Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>Equal protection, yes.... unless the State can show a legitimate interest in denying it. Do you think simple arithmetic might come into play when talking about equal? How is 3 equal to 2? How is 5 equal to two? How is 3 equal to 5?

I'd be interested in reading your definition of what qualifies as "legitimate interest" ? Please, expound sagely on what legitimizes "legitimate interest" ?

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you so intent on hijacking this thread?

You have got to be kidding....How does one "hijack' this threa...Wait a minute, never mind, we all have the answer to that question, all we have to do is read what you and Big D and Chongo post to comprehend "hijacking" this thread..

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you trying to say three is equal to two? Maybe on your planet. Is 5 equal to two? Is 5 equal to three?

He didn't say that they were....you are obfuscating (again)...Mike's assertion is that you are perfectly comfortable diminishing the rights of a group that you don't agree with. And he is correct. Bigotry, at it's purest.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
Lean to read English.... is English you native language? Maybe I can have what I am saying translated into whatever language is used where you come from.
I don’t have a huge problem with poly marriage. I have a problem with other crimes that are nearly always associated with it. And will not tolerate many of the current adherents of it and their cruel molestation and mistreatment of their young, or the fraud they use to gain multiple government assistance checks at our expense.

Those evils that you mention are prevalent in many groups, not specific to polygamists...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
What legally married gay couple is getting multiple government assistence checks?
You're about as bright as a black hole.

Well, there are 2 men or women calling themselves spouses, so there's that...The, when they adopt, they get to add to the "family" so there's that, too..."hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha"

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>
I always knew that was where you were going, and have been saying so for weeks.
Standard bait and switch tactic, all the opponents of same sex marriage use, and the funny part is the comparison they make is to religious people.
dishonest to the core
Your argument will get no where you relies
Same sex marriage is happening and will continue to happen in more and more states and countries.
Your pet issue is going exactly nowhere.

Of course, his re-tooling of the argument that you use is completely erroneous and unfair. Imagine that argument holding its validity, just because of mere substitution....What nerve....It only works if gays are the protected ones...Else, it is a bunch of bull-shit, right ?

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because the trial testimony was about SSM and NOT poly, the ruling was about SSM, not poly, the appeal was about SSM, not poly, the appeals court ruling was about SSM and not poly. The appeal to SCOTUS is about SSM, not poly. When SCOTUS overturns Prop 8, SSM will be legal again, poly will NOT.

...Until it gets raised, using the same arguments that have carried SSM this far, then, we shall see...

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
How can you label it arbitrary? You think the number two was picked at random with no reasoning behind it? Out of all the numbers, why pick two? No reason? Seriously???????
INDEFENSIBLE???????? hahahahahahah
OK.... I'm done. You don't have the intellect to discuss this. You are unteachable and incorrigible.

Of course, it was arbitrary. Can you explain the logic behind the decision to limit the number to "2", Miss Thing ?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Those evils that you mention are prevalent in many groups, not specific to polygamists...

Ain't it fun when I bring out Big D's inner bigot?

Polygamists are "child molesters who force underage girls to marry them"! They are welfare cheats! Etc. Nice!

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You haven't rejected God and ratchet yet. May I ask how old are you sir?

NO! You may not. Now sit down.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You do not no ratchet! Anyway, when you ask people to look at ratchet and my posts, can you also ask them to post on here?
And what responses did you get? Do tell me, without blushing!

(Points to LittleBrain and whispers to the audience) "This boi's an idiot"

[Frankie Rizzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, it was arbitrary. Can you explain the logic behind the decision to limit the number to "2", Miss Thing ?

Janey Doody says it's logical to drop the gender part of "one man, one woman" but it's not logical to drop the number part. He won't explain why. He just tries to give me dopey arithmetic lessons when I ask.

[Randy -Rock- Hudson]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Janey Doody says it's logical to drop the gender part of "one man, one woman" but it's not logical to drop the number part. He won't explain why. He just tries to give me dopey arithmetic lessons when I ask.

(Points to JodieDoDo and whispers to the audience) "This boi's an idiot, too"

[Largelanguage]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
NO! You may not. Now sit down.

Easy does it, queer. I liked you better when you were sobbing and tearing up over Jim Nabors "marrying" that other phagg rather than you.
You can still hook up with some of the other gaylords on this forum. I'm sure Frankie Rizzo will swap cowper's fluid with you.

[Messageboard]

Net have been pulled in and repaired.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You called people, "boi" first, frankie! Explain to me! I am putting you to the test like a good believer!

I have never called anyone "boi" Fruitcake. Don't lie.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said that? It certainly wasn't me! Jane Dodo Or Mikey/Frankie I presume!

That's just the punkass troll from El Lay.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:

<quoted text>
...Until it gets raised, using the same arguments that have carried SSM this far, then, we shall see...

It seems the man named Jane is a huge bigot and a hypocrite (but we knew that).

He thinks if he stomps his little feetsies and clenches his little fisties, poly will go away and will never get the same consideration or respect his favored form of marriage does.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yes you have! I've seen you!

I call bullshit. Produce the post #.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean Jane Dodo?

No. I mean the punkass troll from L.A.

Janey Doody is the hypocrite from Hoboken.

Hey, that has a nice ring to it! The hypocrite from Hoboken!