Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Neil Andblowme]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Is on first.

Nobody

[Pietro Armando]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>Nobody

"Who's" on first, "What's" on second,....

[Nugent lost]

Did you see that yellow bellied ted nugent running down the road?

[Pietro Armando]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_No...

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you whining for a "redefinition" for polygamy?

Is it really redefining it?

Polygamy in the United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy (generally polygyny)[7] and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice.[8] Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.[8]

Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.[8] Utopian and communal groups established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny.(Loue, pp. 27–30) There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.[8]

Polygamy has also been practiced, discreetly, by some Muslims living in America.[9]

Christian polygamy is a more modern development of a polygamist culture.[10][11] They assert that the movement has no connection with Joseph Smith.

Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-19th century, and in many individual states before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited. Consequently, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of the practice in the past and at the present time.

[Nugent lost]

Some one give Ted Nugent bus-fare to get his sorry behind back home on his stuupid ranch.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Why are you so pissed?

I'm not. Why are you so stupid?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent suggestion, we could strike the word "marriage" from all government and legal use, and everyone can have a civil unions, legally defined however they want ( would even include Frankie's obsession ), and if they want to call it "marriage" that is just a personal preference.
Works for me, that way every individual little church could define “marriage” for their own little followers and it will have no legal significance.

The only obsession here is yours, Fruitcake. Your obsession with me.

Do you have a better argument against marriage equality then the Big D "You're obsessed!" Straw man? I admit it's better than your old "You're a liar!" straw man, but it's still a just a straw man designed to cover your hypocrisy.

Why are you a hypocrite against equal rights? Don't say because all poly people are criminals and child abusers, we heard that. It's ignorant and stupid.

What possible harm would a marriage of three adult committed women possibly cause your bigoted ass?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you whining for a "redefinition" for polygamy?

Nope. Just make it legal. Don't redefine it.

But I am whining for a redefinition of marriage to include same sex just like you.

I have no stake in it. But you do. You're welcome ingrate. Equality is for everyone, even bigots and hypocrites like you.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

Racial differences are tiny and unimportant but gender differences are great and essential to the survival of the human race. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for marriage as one man and one woman.
If you reject segregation, reject gender apartheid marriage; keep marriage integrated and gender diverse as male/female.

You said that if gay marriage became legal, then members of pro sports teams would be forced to marry each other against their wills. Have you estimated a time when you think that will start happening? Figured out who will be the first to be forced to marry? Members of the Ravens?

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
That's fine, marry who they wish, however it does not mean society has to legally redefine marriage for them.

But the current definition violates the 14th Amendment.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Neil Andblowme wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you whining for a "redefinition" for polygamy?

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15...

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
But the current definition violates the 14th Amendment.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/15...

[Rose_NoHo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki /Polygamy_in_North_America#sec tion_9
<quoted text>
Is it really redefining it?
Polygamy in the United States has a long history....

Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0

[Pietro Armando]

ABSTRACTThis article examines the validity of a challenge to anti-polygamy statutes through the Due Process Clause, beginning with a discussion of the social and legal history of polygamy in the United States. Polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time, has always been illegal in the United States. Those who have challenged the constitutionality of anti-polygamy statutes have generally done so through the First Amendment, claiming that anti-polygamy statutes impinge upon the free exercise of religion. In the United States, polygamy is almost exclusively associated with the Mormon Church. Thus, in order to fully understand the legal and social history of polygamy, it is necessary to begin with the history of the Mormon Church. The definitions of "marriage" and "family" are changing. The United States is no longer a society where nuclear families dominate. More states are beginning to recognize same-sex marriages and the percentage of divorced families and single-parent households continues to soar. While marriage was once a primarily public institution, it is becoming increasingly more private as courts recognize the need for families to personally define themselves without state interference.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
But the current definition violates the 14th Amendment.

That all depends on the intepreter. Some courts, judges, states say it does, other courts, judges, and states say it doesn't.

Here's Frankie's link.....see above.

[Big D]

Frankie RIzzo wrote:

<quoted text>
The only obsession here is yours, Fruitcake. Your obsession with me.
Do you have a better argument against marriage equality then the Big D "You're obsessed!" Straw man? I admit it's better than your old "You're a liar!" straw man, but it's still a just a straw man designed to cover your hypocrisy.
Why are you a hypocrite against equal rights? Don't say because all poly people are criminals and child abusers, we heard that. It's ignorant and stupid.
What possible harm would a marriage of three adult committed women possibly cause your bigoted ass?

Too stupid to read what I wrote I see

[Pietro Armando]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0

Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

[Frankie RIzzo]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you two trolls flooding the forum with posts about polygamy because you realize there isn't a good argument against gay marriage?
(One of you is clearly flying false colors, pretending to be for gay marriage.0

I'm the fake fundie I presume?

Who cares what you believe, you are stupid.

Why would I lie dummy? Think real hard and come up with your dopey reason, I would love to hear it.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage. Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about. Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

I cannot see how you can support one without supporting the other. And none of these clowns ever even attempt to explain it, they just straw man it or filibuster it. Dismiss is as a fish!(red herring)

You are consistent. You don't support either. I am consistent I support both. All these other jackasses support only same sex and are ignorant and bigoted about poly. They are hypocrites, plain and simple.

[Frankie RIzzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Too stupid to read what I wrote I see

Great argument fruitcake.

[Frankie RIzzo]

I love it. Anyone who doesn't agree with Rose_NoHo is a troll!