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.

“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.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1722 Jul 17, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No kumquat, Loving v Virginia had to do with certain states applying restrictions to marriage that weren't applied equally to all citizens.
That's correct. The state allowed marriage between men and women so they were wrong to block such a marriage because one of the participants was black and the other was white.
That said, if a state blocks all men from marrying men, and all women from marrying women then the law is applied equally to all of its citizens.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1723 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's correct. The state allowed marriage between men and women so they were wrong to block such a marriage because one of the participants was black and the other was white.
That said, if a state blocks all men from marrying men, and all women from marrying women then the law is applied equally to all of its citizens.
Anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to all citizens as well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1724 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's correct. The state allowed marriage between men and women so they were wrong to block such a marriage because one of the participants was black and the other was white.
That said, if a state blocks all men from marrying men, and all women from marrying women then the law is applied equally to all of its citizens.
That was the same logic used to defend the ban on inter-racial marriages.

If whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks then the law is being applied equally.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1725 Jul 17, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
If whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks then the law is being applied equally.
Only if anyone that is not white is considered to be something other than human. They are human just like everyone else. It was about one man marrying one woman. Your bucket has a hole in it.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1726 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's correct. The state allowed marriage between men and women so they were wrong to block such a marriage because one of the participants was black and the other was white.
That said, if a state blocks all men from marrying men, and all women from marrying women then the law is applied equally to all of its citizens.
No dear, in this case the law would only be being applied equally if all humans were innately attracted to the same sex. But they aren't, so the law is favoring those that do. Which is exactly why all the bans and amendments are being struck down. Sorry dearie, but our justice system isn't supporting your statement.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1727 Jul 17, 2014
correction: "...if all humans were innately attracted to the opposite sex. But they aren't....."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1728 Jul 18, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, in this case the law would only be being applied equally if all humans were innately attracted to the same sex. But they aren't, so the law is favoring those that do. Which is exactly why all the bans and amendments are being struck down. Sorry dearie, but our justice system isn't supporting your statement.
They don't allow brothers or sisters to marry either. Fathers and their kids, mothers and their kids, first cousins even if they're the same sex. Pesky laws.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1729 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't allow brothers or sisters to marry either Fathers and their kids, mothers and their kids.
And this is applied equally to all. What's your point? Oh, that's right, like always you don't have one so you're just typing out nonsense.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
, first cousins even if they're the same sex. Pesky laws.
First cousins can marry in 6 states, one of them being Maine where this would extend to same sex first cousins since Maine recognizes marriage equality.

You should really consider educating yourself on subjects before thrusting yourself into conversation about them. But then, that would take away all the fun of demonstrating what a moron you are so publically.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1730 Jul 18, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is applied equally to all. What's your point?
Only a closed mind would ask that question. A law that allows any man to marry any qualified woman is also applied equally to all. Good news, there is no law against remaining single if you can't find a suitable partner.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1731 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Only a closed mind would ask that question. A law that allows any man to marry any qualified woman is also applied equally to all.
But a law that states that a person can't marry the qualified person of their choice simply because of gender is not applied equally to all. You're argument has lost every time it's been presented. The closed mind is yours dear.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Good news, there is no law against remaining single if you can't find a suitable partner.
Even better news is that I did find a suitable partner 22 years ago, and we're now legally married as recognized by the state and the federal government as fully equal to any other marriage. And the best news yet, there's not a damn thing that your trolling and crying on Topix will ever do to alter that fact. Have a nice day pumpkin.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1732 Jul 18, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. But a law that states that a person can't marry the qualified person of their choice simply because of gender is not applied equally to all.
2. You're argument has lost every time it's been presented.
3. Even better news is that I did find a suitable partner 22 years ago, and we're now legally married as recognized by the state and the federal government as fully equal to any other marriage. And the best news yet, there's not a damn thing that your trolling and crying on Topix will ever do to alter that fact. Have a nice day pumpkin.
1. It is. In some states same sex partners don't qualify.
2. Only in closed minds.
3. I wish you happiness. Another fact you may not like though, your marriage won't be equal until it's recognized in all 50 states. I really don't care if that happens, looks like it will.
enserio

Villa Gesell, Argentina

#1733 Jul 18, 2014

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1734 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It is. In some states same sex partners don't qualify.
Federally they qualify in ALL 50 states. And in every state that doesn't recognize them on a state level they are being overturned. Oklahoma's ban was struck down just hours ago. Because no one arguing for your side can demonstrate how it isn't discrimination. As noted before, your lame argument doesn't work. Bans have been struck down as unconstitutional in 10 states so far, and the rest will follow.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
3. I wish you happiness. Another fact you may not like though, your marriage won't be equal until it's recognized in all 50 states. I really don't care if that happens, looks like it will.
My marriage is equal now dear. Your opinions don't count for a hill of beans on the matter. I have every privilege associate with marriage that any straight person has. And for someone that really doesn't care if it happens, your negative posts and your continued trolling of sites dealing with the issue would indicate otherwise.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1735 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't care if that happens, looks like it will.
Thank you dear.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1736 Jul 18, 2014
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Federally they qualify in ALL 50 states.
2. My marriage is equal now dear. Your opinions don't count for a hill of beans on the matter. I have every privilege associate with marriage that any straight person has.
1. Yes, they qualify federally, but not in all 50 states.
2. Except for recognition. I'm married in all 50 states, you are not.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1737 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, they qualify federally, but not in all 50 states.
2. Except for recognition. I'm married in all 50 states, you are not.
Not true....we are still married in ALL 50 States......even if the State opts NOT to recognize it as yet......but don't worry.......this issue will be heading to SCOTUS in their next term and by June of 2015......should have a resolution that some just AREN'T going to be happy with!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1739 Jul 19, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Yes, I asked you. Still no answer.
If you can't remember, then that is none of my concern.
I won't be parroting back your witless rationalizations, Wondering.
Wondering wrote:
Have no fear, you cannot give what you do not possess.
You also cannot repeat something until you say it. Still no answer.
Cute, would you care to offer an on topic and factually supported argument, or are you tired of being made to look like a fool when your arguments are dismantled?
Wondering wrote:
Unlike the extremely common lides brain fart, the missing 'r' was an actual typo.
Go out and play with the other kids.
Wondering, face it, people make mistakes. Have you ever noticed if someone else makes a mistake, you categorize it as a "brain fart", but if your suffer from a "brain fart", it is a typo?

You continually make off topic and troll like posts, because you suffer from one constant failure of mental capacity which renders you incapable of participating in a discussion of the topic at hand. In this case, disclosing the identity of donors to political campaigns and political issues.

You have offered the most infantile of excuses why the finances of the political process should be hidden from public view, which tend to indicate that you have a child-like understanding of the world. Personally, I think you lack the grey matter to participate in an intelligent conversation on any topic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1740 Jul 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. If you can't remember, then that is none of my concern.
I won't be parroting back your witless rationalizations, Wondering.
2. Cute, would you care to offer an on topic and factually supported argument, or are you tired of being made to look like a fool when your arguments are dismantled?
3. Wondering, face it, people make mistakes. Have you ever noticed if someone else makes a mistake, you categorize it as a "brain fart", but if your suffer from a "brain fart", it is a typo?
4. You continually make off topic and troll like posts, because you suffer from one constant failure of mental capacity which renders you incapable of participating in a discussion of the topic at hand. In this case, disclosing the identity of donors to political campaigns and political issues.
5. You have offered the most infantile of excuses why the finances of the political process should be hidden from public view, which tend to indicate that you have a child-like understanding of the world.
6. Personally, I think you lack the grey matter to participate in an intelligent conversation on any topic.
1. You're clueless. Like a lost child.
2. See #1
3. There is a difference between a brain fart and a typo. Your errors are 99% brain farts.
4. Yes you do. As for the donors, I've already explained that to you. You don't understand it, your problem. I agree with the story and the reasons they gave.
5. They are not hidden. Didn't you read the story? Try to keep up.
6. Personally, what you think is irrelevant.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1741 Jul 19, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. You're clueless. Like a lost child.
Is that the best you can do? Wondering, I am not the one asking what my own argument is.
Wondering wrote:
3. There is a difference between a brain fart and a typo. Your errors are 99% brain farts.
No, Wondering, I don't type well. This stands in stark comparison to you because you don't think well. This is why you so often slip into "brain fart" analysis instead of offering anything remotely on topic.
Wondering wrote:
4. Yes you do. As for the donors, I've already explained that to you. You don't understand it, your problem. I agree with the story and the reasons they gave.
No, Wondering, you have offered a mindless rationalization that has not been supported by the facts. Donors to anti-marriage equality campaigns fought to maintain their anonymity in a number of jurisdictions, and lost in all of them. When the records were made public, none of the harassment that you asserted would happen came to pass.

Then again, why should I be surprised that you aren't aware of reality?
Wondering wrote:
5. They are not hidden. Didn't you read the story? Try to keep up.
They aren't now, having lost their case in court. Do try to keep up Wondering.

Tell me, do you get off on continuing to defend issue that have already lost in a court of law? You frequently hold positions that have been ruled against in court, and sometimes, to hysterical effect, cite those cases that were decided against your position.

Tell me again about the Parkers.
Wondering wrote:
6. Personally, what you think is irrelevant.
Wondering, I don't care what you think, and you have proven incapable of offering a rational and on topic argument.

it appears all that you are capable of is name calling that doesn't even rise to an elementary school level of proficiency.

Grow up, troll.

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
News I'm A Private Eye Looking For A Stealthy Ride F... 1 hr Roberts 7
MOT Test of Tyre&Auto Southbourne Group? 13 hr steveyizz 4
News 2013 Mercedes-Benz GL-class / GL450 / GL550 Spy... (Jul '11) 15 hr dasiener 4
Tips to cut plastic emergency keys with Condor ... 22 hr Ambrosio 1
News BMW gets scooped on new 3 Series GT model (Feb '13) 23 hr catecardvd 4
bmw 3 series (Apr '14) 23 hr catecardvd 2
News 2010 Mercedes E-Class (Nov '08) 23 hr catecardvd 3
More from around the web