Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents

Feb 13, 2014 Full story: WSFA-TV Montgomery 822

Greg Bourke, front, and his partner Michael Deleon speak to reporters following the announcement from U.S. LOUISVILLE, Ky.

Full Story

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#795 Apr 25, 2014
snyper wrote:
What does all that have to do with precedents in the Kentucky case?
Hell if I know. I'm no lawyer. I'm just thinking out loud about what sounds logical to me.

It just seems, bigamy is a crime because it involves lying to your state administration about your pre-existing marital status. It's a way of TRICKING the state into "allowing" polygamy. It's illegal because it's fraud.

But if three or four people go and openly REQUEST a multi-person marriage, they aren't going to be charged with a crime and thrown in jail. They're just going to be told "no".

Reynolds was charged and convicted of the crime of bigamy (per Wikipedia). I don't know that this really sets a precedent against "polygamy", a different thing than "bigamy". I'm sure precedents EXIST against polygamy separately, but I was really looking to hear from Frankie Rizzo about cases where people were imprisoned for polygamy cases, which were also NOT bigamy cases.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#796 Apr 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Hell if I know. I'm no lawyer. I'm just thinking out loud about what sounds logical to me.
It just seems, bigamy is a crime because it involves lying to your state administration about your pre-existing marital status. It's a way of TRICKING the state into "allowing" polygamy. It's illegal because it's fraud.
But if three or four people go and openly REQUEST a multi-person marriage, they aren't going to be charged with a crime and thrown in jail. They're just going to be told "no".
Reynolds was charged and convicted of the crime of bigamy (per Wikipedia). I don't know that this really sets a precedent against "polygamy", a different thing than "bigamy". I'm sure precedents EXIST against polygamy separately, but I was really looking to hear from Frankie Rizzo about cases where people were imprisoned for polygamy cases, which were also NOT bigamy cases.
Snyper wants you to boycott me. He is extremely upset with my posts as are others here. I am on some polygamy forums perhaps I'll discuss this with you there sometime. I am being threatened and censored here. Look at the missing post numbers today.

Judged:

32

32

32

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#797 Apr 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Snyper wants you to boycott me.
He doesn't seem to be trying very hard. He seemed to be questioning my argument against you. Odd way to encourage me to boycott you, by supporting you.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
He is extremely upset with my posts as are others here. I am on some polygamy forums perhaps I'll discuss this with you there sometime.
I doubt it, I really have no interest in polygamy. I'm all set for spouses. If they make a worthy effort of challenging the unconstitutionality of the prohibition, and it comes up in the polls or referenda, I'll voice my support or vote yes or whatever. But I cannot pursue that which I do not seek.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I am being threatened and censored here. Look at the missing post numbers today.
Starting with the first post that didn't say "yesterday",#729 on page 34, there are 16 missing post numbers. There is, of course, no way to know or prove whose they were. However, you have 19 posts showing. Also, there are 29 replies to you (30 once I post this one) which display your original quotes, effectively "immortalizing" them. This is a strange display of censorship. If anything, you appear to have freely dominated this conversation.

During that same time period, I found no instances of anything I could remotely call "threats". And I like to think of myself as sensitive that sort of thing. If there are any previous to that, I have no interest in tracking them down. I suggest you report them if they violate the terms of use.

But back to my original point, which is not deflected by complaining about boycotts and mysterious missing posts, is that you claimed that people are imprisoned for polygamy. Your case example is the original Reynolds v United States, but my information says Reynolds was convicted of "bigamy", which is a crime of fraud against the government, by misrepresenting yourself as "single" when you are actually already married. I am more curious if there are any cases of people openly requesting recognition of polygamy as marriage, and being imprisoned for doing so.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#798 Apr 26, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
He doesn't seem to be trying very hard. He seemed to be questioning my argument against you. Odd way to encourage me to boycott you, by supporting you.
<quoted text>
I doubt it, I really have no interest in polygamy. I'm all set for spouses. If they make a worthy effort of challenging the unconstitutionality of the prohibition, and it comes up in the polls or referenda, I'll voice my support or vote yes or whatever. But I cannot pursue that which I do not seek.
<quoted text>
Starting with the first post that didn't say "yesterday",#729 on page 34, there are 16 missing post numbers. There is, of course, no way to know or prove whose they were. However, you have 19 posts showing. Also, there are 29 replies to you (30 once I post this one) which display your original quotes, effectively "immortalizing" them. This is a strange display of censorship. If anything, you appear to have freely dominated this conversation.
During that same time period, I found no instances of anything I could remotely call "threats". And I like to think of myself as sensitive that sort of thing. If there are any previous to that, I have no interest in tracking them down. I suggest you report them if they violate the terms of use.
But back to my original point, which is not deflected by complaining about boycotts and mysterious missing posts, is that you claimed that people are imprisoned for polygamy. Your case example is the original Reynolds v United States, but my information says Reynolds was convicted of "bigamy", which is a crime of fraud against the government, by misrepresenting yourself as "single" when you are actually already married. I am more curious if there are any cases of people openly requesting recognition of polygamy as marriage, and being imprisoned for doing so.
You're dealing with that whiny little bitch Frankie. He loves to light fuses then plays all innocent and self righteous when his little firecrackers blow off someone's fingers.

He is crying "censorship" morning noon and night, but I have yet to see any of his posts deleted. It wouldn't matter if they were, for we've seen his same stuff 90 times before. He keeps crying "how would YOU like it?" I don't care. I've BEGGED him to have my stuff removed, but I guess the editors like me better, or he just doesn't really try.

Tell him to suck it up, cry baby.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#799 Apr 26, 2014
Really? Because a lot of people pushing for polygamy are mormons, who don't like the idea of SSM at all. Of course, they're idiots, because legal polygamy is impossible without SSM
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Most polygamists support SSM. Really. I can produce lots of evidence to support my statement but you cannot. Are you sure you want to go down that road? It's really irrelevant. But if you wanna I will enjoy proving you wrong. You're just a loud mouthed jackass.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#800 Apr 26, 2014
Jesus fu**ing christ...once again, the only way anyone ould be arrested is if one couple legally marries and then a member of that marriage tries to legally marry a third. That is bigamy, and bigamy laws aren't going to go away, period. They are legitimate laws that protect the rights of defrauded partners. Polygamous marriage will require an entirely different set of laws.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If two men marry some states simply won't recognize it. If three men marry they could well go to prison for it. Bigamy is a CRIME, SSM isn't and never was. So like I said, cry me a river.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#801 Apr 26, 2014
No, we don't "kinda have to."; polygamy has nothing to do with SSM.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Same as SSM supporters kinda hafta support polygamy. Which is of course my point.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#802 Apr 26, 2014
Nobody here is denying polygamists a frigging thing. We don't have the authority. The LAW forbids polygamy, and that's what they have to fight if they want to achieve it.

Polygamy is simply irrelevant to most people, gay or straight.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's fine to see marriage your way, it's not fine to deny others marriage the way they see it. As many SSM supporters here do.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#803 Apr 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, we don't "kinda have to."; polygamy has nothing to do with SSM.
<quoted text>
That is non-responsive. Frankie didn't say polygamy has something to do with SSM other than both are marriage and both should be legal. He is saying that the same things you are saying against polygamy are the same things that the bigots told you about why gay marriage would never be legal.

At least you didn't call any body stupid. I guess that is some improvement isn't it.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#804 Apr 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Nobody here is denying polygamists a frigging thing. We don't have the authority. The LAW forbids polygamy, and that's what they have to fight if they want to achieve it.
Polygamy is simply irrelevant to most people, gay or straight.
<quoted text>
You are denying polygamy your support. You are not saying polygamy deserves just as much respect and support as gay marriage does; you are what is called a "with-hold".

I am never going to have a gay marriage but I supported gay people getting government off their backs and recognizing your right to marry whom you want. Why can't you be a gentleman and change the focus of your argumentativeness and stop denying polygamists your consideration? Instead of saying the law forbids polygamy, why not say "I support the rights of polygamists to get married just like I support the rights of gay people to get married and inter-racial couples to get married? Why can't you let loose with some kindness and say it differently so instead of sounding negative you sound as supportive of polygamy as you do of gay marriage? That is how laws get changed; the people lead and those criminal scumbags in government follow. Give a little comrade. Life is not all take Take TAKE!

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#805 Apr 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
bigamy laws aren't going to go away, period.
<quoted text>
"They" said the laws against gay marriage would never go away. Were "they" wrong?

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#806 Apr 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That is non-responsive. Frankie didn't say polygamy has something to do with SSM other than both are marriage and both should be legal. He is saying that the same things you are saying against polygamy are the same things that the bigots told you about why gay marriage would never be legal.
At least you didn't call any body stupid. I guess that is some improvement isn't it.
Actually Frankie insists that since same-sex marriage is now legal, polygamy must be legalized as well, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#807 Apr 26, 2014
Curteese wrote:
You're dealing with that whiny little bitch Frankie. He loves to light fuses then plays all innocent and self righteous when his little firecrackers blow off someone's fingers.
That's okay, I don't mind engaging. Taking my time and thinking up exactly what I want to say and how I want to say it is easy when I'm sitting with my laptop in my living room, but someday I'm going to run into someone in real life with some argument, and I'll have to be able think on my feet, without the luxuries of backspace and delete. Any opportunity to flesh out my arguments beforehand is a good way to "test" them and better prepare myself.
Curteese wrote:
He is crying "censorship" morning noon and night, but I have yet to see any of his posts deleted. It wouldn't matter if they were, for we've seen his same stuff 90 times before. He keeps crying "how would YOU like it?" I don't care. I've BEGGED him to have my stuff removed, but I guess the editors like me better, or he just doesn't really try.
Tell him to suck it up, cry baby.
Even if all 16 missing posts were his (unlikely), the fact that 19 others of his remain would suggest that the pulled posts contained some very questionable content. Censorship of any abusive or blatantly false material is certainly acceptable, and would be at the discretion of the administrators anyway. Anyone who doesn't like ANY censorship would be free to post elsewhere.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#808 Apr 26, 2014
It's a response, and thus can't be non-responsive, twit. Polygamy is not the same legal case as SSM; you idiots can't seem to deal with that. And no, the arguments aren't the same.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
That is non-responsive. Frankie didn't say polygamy has something to do with SSM other than both are marriage and both should be legal. He is saying that the same things you are saying against polygamy are the same things that the bigots told you about why gay marriage would never be legal.
At least you didn't call any body stupid. I guess that is some improvement isn't it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#809 Apr 26, 2014
Oh, lookie...the moron who calls me an authoritarian is telling me what and how I should think.

Fu**ing hypocrite. I choose what is important to me.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
You are denying polygamy your support. You are not saying polygamy deserves just as much respect and support as gay marriage does; you are what is called a "with-hold".
I am never going to have a gay marriage but I supported gay people getting government off their backs and recognizing your right to marry whom you want. Why can't you be a gentleman and change the focus of your argumentativeness and stop denying polygamists your consideration? Instead of saying the law forbids polygamy, why not say "I support the rights of polygamists to get married just like I support the rights of gay people to get married and inter-racial couples to get married? Why can't you let loose with some kindness and say it differently so instead of sounding negative you sound as supportive of polygamy as you do of gay marriage? That is how laws get changed; the people lead and those criminal scumbags in government follow. Give a little comrade. Life is not all take Take TAKE!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#810 Apr 26, 2014
Bigamy laws exist to protect people from fraud. They weren't created to stop polygamy, but will still have the same effect UNLESS you people stop whining and put real thought into how to frame this entirely different form of civil contract.
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
"They" said the laws against gay marriage would never go away. Were "they" wrong?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#811 Apr 27, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
The ONLY lawsuit filed was one from Kody Brown regarding the cohabitation law in Utah, which as been ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is NOT being appeal to the best of my knowledge!!!
By the way......if polygamist truly wanted to challenge the ruling that prevents them from marrying multiple individuals.....they COULD have done that a LONG time ago, they DON'T need to wait and see how the Marriage fight turns out for Gays and Lesbians.......because the fight is NOT the same......one group is fighting to be INCLUDED into the right to marry and the other group is looking to have the right to marry multiple individuals......and truly rewrite marriage laws!!!
the mormans did which is why they are watching the outcome of gay marriage.

Reynolds v. United States(1878)

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Reynolds_V._Unit...

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#812 Apr 27, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a big difference between gay marriage and polygamy. Same-sex marriage preserves the one-to-one exclusivity of marriage, whereas polygamy allows marriage to become a limitless, revolving-door policy.
Marriage endows over 1000 rights, responsibilities and benefits to the married couple. In a two-person marriage, one person applies each of those rights to the other person, and that person applies them all back to the first.
In a polygamous arrangement, those rights would be applied to multiple other persons. There would be no guarantee that they would ALL be applied to all persons involved, or in equal proportions. Some of the participants may be unfairly denied certain rights (and given polygamy's tendency toward setting up men in control of meek and non-confrontational women, that would almost be a given). Some of the rights of marriage CAN'T be applied to more than one other person.
Polygamy wouldn't be IMPOSSIBLE given these difficulties, but it would require major re-writes of all the marriage benefits before the situation could be considered fair and equitable. Same-sex marriage requires NO re-writes of marriage benefits. They apply to two people NOW, they'll apply to two people tomorrow, regardless of their gender.
there is no difference between gay and polygamy marriage compared to standard marriage between one woman and one man which is like saying there is no difference between apple and oranges.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#813 Apr 27, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Opposition doesn't matter, the courts will side with Gay couples. The judge has already approved recognition of a lesbian couple who were married in another state. We don't put equal rights to a vote in this country.
You lose.
I didnt lose we already know the liberals have no use for the US constitution which was confirmed in 1971 in Baker v. Nelson which liberals have showed their arrogance with the US Constitution and the SCOTUS which has confirmed it by their ruling in Baker v. Nelson.

on October 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled — in a five-page opinion without dissent — that the Constitution does not protect “a fundamental right” for same-sex couples to get married. That ruling, in Baker v. Nelson, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Washington almost exactly a year later, with this order:“Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”(Baker v. Nelson, October 10, 1972, docket 71-1027).

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/gay-marriag...

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#814 Apr 27, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Take one step back. If straight marriage is allowed, then same-sex marriage must be allowed. That is just common sense since the standard of marriage is between just two people.
You don't think very hard, do you?
I dont think you understand the purpose of the standard of marrigage or legal sense and that is just commonsense because once you deviate from that legal standard of marrigae anything goes and that is commonsense and there is people that believe marrigae is between more than one person which everyone knows that and Mormons of the original LDS believe that just like gays believe marriage between people of the same sex is marriage.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mexico: Investigation shows that all 43 student... 59 min Here Is One 10
lookin for top jeddah (Jul '10) 1 hr ooo3 1,501
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 2 hr top 13,334
Looking for top or bottom in khobar or dammam (Jul '12) 2 hr R Raheem 308
Looking for bottom philipino in Jubail (Jan '13) 5 hr asif 302
filipino massuer.doing massage in Jeddah (Oct '12) 7 hr Nody1024 250
Bruce Jenner Sex Change: Hot Pink Nails - Trans... 7 hr Teb817 13
Massage in Jeddah ASAP (Sep '13) 8 hr 0542507121 wattsup 271
goodlooking filipino offering massage in jeddah (Jul '13) Jan 30 fff 431
More from around the web