Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Jun 11, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Contra Costa Times

In this Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2009 file picture, New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, right, speaks during a debate over same-sex marriage in the New York state Senate at the Capitol in Albany, N.Y. Diaz complained in May 2011 that he's received death threats because he opposes legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Comments
12,161 - 12,180 of 12,363 Comments Last updated May 30, 2014

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13112
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals."
(Constitutional attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies)
The court has never required procreation for marriage, and has specifically ruled neither procreation nor the abiliy to even have sex is required for marriage to remain a fundamental right.(Turner v Salley)
Please give the context of the claim.

Smile.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13113
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

vincent andrew wrote:
<quoted text>
She must be a rainbow lezzy...
I have no problems with gays what two people do in the privacy of their own room is their business...
As long as they don't try to get with me then we're fine and i have no problem with them...
You people have your beliefs and i have mine..
I was raised to respect women and not hit them..
I was also raised by a mother and a father and that's what a family is supposed to consist of....
A MOTHER AND A FATHER!
While we can conceptualize the perfect environment for raising children, real life does not live up to what we can imagine as the best. We do not restrict fundamental rights based on what we would like the world to look like. Every person is promised the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, just the equal opportunity under the law to strive for it.

With about 100,000 thousand children available for adoption living in institutionalized care who go without homes every year, we don't even restrict adoption to two parents, even though we know two is often better than one. Gay people often take in those unwanted, rejected, and often abused older children who are harder to place than newborns.

We also know it is the relationship between the parent and child that determines success, not the gender or even always the number, of parents. Of the thousands of abused children I have worked with, all had straight parents. While I know there are exceptions, my experience hasn't included any. Having two straight parents is no guarantee the child will be wanted, loved, nurtured, or not abused or killed.

So while marriage does not require raising children, or vice versa, the choice to have children or not has also been recognized as a fundamental right, beyond the restriction of the government, unless a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. In the real world, not being raised by both biological parents has always been a reality for many. It fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for attempting to control the reproductive choices of adults. It can't be done, even in China where they try.

Your requirements are your personal requirements. They are not requirements of law.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13114
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While we can conceptualize the perfect environment for raising children, real life does not live up to what we can imagine as the best. We do not restrict fundamental rights based on what we would like the world to look like. Every person is promised the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, just the equal opportunity under the law to strive for it.
With about 100,000 thousand children available for adoption living in institutionalized care who go without homes every year, we don't even restrict adoption to two parents, even though we know two is often better than one. Gay people often take in those unwanted, rejected, and often abused older children who are harder to place than newborns.
We also know it is the relationship between the parent and child that determines success, not the gender or even always the number, of parents. Of the thousands of abused children I have worked with, all had straight parents. While I know there are exceptions, my experience hasn't included any. Having two straight parents is no guarantee the child will be wanted, loved, nurtured, or not abused or killed.
So while marriage does not require raising children, or vice versa, the choice to have children or not has also been recognized as a fundamental right, beyond the restriction of the government, unless a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can be demonstrated. In the real world, not being raised by both biological parents has always been a reality for many. It fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for attempting to control the reproductive choices of adults. It can't be done, even in China where they try.
Your requirements are your personal requirements. They are not requirements of law.
What a crock of BS air with a gay twirl!

'We' know no such thing of anything you 'know'.

1. There is no need to 'conceptualize' any best environment. The best environment has been proven time and again to be the natural environment, the child's mother and father.

2. What you are defending is placing a child in a house where one parent gender is always missing. A default family setting that is listed LAST, AFTER single parents in the latest, largest and most scientific study to date of all family types. Hardly something to brag about...

3. Setting aside your 'experience', the relationship between a child and their biological parents is by far the best most often.

4. The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
An walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
An walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too is simply silly stupid.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.

Smile.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13116
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Smile.
Canada disagrees with you.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13117
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals."
The court never said anything remotely like that. Every case you cite is actually about something else, such as "loving" which is about interracial marriage of opposite sex couples.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13118
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Done Babbling wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not restrict fundamental rights<snip>
Babs, marriage is not a right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13119
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fortunately, the courts recognize marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the supreme court.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13120
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fortunately, the courts recognize marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the supreme court.
Kimare isn't going to buy that.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13121
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Not Done Babbling wrote:
Fortunately, the courts recognize marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the supreme court.
Wrong again, Babs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13122
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Gay couples do not just fail in the primary essence of marriage, out of all relationships, they are the oxymoron of marriage.
Smile.
Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
Canada disagrees with you.
Canada doesn't disagree with me brainless vagina, it disagrees with reality.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13123
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fortunately, the courts recognize marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, as affirmed 14 times by the supreme court.
That is not true.

What is true, is that gay twirl of truth only validates the weakness and immorality of your position.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13124
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex prove the behavior is wrong.

Epi-marker mistakes prove homosexuality is a defect.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior, proving gay couples are the oxymoron of marriage.

Anal sex is the key identifying factor of gays. It is the most intimate act between gays. You know I'm talking about the essence of homosexuality when I bring up anal sex.

As to it' inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature, I simply post a medical site that labels it a violation of design, THE MOST DANGEROUS SEXUAL ACT OF ALL, and REQUIRING an anal condom and lubrication to even begin to bring it into a risky behavior! You never mention the issue of playing in fecal matter, because even denial has a hard time getting past that. Moreover, you prove the demeaning nature by your forklift backing up when anyone addresses the issue.

Instead you throw out the gay twirl mantra,'everybody does it', as if that makes it okay. Childish reasoning at the most.

All of this denies the obvious. If the anus had evolved for intercourse, it would be a vagina. Instead, it ends up being a default hole because gays have no option for a vagina.

As to epi-marker mistakes, thank you for a the reference to study.

Your defense however is silly. Nature does have it's reasons, and the study is an example of humans understanding them.

In this case, epi-marker 'notes' are accidentally left on the genetic code of opposite gender children of a parent. They have even identified situations where the accident most often occurs.

It is quickly becoming obvious that reality will require GLBT's to face the fact that they are in the ranks of the genetically handicapped. I would suggest you will find far less opposition developing rights by operating from a basis of reality, that historically people know by intuition, rather than demanding that people accept your denial.

Think about it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13125
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

On what basis do we restrict fundamental civil rights?

Very few, depending on the right.

Marriage is restricted on the basis of age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Gender remains a restriction in some states and the federal government, though when challenged that restriction is falling as it provides no legitimate governmental interest.

While sexual orientation is not a genetic defect, even if it were, we do not restrict the right of marriage based on genetic defects.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13126
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal treatment for all persons under the law. The Golden Rule is not just a promise of the founding documents, it is required by the constitution. As procreation is not a legal requirement, no one has presented a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís 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: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)

Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)

"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13127
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not true.
What is true, is that gay twirl of truth only validates the weakness and immorality of your position.
Smile.
sit and spin, kimare

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13128
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dusty Mangina wrote:
<quoted text>
sit and spin, kimare
And still no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution. Just demeaning personal attacks, irrational analogies, and dehumanizing pejorative terminology. Fortunately, the courts are seeing through such irrational promotions of personal prejudice.

"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals."
(Constitutional attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies)

The court has never required procreation for marriage, and has specifically ruled neither procreation nor the ability to even have sex is required for marriage to remain a fundamental right.(Turner v Salley)
Connie Linguiss

Tewksbury, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13129
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Gay people should not be allowed to marry. That is destroying the tradition of man and woman. Stop crying already and accept it.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13130
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Not Done Babbling wrote:
On what basis do we restrict fundamental civil rights?/QUOTE]

Once again your argument fails, Babs, because marriage is not a civil right.

[QUOTE]While sexual orientation is not a genetic defect
You finally got one right. It is not genetic - period.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage
No, it isn't. But it is the reason that people get married and it is the reason that gives the State a compelling interest in fostering opposite sex marriage.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13131
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Not Done Babbling wrote:
Both the 5th and 14th amendments require equal treatment for all persons under the law. The Golden Rule is not just a promise of the founding documents, it is required by the constitution. As procreation is not a legal requirement, no one has presented a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.
"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís 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: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)
Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
blah blah blah

Marriage is not a right, and all the homobabble in the world won't change that simple fact.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13132
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Not Done Babbling wrote:
<quoted text>
And still no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
Every one has equal treatment under the law. Where the law says two men can get married, ANY two men can get married. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with it.

Conversely where the law says two men cannot obtain a marriage license, NO two men can do so. Whether or not they are queer has nothing to do with that either.

What we DO have is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for re-defining Traditional Marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

El Paso Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 43 min brad 22,255
Should Petro be Banned from this Forum? (Aug '12) 1 hr Petr 2,133
if all the mexicans go back to mexico america w... (Jan '08) 1 hr lol 593
El Paso border advocate arrested at Rep. Steve ... 3 hr George 73
Chances ISIS could slip through the southernn U... 4 hr trish long 14
FBI raids Anamarc College 4 hr Wendy Holman 3
TX Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 9 hr Gasman 17,833
I hate El Paso! (Jan '08) Aug 23 NMx 1,508
•••
•••
•••

El Paso Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

El Paso People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

El Paso News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in El Paso
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••