Some gay-rights foes claim they now a...

Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

There are 12354 comments on the Contra Costa Times story from Jun 11, 2011, titled Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied. In it, Contra Costa Times reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Contra Costa Times.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13146 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be related to Babs. You spout the same brand of nonsense.
Marriage is a contract. There are rules and regulations about who can enter into it, and who cannot.
If marriage were a right it would have to be freely available to everybody. It's already limited in a variety of ways. Sex is just one of them.
It actually IS freely available to everybody, with ONLY such restrictions as have been deemed in the state's best interest.

Since there is NO state interest in banning gay couples from legally marrying, and great state interest in allowing it, your argument falls a bit flat.

To prevent same sex couples from marrying, you would need to prove that it's bad for them, bad for their children, bad for elderly gay people, and good for beneficial for society in a tangible way.

No one has yet been able to do that, and a lot of time and money has been spent trying. Can you do it?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13147 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Not for lack of trying. With the amount of effort that has gone into finding a "gay gene" and failing to do so, I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing.
Also, in the case of identical twins (which have identical DNA), we do not see identical orientation.
Finding a "gay gene" certainly isn't necessary for equal protectio9n under the law. Why would it be?

Whether being gay is totally or partially genetic, is caused by chemical reactions in the womb, or is a person choice, makes no difference under the law.

To ban people of the same gender from legally marrying, you must prove a valid state interest in enacting laws to prevent such marriages.

What would that state interest be?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13148 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
You finally got one right. It is not genetic - period.
.......
Actually, studies have shown that - at least in gay men - there is likely a genetic component.

But that has no bearing on marriage law.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13149 Mar 3, 2013
Connie Linguiss wrote:
Gay people should not be allowed to marry. That is destroying the tradition of man and woman. Stop crying already and accept it.
Traditions are made to be destroyed...but how does SSM affect your marriage in any way?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#13150 Mar 3, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
What we DO have is no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for re-defining Traditional Marriage.
What we don't have is a state interest in creating and supporting laws that ban same sex marriage.

Gay folks don't have to PROVE were are entitled to equal protection under the law-that's already guaranteed.

People who wish to create laws to deny such protection are the ones who must provide the burden of proof in a state interest to do so.

So, prove your case.

Prove that banning gay folks legally marrying will help them, provide more stability and security for their children, and provide more security for the elderly.

Prove that sending a message of second class citizenship to gay youth is healthy.

Prove that gay folks marrying will harm straight folks and their marriages, and that marriage harms society.

Ca you rationally and logically support your case?
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13151 Mar 3, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
A contract, Ok..but the criteria for limiting who can enter that contract is mostly medical and doesn't apply to SSM. It's still discrimination.
Ah, but procreation is not necessary for marriage, so the libtards constantly bleat. Therefore there is no compelling reason to prevent me from marrying my parent? Is that discrimination?
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13152 Mar 3, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
bigotry in any form <snip>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13153 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, except in American, where the courts have repeatedly deemed marriage a basic civil and fundamental right ....
The courts haven't done anything remotely like that. Marriage is not a right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13154 Mar 3, 2013
Attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

The desire to dehumanize gay people by labeling them "genetic defects" fails to consider the fact we don't deny fundamental rights based on genetic defects. We actually protect people based on genetic defects because we know there are folks who would use that excuse to deny equal rights to others.

Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13155 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I
Since there is NO state interest in banning gay couples from legally marrying, and great state interest in allowing it
I've already explained why there is no state interest in allowing homosexual marriage.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13156 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
I
To prevent same sex couples from marrying, you would need to prove that it's bad for them, bad for their children<snip>

Can you do it?
I don't have to do it, it's already been done. There's a mountain of evidence supporting my position.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13157 Mar 3, 2013
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”(Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies in their prop.8 filing)
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13158 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Finding a "gay gene" certainly isn't necessary for equal protectio9n under the law.
Straw man. The inability to find a genetic link to homosexuality proves that it isn't genetic. IOW, no one is "born homosexual".
Whether being gay is totally or partially genetic, is caused by chemical reactions in the womb, or is a person choice, makes no difference under the law.
Homosexuals use their helplessness to resist as one of their main talking points in trying to justify their sick perversion as "being normal".

[QUOTE[To ban people of the same gender from legally marrying, you must prove a valid state interest in enacting laws to prevent such marriages.[/QUOTE]

Bass-ackwards. To re-define Traditional Marriage you must prove a valid state interest in enacting laws to permit homosexual marriages. There is none.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13159 Mar 3, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v OPM)
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13160 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, studies have shown that - at least in gay men - there is likely a genetic component.
If homosexuality were genetic, then identical twins would always have the same orientation. They do not. Ergo, it is not genetic.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13161 Mar 3, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
What we don't have is a state interest in creating and supporting laws that ban same sex marriage.
Gay folks don't have to PROVE were are entitled to equal protection under the law-that's already guaranteed.
People who wish to create laws to deny such protection are the ones who must provide the burden of proof in a state interest to do so.
So, prove your case.
Prove that banning gay folks legally marrying will help them, provide more stability and security for their children, and provide more security for the elderly.
Prove that sending a message of second class citizenship to gay youth is healthy.
Prove that gay folks marrying will harm straight folks and their marriages, and that marriage harms society.
Ca you rationally and logically support your case?
Irrelevant homobabble. The burden of proof is not on us. We are not the ones seeking change.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13162 Mar 3, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
Attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.
The desire to dehumanize gay people by labeling them "genetic defects" fails to consider the fact we don't deny fundamental rights based on genetic defects. We actually protect people based on genetic defects because we know there are folks who would use that excuse to deny equal rights to others.
Are you tired of being owned YET?
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13163 Mar 3, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right
The court has done anything remotely like that as I have proven multiple times.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13164 Mar 3, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.
Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v OPM)
blah blah blah more homobabble

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13165 Mar 3, 2013
Again, we see attempts to ridicule, dehumanize, and demonize, remain the best tools for those who wish to deny to others the rights they expect for themselves.

"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".(Golinski)

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.

Feura Bush Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Upstate job growth slow despite taxpayer subsidies (Mar '17) 4 hr Trumps hairy ass 693
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 6 hr Mexico 22,060
News Mayor, police chief lay out plan to fight summe... Fri Execution Please 1
Sugar Slavery Dominican Republic Fri coco4u 1
Boycott the Times Union Newspaper and the Sarat... Jun 17 George 1
News Professor Emily Liu receives $1.8 million DOE A... Jun 16 Solarman 1
Attn Birth parents -Sign up with NY state to gi... Jun 15 joan 1

Feura Bush Jobs

Personal Finance

Feura Bush Mortgages