Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1782 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1634 Jul 13, 2014
Ithink it would take years of extensive analysis and therapy to get to K's problems. I understand that, if he is actually a unisexed individual, he may have gender issues concerning roles, but usually these are internalized issues. He's projecting like a lighthouse.

I wouldn't rule out parental abuse, but it might not be sexual. I could see where an overbearing parent might have tried to instill gender-role behaviors so deeply that acting outside of traditional behaviors would terrify him, but it's time to grow up.
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd love to know why our KiMare is so convinced that parental gender matters so much. Given that parents aren't supposed to be engaging in sexual relations with children, any children, but especially their own, I can't figure out why he/she is so fixated on it.
The only thing I can come up with is that maybe the sex he/she had with his/her parents when he/she was growing up was so good that he/she thinks that all children should engage in regular sexual relations with their parents.
As sick and demented as that notion is, I can't figure out any other reason why he/she would find it so critical and, given the level of crazy with his/her other posts, it does fit well with the rest of the crazy, doesn't it?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1635 Jul 13, 2014
His kids are probably a lot more confused than any SS couple's could be.
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>BAZINGA!
wish I'd thought of asking it the same thing.
He says his children had him his wife and his lesbian. He tries to insist he was the male role model and the wife was the lady, but what about the lesbian? Was she the children's 'funny Uncle'?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1636 Jul 13, 2014
cancer suxs wrote:
Wondering--------You just made 5 post in a row for sure that are off topic.
This topic is about making sure WE THE PEOPLE know who donates to nazi fascist KKK far right causes so when can stay clear of these un-American slime
You can't read, how would you know?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1637 Jul 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, you have never answered the question.
At least 100 times. Why can't you recall? I'll tell you why. You block out anything that goes against your nonsense, you don't want to hear it so you block it out. The source doesn't matter. If it's a law, you say it's a bad law. If it's the supreme court you say they made a bad call. If it's anyone here you rely on you juvenile name calling. I have never met anyone as insignificant and irrelevant as you are. The good news is that your foolishness makes me laugh out loud. Keep the laughs coming.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1638 Jul 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Ithink it would take years of extensive analysis and therapy to get to K's problems. I understand that, if he is actually a unisexed individual, he may have gender issues concerning roles, but usually these are internalized issues. He's projecting like a lighthouse.
I wouldn't rule out parental abuse, but it might not be sexual. I could see where an overbearing parent might have tried to instill gender-role behaviors so deeply that acting outside of traditional behaviors would terrify him, but it's time to grow up.
<quoted text>
Those are good points. We still live on a world where the medical community and most of society still believes that intersex children should simply have their genitals altered to be female and then treated like a girl with the totally misguided notion that gender identity is no more than how society treats a person and that if a person is treated like a girl, he or she will BE a girl. Which, of course, is nuts. But that doesn't stop people from doing it, does it?

If that were true, there would be so such thing as a transsexual. Or even cross-dressers, for that matter. Or gay people. The notion that everyone turns out to be exactly what everyone else wants them to be is not only completely nuts, but is proven wrong every day by millions of people all over the world.

But, as in our KiMare's case, just because someone claims to be intersex on an Internet discussion group, that doesn't mean he or she IS actually intersex. And just because a person might be intersex, that doesn't mean they have a clue about gender. As KiMare is proving, anyone can be clueless about gender and where it does and does not matter.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1639 Jul 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
At least 100 times. Why can't you recall? I'll tell you why. You block out anything that goes against your nonsense, you don't want to hear it so you block it out. The source doesn't matter. If it's a law, you say it's a bad law. If it's the supreme court you say they made a bad call. If it's anyone here you rely on you juvenile name calling. I have never met anyone as insignificant and irrelevant as you are. The good news is that your foolishness makes me laugh out loud. Keep the laughs coming.
Wondering, you have presented a variety of childish rationalizations, all of which were directly, and rather easily, debunked. The fact of the matter remains that you can offer no valid reason why those who make donations to political causes should remain anonymous.

Free speech is not free, it comes with personal accountability.

You can't say something in a public square, and then sue the person standing next to you for invasion of privacy.

Would you care to offer a valid argument that would make it appear that you are, even the mildest bit intelligent, or would you prefer to continue your infantile and troll like posting that seldom even so much as attempts to address the topic at hand?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1640 Jul 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wondering, you have presented a variety of childish rationalizations, all of which were directly, and rather easily, debunked.
2. The fact of the matter remains that you can offer no valid reason why those who make donations to political causes should remain anonymous.
3. Free speech is not free, it comes with personal accountability.
4. You can't say something in a public square, and then sue the person standing next to you for invasion of privacy.
5. Would you care to offer a valid argument that would make it appear that you are, even the mildest bit intelligent, or would you prefer to continue your infantile and troll like posting that seldom even so much as attempts to address the topic at hand?
1. None were childish, that's you thing. None were "debunked" especially by the like of you.
2. Did you read the story? The people that donate wouldn't be protected from the illegal harassment of gay activists. You are welcome to use your real name here, why don't you?
3. As long as it's legal, no problem.
4. Gays try all of the time.
5. Would you?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1641 Jul 13, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
His kids are probably a lot more confused than any SS couple's could be.
<quoted text>
Especially if they had to deal with Grandma K.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1642 Jul 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. None were childish, that's you thing. None were "debunked" especially by the like of you.
Do you notice how you start by claiming that the responses were not childish, but fail to offer any argument in defense of your previous statements? That is why your responses are childish, Wondering. You don't attempt to make or support an argument, much less a valid and factually supported one, you merely continue to reassert your opinion that they are valid.

That doesn't amount to a rational defense of your position, or a logical argument.
Wondering wrote:
2. Did you read the story? The people that donate wouldn't be protected from the illegal harassment of gay activists. You are welcome to use your real name here, why don't you?
Wondering, if the harassment is in fact illegal, then they could go through the proper legal channels to address their complaints, which would be valid. The problem is that they cannot concretely illustrate that any harassment, whether legal or illegal, has or would occur.

Once again, you understanding of the issue is childlike, and your oversimplification of the issue is as well.
Wondering wrote:
3. As long as it's legal, no problem.
Of course, that doesn't answer the issue of personal accountability, which you have consistently argued against. What is your problem with individuals being accountable for their actions and speech, Wondering?
Wondering wrote:
4. Gays try all of the time.
No, Wondering, no homosexual has ever said something in public, and then tried to sue someone around them for invasion of privacy.

If you are referring to the various lawsuits that have been brought against businesses that have refused service to same sex couples for their weddings, then your comparison is utterly inept. At issue in those cases is not invasion of privacy, but rather equal protection of the law, and anti-discrimination. So far, the businesses that choose to discriminate have racked up an impressive array of court losses, because they actually did break the laws that enjoin businesses from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Wondering wrote:
5. Would you?
I've offered many. You, on the other hand, have been irrationally screaming like a primate.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1643 Jul 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you notice how you start by claiming that the responses were not childish, but fail to offer any argument in defense of your previous statements?
Easy one. I've driven your nonsense into the ground time after time. You are the moron, imbecile, stupid person that you accuse everyone else of being. I bet if
I asked your Dad, he would say he had no kids. All of my previous statements have been defended. Your ignoring anything you don't like won't change that. Face it, you are a moron and worship all things gay. I think you moved to NY so you could be close to GCS. Lots of action for you there.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1644 Jul 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Easy one. I've driven your nonsense into the ground time after time. You are the moron, imbecile, stupid person that you accuse everyone else of being. I bet if
I asked your Dad, he would say he had no kids. All of my previous statements have been defended. Your ignoring anything you don't like won't change that. Face it, you are a moron and worship all things gay. I think you moved to NY so you could be close to GCS. Lots of action for you there.
No, Wondering, you have proven that you are an unintelligent and irrational troll, incapable of assembling even the most basic argument in favor of your position.

Once again, you have posted without even so much as attempting to address the toppic at hand, which is pretty pathetic, Wondering.

So, how about it, kiddo, are you ready to articulate why you oppose personal accountability relative to free speech?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1645 Jul 13, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, you have proven that you are an unintelligent and irrational troll, incapable of assembling even the most basic argument in favor of your position.
Once again, you have posted without even so much as attempting to address the toppic at hand, which is pretty pathetic, Wondering.
So, how about it, kiddo, are you ready to articulate why you oppose personal accountability relative to free speech?
After all your nonsense about disclosing the names of donors, after repeatedly saying stupid things like 'free speech isn't free' and other similar crap, feel free to post your real name here or forever be the imbecile hypocrite that you are.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1646 Jul 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
After all your nonsense about disclosing the names of donors, after repeatedly saying stupid things like 'free speech isn't free' and other similar crap, feel free to post your real name here or forever be the imbecile hypocrite that you are.
Wondering, as of yet, you have been incapable of articulating a logical or factually supported argument why donors to these campaigns should be anonymous.

When one raises their voice in a public election, or supports a political cause with their financial donations, the reasonable expectation of privacy is breeched. There is no reason why such donors should not be disclosed to the public. We deserve to know who is funding these various campaigns and issues. That you wish to shield this information from the public is telling as to your position and your character, or lack thereof.

Grow up, Wondering.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1647 Jul 13, 2014
Oh, I agree...he's probably a sham. Pretending that the sister you absorbed in utero is a lesbian suggests a delusional thought process.

The good news is that the medical field is waking up to the idea that manipulating the genitals of intersexed babies is counterproductive:
http://www.bioethics.msu.edu/images/stories/f...

The David Reimer case made a big impact in some circles.
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are good points. We still live on a world where the medical community and most of society still believes that intersex children should simply have their genitals altered to be female and then treated like a girl with the totally misguided notion that gender identity is no more than how society treats a person and that if a person is treated like a girl, he or she will BE a girl. Which, of course, is nuts. But that doesn't stop people from doing it, does it?
If that were true, there would be so such thing as a transsexual. Or even cross-dressers, for that matter. Or gay people. The notion that everyone turns out to be exactly what everyone else wants them to be is not only completely nuts, but is proven wrong every day by millions of people all over the world.
But, as in our KiMare's case, just because someone claims to be intersex on an Internet discussion group, that doesn't mean he or she IS actually intersex. And just because a person might be intersex, that doesn't mean they have a clue about gender. As KiMare is proving, anyone can be clueless about gender and where it does and does not matter.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1648 Jul 14, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
I never wanted to be a father or a mother. I'm not insecure enough to need to replicate myself. So, what vagina-related things did your mother do for or to you everyday that made her gender so important?
<quoted text>
Having a child means you are insecure?

Mothering is vagina related?

You are making all gays out to be idiots and perverts...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1649 Jul 14, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd love to know why our KiMare is so convinced that parental gender matters so much. Given that parents aren't supposed to be engaging in sexual relations with children, any children, but especially their own, I can't figure out why he/she is so fixated on it.
The only thing I can come up with is that maybe the sex he/she had with his/her parents when he/she was growing up was so good that he/she thinks that all children should engage in regular sexual relations with their parents.
As sick and demented as that notion is, I can't figure out any other reason why he/she would find it so critical and, given the level of crazy with his/her other posts, it does fit well with the rest of the crazy, doesn't it?
http://www.cfcidaho.org/why-children-need-mal...

"Mothers and Fathers Play Differently
Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children….Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security….Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy.
Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security
Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.
Mothers and Fathers Communicate Differently
Father’s talk tends to be more brief, directive and to the point. It also makes greater use of subtle body language. Mothers tend to be more descriptive, personal and verbally encouraging.
Fathers and Mothers Prepare Children for Life Differently
Dads tend to see their child in relation to the rest of the world. Mothers tend to see the rest of the world in relation to their child.
Fathers Provide a Look at the World of Men; Mothers, the World of Women
Girls and boys who grow up with a father are more familiar and secure with the curious world of men. Girls with involved, married fathers are more likely to have healthier relationships with boys in adolescence and men in adulthood because they learn from their fathers how proper men act toward women. They also learn from mom how to live in a woman’s world. This knowledge builds emotional security and safety from the exploitation of predatory males.
Mothers help boys understand the female world and develop a sensitivity toward women. They also help boys know how to relate and communicate with women.
Fathers and Mothers Teach Respect for the Opposite Sex
FACT: A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. This means that boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women.
The American Journal of Sociology finds that,“Societies with father-present patterns of child socialization produce men who are less inclined to exclude women from public activities than their counterparts in father-absent societies.” Scott Coltrane,“Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988) p. 1088.
Girls and boys with married mothers learn from their mothers what a healthy, respectful female relationship with men looks like."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1650 Jul 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, as of yet, you have been incapable of articulating a logical or factually supported argument why donors to these campaigns should be anonymous.
When one raises their voice in a public election, or supports a political cause with their financial donations, the reasonable expectation of privacy is breeched. There is no reason why such donors should not be disclosed to the public. We deserve to know who is funding these various campaigns and issues. That you wish to shield this information from the public is telling as to your position and your character, or lack thereof.
Grow up, Wondering.
You are welcome to use your real name here, why don't you? Why are you unwilling to stand behind your nonsense?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1651 Jul 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, you have proven that you are an unintelligent and irrational troll, incapable of assembling even the most basic argument in favor of your position.
What is my position?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1652 Jul 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You are welcome to use your real name here, why don't you? Why are you unwilling to stand behind your nonsense?
So, are you. What's your point?
Right now it appears as though you have no point whatsoever.
Wondering wrote:
What is my position?
You don't know? Well, I guess this says just about everything anyone would need to know about the validity of your posts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1653 Jul 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So, are you. What's your point?
Right now it appears as though you have no point whatsoever.
<quoted text>
2. You don't know? Well, I guess this says just about everything anyone would need to know about the validity of your posts.
1. This would be obvious to all but people with the simplest minds, my point is you are a hypocrite.
2. You have confirmed that you don't know. That makes you look even more asinine than you did. A feat I would have thought was impossible.

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
OP-COM 2012V/ VAUX-COM 120309a Free Download (Oct '15) 2 hr jady 25
Mclaren MDS Diagnostic Tools Tester Mclaren D... 4 hr MYQQ3186645439 1
Vediamo 4.02.02 Software Free Download (Mar '16) 11 hr Ambrosio 2
mb star Xentry Installation Guide (Jul '11) 12 hr Ambrosio 7
BMW motor diagnosis & programming solutions Mon lalaura 1
OBDSTAR F109 scanner special for SUZUKI with Im... Sun uobd2 1
News Here's what a $500 million lawsuit against NASC... Sep 24 Kimmull2324 1
More from around the web