Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

May 20, 2014 Full story: KCRA-TV Sacramento 1,788

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.

Full Story

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#1695 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That is hilarious! Gays want to change laws, religion, anything they don't like and you claim I have no respect for the law. It doesn't get much funnier.
Excuse me but will you please explain how enforcing the Constitution is changing the law?

As I've said to you before buckwheat, marriage laws were CHANGED in over 29 states so you could prevent people from enjoying the same freedoms you enjoy.

Check the laws. SSM was not illegal prior to 1975! It was just never considered something people would do. Kinda like how folks figured no white woman would ever want to marry a black guy.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1696 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's wonderful. Oh, I had a large movement this morning, feel great now.
Next time you have that urge, please leave the board and use your toilet.
cancer suxs

Owatonna, MN

#1697 Jul 16, 2014
We the people should know is donating to NAZI FASCIST groups and politicians.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1698 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You are a hypocrite, a liar and a troll. But you're funny.
The only troll here is you, Wondering. This fact is proven by post like the one to which I am responding, in which you fail to address the topic on any level.
Wondering wrote:
BTW, Mr. Well Aware, that is not an answer. What is my position? You seem to have no idea.
Wondering, you were the one who was asking what your position was. Perhaps, you should get screened for alzheimer's disease?

The simple fact of the matter is that your argument is not even worth repeating, because it is risible. Grow up, kiddo. You are utterly incapable of articulating a reason why contributors to political issues and campaigns should not disclose their identity and the size of their contribution.

I know you hate transparency and accountability, but you have been incapable of articulating a single valid reason for not disclosing this information. Your assertion that donors would fall victim to illegal assault speaks for itself, we already have laws against such activity, and you have no ability to indicate that such assaults actually would happen.

"Yet multiple federal judges and state boards have thrown out NOM-backed cases, concluding the reasons NOM cites for needing such secrecy — LGBT people are bullies and will harass NOM supporters — is bogus and without sufficient evidence. NOM has unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Washington, Maine, Minnesota, New York, California, Rhode Island and Iowa. In fact, in every jurisdiction that NOM and its allies have tried to undermine public disclosure, they have lost."
http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/legal-d...

NOM was advancing the very argument you are presenting here. It failed in each of these jurisdictions. Are you capable of finding a single instance in which disclosure in these jurisdictions led to an illegal assault?

Go ahead, Wondering, prove to me that you are actually smarter than a rock.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1699 Jul 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The only troll here is you, Wondering. This fact is proven by post like the one to which I am responding, in which you fail to address the topic on any level.
2. Wondering, you were the one who was asking what your position was. Perhaps, you should get screened for alzheimer's disease?
3. The simple fact of the matter is that your argument is not even worth repeating, because it is risible. Grow up, kiddo. You are utterly incapable of articulating a reason why contributors to political issues and campaigns should not disclose their identity and the size of their contribution.
4. I know you hate transparency and accountability, but you have been incapable of articulating a single valid reason for not disclosing this information. Your assertion that donors would fall victim to illegal assault speaks for itself, we already have laws against such activity, and you have no ability to indicate that such assaults actually would happen.
5. Go ahead, Wondering, prove to me that you are actually smarter than a rock.
1. I know, even you can't figure out why I waste my time on you.
2. False. I was asking YOU what my position was since you refer to it continuously. Still no answer. Hard question for the feeble minded?
3. Translation: I can't tell you what it is because I'm clueless. BWAHAHAHA!
4. Yes. We have all kinds of laws. When are these laws useful, before or after a crime is committed?
5. You aren't smart enough to see it. I'm you teacher and mentor. All you have learned is how to parrot some of the insults I send your way. You're like a kid that giggles when they hear a swear word.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1700 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I'm you teacher and mentor.
That's disturbing.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1701 Jul 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Excuse me but will you please explain how enforcing the Constitution is changing the law?
It's all in how you want to twist the constitution, isn't it. You aren't happy with the original so you want to change it. Good for you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1702 Jul 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That's disturbing.
He needs all the help he can get. His father is a doctor but doesn't seem to care.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#1703 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all in how you want to twist the constitution, isn't it. You aren't happy with the original so you want to change it. Good for you.
Yes that old slogan sounds really good to you. We get that. Problem is I don't recall gays and lesbians ever wanting to pass a Constitutional Amendment about marriage.

The only thing I have seen is that People, Courts and Government are now seeing that the Constitution is being fairly enforced.

So tell me what it is in the Constitution you think I'm trying to change.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1704 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
He needs all the help he can get. His father is a doctor but doesn't seem to care.
Would that be one of your examples of a good heterosexual home that is better for the children?

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#1705 Jul 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be one of your examples of a good heterosexual home that is better for the children?
Bazinga!

well done.
:-)

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#1706 Jul 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be one of your examples of a good heterosexual home that is better for the children?
Well according to the Gospel of Kimare, the best father for a child is a monster mutation.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1707 Jul 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes that old slogan sounds really good to you. We get that. Problem is I don't recall gays and lesbians ever wanting to pass a Constitutional Amendment about marriage.
If you find anything about marriage in the constitution, please point me to it.
Marriage is regulated by the states. Well, it's supposed to be.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1708 Jul 16, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be one of your examples of a good heterosexual home that is better for the children?
Excellent point.

Since: Aug 11

Scotts Valley, CA

#1709 Jul 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Well according to the Gospel of Kimare, the best father for a child is a monster mutation.
Naw! The best father for a child, according too KiMare, is a dumb mother pretending to be a lesbian.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1710 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you find anything about marriage in the constitution, please point me to it.
Marriage is regulated by the states. Well, it's supposed to be.
...until the states try and regulate it unconstitutionally and then the judicial branch of the federal government has to step in. You can refer to Loving v Virginia if you have questions. You will also, very soon, get to see other examples as all the states that currently have unconstitutional marriage amendments get struck down. Then we will enjoy you coming to Topix and bellyaching some more because you and your ilk can't have their way.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#1711 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If you find anything about marriage in the constitution, please point me to it.
Marriage is regulated by the states. Well, it's supposed to be.
You remind me of my cat. When I point to something you look at my finger and not where you're being directed to look.

Amendment IX
Non-Enumerated Rights

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1712 Jul 17, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text> ...until the states try and regulate it unconstitutionally and then the judicial branch of the federal government has to step in. You can refer to Loving v Virginia if you have questions. You will also, very soon, get to see other examples as all the states that currently have unconstitutional marriage amendments get struck down. Then we will enjoy you coming to Topix and bellyaching some more because you and your ilk can't have their way.
Loving v Virginia had to do with one man marrying one woman. Nothing there about gay marriage. About me having my own way, I do and you marrying your same sex partner won't change that. States define marriage and as long as the laws apply equally to every citizen of the state they are fair, gay marriage or not.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#1713 Jul 17, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So this supposedly caring mom deliberately birthed two children apart from their father. An option she engaged on their behalf so she could imitate half a normal family. Diabolically perverted!
Obviously Jesus must be God if he is to save mankind, since no mere mortal can fulfill that role. If Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, then he is no more divine than Mohammed or any other religious figure. His death could not be the stepping stone to salvation for everyone.

But even more importantly, the Trinity provides the only escape available for the tremendously large number of contradicting statements made by Jesus himself with respect to his nature and capabilities. The trinity is Christianity's "Great Backdoor". On several occasions Jesus equated himself with God, although he never directly said he was God:

•(a) "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);
•(b) "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);
•(c) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1).(See also: John 10:38, 14:9-11, 17:11, 21-23, Col. 2:9)

Yet, a far larger number of statements clearly shows Jesus did not equate himself with God, in which case he couldn't be mankind's savior:

•(a) "Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" Matt. 19:17);
•(b) "for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28);
•(c) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7:16);
•(d) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46);
•(e) "Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (1 Peter 3:22); (See also: Mark 13:32, 1 cor. 11:3, John 5:19, 20:17, Matt. 26:39 and many others).

Biblical supporters use the escape mechanism rather freely by alleging the former comments were made by Jesus-the-God; while the latter were made by Jesus-the-man. So, depending on the dictates of expediency, the inconsistent comments by Jesus can be reconciled. Without the Trinity, Jesus would appear to be a hopelessly confused young man, more sick than savior.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#1714 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>you are an idiot, who wouldn't see the truth if it bit you.
pot/kettle

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
GM Problems - Are You Having Problems With Your... (Aug '08) 23 hr Sonny Swiney 380
First drive: 2015 Chrysler 300 Sun Mr California 3
Ten barn-find cars to watch from the Baillon Co... Sun Amazing 1
Can We Talk Rationally About the Big Dig Yet? Jan 24 Taajsgpm 2
pontiac bonneville rain water leaks into interior (Dec '08) Jan 24 bill 15
What is the most reliable engine ever made? (Aug '08) Jan 24 David 193
How to install Volvo dice 2014A Jan 23 yellowbend 1
More from around the web