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.

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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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

Location hidden

#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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#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.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

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

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1715 Jul 17, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I retain my right to say no, so why do the gay Nazi's say we lose our right to say no when we open a business?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1716 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. I know, even you can't figure out why I waste my time on you.
I always assumed it was because you were an idiot. God knows, you have nothing of value to say.
Wondering wrote:
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?
Wondering, you asked the question.
"What is my position?"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T841OTHG3...
Why you did so is open to interpretation. I interpret it as you being feeble minded.
If you don't want to look like an idiot, stop doing stupid things.
Wondering wrote:
3. Translation: I can't tell you what it is because I'm clueless. BWAHAHAHA!
Translation, your argument is completely lacking in rational foundation, and I wouldn't give it the credibility of repeating it.
Wondering wrote:
4. Yes. We have all kinds of laws. When are these laws useful, before or after a crime is committed?
Wondering, law is useful both pre, and post crime. They establish a framework for what is unacceptable and establish a means of punishment. How's that hunt for a single instance in which an illegal accosting of a disclosed donor going?
Wondering wrote:
5. You aren't smart enough to see it.
That's rich, coming from an imbecile.
Wondering wrote:
I'm you teacher and mentor.
You are an idiot struggling with basic English.
Wondering wrote:
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.
Sorry, kiddo, I don't parrot your garbage. If I am inclined to insult your risible (look it up) and hackneyed work, I am more than capable of creating my own material.

The reality remains that you are too stupid to address the topic at hand, and instead offer your pathetic attempts to ad hominem attacks, which merely underscore your lack of rational argument in defense of your position.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1717 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
Wondering, you asked the question.
"What is my position?"
Yes, I asked you. Still no answer.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1718 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
Translation, your argument is completely lacking in rational foundation, and I wouldn't give it the credibility of repeating it.
Have no fear, you cannot give what you do not possess.
You also cannot repeat something until you say it. Still no answer.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1719 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality remains that you are too stupid to address the topic at hand, and instead offer your pathetic attempts to ad hominem attacks, which merely underscore your lack of rational argument in defense of your position.
The reality is that no topic was mentioned in your off-topic post. Just more of the same childish drivel.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1720 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
You are an idiot struggling with basic English.
Unlike the extremely common lides brain fart, the missing 'r' was an actual typo.
Go out and play with the other kids.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1721 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v Virginia had to do with one man marrying one woman.
No kumquat, Loving v Virginia had to do with certain states applying restrictions to marriage that weren't applied equally to all citizens. No where in the case was "one man one woman" ever discussed. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing there about gay marriage.
Of course not princess, because there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage. And "marriage" most certainly is there. It's discussed as being a fundamental right for ALL. No mention of just straight people.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But when the laws DON'T apply equally (as in the case with all the states that currently have constitutional amendments prohibiting only same sex couples from marrying), they are struck down. And after they are struck down, we are left with a bunch of cry baby fundies like yourself.

Oh, and just fyi, no matter how many times you type out "gay marriage", no such institution will ever exist. There is only one institution, and it's called "marriage".

Have a great day pumpkin head. I look forward to your next ridiculous rant.

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
mehdisoft 12 hr asgari123 1
News Exclusive: Dr. Phil feels 'violated' over stole... (Sep '12) Wed cadescove99 6
XTOOL X-100 PAD Tablet Key Programmer (Nov '15) Wed jimmyLIN 20
Tips to unlock KVM in Land Rover Wed Ambrosio 1
News Tony Stewart wants back in a NASCAR Xfinity car... Nov 12 New Phartse 7
(11.11 Big Promotion) BMW ICOM Next A+B+C Nov 8 FMPC001 1
5 cylinder chevy colorado (May '07) Nov 7 Irishmenshamrock 317
BMW ISTA-D Rheingold 4.05.23 free dwonload her... Sep '17 willburr555 5
More from around the web