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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1764 Jul 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
When last I checked, telephone calls were not illegal.
Harassing telephone calls are. You are dumber than a rock, you really are.
I gave you the law and you don't understand it. Wow.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1765 Jul 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Harassing telephone calls are. You are dumber than a rock, you really are.
I gave you the law and you don't understand it. Wow.
Sorry, kiddo, calling someone and expressing a dissenting opinion falls short of legal harassment.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1766 Jul 22, 2014
And what about the threats and harassment pro-gay rights activists get, or the calls and e-mails companies get if they support gay rights? And WHO do you think i8s doing that harassment?
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Dumbass, it isn't about the lawsuit, it's about the harassment.
How is it illegal?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/telephone...
Of course, we know that you support anything, legal or illegal, that will keep people from donating to causes supporting traditional marriage. One has to look no further than your drivel above.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1767 Jul 22, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
And what about the threats and harassment pro-gay rights activists get, or the calls and e-mails companies get if they support gay rights? And WHO do you think i8s doing that harassment?
<quoted text>
Wondering doesn't care. Gays aren't people to him.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1768 Jul 22, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
And what about the threats and harassment pro-gay rights activists get, or the calls and e-mails companies get if they support gay rights? And WHO do you think i8s doing that harassment?
<quoted text>
What harassment? A few phone calls? Listen to your buddy lides.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1770 Jul 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/...
Gay activists have and will continue to use these lists as tools of intimidation. Strange the things you support. You call yourself an American.
I notice you fail to point out that the man didn't win his lawsuit to overturn the CA campaign finance laws because of his "documented intimidation".

Freedom of speech means that people can criticize people for their public actions.

You fail to understand and accept that. Instead you want to cry victim.

Twirl on little mind.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1771 Jul 25, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I notice you fail to point out that the man didn't win his lawsuit to overturn the CA campaign finance laws because of his "documented intimidation".
Freedom of speech means that people can criticize people for their public actions.
You fail to understand and accept that. Instead you want to cry victim.
Twirl on little mind.
Relax Fruitloops.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1772 Jul 26, 2014
DNF wrote:
I notice you fail to point out that the man didn't win his lawsuit to overturn the CA campaign finance laws because of his "documented intimidation".
Wondering has a long history of indicating their idiocy by citing court cases decided against their position. They aren't terribly smart.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1773 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering has a long history of indicating their idiocy by citing court cases decided against their position. They aren't terribly smart.
You have a long history of some concept you call "greater protection" but refuse to describe it, because it doesn't exist. You're dumb.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1774 Jul 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You have a long history of some concept you call "greater protection" but refuse to describe it, because it doesn't exist. You're dumb.
Frankie, is three or more greater than two? If so, then polygamists by definition do not seek equality under the law. This isn't a difficult concept.

Are you an idiot, Frankie?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1775 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, is three or more greater than two? If so, then polygamists by definition do not seek equality under the law. This isn't a difficult concept.
It's no concept at all. You shouldn't be making things up unless you can explain them.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1776 Jul 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
It's no concept at all. You shouldn't be making things up unless you can explain them.
Wondering, I can't be expected to eternally write to your level explaining things that you do not understand.

Now, this is the last time I am going to help you with basic concepts.
equal adjective \&#712;&#275;-kw&# 601;l\*
: the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
: having the same mathematical value
: not changing : the same for each person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equ...

*Mind you, Wondering, this is the phonetic spelling for pronunciation, not the actual spelling, I wouldn't want you to become confused.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1777 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankie, is three or more greater than two? If so, then polygamists by definition do not seek equality under the law. This isn't a difficult concept.
Are you an idiot, Frankie?
What are they "seeking" then Bozo? Inequality?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1778 Jul 26, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What are they "seeking" then Bozo? Inequality?
No, Frankie, they seek increased protection for three or more people to marry. As you finally figured out in the recent past, three or more is greater than two, ergo they seek greater protection of the law for three or more people, not equal protection for two.

If your assertion were true that polygamy was seeking marriage equality, one would think that at least one of the venues where same sex marriage has been legalized would have allowed polygamy, yet none has done so, even though Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for 10 years.

Grow a brain, Frankie. They are separate issues, and same sex marriage in no way impacts the status of polygamy, or the fact that bigamy is still illegal in every state in the union.

Were you smarter, you would be able to understand these simple facts.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1779 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
They are separate issues, and same sex marriage in no way impacts the status of polygamy,
The reverse is also true. Why do you hate freedom and choice? The unalienable rights?
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#1780 Jul 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Frankie, they seek increased protection for three or more people to marry. As you finally figured out in the recent past, three or more is greater than two, ergo they seek greater protection of the law for three or more people, not equal protection for two.
If your assertion were true that polygamy was seeking marriage equality, one would think that at least one of the venues where same sex marriage has been legalized would have allowed polygamy, yet none has done so, even though Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for 10 years.
Grow a brain, Frankie. They are separate issues, and same sex marriage in no way impacts the status of polygamy, or the fact that bigamy is still illegal in every state in the union.
Were you smarter, you would be able to understand these simple facts.
Define "increased" protection if the law. You have not, and can not. End of story. There is no such thing Bozo.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1781 Jul 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, I can't be expected to eternally write to your level explaining things that you do not understand.
Now, this is the last time I am going to help you with basic concepts.
equal adjective \&#712;&#275;-kw&# 601;l\*
: the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
: having the same mathematical value
: not changing : the same for each person
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equ...
*Mind you, Wondering, this is the phonetic spelling for pronunciation, not the actual spelling, I wouldn't want you to become confused.
But what are these protections you constantly blab about? I'm married and want to know if
I'm missing out on some wonderful protection, I just don't know what it is? Obviously, you don't either.

: the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
Families can be any number. Why not spouses?

: not changing : the same for each person
Gay couples can't produce children, straight couples can/. That's not the same.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is different from person to person. If a man has 2 wives how does that change your life? Why do you care? A man with one wife is in a different arrangement than yours, does that affect your life? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the constitution, particularly the 1st amendment? Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence? You're a very odd child.

: having the same mathematical value
A single mother with a child is 2. A mom and dad with a child is 3.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1782 Jul 27, 2014
Marriage is a contractual arrangement; family is not.

It would be impossible for a man to have two wives under the constitution. It would have to be a man + wife + wife, meaning that the wives would each have a husband and wife as well. All parties would have to be equal in the arrangement, but there exists a legal issue when two of the three make a decision that all three will be responsible for as a marital debt or responsibility. If one goes into the hospital and can't manage their own care, the remaining two might not agree on a course of treatment, endangering the patient. Two-party marriages are always 50/50 under the law; it's the definition of legal kinship and the basis for the civil marriage contract.

Now got take a nap, alan.
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But what are these protections you constantly blab about? I'm married and want to know if
I'm missing out on some wonderful protection, I just don't know what it is? Obviously, you don't either.
: the same in number, amount, degree, rank, or quality
Families can be any number. Why not spouses?
: not changing : the same for each person
Gay couples can't produce children, straight couples can/. That's not the same.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is different from person to person. If a man has 2 wives how does that change your life? Why do you care? A man with one wife is in a different arrangement than yours, does that affect your life? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the constitution, particularly the 1st amendment? Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence? You're a very odd child.
: having the same mathematical value
A single mother with a child is 2. A mom and dad with a child is 3.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1783 Jul 27, 2014
Incredibly, it's even worse than I thought. Wondering wants someone to now explain why 2 is not equal to 3. If he has a few days, perhaps I will introduce him to the Peano Postulates.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1784 Jul 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Families can be any number. Why not spouses?
There are only two legally recognized spouses in a family. Typically, the other members of the family would be children, although they could also be siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, or cousins. They could also be foster children.

But the legally recognized relationship between the spouses is different from the other relationships. Spousal relationships are reciprocal. Children do not have reciprocal responsibilities for their parents. Nor are children expected to divorce the other members of their family when they wish to start a new family. So, too, can other members of a family leave whenever they are old enough to legally fend for themselves.

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 Feds: Stop driving these Honda models immediately 10 hr Go Blue Forever 1
how to chose obd scanner for our car? 12 hr lanrce 1
Launch CRP TOUCH Pro FULL System Diagnostic Ser... 12 hr car-diagnostic-tool 1
Xhorse Condor XC-Mini key cutting adds 16 Multi... 14 hr Ambrosio 1
Free Download Psdzdata 3.58.2.001 E-sys 3.26.1 Thu Dtwok 2
News Goodbye, 12-volts Thu Solarman 3
toyota recalls 850,000 trucks due to frame rot! (Apr '08) Thu Janealen 213
OP-COM 2012V/ VAUX-COM 120309a Free Download (Oct '15) Jun 9 lalaura 21
More from around the web