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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1785 Jul 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Define "increased" protection if the law. You have not, and can not. End of story. There is no such thing Bozo.
Tell me, Frankie, are three or more people greater than two people?

Not that it has any relevance to the topic, or that you would be worried about being on topic because you are simply a troll.

Any idiot can see that there would be staggering financial and legal ramifications of doing so, and since such an agreement would seek to extend the protections to three or more people, which is greater than two. Thus greater protection of the law.

Were you not an idiot, you might understand.

Were you not a troll, you might offer an argument that had relevance to the topic of disclosing the identity of donors to political campaigns.

Frankie, I wish you had the intellect to stay on topic and offer a valid argument. I am done teaching you counting lessons. That you are too stupid to understand basic concepts is your own problem. That you seek to air your shortcomings in public is hysterical.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1786 Jul 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no concept at all. You shouldn't be making things up unless you can explain them.
Same applies to you. Why is Kimare's wife allowed to marry someone with a vagina but lides isn't?

You guys never answer that question.

Too difficult?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1787 Jul 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think allowing gay marriage is backward thinking. That said, I don't care if you marry as long as you just mind your own business and have as happy a life as you can without forcing yourselves on others.
You should do the same then. Stop forcing your views onto others.

BTW if you don't care you wouldn't be here so stop lying to yourself and the rest of us.

Why should Kimare's wife be allowed to marry someone with a vagina but other women should be barred from doing that?

You guys never answer that question.

Too difficult?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1788 Jul 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You should do the same then. Stop forcing your views onto others.
I can't force my views on others. I'm not a politician or a gay elementary school teacher.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1789 Jul 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Same applies to you. Why is Kimare's wife allowed to marry someone with a vagina but lides isn't?
All I can say is that no one must want lides. That's easy to understand. If Kimare's wife is happy, that's great. I'm happy for them.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1790 Jul 28, 2014
lides wrote:
Any idiot can see that there would be staggering financial and legal ramifications of doing so,
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1791 Jul 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them?
umm since you insist they are an idiot, it's idiotic to ask them to do something you can do yourself.

Only a moron would complain that an idiot isn't helping them!

LMAO
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1792 Jul 28, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marriage is a contractual arrangement; family is not.
It would be impossible for a man to have two wives under the constitution.
Please, point me to the part of the constitution that supports you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1793 Jul 28, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>umm since you insist they are an idiot, it's idiotic to ask them to do something you can do yourself.
I looked, I can't. Neither can he.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1794 Jul 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them?
Wondering, can you count?

If one marriage has two people, and another includes three or more, which marriage covers more people?

There are also a staggering number of legitimate reasons not to extend marriage to polygamous unions. It produces an unfair burden to employers and the state regarding potential insurance and other benefits, and unduly complicates judicial process for joint ownership of property and divorce.

Do you really mean to argue for polygamy, meaning that you are off topic which is something I know you hate, or are you just trying to reaffirm that you aren't terribly intelligent and have no valid argument with any relevance to the topic.

Tell me, Wondering, how does polygamy in any way have to do with whether donors to political campaigns have their identities disclosed?

Why are you fighting for irrelevance, in this instance. We already know that you are too dumb to offer a valid argument relative to the topic of anonymous donations. Why do you see fit to spam the thread with irrelevant BS? I swear if we combined you, Frankie and yourself might almost yield a single mind between the two of you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1795 Jul 28, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, can you count?
If one marriage has two people, and another includes three or more, which marriage covers more people?
There are also a staggering number of legitimate reasons not to extend marriage to polygamous unions. It produces an unfair burden to employers and the state regarding potential insurance and other benefits, and unduly complicates judicial process for joint ownership of property and divorce.
Do you really mean to argue for polygamy, meaning that you are off topic which is something I know you hate, or are you just trying to reaffirm that you aren't terribly intelligent and have no valid argument with any relevance to the topic.
Tell me, Wondering, how does polygamy in any way have to do with whether donors to political campaigns have their identities disclosed?
Why are you fighting for irrelevance, in this instance. We already know that you are too dumb to offer a valid argument relative to the topic of anonymous donations. Why do you see fit to spam the thread with irrelevant BS? I swear if we combined you, Frankie and yourself might almost yield a single mind between the two of you.
More irrelevant opinion and infantile rationalizations. Show me law, you are Justice Dumbass. Surely you can list these 'greater protections.' Truth is, you can't, you are truly a Dumbass.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1796 Jul 28, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, point me to the part of the constitution that supports you.
again?

OK but pay attention this time.

Article 4 Sec 1 & 2

Article 4 Sec 3 paragraph 2

Article 6

Amendment 1

Amendment 9

Amendment 10

Amendment 14

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1797 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
More irrelevant opinion and infantile rationalizations. Show me law, you are Justice Dumbass. Surely you can list these 'greater protections.' Truth is, you can't, you are truly a Dumbass.
Sorry, Wondering, the reality remains that you are continually returning to arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, and you are too inept to see that they have no applicability to any topic even touching upon same sex marriage.

You can walk away like a child and say that they are irrelevant opinion and infantile rationalizations, but the reality remains that you lack the ability to offer a rational defense of them. of course, even if you could, it would no more render them relevant.

Tell me, Wondering, do you ever tire of being wrong? You claim that disclosing the names of donors to anti-gay marriage campaigns would lead to "illegal harassment," however you are not able to cite cases where such harassment occurred in the 12 or so jurisdictions where these donors names were disclosed.

I find it funny that you explain away others arguments as being off topic rationalizations, but you offer no proof whatsoever that your assessment is valid. in the end accounting, you aren't very good at supporting your own arguments with facts. It appears that once you wander away from precomposed arguments generated by hate groups, you have very little logical capacity to present a factually supported argument.

Oh, and you were off topic again. I know how much off topic posts annoy you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1798 Jul 29, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There are only two legally recognized spouses in a family.
Change it. How would that affect you? Give everyone the right to marry anyone or as many as they can afford.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1799 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, can you count?
If one marriage has two people, and another includes three or more, which marriage covers more people?
There are also a staggering number of legitimate reasons not to extend marriage to polygamous unions. It produces an unfair burden to employers and the state regarding potential insurance and other benefits, and unduly complicates judicial process for joint ownership of property and divorce.
Do you really mean to argue for polygamy, meaning that you are off topic which is something I know you hate, or are you just trying to reaffirm that you aren't terribly intelligent and have no valid argument with any relevance to the topic.
Tell me, Wondering, how does polygamy in any way have to do with whether donors to political campaigns have their identities disclosed?
Why are you fighting for irrelevance, in this instance. We already know that you are too dumb to offer a valid argument relative to the topic of anonymous donations. Why do you see fit to spam the thread with irrelevant BS? I swear if we combined you, Frankie and yourself might almost yield a single mind between the two of you.
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? Stop dancing all around the request. You claim all of these "greater protections" but can't list them. They don't exist, you're stupid.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1800 Jul 29, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>again?
OK but pay attention this time.
Article 4 Sec 1 & 2
Article 4 Sec 3 paragraph 2
Article 6
Amendment 1
Amendment 9
Amendment 10
Amendment 14
Nothing there. Do you drink?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1801 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? Stop dancing all around the request. You claim all of these "greater protections" but can't list them. They don't exist, you're stupid.
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?

By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.

Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.

Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1802 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?
By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.
Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.
Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.
He reminds me of "Frankie"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1803 Jul 29, 2014
Imprtnrd wrote:
He reminds me of "Frankie"
Ironically, Frankie, although seldom on topic, does attempt to defend the BS argument that he is making, even if he isn't very good at it.

Wondering is neither smart enough to support his arguments with facts, nor is he smart enough to come up with anything on his own. If it hasn't been written by someone else (Frankie, massresistance, David Parker, etc), wondering wouldn't be able to come up with anything on his own.

Currently he is really doing a fine job of making himself look foolish as he keeps on advancing an utterly irrelevant point, in spite of the fact that he regularly chides people for being off topic.

Neither of them is the brightest bulb in the box.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1804 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?
By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.
Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.
Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? You can't list them and you can't stop being an idiot.

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
Xtool EZ300 and Xtool EZ400 which one is cost-e... 1 hr car-diagnostic-tool 1
VVDI2 Commander Key Programmer - it's all here (Oct '15) 2 hr uobd2 10
toyota recalls 850,000 trucks due to frame rot! (Apr '08) 10 hr Teresa King 210
News This 1953 Ford F-100 Started With A Teenage Kid... 13 hr KBS 1
GM Problems - Are You Having Problems With Your... (Aug '08) Tue joe-burt 390
Lite Version Lexia-3 V48 Diagnostic with Diagbo... Tue uobd2 1
OP-COM 2012V/ VAUX-COM 120309a Free Download (Oct '15) Mon lalaura 12
More from around the web