Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, except for the simple fact that the majority of gay folks don't engage in it, and the majority of straight folks have tried it.
And how would you go about identifying who is gay by this factor?
By this standard, the majority of folks would be gay, wouldn't they?
I think that means you are completely surrounded.

The huge difference is that straights have an option, gays don't. However, in either case, Anal sex is inherently Harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Moreover, MOST people don't engage in anal sex. Something about common sense...

Smirk.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with anal sex. But your "simple fact" is spin.
The "simple fact" is that most gay men engage in anal sex and most straight men don't.
Sex is fun! With whatever consenting adult partner(s) you like. Enjoy! But be safe.

Well Franke....you know what they say....if sex is a pain the the arse...you're doing it the wrong way!

Wat the Tyler wrote:

POLLS: DOMA Is Discrimination, Equality Is Inevitable
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/19/1610...
Two new polls released today show that the national momentum for supporting marriage equality continues.
The first poll, from the Respect for Marriage Coalition, found that American voters strongly support marriage equality, with 75 percent responding that the freedom to marry the person you love is a constitutional right. It seems clear that respondents appreciate the value of marriage equality, with 65 percent agreeing that it reflects offering “equal human dignity” to all people. And while 62 percent believe changing the law will have no impact on them, 83 percent believe that change will happen within the next decade. In sum, marriage equality is the right thing to do, poses no threat to society, and is coming soon.
The second poll, from the Center for American Progress and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), further clarifies that voters see the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as discriminatory. The poll focused on Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even when they’re legal in certain states. When the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of that law, the Justices might keep in mind that 59 percent oppose that law, with 62 percent agreeing that it is “discrimination. Though overall support for marriage equality hovers around 52 percent, much stronger majorities (69 – 78 percent) believe same-sex couples deserve the same benefits other married couples receive.
The infographic below features results from the DOMA poll:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2...

DOMA also bans plural marriage, that too is discriminatory. Marriage equality for all.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The huge difference is that straights have an option, gays don't. However, in either case, Anal sex is inherently Harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Moreover, MOST people don't engage in anal sex. Something about common sense...
Smirk.

Is that the same kind of common sense that has you believing in talking snakes, magic trees, a rib woman etc?

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t need to prove it, it was already proved by the people that removed them, go do your own research, I don’t report to you.
I am not ordering you do to anything, I am suggesting you actually take up the cause, or stop your incessant whining
posting in a forum whining that you don’t have poly marriage won’t do anything for you, zip.... nada.
Supporters of same sex marriage organized, brought lawyers to bear on civil action and are making progress.
You have nothing.. and you do nothing but whine and cry and complain that someone else doesn’t take up your cause for you.
well screw you kiddo, you want something done... go do it. Don’t whine around here for others to do it for you, we aren’t into the kind of welfare you are asking for.
I am already educated on the subject, you don’t seem to know anything at all. You don’t even comprehend the image problem your pet cause has, so.... the way to teach you is to have you go out and get the signatures, after a couple of weeks of that, you just might be aware that you have an image problem.

"I don't need to prove it." Yes you do, when you accuse people of crimes, the burden of proof is on you.

The government dropped the case due to lack of evidence and returned the traumatized children to their loving biological parents. Oprah went there and declared it cool. Oprah approved! What the hell more do you want bigot?

The government could have gone in a seized the real criminals, instead they arrested everybody and put their children in the notorious Texas child care system. Nice! But you don't care.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong. We have perfectly good laws against child abuse. And there is no religious exceptions.
Prove that those 460 children were all victims of abuse. The government couldn't. Good luck.
Don't perpetuate hate. You are completely wrong about polygamy. Please educate yourself. Myself and others have posted excellent links on happy, well adjusted polygamous families. You don't open them.
It's just like everything else, easy to be hard on groups you don't know. Hard to do it when you know them as normal loving committed adults. Please try and educate yourself or just ignore me. But to keep coming back over and over ordering me to take it to court is getting SO OLD. I will discuss it without following your orders whether you like it or not.
Hell, just watch one of the silly reality TV shows on poly. How can you say you don't care about these people? Are those people raping children you dumbass? Are they married to 13 year olds? Are the Jeffs? Stop being stupid.

Dumb fluckered

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
The huge difference is that straights have an option, gays don't. However, in either case, Anal sex is inherently Harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Moreover, MOST people don't engage in anal sex. Something about common sense...
Smirk.

Gay people don't have an opinion, my aren't you a bigot.

On the basis of one anonymous phone call (that later appeared to be a hoax), Texas authorities forcibly removed more than 460 children from their parents without evidence of actual abuse in each case. Parents and children were ordered to undergo DNA testing (Who knows how long the state will maintain the DNA database, or to what uses it will be put?), and the children were summarily consigned to the notorious Texas foster-care system. They were subsequently reunited with their parents on order of Texas courts, which rightly held that the state had acted unlawfully, but who knows how much damage was done?

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t need to prove it, it was already proved by the people that removed them, go do your own research, I don’t report to you.
I am not ordering you do to anything, I am suggesting you actually take up the cause, or stop your incessant whining
posting in a forum whining that you don’t have poly marriage won’t do anything for you, zip.... nada.
Supporters of same sex marriage organized, brought lawyers to bear on civil action and are making progress.
You have nothing.. and you do nothing but whine and cry and complain that someone else doesn’t take up your cause for you.
well screw you kiddo, you want something done... go do it. Don’t whine around here for others to do it for you, we aren’t into the kind of welfare you are asking for.
I am already educated on the subject, you don’t seem to know anything at all. You don’t even comprehend the image problem your pet cause has, so.... the way to teach you is to have you go out and get the signatures, after a couple of weeks of that, you just might be aware that you have an image problem.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q =duct+tape&hl=en&biw=1 024&bih=618&tbm=isch &tbnid=kn70Ltv7saMNCM: &imgrefurl=http://wehearti t.com/entry/30337068&docid =UR9BrWtNa_QRCM&imgurl=htt p://data.whicdn.com/images/303 37068/the-truth-about-duct-tap e_large.jpg&w=460&h=49 8&ei=uQMlUdT5FO3o2gWM9ICwD w&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,i :171&iact=rc&dur=1051 &sig=106557996882417990628 &page=1&tbnh=185&t bnw=172&start=0&ndsp=1 0&tx=61&ty=114

just sayin

Of course, I’m not suggesting that any parent have a religious right to harm their children by denying them medical care, subjecting them to sexual molestation, or otherwise abusing them. I’m simply pointing out that the state should not abuse the power to prosecute people or forcibly remove their children because authorities don’t approve of their “lifestyle.” Gay men were once routinely suspected of being pedophiles, a suspicion that persists today but with considerably less prevalence and respectability. Indeed, opposition to gay marriage still relies on specious arguments about the harm it poses to children. Some fools still compare homosexuality to bestiality, just as the Supreme Court once compared polygamy to human sacrifice. We progress when we base the extension of rights on reason, not bias or judicial hyperbole.

Excerpts from:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...

Same-sex marriages give polygamy a legal boost

By Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times Sunday, March 20, 2011

The outlook for polygamy hasn't been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.

Plural marriage remains illegal, but it's undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO's "Big Love" and TLC's "Sister Wives." More significantly, it's getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.

The federal government and most states define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.

Critics reject the polygamy comparison, arguing that marriage's definition as a union of two people remains inviolable. They also dismiss the specter of legalized polygamy as a scare tactic used by the traditional-marriage camp to chill public support for same-sex marriage.

Claiming much deeper roots in human society than gay marriage, plural marriage has been practiced for centuries in nations and cultures across the globe and has ties to both Christianity and Islam. Same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon confined to the secular West.

"Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."

Wayne McCormack, dean of the University of Utah law school, predicted a pro-polygamy legal challenge based on recent court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage is all but inevitable. Five states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage.

"I don't have any doubt we'll see it," said Mr. McCormack. "It's going to play out after same-sex marriage is resolved, but we're going to get new cases."

He pointed to a case now before a Canadian judge testing the national ban on polygamy. British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman is expected to rule later this year on whether anti-polygamy laws violate Canada's constitution. Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.

"What the Canadian court is looking at is whether restrictions against polygamy are a denial of personal liberty," said Mr. McCormack. "They're using the same arguments that we see used here to support gay marriage."

If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard,, he has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.

"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.
At the same time, he said, it won't just happen automatically if and when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Unlike Canadian courts, which can take up constitutional questions without being presented with a case, the pro-polygamy side will need a case, and so far that's been the problem.

Eight years ago, Mr. Barnard brought a case on behalf of a man and woman who were denied a marriage license because he was already married. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claim

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/...

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"I don't need to prove it." Yes you do, when you accuse people of crimes, the burden of proof is on you.
The government dropped the case due to lack of evidence and returned the traumatized children to their loving biological parents. Oprah went there and declared it cool. Oprah approved! What the hell more do you want bigot?
The government could have gone in a seized the real criminals, instead they arrested everybody and put their children in the notorious Texas child care system. Nice! But you don't care.

I have net accused anyone of any crimes at all, they were accused ( and convicted ) by the courts. I am just making you aware of it as you seem totally ignorant of the event.

I am not the law ( or Judge Dred )

I don’t know why they did it in the order that they did, but I can assume their first concern was to remove the children from a real an imminent threat. Go talk to them… that is who you have an issue with. Whining and crying on a forum here will get you nowhere, you have an issue with it… go do something about it.

I think we are getting to the base of your desire for polygamy, here you are defending the convicted criminals now.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Well Franke....you know what they say....if sex is a pain the the arse...you're doing it the wrong way!

And if it's real messy, you're doing it the right way!

Pietro Armando wrote:

Same-sex marriages give polygamy a legal boost
By Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times Sunday, March 20, 2011
The outlook for polygamy hasn't been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.
Plural marriage remains illegal, but it's undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO's "Big Love" and TLC's "Sister Wives." More significantly, it's getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.
Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy.
The federal government and most states define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. If marriage is redefined to include two people of the same sex, the argument goes, then it can be redefined to include more than two people.
Critics reject the polygamy comparison, arguing that marriage's definition as a union of two people remains inviolable. They also dismiss the specter of legalized polygamy as a scare tactic used by the traditional-marriage camp to chill public support for same-sex marriage.
Claiming much deeper roots in human society than gay marriage, plural marriage has been practiced for centuries in nations and cultures across the globe and has ties to both Christianity and Islam. Same-sex marriage is a recent phenomenon confined to the secular West.
"Unlike same-sex marriage, which has no historical roots and is a new frontier — you can't say the same thing about polygamy," said Austin Nimocks, attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes same-sex marriage. "There's a cultural underpinning and support for plural marriage, so one could say the case is actually stronger for plural marriage."
Wayne McCormack, dean of the University of Utah law school, predicted a pro-polygamy legal challenge based on recent court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage is all but inevitable. Five states and the District of Columbia now recognize gay marriage.
"I don't have any doubt we'll see it," said Mr. McCormack. "It's going to play out after same-sex marriage is resolved, but we're going to get new cases."
He pointed to a case now before a Canadian judge testing the national ban on polygamy. British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman is expected to rule later this year on whether anti-polygamy laws violate Canada's constitution. Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005.
"What the Canadian court is looking at is whether restrictions against polygamy are a denial of personal liberty," said Mr. McCormack. "They're using the same arguments that we see used here to support gay marriage."
If U.S. courts do eventually legalize plural marriage, there's an excellent chance that the attorney for the plaintiffs will be Brian Barnard,, he has been challenging anti-polygamy laws for decades.
"We haven't been successful, but we think the times are a-coming," said Mr. Barnard, who serves as legal director for the Utah Civil Rights and Liberties Foundation.
At the same time, he said, it won't just happen automatically if and when gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Unlike Canadian courts, which can take up constitutional questions without being presented with a case, the pro-polygamy side will need a case, and so far that's been the problem.
Eight years ago, Mr. Barnard brought a case on behalf of a man and woman who were denied a marriage license because he was already married. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their claim
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/...

It might if anyone would take any action with it.... but no one seems to be.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I have net accused anyone of any crimes at all, they were accused ( and convicted ) by the courts. I am just making you aware of it as you seem totally ignorant of the event.
I am not the law ( or Judge Dred )
I don’t know why they did it in the order that they did, but I can assume their first concern was to remove the children from a real an imminent threat. Go talk to them… that is who you have an issue with. Whining and crying on a forum here will get you nowhere, you have an issue with it… go do something about it.
I think we are getting to the base of your desire for polygamy, here you are defending the convicted criminals now.

How many of the 460 children's parents were convicted jackass? Come on, you're the expert and I know nothing. Tell us. How many?

What we are getting to is the base of your ignorance.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
It might if anyone would take any action with it.... but no one seems to be.

So what? Does that mean as Rose_NoHo says "it's not an equal rights issue, it just isn't"?

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
...you have an issue with it… go do something about it...

There you go again!

Come on, is that your best argument?

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go again!
Come on, is that your best argument?

I don’t have an argument, I don’t give a crap about it one way or the other.

I am trying to give you something to do other than to whine about it. Whining here will get nothing whatsoever done about it.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
How many of the 460 children's parents were convicted jackass? Come on, you're the expert and I know nothing. Tell us. How many?
What we are getting to is the base of your ignorance.

The leader that they collectively had sworn obedience to, to the point that they would give their underage children to older men for sex was convicted of quite a few.

When the children under 5 realized their mothers would be taken away, the children started crying and screaming, requiring CPS workers to pry many from their mothers.

Nice!