Gay marriage

Gay marriage

There are 61397 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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21263 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you find a marriage of three adult atheist men objectionable?
The bigots against SSM consider your marriage objectionable. Why are you any different from them?
I'm different because my opposition to polygamy isn't based on an irrational religious hatred of the individuals involved.

I object to 3 adults (regardless of gender or religious belief) from marrying because such a marriage would open the door to an equal protection argument for traditional polygamists who won't limit their marriages to adults.

In addition, polygamous marriage is incompatible with all existing state family law. The entire family law code would have to be rewritten in every state to account for multiple spouses in regards to parental rights, property ownership, inheritance, etc, etc, etc.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21264 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your concerns (forced children marriage, etc) are bullsh!t.
So you're back to deny that traditional polygamy has a LOOOOONG history of forced child marriage?

Yet you previously posted that polygamists should have the "FREEDOM AND EQUALITY" to marry a child as young as age 13.

I disagree.

NO ONE should be able to marry a child under the age of 18 for ANY reason.

Btw, that's merely one of my many concerns,
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21265 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why haven't you convinced a judge or two?
The proof is in the pudding baby.
Btw, my disdain for the Brown family is that THEY have held themselves up as a freak show simply for the attention. Pretty much any "reality show" along those lines is held in similar regard, which is why I don't watch them.
The Brown family's "freak show" resulted in polygamy being no longer a felony in Utah.

They changed the law sheepie. Call 'em freaks but don't call them ineffective or insignificant.
Those Crazy Aliens

Winnipeg, Canada

#21266 Jan 24, 2014
This is it! The REAL Stan Romanek Alien Video



New Extraordinary 2013 Alien UFO Documentary - Stan Romanek

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The Stan Romanek Story: Messages - UFO and Alien Contact

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

To hell with your stupid gay marriage!!!!

THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT PEOPLE!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21267 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If we must ban polygamy because someone might force marry a child we must ban all marriages because someone might force marry a child.
When I speak of marriage I am speaking about consenting adults and that takes away your argument Sheepie. Why do you still use it?
CONSENTING ADULTS.
You can talk about consenting adults all you want, but marriage IS NOT limited to just consenting adults under CURRENT STATE LAW.

And you CONSISTENTLY refuse to support a law which WOULD limit marriage to just consenting adults.

In addition, since marriage is a right, it can't be banned just because someone might LEGALLY marry a child.

Since polygamy is NOT a right, it CAN be banned for any reason whatsoever, including because they would likely start marrying children en masse if given the opportunity.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21268 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm different because my opposition to polygamy isn't based on an irrational religious hatred of the individuals involved.
I object to 3 adults (regardless of gender or religious belief) from marrying because such a marriage would open the door to an equal protection argument for traditional polygamists who won't limit their marriages to adults.
In addition, polygamous marriage is incompatible with all existing state family law. The entire family law code would have to be rewritten in every state to account for multiple spouses in regards to parental rights, property ownership, inheritance, etc, etc, etc.
It's silly to argue that you don't want to give one group equal protection because then you'd have to give it to another group. I think you're a moron who doesn't understand what equal protection means.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21269 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe the same but go one step further and insist that it should be regardless of number also.
Because you ignore the proven HARM to society caused by polygamy.

Any benefit would be greatly outweighed by the harm.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21270 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

In addition, polygamous marriage is incompatible with all existing state family law. The entire family law code would have to be rewritten in every state to account for multiple spouses in regards to parental rights, property ownership, inheritance, etc, etc, etc.
I have studied this extensively and re-writing some property laws etc would be quite easy. Regardless, we can't deny equality because it might be complicated to grant it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21271 Jan 24, 2014
ThePreacherman01 wrote:
When it is all said and done and over with there is only one born fact. Gays and same sex marriage will burn in hell for ever and our lawmaker's in this country will burn with them. Gays and same sex marriage is against the Laws/Rules of God. You can live that kind of lifestyle if you want, but you will pay the price bank on it "FACT"....
PS: Do you want to burn for ever?? W.W.J.D.
Serve up tacos?

Oooh, more scary hocus-pocus religious fairytale nonsense.

BOO!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21272 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're back to deny that traditional polygamy has a LOOOOONG history of forced child marriage?
Yet you previously posted that polygamists should have the "FREEDOM AND EQUALITY" to marry a child as young as age 13.
I disagree.
NO ONE should be able to marry a child under the age of 18 for ANY reason.
Btw, that's merely one of my many concerns,
When you talk of marriage equality, I assume you are talking about consenting adults. Please give me the same simple courtesy. PLEASE. Or else of course, our discussion becomes impossible.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21273 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Au contraire mon fruitloop. What's good for the gay goose is good for the poly gander. That's what EQUALITY means dummy.
So yes, "but the gays did it" is the PERFECT argument. Ah good times!
So polygamists can legally marry in Massachusetts because "the gays" can?

Oooops, maybe not so "perfect" after all?.......
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21274 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

NO ONE should be able to marry a child under the age of 18 for ANY reason.
Btw, that's merely one of my many concerns,
It's the only one we have heard from you though. Are your other concerns a secret? Perhaps you'll share them? I mean I cannot address them if I don't know what they are you silly goose!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21275 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And every high school history student (except you) knows it's never been legal in America.
Why do you lie? Produce evidence. Gimme the post number where I said it was legal, liar.

You lie. You use straw men and red herrings. You totally ignore my effective rebuttals to your dumb arguments.

Otherwise, you're OK as far as I know I suppose. I mean you don't stink or anything. Ah good times!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#21276 Jan 24, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So polygamists can legally marry in Massachusetts because "the gays" can?
Oooops, maybe not so "perfect" after all?.......
No poly is not legal in Mass. But it's good you asked for help anyway. Remember! There are no dumb posts, only stupid posters like yourself.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21277 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
When you talk of marriage equality, I assume you are talking about consenting adults. Please give me the same simple courtesy. PLEASE. Or else of course, our discussion becomes impossible.
Tell that to the polygamists.

When you talk of marriage equality, I assume you are talking about those similarly situated to a couple.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21278 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Brown family's "freak show" resulted in polygamy being no longer a felony in Utah.
They changed the law sheepie. Call 'em freaks but don't call them ineffective or insignificant.
Nope, still wrong.

It resulted in COHABITATION no longer being a felony in Utah.

Polygamy is still a felony; just try to marry more than one person at a time and see what happens.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21279 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's silly to argue that you don't want to give one group equal protection because then you'd have to give it to another group. I think you're a moron who doesn't understand what equal protection means.
It may be silly, but it's obviously very effective.

3 men can't marry; neither can 3 women, nor 1 man & 6 women, nor 1 woman & 5 men, nor 3 men & 3 women.

Yep, pretty darn effective.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21280 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have studied this extensively and re-writing some property laws etc would be quite easy. Regardless, we can't deny equality because it might be complicated to grant it.
It's a hell of a lot more than property laws which would need to be rewritten.

But you're correct, we can't deny equality just because it might be complicated.

Which is why I support keeping polygamy illegal so they aren't qualified for an equal protection argument.
Tits McGee

Harrodsburg, KY

#21281 Jan 24, 2014
I got a call from a friend from San Francisco who told me about the idiot who calls himself "Nine Ball." Apparently he is from my town. Please understand that he does not represent most Kentuckians. I am a proud lesbian who married the girl of my dreams in another state. We own a working farm in this county. People know that we are lesbians who are legally married and no body gives us a second of trouble. We are the parents of two boys who go to public school and who have not been harassed at all.

The only down side to two females marrying is that it is difficult to have children. Perhaps this was a bit underhanded, but it worked for us. A neighbor down the road had a young man who was intelligent, of age, and who had good genes. The family was planning to move to Texas so we separately seduced the young man and became pregnant. He is gone and has no idea that he fathered two boys. Our sons both look like brothers and they are well adjusted. We wish that there was another way, this seemed to be best at the time.

I tell you these things because I want people to know that "Nine Ball" is either a fool or he is pulling a lot of legs. I also want it known that marriage between homosexuals can produce results just as gratifying as SSM. Fear not, it is coming.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21282 Jan 24, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the only one we have heard from you though. Are your other concerns a secret? Perhaps you'll share them? I mean I cannot address them if I don't know what they are you silly goose!
I've posted them multiple times.

Feel free to scroll back through the past 900+ pages.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min RoxLo 1,418,089
News Why Hillary Clinton's shadiness won't be fatal 4 min Phyllis Schlafly ... 72
News Hispanics fear profiling under new Arizona law (Apr '10) 5 min Paul P Tretiakoff 193,144
News Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her ... 5 min gwww 57
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Jay 239,327
News Suddenly it's Trump sounding soft on illegal im... 14 min Lawrence Wolf 7
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 15 min Agents of Corruption 393,247
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 16 min katrina 88 7,585
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 28 min Lawrence Wolf 311
More from around the web