Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to prec...

Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents

There are 821 comments on the WSFA-TV Montgomery story from Feb 13, 2014, titled Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents. In it, WSFA-TV Montgomery reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WSFA-TV Montgomery.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#749 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
With lawyers, damn 'em. How do you pull the plug when there is no wife and 4 children can't agree? Ah hell, you're retarded. But I do try to explain don't I?
Yank yank!
Lawyers can't remove the rights of a legal spouse, so if there are 2 wives neither can be denied their right to make medical decisions for her husband. There is no way to resolve that without violating the rights of one wife or the other.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#750 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I can explain it to you but I cannot comprehend it for you because you're retarded.
Suppose there is no next of kin how do you decide dummy? Suppose there is no wife but two kids to decide? Who decides? and etc.
Hey. Don't say I didn't explain it just because you cannot comprehend it.
Green squid.

You said it could be easily resolved, but obviously it can't be resolved without violating the rights of one of the wives.

So which wife's rights would you violate?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#751 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No that's not what we agree on at all. What we agree on is that you refuse to assume that I am talking about consenting adults and I accept that you are talking about 2 unrelated consenting adults. In other words we agree that you are a lying deceitful sack of sh!t.
Ask for help. I can explain this stuff for you but I can't comprehend it for you.
If I can't limit the marriage discussion to 2 consenting unrelated adults, then you can't limit the discussion to just consenting adults.

In other words, if you demand any marriage discussion must include polygamy, then I can just as easily demand any marriage discussion must include bestiality & 4 year olds.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#752 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I find it objectionable also that's why I use it on Sheeples.
No disrespect to special people they are truly special and are not "retards", but Sheepie is. He's not special, he's a retard. Hope that helps.
It helps me cringe. I wonder what the world would be like if every human being was forced to spend just 24 hours experiencing the constant living hell that being developmentally disabled must be. The word "empathy" could take on a whole new meaning.
3 posts removed

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#756 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If I was as nasty as most of these clowns here I'd lecture you about being on topic like they do to me. You have the rainbow pass, so it's OK for you. But I am told poly marriage is off topic in this marriage equality thread by these clowns.
Go find a polygamy thread and start trying to tell them that they have to support marriage equality for same-sex couples, too, or they're not really supporting marriage equality and see how far you get.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#757 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it done when there is no wife but two children who disagree? Come on, you're trying to deny rights based on "too complicated" so justify it. Make it make sense.
You have no valid argument to deny marriage equality for polygamists so you're searching for technicalities and getting ridiculous.
Green squid.

Children don't have the same familial rights as a spouse.

Spouses have specific rights, and you can't grant the right to one wife without infringing the rights of the other wives.

Since polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, obviously every argument against polygamy is valid; if they weren't valid, then polygamy wouldn't be illegal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#758 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
If I was as nasty as most of these clowns here I'd lecture you about being on topic like they do to me. You have the rainbow pass, so it's OK for you. But I am told poly marriage is off topic in this marriage equality thread by these clowns.
Yet you keep telling us child marriage and man-dog marriage if off topic in this marriage equality thread.

Hypocrite.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#759 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If I was as nasty as most of these clowns here I'd lecture you about being on topic like they do to me. You have the rainbow pass, so it's OK for you. But I am told poly marriage is off topic in this marriage equality thread by these clowns.
I wouldn't accept anyone telling me that it was "off topic", but neither would I accept anyone telling me that support of one necessitates support of the other.

Stripping marriage of its exclusivity seems like a much more drastic and bizarre change than allowing the couple to be of the same gender. And I'll worry that this is an "equality" issue when I see polygamists kicked out of the military.

The trouble with polygamy is that it's not an in-born trait like homosexuality. Anyone can be a polygamist; you, me, Sheeple. All we have to do is decide that we're dissatisfied with just one spouse, and find two or more people willing to pool into a relationship all together. Oddly, other people can take your own polygamy away. If you're in a three-person relationship, and one of them decides to leave, then boom, the other two are no longer polygamists, quite against their will.

I have no issue with any of that, but I completely understand resistance to the idea that supporters of same-sex marriage "should" or "must" also support polygamy. The two concepts couldn't be more different.
3 posts removed
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#763 Apr 25, 2014
If anyone was interested in my posts today, they went "Poof".

Censorship sucks.

Judged:

14

13

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#764 Apr 25, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Go find a polygamy thread and start trying to tell them that they have to support marriage equality for same-sex couples, too, or they're not really supporting marriage equality and see how far you get.
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.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#765 Apr 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't accept anyone telling me that it was "off topic", but neither would I accept anyone telling me that support of one necessitates support of the other.
Stripping marriage of its exclusivity seems like a much more drastic and bizarre change than allowing the couple to be of the same gender. And I'll worry that this is an "equality" issue when I see polygamists kicked out of the military.
The trouble with polygamy is that it's not an in-born trait like homosexuality. Anyone can be a polygamist; you, me, Sheeple. All we have to do is decide that we're dissatisfied with just one spouse, and find two or more people willing to pool into a relationship all together. Oddly, other people can take your own polygamy away. If you're in a three-person relationship, and one of them decides to leave, then boom, the other two are no longer polygamists, quite against their will.
I have no issue with any of that, but I completely understand resistance to the idea that supporters of same-sex marriage "should" or "must" also support polygamy. The two concepts couldn't be more different.
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.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#766 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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.
Bigamy and polygamy are two different things. Bigamy is a crime because you can't get married to one person, while surreptitiously married to someone else. It's fraud.

Attempts to achieve polygamy openly are simply not granted. If three people show up together to the justice of the peace, they aren't going to be thrown into prison, they'll simply be turned away. They'll never have a marriage that can be prosecuted.

I really don't think there are any cases of the second instance, where people are thrown in jail for attempting a group marriage. Only when they marry someone else without telling their first spouse, or the state, about it.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#767 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Most polygamists support SSM.
They kind of have to. There are only two genders. If you have more than two people in a marriage, there's going to be some gender duplication.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#768 Apr 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
They kind of have to. There are only two genders. If you have more than two people in a marriage, there's going to be some gender duplication.
Sure. Same as SSM supporters kinda hafta support polygamy. Which is of course my point.

Judged:

14

14

14

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#769 Apr 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigamy and polygamy are two different things. Bigamy is a crime because you can't get married to one person, while surreptitiously married to someone else. It's fraud.
Attempts to achieve polygamy openly are simply not granted. If three people show up together to the justice of the peace, they aren't going to be thrown into prison, they'll simply be turned away. They'll never have a marriage that can be prosecuted.
I really don't think there are any cases of the second instance, where people are thrown in jail for attempting a group marriage. Only when they marry someone else without telling their first spouse, or the state, about it.
Not true. All spouses can agree but it's still a crime in all states.

In Reynolds the court told us straightforwardly the reasons for the laws against polygamy. Moral disapproval. Which is no longer a valid reason thanks to SSM.

“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.”

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#770 Apr 25, 2014
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.
As it should be...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#771 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure. Same as SSM supporters kinda hafta support polygamy. Which is of course my point.
Nope, there is no logical connection between two people marrying and groups marrying.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#772 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. All spouses can agree but it's still a crime in all states.
In Reynolds the court told us straightforwardly the reasons for the laws against polygamy. Moral disapproval. Which is no longer a valid reason thanks to SSM.
“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.”
Nope, that just means moral disapproval isn't a valid reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry; it has nothing to do with polygamy.

Using your logic, then there is no valid reason to ban man-dog marriages, or child marriages either.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#773 Apr 25, 2014
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
It helps me cringe. I wonder what the world would be like if every human being was forced to spend just 24 hours experiencing the constant living hell that being developmentally disabled must be. The word "empathy" could take on a whole new meaning.
I apologize to all special people. I shouldn't have called sheepie a "retard", my bad. OK? That's great! Now chill out cowboy. Get a real argument.'K?

Judged:

14

14

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#774 Apr 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Sure. Same as SSM supporters kinda hafta support polygamy. Which is of course my point.
Why do we "have" to support polygamy? My desire for ONE spouse does not necessarily translate into support of 18 spouses.

But if a man wants to be in a plural marriage of one man and two women, it would sort of hypocritical of him to say that the two women couldn't be married alone without him.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Not true. All spouses can agree but it's still a crime in all states.
And how far would they get in committing that crime, if all of them went together and openly stated that they all wanted to be married? They'd simply be told that they CANNOT be married, and no crime would even occur.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
In Reynolds the court told us straightforwardly the reasons for the laws against polygamy. Moral disapproval. Which is no longer a valid reason thanks to SSM.
“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.”
Reynolds was convicted of BIGAMY, not polygamy. He married Mary Ann Tuddenham in 1865, and then Amelia Jane Schofield 9 years later. I don't know the historic details of the case, but it seems unlikely that his marriage to Schofield would have even been granted if he were open and honest with the state about his pre-existing marriage to Tuddenham. Of course, this may have been during a time when a religious authorization was all that was needed to declare a marriage official, and in Utah at the time such an authorization was probably easy to find. State authority may have simply bowed blindly to religious authority, a negligent mistake that is less likely today.

However, I'm skeptical about the relevance of a 140-year-old court case. Have there been any more recent cases of polygamous imprisonment? Cases that did NOT involve lying to the state authority about a previous spouse DURING the process of obtaining a second?

But no, I agree that "moral disapproval" does not make a very good argument in a legal venue. Should polygamy get its day in court (again), it will be fascinating to watch. And with the potential for abuse that has been shown to exist in polygamy, I hope that the opposition's arguments are more thoughtful and less asinine than they have been with same-sex marriage.

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) 2 min Cheech the Conser... 1,457,788
News Jobs report shows Trump to inherit solid but un... 2 min Frogface Kate 18
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Taletha Roxx 403,361
News Trump said hedge funders were a getting away wi... 4 min Fcvk Trump 23
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 4 min French 1,979
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min scientia potentia... 216,619
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Dr Phil 230,933
Donald J Trump, our next president (Mar '16) 6 min X -Man- 1,008
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 11 min bobbyjoe 123
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr TRUMP WINNERS 252,888
More from around the web