Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

Full story: Fox News

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.
Comments
1,141 - 1,160 of 1,556 Comments Last updated May 31, 2013
Quest

Milford, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1232
May 11, 2013
 
The is no point in arguing with the irrational. Proof and logic will never sway them. Stats have no meaning. Evidence is only an inconvenience.

Why bother?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1233
May 11, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and in increasingly large numbers.
The stats aren't hard to look up.
True.

And the stats show the devastating effect of children out of wedlock.

Your point?

Smirk.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1234
May 11, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
And the stats show the devastating effect of children out of wedlock.
Your point?
Smirk.
Lesbian married couple = wedlock. Ask Zach Walls, who is twice the man you can ever imagine being.

Troll on, Kuntmary.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1235
May 11, 2013
 
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Lesbian married couple = wedlock. Ask Zach Walls, who is twice the man you can ever imagine being.
Troll on, Kuntmary.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/
exposing-the-zach-walls-myth.h tml

The gay troll is you.

smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1236
May 11, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/
exposing-the-zach-walls-myth.h tml
The gay troll is you.
smile.
Really, if you expect me to click on your links, the least you could do is hide the URL. That alone tells me everything I need to know about the website.

Didn't click, not going to click.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1238
May 11, 2013
 
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, if you expect me to click on your links, the least you could do is hide the URL. That alone tells me everything I need to know about the website.
Didn't click, not going to click.
It simply noted that Zach admitted being molested.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1239
May 11, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare'a wrote;
Nothing you said changes the facts.
In fact, you bring up an interesting point. If a childless couple divorces and remarries, do they have two sets of kin? No. However, if that couple had children, they would forever be tied to each others family through their children.
If a childless marriage ends in divorce, then the legal kinship established between the families of the participants is also dissolved when the legal bonds of matrimony are dissolved. Children of such a marriage, on the other hand are related to the families of their parents by blood, not by law, so the kinship ties continue to exist even after the legal kinship ties of the parents are dissolved. But then again, biological children are always related by blood to the families of their parents regardless of whether their parents marry.
KiMare wrote:
The rest is so silly stupid, it is only evidence of the degree of denial the attempt to equate ss couples with marriage has led to.
Sorry that you don't like seeing the logical conclusion of your own words denigrating the kinship established by law such as marriage and adoption.
KiMare wrote:
-Ss couples cannot mutually procreate.
-Adoption can extend the family name, in name only. It does not establish 'kinship' in the true sense of the word. That is a simple fact that even adoptive parents acknowledge.
Really, dragging out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy? The legal kinship of a child to their adoptive parents' families is not dissolved by even the divorce of the parents as it was created independently by a different legal act than marriage. They not only carry on the family name, adoptive children are still legally considered part of the extended family as if a biological child of the parents.

Your prejudice against adoption is rather sad.
KiMare wrote:
-At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
You're entitled to your opinion. Most rational people consider marriage to be something more than a way to restrain the lusts of heterosexuals.
KiMare wrote:
Ss couple are a defective failure of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.
Neither "mating behavior" nor procreation are a requirement of marriage and thus are irrelevant. Same sex partners can and do engage in sexual behavior whether you deign to recognize it as "mating" or not. Besides, not everyone can literally f*ck themselves, like you can.
KiMare wrote:
-Neither my wife nor I have ever been divorced.
Yes, I did misremember posts from another thread several months ago. I apologize for referring to your wife as a "divorced sl*t".
KiMare wrote:
The slut lesbian in me has never been married.[QUOTE who="KiMare"]Neither was the female twin you effectively "consumed" in utero ever born, either.

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]-If salvation on Judgment Day is by performance, none of us will be smiling.
Assuming one is Christian, perhaps.
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
Gag

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1240
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
True.
And the stats show the devastating effect of children out of wedlock.
Your point?
Smirk.
Proving once again that heterosexuality is not just a sexual orientation, but a learning disorder as well. You straight folk engage in some incredibly detrimental behaviors. that are not only harmful to yourselves, but the byproducts of your unprotected, uncommitted, recreational sexual acts and to society as a whole to boot. Y'all know the consequences of unintended pregnancies, ESPECIALLY outside of a legal marriage, but y'all just keep pumping them out anyways. How is it our fault that y'all have the mating habits of rabbits, with all the commitment to it as bears?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1241
May 11, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If a childless marriage ends in divorce, then the legal kinship established between the families of the participants is also dissolved when the legal bonds of matrimony are dissolved. Children of such a marriage, on the other hand are related to the families of their parents by blood, not by law, so the kinship ties continue to exist even after the legal kinship ties of the parents are dissolved. But then again, biological children are always related by blood to the families of their parents regardless of whether their parents marry.
<quoted text>
Sorry that you don't like seeing the logical conclusion of your own words denigrating the kinship established by law such as marriage and adoption.
<quoted text>
Really, dragging out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy? The legal kinship of a child to their adoptive parents' families is not dissolved by even the divorce of the parents as it was created independently by a different legal act than marriage. They not only carry on the family name, adoptive children are still legally considered part of the extended family as if a biological child of the parents.
Your prejudice against adoption is rather sad.
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Most rational people consider marriage to be something more than a way to restrain the lusts of heterosexuals.
<quoted text>
Neither "mating behavior" nor procreation are a requirement of marriage and thus are irrelevant. Same sex partners can and do engage in sexual behavior whether you deign to recognize it as "mating" or not. Besides, not everyone can literally f*ck themselves, like you can.
<quoted text>
Yes, I did misremember posts from another thread several months ago. I apologize for referring to your wife as a "divorced sl*t".
<quoted text>
Assuming one is Christian, perhaps.
<quoted text>
Gag
Why would "mating behavior", or procreation have to be required? Is there a legal presumption that unless they're required it won't happen?

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1242
May 11, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would "mating behavior", or procreation have to be required? Is there a legal presumption that unless they're required it won't happen?
There is no legal presumption period regarding whether participants of a marriage will procreate or not. Such decisions are constitutionally protected by the right of privacy and not subject to state inquiry about one's intent.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1243
May 12, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If a childless marriage ends in divorce, then the legal kinship established between the families of the participants is also dissolved when the legal bonds of matrimony are dissolved. Children of such a marriage, on the other hand are related to the families of their parents by blood, not by law, so the kinship ties continue to exist even after the legal kinship ties of the parents are dissolved. But then again, biological children are always related by blood to the families of their parents regardless of whether their parents marry.
<quoted text>
Sorry that you don't like seeing the logical conclusion of your own words denigrating the kinship established by law such as marriage and adoption.
<quoted text>
Really, dragging out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy? The legal kinship of a child to their adoptive parents' families is not dissolved by even the divorce of the parents as it was created independently by a different legal act than marriage. They not only carry on the family name, adoptive children are still legally considered part of the extended family as if a biological child of the parents.
Your prejudice against adoption is rather sad.
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Most rational people consider marriage to be something more than a way to restrain the lusts of heterosexuals.
<quoted text>
Neither "mating behavior" nor procreation are a requirement of marriage and thus are irrelevant. Same sex partners can and do engage in sexual behavior whether you deign to recognize it as "mating" or not. Besides, not everyone can literally f*ck themselves, like you can.
<quoted text>
Yes, I did misremember posts from another thread several months ago. I apologize for referring to your wife as a "divorced sl*t".
<quoted text>
Assuming one is Christian, perhaps.
<quoted text>
Gag
Without wasting time addressing all your gay twirl, you prove my point.

A ss couple has a limited identity to marriage and family, never validated by reality, but instead, imposed by a twisting of law.

Clearly, in reality, not the same. Not equal.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1244
May 12, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
True.
And the stats show the devastating effect of children out of wedlock.
Your point?
Smirk.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Proving once again that heterosexuality is not just a sexual orientation, but a learning disorder as well. You straight folk engage in some incredibly detrimental behaviors. that are not only harmful to yourselves, but the byproducts of your unprotected, uncommitted, recreational sexual acts and to society as a whole to boot. Y'all know the consequences of unintended pregnancies, ESPECIALLY outside of a legal marriage, but y'all just keep pumping them out anyways. How is it our fault that y'all have the mating habits of rabbits, with all the commitment to it as bears?
True, which is why it makes absolutely no sense to equate a duplicate sterile half to marriage.

The result from the latest, largest and most scientific study is that lesbian couples rated LAST, after single parents. And gay couples didn't even register.

Your point?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1245
May 12, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If a childless marriage ends in divorce, then the legal kinship established between the families of the participants is also dissolved when the legal bonds of matrimony are dissolved. Children of such a marriage, on the other hand are related to the families of their parents by blood, not by law, so the kinship ties continue to exist even after the legal kinship ties of the parents are dissolved. But then again, biological children are always related by blood to the families of their parents regardless of whether their parents marry.
<quoted text>
Sorry that you don't like seeing the logical conclusion of your own words denigrating the kinship established by law such as marriage and adoption.
<quoted text>
Really, dragging out the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy? The legal kinship of a child to their adoptive parents' families is not dissolved by even the divorce of the parents as it was created independently by a different legal act than marriage. They not only carry on the family name, adoptive children are still legally considered part of the extended family as if a biological child of the parents.
Your prejudice against adoption is rather sad.
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your opinion. Most rational people consider marriage to be something more than a way to restrain the lusts of heterosexuals.
<quoted text>
Neither "mating behavior" nor procreation are a requirement of marriage and thus are irrelevant. Same sex partners can and do engage in sexual behavior whether you deign to recognize it as "mating" or not. Besides, not everyone can literally f*ck themselves, like you can.
<quoted text>
Yes, I did misremember posts from another thread several months ago. I apologize for referring to your wife as a "divorced sl*t".
<quoted text>
Assuming one is Christian, perhaps.
<quoted text>
Gag
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pd f

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1246
May 12, 2013
 
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no legal presumption period regarding whether participants of a marriage will procreate or not. Such decisions are constitutionally protected by the right of privacy and not subject to state inquiry about one's intent.
Apparently your moniker is a misnomer because you are not grounded in reality. Remember SSM is still a novelty, all of the collective body of laws, including case law, throughout the country, since the founding of the republic, deals with the union of husband and wife, including the sexual aspects of that relationship. Although there is no legal requirement to do so, the law does presume a married couple consummate their marriage, conception is a natural byproduct of coitus. Failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for annulment in some states. A SSM has grounds for annulment built in. Now, that would be an interesting court case.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1247
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's been lying??? I stand w/ my LORD AND SAVIOR on anything you try to destroy HIM with...
Thank you for confirming your delusional state. YOU'VE been lying, and the heinous part is you KNOW you've been lying.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1248
May 12, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your moniker is a misnomer because you are not grounded in reality. Remember SSM is still a novelty, all of the collective body of laws, including case law, throughout the country, since the founding of the republic, deals with the union of husband and wife, including the sexual aspects of that relationship. Although there is no legal requirement to do so, the law does presume a married couple consummate their marriage, conception is a natural byproduct of coitus. Failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for annulment in some states. A SSM has grounds for annulment built in. Now, that would be an interesting court case.
Yes, it sure would. It has the possibility of being the case that was dismissed most quickly.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1249
May 12, 2013
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it sure would. It has the possibility of being the case that was dismissed most quickly.
Think about it XBox. A SSC marry, one decides they want out shortly after they were married, so s/he raises that issue. It would be an interesting situation. Just another reason why an SSM is not the same as an OSM.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1250
May 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
True, which is why it makes absolutely no sense to equate a duplicate sterile half to marriage.
Yes dear, you are heterosexual, that means you are easily confused and if same sex couples are permitted to be married, heterosexual folk might forget they are heterosexual and that nature intended them to want to breed like rabbits, but act like bears. Homosexuality has proven to be immutable even under the most extreme of "treatments", but heterosexuality can disappear in an a heartbeat if you happen to see homosexuals being homosexuals, got it. And yet you still imagine yourself as being superior.
KiMare wrote:
The result from the latest, largest and most scientific study is that lesbian couples rated LAST, after single parents. And gay couples didn't even register.
Your point?
Proving my theory that heterosexuality is actually a learning disorder. Thanks.
Dexter

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1252
May 12, 2013
 
When you people going to have babies among yourselves.And stop using men sperm to fullfill your evil acts.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1254
May 12, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Without wasting time addressing all your gay twirl, you prove my point.
Apparently you aren't man or woman enough to actually refute my points with facts. "Because I say so" doesn't cut it, except in your playground reality.
KiMare wrote:
A ss couple has a limited identity to marriage and family, never validated by reality, but instead, imposed by a twisting of law.
Civil law is all that really matters here. That you don't like the fact it's evolving to eliminate the discrimination that gays have historically encountered is of no importance. Neither your personal opinions nor religious beliefs have any bearing on civil law.
KiMare wrote:
Clearly, in reality, not the same. Not equal.
Clearly, you're unable to prove it. But then you think you look like Bruce Willis too and your blog and Facebook picture of you and your wife clearly prove otherwise. Do you blame your poor eyesight and detachment from reality on the "lesbian" twin sister you killed in utero?
KiMare wrote:
Smile.
Yawn.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

11 Users are viewing the California Forum right now

Search the California Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min Nine Ball 52,588
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Frank 174,893
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr snodder 200,347
Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 1 hr snodder 2,253
Editorial: On Mexico trip, Gov Brown should rec... 2 hr Eduardo 3
CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 19 hr Twilight sun 7,851
California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 19 hr Facts facts 15,927
•••
•••