Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
What did I just say jackass? What a dope!
You consider poly my "obsession", and "off topic", and not reality only because you fear discussing it.
What do you have against three atheist men marrying? How will it hurt you or your marriage?

Learn to read, poly is your obsession not mine, I could give a flip about it, and nothing is about to change with regard to law for the next couple of decades

I don’t have anything against you, but am informing you that nothing is going to come of it in the foreseeable future, religious fanatics have already made certain of that.

Not true with same sex marriage, that is a reality today, more and more states and nations are recognizing same sex marriage, and it has not hurt anyone’s heterosexual marriage at all. That argument has already been made in court, no harm was shown to heterosexual marriage whatsoever.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Learn to read, poly is your obsession not mine, I could give a flip about it, and nothing is about to change with regard to law for the next couple of decades

Did I say poly was your obsession dummy? Learn to read.

So what if you don't give a flip about poly? Most people don't give a flip about SSM. What do I care what you give a flip about? So what if it might not be decades? Are these your real reasons to deny equal rights?

By what logic do you insist on the traditional, arbitrary, religious and discriminatory number of two?

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Did I say poly was your obsession dummy? Learn to read.
So what if you don't give a flip about poly? Most people don't give a flip about SSM. What do I care what you give a flip about? So what if it might not be decades? Are these your real reasons to deny equal rights?
By what logic do you insist on the traditional, arbitrary, religious and discriminatory number of two?

As I said, you obsession, I am not interested, and nothing whatsoever is going to come of it, as there are groups of people that have put a stain on that concept that will linger for some time.

You should be ranting at them, not me.

[Jazybird58]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The statement above is untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never discussed sin or written homosexuality is sick, those are Jazybird58'S words, not mine.
Many homosexuals believe in protecting male/female marriage too. Conservatism doesn't have a sexual orientation.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TBQ0DHC...

So I will not find any post by you on this thread, correct?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
As I said, you obsession, I am not interested, and nothing whatsoever is going to come of it, as there are groups of people that have put a stain on that concept that will linger for some time.
You should be ranting at them, not me.

If someone mentions Mars in conversations about the solar system do you whine to them that they have an "obsession" with Mars?

And so what if they do? They're not allowed to? You go out of your way to complain and censor them or filibuster religion? You'll call them liars?

What a jerk.

[sheesh void of hate]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
No child, Brain-G is a smart and creative person, if you listen to what he says. Brian-G is saying that police put in regulations to try to stop sex in prison, standard. So therefore gay marriage would be one of their ways to stop it, young turd!

Police don't put in any regulations, numpty. It ain't their job. They're not even working in prisons. That would be the prison guards jobs. To date what we've got from Brian_G on prisons and same sex marriage is some rather odd claim that it will cause FORCED marriages to occur in prisons. When aske for evidence of these FORCED marriages all he's come up with are 3, yup, three, marriages in Canadian federal prisons since 2005! Not one shred of evidence that any one of them was FORCED! Yup, smart and creative.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
...as there are groups of people that have put a stain on that concept that will linger for some time...

That's ignorance and bigotry.

Some homosexuals are bad too. Does that mean we should not allow SSM? Of course not.

[sheesh void of hate]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
No, Gullibility of Hate, it is a fact that you are merely the stupid one. Is that all you call people, when you see they are far more intellectual and much more dynamic cognitively?

Jen Ewe Wine LOL!

Point out to me where Brian_G has proven, with valid evidence and argument, that same sex marriage will create FORCED marriages in prison. His evidence to date consists of 3 same sex marriages performed in Canadian federal prisons since 2005. Bubbas are just lining up to force their weak little cell mates to marry 'em aren't they?

I call people stupid when they've made it painfully clear that they are. Got it, stupid?

[Big D]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuality is evil, I have good solid evidence to support it!

I have proof that you are an ignorant moron

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
That's ignorance and bigotry.
Some homosexuals are bad too. Does that mean we should not allow SSM? Of course not.

On their part, yes it is, their ignorance and bigotry has doomed your obsession for the next couple of decades at least. Not because I say so, it is the simple truth

It doesn’t matter what I think of it, or you, you can rant and scream like a little kid all day long, it wont change a thing.

However I am willing to make you a wager,( never give a sucker an even break) that nothing will come of it legally for the next couple of decades.

Not because I say so, just an observation

SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.

[Candles]

The cathloic church took your money before and yor children's vrginity and how, Archdiocese weighs huge fund drive amid scandal.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
On their part, yes it is, their ignorance and bigotry has doomed your obsession for the next couple of decades at least. Not because I say so, it is the simple truth
It doesn’t matter what I think of it, or you, you can rant and scream like a little kid all day long, it wont change a thing.
However I am willing to make you a wager,( never give a sucker an even break) that nothing will come of it legally for the next couple of decades.
Not because I say so, just an observation
SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.

So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.

Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
...SSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.

You know I support same sex marriage, don't start lying again.

And you know I am not obsessed with polygamy. I'm real tired of your dishonest tactics.

[GlendoraTimes]

A Southland U.S. postal worker was on unpaid leave Feburary 05, 2013 Tuesday after assaulting an 11-year-old girl.

Several witness have placed the postal worker with is hands around young girls neck.

play

Postal worker placed on leave after alleged assault
Claudia Peschiutta

00:00

Download


Villasenor, 55, of Temple City, was allegedly involved in a choking incident on Monday afternoon at a bathroom at Bristow Park in the city of Commerce, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

When deputies from the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station arrived, the young girl told deputies that a postal worker had choked her with his hands for laughing at him when he tried to use the restroom facilities and inadvertently entered the women’s restroom.



U.S. Postal Service spokesman Richard Maher told Peschiutta the veteran letter carrier was on duty when he allegedly went after the girl.

“We have taken him off duty and placed him in a non-pay status while the incident is being investigated,” said Maher.

Villasenor has worked for the Postal Service since 1981.

KCAL9&#8242;s Suraya Fadel reports there was no response when she knocked at the door of Villasenor’s Temple City residence even though it was clear there were people inside the home.

Villasenor is being held at the East Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station. His bail has been set at $100,000.

The investigation is being handled by the Sheriff’s Department’s Special Victims Bureau.

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.
Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.

Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesn’t matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.

did you want to make the wager?

[Arrest Mahony]

Cardinal Roger Mahony shielded abusive priests for decades.

Because of legal stalling, hypocritical posturing and a statute of limitations for prosecuting offenders guilty of child endangerment, Mahony may avoid arrest, indictment and conviction.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesn’t matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.
did you want to make the wager?

No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?

Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:

-I don't care.
-Polygamists are bad people.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.

Did I miss any?

[Big D]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Big D can't tolerate other peoples opinions, thats his bigotry he has.

It isn’t an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie don’t understand.

it doesn’t matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didn’t say me ), specifically voters.

I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.

You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference

[Big D]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?
Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:
-I don't care.
-Polygamists are bad people.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.
Did I miss any?

lets see

-I don't care.... true
-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.
-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true
-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true

[Pietro Armando]

http://www.dailyutahchronicle.com/...

The fight for gay marriage is opening doors for polygamy

by: Rachel Jackson on August 30, 2012

I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder — if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why can’t a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?

A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” was investigated on charges of polygamy.

Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was “unconstitutional” because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the family’s attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are “sister wives,” hence the title of the show — they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.

When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?

However, much to my — and many other people’s — dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns’ favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.

The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.

“Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults,” Turley wrote in the blog.

Although they still have a long way to go, the “Sister Wives” stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.

The “Sister Wives” show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.

The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for “private relations among consenting adults,” then the number should not matter any more than sex.

This isn’t to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.


Contact Rachel Jackson at [e-mail]