, afraid you're going to run out of people to discriminate against?
Get That Fool wrote:
Or...just like ssm...they are being pressured by society to do so...
And how exactly are Justices appointed for life "pressured" by society to do things against their will?
Get That Fool wrote:
Petititioning the government is not the issue..the timing and their support is the issue...
You think you have a say in when citizens are allowed to exercise their consitutional rights?
Get That Fool wrote:
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???
It will pale in comparison to the contributions of heterosexual people to the destruction of the institution of marriage. Who clamored for and passed easy divorce laws? Who is causing the epidemic of out of wedlock births? Who caused the rise of so many single parent households?

I'm sure your grandchildren will be proud to know you ignored those inconsequential issues in order to devote inordinate amounts of time to save marriage by preventing people from marrying.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1115 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
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....
No, liar, you were the one who's been asserting "marriage equality" as used by gays ever referred to anyone but gays. Gays have no control over when or whether other citizens choose to exercise their consitutional right to petition government to adress their grievances.
Get That Fool wrote:
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).....
Gays were talking about marriage equality for themselves. Again, citizens are not required to advocate for the grievnaces of any or every other minority group when exercising their consitutional right to petition government to address their own grievances. Only an stupid people like you think otherwise.
Get That Fool wrote:
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'....
The black civil rights movement addressed the civil rights concerns of blacks. Just as the women's suffrage movement addressed the civil rights concerns of women. Gays are just following the example of their civil rights predecessors who didn't address the concerns of anyone but the members of their own group.

You can whine about gays ignoring the grievances of polygamists but that's essentially bashing the historical record of women and blacks as well. Good job, bigot!
Get That Fool wrote:
However...you have to admit...the 14th amd you all wave your rainbow flag around goes further than homosexual relationships...don't you think???
Yeah, it even applies to ignorant c*nts like you.
Get That Fool wrote:
Don't have a problem with people exercising their constitutional right to petition the government...
Really? All you've done is whine about first gays and now polygamists doing that very thing.
Get That Fool wrote:
I have a problem with the intentional misrepresentation of the word 'equality'...
Then you should stop misrepresenting the words of others.
kigtard

Pittsburgh, PA

#1116 May 1, 2013
youtube.com/watch... ………
Hello Ladies good luck

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1117 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. Siblings are already related by blood.
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.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1118 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not lying; that's your area of special expertise.
If you make false statements that is lying...you are a 'liar'....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1119 May 1, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You're just trolling, using the fallacies: "False Equivalence" and "Slippery Slope".
Again, find a new story about it and start a thread about it.
Sorry but, it's no longer a 'slippery slope' possibility...it's actually happening as we speak....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1120 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but, it's no longer a 'slippery slope' possibility...it's actually happening as we speak....
Then you should have not problems finding a current news story to star a thread with.

Until then, get on topic or STFU.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1121 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the matter, FOOL, afraid you're going to run out of people to discriminate against?
That doesn't even 'begin' to answer the question...but I know you can't...so you resort to playground tactics...it's cool....
And how exactly are Justices appointed for life "pressured" by society to do things against their will?
Wow! Really??? You don't think the justices are hounded by political pressure every day??? Granted, some (the honest ones) stand their ground no matter what...but some cave to the 'politically correct' crowd to their own detriment...it ruins their credibility...aka Justice Stevens...
You think you have a say in when citizens are allowed to exercise their consitutional rights?
There's that comprehension problem again....nowhere was that even inferred.....
It will pale in comparison to the contributions of heterosexual people to the destruction of the institution of marriage. Who clamored for and passed easy divorce laws? Who is causing the epidemic of out of wedlock births? Who caused the rise of so many single parent households?
Those items are about the breakdown of the family....homosexuality will 'definitely' be the cause of the destruction of marriage in the U.S.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1122 May 1, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you should have not problems finding a current news story to star a thread with.
Until then, get on topic or STFU.
Another one that lives under a rock...we've been posting the 'current news' all week...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1123 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Gays were talking about marriage equality for themselves.
LOL!!!
Again, citizens are not required to advocate for the grievnaces of any or every other minority group when exercising their consitutional right to petition government to address their own grievances. Only an stupid people like you think otherwise.
Thank you for confirming what we've been saying ever since you all started with this 'equality' nonsense....we've always known it wasn't about 'equality' at all....
The black civil rights movement addressed the civil rights concerns of blacks. Just as the women's suffrage movement addressed the civil rights concerns of women.
When you are wrong...you are 'so' wrong it's scary....
There was no 'black' civil rights movement...the civil rights movement pertained to ALL people...

The quote 'women's movement' secured the votes for black as well....

The last people to know about American history are Americans...
Gays are just following the example of their civil rights predecessors who didn't address the concerns of anyone but the members of their own group.
Gays are out for themselves, and themselves alone...that's right...
You can whine about gays ignoring the grievances of polygamists but that's essentially bashing the historical record of women and blacks as well. Good job, bigot!
The fact that you feel no responsibility to carry on your 'equality' lie when it comes to polygamists speaks way more of you than it does of me...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1124 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Another one that lives under a rock...we've been posting the 'current news' all week...
On that other thread where it belongs, I presume. Good.

Have a link to that Topix forum thread? I'll give it a read.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1125 May 1, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
On that other thread where it belongs, I presume. Good.
Have a link to that Topix forum thread? I'll give it a read.
Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I can post onto this thread....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1126 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
No, Im not advocating mandatory gender separation be codified into law.
Sure you are. Either its "Husband AND wife", or its not.
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.
How can you argue for such a removal, and claim that it still the same? If you remove the husband, or the wife from the marital relationship, replace him or her with someone of the same gender, a different relationship, not marriage, is created.
Neither the ability nor the desire to procreate is a requirment of marriage in any state in the US.
True, never claimed it was.
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.
"Heterosexuals"? Employing sexual poltical identity labels. Why not just say, "men and women", which is what marriage is all about.
Unless you're being purposefully discrimnatory.
No, quite the contrary, I beleive both sexes be present in the marital relationship, neither on be excluded. Now that would be discriminatory.
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.
Italians and Irish too.
Which is consitutionally acceptable when it's done voluntarily and not because of a government mandate that requires it.
There is no need, nor desire on the part of government to mandate people marry within their own ethnic/racial/relgious/economi c gropup.
No, I accurately attributed that defintiion to you as your position on the topic.
[/QUOTE}

Right back atcha Lo Cal! Bigotry, or the allegement there of, can be a two way street.

[QUOTE]
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.
Hmmmmmmm...men are one half the population...women the other half, neither one a minority in this regard.
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between previously unrelated parties. Siblings are already related by blood.
As are first cousins, and yet they can marry in some states. The legal accomplishment of marriage is to join a man and a woman as husband and wife, thus creating the kinship you so desire. The law prohibits opposite sex blood relatives from marrying becaue of the risk of genetic defect resulting from sexual reproduction. Such a risk would be non existant with same sex siblings. Another example of the differences between opposite sex, and same sex pairings as they pertain to marriage.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 12 min IBdaMann 48,578
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 15 min Dale 180,888
Carly Fiorina actively explores 2016 presidenti... 2 hr BY A vote 10
Earthquake early alert system ready to expand i... 4 hr a minute of warning 1
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 21 hr KiMerde 56,692
FBI Baltimore Field Office CARROLL*TRUST US Eco... Tue Stuart Furness 1
California man shot in head for resisting carja... Nov 24 Jeff Davis for Pr... 10

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE