NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: EDGE 263

The leaders of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage are furious that the LGBT community made great strides after Election Day.

Full Story
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#207 Dec 5, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Your maturity level is showing.
in reality, which one of us is right out of high school?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#208 Dec 5, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Your maturity level is showing.
but hey, lets pick up whwere we left off,

you said:
You just got done agreeing that Baker isn't Federal law and is only a Sate Law.

and I provided this:

http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay-issu ...

"'72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases
The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether it's going to take up a key gay marriage cases. But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.

That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."

and you have yet to eat your humble pie....guess who's maturity level is showing?

so you went for the cheap dig on me rather than pick up where we left off...
once again:
guess who's maturity level is showing?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#209 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie. the truth is that you are a pimply faced kid who doesn't know better than to post like this.
This reminds me of everything you post: It's *not* substantiated and you *cannot* substantiate it for reasons others can materially, clearly, and logically point out, yet you pretend you're stating "fact."

This is you, in a nutshell.

How do we know this?

Because when confronted, like RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY POST ABOVE, from you, you continue to cling to the illogic.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#210 Dec 6, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
This reminds me of everything you post: It's *not* substantiated and you *cannot* substantiate it for reasons others can materially, clearly, and logically point out, yet you pretend you're stating "fact."
This is you, in a nutshell.
How do we know this?
Because when confronted, like RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY POST ABOVE, from you, you continue to cling to the illogic.
Is Baker a SCOTUS precedent?

DNF refuses to admit it is...
its a FACT that it is...

jumping in and taking potshots when you are not exactly clear whats being discussed seems to be your M.O.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#211 Dec 6, 2012
NOM is losing site of Starbucks. Heard last night on the news they are going to build 1500 more next year!!!! WOOOO HOOOOO! ROTFL

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#213 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in reality, which one of us is right out of high school?
I graduated in 1976. Attended my 35th H.S. reunion last fall.

When will your graduation be?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#214 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I graduated in 1976. Attended my 35th H.S. reunion last fall.
When will your graduation be?
Oh, when you said you were only a high school graduate the other day, I thought you meant recently...or was it a GED you said?

either way, you are acting young by refusing to admit your mistake...

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#215 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but hey, lets pick up whwere we left off,
you said:
You just got done agreeing that Baker isn't Federal law and is only a Sate Law.
and I provided this:
http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay-issu ...
"'72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases
The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether it's going to take up a key gay marriage cases. But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.
That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."
and you have yet to eat your humble pie....guess who's maturity level is showing?
so you went for the cheap dig on me rather than pick up where we left off...
once again:
guess who's maturity level is showing?
On Dec 3, 2012 in post # 205 of this thread you wrote:
"This is a lie. the truth is that you are a pimply faced kid who doesn't know better than to post like this. "

Then on Dec. 6, 2012 you come back with:
"so you went for the cheap dig on me rather than pick up where we left off..."

It would be better if you stopped discussing maturity levels. You're only embarrassing yourself.

Now back on topic. Using your reasoning over Baker, if SCOTUS refuses to hear any SSM case this year they all become Federal Precedents. We both know that's not the case.

If SCOTUS refuses to take the Prop 8 case it becomes law in California not the nation. Interestingly though if SCOTUS takes the Windsor case from NY it could force the Federal Government to treat married SS couples equally to married heterosexual couples when it comes to taxation.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#216 Dec 6, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
This reminds me of everything you post: It's *not* substantiated and you *cannot* substantiate it for reasons others can materially, clearly, and logically point out, yet you pretend you're stating "fact."
This is you, in a nutshell.
How do we know this?
Because when confronted, like RIGHT HERE IN THIS VERY POST ABOVE, from you, you continue to cling to the illogic.
Thank you for your support. Like I said, his maturity level is showing and he's embarrassing himself trying to one up me.

Then he whines about personal attacks right after he writes one of his own!

LMAO!

D'OH!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#217 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
On Dec 3, 2012 in post # 205 of this thread you wrote:
"This is a lie. the truth is that you are a pimply faced kid who doesn't know better than to post like this. "
Then on Dec. 6, 2012 you come back with:
"so you went for the cheap dig on me rather than pick up where we left off..."
It would be better if you stopped discussing maturity levels. You're only embarrassing yourself.
Now back on topic. Using your reasoning over Baker, if SCOTUS refuses to hear any SSM case this year they all become Federal Precedents. We both know that's not the case.
If SCOTUS refuses to take the Prop 8 case it becomes law in California not the nation. Interestingly though if SCOTUS takes the Windsor case from NY it could force the Federal Government to treat married SS couples equally to married heterosexual couples when it comes to taxation.
I am pretty sure thats what you said the other day, maybe I was wrong, If so, I admit I was wrong and apologize..
how about you do the same...

google mandatory review, and see how that applies to Baker and not to the ones you suggested...

But it is telling that even an article that refers to Baker as the 1972 SCOTUS case is not enough "proof" for you...
or that it was cited as binding precedent this year in many of the DOMA cases...

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#218 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Baker a SCOTUS precedent?
DNF refuses to admit it is...
its a FACT that it is...
jumping in and taking potshots when you are not exactly clear whats being discussed seems to be your M.O.
Precedent: the first time something occurs.

You're claiming Baker was the first time SCOTUS refused to hear a case and remanded it back to the State and as such it became Federal law.

You're absolutely wrong.

Though Baker can be cited in other cases about SSM it's not the same as a case heard and ruled on by SCOTUS.

You're going to be in one really tough spot when SCOTUS decides which SSM cases it will hear and which ones it won't.

According to your standards all those cases would carry equal weight on the Federal level no matter what SCOTUS does! And that's just not true.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#221 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>P
You're claiming Baker was the first time SCOTUS refused to hear a case and remanded it back to the State and as such it became Federal law.
You're absolutely wrong.
.
No, I never said that, you did, so gues who is wrong...

why don't you google it?
here, I'll do it for you...here's wiki:

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#222 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, when you said you were only a high school graduate the other day, I thought you meant recently...or was it a GED you said?
either way, you are acting young by refusing to admit your mistake...
...says the one who never admits to being wrong, even when blatantly so.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#223 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I never said that, you did, so gues who is wrong...
why don't you google it?
here, I'll do it for you...here's wiki:
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]
Very good. I see you can research and cut and paste.

Now all you have to do is show what the "precise issue" was that you claim sets Federal Precedent on BAKER and binds every other Federal Court.

You haven't done that yet and I doubt you ever will.

On 3 different threads you did state exactly the same thing I did about Baker. Since then you have denied that, confirmed it and denied it again.

Have you ever considered trying out for the Olympics? With all the fence jumping you do I'm sure you'd qualify in at least 3 events!

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#224 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pretty sure thats what you said the other day, maybe I was wrong, If so, I admit I was wrong and apologize..
how about you do the same...
google mandatory review, and see how that applies to Baker and not to the ones you suggested...
But it is telling that even an article that refers to Baker as the 1972 SCOTUS case is not enough "proof" for you...
or that it was cited as binding precedent this year in many of the DOMA cases...
someone call 911. I'm having chest pains! Jane D'Oh admits they were wrong!

OMG maybe we are in The Last Days!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#225 Dec 6, 2012
It's funny that I read this, knew *instantly* how I respond to the first part, and then *READ THE REST*. Let's do this, because I know you know I have an instantaneous response to you.

Let's go.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Baker a SCOTUS precedent?
DNF refuses to admit it is...
I am not clear on that,*BUT* I don't have to be. Because ya know what you fail to mention here, O Mouth? You fail to mention that anyone alive can *DISAGREE* with you that it is precedent. I don't give a shit who's saying it's a precedent; if a person can *reasonably put forth a train of logic* to explain why it should not be one, we're done here.
Jane Dough wrote:
its a FACT that it is...
And again and again and again and again and again, you argue as if *YOU* personally respect *ALL* court decisions which come from any judge. It's like you're too spineless (this is why I said this in another post) to call the judges dumbasses for their verdicts if they. don't. make. sense. Ever hear of it? Sense? Logic? Ever hear of it? Ever once? Christ almighty; you're a piece of work.
Jane Dough wrote:
jumping in and taking potshots when you are not exactly clear whats being discussed seems to be your M.O.
Know what?

Maybe the *real* so-called "secret" is that I don't need to know what's going on. If I see a verdict that's antigay, I can *literally read* the judge's opinion and *diagram* how it's senseless, illogical and stupid. This is because most antigay arguments are based on *the same premises*, premises which are faulty and which can be traced to *misinformation, illogic, lies and falsehoods* about gay people.

But you never, never, never, never mention this in any of your posts,

not one,

never once.

You tell me who needs to brush up on what they're talking about, "JANE DOUGH." God almighty.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#226 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your support. Like I said, his maturity level is showing and he's embarrassing himself trying to one up me.
Then he whines about personal attacks right after he writes one of his own!
LMAO!
D'OH!
You're welcome. You guys, it doesn't *matter* what the court says about Baker. Are you NUTS? Not to be extreme or vicious toward YOU, but I want to make my point. Come on, already; get a grip. PLESSY V. FERGUSON was controlling *SUPREME COURT* precedent for decades; look at the decision. Look at what the court found. Go look. Go look for yourself what the *SUPREME COURT* declared and decreed to be:

sensible,

just,

fair-minded,

and equitable under law.

And someone like "Jane Dough" is going to tell *me* that the supreme court is calling Baker precedent; I don't know exactly what her argument is, my point being that I don't care what *anyone* is saying about Baker. It's a scumbag decision, again:

Baker is a scumbag decision.

Am I clear enough?

NINE STATES now have gay marriage. If the *best* anyone can say is that times have changed, then I am certainly entitled to call anyone who calls Baker precedent:

uneducated.

Period.

End of story.

Again, thank you and: you're welcome.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#227 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Very good. I see you can research and cut and paste.
Now all you have to do is show what the "precise issue" was that you claim sets Federal Precedent on BAKER and binds every other Federal Court.
You haven't done that yet and I doubt you ever will.
On 3 different threads you did state exactly the same thing I did about Baker. Since then you have denied that, confirmed it and denied it again.
Have you ever considered trying out for the Olympics? With all the fence jumping you do I'm sure you'd qualify in at least 3 events!
Jane ALWAYS leaves out this part:

-The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.
-The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.
-Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.
-Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#228 Dec 7, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
.
nope, nothing of substance here, just more personal attacks, I see a PATTERN HERE...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#229 Dec 7, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane ALWAYS leaves out this part:
-The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.
-The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.
-Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.
-Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.
these guys aren't at that level, they are claiming it is not a scotus precedent AT ALL, so we are arguing over the very basics.
In other words, they would have to admit its a scotus precedent first before we debate its application...

BUT YOU ignore this part from the first circuit a few months ago:

"The Legal Group says that any equal protection challenge to DOMA is foreclosed at the outset by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). There, a central claim made was that a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage violated federal equal protection principles. Minnesota had, like DOMA, defined marriage as a union of persons of the opposite sex, and the state supreme court had upheld the statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed summarily for want of a substantial federal question. Id.
Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

I do appreciate that you read every on eof my posts and comment though...
you love me...
maybe that's why you enable me to use you as a way to set the record straight!

Hey, did you tell everyone that I never said "protected class" with the same vigor in which you insisted I did?
You are a fraud dude!

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
Washington County in Florida the Only Focus of ... 32 min Sir Andrew 6
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 33 min EdmondWA 26,657
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 1 hr KiMare 37
How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr Matt9969 166
Alaska's 1st known gay marriage in Arctic town 1 hr Latter Day Taints 33
Elvis Presley's sex secrets exposed 2 hr Steven Marks 8
Elton John, David Furnish to tie knot in privat... 2 hr Imposter Foster 9
More from around the web