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.

Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13044 Feb 11, 2013
SylvioAratis wrote:
<quoted text>
Say it over and over...maybe someday YOU will believe it.
I'll continue to repeat it until I no longer see that word used. Simple enough?
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13045 Feb 11, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it's all bigoted twirl
morons with no argument scream "bigot"

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13046 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm boring, you're a pervert. I win.
<quoted text>
Make me :)
Another fantasy! There's NO way I would have anything to do with you, let alone make you!

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#13047 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Bigots try to deflect the word by repeating nonsensical tirades.

They're still bigots by definition.
Mother of Anne

Pompano Beach, FL

#13048 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Now Anne, how many times have I reminded you not to scream.
SylvioAratis

Brooklyn, NY

#13049 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll continue to repeat it until I no longer see that word used. Simple enough?
So, you're going to repeat the same action and expect a different result?

That's the very definition of "stupid".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13050 Feb 11, 2013
"If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principal of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."
Iowa Supreme Court: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D...
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13051 Feb 11, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Another fantasy! There's NO way I would have anything to do with you, let alone make you!
Weak

Lame

Ineffective

Try harder
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13052 Feb 11, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Bigots try
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13053 Feb 11, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>

They're still bigots
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Anne Ominous

Greeley, PA

#13054 Feb 11, 2013
Not Done Babbling wrote:
"If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principal of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."
Iowa Supreme Court: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D...
Opposite sex couples produce children, Babs. They become the next generation of workers, leaders, and taxpayers. Same sex couples are barren. The State has a compelling interest in supporting Traditional Marriage.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#13055 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
Weak
Lame
Ineffective
Try harder
LOL.. Girl friend, You don't deserve anything hard...Now go back to naming those grey hairs...

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#13056 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Stupid people who can't say anything of value just keep repeating the same incorrect nonsense over and over.

Then they get ignored.
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13057 Feb 11, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>

Then they get ignored.


So this will be your final response, just to get it on the record?
Anne Ominous

Berkshire, NY

#13058 Feb 11, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.. Girl friend, You don't deserve anything hard...Now go back to naming those grey hairs...
Weaker

Lamer

Even more ineffective.

I'd suggest that you try harder but you're obviously already doing your best.
SylvioAratis

Brooklyn, NY

#13059 Feb 11, 2013
Anne Ominous wrote:
<quoted text>
morons with no argument scream "bigot"
Bigots with no argument scream "moron".

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13060 Feb 11, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
A apple tree bearing fruit.
A apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be a apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be a apple tree.
Even funnier?
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!
Smirk.
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it's all bigoted twirl, there is NO reasonable response and definitely not to an arrogant condescending moron!
Nothing bigoted about it.

You are right, there is no argument against it. It destroys the gay contention that you must demand all married couples have children.

That's why you resort to ad homoan attacks and hate.

Smile.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13061 Feb 11, 2013
While procreation has never been a requirement, even that excuse ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to opposite sex families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

"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.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13062 Feb 11, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While procreation has never been a requirement, even that excuse ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment provides nothing to opposite sex families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
"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.
Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.
What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
Your argument about 'requirement' is destroyed by this analogy;

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.

Even funnier?

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!

Moreover, if denial of marriage deprives gay couples with children, it also does numerous other relationships, including single parents. It literally dumbs down marriage to a meaningless term.

The only thing that marriage does is distinguish a completely unique relationship, the cross cultural constraint of evolutionary mating behavior.
Truthmaster

United States

#13063 Feb 11, 2013
I don't understand how a gay man refused to accept he is gay and vents on other people?

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