Minnesotans United Plans 'Massive Statewide Effort' as Gay Marriage Vote Looms

Jul 27, 2012 Full story: Patch.com 31

A Sunday, July 29, will mark 100 days untilA Minnesotans have an opportunity to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution .

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1 Jul 27, 2012
Gill v. OPM
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
david traversa

Argentina

#2 Jul 28, 2012
I wonder how they'd feel if THEIR rights were put up for a vote..?
Bigerston

Pekin, IL

#3 Jul 28, 2012
david traversa wrote:
I wonder how they'd feel if THEIR rights were put up for a vote..?
You have no 'right' to force your concocted failed redefinition of marriage into law, dope.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4 Jul 28, 2012
Bigerston wrote:
<quoted text>You have no 'right' to force your concocted failed redefinition of marriage into law, dope.
You have no right to force your religious discrimination on law abiding citizens, dope.

I can prove it too, read the first sentence of the first amendment.

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#5 Jul 28, 2012
Bigerston wrote:
<quoted text>You have no 'right' to force your concocted failed redefinition of marriage into law, dope.
It happened in my country.(This is where you go all xenophobic and make the US the only country of note on the planet, then deny the rights of citizens in an equality-based society, claiming that some nebulous threshold of percentages needs to be crossed in order to make it valid).

Now go sell some armaments and buy some healthcare.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#6 Jul 28, 2012
Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>
It happened in my country.(This is where you go all xenophobic and make the US the only country of note on the planet, then deny the rights of citizens in an equality-based society, claiming that some nebulous threshold of percentages needs to be crossed in order to make it valid).
Now go sell some armaments and buy some healthcare.
No this is the part were we talk about international human rights, fundemental consitutional rights and the will of the people (popularly refered to as democracy)

What happened in Canada was a shame. Your own counrty men warned you about it when you adopted the "charter of rights" and the left called them crazy & overwrought at the time.

The courts pointed there finger at your parliment & your parlimnet pointed their fingers back at the court.

Then a exceptional "vote" was taken were nobodys actuall vote was noted (just the % up or down)- How often does that happen.

It was gamed into Canada law by your elites and the people were never represented.. It can happen here to but we wont let it.

You call yourself an "equlity based society" - but this is just a bumper sticker slogan if the goverment dosent respect the rights or voice of its citizens.

Every child being born into a married intact family with their Mother & Father is an equality argument also.

Have fun trying to speak-out with your ill-liberal "human rights" commissions breathing down your neck.

Britian & Australia have a more authentic democracy now than you guys...at least they had a chance to make an argument about the ver definition of a fundemental human right like marriage.

Being from Michigan I know plently of Canadians who agree!

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#7 Jul 28, 2012
Fitz wrote:
No this is the part were we talk about international human rights, fundemental consitutional rights and the will of the people (popularly refered to as democracy) What happened in Canada was a shame. Your own counrty men warned you about it when you adopted the "charter of rights" and the left called them crazy & overwrought at the time. The courts pointed there finger at your parliment & your parlimnet pointed their fingers back at the court.
Then a exceptional "vote" was taken were nobodys actuall vote was noted (just the % up or down)- How often does that happen.
It was gamed into Canada law by your elites and the people were never represented..
Guess what honey, the people of Canada support gay marriage by a huge margin! Can you believe it?

"Canadians are generally more tolerant to the idea of same-sex marriages than Americans and Britons, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 61 per cent of Canadians say couples of the same gender should continue to be allowed to legally marry in their country."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/37148/canada_...

So what do you have to say about it Fitz, baby? This is just leftist, made-up propaganda? Brainwashing? Has Satan disguised himself as a mountie somewhere in Quebec to wreck greater havoc? What's the answer? I want to know.
Fitz wrote:
It can happen here to but we wont let it.
Too late. Gay marriage is already legal for 1/6 of the American population, and growing.
Fitz wrote:
You call yourself an "equlity based society" - but this is just a bumper sticker slogan if the goverment dosent respect the rights or voice of its citizens. Every child being born into a married intact family with their Mother & Father is an equality argument also.
Shoehorning everyone into your very limited definition of "family" is unamerican, period. People have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, you know, like the declaration of independence says. Who are you to tell anyone else how to live? What makes you so freaking fabulous?
Fitz wrote:
Have fun trying to speak-out with your ill-liberal "human rights" commissions breathing down your neck.
Ok.
Fitz wrote:
Britian & Australia have a more authentic democracy now than you guys...at least they had a chance to make an argument about the very definition of a fundamental human right like marriage. Being from Michigan I know plently of Canadians who agree!
Hmmm...except, some of the speech I've seen you post on Topix would get your ass thrown in jail if you lived in the UK Fitz. You know, like those Muslims were when they went around passing out anti-gay leaflets. Isn't that something? I'm telling you right now that Australia and Britain both will legalize gay marriage within the next three years, period. When it happens, don't you dare forget about me. Ok?
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#8 Jul 28, 2012
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what honey, the people of Canada support gay marriage by a huge margin! Can you believe it?
"Canadians are generally more tolerant to the idea of same-sex marriages than Americans and Britons, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 61 per cent of Canadians say couples of the same gender should continue to be allowed to legally marry in their country."
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/37148/canada_...
So what do you have to say about it Fitz, baby? This is just leftist, made-up propaganda? Brainwashing? Has Satan disguised himself as a mountie somewhere in Quebec to wreck greater havoc? What's the answer? I want to know.
<quoted text>
Too late. Gay marriage is already legal for 1/6 of the American population, and growing.
<quoted text>
Shoehorning everyone into your very limited definition of "family" is unamerican, period. People have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, you know, like the declaration of independence says. Who are you to tell anyone else how to live? What makes you so freaking fabulous?
<quoted text>
Ok.
<quoted text>
Hmmm...except, some of the speech I've seen you post on Topix would get your ass thrown in jail if you lived in the UK Fitz. You know, like those Muslims were when they went around passing out anti-gay leaflets. Isn't that something? I'm telling you right now that Australia and Britain both will legalize gay marriage within the next three years, period. When it happens, don't you dare forget about me. Ok?
Gosh dude...I promise not to "forget about you" since you seem intent on throwing people who disagree with you in jail & all..

However... your predictions are a little vaugue and foreign..

Next three years???

How about Minnesota, Maine, Washington, & Maryland...all up for a vote this September....Any pedictions there sweatheart??

And what about the presidential race???

And after that DOMA goes to the Supreme Court??

Now if you care to look into your crystal ball on those issues I promise not to forget about you!!!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#9 Jul 28, 2012
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess what honey, the people of Canada support gay marriage by a huge margin! Can you believe it?
"Canadians are generally more tolerant to the idea of same-sex marriages than Americans and Britons, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 61 per cent of Canadians say couples of the same gender should continue to be allowed to legally marry in their country."
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/37148/canada_...
So what do you have to say about it Fitz, baby? This is just leftist, made-up propaganda? Brainwashing? Has Satan disguised himself as a mountie somewhere in Quebec to wreck greater havoc? What's the answer? I want to know.
<quoted text>
Too late. Gay marriage is already legal for 1/6 of the American population, and growing.
<quoted text>
Shoehorning everyone into your very limited definition of "family" is unamerican, period. People have a right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, you know, like the declaration of independence says. Who are you to tell anyone else how to live? What makes you so freaking fabulous?
<quoted text>
Ok.
<quoted text>
Hmmm...except, some of the speech I've seen you post on Topix would get your ass thrown in jail if you lived in the UK Fitz. You know, like those Muslims were when they went around passing out anti-gay leaflets. Isn't that something? I'm telling you right now that Australia and Britain both will legalize gay marriage within the next three years, period. When it happens, don't you dare forget about me. Ok?
POLLS DON'T MEAN A DAMN THING AZZHOLE! You fa&&ots rig them all. This Canuck is far from accepting Homosexuality. I don't make up any part of your 61%, nor do I know anyone who could ever.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#10 Jul 28, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No this is the part were we talk about international human rights, fundemental consitutional rights and the will of the people (popularly refered to as democracy)
What happened in Canada was a shame. Your own counrty men warned you about it when you adopted the "charter of rights" and the left called them crazy & overwrought at the time.
The courts pointed there finger at your parliment & your parlimnet pointed their fingers back at the court.
Then a exceptional "vote" was taken were nobodys actuall vote was noted (just the % up or down)- How often does that happen.
It was gamed into Canada law by your elites and the people were never represented.. It can happen here to but we wont let it.
You call yourself an "equlity based society" - but this is just a bumper sticker slogan if the goverment dosent respect the rights or voice of its citizens.
Every child being born into a married intact family with their Mother & Father is an equality argument also.
Have fun trying to speak-out with your ill-liberal "human rights" commissions breathing down your neck.
Britian & Australia have a more authentic democracy now than you guys...at least they had a chance to make an argument about the ver definition of a fundemental human right like marriage.
Being from Michigan I know plently of Canadians who agree!
I truly hope the American people can stop this. You are right, Canadians were never heard, and there opinions never mattered. I am enraged over this! May Americans set a new precedence for the rest of the world to follow. God with you!

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#11 Jul 28, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh dude...I promise not to "forget about you" since you seem intent on throwing people who disagree with you in jail & all..
Oh, I'm not British. That happened in the UK. If you had followed my post at all you would have known that. I don't think you belong in jail, but I'm sure you'd fit right in with the Neo-Nazi's and stuff. You might be able to channel that hate you're lugging around into something productive, like jailhouse art or tattoos or something. I don't know.
Fitz wrote:
However... your predictions are a little vaugue and foreign..
Next three years???
What's so "vague and foreign" about "the next three years." By "the next three years" I mean the UK and Australia will have fully legalized same-sex marriage within the next 1095 days, or within the next 26,280 hours, or within the next 1,576,800 minutes. Is that any clearer for you?
Fitz wrote:
How about Minnesota, Maine, Washington, & Maryland...all up for a vote this September....Any pedictions there sweatheart??
I think we'll win and lose some. I think Washington is pretty solidly in our pocket, but Maryland, Maine, and Minnesota could go either way. The polls are a statistical dead heat. Anything anyone says more than that is just idiotic blubbering.
Fitz wrote:
And what about the presidential race???
I think Romney is going to sink like a rock in the polls once Obama starts contrasting the 1994 Romney to the 2012 one in campaign ads, and you know, when he calls him out at the debate. Romney has literally stood on both sides of every single issue, and plus, he's a Mormon. To most of the republican base he's part of a cult, no better than Scientology. Evangelicals don't consider Mormons real Christians, so Obama's the only one in the race. You do the math. Not to mention the unbelievable gaffes him and his wife commit on a near daily basis. He went to Britain and managed to insult both the United States and the UK in less than 24 hours, and was then dubbed worse than Sarah Palin by the British press, and look at how well she's done since 2008. Not even invited to the RNC this year.
Fitz wrote:
And after that DOMA goes to the Supreme Court??
Windsor v United States. Look it up. It's bulletproof.
Fitz wrote:
Now if you care to look into your crystal ball on those issues I promise not to forget about you!!!
I know you won't.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#12 Jul 28, 2012
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I'm not British. That happened in the UK. If you had followed my post at all you would have known that. I don't think you belong in jail, but I'm sure you'd fit right in with the Neo-Nazi's and stuff. You might be able to channel that hate you're lugging around into something productive, like jailhouse art or tattoos or something. I don't know.
<quoted text>
What's so "vague and foreign" about "the next three years." By "the next three years" I mean the UK and Australia will have fully legalized same-sex marriage within the next 1095 days, or within the next 26,280 hours, or within the next 1,576,800 minutes. Is that any clearer for you?
<quoted text>
I think we'll win and lose some. I think Washington is pretty solidly in our pocket, but Maryland, Maine, and Minnesota could go either way. The polls are a statistical dead heat. Anything anyone says more than that is just idiotic blubbering.
<quoted text>
I think Romney is going to sink like a rock in the polls once Obama starts contrasting the 1994 Romney to the 2012 one in campaign ads, and you know, when he calls him out at the debate. Romney has literally stood on both sides of every single issue, and plus, he's a Mormon. To most of the republican base he's part of a cult, no better than Scientology. Evangelicals don't consider Mormons real Christians, so Obama's the only one in the race. You do the math. Not to mention the unbelievable gaffes him and his wife commit on a near daily basis. He went to Britain and managed to insult both the United States and the UK in less than 24 hours, and was then dubbed worse than Sarah Palin by the British press, and look at how well she's done since 2008. Not even invited to the RNC this year.
<quoted text>
Windsor v United States. Look it up. It's bulletproof.
<quoted text>
I know you won't.
Nothing is a Lock - and after 31 straingt defeats you think you would know better... "polls" on the subject reliably underestimate marriages support...so add 7+ to are sides numbers... Look for a clean sweep of all 4 states.

And Windsor v United States is notn even a Federal District court decision. Even if if was, thats NOT SCOTUS precedent and therefore not binding (but Baker v Nelson is - or Heller v Doe)

"When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling (Prop 8) is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed."

Constitutional scholar John Eastman

“If there is such a right(same sex marriage) it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth."

Richard Posner of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Posner has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar."

You are (intentionally?) misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2

Windsor V U.S.- man, gay guys can pull ANYTHING out of the a$$

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13 Jul 29, 2012
"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."

"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#14 Jul 29, 2012

Part of DOMA as it applies to Bankruptcy has been overturned at the lower court level, and since there is no appeal in that case, that ruling stands:

"The court is of the opinion that the Debtors have met their high burden of overcoming the presumption of the constitutionality of DOMA."

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA...
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#15 Jul 29, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski. Although the Court finds that DOMA is subject to and fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny, it notes that numerous courts have found that the statute fails even rational basis review."
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."
"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."
Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
To bad this lower court precedent is not controlling supreme court precedent...

If your so impressed withone bankrupcy case & one lower federal court than you should probalably catch a glimpse of how the standing SCOTUS precedent of Baker v Nelson has been uoheld and declared controlling in recent years

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion: Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) 33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th) Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d at 1302 The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws: Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on the issue of same sex marriage: Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution: Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005) In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in their opinion : Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) Baker was cited as precedent in Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County District Court (MN -2011)

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#16 Jul 29, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is a Lock - and after 31 straingt defeats you think you would know better... "polls" on the subject reliably underestimate marriages support...so add 7+ to are sides numbers... Look for a clean sweep of all 4 states.
Not 31 straight defeats. Arizona did reject a same-sex marriage ban in 2006, but they later passed it in 2008--but you're totally missing the point, since a vast majority of those bans were passed 5-10 years ago. Times have changed. It really is only a matter of time. If not in 2012, then the next year, or 2016. It's coming, but you don't have to take my word for it. Every poll conducted by every major news and political organization from the last 10+ years is listed in the link below. Look at the numbers. It's trending our way, solidly.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Fitz wrote:
And Windsor v United States is notn even a Federal District court decision. Even if if was, thats NOT SCOTUS precedent and therefore not binding (but Baker v Nelson is - or Heller v Doe)
Precedent didn't mean diddly squat when Bowers v Hardwick went down in flames following Lawrence v Texas, now did it? So? I don't even know what you're trying to say? Baker is "precedent" (and I'm using that very loosely) on a technicality and not much else. If you think it's going to stand on that alone, then I think you're going to be very, very disappointed, but that's not my problem.
Fitz wrote:
"When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman
How many people said the same thing about Obamacare? And just look at what happened. I'm really not impressed by people's empty pandering, only their arguments, and lucky for me--the anti-gay crowd doesn't have any.
Fitz

Grosse Pointe, MI

#17 Jul 29, 2012
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not 31 straight defeats. Arizona did reject a same-sex marriage ban in 2006, but they later passed it in 2008--but you're totally missing the point, since a vast majority of those bans were passed 5-10 years ago. Times have changed. It really is only a matter of time. If not in 2012, then the next year, or 2016. It's coming, but you don't have to take my word for it. Every poll conducted by every major news and political organization from the last 10+ years is listed in the link below. Look at the numbers. It's trending our way, solidly.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
<quoted text>
Precedent didn't mean diddly squat when Bowers v Hardwick went down in flames following Lawrence v Texas, now did it? So? I don't even know what you're trying to say? Baker is "precedent" (and I'm using that very loosely) on a technicality and not much else. If you think it's going to stand on that alone, then I think you're going to be very, very disappointed, but that's not my problem.
<quoted text>
How many people said the same thing about Obamacare? And just look at what happened. I'm really not impressed by people's empty pandering, only their arguments, and lucky for me--the anti-gay crowd doesn't have any.
polls dont impress me, elections do...and no...those Con Amend arent going anywere... There's a big difference between what you tell apollster and what you will vote and lobby your elected offficials to do.

And everyone said Obamacare would be close... 5/4 ..they just switched the justices from Roberts/Kennedy.

Your not a court watcher, If you were you would know how far out on a limb you are for a variety of reasons...your even wrong about Baker being a "technacality" (no one who knew anything would call it that...thats activist talk...not lawyer talk)

Its "trends like this that the LIBERAL side of the court keeps an eye on)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21179...

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

#18 Jul 29, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
polls dont impress me, elections do...and no...those Con Amend arent going anywere... There's a big difference between what you tell apollster and what you will vote and lobby your elected offficials to do.
So what are you saying? That tens of thousands of people if not millions are lying to anonymous pollsters in every poll conducted over the last three years or more? Somehow, I really don't believe that. You're delusional if you do.
Fitz wrote:
And everyone said Obamacare would be close... 5/4 ..they just switched the justices from Roberts/Kennedy.
Yes, everyone knew it would be close, and it was, but it was still a total blindside to just about everyone, especially republicans. I can come up with five votes for marriage equality pretty easily--Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Sotomayer.
Fitz wrote:
Your not a court watcher, If you were you would know how far out on a limb you are for a variety of reasons...your even wrong about Baker being a "technacality" (no one who knew anything would call it that...thats activist talk...not lawyer talk)
So what would you call it then, honey? It was decided "for want of a federal question" and the only reason its binding precedent is because it came through mandatory appellate review. Any other time "for want of a federal question" would have been utterly meaningless garbage.
Fitz wrote:
Its "trends like this that the LIBERAL side of the court keeps an eye on)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-21179...
The ruling basically said that they didn't want to get too far ahead of the public and that they would observe "developing trends" which as we've already established, is going one way and it isn't your's. The same decision you're linking to also said that the arguments made by the LGBT community and its allies were valid and they also condemned the sort of discrimination that you're trying to perpetuate. So? That ruling is alright with me, babe. I sleep just fine at night.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#19 Jul 29, 2012
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what are you saying? That tens of thousands of people if not millions are lying to anonymous pollsters in every poll conducted over the last three years or more? Somehow, I really don't believe that. You're delusional if you do.
<quoted text>
Yes, everyone knew it would be close, and it was, but it was still a total blindside to just about everyone, especially republicans. I can come up with five votes for marriage equality pretty easily--Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Sotomayer.
<quoted text>
So what would you call it then, honey? It was decided "for want of a federal question" and the only reason its binding precedent is because it came through mandatory appellate review. Any other time "for want of a federal question" would have been utterly meaningless garbage.
<quoted text>
The ruling basically said that they didn't want to get too far ahead of the public and that they would observe "developing trends" which as we've already established, is going one way and it isn't your's. The same decision you're linking to also said that the arguments made by the LGBT community and its allies were valid and they also condemned the sort of discrimination that you're trying to perpetuate. So? That ruling is alright with me, babe. I sleep just fine at night.
"So what are you saying? That tens of thousands of people if not millions are lying to anonymous pollsters in every poll conducted over the last three years or more? Somehow, I really don't believe that"

No..who would?- rather silly straw man you came up with.. How about (instead), theres a difference between what you say is ok & what people are worked up and passionate about or see as an injustice.. Enthusisam matters in politics and people dont even wat to tak about samesex "marriag" muh less go out and defend it (unless your a politicized gay.

Now on the other side.........

Your 5 voes for redifing marriage are the typical "those are are guys" analysis. It ignores the fact that their on thin ice already & people can read the law.

Its "for want of a substantial federal question" and its the exact same case and on the merits. It like going in and asking for a og liceance for your cat.

You've peaked and the Europeans know they an affordthe kind of cuture reefining marriage perpetrates. The elites are absorbing your "movement" iving you time to blow off steam and spinyour wheels.

You get on shot at this... they would strike when the iron was hot otherwise.

Once they have given you your "fair hearing" you dont get another bite at the apple

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#20 Jul 30, 2012
PURELYCANADIAN wrote:
<quoted text>
POLLS DON'T MEAN A DAMN THING AZZHOLE! You fa&&ots rig them all. This Canuck is far from accepting Homosexuality. I don't make up any part of your 61%, nor do I know anyone who could ever.
Wow - paranoid much? Let's see - grade 12 and nothing further?

Explain to me, Canadian to Canadian, how you are better than me, how you deserve more than I do, and how your right to marriage is in any way affected by my right to marriage.

You shame the both of us.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Brainerd Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MN Who do you support for Governor in Minnesota in... (Oct '10) Aug '14 Go Blue Forever 848
Minnesota veteran treats service dog incident a... Jul '14 Navy Guy 1
Debate: Gay Marriage - Brainerd, MN (Jan '12) Jul '14 sherry 15
looking for alicia moe Jun '14 looking for alici... 1
Judge approves forfeiture of car, despite not g... May '14 David Shipp 1
Little Falls: Fund established for families of ... (Dec '12) Apr '14 UNKNOWN NAME 4
looking for biological father... (Mar '14) Mar '14 amy 1
•••
•••
Brainerd Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Brainerd Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Brainerd People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Brainerd News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brainerd
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••