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

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1487 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
In 'terra firma's mind;
-a duplicate gendered couple is exactly the same as a diverse gendered couple.
-a duplicated gendered couple who can NEVER mutually procreate kin, is exactly the same as a diverse gendered couple who NORMALLY procreate.
<quoted text>
Ha, ha, yeah, politicians are known for making wise decisions.
But hey, you go ahead and support stupidity denying the reality I stated above. Isn't that why you edited it, to hide how idiotic your response is???
Snicker smile.
<quoted text>
Then why did you remove the facts?
Why don't you simply point out specifically why it is an 'opinion' that a duplicate gendered couple is different from a diverse gendered couple?
Why is your main object most often a ad homoan gay twirl bully troll attack?
Smile.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
a couple is a couple is a couple. Your obsession with bits between the legs is antiquated, much like yourself.
How's your one penis/one vagina schtick playing in Canada?
Terminal stupidity.

You are asserting that age, gender, relationship, to start with, don't matter. Besides idiotic, that could be criminal.

The essence of marriage plays the same everywhere. There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is logically impossible.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1488 May 20, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is irrelevant to civil marriage in a country with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Your religious beliefs apply on to religious marriage performed within your denomination/congregation.
<quoted text>
Civil marriage is based on the law. So is adoption. So is civil divorce. So are your constitutional rights. Do you consider all of these "farces" as we'll?
<quoted text>
Since when was the purpose of the US to honor and emulate every culture and religion in history? Since no one is forced to choose a same sex marriage partner, no one's freedom of religion is trampled. Try again.
<quoted text>
Not all gays and few lesbians engage in anal sex and plenty of heterosexuals do. Further, private sexual activities between consenting adults are constitutionally protected and outside the sphere of government regulation. Your whining and sniveling about others' sex lives and practices have no relevance to civil law in general or marriage law in particular.
<quoted text>
Which is just as valid as the piece of paper YOUR marriage license is printed on in the states and countries giving legal recognition to it.
<quoted text>
I don't consider the prejudice of people like you against gays to be moral so don't care what you think or feel. Further, SCOTUS has previously ruled moral offense with a minority group or their practices is insufficient justification for discrimination against such group or practices. So your "disgusted disdain" is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
What children would those be? Have you changed your mind about whether gays "naturally" procreate?
<quoted text>
Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. In various cultures and times, your intersexed condition would have been deemed a"perversion" subject to persecution or even death. Your opinion about the morality of something is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Given your status as a former minister of God, I won't hold my breath your self appointed status as a prophet fairs any better.
You seek to dumb down marriage to a contract. At the callous desecration of historic religious, cultural and familial elements. Segregating them as if they aren't an integral part of marriage. This with a twisted manipulation of Constitutional intent.

Gays fool no one, they only will engender a seething resentment. This perversion is not in the eye of the beholder. It violates nature and nurture.

As to my prophecy, it simply aligns with the entire record of human history.

Who said I'm a former minister?

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1489 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You seek to dumb down marriage to a contract. At the callous desecration of historic religious, cultural and familial elements. Segregating them as if they aren't an integral part of marriage. This with a twisted manipulation of Constitutional intent.
Gays fool no one, they only will engender a seething resentment. This perversion is not in the eye of the beholder. It violates nature and nurture.
As to my prophecy, it simply aligns with the entire record of human history.
Who said I'm a former minister?
Smile.
Yes, there's a difference between a former minister and a disgraced minister. Point taken.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1490 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Terminal stupidity.
You are asserting that age, gender, relationship, to start with, don't matter. Besides idiotic, that could be criminal.
The essence of marriage plays the same everywhere. There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is logically impossible.
Smile.
I made no such assertion. you just did.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1491 May 20, 2013
Is Gay Marriage Actually Different than Polygamy?
March 30, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

The obvious question about transforming marriage to mean two men, is why draw the line at two? If we’re going to deconstruct the definition of marriage from a union between a biological couple to a union between anyone, why stop at two?

Ted Olson’s Supreme Court argument in this regard is supremely unconvincing.

Keep reading...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1492 May 20, 2013
“Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said.“And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.

“If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status,” Olson said.

Patriarchy issues? Really.

Is Ted Olson seriously claiming that polygamy can be banned by states because of the patriarchy? Child custody is downright silly. If child custody cases can be worked out between two men or two women in a system that generally favors women, they can be worked out between a polygamous family, since unlike the gay setup, there is an actual biological father and biological mother, making custody relatively easier to decide on.

almost done....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1493 May 20, 2013
Abuses is even sillier. If we’re going with the premise that anything consenting adults do is legal, why is homosexuality a civil rights issue while polygamy is a crime?

Olson claims that polygamy is conduct, but homosexuality is a status. This is obviously a myth. Both are conduct. No one has to marry. They choose to marry. Even for those who wrongly claim that homosexuality is genetic, that extends to sexual acts, not to marriage.

If the premise of the so-called marriage equality push is that non-traditional forms of marriage are a civil rights issue, then why make the distinction?

Arguing that homosexual marriage is a fundamental rights but polygamous marriage isn’t has nothing to do with biology. They are both forms of conduct.

I couldn't agree more...last one coming up...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1494 May 20, 2013
If limiting marriage to biological couples is determined to exclude homosexuals, then limiting marriage to two people excludes polygamous families.

The real issue here is that it is being asserted that one form of non-traditional family is legitimate and the other isn’t based on some mixture of social values and personal taste. And the entire gay rights movement is nothing if not a rejection of social values and taste.

Olson is forced to make ridiculously convoluted arguments to defend the contradiction. And those same arguments apply to homosexuality. Fears of abuse? Custody issues? Social disapproval? All of those are on the table.

Either we adhere to a rational fixed notion of marriage or we reject the notion altogether. There is no rational reason for some random middle ground based on the money and influence of a small group trying to legalize its own sexual fetish for its own purposes.

We can either have defined marriage or completely undefined marriage. What gay rights activists cannot do is demand an expansion that only covers their special case.

Couldn't have said it better my self...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1495 May 20, 2013
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, there's a difference between a former minister and a disgraced minister. Point taken.
Don't know who you are referring to.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1496 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Terminal stupidity.
You are asserting that age, gender, relationship, to start with, don't matter. Besides idiotic, that could be criminal.
The essence of marriage plays the same everywhere. There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is logically impossible.
Smile.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
I made no such assertion. you just did.
You certainly and adamantly did.

"Couples are couples are couples".

Smile.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1497 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You seek to dumb down marriage to a contract.
From a civil law standpoint, that's what it is.
KiMare wrote:
At the callous desecration of historic religious,
Irrelevant to civil marriage.
KiMare wrote:
cultural
Subject to change and evolution, which is exactly what's happening now with regards to legal recognition of same sex marriage.
KiMare wrote:
and familial elements.
Which still exist whether conferred by law or established by blood.
KiMare wrote:
Segregating them as if they aren't an integral part of marriage.
You're the one who inappropriately links unrelated (i.e., religious beliefs) things to civil marriage.
KiMare wrote:
This with a twisted manipulation of Constitutional intent.
Then you have no understanding of the constitutional rights to petition government to address grievances or of equal protection under the law.
KiMare wrote:
Gays fool no one, they only will engender a seething resentment.
Not to worry; older, bigoted people like you will die off soon enough and your resentments will moulder in the ground along with your decaying carcasses.
KiMare wrote:
This perversion is not in the eye of the beholder.
I'm sorry you feel that way about your intersexed condition.
KiMare wrote:
It violates nature and nurture.
But it is your nature to be intersexed and no doubt your parents did the best they could in raising you.
KiMare wrote:
As to my prophecy, it simply aligns with the entire record of human history.
Except when it doesn't.
KiMare wrote:
Who said I'm a former minister?
Smile.
You implied it in your posts in another thread when you stated you had a 30 year career as a minister and then left Hawaii and remodeled houses for 5 years and then became a truck driver to help put your two children through college. You made no further mention of being a minister or continuing a ministry that I recall. And if it did continue, it would appear to have been part time at best based on your other work activities.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1498 May 20, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
From a civil law standpoint, that's what it is.
<quoted text>
Irrelevant to civil marriage.
<quoted text>
Subject to change and evolution, which is exactly what's happening now with regards to legal recognition of same sex marriage.
<quoted text>
Which still exist whether conferred by law or established by blood.
<quoted text>
You're the one who inappropriately links unrelated (i.e., religious beliefs) things to civil marriage.
<quoted text>
Then you have no understanding of the constitutional rights to petition government to address grievances or of equal protection under the law.
<quoted text>
Not to worry; older, bigoted people like you will die off soon enough and your resentments will moulder in the ground along with your decaying carcasses.
<quoted text>I'm sorry you feel that way about your intersexed condition.
<quoted text>
But it is your nature to be intersexed and no doubt your parents did the best they could in raising you.
<quoted text>
Except when it doesn't.
<quoted text>
You implied it in your posts in another thread when you stated you had a 30 year career as a minister and then left Hawaii and remodeled houses for 5 years and then became a truck driver to help put your two children through college. You made no further mention of being a minister or continuing a ministry that I recall. And if it did continue, it would appear to have been part time at best based on your other work activities.
What you just admitted was everything about ss couples relating to marriage and family is only on paper.

Like a fictional fairy tale (pun intended).

You know as much about ministry was you do about marriage and family.

Smile.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1500 May 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What you just admitted was everything about ss couples relating to marriage and family is only on paper.
No, that's just another or your erroneous conclusions.
KiMare wrote:
Like a fictional fairy tale (pun intended).
You must be referring to your "lesbian" twin you cannibalistically murdered in utero.
KiMare wrote:
You know as much about ministry was you do about marriage and family.
Smile.
Well, I know a traditional marriage, unlike yours, doesn't include more sets of genitals than there are humans.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1501 May 21, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Terminal stupidity.
You are asserting that age, gender, relationship, to start with, don't matter. Besides idiotic, that could be criminal.
The essence of marriage plays the same everywhere. There is no such thing as ss couples being married. It is logically impossible.
Smile.
<quoted text>
You certainly and adamantly did.
"Couples are couples are couples".
Smile.
I have repeatedly and adamantly defined two non- related, consenting adults of any gender as a couple. Your dementia, apparently, prevents you from retaining this information.

How's your barbaric knife sticking opposite sex mantra working out for you? How has it affected my marriage?

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1502 May 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet women have no problem sharing a baby's daddy.
That has nothing to do with anything,
your only proving my point moron...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1503 May 22, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with anything,
your only proving my point moron...
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw don't like it when someone fights back to all that belittling that you do? pity..BTW typical polygamy argument...It's leads to more inequality of the sexes and too many bachelors. Those bachelors just might turn gay!
I responded to the "....inequality of the sexes...." Comment. What did u mean by that/
Nobody

Dallas, TX

#1504 May 22, 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch . I guess this is next on the marrying list.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#1505 May 22, 2013
Nobody wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch . I guess this is next on the marrying list.
Are you talking about this one??

Child Marriage: Three Things to Know

•by Council on Foreign Relations
•1 day ago
•8 views

Under current trends, experts predict that by 2020 some fifty million girls will be married before they reach their fifteenth birthdays.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1506 May 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I responded to the "....inequality of the sexes...." Comment. What did u mean by that/
You obviously want to argue and I have no interest. But since you asked. If you have women sharing a husband, which is whats going to happen and not the other way around.(BTW women can be very jealous )Don't you think polygamy is going to have similarities to the definition of a harem? Women being treated as possessions, no income other than what the husband provides? Rather than given to opportunity to think, earn, be educated and allowed to be individuals making choices in their own self interest. They will have the lack of freedom. We done this before, history is rampant with it. Great women have made amazing strides to over come this. I think it's shameful to ignore all of that, just because of a man's need for a selfish sexual outlet. AND then you have a large bachelor population which is definitely going to be violent and angry because of sexual frustration. It doesn't make sense. But that's just my opinion.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1507 May 23, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously want to argue and I have no interest. But since you asked. If you have women sharing a husband, which is whats going to happen and not the other way around.(BTW women can be very jealous )Don't you think polygamy is going to have similarities to the definition of a harem? Women being treated as possessions, no income other than what the husband provides? Rather than given to opportunity to think, earn, be educated and allowed to be individuals making choices in their own self interest. They will have the lack of freedom. We done this before, history is rampant with it. Great women have made amazing strides to over come this. I think it's shameful to ignore all of that, just because of a man's need for a selfish sexual outlet. AND then you have a large bachelor population which is definitely going to be violent and angry because of sexual frustration. It doesn't make sense. But that's just my opinion.
Aside from some very interesting views of where the gay redefinition of marriage conflicts with discrimination, what right do you have to condemn motives or dictate another woman's choices?

Amazing duplicity.

Smile.

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
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 19 min Rogue Scholar 05 178,578
Why California sucks. (Jun '07) 29 min ladyluck10 704
University of California to add a gender-neutra... 1 hr WeTheSheeple 4
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Socialism is for ... 46,975
A California Without Illegal ImmigrantsBy Ruben... 5 hr gulf 89
Juan P. Garcia-Machado, Illegal Immigrant and S... (Aug '11) 8 hr Lanalei Uman 110
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 12 hr anonymous 56,246

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE