Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[enlightment]

he has brought it!

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No they are not now BUT THEY WERE. Damn you are thick as a brick.

But you keep trying to put them up front

this tactic is failing, states are accepting same sex marriage regardless of your desperate attempts

[Frankie Rizzo]

Xavier Breath wrote:

<quoted text>He is unteachable and incorrigible.

If you are trying to teach me that polyamorists don't deserve equal protection then yes, I am unteachable.

Because you are wrong. And you won't say why they don't deserve it, you just say "because it's against the law!"

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are trying to teach me that polyamorists don't deserve equal protection then yes, I am unteachable.
Because you are wrong. And you won't say why they don't deserve it, you just say "because it's against the law!"

No one is trying to teach you, we would have to be paid ( a lot ) for that. We are just laughing at you

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
But you keep trying to put them up front
this tactic is failing, states are accepting same sex marriage regardless of your desperate attempts

You know damn well I support SSM. How could I not without being a hypocrite like you? The old Big D "you're a liar" straw man.

Any desperation here is yours, you are getting dishonest again and you are not even bothering to conceal your bigotry and hypocrisy.

What you say about "the face of polygamy" is ugly hateful rhetoric NO DIFFERENT from what was said about homosexuals a few decades ago. You thinly disguise it by claiming it's not you, it's everybody else.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is trying to teach you, we would have to be paid ( a lot ) for that. We are just laughing at you

ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.

Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You know damn well I support SSM. How could I not without being a hypocrite like you? The old Big D "you're a liar" straw man.
Any desperation here is yours, you are getting dishonest again and you are not even bothering to conceal your bigotry and hypocrisy.
What you say about "the face of polygamy" is ugly hateful rhetoric NO DIFFERENT from what was said about homosexuals a few decades ago. You thinly disguise it by claiming it's not you, it's everybody else.

No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM

I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position

No one is fooled

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?

Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you are even more ignorant than I think you are

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.

You approve of this sh!t?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No I don’t believe for one moment that you support SSM
I know you say you do, but you constant tactics to try and distract, and your incessant attacks on anyone that supports SSM and your constant defending of anyone opposed exposes your actual position
No one is fooled

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.

Stephen Stills won’t help you

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I am not interested in a poly marriage.
I am only interested in discussing it in relation to same marriage equality. As I've told you countless times.
If it upsets you so much or you don't understand my points, it's not my problem, Just stop stalking me creep.

Got it you're a troll.

[Jazybird58]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
ha ha so funny. The government removed 436 children from their biological parents with no evidence of any crime or abuse beyond polygamy. ha ha ha! good one! A real knee slapper.
Little kids crying and terrified. In police cars and strange homes and orphanages away from their siblings. Not allowed to see their criminal parents. What a laugh eh?

Please provide a link to the news story.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL no one is afraid of you, and no one believes you.
Stephen Stills won’t help you

He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.

You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.

He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.

[Pietro Armando]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
No idea who that is, but you throw enough money at a lawyer and they will take just about anything to court.

A gay-wedding crasher
Editorial
A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah.
July 31, 2011
Jonathan Turley is probably not the most popular man right now with supporters of same-sex marriage. The George Washington University law professor has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Utah's anti-polygamy laws — and his argument is based on a landmark 2003 Supreme Court gay rights decision. That's not good news in the view of most gay rights supporters, who don't want their cause linked to that of polygamists any more than they want to see parallels drawn with people who engage in incest, bestiality and other taboo sexual practices.

The Utah case involves Kody Brown, his legal wife, Meri Brown, and three other "sister wives." It's not actually about marriage, and it doesn't challenge the right of the state to refuse to issue wedding licenses to polygamous families. The Browns are in court because they fear they will be prosecuted.

The 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence vs. Texas, was also a criminal matter unrelated to same-sex marriage. The court overturned the conviction of two men found to have violated a state law against same-sex sodomy. But in reaching that conclusion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered a paean to intimate relationships defined by sexuality that easily can be transferred to the context of same-sex marriage, and potentially to polygamous marriages as well:

"The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the [Constitution's] due process clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Kennedy emphasized in Lawrence that same-sex marriage wasn't before the court. Similarly, in an interview with the New York Times, Turley suggested that decriminalizing polygamy will not inevitably lead to a movement for polygamous marriage. But language addressed to one issue often surfaces in cases dealing with others. When Massachusetts' highest court decided to strike down the state's limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, it cited the Lawrence opinion.

So is polygamy about to receive the same legal status that same-sex marriage now has in several states? Not in the near term. For one thing, the U.S. Supreme Court has not recognized same-sex marriage, a prerequisite, some think, for acceptance of polygamous marriage. Meanwhile, the federal court in Utah, in parallel with Lawrence, may rule simply that the Browns and other polygamous families are immune to prosecution but can't have their multiple "spiritual marriages" blessed by the law.

But, like Lawrence, a ruling sympathetic to unconventional sexual behavior could plant the seeds of a future campaign for full marriage equality. In that case, governments would have to prove that it's rational to limit marriage to two individuals, homosexual or heterosexual. That might seem obvious, but so, at one time, did the argument that marriage should be confined to opposite-sex couples.

[Big D]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.

so.. how come a major move has not come up yet?

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
He won't help you either. Great argument you have there by the way.
You are afraid of the mention of polygamy. Or else why such a hostile reaction?

Oh no, it is your dishonesty that is so funny, I could care less about polygamy, I honestly think you could care less about polygamy too, other than how you can use it to attack supporters of Same Sex marriage.

[Frankie Rizzo]

One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, same sex, poly, incest even, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
He's a major force in the marriage equality movement, plural marriage division.

Big D knows nothing about the subject. According to him there is no one concerned about equal protection for polyamorists except me and some child molesters and welfare cheats.