Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61391 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2588 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll suck any man for a buck...
Fixed. Hope you like reaping what you sow, ho.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2589 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The above response is mine; I neglected to sign in before posting to this thread.
We already knew that...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2590 Apr 18, 2013
Passing Through wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for a legal brief, not another news media article, Fool; do you not understand the difference? BUt since finding it was beyond your feeble capabilities, I located it myself yesterday and have already posted relevant excerpts from it in other posts. You're a day late and a dollar short as usual.
I'm not your secretary do you own leg work.....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2591 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish I hadn't missed your link the first time you posted it; would have saved me time yesterday searching for it.:)
Make sure you read 12 & 13...then you can sit down and color....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#2592 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe another article will bring you back to earth...
'Sister Wives' polygamy lawsuit addressed in federal court
January 18, 2013
By: Scott Paulson
Kody Brown and his four wives are asking that the polygamy lawsuit against them in Utah be thrown out by the federal government.
On Thursday, the “Sister Wives” lawsuit which challenges the state of Utah’s bigamy laws arrived in U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups’ federal court, according to various sources including Yahoo News. The lawsuit is being referred to as the “Sister Wives” lawsuit because the persons involved with the lawsuit are the persons who are in the TLC reality show of the same name.
The controversial case involves Kody Brown and his four wives who believe
------the bigamy law in Utah – which does not allow a man to have more than one wife - is unconstitutional.---------
The Browns fled to Law Vegas in 2012 due to the threat of being prosecution. In fact, they weren’t even in the federal court in Utah for the court case on Thursday. Instead, a constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, deliver the arguments against the law.
Judge Waddoups heard the arguments against the bigamy law but gave no ruling yet. In Turley’s statements he told the judge:
The Browns wanted to show people that a plural family is not a monstrosity. They don’t commit collateral problems. The state is saying if you didn’t do this TV show, you wouldn’t have a problem. They have a right to free speech and are being prosecuted for it.
In the other 49 states, having multiple marriage licenses is usually prohibited. However, in Utah, it is illegal to purport to be married to more than one person.
Making the case logically related to what might be considered legal, Judge Waddops asked an attorney on the state’s side of the case, Assistant Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen:
What if Kody Brown kept separate households for each wife, or was just having affairs?
Jenson responded that that would not be polygamy. Jenson went on to argue regarding what he believed were problems of Utah’s specifically-different history of polygamy with its high population of Mormons – a faith in which multiple wives is allowed. He cited a 100-year or more history of young women being forced to marry at ages of as young as 13 while young boys were thrown out of the house so that the older men would not have competition for the females for their multiple marriages. According to Jenson, the state has a social responsibility to end this type of behavior.
Waddoups point-blank challenged Jensen as to whether the case was designed to go after the Mormon religion. Jensen rebutted that every state has such laws but not every state has a large population of Mormon polygamists.
-----Turley asserted that Utah has to prove that polygamy is harmful---------
while saying that the part of the case involving boys thrown out of their homes was no more than a myth. Turley believes that the law in Utah is an effort to enforce morality on people. Basically, the belief is that the law is designed to harass polygamists.
The initial lawsuit filed by the Browns which challenged the bigamy law in Utah was filed in July of 2011, and the court case continues.
Hope this helps to clarify things for you...but I doubt it will...
yup, now they are even labeling it the "sister wives" lawsuit...
yet you can[t admit it is just publicity for the show.
funny how the cult members are so good ate denying the truth in front of their faces...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2593 Apr 18, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yup, now they are even labeling it the "sister wives" lawsuit...
yet you can[t admit it is just publicity for the show.
funny how the cult members are so good ate denying the truth in front of their faces...
Do those marbles in your head hurt???

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2594 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Make sure you read 12 & 13...then you can sit down and color....
And paragraph 18 (which I posted yesterday) states the Browns are not seeking a declaration that prohibiting legal recognition of polygamous marriages or the acquisition of multiple state marriage licenses are unconstitutional. Which means they aren't seeking to have anti-bigamy laws as defined by the federal government and the other 49 states declared unconstitutional; their focus is on the portion of the Utah bigamy statute that criminalizes cohabitation among consenting adults calling themselves "spiritually married' in the absence of a civil marriage license. And don't forget to read the second item in the "Prayer for Relief" section which specifically states what they're asking the court to do should the judge rule in their favor.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2595 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not your secretary
Yet you can fetch articles all day long and then whine when others accurately summarize the information contained in them.
Get That Fool wrote:
do you own leg work.....
I already did yesterday; you're apparently ignoring those posts.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2596 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I love pretending I'm a secretary for my clients. They love my special "leg work" and when I take "dicktation".....
Fixed. You're welcome.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2597 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
And paragraph 18 (which I posted yesterday) states the Browns are not seeking a declaration that prohibiting legal recognition of polygamous marriages or the acquisition of multiple state marriage licenses are unconstitutional. Which means they aren't seeking to have anti-bigamy laws as defined by the federal government and the other 49 states declared unconstitutional; their focus is on the portion of the Utah bigamy statute that criminalizes cohabitation among consenting adults calling themselves "spiritually married' in the absence of a civil marriage license. And don't forget to read the second item in the "Prayer for Relief" section which specifically states what they're asking the court to do should the judge rule in their favor.
No one ever said they were trying to get the other 49 states' bigamy laws overturned...you jumped on an empty band-wagon...(something else you read into it that wasn't there)'

Oh brother!

12. The disparate treatment of polygamists denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (where have we heard 'this' before)?????

13. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently 'ALL ENFORCEMENT' of Utah's laws 'BANNING AND CRIMINALIZING' polygamy...

Is it that hard to admit you were wrong???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2598 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you can fetch articles all day long and then whine when others accurately summarize the information contained in them.
<quoted text>[QUOTE] I didn't 'fetch' anything...I found and posted....your fingers broken???

[QUOTE] I already did yesterday; you're apparently ignoring those posts.
Because you were posting NONSENSE that had nothing to do with the case at hand...of course I was ignoring them......

POLYGAMY is now in the federal courts as we predicted....

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2599 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
No one ever said they were trying to get the other 49 states' bigamy laws overturned...you jumped on an empty band-wagon...(something else you read into it that wasn't there)'
Oh brother!
Nor did I assert you made that assertion I was simply pointing out (once again) that the Browns complaint with Utah's anti-bigamy law stems result from criminalizing cohabitation and speech that are are totally unrelated to how the rest of the US defines bigamy other than the fact Utah lumps them together in the same statute.
Get That Fool wrote:
12. The disparate treatment of polygamists denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution (where have we heard 'this' before)?????
A first amendment challenge of Utah's anti-bigamy law based on freedom of religion was asserted by Mormons in Reynolds v. United States and the anti-bigamy law was upheld by SCOTUS.

The criminalization of private consensual sexual conduct among adults was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas. However, that case did not involve the fundamental right of marriage in general nor same sex marriage nor polygamy specifically.
Get That Fool wrote:
13. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently 'ALL ENFORCEMENT' of Utah's laws 'BANNING AND CRIMINALIZING' polygamy...
Is it that hard to admit you were wrong???
I'm not wrong. Everything I stated was and is correct. YOU were the one who incorrectly asserted the Browns were attempting to gain legal recognition for ALL plural marriages. As usual, you lie and when proven wrong you try to deflect attention away from your lies by charging others with lying. Hopefully your grandchildren won't pick up your disgusting, unchristian behavior.

And what was the specific remedy sought by the Browns?

"2. Order a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining enforcement or application of Utah Code Ann.§ 76-7-101 against the Brown family on the basis of their consensus plural family association."

Which simply means governmental officials in Utah couldn't prosecute the Browns simply because they co-habitate and say they are "spiritually married" when no multiple and simultaneous civil marriages exist among them.

Utah has long ignored enforcement of the co-habitation and speech elements of their anti-bigamy law and after initially threatening to prosecute the Browns for that conduct ultimately decided not to. So what's the difference whether the state voluntarily declines to enforce the statute as it pertains to co-habitation and speech or if they're legally restrained from enforcing those provisions. The status of the Browns remains the same either way. Utah law will still prohibit granting multiple civil marriage licenses to an individual as well as withhold legal recognition of polygamous "religious" weddings.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2600 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
I didn't 'fetch' anything...I found and posted....your fingers broken???
You fetched multiple media articles about the Brown's legal challenge, none of which could provide the specific legal complaints and remedies sought in their law suit. When asked for the legal brief that would provide that information, you simply fetched more useless media articles and then whined and sniveled that others were taking the Brown's QUOTED words out of context while you claimed to know their real motivations and intents.

Do you fetch balls and sticks too when your grandchildren throw them?
Get That Fool wrote:
Because you were posting NONSENSE that had nothing to do with the case at hand...of course I was ignoring them......
You mean like the link to the Utah statue at issue in the lawsuit you labeled as "stupid"? Everything I gleaned from your fetched articles was confirmed by the legal brief. You simply aren't qualified to discuss legal matters.
Get That Fool wrote:
POLYGAMY is now in the federal courts as we predicted....
But not to be legally recognized by the state as you lied about.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2601 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor did I assert you made that assertion I was simply pointing out (once again) that the Browns complaint with Utah's anti-bigamy law stems result from criminalizing cohabitation and speech that are are totally unrelated to how the rest of the US defines bigamy other than the fact Utah lumps them together in the same statute.
I made no such assertion...that came from your own backwards mind....I posted an article....
A first amendment challenge of Utah's anti-bigamy law based on freedom of religion was asserted by Mormons in Reynolds v. United States and the anti-bigamy law was upheld by SCOTUS.
Now they are challenging under the 1st AND the 14th Amds....
The criminalization of private consensual sexual conduct among adults was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas. However, that case did not involve the fundamental right of marriage in general nor same sex marriage nor polygamy specifically.
But did not 'exclude' them either...it doesn't matter! They are not trying to change the laws in all 50 states...JUST UTAH! However, we know that if this federal judge strikes down Utah's Bigamy laws as unconstitutional, it opens up the doors for other groups to challenge in other states...
I'm not wrong. Everything I stated was and is correct. YOU were the one who incorrectly asserted the Browns were attempting to gain legal recognition for ALL plural marriages.
IN UTAH!!! You can't read.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2602 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You fetched multiple media articles about the Brown's legal challenge, none of which could provide the specific legal complaints and remedies sought in their law suit.
It was an article..not an affidavit....What don't you get???
When asked for the legal brief
Who are 'you' to ask me to provide 'you' with anything???? If you want to know something, look it up yourself....
that would provide that information, you simply fetched more useless media articles and then whined and sniveled that others were taking the Brown's QUOTED words out of context while you claimed to know their real motivations and intents.
I have no obligation to do anything for you! Are you crazy???
You mean like the link to the Utah statue at issue in the lawsuit you labeled as "stupid"? Everything I gleaned from your fetched articles was confirmed by the legal brief.
Well, let's see...
You argued that they weren't trying going after the bigamy laws in their entirety--WRONG---(and nothing in the article said that...it was just your little wheels spinning on empty up in your tiny little head)....just about everything you argued about is wrong, or it was non-existent in the article to begin with....
You simply aren't qualified to discuss legal matters.
Evidently, neither are you...since you insist on 'inferrance' rather than facts at hand....you made things up that were not there and posted about them...YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION PROBLEM!
Someone must have told you that before...this can not be the first time you are being told this...

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2603 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Nor did I assert you made that assertion
Get That Fool wrote:
I made no such assertion...
Guess you can't read either...
Get That Fool wrote:
that came from your own backwards mind....I posted an article....
No, it came from the quotes of people IN YOUR CITED ARTICLES which you apparently couldn't be bothered to actually read.
Get That Fool wrote:
Now they are challenging under the 1st AND the 14th Amds....
And specifically said in their legal brief they aren't asking for the prohibition against issuing multiple simultaneous marriages licenses to an individual or the prohibition against legal recognition of polygamous religious marriages be declared unconstitutional.
Get That Fool wrote:
But did not 'exclude' them either...it doesn't matter! They are not trying to change the laws in all 50 states...JUST UTAH! However, we know that if this federal judge strikes down Utah's Bigamy laws as unconstitutional, it opens up the doors for other groups to challenge in other states...
Since the Brown's haven't asked the Federal court to force the state of Utah to legally recognize their religious marriages, what you're really taking exception to is the possibility they can't be prosecuted for co-habitating. How many other states have such laws, much less enforce them? How many heterosexuals do you want thrown in jail for shacking up?
Get That Fool wrote:
IN UTAH!!! You can't read.
Your quote from above:

"However, we know that if this federal judge strikes down Utah's Bigamy laws as unconstitutional, it opens up the doors for other groups to challenge in other states".

Is this about Utah or is this a toe in the door to force changes in other states? Make up your feeble f-ing mind.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2604 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
"2. Order a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining enforcement or application of Utah Code Ann.§ 76-7-101 against the Brown family on the basis of their consensus plural family association."
Which simply means governmental officials in Utah couldn't prosecute the Browns simply because they co-habitate and say they are "spiritually married" when no multiple and simultaneous civil marriages exist among them.
You are wrong again...(as usual) they are asking that the law be found 'unconstitutional'

17. To the extent that the Article III of the Utah State Constitution. Utah Code Ann.§ 30-1-2 and Utah Code Ann.30-1-4.1 are used as the basis for the criminalization of plural relationships or families, the Brown family seeks a declaration that these laws are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and ther Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech, and Freedom of Association Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution......

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2605 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
You fetched multiple media articles about the Brown's legal challenge, none of which could provide the specific legal complaints and remedies sought in their law suit. When asked for the legal brief that would provide that information, you simply fetched more useless media articles and then whined and sniveled that others were taking the Brown's QUOTED words out of context while you claimed to know their real motivations and intents.
Do you fetch balls and sticks too when your grandchildren throw them?
<quoted text>
You mean like the link to the Utah statue at issue in the lawsuit you labeled as "stupid"? Everything I gleaned from your fetched articles was confirmed by the legal brief. You simply aren't qualified to discuss legal matters.
<quoted text>
But not to be legally recognized by the state as you lied about.
Another 3,000 words to say absolutely noting...

The whole article is how the polygamists are taking the laws against polygamy to the federal court...as we predicted they would when this whole ssm mess started....what is the argument?? It is a simple statement of truth...

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2606 Apr 18, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an article..not an affidavit....
Which is why I asked for the legal brief to provide clarity on what the lawsuit was really about.
Get That Fool wrote:
What don't you get???
Why you would keep fetching useless crap that couldn't provide the actual specifics of the Brown's legal claims.
Get That Fool wrote:
Who are 'you' to ask me to provide 'you' with anything???? If you want to know something, look it up yourself....
I thought you had some interest in knowing the truth about the details of the lawsuit. Obviously I was mistaken and your sole purpose was to whine and snivel and demonstrate your stupidity.
Get That Fool wrote:
I have no obligation to do anything for you! Are you crazy???
I didn't say you did. You quite adept at arguing with straw men of your own invention. Another sign of your weak and feeble mind.
Get That Fool wrote:
Well, let's see...
You argued that they weren't trying going after the bigamy laws in their entirety--WRONG---(and nothing in the article said that...it was just your little wheels spinning on empty up in your tiny little head)....just about everything you argued about is wrong, or it was non-existent in the article to begin with....
Yeah, right. Because specifically asking the court NOT to declare unconstitutional Utah's prohibition against issuing multiple simultaneous civil marriage licenses or prohibiting legal recognition of polygamous marriages is going after the anti-bigamy law in its entirety, you feckless moron.
Get That Fool wrote:
Evidently, neither are you...since you insist on 'inferrance' rather than facts at hand....you made things up that were not there and posted about them...YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSION PROBLEM!
Someone must have told you that before...this can not be the first time you are being told this...
There you go again; talking to yourself in the mirror. You have one serious narcissistic personality disorder.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#2607 Apr 18, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why I asked for the legal brief to provide clarity on what the lawsuit was really about.
Which is why I told you I'm not your secretary...you think people are just supposed to do things for you because you ask?? Oh, yeah..that must be that 'entitlement' mentality that comes with being an ssm supporter....

The article told you what is was 'really' about...and I was satisfied with the information...if 'you' weren't satisfied,'YOU' needed to dig further, not ask somebody else to do it for you, you lazy bum!

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 BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min Coffee Party 242,278
Trump will hire Christie to replace Sessions 6 hr Informant 1
NJ GED Senator running NJ for a day 11 hr Bob G 1
Buy M Fue Punch Mon woxteenroser 2
Annette Marion learned how 2 lie and murder Sun Yvette Anne 1
Norcross and local mayor behind Russian hacks/t... Sun Informant 1
NJ Advanced Media Guilty of using SEO abuse to ... Sun Informant 1
More from around the web