Paul Ryan promises hate group that he...

Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality

There are 5444 comments on the www.wisconsingazette.com story from Oct 9, 2012, titled Paul Ryan promises hate group that he'll fight equality. In it, www.wisconsingazette.com reports that:

In a recent interview with Focus on the Family president Jim Daly, Paul Ryan reassured the anti-gay hate group that a Romney-Ryan administration will fiercely oppose gay rights.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.wisconsingazette.com.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5522 Dec 13, 2012
Imprtnrd wrote:
Can't MAN UP with a name like 'Jane'. ROTFL
Did you know Mona IS A DUDE?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5523 Dec 13, 2012
July 6, 2006: The Court of Appeals issues a 4–2 decision upholding New York's existing marriage statutes and declining to judicially mandate the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York. The Court's ruling states that same-sex partners do not have the right to marry each other under the New York Constitution.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/...
Jane Dough wrote:
you are by suggesting I claimed all you do is copy and paste, I never said that. I said you have NO SUPPORT....
and you don't!
You colorfully, if cluelessly, keep saying pete and repete. I was merely pointing out that you have REGULARLY copy clipped portions of Hernandez v Robles, which is hysterical since it posits that they legislature COULD do any number of things NONE OF WHICH the legislature actually did.

You HAVE regularly offered such mindless copy clipped “arguments”, in spite of the fact that the decision has been passed by, when the New York State Legislature passed marriage equality.
Jane Dough wrote:
why do you refuse to address the reasons themselves?
Why do you stick to your nonsense about the case...
I didn't reference the case, I just gave two reasons..
Please note you did claim I never gave them...
LIAR!
So, in sum, you suggest you do not have to address my reasons...
so WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING FOR THEM?
Don't feel the need to answer that, I already know, its because you are an idiot...
I have stated that there is no state interest in children being raised by two opposite sex parents. I have illustrated that the state allows divorce, sole custody of children, and single parent adoption, and single parenthood ALL OF WHICH illustrate that your assertions regarding a state interest in child rearing by two opposite sex parents are fallacious.

I have also noted that the decision has been superseded. Why should I refute a decision that has already been legally passed by?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5524 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
lots of icons today, and lots of mona...
isn't that interesting..
he denies he plays with them but we all know MONA is a fraud..
So Mona, how many names DO YOU post under and judge with anyway?
Don't you just love it when a fake lawyer jumps to false conclusions? I would LOVE to see him prove I use Judge it icons. Why its his firm grasp of logic and reasoning!!! One event follows another so the MUST be cause and effect!!! Sure, Mr. Fake Lawyer. I've got one for you: The sun comes up and my mail gets delivered! The sun MUST have delivered my mail. It could happen! Where did you go to Law School?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5525 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know Mona IS A DUDE?
Did you know Jane is a dude?
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#5526 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
A HAA!
You lie to yourself....
and you lie here EVERYDAY!
I would say you don't know what you are talking about, except you don't say anything except to insist I am not a lawyer in every post..
guess what, YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER!
I post and you jump...see how that works?
so do I.
You lie to yourself if you think I don't make you move!
Because I know what motivates you and its UGLY.
Now JUMP!
I post and you jump. See how that works? So do I. Didn't you learn anything since 3rd grade?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5527 Dec 13, 2012
lides wrote:
pete and repeat
I know you think you did, but you really didn't.

why do you think the name justice dumbass sticks?

Now I know why.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5528 Dec 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just love it when a fake lawyer jumps to false conclusions? I would LOVE to see him prove I use Judge it icons. Why its his firm grasp of logic and reasoning!!! One event follows another so the MUST be cause and effect!!! Sure, Mr. Fake Lawyer. I've got one for you: The sun comes up and my mail gets delivered! The sun MUST have delivered my mail. It could happen! Where did you go to Law School?
AHA!

You deny it, but you lie, so no one believes you...

Wait yesterday I was a terrible lawyer, today I am fake, yesterday I failed the LSAT's MAKE UP YOUR BULLYING MIND!

You are a a fraud, and now JUMP HIGHER!

I love all your post about me..
keep em coming...
and don't worry, I will look for the ones you try to hide from me you liar!

SO, HOW MANY NAMES do you post under....is your lie that "Mona" doesn't judge them, but you do under another name?
You lie so well I do have trouble figuring out where the lie is...but its always there...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5529 Dec 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I post and you jump. See how that works? So do I. Didn't you learn anything since 3rd grade?
I never said I would ignore you.
I never pretended I would ignore you by posting to you, but never directly to you...

who did all that?

YOU?

That's why I own you.
Now jump biatch!

Or are you going to lie to yourself and swear me off AGAIN...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5530 Dec 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know Jane is a dude?
Yup HE did. I don't LIE ...

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5531 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I know you think you did, but you really didn't.
why do you think the name justice dumbass sticks?
Now I know why.
Why, because of weak minded souls like yourself and Wondering lack the maturity to behave like adults, of course.

Jane, have you noticed that once again you are off topic, and fail to address the root of the thread in any way?

Perhaps you really do lack the mental capacity to defend your position? Or more likely, you know that equal protection will prevail because it is right, just, and what the US Constitution requires.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5532 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I don't LIE ...
You do nothing but lie, misinterpret, misdirect, and obfuscate.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5533 Dec 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, because of weak minded souls like .
nope, its because you proclaim things like a judge, but they are patently false or just plain dumb...
hence the name justice dumbass...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5534 Dec 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You do nothing but lie, misinterpret, misdirect, and obfuscate.
sure just point just ONE lie out...
JUST ONE...
you cant...
so ironically your post was a lie!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5535 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
nope, its because you proclaim things like a judge, but they are patently false or just plain dumb...
hence the name justice dumbass...
SI support my opinions with fact and law. You offer rationalizations that a child could debunk and regularly contradict your own opinion.

Tell us again how there is a legitimate state interest in procreation relative to legal marriage, but that requirement does not apply to infertile heterosexual couples.
Jane Dough wrote:
sure just point just ONE lie out...
JUST ONE...
you cant...
so ironically your post was a lie!
Jane, I'm not falling for the obfuscation, so I'll just point out that you are once again off topic.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5536 Dec 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
SI support my opinions with fact and law.
this from the guy who hates that I cut and paste court decisions that say what I am arguing and provides NOTHING but what he feels...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#5537 Dec 13, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Jane, I'm not falling for the obfuscation, so I'll just point out that you are once again off topic.
So I challenge you to identify one lie after calling me a liar and YOU CANNOT...

funny.

So your apology will be forthcoming, right?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#5538 Dec 13, 2012
sugarfoot7 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Eman posted it.
Then you saw "Obama sexual" and we so fascinated you copy/pasted it. BFD. He is kind of cute, but he just doesn't seem sexy to me. Different strokes...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#5539 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are boring and dumb...
just another day...
I wonder what you will say when the scotus rules as I have said they will...
and that procreation is addressed...
I know, you will call them bigots and say we need to stock the court with idiots like you...
What's to address? You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry. It's just not an issue. A woman can go through menopause, have a hysterectomy and still marry.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#5540 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me pose a hypothetical to you...
Two friends decide they will marry for a day, get insurance, have an operation one needs and then immediately divorce...
they apply for a marriage license, do they get one?
Don't know if they can. But let's say they can get all those benefits with a one day marriage and divorce. What's your point?
Jane Dough wrote:
But is that that what a marriage is to you?
No love, no commitment, no nothing but a business deal, yet they get a marriage license...
And?
Jane Dough wrote:
so marriage must not be about love, commitment, or anything but a pure short-term business deal.
And?
If you think all marriages are about hearts and flowers, you are stupid. I was going to say "naive", but "stupid" is more fitting.
Jane Dough wrote:
This is why your "required" logic isn't one...
ALL of what we expect a marriage to have is NOT REQUIRED...
You shoot down your own argument. A couple is not legally required to love each other in order to marry, just like a couple does't have to be able to reproduce in order to marry.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#5541 Dec 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. of course, most marriages contain procreation though...
So what?
Probably in most marriages, the man is taller than the woman. But that's not a legal requirement.
Jane Dough wrote:
And like we root out sham marriages for the sake of immigration, we choose where we draw the line...
and 100% non- commited marriages like sham marriages for citizenship and 100% infertile marriages like gays is where we rationally draw the line...
But you aren't required to be able to reproduce in order to marry. It's that simple.
Jane Dough wrote:
THE best part is you think calling my hypo stupid was addressing it...
So, we EXPECT many things to be in a marriage even though they are not REQUIRED?
Imagine that...
so that they are not required means NOTHING, huh?
Actually, it means EVERYTHING.
What you may expect, and what I may expect may be different. But our expectations are not the same as legal requirements.

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 3 min just the facts 5,596
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 13 min INFIDEL 197
News Lesbian Methodist bishop faces challenge to her... 22 hr Rainbow Referee 2
News Bride of ISIS: From 'happily ever after' to hell Wed Silly 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Tue Retired teacher 31,984
News What to Watch: a JonBenet,a a Rodney King,a a E... Apr 24 KCinNYC 1
News 'This is the Trump era': Sessions takes aim at ... Apr 24 slick willie expl... 4
More from around the web