Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )

I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.

[Frankie Rizzo]

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.

Yes of course. So does the author and any intelligent person who read her essay.

She is not advocating polygamy for Mormons only dummy. She is advocating equal protection of the law.

[Frankie Rizzo]

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.

No effect? You can be sure every means used to get equal protection for same sex marriage will and should be used to get equal protection for poly. That's what EQUAL protection means "you flipping moron".

Every victory for same sex marriage bodes well for polygamy. That's the way it works, son.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes of course. So does the author and any intelligent person who read her essay.
She is not advocating polygamy for Mormons only dummy. She is advocating equal protection of the law.

Then she needs to take it before scotus. Frankiie I started a blog just for you. Some one posted to it already

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )
I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.

The government agrees with you and ripped 436 children from their biological parents with no crime or abuse alleged or committed beyond polygamy. These were happy normal kids in loving families.

Unfortunately for them SCOTUS just doesn't like polygamy. Nice!

I support equal protection even for everyone. Even unpopular people. You don't it seems.

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

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Then she needs to take it before scotus. Frankiie I started a blog just for you. Some one posted to it already

It's a dead link. Learn how to post a link you dopey obsessed cyberstalking creep!

You can write an essay without taking it to SCOTUS jackass. You can post about equal protection without being off topic dummy. And censorship sucks. And you're just an angry fool.

Hope that helps!

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I don’t have any problem with those pairings, or SSM parings raising children either ( I know of several )
I do wonder if we should look into our allowing religious fundamentalists to raise children, that is a rather hateful environment.

The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.

[Frankie Rizzo]

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 )

You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.

And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!

But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a dead link. Learn how to post a link you dopey obsessed cyberstalking creep!
You can write an essay without taking it to SCOTUS jackass. You can post about equal protection without being off topic dummy. And censorship sucks. And you're just an angry fool.
Hope that helps!

One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You can write an essay about equal protection without gathering signatures. You can post about it without gathering signatures.
And you can use diversionary tactics like calling my posts diversionary tactics too!
But you cannot avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

You can ( and do )post all day long, but it won’t do your pet obsession any good at all, you certainly are not changing anyone’s opinion.

The only thing that will do it any good is for you to get the signatures needed for a proposition and put it on a ballot, that will elicit a response from the general public.

And then you can work from there, right not you are not at step one yet, you are just using it as a way to attack those that are for same sex marriage ( which so far has been your only point )

[Big D]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The poses the question of how is "religious fundamentalism" defined. Any abuse regardless of the source has to be dealt with.

I agree

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You can ( and do )post all day long, but it won’t do your pet obsession any good at all, you certainly are not changing anyone’s opinion.
The only thing that will do it any good is for you to get the signatures needed for a proposition and put it on a ballot, that will elicit a response from the general public.
And then you can work from there, right not you are not at step one yet, you are just using it as a way to attack those that are for same sex marriage ( which so far has been your only point )

Why do you refuse to discuss equal protection of the law?

Do I tell you you cannot support equal protection for same sex without gathering signatures?

Please educate yourself. Do you agree the government was right in denying these parents equal protection of the law? Why?

Why is it OK to deny them the same equal protection that same sex marriage gets?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree

That's right. There are laws against all the crimes you ignorantly accuse polygamists of, no need to make their marriage a crime. Prosecute criminals to the full extent of the law NO MATTER what type of marriage they are in.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

I must have missed all his support for equal protection, perhaps you could give me a post number?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>One more time, I do not have a problem with poly. Got it? Hey your thread does exist

Where in that post did I say you did?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Neither do I, but he will pretend you do as that is the only way to attack you with it, which is his only point.

You "don't have a problem with it", but you say everyone else does because polygamists are child rapists, welfare cheats and all around bad actors!

Priceless!

[SeaQuesters]

Just who are the SeaQuesters?

They are a small group of ultra-nutty GOP, Republican

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You "don't have a problem with it", but you say everyone else does because polygamists are child rapists, welfare cheats and all around bad actors!
Priceless!

You aren’t bright enough to comprehend the truth of that, but others here are.

Right now the public face of polygamy is indeed child molesters and welfare cheats.

You need to change that

I would vote in favor of polygamy if it came up because I don’t see a valid reason to specifically disallow it. But that vote is not pending, and will not be coming up until you change the face of the most public supporters of it.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
You aren’t bright enough to comprehend the truth of that, but others here are.
Right now the public face of polygamy is indeed child molesters and welfare cheats.
You need to change that
I would vote in favor of polygamy if it came up because I don’t see a valid reason to specifically disallow it. But that vote is not pending, and will not be coming up until you change the face of the most public supporters of it.

Right. Same as it was for same sex marriage. I'm old enough to remember when people said the same ignorant and nasty things you said about poly about homosexuals.

They are known child molesters they used to say. Thankfully that has changed for them and hopefully it will change for poly too once people are educated.

When you keep saying people have a bad perception it is true. We need education to change that which I'm trying to do. But you shout me down. You say equal protection for poly is not to be discussed, only equal protection for same sex is allowed to be discussed.