Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972 case?

Aug 17, 2014 Full story: The Washington Post 929

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.

Full Story
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#41 Monday Aug 18
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The idea of polygamy, as well as the idea of same-sex marriage, is off-putting to some. But we have to learn to distinguish between our personal hangups and biases, and the civil rights of others.
Spot on! You say it well.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#42 Monday Aug 18
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to tell you there is nothing in our Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. On the contrary it gives tacit permission to allow it.
In my view, prohibiting same-sex marriage, or even the fact that it is part of a political argument, is unconstitutional.
Are you somehow thinking that I am against Marriage Equality? I never even suggested there was anything in the Constitution to to prohibit it.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#43 Monday Aug 18
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Let's cut through the bullsh!t shall we? My point is many SSM supporters are hypocrites, adamantly against marriage freedom for people they don't approve of just like those they rail against. I prove my point daily. Hence your angst.
Who are all these people against marriage freedom? Whenever I talk to a SSM supporter about polygamy, they all generally give the same answer. There are no overt moral issues as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but there are other complications which, although they may not be permanent hurdles, at least need to be addressed first. I feel the same way. I hear this over and over. Besides also hearing that they themselves don't seek polygamy.

Just because someone does not feel compelled to solve an issue does not mean that they oppose seeing it solved.

I don't see any hypocrites. I see you backing people into unrelated conversations.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I agree. Spot on 100%! Great post. Refreshing. Cause for optimism. I think most everyone will come around eventually, it's all new to them, like SSM was to many closed minded bigots.
Oh, look! A SSM supporter who is open to polygamy! But you made it seem that they were as rare as unicorns!

Yeah, you prove your point daily. Sure you do.

No one needs to "come around eventually". This is how most people here already feel, no doubt. Discussions about polygamy are hardly "new" to any of us. We just aren't interested in discussing the merits of something that has nothing to do with our lives.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Both are marriage. Duh.
This misunderstanding is your problem.

I've seen dogs get married on TV. Does that mean we're all hypocrites if we don't support dog marriage? Because "both are marriage, duh"!

Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Polygamy is barely even marriage. It's more like enjoying the luxury of keeping all of one's boyfriends or girlfriends, without the pesky inconvenience of committing to one person. It's a revolving-door policy, which provides the true security of family to no one. If someone wants their marriage to be more about a boss with employees who can be hired and fired, then polygamy would be right up their alley. Forget about "forsaking all others", the whole TOWN is up for grabs!

I don't morally oppose polygamy, and I see no reason to legally stand in its way, provided it's not giving a financial edge to some families over others, or depriving any of the participants of vital rights and protections. I think you'll find that this is the prevailing opinion among gay people (feel free to build me a list of people you've encountered here who feel otherwise).

But you can't accuse us of "opposing" polygamy simple because we aren't motivated to defend it. If you want to hear its defenses, then you'll HAVE to find people who are seeking it. You can't put that responsibility onto people who aren't. And you can't falsely mischaracterize people as "opponents" simply because they're disinterested.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#44 Monday Aug 18
nhjeff wrote:
A lot of lawyers defending SSM bans believe Baker precludes courts from overturning them. But so far, only one judge has agreed with them.
On the other hand, Baker was cited in the defense of every same-sex marriage ban. And it was cited in the cases that went before SCOTUS last summer. Most courts have swatted it away like a housefly, and SCOTUS has already ignored it without specifically overturning it.
Baker figures prominently in anti-gay legal briefs because it's the best hope they've got. That's kind of like talking up Sara Palin as a vice presidential candidate because that's the best they've got.
They can never explain why Baker didn't save DOMA.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#45 Monday Aug 18
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are all these people against marriage freedom? Whenever I talk to a SSM supporter about polygamy, they all generally give the same answer. There are no overt moral issues as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but there are other complications which, although they may not be permanent hurdles, at least need to be addressed first. I feel the same way. I hear this over and over. Besides also hearing that they themselves don't seek polygamy.
Just because someone does not feel compelled to solve an issue does not mean that they oppose seeing it solved.
I don't see any hypocrites. I see you backing people into unrelated conversations.
<quoted text>
Oh, look! A SSM supporter who is open to polygamy! But you made it seem that they were as rare as unicorns!
Yeah, you prove your point daily. Sure you do.
No one needs to "come around eventually". This is how most people here already feel, no doubt. Discussions about polygamy are hardly "new" to any of us. We just aren't interested in discussing the merits of something that has nothing to do with our lives.
<quoted text>
This misunderstanding is your problem.
I've seen dogs get married on TV. Does that mean we're all hypocrites if we don't support dog marriage? Because "both are marriage, duh"!
Polygamy has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Polygamy is barely even marriage. It's more like enjoying the luxury of keeping all of one's boyfriends or girlfriends, without the pesky inconvenience of committing to one person. It's a revolving-door policy, which provides the true security of family to no one. If someone wants their marriage to be more about a boss with employees who can be hired and fired, then polygamy would be right up their alley. Forget about "forsaking all others", the whole TOWN is up for grabs!
I don't morally oppose polygamy, and I see no reason to legally stand in its way, provided it's not giving a financial edge to some families over others, or depriving any of the participants of vital rights and protections. I think you'll find that this is the prevailing opinion among gay people (feel free to build me a list of people you've encountered here who feel otherwise).
But you can't accuse us of "opposing" polygamy simple because we aren't motivated to defend it. If you want to hear its defenses, then you'll HAVE to find people who are seeking it. You can't put that responsibility onto people who aren't. And you can't falsely mischaracterize people as "opponents" simply because they're disinterested.
Too funny! Thanks for proving my point.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#46 Monday Aug 18
Baker v. Nelson is irrelevant and, in any event, outdated.

Baker v. Nelson was a summary dismissal of an appeal from a Minnesota Supreme Court decision that said that Minnesota law did not allow gay couples to marry and that such a law did not violate the Federal Constitution. When the Supreme Court shoots down a "summary dismissal," it is almost like ignoring it, or saying that the case does not raise any issue for a federal court to address. In doing so, the Court restricts using that case as precedent to the very specific set of facts in that particular case. And that is why Baker is irrelevant to DOMA. Windsor asked the question of whether the federal government can define marriages as opposite sex marriages for the purposes of federal benefits while Baker asked whether a state can restrict marriages to opposite sex couples in the first place.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/10/second-circu...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47 Monday Aug 18


There are three substantive take home lessons from the Second Circuit's decision:
1. That Baker v. Nelson is irrelevant.

2. That antigay discrimination merits heightened scrutiny.

3. That DOMA fails to meet heightened scrutiny and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/10/second-circu...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#48 Monday Aug 18
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Too funny! Thanks for proving my point.
If your point is that logic escapes you, then you're welcome. Wow.

It's this simple: If YOU support polygamy, then make YOUR arguments for it. You can then ask others if they agree or disagree (or perhaps they'll tell you they don't care. They have that option).

But don't think that you can TRICK people into coming up with arguments FOR you, and then also trick them into providing the rebuttals to those same arguments for you. If you want to see polygamy happen, then you must do the argumentative work yourself. If you DON'T want to see polygamy happen, then you're arguing from a false position, trying to rope people into an irrelevant conversation.

SSM marriage supporters don't HAVE to support polygamy (though I find that they often do, with proper legal review). The two concepts are not related, and do not guarantee to share the same groups of supporters.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#49 Monday Aug 18
Once again. The 1972 case is irrelevant.

There are three substantive take home lessons from the Second Circuit's decision:
1. That Baker v. Nelson is irrelevant.

2. That antigay discrimination merits heightened scrutiny.

3. That DOMA fails to meet heightened scrutiny and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/10/second-circu ...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#50 Monday Aug 18
I am relaxed, crip. Now go oil your wheels.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Relax fruitcake.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#51 Monday Aug 18
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
If your point is that logic escapes you, then you're welcome. Wow.
It's this simple: If YOU support polygamy, then make YOUR arguments for it. You can then ask others if they agree or disagree (or perhaps they'll tell you they don't care. They have that option).
But don't think that you can TRICK people into coming up with arguments FOR you, and then also trick them into providing the rebuttals to those same arguments for you. If you want to see polygamy happen, then you must do the argumentative work yourself. If you DON'T want to see polygamy happen, then you're arguing from a false position, trying to rope people into an irrelevant conversation.
SSM marriage supporters don't HAVE to support polygamy (though I find that they often do, with proper legal review). The two concepts are not related, and do not guarantee to share the same groups of supporters.
I have, you ignored them. But here we go again. The reason for the laws against polygamy is moral disapproval. Reynolds is still in effect and indeed the modern court cites it as authority. From Reynolds-

“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”

That's moral disapproval Squeaky. SSM has proven that moral disapproval is not a reason to deny marriage equality. If it's not a reason to deny the gay goose, it's not a reason to deny the poly gander.

That's one of the reasons you have ignored want more?

OK your turn.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#52 Monday Aug 18
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you somehow thinking that I am against Marriage Equality? I never even suggested there was anything in the Constitution to to prohibit it.
Put your ego on a diet. I wasn't addressing you in particular.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#53 Monday Aug 18
cpeter1313 wrote:
I am relaxed, crip. Now go oil your wheels.
<quoted text>
Gay guy in wheelchair- disabled.
Straight guy in wheelchair- "crip".

You wouldn't call me the C word if I was gay.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#54 Monday Aug 18
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I have, you ignored them. But here we go again. The reason for the laws against polygamy is moral disapproval. Reynolds is still in effect and indeed the modern court cites it as authority. From Reynolds-
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe ... and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.”
That's moral disapproval Squeaky. SSM has proven that moral disapproval is not a reason to deny marriage equality. If it's not a reason to deny the gay goose, it's not a reason to deny the poly gander.
Then there must be more to it than that.

A "goose" might be gay, but there's no such thing as a "poly" gander. We're ALL potentially polygamous. You, me, everyone. Legalizing polygamy would only appeal to ALL people's interest in avoiding commitment. But legalizing same-sex marriage makes a direct appeal to one particular demographic of humans who are being targeted for marginalization. If you want to toss out commitment entirely, then you're beginning to toss out the foundations of marriage which make it necessary.

It isn't a matter of gender, but of two people who have closed out the ENTIRE WORLD from their own exclusivity. They are putting all their eggs into one basket, so to speak. Into the trust of this one other person.

Polygamy rejects the exclusion of the rest of the world. It rejects that ultimate investment of trust in only one other person. It turns the exclusive spouse into a line out the door, each of them hoping for a slice of something that is really only valuable when it shared as a whole.

I have no "moral" objection to any of this; I only point it out to demonstrate that polygamy is vastly DIFFERENT from same-sex marriage. All the elements of polygamy COULD be made workable, if the right people were motivated to pursue it. But I'm not.
.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
That's one of the reasons you have ignored want more?
Not really, but I'll be happy to ignore them. I don't SEEK polygamy, don't you get that? Why would I care about defending it?
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
OK your turn.
My "turn"? To do what? To make defenses for something which I don't seek? Go gripe to the people who decided Reynolds. If THEY say it's a "moral disapproval", then go ask THEM why they said that. I don't say that. It's not my argument. I don't have to step into their role, just because you want to argue with someone who will argue that side.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#55 Monday Aug 18
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
...Go gripe to the people who decided Reynolds. If THEY say it's a "moral disapproval", then go ask THEM why they said that....
They're dead. Duh.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#56 Monday Aug 18
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy, providing all participants are willing adults, should be permitted. I know of no legal or moral justification for denying it.
As a supporter of legalizing polygamous marriages, I do have to point out that there are in fact certain barriers that would need to be dealt with prior to polygamy ever becoming legal.

If one spouse is hospitalized, who gets to deciding vote if the remaining spouses disagree on the proper course of treatment?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#57 Monday Aug 18
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Who are all these people against marriage freedom? Whenever I talk to a SSM supporter about polygamy, they all generally give the same answer. There are no overt moral issues as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, but there are other complications which, although they may not be permanent hurdles, at least need to be addressed first.....
Skankie knows all of this. He's not here to discuss anything. Here's only here to derail the discussion away from whatever topic it is. And so far, he's batting 1,000 while everyone tries to explain to him how wrong he is.

He knows that. He's not stupid. He's just, apparently, found the perfect way to derail all discussion of anything related to marriage equality for same-ssex couples by trolling every thread and lobbing his "polygamy" bomb into the discussion and then ignoring anything anyone says to him while repeating the same irrelevant, pointless statements over and over.

Am I REALLY the only one here that sees this?? WHY does everyine keep responding to him?? Do you all enjoy banging your head against the wall while he laughs at you and refuses to engage in a discussion??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#58 Monday Aug 18
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
As a supporter of legalizing polygamous marriages, I do have to point out that there are in fact certain barriers that would need to be dealt with prior to polygamy ever becoming legal.
If one spouse is hospitalized, who gets to deciding vote if the remaining spouses disagree on the proper course of treatment?
Frankie is fully aware of that. He doesn't care. He's only here to troll the forum and derail the discussion away from gay couples.

Case in point, before I gave up, I must have told him 25 times that I wasn't against polygamy, would not likely oppose efforts to legalize it (I'd have to see the proposal first, of course), but that I'm not interested enough in the issue to actually DO anything about it, and that I'd gladly support anyone that started a movement to make it happen. I've also given numerous examples of the legal complications you're taking about--not insurmountable, for sure, but definitely in need of addressing.

His responses, 100% of the time were all the same, "*I* support marriage equality--YOU DON'T. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Haaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!"

He's not here to discuss. He's here to troll. The more people respond to him and try to convince him that he's wrong, the harder he jerks off and the bigger his orgasms are at the expense of any intelligent discussion.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#59 Monday Aug 18
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Skankie knows all of this. He's not here to discuss anything. Here's only here to derail the discussion away from whatever topic it is. And so far, he's batting 1,000 while everyone tries to explain to him how wrong he is.
He knows that. He's not stupid. He's just, apparently, found the perfect way to derail all discussion of anything related to marriage equality for same-ssex couples by trolling every thread and lobbing his "polygamy" bomb into the discussion and then ignoring anything anyone says to him while repeating the same irrelevant, pointless statements over and over.
Am I REALLY the only one here that sees this?? WHY does everyine keep responding to him?? Do you all enjoy banging your head against the wall while he laughs at you and refuses to engage in a discussion??
The way you describe it advocating marriage equality for polyamorists on a gay marriage forum is like farting in church! Why is that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#60 Monday Aug 18
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie is fully aware of that. He doesn't care. He's only here to troll the forum and derail the discussion away from gay couples.
Case in point, before I gave up, I must have told him 25 times that I wasn't against polygamy, would not likely oppose efforts to legalize it (I'd have to see the proposal first, of course), but that I'm not interested enough in the issue to actually DO anything about it, and that I'd gladly support anyone that started a movement to make it happen. I've also given numerous examples of the legal complications you're taking about--not insurmountable, for sure, but definitely in need of addressing.
His responses, 100% of the time were all the same, "*I* support marriage equality--YOU DON'T. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Haaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!"
He's not here to discuss. He's here to troll. The more people respond to him and try to convince him that he's wrong, the harder he jerks off and the bigger his orgasms are at the expense of any intelligent discussion.
Too funny! Relax power ranger.

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.

Top Stories - Gay Marriage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 3 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,904
Judge restores part of Indiana gay marriage suit 11 hr TomInElPaso 2
Stay issued in Indiana gay marriage ban case 23 hr KiMare 21
GOP candidate backs gay marriage Sep 10 Maggie Gallaghers... 15
Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares fo... (Mar '13) Sep 1 Terra Firma 1,568
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children Aug 25 Frankie Rizzo 733
Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand Aug 25 Lawrence Wolf 64
•••

People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••