Supreme Court Extends Marriage Equality

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Nothing made up.

California Allows First-Ever State Recognized Human-Animal Marriage. San Francisco, CA — On Monday history was made at the Chapel of Our Lady at the Presidio in San Francisco as the first-ever state recognized human-animal marriage took place.

Local resident 35-year-old Paul Horner was the groom during the ceremony. Joining him was his faithful dog Mac who is 36-years-old in dog years. Mac also decided to be the groom but ended up wearing a white veil at the last moment.

Father McHale who officiated the outdoor wedding told reporters he was extremely happy to be a part of this joyous moment of life. “This is the definition of true love my friends. There is nothing more sacred than the bond between a man and his faithful dog,” McHale said. “Now, since it is recognized as a legally binding marriage in the state of California, Mr. Horner and Mac will have all the same tax benefits and everything else coming to them that a regular married couple would receive. It’s a fantastic day to be alive!”

So how could this have happened?

In the book of California’s State Laws and Regulations there is a little known law that was passed as the state was first forming in 1850. According to article 155, paragraph 10, it clearly states:

If a man and a man can get married and a woman and a woman can get married, if ever comes that day, then a human and animal will have the exact same rights to marriage in every eye of the law. God help us if this ever is to happen! http://nationalreport.net/california-allows-first-ever-state-recognized-human-animal-marriage/

And I see people just skipped right over the part where states will start recognizing animals and people marrying. You opened that bottle it wont be long before rover the pet dog is getting sweet government benefits. Just get government out of marriage and stop this boondoggle.

 

[+paradox]

liberty, i think that you're brainwashed thinking that married people are getting money, and you clearly have not proven me wrong... you clearly claimed that married couples get free money from the government... show me... don't tell me to look in a website or anywhere, give me an example of couples getting free money because they're married...

social security benefits of married couples is more if a parent passes away then it would be shifted to someone else and other related things... if you're not legally married then that option isn't there... everyone pays into their social security and when you retire then you get a check every month... when you do get that check, the amount you get will depend on what you pay into your social security bank, so to speak... how is that you getting free money?

just like with taxes... it's more of merging the two party's taxes into one so it's easier as that's what getting married is all about, two people becoming one... not about getting free money...

other marriage rights is about making the government and businesses acknowledging people's wed-lock... again, nothing about getting free money...

just because a person gets married to a dog or a tree doesn't mean the government will send them free money...

 

[Dee]

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

And I will repeat what I wrote before. I think government has done a good job of brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it. So people do marry for love and not benefits.

But just because you are getting government freebies does not mean that it fixes poor management skill in marriage.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.

Yeah, until you're everyone else and you're walking in other people's shoes, you have no right to speak for other people. It sounds awfully biased of you to make that assumption. That's like saying all men think with their dicks, all women are manipulative slutty gold diggers, that people are only in this world for themselves and snatch up any and all benefits that come their way, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Us reasonable folk who understand that isn't true tend not to lump a group of people into one big stereotype.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

And I will repeat what I wrote before. I think government has done a good job of brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it. So people do marry for love and not benefits.

But just because you are getting government freebies does not mean that it fixes poor management skill in marriage.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.

Yeah, until you're everyone else and you're walking in other people's shoes, you have no right to speak for other people. It sounds awfully biased of you to make that assumption. That's like saying all men think with their dicks, all women are manipulative slutty gold diggers, that people are only in this world for themselves and snatch up any and all benefits that come their way, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Us reasonable folk who understand that isn't true tend not to lump a group of people into one big stereotype.

You did read I said many and not all, didn't you! Maybe you didn't?

 

[Dee]

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

And I will repeat what I wrote before. I think government has done a good job of brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it. So people do marry for love and not benefits.

But just because you are getting government freebies does not mean that it fixes poor management skill in marriage.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.

Yeah, until you're everyone else and you're walking in other people's shoes, you have no right to speak for other people. It sounds awfully biased of you to make that assumption. That's like saying all men think with their dicks, all women are manipulative slutty gold diggers, that people are only in this world for themselves and snatch up any and all benefits that come their way, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Us reasonable folk who understand that isn't true tend not to lump a group of people into one big stereotype.

You did read I said many and not all, didn't you! Maybe you didn't?

Of course I read what you said, but I am dismissing it because I feel it is unwarranted and biased by your life experiences. This is me not agreeing with you in any way, shape, or form. It's not that I cannot or do not read what you said. It's because I think it's drivel and deluded by your own biased experiences. It seems you're incapable of stepping outside your little mind-box and questioning the idea that maybe not everyone is brainwashed by the government. But hey, that's the way you wanna live your life. More power to you.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Well, at least none worth getting MARRIED for. xD But yes, Nebulous, you're right. I know several people who went through the process of getting married, but it was never ever because they got "benefits". It was mainly out of love or a perceived love at the time. Some are still married, some aren't, but they're just as bad/well off as they were before, and the marriage either added debt or didn't do anything to alleviate it. Where are the benefits going? Where are they coming from? Why aren't these married couples being benefited by their marriage status?

And I will repeat what I wrote before. I think government has done a good job of brain washing on people decade's after decade's made to believe the only way a person can get married is if government somehow endorses it. So people do marry for love and not benefits.

But just because you are getting government freebies does not mean that it fixes poor management skill in marriage.

Where many gays have been convinced and learned that they are missing out on the tax payers freebies others are getting.

Yeah, until you're everyone else and you're walking in other people's shoes, you have no right to speak for other people. It sounds awfully biased of you to make that assumption. That's like saying all men think with their dicks, all women are manipulative slutty gold diggers, that people are only in this world for themselves and snatch up any and all benefits that come their way, or that all Muslim are terrorists. Us reasonable folk who understand that isn't true tend not to lump a group of people into one big stereotype.

You did read I said many and not all, didn't you! Maybe you didn't?

Of course I read what you said, but I am dismissing it because I feel it is unwarranted and biased by your life experiences. This is me not agreeing with you in any way, shape, or form. It's not that I cannot or do not read what you said. It's because I think it's drivel and deluded by your own biased experiences. It seems you're incapable of stepping outside your little mind-box and questioning the idea that maybe not everyone is brainwashed by the government. But hey, that's the way you wanna live your life. More power to you.

My life experience has nothing to do with we giving away more freebies and other peoples money through tax dollars. My life experience has nothing to do with the facts. And it is nothing to do with my little box of life but it does have to do with getting free stuff with many of the gays who have been fighting for this stuff for so many years. When anyone at any time can get married and receive the same rights minus the tax and social security benefits provided.

 

[Webster]

....you know, decades from now, people are wonder why politicians would stand on the wrong side of history....

RALEIGH, N.C. — Twenty-eight Republicans in the North Carolina Senate are urging state courts administrators not to punish employees who refuse to marry gay couples based on religious objections.

The group led by state Senate Leader Phil Berger Sr. on Friday issued a letter to the director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts asking him to reverse course on an earlier directive ordering magistrates to perform civil weddings for gay couples or face dismissal from their state jobs.

A federal judge struck down the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage earlier this month, part of a wave of rulings nationwide declaring such state prohibitions unconstitutional.

All but five GOP senators signed the letter, claiming the requirement to marry gay couples violates religious freedoms.

At least two magistrates have chosen to resign.

Last week, Berger said he would introduce legislation to protect state officials who refuse to issue marriage licenses or perform weddings for same-sex couples.
Berger, along with House Speaker Thom Tillis, say they plan to appeal the ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, and have hired National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman to lead their legal team.(LGBTQ Nation)

...someone should really, really remind Sen. Berger and Company that as public officials, those magistrates don't get to pick & choose what laws to enforce...either do your damn job, magistrates or get the hell out and let someone in who will!

 

[+paradox]

it's funny how the government thinks they are the boss of 'we the people' yet it's the other way around... 'we the people' are the governments boss... if someone wants to get married, you have to marry them, period... to send such a letter and to "urge" the courts to refuse marrying people is against the law and whoever refuses to do their job should be stripped of their position and/or thrown in jail...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

And this is what we get when we allow government to dictate marriage. First we get states allowing government approved marrying of there pets and then this...... So I am sure with all these people believing in government approved marriage of gays all of the rest should be fine. Right?

Marriage Equality: Judge Legalizes Illegal Incestuous Marriage

Conservatives warned that imposing gay marriage on the country would lead to the legalization of polygamy, incest and bestiality. Liberals pretended that only crazy people would believe that.

Because somehow redefining marriage to mean “equality” for any arrangement in which people claim to be love would in no way lead to those things.

The law predictably disagrees.

A Federal judge struck down a polygamy ban last year based on the promotion of gay marriage. This latest decision on incest is less explosive, but demonstrates the same principles.

Nearly a century after the same court annulled a marriage between an uncle and his half-niece, New York’s top court said on Tuesday that a woman’s union with her half-uncle was lawful.

U.S. immigration officials in 2007 said Vietnamese citizen Huyen Nguyen’s marriage in 2000 to her mother’s half-brother, U.S. citizen Vu Truong, was void and sought to deport her. A federal appeals court asked the New York Court of Appeals to decide whether such marriages were lawful.

In a 6-0 decision siding with Nguyen, Judge Robert Smith wrote, “First cousins are allowed to marry in New York, and I conclude that it was not the Legislature’s purpose to avert the similar, relatively small, genetic risk inherent in relationships like this one.”

The case is mainly interesting because it shows us how judges illegally usurp the power of elected officials and legislate from the bench.

What does the actual law say?

The statute reads that “a marriage is incestuous and void whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either: 1. An ancestor and a descendant; 2. A brother and sister of either the whole or half blood; 3. An uncle and niece or an aunt and nephew.”

READ THE REST HERE
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/marriage-equality-judge-legalizes-illegal-incestuous-marriage/

 

[Webster]

And this is what we get when we allow government to dictate marriage. First we get states allowing government approved marrying of there pets and then this...... So I am sure with all these people believing in government approved marriage of gays all of the rest should be fine. Right?

Quoting another wingnut rag, Liberty?
Why am I not surprised there...let me remind you of something here:

Myth: Same-sex marriage would open the doors to other types of marriage being recognized; like a woman marrying a dog.

Polygamists throughout history, including most recently and famously the Mormons, have never used homosexuality to justify their unconventional marriages.

All the proponents of gay marriage are clear they are talking about a relationship between consenting adults. That excludes the idea this would pave the way for marriage between grown-ups and children, as children aren’t adults. Pretty obviously the argument that bestiality would be next is even more ridiculous. Animals are not humans and can’t consent as they can not understand the contract they’d be entering into.

Marriage, gay or straight, is a binding contract between people of sound mind whereas this myth is an argument used by people of exceptionally feeble mind.(Gay Star News)

If I had a dime for everytime someone - like our feeble-minded friend, Liberty - trotted out the above in his quote, I'd be a bit more better off, financially speaking...but let me repeat it in capital letters so that you can understand: MARRIAGE, WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT, IS A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS OF SOUND MIND.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

And this is what we get when we allow government to dictate marriage. First we get states allowing government approved marrying of there pets and then this...... So I am sure with all these people believing in government approved marriage of gays all of the rest should be fine. Right?

Quoting another wingnut rag, Liberty?
Why am I not surprised there...let me remind you of something here:

Myth: Same-sex marriage would open the doors to other types of marriage being recognized; like a woman marrying a dog.

Polygamists throughout history, including most recently and famously the Mormons, have never used homosexuality to justify their unconventional marriages.

All the proponents of gay marriage are clear they are talking about a relationship between consenting adults. That excludes the idea this would pave the way for marriage between grown-ups and children, as children aren’t adults. Pretty obviously the argument that bestiality would be next is even more ridiculous. Animals are not humans and can’t consent as they can not understand the contract they’d be entering into.

Marriage, gay or straight, is a binding contract between people of sound mind whereas this myth is an argument used by people of exceptionally feeble mind.(Gay Star News)

If I had a dime for everytime someone - like our feeble-minded friend, Liberty - trotted out the above in his quote, I'd be a bit more better off, financially speaking...but let me repeat it in capital letters so that you can understand: MARRIAGE, WHETHER GAY OR STRAIGHT, IS A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS OF SOUND MIND.

A few personal attacks and dismissing whats happening with nothing to prove otherwise from our courts and you got a grade A job of diversion.

 

[Webster]

note: cross-posted over in the Election 14 thread
Huffington Post: Kansas Voters Split On Gay Marriage
Excerpt...

The ruling on Tuesday that Kansas' gay marriage ban was unconstitutional has the support of about half the state's voters.

Early exit polls find that 46 percent of voters think Kansas should legally recognize gay marriage, and 49 percent who think it shouldn't.

Nationwide, most Americans support gay marriage.

 

[Ellie1142545]

Next thing you know, we'll be granting pedophiles rights to have sex with children.

I hate the thought of it, but....I have to agree.....

 

[Ellie1142545]

It'll be 50 states soon enough, web. Only a matter of time. I bet 100 years from now people will look back and laugh at how this was even a debate topic.
[/quote)

And it could be, a hundred years from now, that earth will be no more....You just never know....

 

[Ellie1142545]

I'm sure everyone knows, or should know by now, that I'm devoted in my walk with The Father, Son, Spirit.....With that being said.....

I'm not one of those who agrees with same sex relationships, but I'm also one of those who refuses to stand in judgment of them.....It's their lifestyle, and they can choose to live the way they want to live.....My only problem is, is that they are forcing their lifestyle on to everyone else, and gets angry when other people tell them they are not in agreement with their choice.....

What happened with showing respect, kindness, and consideration, regardless of how you choose to live?

 

[+paradox]

how are gays forcing their lifestyle (which is being stereotypical, to say the least) upon others?

and they aren't getting mad with people that disagree with their choice of being gay... the gays are upset that people don't want them to getting legally married, the right they should have...

what happened to being respectful, kind and happy for two adults being happily together that wants to be married?

 

[Dee]

how are gays forcing their lifestyle (which is being stereotypical, to say the least) upon others?

I'm kind of curious about this, too. Wouldn't that then apply to heterosexuals as well? Heterosexuals are forcing their lifestyle on a lot of gay people even to this day. Although we are seeing many states accept legal marriages between same-sex couples, this is the first time in a long, long time that's happened on a widespread basis. Before that, same-sex couples WEREN'T allowed to get married because many people thought it should be illegal for whatever reason they believed. Isn't that forcing same-sex couples to do something they don't want to do? (i.e. not be legally allowed to get married)

The argument that gay people are forcing their lifestyle upon anyone is null and void. No gay couple is forcing anyone to live their way of life. No gay couple is forcing the heterosexual population to get married to the same sex. No gay couple is forcing any heterosexual couple to keep their lives secret out of fear of being judged, ridiculed, or even physically hurt or killed. It is quite the other way around. So to claim gay people are forcing their lifestyle upon anyone is ignorant.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

how are gays forcing their lifestyle (which is being stereotypical, to say the least) upon others?

and they aren't getting mad with people that disagree with their choice of being gay... the gays are upset that people don't want them to getting legally married, the right they should have...

what happened to being respectful, kind and happy for two adults being happily together that wants to be married?

Just a reminder anyone can get married at anytime.

As far as forcing there lifestyle the radical gays are trying to force individuals to perform things in there business that goes against there belief system. like making cakes and performing weddings. Photographing the wedding. That's forcing your lifestyle on others.

 

[+paradox]

how are gays forcing their lifestyle (which is being stereotypical, to say the least) upon others?

and they aren't getting mad with people that disagree with their choice of being gay... the gays are upset that people don't want them to getting legally married, the right they should have...

what happened to being respectful, kind and happy for two adults being happily together that wants to be married?

Just a reminder anyone can get married at anytime.

As far as forcing there lifestyle the radical gays are trying to force individuals to perform things in there business that goes against there belief system. like making cakes and performing weddings. Photographing the wedding. That's forcing your lifestyle on others.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

So I still am waiting for everyone's approval of government backed incest marriage and marrying your pets. But something tells me it will just be excuses.