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

Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

There are 12364 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.

ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12706 Dec 10, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Gee I don't know.. When a small group of people thought slavery was ok,, was it the majority that overrulled that, because we weren't supposed to base people on the color of there skin? Souther Plantation owners thought it was perfectly OK. The the minority group they represented, were they overuled by the Constitution. Who protected them and there interests? If we believe what you're stating then slavery would be OK today, because we can't let the rights of the minority be overulled by the majority?
A "small group" who though that slavery was "ok"?..you mean the entire Southern United States? I'm here to tell you, very few folks south of the Mason-Dixon Line openly opposed slavery.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12707 Dec 10, 2012
The SCOTUS has agreed to rule on gay marriage, and you know that they're going to rule in support of it.

As much as you steadfastly state your belief that the SCOTUS will uphol DOMA, you know that it won't.

On the bright side, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you remember when gay people couldn't get married.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12708 Dec 10, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Alesi was the only smart one. He realized that he fcked up and didn't have a chance.
Now we set our sights on the puppetmaster of this little play, Cuomo.
None of the state-level decisions will mean ANYTHING once the SCOTUS strikes down DOMA and affirms gay marraige as a civil-right?

OMG...I love it!
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12709 Dec 10, 2012
The real beauty of the SCOTUS decision is that no single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling!

It'll all be over within a year.
ClamDigger

Schenectady, NY

#12710 Dec 10, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, I know. That's excellent news!
<quoted text>
LOL, neither I nor you know anything of the kind.
<quoted text>
I already live in a State that forbids homosexual marriage.
Are you serious? You actually think that the SCOTUS will rule AGAINST gay citizens on this one? You're delusional!

Oh, wait...you were sure that Romney would win.

Never mind.
RipleysTerrier

Schenectady, NY

#12711 Dec 10, 2012
The SCOTUS loves to support civil rights, and hates to rule against any protected group.

Nope...its over.
JoeSchmoe

Albany, NY

#12712 Dec 10, 2012
ClamDigger wrote:
The SCOTUS has agreed to rule on gay marriage, and you know that they're going to rule in support of it.
As much as you steadfastly state your belief that the SCOTUS will uphol DOMA, you know that it won't.
On the bright side, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you remember when gay people couldn't get married.
Of course they are going to uphold it.. They have seen the will of the PEOPLE in 33 states. almost 2/3rds the populous are against it. They are going to go against the will of the people, in essence you are asking the SCOTUS to tell the people it doesn't matter what you vote or think, we will do that for you. And for what? to please 1% of the population.. I don't think so... Let me quote Spock's dying words.. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one"
RipleysTerrier

Schenectady, NY

#12713 Dec 10, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Of course they are going to uphold it.. They have seen the will of the PEOPLE in 33 states. almost 2/3rds the populous are against it. They are going to go against the will of the people, in essence you are asking the SCOTUS to tell the people it doesn't matter what you vote or think, we will do that for you. And for what? to please 1% of the population.. I don't think so... Let me quote Spock's dying words.. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one"
How can I argue with someone who quotes people who never existed?

The SCOTUS doesn't rule based upon popularity; that's why they exist. The SCOTUS rules based upon the law.

Pure demoncracy doesn't work...just look at California; its a referenum state with a large majority of people on welfare and public services, so every time there is an attempt to limit governmen dollars, the referendum is voted down.

The SCOTUS doesn't weigh popularity of an issue.

Any way you look at it, the SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of gay marriage; there simply isn't any other scenario.

Don't worry though, there are plenty of other groups whose rights you can try to deny.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12714 Dec 10, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Gee I don't know.. When a small group of people thought slavery was ok,, was it the majority that overrulled that, because we weren't supposed to base people on the color of there skin? Souther Plantation owners thought it was perfectly OK. The the minority group they represented, were they overuled by the Constitution. Who protected them and there interests? If we believe what you're stating then slavery would be OK today, because we can't let the rights of the minority be overulled by the majority?
The same thing was true with abortion, and school segregation. Only about 15 States were involved. I just read an article in which Ginsburg was quoted as saying that she thought even those rulings were too hasty. It was on the AP if you want to look for it.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12715 Dec 10, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Of course they are going to uphold it.. They have seen the will of the PEOPLE in 33 states. almost 2/3rds the populous are against it. They are going to go against the will of the people, in essence you are asking the SCOTUS to tell the people it doesn't matter what you vote or think, we will do that for you. And for what? to please 1% of the population.. I don't think so... Let me quote Spock's dying words.. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one"
Actually it's 41 States in all. They may uphold prop8, but that's as far as it will go.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12716 Dec 10, 2012
Lloyd

El Paso, TX

#12717 Dec 10, 2012
What wrote:
Comment 12692 posted by someone too ashamed to admit that he is homosexual. Please help him come out.
Fyi, it also goes by the name of lawnmaster. Why you say? Because he hires illegals to mow his lawn (or do other yard work) and then sexually abuses them afterwards. At which time he threatens to call immigration on them if they don't leave. So the illegals leave without payment and with stretch marks around their butts. And they do not call authorities because they fear being deported.
Lawnmaster

United States

#12718 Dec 10, 2012
Lloyd wrote:
<quoted text>Fyi, it also goes by the name of lawnmaster. Why you say? Because he hires illegals to mow his lawn (or do other yard work) and then sexually abuses them afterwards. At which time he threatens to call immigration on them if they don't leave. So the illegals leave without payment and with stretch marks around their butts. And they do not call authorities because they fear being deported.
How tall is your mother? Three feet high and moving grass while you sit in the cat eathing chips. You are digusting fatboy.
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

#12719 Dec 10, 2012
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing was true with abortion, and school segregation. Only about 15 States were involved. I just read an article in which Ginsburg was quoted as saying that she thought even those rulings were too hasty. It was on the AP if you want to look for it.
Now Anne, you know you haven't learned how to read yet.
shang guan rui en

Kunming, China

#12720 Dec 11, 2012
Most of the 'females' who identify as lesbians appear to have Down Syndrome.
BattleOfBritain

Albany, NY

#12721 Dec 11, 2012
shang guan rui en wrote:
Most of the 'females' who identify as lesbians appear to have Down Syndrome.
Most people who identify themselves as Asian have tiny peckers and cannot drive.
Urm Omma

Bedford, MA

#12722 Dec 11, 2012
JoeSchmoe wrote:
<quoted text>Gee I don't know.. When a small group of people thought slavery was ok,, was it the majority that overrulled that, because we weren't supposed to base people on the color of there skin? Souther Plantation owners thought it was perfectly OK. The the minority group they represented, were they overuled by the Constitution. Who protected them and there interests? If we believe what you're stating then slavery would be OK today, because we can't let the rights of the minority be overulled by the majority?
The two things are not similar or equal. The North and the South both owned slaves. The North moved away from slavery because of the industrial revolution. Slaves had become obsolete and were an expense and not much of a resource. It was costing the owners to feed, clothe and maintain the slaves. It made good sense to "set them free". Easy way to shed your financial ties to a liability. That said, the South used slaves cause the IR was not so prevalent in the South. So, to simply say that the North noticed that slavery was wrong is not totally true. It became a matter of convenience.

And no, gays are not like slaves. No one is going to set you free. You already are free to do as you please. Marriage still happens to be between a woman and a man.
PrimaDonna

Albany, NY

#12723 Dec 11, 2012
Urm Omma wrote:
<quoted text>
The two things are not similar or equal. The North and the South both owned slaves. The North moved away from slavery because of the industrial revolution. Slaves had become obsolete and were an expense and not much of a resource. It was costing the owners to feed, clothe and maintain the slaves. It made good sense to "set them free". Easy way to shed your financial ties to a liability. That said, the South used slaves cause the IR was not so prevalent in the South. So, to simply say that the North noticed that slavery was wrong is not totally true. It became a matter of convenience.
And no, gays are not like slaves. No one is going to set you free. You already are free to do as you please. Marriage still happens to be between a woman and a man.
Antiques like you are literally a dying breed. When you're gone, the upcoming generations - who are FAR more open-minded - won't resist gay marriage.

We're all just waiting for dusty old relics like you to shuffle off your mortal coil.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#12724 Dec 11, 2012
PrimaDonna wrote:
<quoted text>

We're all just waiting
Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your shirt pocket?

LOL

:)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12726 Dec 12, 2012
PrimaDonna wrote:
<quoted text>
Antiques like you are literally a dying breed. When you're gone, the upcoming generations - who are FAR more open-minded - won't resist gay marriage.
We're all just waiting for dusty old relics like you to shuffle off your mortal coil.
Idiots like you are very open minded, true. But the problem is, there is nothing to fall out.

Marriage has always been a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are a violent contradiction.

Even a child knows the drastic contradiction, especially when one couple is mom and dad.

Gays are going to look even more sh/t faced with this attempt to impose a imposter relationship on marriage.

:-)

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 E. Shirley Baca takes position with New Mexico ... (Jul '09) Oct 11 me from new mexico 3
News Advocates call for passage of 'clean' immigrati... Oct 5 spytheweb 1
News Telles verdict expected today (May '08) Oct 1 son 59
lcpd no confidence vote Sep '17 Bloodonhishands 3
News Convicted stalker running for Pearce's seat as ... Sep '17 Marie 6
News DEA conducts raid at Phat Glass in Las Cruces Sep '17 grateful for DEA ... 1
News Burn Lake sexual activities targeted by authori... (Sep '10) Sep '17 Jimmy Aid 145

Las Cruces Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Las Cruces Mortgages