Congratulations to our LGBT brothers and sisters on an amazing civil rights victory! Congratulations to SCOTUS for getting it right!
@ over 2 years ago
Downtown West, Minneapolis, MN
@ over 2 years ago
I'm so happy for Inex.
@ over 2 years ago
The Woods, San Jose, CA 95136
wish the ACA rulings would have gone the other way, though.
Scalia's dissent was a fun read on that one
He has some good lines in the SSM one, too.
I don't doubt that haha.
More pressure on the western countries that haven't allowed it yet... Italy will be next. Or will it....
@ over 2 years ago
Yorkville, New York, NY
Only surprise on the decision was made that I thought it might have been another 6-3. I thought O'care would be decided the way it was (but 5-4) and this one would be the 6-3.
Victory is victory.
@ over 2 years ago
Might not be a bad time to build an ark
@ over 2 years ago
Bedford Heights, OH, USA
Do it, Pinky. And take Inex and Angilius with you.
Due process under the 14th amendment. Beautiful analysis by Kennedy, with Ginsburg's voice loud and clear throughout.
Lakeland, MN, USA
Beautiful drivel, but don't get me wrong I'm happy, too. We're another day closer to the return of our King, Jesus Christ.
@ over 2 years ago
We don't have or want a king.
Paul outta Hemet
@ over 2 years ago
Reno, NV, USA
@Drew - I have no problem with polygamy.
If consenting adults wish to engage in plural marriage, they should be free to do so.
@ over 2 years ago
Summerville, GA 30747, USA
Do you oppose it?
Talk radio in Georgia was absolutely hysterical yesterday.
These bible thumpers' heads are going to explode. Non-stop references to the End Times being upon us.
I agree with Racer re polygamy. I think the problem with it isn't morality, it's all the other stuff. Financial. Benefits from govt. Custody issues. Way complicated when you start to think about it.
Yes, but those complicated issues can be resolved by the courts, just like with single marriages.
No major hurdle.
Not true Racer. Let's take custody of children. State legal standard in most cases is "best interest of the children". What on earth would that even be like in that case?
What about tax issues? That really requires legislation prior to any legally sanctioned multiple marriage.
What about doing intestate? How are beneficiaries determined? Would each child have to be tested for paternity in the case of multiple husbands?
doing = dying
The issues are not straightforward. And you can't just sanction such an arrangement without some indication of how the government will treat government benefits and rights.
So I disagree that we could just sanction this and let the courts magically resolve problems that arise.
Wouldn't that be judicial activism anyway?
This is the job of the legislature, imo. Then the courts can resolve issues that undoubtedly will
arise from unforeseen issues under those laws, as I am quite confident those would arise in spades.
Gay marriage is a simple thing: we don't legally differentiate married persons based on sex in heterosexual marriages anyway. So now any two married adults are treated the same way...Like before.
Re: Custody - paternity test (currently commonplace for custody with baby's daddy) combined with a court hearing to determine child's best interest.
no problem whatsoever.
Handled just like any current partnership or spousal tax issue.
Are you married? Then you get the same tax break as any other married group.
I am extremely libertarian regarding marriage.
I even support incestuous marriage...as long as there's no offspring.
I believe consenting adults should be free to do whatever they please...as long as they're not directly harming someone else's life, liberty, or personal property.
I don't disagree, Racer. I just think you have to put some rules in place before the fact in some of these instances so people aren't caught unaware.
Government should not even be in the marriage business, imo. That right there would solve the
issues above. No special tax treatment, period. No visitation rights except by consent of the visitee. etc.
The only problem on every front is kids.
In an incestuous marriage how can you regulate procreation? What is the penalty for it?
Not sure how I feel about the whole polygamy thing, would there really be so many that would even do it... I don't know. Like Doc said, loads of stuff would have to change, immigration would be another thing...
Try divorcing your personal feelings from it, Drew. There's a big eww factor there...Can be tough to get around. But it's necessary to get to the question of due process under the law.
The interesting point to me is the arguments in favor of allowing gay marriage could be equally applied to multiple marriage. That's not really been acknowledged by the pro-gay marriage side.
It's the EXACT same argument.
Which is why I don't oppose it.
Not sure about the kids from incestuous relationships.
I've not studied the issue enough to know the full medical ramifications.
Although it does seem like the article is incorrect in one area, the adaptations that would have to be made with polygamy would be far more than gay marriage which was more of just a substitution thing.
I'm blindly going on complete rumor and hearsay that there's an increased risk of medical problems for children born of close family relatives.
If this is true, there should be legal restrictions on it. Not exactly sure how to legally impose them.
Maybe some type of mandatory long term (or permanent) contraception?
Although...it might not be that different from drinking or smoking during pregnancy.
Yes, it's widely known that engaging in this behavior puts your fetus at increased risk of birth defects...it's not illegal.
There are also people who already have genetic disorders that probably *will* be passed to offspring, if they aren't closely related (some states allow first cousins), those people can get married and we don't legally forbid offspring there.
With drinking and smoking we do have education which has helped loads. So that would be fine. Plus, there's an innate predisposition not to wanna fck your sister, there's a scientific name for this but I forgot
The thing is it only works when the kids get raised together if I remember. Nowadays there's another problem with so-called super sperm donors who have very popular sperm and thousands of biological kids who don't really know they are half-siblings.
But legally...should plural marriages or incestuous marriages be explicitly prohibited?
I think not.
I don't see a lot of people wanting to marry a close relative. I'm sure back in the day small town people were marrying their cousins all over the place.
@ over 2 years ago
Villa Park, IL, USA
I have no problem at all with having multiple wives/husbands as long as it isn't associated with an illegal activity such as abuse/imprisonment/etc
in the South it's a tradition. Not unlike the Confederate flag hahaha
There's a much stronger case against plural vs incestuous, I can say that.
It's a Southern Pride issue
And regarding cousins, it's legal in most of the states that aren't made fun of for it.
Go through some rural parts of Tennessee and that becomes pretty evident! lol
what's your case against plural marriages Drew?
Actually, my mistake lots of deep-south has it ok... WV though, tired of all the jokes... It's banned there ;)
Incest (especially that within a core family unit) is often a result of mental and physical abuse
actually evil, WV, is notorious for incestuous relationships
it's a northern state
@ over 2 years ago
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
Yep it is, but at adulthood, when people leave, it doesn't usually continue. Legalization of incestuous marriage would only allow adults to do it
The case against plural marriage I guess would be all the adaptations that would have to be made would strain our system, esp true in the immigration section. It's not really my case though,..
You'd see a rise in the number of plural foreign marriages simply because of the newfound chain migration benefits. Create multi chain links all at the same time basically.
tax isn't that hard,
each file separately but married
bread winner gets head of house status
exemptions can be divided as needed.
don't see the problem
even easier under fair or flat tax
The area where I see it being a problem is mostly with immigration. And that actual *process* becomes easier, it's the implications that change.
At least they would be entering the states legally and at a known location. If they are known criminals they would be denied access st immigration regardless of their marriage status.
That's true, it'd be greatly expanding family-based legal unrestricted immigration esp in areas where plural marriage is already a thing. The question would be whether that's ok. It's not only the brides, but eventually their parents...
Unmarried minor children as well.
It makes plural marriage to a us citizen pretty desirable so would alter the marriage market in that manner.
you know I thought the exact same thing about gay marriage, time might prove me to be wrong
"breadwinner" H2O, really? In your world I guess there is one per family. And no one ever loses their job.
St Paul, MN 55129, USA
I'm listed as "house husband"in the loan contract of our new house because I make such little money
Middleburg Heights, OH, USA
oh evil, you can't stand it having to have incomes over $250k, to afford your meeger lifestyle
Marlton, MD, USA
your starting to live up to your old vm name again.
whatcha think pinky
Hey my husband retired. And I'm not quite into the quarter mil territory just yet. So it's pretty much hand to mouth until we move to Panama.
Still, hubby has a pretty nice pension...a rarity these days.
So we both win bread, at the moment. That could change at any time though.
Would your system adjust for employment status change, then H2O?
What if no one is working in the family? What then H2O?
Some states allow first cousins to get married, others don't.... I guess that's the next restriction that'll go. Kinda gross, but I don't really have a problem with it.
Rose Hill, New York, NY
I'm sure it happens on Islands and more remote villages all the time
I'll bet you're sure! In fact I'll bet you have personal knowledge. You appear to be the product of some sort of inbreeding.
Anyway there is a basic, fundamental difference between gay/bi/trans and polygamists.
I'll bet even AMi can figure it out, if he thinks about it.
That fundamental difference is the reason why the whole slippery slope argument from gay marriage to polygamy is a sham.
So let's hear it. What do you think, AMi?
You are funny
she's just worried mr. evil, will get him a tighter younger extra piece, to keep him warm on the other side.
Go ahead, try and deflect the question. It only proves your lack of intellect.
H2O you must take stupid pills every morning. Hence the random insults with absolutely no context. Your last name isn't Trump by any chance is it?
Both Darwin and Einstein married their first cousins, apparently. So not just remote villages and Islands.
There you go
Does anyone know the answer to the question?
AMi is a spoofer. Inex or Angilius?
Not a spoofer, that's the real AMI.
No way! Maybe he had a stroke or something.
I didn't previously put him on the same category as the usual crackpots and idiots on here, but apparently I was wrong.
Skäl maybe you know the answer to my question.
Polygamy was sanctioned by the bible, whereas the others weren't?
Marriage is now a fundamental right, but the states can still limit the # of parties that can enter into that contract?
polygamy is currently heterosexual?
evil, doesn't condone it, therefore it's wrong
bi, is really a cop out definition of sexual orientation, ,,
someone calling themselves by, easily homosexual by definition
It's a pretty useful definition actually, some people *only* have same-sex attractions.... Others (hmm what to call them, wouldn't it be great if there were a word), are attracted to opposite and same sex.
What Drew said.
Evil, perhaps I'm stupid, but I don't find a super obvious answer to your question. The only thing I can think of is that many polygamists use that relationship as a form of slavery.
@ over 2 years ago
Cerritos, CA, USA
water brother, how would you define homosexual?
The super obvious answer to her question is only in her head. Since unlike President Obama who heard millions of non-voters, we don't have ESP, - - Dr. Evil will have to explain it to all of us.
skal, didn't several states limit what sees could marry?
I can see polygamy, incest, both using the same basic argument as lgbt for marriage.
remember, not that long ago, homosexual weddings weren't even considered a possibility.
homosexual, one who is sexually attracted to the same sex.
for instance, a man can fűck women his entire life, but if he sucks 1 dick, he's a cócksucker the rest of his life.
. ( ask pink)
ok no one got it.
Gay people, bisexuals (not a cop out...they love a person not their geometry), and transgender: born that way. Like race, it's an integral part of a person they can't deny.
No one is born a polygamist.
That is why gay people should have the right to the same union as heterosexuals, but the slippery slope thing doesn't wash.
Also, no one is born with an innate sexual attraction solely to other members of their own family...at least I have never heard that one.
People are certainly born with innate attractions to children, animals, and dead people. But there we prohibit
sexual activity because both parties can't consent. Sex and marriage is only legal by consent of both parties.
So where does that leave us on the slope that seems so very slippery?
You tell us, you started it
Strongsville, OH, USA
I think it's not as slippery as you think.
If everyone is "born that way" explain my mayor's wife? Or was she mistaken when she declared herself only a lesbian?
If the argument is *only* "consenting adults should be able to love and marry whomever", then I can't see how there could be restrictions on either polygamy or types of incest.
the slippery slope doesn't exist. Polygamy as a fundamental right wouldn't exist because people aren't polygamous by birth/nature.
I am not going to explain the fact that human sexuality exists on a spectrum, Drew. you can read that stuff for yourself. Also read about bisexuality or pansexuality.
really...it's not that hard to understand.
With polygamy, there's a societal effects angle because the practice has been around for so long. There's also a 'this is probably not so good for women's equality' angle. So there's that.
But Doc, you say nobody is born a polygamist... And I'd say... Isn't that actually the *natural* order of things? Isn't one man, one woman actually more artificial?
unnatural is the new natural
I dunno, the lady gaga argument seems especially weak. I was expecting much better.
I strongly disagree that some men aren't born with a natural desire to love multiple women.
Winder, GA 30680, USA
I agree, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. But it has not been proven *at all* that things are completely hardwired at birth and I'm not sure that it makes much of a difference to a marriage equality debate in the first place.
The entire rationale for which marriage restrictions are warranted (and which are not) rests on a "was this person born like that"? Really?!
does it also matter whether these things are hardwired or not? so long as one is not harming another?
No, the argument that marriage is a fundamental right of any two adult human beings and not more is based on the natural state of human sexuality.
East Bloomington, Bloomington, MN
What is the natural state of human sexuality?
srorriM & ekomS
@ over 2 years ago
I seriously don't know. She thinks this is a FUNDAMENTAL SUPER OBVIOUS THING.
Which of course should never ever be applied in racial terms, otherwise we'd go back and revisit Loving v Virginia.. "did he um.... always like black chicks.... Or did that develop over time....."
@ over 2 years ago
No wonder nobody else but Dr Evil came up with this on their own....
"what am I thinking" type questions are always tough
Women usually don't think so.
'I saw her at the grocery store today"
"Who is *her*?"
I think the strongest argument for allowing gay marriage but keeping our bans on plural, is the women's rights angle. We know how polygamy usually operates in the real world, one man, many wives.
Those wives won't/don't get anywhere close to the equality of the husband. And there's plenty of real-world data on it since polygamy has been around so long.
The ban on adult incest marriages... I dunno what good rationale there is against this. I feel like "gross" but hey who am I to judge. And in terms of passing down deformity... We've got genetic counselling now.
"Women usually don't think so"
@Evil - no one is born with a desire to marry anyone.
Your logic fails.
Well men aren't of a mind to marry anyone, mostly, let alone multiple marriages.
I stand by the statement that people are born gay, bi, or trans. You are never a born polygamist. The first set of traits is a part of your inherent self, like race
or eye color.
Polygamy is not a trait. You are not a born polygamist. That is not the same as saying you don't want to fúck a lot of people.
Gay, bi, trans people are also promiscuous. That's irrelevant.
And screw the women's rights argument. I'd love to have a few husbands, why not?
I'm not against polygamy or multiple marriages. I'm arguing that the slippery slope argument is a trope and that's why. Fundamental rights don't extend to polygamy
It is so declared and so it is.
that's what I said days ago
Valdosta, GA, USA
Nice to see a consensus.
You aren't born a monagamist either, I really don't get this argument, at all.
Sayville, NY, USA
There are many other reasons the government supports monogamous marriage. That's not the point. The point is, the slippery slope argument isn't going to work with regard to providing a fundamental right to marry multiply.
If you don't like multiple marriages don't get multiple married
that's exactly the point
of multiple spouses
Right, and if you don't like people marrying their goats then don't marry a goat. Great point.
unfortunately that awesome point is irrelevant to the slippery slope thing.
Didn't one of the arguments FOR gay marriage indicate that animals do it too, thus making it natural?
ooops, wrong one. Here it is. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2452320?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Doc's argument seems quite circular to me. You're arguing there are only fundamental rights for two to get married because there are only fundamental rights for two to get married.
Reminds me of some of the biblical arguments you make fun of.
Let's take a step back and look at Kennedy's opinion, since that is all that really matters if the challenge to polygamy laws comes up.
Yes, he used the 14th...but why did he say it applied in this specific instance?
My Internet is flaky Skål, can you link to a better full-text than scribd.
Nevermind, I found a pdf. I really hate scribd. Anyway, I actually found it pretty strange that the decision had a historical discussion of marriage without any mention of polygamy.
Northwest Harbor, NY, USA
Is there a polygamy gene?
No. Doesn't matter.
Drew - did you see the 4 principles Kennedy wrote in the decision? Those would likely be used in this context as well.
Why would it be strange there was no historical discussion on polygamy - the case wasn't about that practice.
"The Constitution, however, does not permitthe State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."
He says something similar to this line a few times.
"On the same terms" is what makes polygamy/polyamory slightly different than SSM.
I'm not sure how you'd equate the terms of a multiparty contact with a two party contact.
If that could be reconciled, legalize it
Skål, in the opinion, other marriage restrictions were discussed. Restrictions on interracial for example. To bring up a historical discussion of marriage and restrictions around it and *not* mention polygamy, that's incomplete to me.
The settlement of Utah was specifically because of that, wasn't it?
Or do they just decide to mention marriage restrictions that went the way of the dodo and forget about the others?
Interracial marriage was mentioned because Loving was cited numerous times as legal justification for this opinion.
Similarly, when those other restrictions were discussed, they were mentioned because they were struck
Down by the court.
So yeah, it's all about citing the restrictions that went the way of the dodo *because* the legal rationale for each decision is being used in this case.
Kennedy was citing those other cases because through them, he argued that the court had established marriage as a fundamental right.
But that fundamental right is still limited to 2 people. There's no discussion of that. It's like pretending that we have no other restrictions after this got lifted.
There's just a sorta assumption that the "fundamental right" only involves two, and certainly not close family members (although how close is close because with first cousins, the law is very different across states).
Anyway, one thing I definitely didn't see was any form of the lady gaga argument that Dr Evil had before.
The decision seems to leave the door open to challenges in either of those areas.
If marriage is a fundamental right amongst consenting adults, what legal grounds exist to restrict the right to only two people?
I don't think there is one Racer. I think the slippery slope argument isn't valid. I also don't think a court will find a fundamental Constitutional right for multiple marriage.
Drew - the case was about SSM. Not polygamy. You shouldn't be expecting a simultaneous ruling or discussion on polygamy. That'll come later.
Check some of the amicus briefs Kennedy mentions for your Gaga discussion.
Again, the clause "on the same terms as opposite sex marriage" seems to be the key for equal protection and due process clause. Plural marriage simply has different terms of the contract for legal benefits.
A nice summary of the amici:
That's a good point Skål. However, a marriage between two first cousins or even closer *would* be able to fit into the same type of contract. So not sure how the bans regarding that could be justified
The amicus brief he referred to was from the APA (17-7), btw.
Immutable = born that way.
Fair question about marriage between close cousins. Tennesseans rejoice!
Hey, Darwin, HG Wells, and Einstein did it... Lol
half of West Virginia does it
Interestingly one of the states that has a ban against it, haha. Interestingly one of the states that has a ban against it, haha. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
I doubt there's a big enough constituency for polygamy to become an "issue".
Big Bear Lake, CA, USA
That's what they thought about gay rights.
Even the cousin couples have their own advocacy group, it's a question of breaking into the mainstream, same as the gays. People overestimate the amount of lgbt by a lot just based on increasing visibility
That helps them in a lot of ways even if it's technically mistaken.
Lack of numbers (ie weak constituency) isn't a good reason to deny rights, as well.
Drew - did u find the part of Kennedy's opinion where he does mention the "born that way" part?
Agreed, we have Republic not a democracy. Lack of numbers isn't technically a reason to ignore rights. But in reality, organizing and advocating are what get results, not numbers or lack thereof.
Mainstreaming simply allows the democratic majority to assimilate and normalize a new concept of human rights not previously thought about, or previously rejected as ridiculous.
Here's hoping the new normalization applies to marijuana...sure is looking like the next wave of "hmmm maybe that's ok after all"...
Next stop prostitution
Found the immutable nature sentence. But there's no "immutable nature" towards seeking an interracial marriage and laws banning that got struck down.
I think Kennedy's trying to say there isn't a marriage option available to gays without legalizing gay marriage. That makes sense. However, there was a marriage option available for those who wanted interracial marriage. ...
The option was.. marry your own color. Yet the existence of that option (rightfully) had no bearing on the decision. So wouldn't this be the same with the polygamist or incestuous couple?
Immutable sexual orientation wasn't a part of Loving.
Loving simply established that "marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"
That's exactly my point though, there's no need for any immutable characteristic.
"the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples."
Incestuous couples could probably challenge and win based on those words.
Polygamist marriages aren't the same terms and conditions, so again, not sure if the 14th's due process and equal protections would apply
Evil - Would they apply?
Is there any justification for the number restriction besides simply mentioning two, couples, etc? It's simply avoided.
The question of # wasn't in front of the court.
Why do you expect the court to comment on a question that wasn't posed to it?
"This Court granted review, limited to two questions. 574 U. S. ___ (2015).
The first, presented by the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex.
The second, presented by the cases from Ohio, Tennessee, and, again, Kentucky, is whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to recognize a same sex marriage licensed
Limited to two questions but that doesn't prevent them from discussing loads of other stuff related to marriage.
and performed in a State which does grant that right."
Those were the only two questions the court was answering in this decision. Not number, not incest, etc.
That means you'd have to look at the reasoning with another case that actually dealt with those restrictions. Does the reasoning *there* still hold
"Loads of other stuff related to marriage"
Like what, specifically?
"That means you'd have to look at the reasoning with another case that actually dealt with those restrictions."
Yes, but that'll be another case. Not this one.
Like what? Most of the stuff he discusses in the portion of the history of marriage.
Not saying there was any obligation to write anything on plural marriage, just because there's nothing written, there's not much in that particular decision that would magically bar it
The closest thing is probably what you brought up Skål, but that's basically all I can come up with.
There's no reason to think that the decision was meant to magically bar it.
That question will likely come up on it's own merits at some point in the future.
Well all the people shouting from the rooftops that there isn't any slippery slope, they seem to think there's something in there that expressly disallows it.
Or they just don't think much of slippery slope arguments in general.
In my opinion, there is at least something of a slippery slope but that's simply not a good reason to bar gay marriage.
SCOTUS rules solely on the limited questions it takes at the outset, nothing more. No slippery slope or lack thereof in the decision. I never implied that. I said repeatedly that I am addressing those who say, what would prevent multiple marriage,
people marrying their dog etc.
The marrying their dog thing isn't anywhere on the radar because animals can't consent.
This is the decision re polygamy. Search for the term "odious" because that's the section where they consider whether or not polygamy bans are constitutional. Has that kind of reasoning aged well?
The legal stuff begins in section IV.
Good reference Skäl, but more of an advocacy piece and not so much a legal paper.
The Equal Protection argument in my mind is that unless you have the same number of male and female in a marriage, the marriage and the legal rights imparted
with the contractual arrangement cannot possibly be equal.
But the immutability argument is still quite valid, all else aside. I understand their point in the paper but disagree when it comes to finding fundamental civil rights in the Constitution.
Why wouldn't I have a fundamental right to marry my toaster then, exactly? It's part of who I am, so I should have that right...That logic just doesn't wash. We're not talking about the right to be intimate. We're talking about granting legal
status with benefits to those who (usually) want to be intimate. Immutability shouldn't be written off as irrelevant to a determination of civil rights, imo.
Toaster argument is idiotic, a toaster isn't even alive, if it were an animal an animal cannot consent
Immutability is irrelevant because it surely didn't matter in Loving. There's no "immutable nature" to loving a different race. But that doesn't give us license to forbid it
The article is pretty thorough in my opinion. I haven't seen anything coming even close to that.
Also in the Reynolds case, the justifications for banning polygamy bear more than a passing resemblance to the arguments *just* declared invalid re same sex marriage.
You're welcome for the consent argument, which I provided some time ago.
Immutable in Loving refers to race. Don't be stupid.
The article is an advocacy piece. Don't even try to pretend otherwise: they state as much in about every other paragraph.
I understand you never attended a law school class. Let me help you here. When the article says "the article is intended to show x" what they mean is, "we're making the case for x. We're not providing any balanced view on the subject."
But I'm sure your opinion is valid to you.
And since you don't seem capable of discerning a difference, a toaster is not a living being. Consent is irrelevant. Why can't I marry my toaster? I was born attracted to toasters!
Finally...a "passing resemblance"? Really? So civil rights should be determined by resemblances? Bravo. Let's make you a lawyer. Your logic is impeccable.
Of course, a toaster is rather like a dog. I can understand your confusion. I guess an interracial couple is kind of like a bunch of people all of whom wasn't to marry, too. Or maybe a toaster, or a dog. Yep, I get it.
drew a Lawyer? he never professed to attempt
evil a lawyer? by state bar & consent, I guess... does she practice family law or is it a side bar.. only pinky may know. ..
Atlanta, GA 30337, USA
Wow is she pissy tonight.
I guess I'm not allowed to opine on this at all, eh? Since I'm not a lawyer of course. Dr. Evil is the only one. I thought the article despite being an advocacy piece (as I'm sure loads are in law journals) was rather thorough.
well you don't have her viewpoint, so therefore you're a fúcking, idiotic, uneducated, bible thumping, gun toting, redneck, conservative.
Also I said *more* than a passing resemblance. Reynolds mainly declares polygamy bans as constitutional by appealing to tradition. The US has always done it like this, the colonies did it like this, and England before us.
Doesn't this sound *very* much like an argument that got totally shot down with regards to same sex marriage?
Not a fan of gay marriage but I do believe the Supreme Court did the right interpretation.
@ over 2 years ago
Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
are you a fan of marriage in general?
It's definitely better on the whole for kids to be raised by two parents. So I think the gay marriage thing actually helps with marriage in general. (gays got married but my loser ass can't commit)
to be fair you are a global warming denying zionist, post terrible pictures of ny and yourself, and one can only assume, a staunch supporter of polygamy. You seem like a nice enough guy though, I hope you find someone.
I would like to ask the doctor if she and her husband were on the Titanic would she let him go down with the ship and let Bruce Jenner sail off with his pretty wig and dress
North Royalton, OH, USA
It's Caitlyn! Get it right or pay the price!
Midtown, New York, NY
It's a fair question, I would say once Bruce got his pee pee cut off she was no longer of use to me personally, so let her go down wherever it is she will go.
Unless and until Mr. Evil goes the Caitlyn route, he's officially on top, so to speak.
nothing is out of the realm of possibilities, evil.
after all he (she) is married to you
acceptable answer :-)
Somewhere out there there is a short fat ugly man who just got his dick chopped off and replaced with a man made vagina
He's not wearing a thousand dollar wig and a 4000 dollar dress with professionals putting on his makeup and he's on his way to work dead broke because of the expense of the operation
And we are honoring some crazy ass millionaire cross dresser from the White House? Anybody? is this thing on!
until his dick is removed he is still Bruce.
President Not Sure
@ over 2 years ago
St Peters, MO, USA
You can't just get the dick removed, you need a vajayjay and titties too. He's already got the titties... Now he just needs to nix the ding dong and get a hoohah. And until then, we'll oblige and call him a "her" and her Caitlyn, but..
It's really just a polite fiction.
Now can we donate that dick to a good cause at least? Like someone who lost their dick in war or something... Just make sure it's not a black guy or that just would look weird.
Yeah the surgery is always in two steps...top surgery is always first for women transitioning to men, I think. In some cases hormones are enough to make breasts in men...hell, some had them before.
Pretty sure Caitlyn was augmented though. Serious racks don't result from hormone therapy. Some men only need bottom surgery, which is a single operating session, I believe, to invert the geometry.
Wait so if they invert the geometry, then they can't donate the dick, cuz it gets recycled for the chacha? How's it work
Well I wasn't speaking literally there, Drew! But I am pretty sure they use the penis tissue having all the nerve endings for crafting a sort of clitoris so the donation thing wouldn't work.
Going the other way I know they extend the clitoris out and sheath it with skin etc. to make a penis. They get a nice 2" version. JUST like Pink's...hmmmm
the key is to maintain the nerves as much as possible in order to enable pleasure, otherwise people would have to trade resolving sexual identity with loss of the ability to enjoy or even have sex.
hmmmmm, like pinky
Yeah I knew you weren't being literal but had a feeling tissue would get repurposed...
Oh well, there goes the whole dick donation idea...
you guys will miss me when I'm gone
12500-12598 U.S. 322, Cleveland, OH 44106
you're going nowhere