DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in...

DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme Court

There are 430 comments on the ABC News story from Jul 14, 2014, titled DOJ Set to Fight Gay-Marriage Bans in Supreme Court. In it, ABC News reports that:

The Justice Department is set to urge the Supreme Court to uphold a lower-court ruling and block states from banning same-sex marriage, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#434 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
We have proven the right to marry can't be restricted based on the gender of the participants.
Polygamists haven't proven the right to marry can't be restricted based on the number of spouses.
Yet. According to you they never will because it's not gay.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#435 Jul 23, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>I hope you're not this whiny in real life. Sheesh. Bunnykins, I've been introducing you to real arguments since I gots back, it ain't my fault you're too clueless to notice.
Hope in one hand and sh!t in the other, get back to us later on which hand filled up first sh!tbird,'K?

Advocate SSM- GOOD!
Advocate marriage rights for non gay- Whining.
passing by

Salina, KS

#436 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Hope in one hand and sh!t in the other, get back to us later on which hand filled up first sh!tbird,'K?
Advocate SSM- GOOD!
Advocate marriage rights for non gay- Whining.
Buttercup, I never said you are whining because you are under the delusion that you are somehow advocating for equal rights by punishing those you claim that you are demanding rights for. i said you were whining because in your last half dozen or so responses to me, you've been acting out like a three year-old with maturity issues. Get it now? You ain't a victim here pudding, you're being a little jerk with little to jerk.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#437 Jul 23, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>Buttercup, I never said you are whining because you are under the delusion that you are somehow advocating for equal rights by punishing those you claim that you are demanding rights for. i said you were whining because in your last half dozen or so responses to me, you've been acting out like a three year-old with maturity issues. Get it now? You ain't a victim here pudding, you're being a little jerk with little to jerk.
So now your latest argument is polygamy shouldn't be allowed because Frankie has maturity issues eh? Priceless.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#438 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
SS was changed to include same sex spouses as survivors, the very thing Philly troll whines about. Change it for the gay, GOOD! Change it for anyone else, BAD!
Nope, no change at all, it just treated all legal spouses the same regardless of their gender.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#439 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You already had exactly what everyone else had too, the ability to marry their significant other of the opposite sex. You weren't satisfied with that but now you expect others to be.
Yes, we were treated the same as everyone else; everyone was equally discriminated against. But we proved that such discrimination was unconstitutional. The polygamists haven't proven that banning everyone from marrying more than one spouse at a time is unconstitutional. If they ever do, then everyone will be treated the same, just as they are today. Of course that's the key, proving that the current laws banning polygamy are unconstitutional discrimination.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#440 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet. According to you they never will because it's not gay.
Nope, I never said that. All I've said is polygamist haven't been able to convince society that limiting marriage to 2 people is unconstitutional discrimination. Until they do that, polygamy will remain illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#441 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So now your latest argument is polygamy shouldn't be allowed because Frankie has maturity issues eh? Priceless.
It's not an argument against polygamy (none is needed); it's an argument against trolls like you infecting another discussion thread with your off-topic nonsense.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#442 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, no change at all, it just treated all legal spouses the same regardless of their gender.
That was a change Bozo.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#443 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we were treated the same as everyone else; everyone was equally discriminated against. But we proved that such discrimination was unconstitutional. The polygamists haven't proven that banning everyone from marrying more than one spouse at a time is unconstitutional. If they ever do, then everyone will be treated the same, just as they are today. Of course that's the key, proving that the current laws banning polygamy are unconstitutional discrimination.
You used to say it will never happen. Now you tell us when it will happen. Priceless.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#444 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I never said that. All I've said is polygamist haven't been able to convince society that limiting marriage to 2 people is unconstitutional discrimination. Until they do that, polygamy will remain illegal.
No sh!t.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#445 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an argument against polygamy (none is needed)
Tell the judge that. "Your honor. I don't need an argument." Love to see that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#446 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a change Bozo.
Nope, a legal spouse is treated the same today as they were before.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#447 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You used to say it will never happen. Now you tell us when it will happen. Priceless.
I said IF it happens.

I personally don't believe it will ever happen, but I've never denied the possibility.

I doubt we'll find out anytime soon because no one cares enough to even try.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#448 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No sh!t.
You're the moron who acts like polygamy will magically become legal just because same-sex couples can marry.

Just like all the other anti-gays.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#449 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the judge that. "Your honor. I don't need an argument." Love to see that.
What judge?

You mean all those judges who aren't hearing any challenges to the polygamy bans?

Why would I tell them that which they already know- if no one cares enough to bring a legal challenge against polygamy bans, then no argument is needed because there is no case before any judge anywhere.

Yep, I'm pretty sure every judge already knows that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#450 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What judge?
You mean all those judges who aren't hearing any challenges to the polygamy bans?
Why would I tell them that which they already know- if no one cares enough to bring a legal challenge against polygamy bans, then no argument is needed because there is no case before any judge anywhere.
Yep, I'm pretty sure every judge already knows that.
You might want to check out this link.

Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the state’s law prohibiting “cohabitation”— the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships — violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process. He left standing the state’s ability to prohibit multiple marriages “in the literal sense” of having two or more valid marriage licenses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-l...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#451 Jul 23, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to check out this link.
Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the state’s law prohibiting “cohabitation”— the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships — violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process. He left standing the state’s ability to prohibit multiple marriages “in the literal sense” of having two or more valid marriage licenses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-l...
I've read it before; nothing new. That was about Utah's ban on adults cohabitating; nothing to do with legally marrying more than one person at a time. And I fully support the judge's ruling in that case. Michigan actually has a law banning adult unmarried unrelated male-female couples from living together. Needless to say, it's not enforced, and certainly wouldn't be constitutional if they ever attempted to enforce it.
passing by

Salina, KS

#452 Jul 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
So now your latest argument is polygamy shouldn't be allowed because Frankie has maturity issues eh? Priceless.
http://www.webmd.com/erectile- dysfunction/guide/erectile-dys function-treatment-care Glad I could help.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#453 Jul 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read it before; nothing new. That was about Utah's ban on adults cohabitating; nothing to do with legally marrying more than one person at a time. And I fully support the judge's ruling in that case. Michigan actually has a law banning adult unmarried unrelated male-female couples from living together. Needless to say, it's not enforced, and certainly wouldn't be constitutional if they ever attempted to enforce it.
Exactly.

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
BIG LABOR DAY WEEKEND PaRTAAY 4 min Frankie Rizzo 13
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min lides 14,909
News N.C. Hit With Lawsuit Over Anti-LGBT Law 6 min lides 15
News The Battered Wife Syndrome Of The Human Rights ... (Oct '09) 42 min Scotch Irish Faith 41
News FDA to re-evaluate controversial gay blood ban 50 min Orlando 4
News How Democratic VP Candidate Tim Kaine Evolved o... 58 min Fa-Foxy 16
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 38,641
More from around the web