Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1781 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from May 20, 2014, titled Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

Same-sex marriage opponents can't keep the identities of their campaign donors secret, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in upholding a lower court decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCRA-TV Sacramento.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1021 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Stupid and ad hominem attacks are your themes. You have little else.
"Marriage is strengthened and its benefits, importance to society, and the social stability of the family unit are promoted by providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples," they argue. "Providing access to civil marriage for same-sex couples poses no credible threat to religious freedom or to the institution of religious marriage."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1022 Jun 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I love it when the two people who pull threads off topic the most turn around and chastise you for being off topic.
2. You asked him to give the compelling state interest in banning SSM and SSC's adopting and as usual they can' answer.
1. lides only uses that line when he has no rebuttal. Yes, a lot.
2. I've responded to both. I don't care if gays marry. I think kids are better off with a mother and father. Since neither are banned here what exactly is your point? Do you just want to be part of the club? The club that says no one responds? Makes you look pretty stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1023 Jun 20, 2014
I'm not trying to be mean, but it really makes you look stupid to claim two guys standing next to a husband and wife with children are the same.

I'm just warning you, that in every person's mind, that is a marring of marriage. And YOU will feel the full weight of inferiority.

Why are you setting yourself up for something so idiotic?
Bryan Fischer s Hair Gel

Philadelphia, PA

#1024 Jun 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I'm not trying to be mean....I'm just warning you, that in every person's mind, that is a marring of marriage.
No, only less than in sick persons' minds. And they're increasingly in the uneducated minority.

And you mean to defame. And you sexually conflicted homophobes are going reap what you have sown...at least in educated society.

Tee hee. Say hello to the Kirsch man for us!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1025 Jun 20, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I'm not trying to be mean, but it really makes you look stupid to claim two guys standing next to a husband and wife with children are the same.
I'm just warning you, that in every person's mind, that is a marring of marriage. And YOU will feel the full weight of inferiority.
Why are you setting yourself up for something so idiotic?
You still haven't explained why you want to deny the children of SSC's the same legal protections enjoyed by children of all other married couples. "The choice here is between allowing same-sex couples to marry, thereby conferring on their children the benefits of marriage, and depriving those children of married parents altogether," Why are you anti-family? Why do you wish to harm children?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1026 Jun 20, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. lides only uses that line when he has no rebuttal. Yes, a lot.
2. I've responded to both. I don't care if gays marry. I think kids are better off with a mother and father. Since neither are banned here what exactly is your point? Do you just want to be part of the club? The club that says no one responds? Makes you look pretty stupid.
You still haven't explained why you want to deny the children of SSC's the same legal protections enjoyed by children of all other married couples. "The choice here is between allowing same-sex couples to marry, thereby conferring on their children the benefits of marriage, and depriving those children of married parents altogether," Why are you anti-family? Why do you wish to harm children?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1027 Jun 20, 2014
Bryan Fischer s Hair Gel wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only less than in sick persons' minds. And they're increasingly in the uneducated minority.
And you mean to defame. And you sexually conflicted homophobes are going reap what you have sown...at least in educated society.
Tee hee. Say hello to the Kirsch man for us!
You're at your ad hominem phase already.Tee hee.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1028 Jun 21, 2014
The APA did not remove homosexuality from the DSM because they were harassed. At that time, there were abut 100-200 gay activists, TOPS, and the APA membership counted in the tens of thousands. The change was made because some activists pointed out that peer-reviewed studies repeatedly showed that homosexuality just didn't fit the objective criteria used to denote mental illness. Unlike fundie morons, science does change with the evidence.

Robertson made himself a public figure and thus put himself at the whim of public opinion. Even more importantly, he put himself at odds with the network that signs his paycheck. And how is that or the chik-fil-a incident any different than anti-gays harassing pro-gay companies like Disney?

The baker put himself out of the wedding cake business, idiot. He chose to stop making them at all rather than follow the law.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think anyone mentally developed enough to safely use crayons would agree with me.
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1029 Jun 21, 2014
No, you post because you're unbalanced. Any married couple that compares themselves to another couple will find differences. Doesn't make them inferior. Given that just over half of the citizenry supports SSM, your little "every person" remark is just a flat-out lie.

My ex and I were together for 14 years, making us superior to the thousands of marriages that don't even make it to 10 years, right? I mean, if we're comparing...
KiMare wrote:
I'm not trying to be mean, but it really makes you look stupid to claim two guys standing next to a husband and wife with children are the same.
I'm just warning you, that in every person's mind, that is a marring of marriage. And YOU will feel the full weight of inferiority.
Why are you setting yourself up for something so idiotic?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1030 Jun 21, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, you post because you're unbalanced. Any married couple that compares themselves to another couple will find differences. Doesn't make them inferior. Given that just over half of the citizenry supports SSM, your little "every person" remark is just a flat-out lie.
My ex and I were together for 14 years, making us superior to the thousands of marriages that don't even make it to 10 years, right? I mean, if we're comparing...
<quoted text>
You aren't equating yourself to marriage you idiot, you are equating yourself to divorce!

Epic fail again.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1031 Jun 21, 2014
Bryan Fischer s Hair Gel wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only less than in sick persons' minds. And they're increasingly in the uneducated minority.
And you mean to defame. And you sexually conflicted homophobes are going reap what you have sown...at least in educated society.
Tee hee. Say hello to the Kirsch man for us!
Acknowledging reality is 'uneducated'?

Defaming lies is what I am sowing.

Makes you a idiot pervert.

Smile.
cancer suxs

Faribault, MN

#1032 Jun 21, 2014
We the people want to know who the enemies of this nation are. So ye disclose who donates to Nazi fascist KKK hate groups.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1033 Jun 21, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You still haven't explained why you want to deny the children of SSC's the same legal protections enjoyed by children of all other married couples. "The choice here is between allowing same-sex couples to marry, thereby conferring on their children the benefits of marriage, and depriving those children of married parents altogether," Why are you anti-family? Why do you wish to harm children?
Children, regardless of who is caring for them, get the same legal protections.
I'm for traditional families. All else being equal, a mother and a father are optimum.
I don't support single moms, especially teens, and I think having same sex parents can be very harmful to a child. Especially one that has to attend a public inner city school. For this reason I have to ask you, why do you wish to harm children? Why would you put a child in that position knowing full well that he could be bullied and teased in school because he has two dads or two moms?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1034 Jun 21, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The APA did not remove homosexuality from the DSM because they were harassed.
All of their big meetings leading up to the removal were disrupted. Gay psychiatrists were becoming members so they could attack the listing from the inside. There was political pressure, not scientific pressure.

If homosexuality didn't fit the definition of a disorder then how do you explain the higher rates of suicide and suicide attempts, depression and drug/alcohol abuse? Difficulty in achieving self-acceptance?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1035 Jun 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
JD, are you saying the court condones this:
They even harassed the APA into taking the disorder out of the DSM. They defaced Chick-fil-a franchises. Tried to get Phil Robertson fired. Put a baker out of the wedding cake business, how much proof do you need?
Maybe you think none of it is true. You do keep me laughing myass off though. You ask for proof. I provide it, you say the court doesn't think there is anything wrong with it.
Wondering, as usual, you are an idiot.
Yes, there are extremists in every reform movement. To quote Teddy Roosevelt "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe." In the case of the anti-gay movement, you certainly qualify.

Phil Robertson is a public figure, that says stupid things in public forums, and was the subject of a predictable backlash.

The baker in question broke the laws of the state of Colorado. It's funny how you so often come to the defense of people who not only broke the law, but admit as much. The fact that the Baker denied service to a same sex couples was never in question when they had their day in court. They stipulated to the fact that they had broken the law, they merely presented an argument that doing so was justified. Not surprisingly, they were incorrect, just as you are incorrect.

I know all of it is true. And those who continue to publicly express the view that their fellow citizens should be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law should expect that such speech will garner some very negative attention. Adults understand that, while one is free to express and view they may wish to hold (so long as it doesn't seek to incite violence), such public speech will induce a reaction. It's funny to watch you childishly argue for individuals to be able to speak without consequence. Most mature people actually believe in personal accountability.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1036 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
Yes, there are extremists in every reform movement.
Why do you support them over an individual's right to be free of them?
Bottom line here. It's easy to donate anonymously, when supporting controversial efforts one would be wise to do so.

Here's the law:
Under federal law, all contributions of more than $200 to federal candidates, PACs, or parties must be itemized and disclosed to the Federal Election Commission. Donors must report their name, address, employer and occupation, and these records are publicly available from the FEC and several other websites.

Want to give $1,000? Send 5 money orders of $200 each. That was hard.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1037 Jun 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Why do you support them over an individual's right to be free of them?
Because I believe in personal accountability. Clearly you do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1038 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, as usual, you are an idiot.
Yes, there are extremists in every reform movement. To quote Teddy Roosevelt "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe." In the case of the anti-gay movement, you certainly qualify.
Phil Robertson is a public figure, that says stupid things in public forums, and was the subject of a predictable backlash.
The baker in question broke the laws of the state of Colorado. It's funny how you so often come to the defense of people who not only broke the law, but admit as much. The fact that the Baker denied service to a same sex couples was never in question when they had their day in court. They stipulated to the fact that they had broken the law, they merely presented an argument that doing so was justified. Not surprisingly, they were incorrect, just as you are incorrect.
I know all of it is true. And those who continue to publicly express the view that their fellow citizens should be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law should expect that such speech will garner some very negative attention. Adults understand that, while one is free to express and view they may wish to hold (so long as it doesn't seek to incite violence), such public speech will induce a reaction. It's funny to watch you childishly argue for individuals to be able to speak without consequence. Most mature people actually believe in personal accountability.
lides, as usual, you are an idiot....bla bla bla...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1039 Jun 21, 2014
So, don't send your kids to school if they wear glasses, or are overweight, or underweight, or have freckles, or if you are poorer than their peers, or biracial, or of a different religion...and on and on. Kids who bully and tease find something to bully about.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Children, regardless of who is caring for them, get the same legal protections.
I'm for traditional families. All else being equal, a mother and a father are optimum.
I don't support single moms, especially teens, and I think having same sex parents can be very harmful to a child. Especially one that has to attend a public inner city school. For this reason I have to ask you, why do you wish to harm children? Why would you put a child in that position knowing full well that he could be bullied and teased in school because he has two dads or two moms?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1040 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I believe in personal accountability. Clearly you do not.
You support the rights of extremists to threaten and harass citizens that disagree with you. Clearly, I do not.

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.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
XTOOL X100 PAD program Grand Cherokee remote ke... 30 min Xtooleshop 1
News Would you buy a car from Amazon? 1 hr dasiener 2
Autel DS808 price, update, review, car list, forum 5 hr burnett 9
MPPS V18 Works on win7 Did all cars no problem! Jun 23 uobd2 1
News Tesla's real capacity problem? Too many employees Jun 23 MsAngelo 2
Lexia Diagbox 8.46/ 8.42/ 8.38/ 8.37/ 8.35/ 8.1... Jun 22 Jerry523 1
How To Install FGTech Galletto V54 On Win 7 Jun 22 uobd2 3
More from around the web