Fantasia married Kendall Taylor on Sunday and posted pictures of the event on her Instagram. Below is the caption she put on one of her wedding pictures.
Those who really know me know that I LOVE Water.. Can you see it? How Happy I am.. This Man.. God made him just for Me and me Just for Him.. This Man.. Covers and prays for me and my children EVERY morning.. This Man.. Loves My Father in Heaven and his name is God.. This Man allows me to just be a woman.. No more Hurt because King Kendall will never let that happen.. I’m off to just kiss, Hug, and play in some water with This Man.. Look at Him in the pic YEP!! HE COVERS ME.. Be Happy with me you guys cause I’ve been thru SOOOOO much. Some stuff was my wrong decisions but all I ever really wanted was this.. Real Love. This Man and this smile is real… Later you guys bye bye for a while.. God did not forget about me….
Bobby Brown has always maintained the claim, and now that his daughter Bobbi is hospitalized with little brain activity, Bobby and the rest of the Brown family is sticking to the claim that his daughter was never married.
According to Bobby’s attorney … “Bobbi Kristina is not and has never been married to Nick Gordon.” For once, the Houston family agrees with Bobby Brown … telling TMZ, Gordon and BK never officially wed.
Further, we’re told by Houston family sources … there are no legal documents that would allow Gordon to get any of the Whitney Houston fortune Bobbi Kristina inherited — if she passes.
The fake marriage revelation flies in the face of several statements Bobbi Kristina and Nick both made on camera back in early 2014.
Kenneth and Helen Felumlee pose for a photo nearly three years before their marriage in February 1944, in this September 1941 photo provided by Dick Felumlee.
AP Photo
A couple who held hands at breakfast every morning even after 70 years of marriage have died 15 hours apart.
Helen Felumlee, of Nashport, died at 92 on April 12. Her husband, 91-year-old Kenneth Felumlee, died the next morning.
The couple’s eight children say the two had been inseparable since meeting as teenagers, once sharing the bottom of a bunk bed on a ferry rather than sleeping one night apart, the Zanesville Times Recorder reported (http://ohne.ws/1in7erG).
They remained deeply in love until the very end, even eating breakfast together while holding hands, said their daughter, Linda Cody.
Dick Felumlee/AP Photo
Kenneth and Helen Felumlee, seated, of Nashport, Ohio., in central Ohio pose for a photo with their eight children, Dec. 29, 2012.
“We knew when one went, the other was going to go,” she said.
According to Cody, about 12 hours after Helen died, Kenneth looked at his children and said, “Mom’s dead.”
He quickly began to fade and was surrounded by 24 of his closest family members and friends when he died the next morning.
“He was ready,” Cody said. “He just didn’t want to leave her here by herself.”
The pair had known each other for several years when they eloped in Newport, Ky., across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, on Feb. 20, 1944. At two days shy of his 21st birthday, Kenneth was too young to marry in Ohio.
“He couldn’t wait,” son Jim Felumlee said.
Kenneth worked as a railroad car inspector and mechanic before becoming a mail carrier for the Nashport Post Office. He was active in his Nashport-Irville United Methodist Church as a Sunday school teacher.
Helen stayed at home, not only cooking and cleaning for her own family but also for other families in need in the area. She taught Sunday school, too, but was known more for her greeting card ministry, sending cards for birthdays, sympathy and the holidays to everyone in her community, each with a personal note inside.
“She kept Hallmark in business,” daughter-in-law Debbie Felumlee joked.
When Kenneth retired in 1983 and the children began to leave the house, the Felumlees began to explore their love of travel, visiting almost all 50 states by bus.
“He didn’t want to fly anywhere because you couldn’t see anything as you were going,” Jim Felumlee said.
Although both experienced declining health in recent years, Cody said, each tried to stay strong for the other.
TMZ is reporting that Robin Thicke’s marriage fell apart when he dry humped Miley Cyrus on stage before a national audience … humiliating his wife.
Sources connected to the couple tell TMZ … Paula Patton felt “utterly disrespected” when Robin virtually simulated sex with Miley the night of the VMAs. We’re told after the performance Paula got into a blow-out argument with Robin, telling him he insulted her before a huge national TV audience.
What really pissed Paula off is that the performance was a total surprise. Miley improvised the raunchy part without warning, but Robin played along … and that enraged Paula.
Sources say Paula went nuclear when she saw pictures surface of her hubby at one of the after-parties grabbing a woman’s ass … virtually digging inside.
We’re told things never got better after that. They argued constantly and Paula was furious Robin continued to party at clubs with various women … pictured at times getting very cozy.
It reached the point of no return last week — at least for Paula. As we reported … Robin is pulling out all the stops to change her mind, but we’re told she wants out of the marriage.
The internet is buzzing over reports that Janet Jackson wants out of her marriage to Arab billionaire businessman Wissam Al Mana.
But Miss Jackson’s plan isn’t to just walk away, so the reports say. Nope, she wants compensation.
“Janet Jackson’s marriage to super-wealthy Arab businessman Wissam Al Mana has collapsed, and a source says bitter divorce battle over his billion dollar fortune could be about to explode … She confided to a few close friends and (her mother) Katherine that she’s preparing to leave him. And she’s begun calling friends at all hours crying and saying how miserable she is … Janet is getting set to challenge the prenup and demand a flat lump sum payout from his fortune,” according to one tabloid.
If the reports are true, it will be the end of her third marriage. Before Wissam Al Mana (39), who Janet (47) wed in 2012, she was previously married to Réne Elizondo from 1991-2000 and James DeBarge from 1984-1985.
For the record, Rumor Fix says it reached out toJackson’s rep for a response.
One thing that’s not a rumor is Janet’s listing of her NYC apartment for $35,000 a month!
Branden Lee is a blogger, screenwriter, producer, and actor, currently residing in Boston, MA. Follow Branden on Twitter and Tumblr.
The Jamaica Observer has revealed that a study has shown that men would rather choose an unattractive woman for a long term serious relationship, and would rather have a beautiful woman for a short term fling.
“Feminine Looking” women, who possessed attributes such as a small jawbone and full cheeks, were considered most desirable to men. Due to their high level of estrogen which is credited for their womanly features.
Whereas women with the opposing features were considered more “masculine looking”.
Hundreds of heterosexual men were surveyed.
The men were shown many photos of European and Japanese women, both “feminine” and “masculine” looking.
The guys had to select whether they viewed each woman as more likely a short-term partner for a “fling”, or saw them more as “long term” relationship material.
“Feminine looking” women were deemed most desirable for a short term affair, especially by the surveyed men that were in relationships.
But the more “masculine looking” women were rated highest for long term partners for marriage and raising children.
As perplexing as these results are, previous research has allegedly been done stating that attractive women are more likely to cheat, especially when their husband isn’t that attractive.
So basically most men are distrustful of pretty girls.
This study really resonates with me.
I’m constantly told how gorgeous and beautiful I am, and whenever I tell someone that I’ve never had a boyfriend the same exchange always happens.
They always act astounded and shocked, like it’s so inexplicable that I could have never had a boyfriend despite being so undeniably attractive.
The worst is when they ask “Are guys blind?” because no man I’ve never met has never wanted to date me.
First of all, my problem isn’t attracting men, since I have absolutely no problem doing that.
My problem is that the men that I do attract only see me as a fling, and not as a serious relationship partner.
I also attract a lot of guys in relationships, and like this study showed, guys in relationships really like beautiful partners to cheat on their girlfriends/wives with.
The problem isn’t that beautiful people can’t be trusted, it’s that we live in a society that places beauty as the absolute thing to be coveted, but not to be taken seriously.
Beautiful people should be worshipped, envied, desired, but shouldn’t be thought of as actual people with feelings, thoughts, hopes, and dreams, and should not be respected.
Being beautiful has never done me any favors in terms of attracting a mate, since I’ve perpetually been single my entire life.
Granted I’m only 22 and still holding out hope that I’ll find a guy that does want to date me, and sees me as more than a sex object.
But clearly being gorgeous is both a gift and a curse.
Guys may always want you, but not for the long-term.
Because beautiful people somehow don’t deserved to be loved.
A few days ago, an article was written asking the question why are we so fascinated with celebrities. The author made the point that celebrities were just like us, but on a much larger scale, and he wanted to know why the public continuously place these people on pedestals, especially when they don’t belong on there.
And after that question was asked, we read today that Jada Smith has basically given her hubby a pass if he ever felt the need to cheat on her. According to Mrs Smith, Will is his own man and can do whatever he wants.
Hey, whatever works. Jada Pinkett-Smith addressed a longstanding rumor about her 16-year marriage to Will Smith** in a new interview with HuffPost Live: That she and Will, 44, have an open relationship.
“No, I think that people get that idea because Will and I are very relaxed with one another,” replied the actress and mother of actor-singers Willow**, 12, and Jaden, 14. The 41-year-old star then continued of the “persistent” rumor: “But I’ve always told Will: You can do whatever you want as long as you can look at yourself in the mirror and be okay,” she said, without going into further specifics.
“Because at the end of the day, Will is his own man,” she said of the Men in Black star. “I’m here as his partner, but he is his own man. He has to decide who he wants to be and that’s not for me to do for him,” she said, adding: “Or vice versa.”
The couple have battled more than one false report of an imminent divorce, most memorably in summer 2011, when the couple, who wed in 1997, slammed split rumors — and talk that Pinkett Smith had an affair with HawthoRN costar Marc Anthony** during his marriage to Jennifer Lopez.
The Supreme Court will finally hear arguments in the Marriage Equality cases this week, and it’s about time. If justice delayed is justice denied, than we’ve had denial of justice for a good part of our population for far too long.
The opponents of marriage equality do not want to talk about civil rights. They don’t want to talk about equality. They don’t want to talk about gays sharing in society and being fully accepted in American culture. What they want to talk about is redefining marriage, which they say is what these cases are all about. They also want to point to the Bible for their definition, and cite its prohibitions against any homosexual activity. You’ll excuse me, but I am tired of having to worry about what a book that also mandates stoning, banishment and ritual murder has to say about people who live in a manner that is really not your business. If religious opponents of marriage equality can pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to apply here, then I will feel free to ignore the Bible altogether as a remnant of tales, stories and oral histories that provide a fascinating narrative, but are not relevant to the modern world.
But in the end, they are simply redefining equality. And that’s wrong.
The main argument against marriage equality is that it would redefine the institution that opponents believe to be the bedrock of any civilization. Once you allow anybody who loves another person to marry them, then you’re opening the door to polygamy, incest and child marriage. Here’s Brian S. Brown, one of the most active opponents of marriage equality:
“When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences,” Mr. Brown warned last August in a fund-raising letter. “Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?”
Then there’s this audio from the NPR program The Takeaway, where Joseph Backholm, executive director of Family Policy Institute, an anti-marriage equality group, says that not only should gays not be allowed to marry, they shouldn’t be able to adopt and raise children, since that right is traditionally reserved for those who can create children. I guess childless heterosexual couples need not apply either.
This is what the right wing does best: They scare and twist facts so that there’s no other choice but to oppose the same things they oppose. But Mr. Brown did more than that. He enlisted African-American clergymen and women to oppose marriage equality because, he said, it was less a civil rights issue than one of religious doctrine. Wasn’t this the same argument that segregationists used to fight integration? Yes it was.
Denying people rights is the same no matter what their station is. Laws that forbid intermarriage were overturned.Laws that forbid certain sexual practices were overturned. Public places were integrated. The long history of our country generally moves in one direction; towards more freedom and more access for all groups. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court saying that marriage equality is against the Constitution. It’s just a matter of how far they’ll go.
The problem, though, is that even if the Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, it doesn’t mean that gay couples will have an unfettered right to marry or enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Unless the Court mandates marriage equality throughout the nation, states that don’t recognize it can continue to not do so. That will continue to complicate the lives of those couples who are legally married in the eight states that do recognize marriages if they even visit states that do not. That’s not equality. More delays. More denials.
I expect that the Court will open the gates to marriage equality in some way, but won’t make a sweeping judgement that covers the whole country. I also believe that this will be another John Roberts decision and that he will provide the fifth vote in favor. If Anthony Kennedy comes along, then the tally will be 6-3. I just can’t see Scalia, Alito or Thomas signing on to this.
Opponents of marriage equality say that an expansion of marriage rights is not a done deal. I disagree. Many people already have these marriage rights in the states that recognize gay marriage. I cannot imagine that the court would take those rights away. And once they are affirmed, they will become part of the American way of life. Gay couples will be more visible and will ultimately become more accepted. It will take some time and there will be bumps along the way, but it will happen.
Because this is a civil rights issue. Plain and simple.
This could be for a number of reasons. Maybe Newt is really sincere about being faithful to his third wife after cheating on the first two, or maybe Newt’s just being Newt – pandering to the masses, telling a specific group exactly what they want to hear at that specific moment.
With the Republican nomination elections set to begin in just a few weeks in Iowa, Newt Gingrich signed his version of a pledge to the Christian Conservative Evangelists of that state, promising to “uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.”
Gingrich made the pledge to The Family Leader, a socially conservative group based in Iowa. The organization has its own Marriage Pledge that other 2012 White House hopefuls have signed, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.
Gingrich did not sign The Family Leader’s pledge himself, but did provide a lengthy written response to the organization. The former House speaker said he was fully committed to defending traditional marriage, including enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.
And apparently, the Conservative group bought it. The issued this statement;
“We are pleased that Speaker Gingrich has affirmed our pledge and are thankful we have on record his statements regarding DOMA, support of a federal marriage amendment, defending the unborn, pledging fidelity to his spouse, defending religious liberty and freedom, supporting sound pro-family economic issues, and defending the right of the people to rule themselves.”
Maybe this group is just a glutton for punishment, or maybe they’re just willing to believe anything Gingrich says because they just cannot support Romney, or maybe Gingrich really has changed and is willing to do the right thing. Who knows, only time will tell if Newt can really uphold his pledge.
But this we do know. Using ‘Gingrich’ and ‘do the right thing’ in the same sentence should never be done. EVER!
What’s the perfect way to ask the one you love to “occupy your life?” You use the “people’s microphone,” get down on one knee and with hundreds looking on and repeating everything you say, you make your proposal in the middle of a protest movement.
We all remember Bachmann’s recent signing of a pledge which claimed that children born under slavery were better off than those born after President Obama became President! Well, Steven Colbert picked up on another very interesting piece of info about her and Rick Santorum – the other Republican Presidential candidate who immediately signed the document.
For Santorum, Colbert explains that he signed the pledge, even after being “taken aback” by the strong language it contained. Colbert’s re-enactment of Santorum reading the pledge is right on the mark.
And for Bachmann, Colbert picks on the many instances where she saw the need to equate something to slavery, you know, where her expertise lies…
Call her crazy, call her insane, call her deranged. But no matter what you call her, just don’t call Michele Bachmann a woman of intelligence. Michele Bachmann has stepped up to the plate, and signed a pledge claiming that children born under slavery, were better off than children born under President Obama’s Administration.
Yes, “dumb” and “stupid” also accurately describe this Republican contender for the 2012 Presidential election.
The pledge that caught Mrs. Bachmann’s attention was written by Bob Vander Plaats of Ohio and is called, “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY.” In it, the signee agrees to some very outlandish positions. All Republican candidates for President in 2012 are expected to sign the pledge – a pledge that calls for, among other things;
Reinstating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – the military policy that requires military personal to keep their sexual orientation a secret. After a 17 year run in the military, this policy came to an end in December of 2010 when Congress voted and got it overturned.
Rejecting Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control. – Republicans, for whatever reasoning, seems to be under the impression that Sharia Law is coming to America, and the U.S Constitution, (which is what the laws of this nation are governed by) will be shredded to pieces.
“Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.” – Another attempt to ban abortion, and with the word “robust,” the implication is made that no matter how the pregnancy occurs, whether its through rape or incest, “childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S demographic.”
A Federal Amendment to the U.S Constitution, defining marriage as an act between a man and a woman.
These are just some of the positions the signees of this pledge will be asked to uphold. But what really stands in the “Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY” pledge, is the section that says this;
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Cheryl Contee from Jack and Jill Politics said it best:
Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive. I mean, putting aside the statistics on this, which are likely off-base, I could not be more angry.
When will Republicans inquire with actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points? It has to stop. It is the opposite of persuasive and is another reason Republicans repel us. It’s hard to believe that Michele Bachmann would be foolish enough to sign this pledge.
The Desmoines Register reports that Michele Bachmann is the first Republican presidential hopeful to sign the pledge.
Oh Michele, just when we think we’ve seen how low you can go, you somehow manage to surprise us – proving once again that we should never underestimate your infinite stupidity.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
