Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Pietro somehow thinks that its impossible for two men or two women to raise a child.

And you don't think at all.

[Big D]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>It's true, women are in the line of fire now, even when they aren't assigned to combat units. Putting women in combat units will cause more death and injury in combat and training.
If you respect women, keep the out of the front lines and keep marriage one man and one woman.

I do respect them, and will give them the same rights as anyone else. If they want combat roles and can handle the job ( many have already shown they can ) I won’t be the one to stop them.

Same as I will work for equal rights for gay folks.

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Pietro somehow thinks that its impossible for two men or two women to raise a child.

I know for a fact that isn’t true, I work with a gay couple raising twin daughters, they are a wonderful family, respected at work and in the community.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
And you don't think at all.

Who's a good boy?

[Jazybird58]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I know for a fact that isn’t true, I work with a gay couple raising twin daughters, they are a wonderful family, respected at work and in the community.

Don't let the fundies read that. They still think you can catch the Gay.

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Don't let the fundies read that. They still think you can catch the Gay.

Well they also believe in talking snakes, magical trees, a rib woman, and ... well the list goes on.

I don’t worry too much about what they believe

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Who's a good boy?

Great post Fruitcake! One of your best. But now that you've had your little hissyfit, lets get back to the topic, marriage equality.

Don't you agree that the Judge's decision bodes well for polygamy and all other marriage rights too?

[Frankie Rizzo]

sheesh void of hate wrote:

<quoted text>
I've got two of 'em. Both '78s and neither is for sale. One is a work in progress (one day it'll be a sidecar rig) and the other is bone stock - the one in my pic. I've owned it since new. Last one sold at a Honda dealership in Tennessee in 1979. They ran an add in a Nashville paper listing 12 K models and 12 F models on clearance. I wanted an F. It took 12 Fs and 11 Ks to talk my father into cosigning on the bank loan. The princely sum of $1800. You can't touch a scooter for that money now. In a few years you probably won't be able to touch a pack of gum for it.

Sorry Sheesh, simply responding to my posts positively causes you many negative judge-its!

As you know I can and do declare I support same sex marriage but when I do I still get negative judge-its. They say I am fibbing. It's a trick! I'm a secret fundie spy!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I do respect them, and will give them the same rights as anyone else. If they want combat roles and can handle the job ( many have already shown they can ) I won’t be the one to stop them.
Same as I will work for equal rights for gay folks.

But not those child abusing welfare cheating polygamists.

[Frankie Rizzo]

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

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Great post Fruitcake! One of your best. But now that you've had your little hissyfit, lets get back to the topic, marriage equality.
Don't you agree that the Judge's decision bodes well for polygamy and all other marriage rights too?

Fluck are you stuck on stoopid? I have told you NO on many occasions. The Judges ruling has no bearing on polygamy at all. The flucking thread is about voters trying to remove an existing right, based on a persons sexuality. That's discrimination you flipping moron.

[Jazybird58]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Well they also believe in talking snakes, magical trees, a rib woman, and ... well the list goes on.
I don’t worry too much about what they believe

The ole burning bush trick.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.

So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Fluck are you stuck on stoopid? I have told you NO on many occasions. The Judges ruling has no bearing on polygamy at all. The flucking thread is about voters trying to remove an existing right, based on a persons sexuality. That's discrimination you flipping moron.

I think he is stuck on stupid, he is still working the same tactic that has failed over and over and over and he is still on it.

Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

Opponents of gay rights often warn that legalizing same-sex marriage would inexorably lead to legalizing polygamy. Maybe it would, and maybe it should. Denying gay couples the right to marry violates state constitutional guarantees of equality, as the California and Massachusetts high courts have rightly ruled.(The Supreme Court of California also held that the right to marry is fundamental.) Surely Mormons have the same rights to equal treatment under law—and of course, they have a substantial First Amendment claim to engage in multiple marriages according to the dictates of their faith.
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

Do you understand that laws that allow polygamy for Mormons only would be Unconstitutional? You need to hire a lawyer and take it before SCOTUS.

[Jazybird58]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I think he is stuck on stupid, he is still working the same tactic that has failed over and over and over and he is still on it.
Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

I started a thread just for him. His very own blogg

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Do you understand that laws that allow polygamy for Mormons only would be Unconstitutional? You need to hire a lawyer and take it before SCOTUS.

That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )

It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever

Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )

[Pietro Armando]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Pietro somehow thinks that its impossible for two men or two women to raise a child.

Pietro knows its biological impossible for two men or two women to create a child that is the biological product of their union. Pietro also knows two women can raise a child as evidenced by single mothers, and their mother, raising her child/her grandchild together. Or two adult sisters. Contrary to some SSMer's beliefs, there are tether examples of same gendered pairs, other than couples, raising children. Are you in favor of marriage protections for children's being raised by those pairings?

[Pietro Armando]

Here’s the problem: There’s no principled way to exclude polyamory from marriage, if one adopts the principles being argued by same-sex marriage advocates.

They argue: Marriage is about making a contract with the person you love.

They argue: Marriage equality (the right to marry whom you want) is a civil rights issue.

They argue: Other marriage constructions will not affect your marriage.

All of these arguments support polyamory equally as well as same-sex marriage. So now, when it suits them, they’re calling on the authority of “tradition,” without any means of justifying their preference for two people only.

There is, in fact, no principle behind their preferred boundaries at all. All they can do is declare their definition to be the correct one:

Alex Greenwich, the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, told The Australian that his lobby group's concept of marriage was "what it's always been" of "two people who rely on each other in a relationship to the exclusion of all others".

That actually is not the concept of marriage that “has always been.” The concept of marriage that “has always been” is one where the boundaries are principled because they’re conformed to the nature of reality—the complementary differences between men and women.

The reproductive system is the only bodily system that requires another person to complete it. The bringing together of two physically complementary persons completes this system, and that is the type of union that society has an interest in protecting because that act is the act that produces children (whether or not it does so in any particular case*). If the union of a man and a woman didn't have the social consequences of creating a family by nature, marriage (the stabilization of that union by society) would never have existed.

Why define marriage as two people? Because two people complete the union that society has an interest in protecting.

Why define marriage as a man and a woman? Because those are the complementary persons whose union creates new life.

The traditional marriage advocate is arguing not from bigotry or even from tradition, but from principles of reality that remain unchanged despite anyone’s personal preferences.

By contrast, these same-sex marriage advocates are refusing to apply their principles equally to everybody. This is inconsistency at best and bigotry at worst.

[Jazybird58]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what I keep telling him, get the signatures and put it on the ballot.( but he really doesn’t want to do that )
It isn’t going to be a serious discussion worth anything at all until he does that. Nothing before the courts right now will have any effect on it whatsoever
Just a diversionary tactic ( that continues to fail miserably )

http://www.topix.com/forum/new s/gay/T488NGRGQ6RR0N6FM

just fer frankiee