Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61402 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 28, 2013, titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19451 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Either way, you've got a LOOOOONG way to go.
I wish you luck.
But that is not the argument we are having, is it? How loooooong it will be until polygamy is legal is not the argument we are having.

No, the argument we are having is about marriage equality. I say equality applies to everyone by it's very definition. You say it is not for certain people. Because some of those people commit crimes, you want to ban all those people from marrying.

But if someone in a monogamous marriage commits crime you don't want to ban their marriage. You are a hypocrite son.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19452 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, it does except for children. The children marrying is your schtick, not mine.
Your ONLY reason to deny marriage equality to polygamists is someone might marry a child. Why shouldn't we use that same reason to ban any other marriage but only polygamy? It is not logical. And certainly not fair and equal.
Nope, it's not the ONLY reason, just the most effective & logical reason.

The right to marry for couples has already been established; attempting to remove that right from all couples just because a few adults marry children would be impossible.

On the other hand, the right to marry for polygamists has NOT been established, therefore preventing them from marrying to protect children from forced marriages is reasonable.

IF polygamy is legalized, then there is nothing you can do to prevent them from forcing children as young as 14 to marry into their polygamous "families".

So do you still oppose changing state law to ban all children under age 18 from marrying?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19453 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

You're looking at decades of disappointments ahead.
That's what they told you, remember?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19454 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
None dummy. Get educated. You are too ignorant of the subject to have a valid opinion. Also you are too full of hate to think clearly. Drunk so early?
YOU are the moron who claimed I couldn't keep the polygamists from exercising their "right to marry".

Obviously I CAN, as evidence by your admission no state allows polygamous groupings to marry.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19455 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.
And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...
Her choice? Yes.

Her right? No

That right hasn't been created yet, and likely never will.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19456 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for you permission on what to tell the court but you really don't matter, glad to have brought out your hypocrisy for all to see.
You have no valid reasons to keep poly illegal except your hate and ignorance. You all but admit that.
Tell it to the courts.

I'm sure they'll really care that you think I'm hateful or ignorant or a hypocrite.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19457 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is not the argument we are having, is it? How loooooong it will be until polygamy is legal is not the argument we are having.
No, the argument we are having is about marriage equality. I say equality applies to everyone by it's very definition. You say it is not for certain people. Because some of those people commit crimes, you want to ban all those people from marrying.
But if someone in a monogamous marriage commits crime you don't want to ban their marriage. You are a hypocrite son.
The legal principle of equal treatment under current marriage laws doesn't apply to polygamous groupings because in order for them to have a valid equal protection claim they first have to prove they are similarly situated to couples who currently have the right to marry.

That's a completely separate argument from banning polygamous marriage due to the criminal nature of polygamy.

Taking away the current right to marry from everyone because a few people commit crimes isn't justifiable.

Refusing to establish a right to marry for a certain group to prevent crime against children IS justifiable.

Which is why polygamous & incestuous marriages remain illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19458 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they told you, remember?
AND THEY WERE RIGHT.

We did indeed go through decades of disappointment until we changed our strategy.

Too many thought the courts would HAVE to rule in our favor because they ruled in favor of inter-racial couples marrying. Of course they failed to take into account that inter-racial couples had been working for decades prior to the Loving ruling to demonstrate WHY they should be able to marry. Instead they jumped right to the argument that we should have the same RIGHT to marry because inter-racial couples just got that right.

That miscalculation in strategy resulted in the 1972 Baker v Nelson ruling from the SCOTUS which stood as legal precedent for decades and precluded any future claims on equal protection grounds. It was only once we changed our strategy to convincing the people WHY we should be able to marry were we finally successful in state courts and finally federal courts.

It seem you're intent on repeating our mistakes by jumping directly to the "right" to marry, instead of convincing society WHY polygamists should be able to marry.

Your refusal to even consider that avenue is just one of the many reason I doubt your sincerity and actual support for polygamy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19459 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously YOU care, otherwise you wouldn't be whining on here nonstop that I won't support you.
And if you think the SCOTUS doesn't consider the view of society in their rulings, you're obviously as naïve as many in the gay & lesbian community were decades ago.
We once thought all we had to do was get a case before the SCOTUS and all our problems would be solved. We learned the hard way (see Baker v Nelson- 1972), that it wasn't that simple. It took us DECADES to realize the only way we would be successful in court was to first change the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. Only after that happened did we start winning any court cases, for the simple reason that our courts are merely a reflection of society.
You seem intent on making the same mistakes we made by pinning all your hopes on the SCOTUS.
You're looking at decades of disappointments ahead.
I notice you have conceded our argument that marriage equality includes poly and now you're subtly trying to shift it to how hard it will be and how long it will take.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19460 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to the courts.
I'm sure they'll really care that you think I'm hateful or ignorant or a hypocrite.
Cop out response indicating you have lost our argument regarding the legality of polygamy.

You have no reason to ban it except hate, ignorance and hypocrisy.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19461 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal principle of equal treatment under current marriage laws doesn't apply to polygamous groupings because in order for them to have a valid equal protection claim they first have to prove they are similarly situated to couples who currently have the right to marry.
That's a completely separate argument from banning polygamous marriage due to the criminal nature of polygamy.
Taking away the current right to marry from everyone because a few people commit crimes isn't justifiable.
Refusing to establish a right to marry for a certain group to prevent crime against children IS justifiable.
Which is why polygamous & incestuous marriages remain illegal.
polygamous marriage. monogamous marriage. similarly situated.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19462 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Her choice? Yes.
Her right? No
That right hasn't been created yet, and likely never will.
Why? Because of your stupid reasons? Three adult women shouldn't be allowed to marry because they might be children? Tell the judge.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19463 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
AND THEY WERE RIGHT.
We did indeed go through decades of disappointment until we changed our strategy.
Too many thought the courts would HAVE to rule in our favor because they ruled in favor of inter-racial couples marrying. Of course they failed to take into account that inter-racial couples had been working for decades prior to the Loving ruling to demonstrate WHY they should be able to marry. Instead they jumped right to the argument that we should have the same RIGHT to marry because inter-racial couples just got that right.
That miscalculation in strategy resulted in the 1972 Baker v Nelson ruling from the SCOTUS which stood as legal precedent for decades and precluded any future claims on equal protection grounds. It was only once we changed our strategy to convincing the people WHY we should be able to marry were we finally successful in state courts and finally federal courts.
It seem you're intent on repeating our mistakes by jumping directly to the "right" to marry, instead of convincing society WHY polygamists should be able to marry.
Your refusal to even consider that avenue is just one of the many reason I doubt your sincerity and actual support for polygamy.
I don't want to go to court. My activist days are over. I simply want to discuss marriage equality without your fear, hate and ignorance.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19464 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to the courts who all disagree with your assessment that a polygamous grouping is similarly situated to a couple seeking to marry- for obvious reasons.
Our argument, which you have conceded, is the legality of polygamy. Not how long it will take or how hard it will be. Your attempts at dishonestly trying to change our argument now that you have lost is noted.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19465 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

IF polygamy is legalized, then there is nothing you can do to prevent them from forcing children as young as 14 to marry into their polygamous "families".
That's about the stupidest thing you've said so far. if you want to ban marriages because someone commits crime, you must ban all marriages. Not just polygamy. You don't seem to understand equality.

If polygamy is legalized it will reduce crime. As it is now an abused woman in a poly relationship can't call the cops, for fear of being prosecuted for felony bigotry. If poly were brought out of the shadows it would be easy for her to get help.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19466 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you have conceded our argument that marriage equality includes poly and now you're subtly trying to shift it to how hard it will be and how long it will take.
Not at all.

You have NO argument for marriage equality because a polygamous grouping isn't similarly situated to a couple seeking to marry.

But there IS a possibility of establishing a right for polygamists to marry through legislation, or referendum.

You even have an argument for judicial relief under freedom of religion.

But you most definitely do not have a valid argument under equal protection.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#19467 Jan 15, 2014
Reynolds has never been overturned and indeed has been cited as an authority by the modern Supreme Court. In it the Court tells us straightforwardly the basis of laws prohibiting polygamy: moral disapproval of the practice. This raises a serious problem for the defenders of same-sex marriage.

A number of the Court’s precedents defending a “right of privacy” have already strongly undermined the idea that the majority’s moral convictions are a sufficient basis for law. If the Court finds a right to same-sex marriage, it will practically dismantle the whole concept of morals legislation. But if moral preference for heterosexual marriage cannot be a reasonable basis on which to afford it a formal recognition denied to other unions, then how can moral disapproval be a reasonable ground on which to forbid and punish polygamy?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/972...

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#19468 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not religious. Religion is irrelevant in this discussion.
*ahem*...so is polygamy....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19469 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Cop out response indicating you have lost our argument regarding the legality of polygamy.
You have no reason to ban it except hate, ignorance and hypocrisy.
Again, tell it to the court, because it doesn't matter why I want to keep polygamy illegal or even why you think I want to keep polygamy illegal.

I've already told you the only way I would reconsider my opposition to polygamous marriage, but you've already rejected that because you've decided to pin all your hopes on the courts.

Which is why I keep telling you to tell it to the courts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19470 Jan 15, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
polygamous marriage. monogamous marriage. similarly situated.
The courts disagree.

And since you've pinned all you hopes on the courts, THEY are the ones you need to convince.

Obviously you haven't.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US Navy ship to be named after late gay rights ... 4 min OHMYGAWD 14
Retaliation Thread 14 min SCRODOM 6
We Need Another Orlando 26 min Calvin 1
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 39 min Junket 11,006
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 1 hr Khan 1,155
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 1 hr Lil Sweet 437
News The Men Kissing to Fight Anti-Gay HateBy Samant... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 17
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr heck yeh 15,054
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 38,685
News Austin Loses 'A Safe Space for Gay Men to Go Ha... 3 hr johnson1 29
More from around the web