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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1127 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you are. Either its "Husband AND wife", or its not.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
True, never claimed it was.
<quoted text>
"Heterosexuals"? Employing sexual poltical identity labels. Why not just say, "men and women", which is what marriage is all about.
<quoted text>
No, quite the contrary, I beleive both sexes be present in the marital relationship, neither on be excluded. Now that would be discriminatory.
<quoted text>
Italians and Irish too.
<quoted text>
There is no need, nor desire on the part of government to mandate people marry within their own ethnic/racial/relgious/economi c gropup.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmmm...men are one half the population...women the other half, neither one a minority in this regard.
<quoted text>
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.
no Petey. it is still marriage, as marriage is a legal binding contract that has constantly changed over its whole history.

your know this. did you forget this fact?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1128 May 1, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 2 of 2
Would you have an opinion if your racial backgrounds were such your marriage would have been prohibited under anti-miscegenation laws?
Hmmmmmm....I don't thing there were any anti micengenation laws that mentioned Italians, the missus, ethnically speaking, is a mutt, Irish/German/Polish background. So I think its safe to say we would've of passed muster.
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"
Uhhhhh...still not quite sure of the reference, or in what context I wrote it, assuming I did. Either way sounds like it was said in jest, which you acknowledge.
True. But's it's mostly faced intolerance in most times and places.
Very good, a point of agreement. As to the second part, I would have to agree with you, the non tolerance had probably outweighed the tolerance of same sex sexual behavior. That too might vary depending on whether it was male sssb, or female sssb. I would hazzard a guess the latter was not view in the same way. Yes?
The sexes "join" quite frequently outside of civil marriage.
You know the old saying, "two go to bed, but three get up!'. The sexes "joined" to make you and I.
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.
[/QUOTE}

There were/are requirements for common law marriage, including the couple had to have presented themselves as "Husband and wife", cohabitation, children, finances, etc.

[QUOTE]
Then why aren't you busy advocating enforcement of anti-adultery laws..
That might not be a bad idea, might deter a few wayward spouses. Some state allow the offended spouse to sue the "other" man/woman for damages.
and criminalization of divorce
I think divorce is a necessary evil, although I thinks "no fault" divorce is a bad idea.
and bearing children out of wedlock because of their destabilizing impacts on society?
We both know that it does. I think it would be too draconian to enforce such meaures.

[QUOTE}
Instead, you advocate discrimination against people who want to marry and create families simply because their marriages and families look different than yours.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that that statement could be applied to plural marriage families as well. If that's your opinion, there's no reason to ban legal polygamy. Personally, I advocate for marriage to remain a union of husband and wife, as recognized by law. Other family situations can, and have been by several states, addressed by other legal means.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1129 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I can post onto this thread....
I can observe willful off-topic posting, and object to such trolling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1130 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I can post onto this thread....
Oh.

And of course I can. I did.

Just like you continue to troll.

(This, too, was off-topic. It's what you're all about.)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1131 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If your reading comprehension is that poor, there's no point even having a dialogue. Perhaps you should take your head out of your mangina and breath some oxygen for a change.

Gag.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1132 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make false statements that is lying...you are a 'liar'....
Which is exactly what you do and what you are.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1133 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't even 'begin' to answer the question...but I know you can't...so you resort to playground tactics...it's cool....
That's appropriate when dealing with someone possessing your kindergarten caliber intellect.
Get That Fool wrote:
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...
Since Supreme Court Justices aren't beholden to politicians, lobbyists or voters to remain in office, what pressure do you think would compel them to do anything politically?
Get That Fool wrote:
There's that comprehension problem again....nowhere was that even inferred.....
Because you asserted it outright:

"Petititioning the government is not the issue..the timing and their support is the issue..."
Get That Fool wrote:
Those items are about the breakdown of the family....homosexuality will 'definitely' be the cause of the destruction of marriage in the U.S.
So you think the enormous increase in the heterosexual divorce rate since the 1960's has had no negative impact on on the instituion of marriage? You obviously aren't getting enough oxygen to think with your head up your ass.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1134 May 1, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
I laugh too at the intellectual dishonesty you demonstrate when you delete sections of others' posts quoted in your replies that you apparently aren't capable of addressing.
Get That Fool wrote:
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....
Just as we've known your opposition to gay civil rights is based on your bigotry.
Get That Fool wrote:
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...
You should inform the Library of Congress of their error then, since their website about the "African American Odyssey" includes a section about the "Civil Rights Era" that discusses at great length the second class citizenship blacks endured and how their civil rights movement effected change.

"The black struggle for civil rights also inspired other liberation and rights movements, including those of Native Americans, Latinos, and women, and African Americans have lent their support to liberation struggles in Africa."

link: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/a...
Get That Fool wrote:
The quote 'women's movement' secured the votes for black as well....
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just as the 15th amendment to the US constitution prohibited abridgment of the right to vote on the basis of "race, color or previous condition of servitude" but failed to prevent the widespread disenfranchisement of black men.

While anti-discrimination laws are written in neutral terms of classes (such as race) that do in fact apply to everyone, the need for anti-discrimination laws generally result from abuses that target a particular subset of that class (such as blacks in the example of race). After all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 weren't passed because whites were being systematically discriminated against and disenfranchised by state governments, particularly in the South.
Get That Fool wrote:
The last people to know about American history are Americans...
Your wholesale rewrites of reality don't qualify as "history".
Get That Fool wrote:
Gays are out for themselves, and themselves alone...that's right...
So you think women and blacks were out for themselves and themselves alone too during their fights for civil rights. Got it.
Get That Fool wrote:
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...
Your bigotry against gays reflects far more negatively on you than gays exercising their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances does on them.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1135 May 1, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure you are. Either its "Husband AND wife", or its not.
You're the one mandating a restriction of people's choice of a marriage pertner, not me.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
The ultimate affect of marriage in creating kinship between previously unrelated people occurs regardless of the sex of the participants. Marriage is more than the genitalia of the participants over which you obsess.
Pietro Armando wrote:
True, never claimed it was.
"Heterosexuals"? Employing sexual poltical identity labels.
Sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic like race and heterosexuality is the majority variant of that characteristic.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why not just say, "men and women", which is what marriage is all about.
Because it doesn't communicate the point I made that you either willfully ignored or lack the intellligence to understand.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, quite the contrary, I beleive both sexes be present in the marital relationship, neither on be excluded. Now that would be discriminatory.
Non-responsive to the point made regarding an inability to procreate not being a factor prohibiting people from marrying.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Italians and Irish too.
There is no need, nor desire on the part of government to mandate people marry within their own ethnic/racial/relgious/economi c gropup.
But that's exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did: mandate racial segregation in marriage. That's why such laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Right back atcha Lo Cal! Bigotry, or the allegement there of, can be a two way street.
Your coherency is degrading. Who is "Lo Cal"? I've seen you address NorCal Native in that manner. Are you implyin gwe're the same person or does that phrase have some other meaning to you?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Hmmmmmmm...men are one half the population...women the other half, neither one a minority in this regard.
Sex is just one way to classify of humans. It's certainly not the only way nor the only relevant way regarding a civil right. Further, there are more women than men in the US so in fact there is a majority sex and a minority sex since the percentage split is not exactly 50-50.

I thought you were smarter than this. Apparently I was wrong.
Pietro Armando wrote:
As are first cousins, and yet they can marry in some states.
Some states make exceptions to the degree of consanguinity restriction at first cousins; other states don't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The legal accomplishment of marriage is to join a man and a woman as husband and wife, thus creating the kinship you so desire.
That's not true in every state nor in every country. Kinship is a legal result of marriage, regardless of the sex or number of participants or any other restriction placed on marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
It doesn't change the fact siblings are already related by blood which renders the legal accomplishment of marriage (creating kinship between unrelated people) moot.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#1136 May 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm....I don't thing there were any anti micengenation laws that mentioned Italians, the missus, ethnically speaking, is a mutt, Irish/German/Polish background. So I think its safe to say we would've of passed muster.
I see; so as long as you're not personally affected by discriminatory laws then you have no opinion on them.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Uhhhhh...still not quite sure of the reference, or in what context I wrote it, assuming I did. Either way sounds like it was said in jest, which you acknowledge.
So you can't remember what you wrote and are too lazy to go back and reread the posts to understand the context. Got it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Very good, a point of agreement. As to the second part, I would have to agree with you, the non tolerance had probably outweighed the tolerance of same sex sexual behavior. That too might vary depending on whether it was male sssb, or female sssb. I would hazzard a guess the latter was not view in the same way. Yes?
Given the typical male response to woman on woman porn in the US, I suspect that's correct.
Pietro Armando wrote:
You know the old saying, "two go to bed, but three get up!'. The sexes "joined" to make you and I.
Really? How do you know I wasn't born via in vitro fertilization? Do the sexes really "join" if a third party fertilizes the egg with the sperm?
Pietro Armando wrote:
There were/are requirements for common law marriage, including the couple had to have presented themselves as "Husband and wife", cohabitation, children, finances, etc.
Which is why I said it could >> potentially << be recognized as common law marriage in the jurisdictions allowing it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
That might not be a bad idea, might deter a few wayward spouses. Some state allow the offended spouse to sue the "other" man/woman for damages.

I think divorce is a necessary evil, although I thinks "no fault" divorce is a bad idea.

We both know that it does. I think it would be too draconian to enforce such meaures.

You do realize that that statement could be applied to plural marriage families as well. If that's your opinion, there's no reason to ban legal polygamy. Personally, I advocate for marriage to remain a union of husband and wife, as recognized by law.
So in summary, you deem marriage crucial to a stabile society but only when it consists of one man and one woman. However, you not only accept but also believe it impratical to prevent behavior/action by married people that is harmful to the institution of marriage and destabilizing to society. So it doesn't really matter if married people have a positive impact on society as long as they have the right combination of genitalia.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Other family situations can, and have been by several states, addressed by other legal means.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1137 May 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If your reading comprehension is that poor, there's no point even having a dialogue. Perhaps you should take your head out of your mangina and breath some oxygen for a change.
Gag.
My comprehension is not the problem, your logic is. I simply followed your assertion to the logical end and exposed how stupid it was.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1138 May 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
My comprehension is not the problem, your logic is. I simply followed your assertion to the logical end and exposed how stupid it was.
It's easy to do isn't it??? LOL!!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1139 May 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I laugh too at the intellectual dishonesty you demonstrate when you delete sections of others' posts quoted in your replies that you apparently aren't capable of addressing.
Some lines are too diminished to be repeated...
Just as we've known your opposition to gay civil rights is based on your bigotry.
So 'today' is gay civil rights...not marriage 'equality'??? LOL!!!
You should inform the Library of Congress of their error then, since their website about the "African American Odyssey" includes a section about the "Civil Rights Era" that discusses at great length the second class citizenship blacks endured and how their civil rights movement effected change.

"The black struggle for civil rights also inspired other liberation and rights movements, including those of Native Americans, Latinos, and women, and African Americans have lent their support to liberation struggles in Africa."
link: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/a...

You prove my point...black people were there...but it wasn't a 'black' civil rights movement...it was a movement for all people of color...blacks just suffered the brunt of the prejudice and institutionalized racism...

[QUOTE] In theory, yes. In practice, no. Just as the 15th amendment to the US constitution prohibited abridgment of the right to vote on the basis of "race, color or previous condition of servitude" but failed to prevent the widespread disenfranchisement of black men.
That doesn't change the intent of the movement...it was meant for ALL to vote...NOT just WOMEN....
While anti-discrimination laws are written in neutral terms of classes (such as race) that do in fact apply to everyone, the need for anti-discrimination laws generally result from abuses that target a particular subset of that class (such as blacks in the example of race). After all, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 weren't passed because whites were being systematically discriminated against and disenfranchised by state governments, particularly in the South.
<quoted text>
Your wholesale rewrites of reality don't qualify as "history".
You read something..but you don't 'understand' what it means...you have 'no' clue what you are talking about....you are quoting other people that aren't saying what 'you' are saying....
So you think women and blacks were out for themselves and themselves alone too during their fights for civil rights. Got it.
NOPE...never out for themselves only as gays 'ADMITTEDLY' are....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1140 May 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
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.
True, one, polygamists seek to maintain the nature, opposite sex, of the marital relationship, the other, SSM advocates, seek to maintain the number, two, of the relationship.
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.
However polygamists can use the precedent set by SSM to advocate for their version of marriage on religious grounds, freedom of association, and any other standing they choose to employ. If the marital standard of one man and one woman recognized as husband and wife is no longer valid, why should the number be maintained?
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).
Think about that. "Personal prejudice".....exactly. If homosexuality is no longer morally unacceptable, then it stands to reason that other consenting adult relationships, and/or sexual behaviors can, and will be viewed as also morally acceptable. Polygamy, as with same sex sexual behavior was considered for most of American history as contrary to the morals of a "Christian nation". Polygamy has gotten a boost from legal SSM, we both know that.
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?
Sigh.......actually I was referring to leash laws. You asked me if I "go around policing the couplings of animals in your back yard or local parks to comply with your idea of 'nature'?". I do tell my dog to stop when he tries to impregnate the cat. Would that count?
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.
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"....maybe. I always wondered why there wasn't a female version of that show.....perhaps a "Lesbian Pal for the Straight Gal". No St Paddy's Day celebration? Cinco de Mayo? Chinese New Year? Columbus Day? San Genaro festival?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1141 May 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Part 1 of 2
People tend to vote more as they grow older, though.
Sometimes even more conservative too.
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.
A few waves at best.....don't forget the sea wall of 32 state constitutional amendments
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.
Bravo! Well said.
SCOTUS has previously ruled moral disapproval of a disfavored practice or group of people is insufficent justification for state mandated discrimination.
Say hello to the polygamists
It goes back to my assertion to ultimate legal accomplsihment of marriage is to establish kinship between people unrelated by blood.
Not so fast......the "ultimate legal accomplishment of marriage" is to publicly recognize a man and and woman as husband and wife, thus establishing the kinship you state.
How can the state create something that already exists?
Same as with your right to marry, it already exists. In fact any consenting man can marry any consenting woman, and vice versa of course, provided they meet basic requirements set forth by the state, of legal age, not already married, etc.
Women and blacks have exercised their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances as well. Did they estblish precedent too?
As did men, Catholics, Jews, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, etc. All referenced those that went before them.
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.
No, but it certainly helps their cause. Soon there might not be a reason for go moment to recognize marriage at all. If so would the right still exist?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1142 May 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no Petey. it is still marriage, as marriage is a legal binding contract that has constantly changed over its whole history.
your know this. did you forget this fact?
Woody! What's happening amico? I see we have made a guest appearance. Will we be conversing at length or just a few quick talking points?

Yes marriage Woody....constantly changing so you say......hmmmmmm....still boy girl in most of the U.S., and around the globe.....all the "constantly changed" hasn't changed the core elements, male female. Pretty much the virtual standard thorough out time and place. If there was a deep seated historical sustained same sex marriage culture, male or female, in either western civ, or any where else, would this debate be necessary? No because it already would have existed, before you or I, even before the birth of the republic.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1143 May 2, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one mandating a restriction of people's choice of a marriage pertner, not me.
People can marry whoever they want without state sanction. If one wants the state involved one must accept the restriction on a "person's choice of a marriage partner".
The ultimate affect of marriage in creating kinship between previously unrelated people occurs regardless of the sex of the participants.
Only if the state allows SSM. Besides first cousins can still marry in some states.
Marriage is more than the genitalia of the participants over which you obsess.
Now that's funny. Doesn't the state regulate marriage to some degree on the basis of "genitalia".
Sexual orientation is an innate human characteristic like race and heterosexuality is the majority variant of that characteristic.
Okay.......and.....?
Because it doesn't communicate the point I made that you either willfully ignored or lack the intellligence to understand.

[QUOTE]
Non-responsive to the point made regarding an inability to procreate not being a factor prohibiting people from marrying.
I did respond, the state does not mandate husband and wife procreate, nor prohibit marriage applicants based on the ability or desire to procreate.
But that's exactly what anti-miscegenation laws did: mandate racial segregation in marriage. That's why such laws were ruled unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virgin...

The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.
Your coherency is degrading. Who is "Lo Cal"? I've seen you address NorCal Native in that manner. Are you implyin gwe're the same person or does that phrase have some other meaning to you?
I didn't realize my coherency is degrading, thanks for letting me know, I work at building up my coherency, wouldn't want it to degrade any further.
Sex is just one way to classify of humans. It's certainly not the only way nor the only relevant way regarding a civil right
As it pertains to marriage, yes it is. If not why bother licensing marriage at all, why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
. Further, there are more women than men in the US so in fact there is a majority sex and a minority sex since the percentage split is not exactly 50-50.
50.8 % female. Close enough.
I thought you were smarter than this. Apparently I was wrong.
Smarter than the average bear.
Some states make exceptions to the degree of consanguinity restriction at first cousins; other states don't.
True, and I've stated such on a few occasions.
That's not true in every state nor in every country. Kinship is a legal result of marriage, regardless of the sex or number of participants or any other restriction placed on marriage.
True, but in most of the world, husband and wife establishes kinship.
It doesn't change the fact siblings are already related by blood which renders the legal accomplishment of marriage (creating kinship between unrelated people) moot.
Not quite. If same sex first cousins can marry, and there's no risk of sexual reproduction,for the obvious reason the pair is of the same sex, why should same sex siblings be barred from marriage? Please you that superior intellect and explain this. "Establishing kinship", won't work here.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1144 May 2, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to do isn't it??? LOL!!
I'm a near senile old jack ass, and I can do it without my glasses.

Smile.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1145 May 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a near senile old jack ass, and I can do it without my glasses.
Smile.
Near? I bet I could show your posts to several doctors and ALL of them would say you passed senile years ago.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#1146 May 2, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Woody! What's happening amico? I see we have made a guest appearance. Will we be conversing at length or just a few quick talking points?
Yes marriage Woody....constantly changing so you say......hmmmmmm....still boy girl in most of the U.S., and around the globe.....all the "constantly changed" hasn't changed the core elements, male female. Pretty much the virtual standard thorough out time and place. If there was a deep seated historical sustained same sex marriage culture, male or female, in either western civ, or any where else, would this debate be necessary? No because it already would have existed, before you or I, even before the birth of the republic.
Change scares the shit out of you religious types.

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
News Fights erupt at pro-Trump rally on California b... 24 min Chris Rather 129
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr JRB 239,518
Keddie Murders (Mar '13) 1 hr pk123Oh 19
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Mothra 63,572
Info on California based company 4 hr SkepticalMe 1
News Brown Swipes Trump for Border Wall, Says Califo... Sun Solarman 1
Need your laughter Sun Golden child 1
More from around the web