Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Well there has to be a call for change, it doesn’t happen on its own
and that takes effort and people willing to make that call.
that happened with slavery, that happened with women getting the vote, it happened with the end of Jim Crow laws, and it has happened with Gay Marriage
That has NOT happened with Poly, as most ( not all ) are in groups that have withdrawn themselves into secluded and reclusive places and don’t care about or even want government recognition.
For any major change, there needs to be an active constituency for it, there has to be a call for it.
Whining by people on an internet forum, specifically from people that are not particularly interested in it other than how they can use it to attack others is not going to make it happen.

There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.

They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.

I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.
They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.
I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.

Yes, poly is in the same place SSM was a decade or so ago, that is what I have been saying from the beginning.

When there is enough of a call for it, from responsible people, it will probably happen. It will take some work, just as it is for SSM

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There was a time when people spoke of same sex marriage "going nowhere" and they said things "whining on an internet forum or wherever would do nothing..." etc.
They were bigots just like you. And they had to suck it up and embrace same sex marriage, now it's your turn. Do it gracefully. Be a man.
I welcome the day when there is true equality and an end to bigotry and ignorance but it never dies with idiots like you around.

By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you aren’t bright enough to recognize that yet.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, poly is in the same place SSM was a decade or so ago, that is what I have been saying from the beginning.
When there is enough of a call for it, from responsible people, it will probably happen. It will take some work, just as it is for SSM

Sure. Responsible people, meaning anyone but me I suppose.

You can discuss traveling to Mars without knowing the date it will be possible and I can discuss polygamy without knowing the date when it will be possible.

Your beginnings of reasonableness about it is the result of my tireless effort.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you aren’t bright enough to recognize that yet.

Yeah, sure. You're not opposed to those child molesting welfare cheats, it's those other people who are.

We've been through all this before.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, this post of yours in another wonderful example of how your interest in Poly is only in how you can attack people that are for SSM, the funny part is I am not even opposed to poly, but you aren’t bright enough to recognize that yet.

Relax fruitloops.

[snyper]

Link to our SCOTUS brief:

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

[Rose_NoHo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

And we all know that you are too ugly to even dare to show your mug.

LOL. No, stupid, things like you are amoral, racist and dangerous, so I won't show my face. That's the reason.
YOU are ugly, so ugly, Topix kicked you off because you wouldn't take your pic down again.

[Rose_NoHo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
And I bet that you wish that your mother had named you Rose, instead of Rebekah, or LaQueesha, or whatever...

See what I mean about your being racist.
Why lie and say you are Wiccan?

[Rose_NoHo]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody believes what Rose? Again you are incoherent and off topic.
I went away for a couple months, and I swear in that time you have actually managed to get dumber.

Did they let you out finally? Well, keep taking your meds on schedule, or they might have to come get you again, stupid.

[Rose_NoHo]

For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".

[Rose_NoHo]

Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.

[Pietro Armando]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...

Now, I agree with Bauman in his defence of the importance of monogamous marriage to society. But I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm in the west when the laws of Canada have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability. Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

For those who don't know:
Frankie Rizzo is just a troll who is against gay marriage. He's flying under false colors pretending he is in favor of gay marriage, and flooding the forum with posts about the red herring of polygamy as a distraction. He's so dumb, he thinks I'm talking about a fish when I use the term "red herring".

Why are you a hypocrite?

Polygamy is marriage. poly+marriage. Just like same sex+marriage.
It deserves the same respect and consideration as any other marriage.

Please tell us why you believe it doesn't, bigot. We won't wait.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

Wow, still not one rational argument against gay marriage. You'd think in all this time, someone would be able to come up with ONE.

There are no rational arguments against same sex marriage. It should be allowed.

What are your rational arguments against poly marriage? The answer is not "because it is a red herring" or "it's a whole separate issue, it just is," or similar Rose_NoHo stupidity.

Why would you tell three committed men wishing to marry no, because it's a fish? Or no. it's "a separate issue"?

[Pietro Armando]

On May 6, 2009, the State of Maine became the fifth U.S. State to codify the legal construct of "same sex marriage." Supporters labeled the passage of the new law as a "civil rights victory," a matter of "fairness and equality" for "all" as well as "equal protection under the law." The new law was titled, "L.D. 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom." But the Act, itself, very specifically does "discriminate" - against consenting adult polygamists.

On April 22, 2009, up to 4,000 Maine citizens attended the Public Hearing at the Augusta Civic Center. As expected, marriage controllers opposed the law, wanting to continue special rights only for those who choose "one man, one woman." Homosexuals and supporters wanted to further expand the receipt of those special rights to those who choose "same sex marriage" too.

Mark Henkel, speaking as the National Polygamy Advocate and as a Maine citizen, also made a presentation at the Hearing - as "Neither For Nor Against." When he stood up to speak, the entire room immediately hushed, except for the overwhelming clicking sound of numerous media cameras on him. He noted that both homosexuals and marriage controllers re-define marriage. Factually, polygamy has always been included in the definition. Henkel offered the polygamy rights win-win solution to end the government marriage debate, the abolition of all big government marriage control for unrelated consenting adults. When he had finished, many people approached him, expressing their surprise and support for the alternative proposal. Despite the crush of photography, the major Maine media chose only to "sell" L.D. 1020 to persuade their audiences.

Over the subsequent two weeks, the bill was rushed through the Legislature and was immediately signed by Governor Baldacci on May 6th – extremely quickly, indeed.

Previously opposing "gay marriage" in favor of civil unions, the Governor explained, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law… Under the Constitution, we are all the same. We are supposed to make sure we are all protected from discrimination, regardless of the differences between us. My responsibility, that I swore an oath to do, is that I'm there for everybody."

[Pietro Armando]

Homosexual political activists, identifying themselves as fighting for the "civil rights" of the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered" (GLBT) community, rejoiced in the new statute. Declaring that the new law was simply about "fairness and equality" for "all," they proclaimed that Maine had supposedly "ended discrimination" for "everyone."

But the law did no such thing.

Indeed, it begins by codifying the re-defining-parameter of marriage as "2 people." Namely, in Sec. 2, L.D. 1020 declares, "19-A MRSA §650-A is enacted to read: Codification of marriage. Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people." It would thus seem that the homosexual activists are not really fighting for the "civil rights" of the "B" in GLBT, after all. Apparently, homosexuals - despite their claims - do not really believe that "bisexuals" are "born that way."

But seriously, way beyond "bisexuals" and the humor of that obvious dichotomy, the new law does take that numerical "discrimination" further. In Sec. 6., the new law re-writes 19-A MRSA §701, Prohibited marriage.

The original §701 statute had been delineated into the following Clauses. 1. Marriage out of State to evade law. 1-A. Certain marriages performed in another state not recognized in this State. 2. Prohibitions based on degrees of consanguinity. 3. Persons under disability. 4. Polygamy. 5. Same sex marriage prohibited.

The last two Clauses had originally declared the following. "4. Polygamy. A marriage contracted while either party has a living wife or husband from whom the party is not divorced is void." "5. Same sex marriage prohibited. Persons of the same sex may not contract marriage."

L.D. 1020 strikes out Clause 5 ("same sex marriage") completely and alters Clause 1-A to apply only to Clauses 2-4 instead of 2-5. But Clause 4 was left intact - still prohibiting polygamy.

If keeping one and striking out the other Clause had happened in reverse, homosexuals would be screaming, "Discrimination! Bigotry!"

At the Public Hearing, when marriage controllers had argued against L.D. 1020, saying that children need a father and a mother, homosexuals responded that children only need two adults. Yet, Maine's new law "discriminates" against consenting adult polygamy, even though it fulfills both arguments - and more! As Mark Henkel asked everyone, "If Heather can have two mommies, why can't she have two mommies and a daddy?"

For all the hype of supposed "equality" for "all," L.D. 1020 completely left consenting adult polygamists "unequal" indeed. As for "fairness," Maine's Bigamy law actually criminalizes the very free speech itself of a married man, for only saying an unlicensed "girlfriend" is a "wife." Indeed, 17-A MRSA Pt 2, Ch 23,§551 declares: "A person is guilty of bigamy if, having a spouse, he intentionally marries or purports to marry, knowing that he is legally ineligible to do so." The argument of "fairness" is utterly ignored for consenting adult polygamists.

Hence, Maine's "same sex marriage" law is really not "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage" at all. The law brings no "equality and fairness" for consenting adult polygamists, and especially no "equal protection under the law." By the same terms of the law's supporters, "discrimination" against consenting adult polygamy has not been ended.

Instead, government marriage control continues... just re-defined.

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php...

[Ranchitas]

Pay someone else to write your blogs, the ones so far stink.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Marram wrote:

<quoted text>
You can keep pushing your hater agenda but the fact is Gay Americans don’t have to care about or support any social injustice (whether real or perceived) in order to deserve marriage rights regardless of any hypocrisy you so proudly point out. You’re superior attitude only exemplifies how non-gays marginalize anyone they perceive to be inferior. Truth is we are organized, smart, funded and powerful and will have Gay Marriage Equality in all fifty states. You and your ilk can continue to prattle on and on about how Gay Americans have to be considered “good enough” to deserve equal rights to no avail. We’ll remain focused on and win the war for Gay Marriage Equality. Besides Gay Americans have been called much worse than selfish and hypocrites, so, if you think your lame insults will change anything you’re sorely mistaken.

Gay Americans don't have to care about any social injustice (perceived or real), but to act indifferently about any such occurrences after asking Straight Americans to care about the Gay Americans shows a distinct "I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder" mentality that warrants the question: "Why should we have been asked to care about you, when you are so ready to ignore the same plight in another group receiving the same treatment ?" Your side appears to be very selfish, indeed. "You're" is a contraction of "You Are", often misused by the posters in this room, as is the word "Your", often used in the place that "You're" should be, and vice versa. I state this, not to taunt you for your misuse, but, to call attention to the fact that many make this most simple of mistakes. It is no superior attitude to promote the same fairness for another discriminated- against group, such as yours was, only a few years ago. This is not a hater agenda, only a noticing of the glaring social injustices inflicted upon another often ignored group. Since we are on about "Marriage "Equality", it seems to be only fair. To claim that polygamy is illegal is a weak ploy, since sodomy laws made homosexuality a crime until recently. Now it seems fine to single out who remains outlawed, and who does not, in the name of "Equality" ? Not fair at all. Since we find ourselves at a threshold moment, namely, redefining what is allowed in America, we must accept the changes in other groups, else fall victim to the very narrow minded vision that we have been accused of. Marginalizing polygamists is the same crime that marginalizing gays has been, up until now. Be smart. Be organized. Be fair, though. This isn't about insults, it is about redefining "Marriage", and who is to say that homosexuals are acceptable, but not polygamists ? You ? How marginalizing you now appear, if you cannot reach out a helping hand to another group, with which your side has so much in common. I have posted to you in a non-insulting manner, perhaps for the first time, and may well do so again.

[Diez y Siete]

Si