Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settl...

Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

There are 929 comments on the The Washington Post story from Aug 17, 2014, titled Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

A whole lot of judges who are being asked to decide whether states may ban same-sex couples from marrying think the Supreme Court clearly gave them the answer last year: no.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#239 Aug 24, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not listening, either. I don't know why you all want to see polygamous families left hanging without sufficient legal protections. Are you just looking for 1,138 ways to SCREW these families over? Because that's what you're setting up to happen.
I do not want to see polygamist families left hanging, I am only saying that they should make their own rules for them selves as they find they need them, that it is premature for you to try and start writing the rules until you see if any problems crop up.

The first time we went to the moon, we didn't go knowing we'd make it back, we went there to see if we would make it back.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#240 Aug 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be deleted for spamming bible verses in Finnish. Just sayin'
I have cautioned WW about that as well.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#241 Aug 24, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, not all forms of marriage are interchangeable.
<quoted text>
Yawn, is that news? Does it have anything to do with what I said? No and No.

Apples, oranges and pears and all different but they are all fruits.
Two, three and four are all different but they are all numbers.
Traditional marriage, gay marriage and polygamy are all different but they are all marriages

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#242 Aug 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
I do not want to see polygamist families left hanging, I am only saying that they should make their own rules for them selves as they find they need them, that it is premature for you to try and start writing the rules until you see if any problems crop up.
You're right, I would not presume to write any rules for them, they should make their own rules. I don't want that job. That's why it's ultimately up to polygamists to be the impetus for their own rights. No one could file a suit for gay rights except a gay person, and no one can file a suit for polygamist rights except a polygamist.
Reverend Alan wrote:
The first time we went to the moon, we didn't go knowing we'd make it back, we went there to see if we would make it back.
But we had a pretty good plan of HOW to get back. We knew there was a risk that some part of the plan could fail, but it's not like we were hoping that the astronauts would figure it out when they got there. We sent them with the tools they needed.

If we're going to support legal recognition of polygamous families, then we should also be sure they're supplied with the legal tools they'll need. We don't just blindly tell them to use the existing legal structure and hope it all works out. We carefully review it, line by line, to make sure it still fits perfectly for everyone. Expecting this to be done beforehand is neither denial nor discrimination. It's prudent. And it's for the protection of polygamists themselves as much as it is for everyone else.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#243 Aug 24, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not want to see polygamist families left hanging, I am only saying that they should make their own rules for them selves as they find they need them, that it is premature for you to try and start writing the rules until you see if any problems crop up.
Exactly. The people I've met in polyamorous relationships have all found different problems and solved them differently. I personally feel that the multi-person dynamics are too difficult for most people to navigate.[Heck, it appears that most people can't navigate the dynamic of ONE spouse, let alone many.]

On the other hand, I do know that some people create successful polyamorous relationships, with or without the recognition of the government. And nobody stops them. Their relationships are not illegal. They are merely unrecognized.

All things considered, I'd prefer that people involved in these relationships enjoy the support of society, and that each member be protected in the relationship. I just don't yet know how the rest of the society can facilitate their relationships. And until polygamists let us know what kind of support and protection they want, we can't say "Yes." To do so would be to interfere irresponsibly.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#244 Aug 24, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. The people I've met in polyamorous relationships have all found different problems and solved them differently. I personally feel that the multi-person dynamics are too difficult for most people to navigate.[Heck, it appears that most people can't navigate the dynamic of ONE spouse, let alone many.]
On the other hand, I do know that some people create successful polyamorous relationships, with or without the recognition of the government. And nobody stops them. Their relationships are not illegal. They are merely unrecognized.
All things considered, I'd prefer that people involved in these relationships enjoy the support of society, and that each member be protected in the relationship. I just don't yet know how the rest of the society can facilitate their relationships. And until polygamists let us know what kind of support and protection they want, we can't say "Yes." To do so would be to interfere irresponsibly.
I would say that one person could be outnumbered and feel really bad about it. It would be difficult to maintain such a relationship. I agree. More than one would be impossible.
Rick Perry s Closet

Philadelphia, PA

#245 Aug 24, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
You're going to harp in it because you have nothing to occupy your two brain cells.I guess I'll just harp on you being a moron.
<quoted text>
No, because I think you're a disingenuous creep.

People only demand "proof" of thing they're not already aware of.

It is not possible you have not seen the many, many instances of racist, anti Semitic, anti Catholic or pedo posts from foxy / frank s / daniel from.

You're clueless, of course, but you haven't been in a fugue state for years.
Rick Perry s Closet

Philadelphia, PA

#246 Aug 24, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
So things are the same or exact opposites? Critical thinking--look into it, twit.
<quoted text>
You're a disingenuous cretin. I said the two phrases are "close enough"; they both get invoked to suggest rights which are not specifically mentioned - pursuit of happiness versus blessings of liberty.

And I quoted a law dictionary with definitions. They are close enough.

If the two phrases do not in your tiny mind have the similarity that I show they do, then you must be saying the two phrases are opposites of one another. They are not.

No wonder you're outraged. That's damn unfair of me to use easily available, easily understand source material.

Now I think you're due to deny ever having seen a racist remark from foxy....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#247 Aug 24, 2014
A tiger, a vole, and a rhino are all mammals, but all have different requirements. Only an idiot treats them the same way. You talk about three forms of marriage, but pretend they are without intrinsic and vital differences.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn, is that news? Does it have anything to do with what I said? No and No.
Apples, oranges and pears and all different but they are all fruits.
Two, three and four are all different but they are all numbers.
Traditional marriage, gay marriage and polygamy are all different but they are all marriages

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#248 Aug 24, 2014
I demand proof when someone makes a claim. Yours is a subjective claim; it doesn't matter what I have or have not seen. If you can't back up your assertions, man up and admit it. But we know you can'[t and won't.
Rick Perry s Closet wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because I think you're a disingenuous creep.
People only demand "proof" of thing they're not already aware of.
It is not possible you have not seen the many, many instances of racist, anti Semitic, anti Catholic or pedo posts from foxy / frank s / daniel from.
You're clueless, of course, but you haven't been in a fugue state for years.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#249 Aug 24, 2014
Sorry, fucwit, but legal terms are pretty frigging specific; they have to be to facilitate application. The definitions you posted weren't "close enough" Nor do two things have to be similar or opposites; that's appallingly stupid.

Try this, idiot. Ask a lawyer if they are interchangeable in a court of law.
Rick Perry s Closet wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a disingenuous cretin. I said the two phrases are "close enough"; they both get invoked to suggest rights which are not specifically mentioned - pursuit of happiness versus blessings of liberty.
And I quoted a law dictionary with definitions. They are close enough.
If the two phrases do not in your tiny mind have the similarity that I show they do, then you must be saying the two phrases are opposites of one another. They are not.
No wonder you're outraged. That's damn unfair of me to use easily available, easily understand source material.
Now I think you're due to deny ever having seen a racist remark from foxy....
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#250 Aug 25, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say that one person could be outnumbered and feel really bad about it. It would be difficult to maintain such a relationship. I agree. More than one would be impossible.
Sniveling about polygamy eh?

Polygamy is not for you then. But what right do you have to declare it shouldn't be allowed for people who choose it?

Same sex marriage is not for me. I support it though.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#251 Aug 25, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
A tiger, a vole, and a rhino are all mammals, but all have different requirements. Only an idiot treats them the same way. You talk about three forms of marriage, but pretend they are without intrinsic and vital differences.
<quoted text>
A tiger a vole and a rhino walk into a bar. The bartender says what are you having boys? They call the ACLU and get the bartender arrested because he treated them all the same.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#252 Aug 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, I would not presume to write any rules for them, they should make their own rules. I don't want that job. That's why it's ultimately up to polygamists to be the impetus for their own rights. No one could file a suit for gay rights except a gay person, and no one can file a suit for polygamist rights except a polygamist.
<quoted text>
But we had a pretty good plan of HOW to get back. We knew there was a risk that some part of the plan could fail, but it's not like we were hoping that the astronauts would figure it out when they got there. We sent them with the tools they needed.
If we're going to support legal recognition of polygamous families, then we should also be sure they're supplied with the legal tools they'll need. We don't just blindly tell them to use the existing legal structure and hope it all works out. We carefully review it, line by line, to make sure it still fits perfectly for everyone. Expecting this to be done beforehand is neither denial nor discrimination. It's prudent. And it's for the protection of polygamists themselves as much as it is for everyone else.
That it's not as easy to legalize polygamy as it was for SSM is irrelevant. I fail to see why you insist on telling us how hard it will be to give everyone equal protection. Is it a reason to deny equal protection? Just what is your point? Please. So what?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#253 Aug 25, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. The people I've met in polyamorous relationships have all found different problems and solved them differently. I personally feel that the multi-person dynamics are too difficult for most people to navigate.[Heck, it appears that most people can't navigate the dynamic of ONE spouse, let alone many.]....
The missing piece here is that the courts need to have laws in place to give them direction on how to proceed with the countless variations of new family law situations that would crop up under legally recognized polygamous families:

What if one wife wants to divorce the husband, but not the other wife? Can she do that? Can you be married to two people, but them not be married to each other?

What about child custody and/or responsibility? Can one of the mothers that's not the bio-mom take over custody and responsibility for a child of one of the other wives? Can she be forced to? Can she barred from it? Does she already have it by default? What level of parenting responsibility comes along with marrying into the group? Any? All of it?

What about multiple husbands in the family? Are they jointly and severally responsible for all the children? Just their bio-children? What about the children that were born to the other father before the second one joined the marriage? Is Dad #2 responsible for all of them, too?

What if one of the husbands/fathers wants to divorce the group? Does he have to pay child support for all the kids? Or just his own? Or not at all since there are other fathers/husbands still in the group that are liable to care for the children? How does THAT work?

The courts need guidance in order to equitably and fairly treat any and all polygamous families that will inevitably be coming to them with issues that need settling. Courts aren't supposed to "figure it out as problems arise". Lawmakers, consulting with specialists in the field, are supposed to figure that stuff out to give the courts the direction they need to decide cases. Only when lawmakers don't do their jobs in that regard should the courts be left to figure things out on their own.(and we ALL know how much screaming and crying and "activist judge!!!" accusations go down when THAT happens--do we really want to go there with polygamy??)

All the jumping up and down and demanding equal rights for polygamous families is just a big ol' waste of time as long as no one wants to address these very real issues that such recognition would create.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#254 Aug 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not want to see polygamist families left hanging, I am only saying that they should make their own rules for them selves as they find they need them, that it is premature for you to try and start writing the rules until you see if any problems crop up.
The first time we went to the moon, we didn't go knowing we'd make it back, we went there to see if we would make it back.
Edmund is trying to tell us that he has the best of intentions on mind when he tells some people their choice of marriage is illegal. It's for their own good you see. They will be better off and not left hanging that way, you see. Problem solved.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#255 Aug 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I have cautioned WW about that as well.
It would get me banned. But I am in a special "problem child" category and receive greater and tighter scrutiny because gay good straight bad and Frankie REALLY bad.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#256 Aug 25, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
The missing piece here is that the courts need to have laws in place to give them direction on how to proceed with the countless variations of new family law situations that would crop up under legally recognized polygamous families:
What if one wife wants to divorce the husband, but not the other wife? Can she do that? Can you be married to two people, but them not be married to each other?
What about child custody and/or responsibility? Can one of the mothers that's not the bio-mom take over custody and responsibility for a child of one of the other wives? Can she be forced to? Can she barred from it? Does she already have it by default? What level of parenting responsibility comes along with marrying into the group? Any? All of it?
What about multiple husbands in the family? Are they jointly and severally responsible for all the children? Just their bio-children? What about the children that were born to the other father before the second one joined the marriage? Is Dad #2 responsible for all of them, too?
What if one of the husbands/fathers wants to divorce the group? Does he have to pay child support for all the kids? Or just his own? Or not at all since there are other fathers/husbands still in the group that are liable to care for the children? How does THAT work?
The courts need guidance in order to equitably and fairly treat any and all polygamous families that will inevitably be coming to them with issues that need settling. Courts aren't supposed to "figure it out as problems arise". Lawmakers, consulting with specialists in the field, are supposed to figure that stuff out to give the courts the direction they need to decide cases. Only when lawmakers don't do their jobs in that regard should the courts be left to figure things out on their own.(and we ALL know how much screaming and crying and "activist judge!!!" accusations go down when THAT happens--do we really want to go there with polygamy??)
All the jumping up and down and demanding equal rights for polygamous families is just a big ol' waste of time as long as no one wants to address these very real issues that such recognition would create.
Simply because the marriage laws were written with two people and only two people in mind. We had to change the wording of some of them for same sex marriage, sure that's a trivial thing but it is the same as changing the marriage laws to accommodate polygamy. It should be done.

It is not logical to tell me the marriage laws were written for two people therefore three people can never marry. It is the same argument as saying we'll have to change the wording for SSM therefore we cannot allow SSM.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#257 Aug 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That it's not as easy to legalize polygamy as it was for SSM is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant, it outlines an important consideration. You claim to seek "equal protection" and I'm pointing out that in your blind rush to achieve it, you might make it impossible.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I fail to see why you insist on telling us how hard it will be to give everyone equal protection.
Because we need to be sure that it really IS equal protection. You seem to think that equal protection will just magically HAPPEN all on its own, even though we would be subjecting families of a particular size and arrangement to a legal framework that won't function properly for them.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Is it a reason to deny equal protection? Just what is your point? Please. So what?
Hmmm, is the possibility of destroying equal protection a good reason to review the path to equal protection? Yes, I think it just might be.

You just want to pretend that everyone is against your pet cause (which isn't even YOUR pet cause, since you're not a polygamist), so that you can call everyone a discriminatory ogre. Even after they tell you how much they support polygamy, and support a responsible path to equality. It's when they get to the "responsible path" part that seems to bother you.

Sorry, I'm not up for an irresponsible approach to such a weighty legal issue. If you think that I'm not supporting polygamy "correctly", then you're welcome to bring a civil suit against the United States, and make your (obviously ironclad) arguments in front of people who actually make those decisions.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#258 Aug 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Edmund is trying to tell us that he has the best of intentions on mind when he tells some people their choice of marriage is illegal. It's for their own good you see. They will be better off and not left hanging that way, you see. Problem solved.
You make things up.

I would tell them (if I were in a position of authority) that their choice of marriage is CURRENTLY illegal, so we should work to find a legal solution, and that it would only be "problem solved" AFTER we succeeded.

If polygamists hire themselves some lawyers, I'm sure the lawyers will not leave them hanging. But I am not a polygamist, so I can't hire any lawyers. And I am not a lawyer, so I can't be hired by any polygamists. You are talking to the wrong people, but you sure are having fun blaming them for not taking steps which they cannot take.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Criminal Defense Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hazleton man appeals murder conviction, citing ... 11 hr helping hand 3
News Deaf shooting 11 hr He Named Me Black... 6
News Andrea Sneiderman: Third man theory (Jun '13) 15 hr ziotards gone wild 2
News Suburban investor charged with bank fraud 15 hr Justice01 7
News Boulder's notorious JonBenet Ramsey case sees T... 17 hr Stoned luck aka l... 13
News 2 teens arrested in Calle Parque homicide 21 hr Sad sad 1
News Man tried for allegedly sexually abusing teen Tue butters_ 5
More from around the web