orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 03:50 AM
Original message |
NewsFlash: CA Passed A Prop. That Will Allow Marriage Between Brothers & Sisters |
|
mothers & sons, fathers & daughters
i just listened to a caller at the end of randi's show friday who said usually laws are written in the negative (example: people of the same sex *cannot* be married). instead, the caller said, this proposition 8 was written as defining marriage between a man and a woman--and because of that it would allow relatives to marry one another (as long as they were man & woman)
sooooo............
i thought that was a rather ironic side note, considering what all these people had allowed their self-righteous selves to do--they just legalized incest!
|
Suji to Seoul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 03:53 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Well, those rednecks in Fresno County can now stop jacking to their sister and take the next step |
|
Hey, Jim Robinson. . .Freeptard in Chief. . .I hear you sister calling you "stud."
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. i have no idea who you're talking about -- but it sounded rather funny. lol. n/t |
Clintonista2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Jim Robinson is the owner of freerepublic |
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. oh--that's right. i forgot about that little piece of crap. n/t |
Hubert Flottz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:01 AM
Response to Original message |
3. The freepers are pushing for a nationwide law making it legal to |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 04:05 AM by Hubert Flottz
marry their pet goat.
Edit...I don't think you'd call that a law but more like a general rule, that freeper on goat thing.
|
magellan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. Hm, maybe that's why FR's been down all day? |
MNReformer
(187 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:06 AM
Response to Original message |
5. Incest laws and marriage laws in California |
|
Non-forcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.
Also prohibits marriage between ancestor and descendant of any degree, brother and sister (half-blood included), uncle and niece, aunt and nephew; bigamy and polygamy.
I guess non-blood-related brothers and sisters could marry.
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. nope. sorry. the new law supersedes other laws. incest is IN! n/t |
MNReformer
(187 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Wow. That's bizarre. n/t |
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. i know! (well--according to that caller on randi's show--if he is right |
|
and i haven't researched it but....how bizarre would that be?)
|
MNReformer
(187 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. Sounds like a reason to challenge it in court to me. n/t |
hfojvt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. bizarre reasoning maybe |
|
the Amendment does not say anything about those other laws. It defines marriage between a man and a woman, it does not thereby legalize marriage between any man and any woman.
|
dems_rightnow
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
16. The new law didn't make any union between male and female legal. |
|
Merely restricted it to union of male and female. Not that hard to follow logically. The language added to the Constituion would be:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Notice how it doesn't say "ANY marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
|
orleans
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 01:43 PM
Response to Original message |
Unvanguard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message |
12. The text of Prop. 8 doesn't "define" marriage at all. |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 05:02 PM by Unvanguard
It reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That does not suggest that any relationship between a man or a woman constitutes valid or recognized marriage, rather that any marriage that is not between a man and a woman is neither valid nor recognized.
In any case, the courts are not so literal.
|
1Hippiechick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-08-08 05:01 PM
Response to Original message |
13. In other words, it was rejected because of poor wording & gay marriage is NOT a dead issue? |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 05:16 AM
Response to Original message |