French comedian rallies broad front a...

French comedian rallies broad front against gay marriage

There are 34 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Jan 11, 2013, titled French comedian rallies broad front against gay marriage. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

When the opponents of gay-marriage take to the streets in Paris on Sunday, their protest will be led neither by politicians nor priests, but by a sassy comedian in a pink T-shirt who goes by the stage name Frigide Barjot.

With her on the march, expected to be one of the capital's biggest demonstrations in years, will be a young gay man who campaigns against homosexual marriage and an older activist from the right-to-life movement.

Notably absent will be most religious leaders who set the tone for the opposition with talking points based on social and legal arguments rather than appeals to faith.

"We're all born of a man and a woman, but the law will say the opposite tomorrow," says Barjot, warning the reform would break links between father, mother and children that ground human society. "It will say a child is born of a man and a man."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#23 Jan 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Old news and no longer a precedent to rely on considering the number of times DOMA and other laws that discriminate against us have been ruled unconstitutional in Federal Court.
Let's wait till Perry is decided by SCOTUS OK? And the case from NY as well.
1. You just make this shit up dont you?
2. Perry and the DOMA cases have no bearing on each other...

I cant wait for perry to be decided....and for you to call the court a bigot for holding consistent with its prior precedent...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#24 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You just make this shit up dont you?
2. Perry and the DOMA cases have no bearing on each other...
I cant wait for perry to be decided....and for you to call the court a bigot for holding consistent with its prior precedent...
Perry was about SSM. That's has no bearing on DOMA?

You just cited Loving which is the inter-racial version of Perry!

Way to go Homer.
D'OH!
david traversa

La Rioja, Argentina

#25 Jan 11, 2013
There was a recent case in the US of a man, married and with several children who went to his doctor for a check-up due to some genital disturbance and upon careful examination was found to be, internally, a female.. He admitted he had always felt uncomfortable as a man but went along with accepted mores and was a good husband and father.. Upon this discovery he decided to become the woman he always felt to be and his family supports him one hundred per cent. He was, in fact, a hermaphrodite living as a man.. Nobody's arguing the fact that indeed it takes a man and a woman to make a child.. but it takes a hell of a lot more to make a marriage.. But ignorance will raise its ugly head and in this the french are just as bad as the Americans, the Argentinians, or whatever.. Nature cares very little for our moral codes..
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26 Jan 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Perry was about SSM. That's has no bearing on DOMA?
You just cited Loving which is the inter-racial version of Perry!
Way to go Homer.
D'OH!
federal law versus state law...
read up on it, I am hardly the one to come up with this...

and BTW, I did not cite loving, I cited to BAKER which discusses loving and says it does not speak to gay marriage...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#27 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
federal law versus state law...
read up on it, I am hardly the one to come up with this...
and BTW, I did not cite loving, I cited to BAKER which discusses loving and says it does not speak to gay marriage...
One problem Baker doesn't apply outside MN.

Like you said, "federal law versus state law...
read up on it," Homer.
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#28 Jan 11, 2013
There are french comedians? I thought they all were mimes or clowns. This has got to be an unfunny french joke.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#29 Jan 12, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>watch out for flying squirrels.
A couple of my mentees who control drones for the Military refer to themselves as "Bullwinkles".
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#31 Jan 14, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>One problem Baker doesn't apply outside MN.
Like you said, "federal law versus state law...
read up on it," Homer.
wow. except you couldn't be more factual wrong..you are not making an argument, you are merely announcing your delusion...
again, from the first circuit last year:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#32 Jan 14, 2013
Down with France !

FREEDOM FRIES FOREVER !

:)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#33 Jan 16, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
wow. except you couldn't be more factual wrong..you are not making an argument, you are merely announcing your delusion...
again, from the first circuit last year:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
"Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
I refuse to accept that as a U.S. citizen, born withing the United States, that I have to prove to anyone the 14th Amendment should apply to me.

As I once asked another poster on here, when did being part of a protected class become a requirement to be treated like any other U.S. Citizen?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#34 Jan 17, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I refuse to accept that as a U.S. citizen, born withing the United States, that I have to prove to anyone the 14th Amendment should apply to me.
it does apply, and given you are not similarly situated, you don't get the same right...
its that simple...

and no, its no proof of animus or second class citizenship any more than a 17 year old GENIUS who still cannot vote...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#35 Jan 17, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I refuse to accept that as a U.S. citizen, born withing the United States, that I have to prove to anyone the 14th Amendment should apply to me.
As I once asked another poster on here, when did being part of a protected class become a requirement to be treated like any other U.S. Citizen?
also, is this your way of saying "I wasn't aware of this precedent, thank you"?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#36 Jan 23, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
it does apply, and given you are not similarly situated, you don't get the same right...
its that simple...
and no, its no proof of animus or second class citizenship any more than a 17 year old GENIUS who still cannot vote...
Using that logic, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to anyone other than straight white males.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#37 Jan 23, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Using that logic, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to anyone other than straight white males.
that is ridiculous...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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 Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 42 min TomInElPaso 10
News Organist Says Fear of Trump Future Made Him Pai... 49 min TomInElPaso 9
News Op-Ed Columnist: I'm a White Man. Hear Me Out. 1 hr truth 1
BIG LaBOR DAY WEEKEND PARTAAY!!! 1 hr Lester 2
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate 2 hr Cleveland 1
ARCHIVES Revisited 3 hr Lil Stinky Jr 5
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr RiccardoFire 8,372
40 years ago today 4 hr SteveO 6
FuNKY ARCHIVES 4 hr SteveO 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Beatnik 53,601
More from around the web