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.

Romneyblewme

United States

#12565 Dec 3, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
That is no word game. You know that.
You have no logical answer to reality.
:-)
Oh, you want "reality"? Here's a little: Gay marriage is legal in New York State.

That real enough for ya?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12566 Dec 3, 2012
Not Yet Honest wrote:
<quoted text>
Your qualification is your personal requirement, not a requirement of law.
You lie. Mating behavior is the fundamental basis of life, hardly my 'personal requirement'. You know this, it is why you 'shifted' truth to me.

Law has no authority over mating behavior (Something about legislating morality...). What a silly assertion.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12567 Dec 3, 2012
Romneyblewme wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop acting like a retard.

Romneyblewme wrote:

Play all of the word games you want, but marriage is not one thing more than a union of two people in love...

*******whoever they might be.*********
Kimare'a wrote;

You mean like mother and child?

Fail to see anything retarded about that.

I gave a logical answer to your assertion, showing how retarded it was.

Kind of embarrassingly stupid of you.

Face it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12568 Dec 3, 2012
Romneyblewme wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you want "reality"? Here's a little: Gay marriage is legal in New York State.
That real enough for ya?
This is reality.

There is no such thing as gay 'marriage'. No law can change that.

Remember the story,'The Emperor Has No Clothes'? Replace that with 'The Gay Couple is Married'. Like the story, a child can point out the difference between redumbant couples and mom and dad.

:-)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12569 Dec 3, 2012
Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.

For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.

And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12570 Dec 3, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.
For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.
And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.
Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.

Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.

Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.

Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.
JoeSchmoe

Albany, NY

#12572 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Your denial of reality only changes it in your own mind, not in the law others follow. Gay people are legally married today.
For most of us, the law determines what makes a legal marriage. Your refusal to recognize that doesn't change it. Reproduction is not and has never been a legal requirement.
And again, no two marriages are the same, and what they mean to each couple beyond the legal rights and protections, is different for each couple, and up to them to figure out and decide. Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.
Well lets take your premis and look at the facts.. The Supreme Court has again stepped around addressing the issue and most likely will not at this time leaving the DOMA still the law of the Federal land. We can also look at now 33 states having laws or state amendments banning gay marriage, thus disposing the myth that the "majority of America is in favor of gay marriage" when we can clearly see it is not..as now the margin is 2/3's against it. We can review the fact that most states legislatively pass gay marriage and is not done by voter Referendum. Even Gov Cuomo understands that SSM would not pass in NY if the people got the chance to vote on it. It took 4 Senators to vote against what there Constituents wanted to get it passed, and thank goodness most have been removed from office. I give Maine and Maryland respect for passing SSM, and the reason I do is because the Voters said OK not some Senator. This is why the SCOTUS will not act. They will leave it up to the states. The only issue that will move this forward is California's Prop 8. This was a voter enacted Propostion and the will of the voters can not and should not be denied. Should the SCOTUS over rule that decision, prepare for a Constititional Convention as all issues concerning the Constitution will be up for discussion as it will become apparrent that "For the People, By the People" will mean nothing.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12573 Dec 4, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Well lets take your premis and look at the facts.. The Supreme Court has again stepped around addressing the issue and most likely will not at this time leaving the DOMA still the law of the Federal land. We can also look at now 33 states having laws or state amendments banning gay marriage, thus disposing the myth that the "majority of America is in favor of gay marriage" when we can clearly see it is not..as now the margin is 2/3's against it. We can review the fact that most states legislatively pass gay marriage and is not done by voter Referendum. Even Gov Cuomo understands that SSM would not pass in NY if the people got the chance to vote on it. It took 4 Senators to vote against what there Constituents wanted to get it passed, and thank goodness most have been removed from office. I give Maine and Maryland respect for passing SSM, and the reason I do is because the Voters said OK not some Senator. This is why the SCOTUS will not act. They will leave it up to the states. The only issue that will move this forward is California's Prop 8. This was a voter enacted Propostion and the will of the voters can not and should not be denied. Should the SCOTUS over rule that decision, prepare for a Constititional Convention as all issues concerning the Constitution will be up for discussion as it will become apparrent that "For the People, By the People" will mean nothing.
You did not address my assertions, including the fact that many gay people today are legally married, here and in other countries.

But I'll address yours:

Guessing about why and what the Supreme court may do is just that; guessing. Only time will tell, and even then, they may get it wrong as they have in the past when they excused discrimination under the law rather than requiring equal treatment as required by the constitution and enshrined in the founding documents.

A majority of states does not equal a majority of the population. While all recent reliable polls that show a majority of Americans support marriage equality, that does not mean a majority of states do. The states that prohibit equality include vast rural areas with low populations. States that have accepted marriage equality tend to be high in population.

The fact a majority of states have passed laws that discriminate and enshrine prejudice, does not make it right or morally or legally valid. Fundamental rights were never intended to depend on any vote, and that is why we have a constitution including a bill of rights, separation of powers, and why we were formed as a representative democracy, not a direct one. The founders knew majorities would deny to minorities the rights they reserve for themselves if given the opportunity. Equal rights should never depend on popular opinion.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." (SCOTUS)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12574 Dec 4, 2012
Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop. 8 filing: "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.”

James Madison wrote:“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

John Adams, the second U.S. president, bluntly stated that "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

Treating others as you would yourself under the law, is a requirement of our constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12575 Dec 4, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.
Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.
Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.
Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.
Your refusal to accept that a relationship built on mutual respect and love between two people of the same sex could be equal to that of two opposite sex people, is your prejudice, not a fact of life.
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#12576 Dec 4, 2012
Tahw wrote:
Is that like the love between an owner and his pet? Marriage?
When a cat or dog can legally give consent to a marriage, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU, troll.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12577 Dec 4, 2012
The Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
When a cat or dog can legally give consent to a marriage, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU, troll.
I remain unsure whether those who trot out the horse argument are just incredibly stupid or simply intending to be insulting and dehumanizing by comparing the relationship between two people to that of a person and an animal. smh
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12578 Dec 4, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Law has as much a chance of making children a 'requirement' as it does dictating to evolution. I can't believe you make such ridiculous statements.
Moreover, it is hardly my 'prejudice' that a duplicate gendered couple is vastly distinct on every discernible level possible.
Again, you can't prove that anything is identical except for the number and the narrow aspect of 'contract'. An incredibly diminished and narrow view of marriage simply so a imposter relationship can impose a fake relationship.
Like I said, even a child can see through this silliness.
Your definition of marriage is childish and as narrow as your mind. You don't see marriage as a committment between two people who are romantically and emotionally attracted to one another; you define marriage based upon little more than having "genital compatability", as though the only requirement for a "proper" marriage is interoperable parts.

Unsophisticated people like yourself cannot expand their minds beyond the "mommy and daddy and baby makes three" mentality of 1950's America. I understand that, and if that's where your head is at, fine; just don't prevent other people from enjoying the benefits of marriage.

Stop acting like you're normal and "those people" are freaks. I mean, lets ace it, some guys get off owning and carrying guns as an extension of their manhood, but I don't call them freaks for it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12579 Dec 4, 2012
ClamDigger wrote:
<quoted text>
Your definition of marriage is childish and as narrow as your mind. You don't see marriage as a committment between two people who are romantically and emotionally attracted to one another; you define marriage based upon little more than having "genital compatability", as though the only requirement for a "proper" marriage is interoperable parts.
Unsophisticated people like yourself cannot expand their minds beyond the "mommy and daddy and baby makes three" mentality of 1950's America. I understand that, and if that's where your head is at, fine; just don't prevent other people from enjoying the benefits of marriage.
Stop acting like you're normal and "those people" are freaks. I mean, lets ace it, some guys get off owning and carrying guns as an extension of their manhood, but I don't call them freaks for it.
My definition is narrow? This from someone who wants to dumb down marriage to a contract between two people? Really.

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12580 Dec 4, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
My definition is narrow? This from someone who wants to dumb down marriage to a contract between two people? Really.
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
You know about the existence of paragraphs, right? I mean, you write like an eight year old listing his favorite things.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12581 Dec 4, 2012
Here's my favorite:

"If you desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history"

You know, it was once a sacred tradition in the Catholic Church to torture heretics, and it was the "historic practice" in the Southern US to sell black people into slavery.

Stop thinking like a child. Stop thinking what "holy" people tell you to think and start thinking for yourself.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12582 Dec 4, 2012
Here's another good one:

"..risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest..."

So, all hetersexual relationships are "healthy", and all homosexual relationships are "unhealthy", is that it?

You're precious.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12583 Dec 4, 2012
ClamDigger wrote:
Here's another good one:
"..risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest..."
So, all hetersexual relationships are "healthy", and all homosexual relationships are "unhealthy", is that it?
You're precious.
All of those excuses rely on anti-gay prejudice.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#12584 Dec 4, 2012
fr Anne Ominous:

>No one desires to "harm" anyone. No one is being "denied equality".
We seek to preserve what we have enjoyed for the future generations to come.
Family is Dad, Mom, Children. There is no such thing as a "same sex family".<

Completely WRONG on every single point. You must be a terror in classes.

GLBTs are denied EQUALITY everyday. In 33 states, you can unfortunately be evicted, expelled, fired, denied credit or bank accounts, simply for being GLBT.

My WIFE and I have been happily married for 4 1/2 years. We are a same-sex FAMILY, and nothing that YOU spew can change that.

You really need to get the true FACTS sbout GLBT's. Start with www.pflag.org . They're very helpful.
Romneyblewme

Skillman, NJ

#12585 Dec 4, 2012
I'm tired of hearing "we don't want to deny anyone's rights, you can have all of the benefits of marriage,...but without the marriage part".

Okay, you can all of the benefits of gun ownership....but without the bullets.

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.

Las Cruces Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 4 hr Black Ice 72,074
Las Cruces Music Selection (Sep '12) Apr 16 Musikologist 16
News Lujan Grisham cruises at Democratic convention Apr 15 Bloodonhishands 20
News Suspects in double murder appear in court Apr 12 cherry 1
News First Las Cruces Space Festival planned in April Apr 1 Bloodonhishands 5
Gang problems in Las Cruces (Sep '07) Mar 31 Lezbelle666 224
News Allstate call center in Las Cruces hiring 100 m... (Jun '08) Mar 28 Doina 8

Las Cruces Jobs

Personal Finance

Las Cruces Mortgages