Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

May 20, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KCRA-TV Sacramento

Same-sex marriage opponents can't keep the identities of their campaign donors secret, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in upholding a lower court decision.

Comments
1,301 - 1,320 of 1,788 Comments Last updated Saturday Aug 2
Captain Spalding

Anonymous Proxy

#1351 Jul 1, 2014
Captain Spalding

Anonymous Proxy

#1352 Jul 1, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Stating a fact isn't making a rule, you addle-pated homunculus.
<quoted text>
Reality is better then truth

I bet you made that up .... uh duh
ReadyForHillary

Mountain View, CA

#1354 Jul 2, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think allowing gay marriage is backward thinking. That said, I don't care if you marry as long as you just mind your own business and have as happy a life as you can without forcing yourselves on others.
No one is forcing ourselves on others, gays simply as the constitution guarantees it. Demand the rights we are entitled to, the constitution founded by our ancestors was written to be enforced not violated.
Robbing the Unborn

South Hadley, MA

#1355 Jul 2, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
So, how do you propose society could assist KiMare with their mental disorder?
Good morning my far leftist radical comrade! Obama should be bombing something any day now, and I'm not talking about drones either.
:o)

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1356 Jul 2, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>OK this story s now over a month old. Has NOM complied? What actions have they taken against NOM?
Actually, this story is five years old. As I opined long ago, NOM will comply with the court order about the same time bankers go to jail for nearly crashing the world financial system.

At best, during the last throes of their wretched existence, NOM will declare bankruptcy and Maine will be last in line among its creditors.
Happy N U Know It

South Hadley, MA

#1357 Jul 2, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this story is five years old. As I opined long ago, NOM will comply with the court order about the same time bankers go to jail for nearly crashing the world financial system.
At best, during the last throes of their wretched existence, NOM will declare bankruptcy and Maine will be last in line among its creditors.
I thinks the gay agenda has been much more a waste of money that nom. Especially sice the there are so few of you seeking a handout from a system that IS broken and so near a collapse. I blame all of them for allowing "Foreign lobby" to bribe and basically manipulate our entire administrative infrastructure.
But can you guess or even have the stones to come forth as to identify specifically this lobby, as well as the other ''Tentacles that represent 'Victimhood" here and abroad, and at the same time persuading us into eternal conflict and war with an enemy that in general does not exist? Of course you can't.
:o)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1358 Jul 2, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So? We'll have to adjust our current laws. Get a real argument squeaky. And stop with your temper tantrums, no need for that son.
Remember! I support marriage equality and you, well, it's complicated eh? I suspect you do not because we'll have to adjust some marriage laws. Wouldn't wanna do that so F*** them poly people eh?
What you suspect of me is incorrect.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1360 Jul 2, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to educate us. You need a course in reading comprehension. From the excerpt above, it is clear that the reason for homosexuality remains a mystery. Your own excerpt acknowledges that many things that are now known were once mysteries. It further acknowledges that many mysteries remain. So clearly there is something you are missing.
The anthropological explanation that's always made the most sense to me, being a student of ancient cultures, is that for countless millenia, groups of people that had among them a small number of adults that did not have children to raise had a distinct advantage over groups that didn't. The adults that didn't have the responsibility of children were free to be more productive for the community. They could put more energy into hunting and gathering and there would be more adults to protect the community against outside threats. They could also assist in child rearing, creating a more secure environment for children, resulting in lower child mortality rates, leading to a higher population of the group.

Those advantages would, over time, translate into more of those communities surviving while the smaller communities with a higher child to adult ratio (i.e. no gay folks) would have died out more often, leaving whatever gene that caused gay people to happen to propagate and continue on, while those communities without that gene didn't fare as well and died out.

That's obviously a major simplification of the theory, and we're talking about many thousands of years of evolution (which the crazies and the idiots don't believe in anyway), but it certainly seems plausible to me. It doesn't really take much to realize that in a community of hunter/gatherers, having a few pairs of same-sex couples among them would be a huge advantage to the community as a whole.

And that's no different today.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1361 Jul 2, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if the women are married. Don't care about their legal status. The boys have no father.
Millions and millions of boys worldwide have no father. And millions and millions have no mother. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of them are the result of being born to a same-sex couple. Yet it's the same-sex couples that you obsess over. Does that really make any sense?
Randolph

San Jose, CA

#1362 Jul 2, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? That's scary. Will mothers be able to change their hormone levels so all their babies are born straight?
Gawd i hope so.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1363 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Millions and millions of boys worldwide have no father. And millions and millions have no mother.
That makes everything okay.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1364 Jul 2, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes everything okay.
Note that you have to cut my post and take the first part out-of-context in order to respond to it. How about responding to what I actually wrote next time? Think you can do that?
Hey Dogboy

Pittsfield, MA

#1365 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Millions and millions of boys worldwide have no father. And millions and millions have no mother. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of them are the result of being born to a same-sex couple. Yet it's the same-sex couples that you obsess over. Does that really make any sense?
Actually those children raised in a single parent household IS a same sex household. Not working out so well.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1367 Jul 2, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this story is five years old. As I opined long ago, NOM will comply with the court order about the same time bankers go to jail for nearly crashing the world financial system.
At best, during the last throes of their wretched existence, NOM will declare bankruptcy and Maine will be last in line among its creditors.
The fact that this is dragging out so long is what infuriates me. But I have to agree with your assessment. What is even crazier is the list was made public by an IRS error, so why is NOM still trying to hide the identities and why isn't the media simply publishing the list of donors?

I have to wonder about the press myself, especially after the Hobby Lobby decision. I don't recall them making much of an issue that Hobby Lobby's insurance in fact covers many forms of birth control; it's certain ones they view as basically chemically induced abortion that they object to.

It's almost seems as if that fact was systematically hidden in order to help Hobby Lobby's case, and at the same time Hobby Lobby could play David to the Big Bad Goliath of "Obamacare".

I remember way back when the RCC molestation scandal was raging, a judge issued a $50,000 (?) per day fine against an archdiocese for as long as it failed to comply to a court order for documents. Seems to me NOM can face the same action, but as you said, it will probably end up with very little action taken against them.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#1368 Jul 2, 2014
Hey Dogboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually those children raised in a single parent household IS a same sex household. Not working out so well.
Many children who had Dads serve in the military don't have fathers anymore. How does that affect your “no role model in the home so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry” equation? Should that mean we ban the spouses of Veterans who died and left behind children from marrying just like gays and lesbians?

The whole shtick about a Dad (or Mom) not being in the home is one of the flimsiest "arguments" against SSM for so many reasons. Objecting to SSM because of role model ideals ignores reality.

One of those realities I just pointed out. Another is the divorce rate which results in many children not having one parent in the home. Why object to SSM and not divorced people with children remarrying? Divorced people with children are very similar to gays and lesbians with children. So it is obviously an equal protection issue, and to deny SSM would not be in the best interest of the family.

What about Big Brothers and Big Sisters? Two organizations formed to fill the role if the child lacks a good male or female role model in the home. It's sort of odd you, wondering and Kimmie never complain a child being exposed to those 'gender segregated' relationships. I'm sure you endorse those groups, so it's hypocritical of you to complain about a gay or lesbian couple not being able to provide a Mom or Dad for a child.

Then there is the fact that the States all allow single parent adoption. I’m sure you oppose that for the same reason you oppose SSM. Notice that you put your feelings about marriage and two parent homes ahead of the needs of the child.

Now if you are worried about a male role model (or a female one in the case of a male SSC) for the child, they have all the same resources every other child has through school, sports, church, etc. So the whole male/female Mom/Dad roles that you want children to have are possible even without the biological Mom or Dad being around. Therefore the role model objection for SSM is not a valid objection.

Let us remember the words of District Judge John G. Heyburn II in his ruling against the State of Kentucky:

“….These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.[...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering….”.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264096/speed...

"In rejecting the state’s claim that opposite-sex marriage promotes procreation: "Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license. Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the United States Constitution." - Piazza’s order.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1369 Jul 3, 2014
Ss marrage is inferior to marriage.

Ss couples deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father. Horrific.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1370 Jul 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Note that you have to cut my post and take the first part out-of-context in order to respond to it. How about responding to what I actually wrote next time? Think you can do that?
I deleted the irrelevant, senseless part. Your post is a typical example of what you people do.
If anyone makes a comment you see as negative toward gays you point to a straight that did the same thing. In gay world you apparently feel that two wrongs make a right. Instead of addressing a comment you would rather point a finger at someone else who did the same thing.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1371 Jul 3, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Ss marrage is inferior to marriage.
Ss couples deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father. Horrific.
KiMare, you are an idiot.
First, you have never been competent enough to offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from equality under the law to legally marry.
Second, you continually return to arguments of polygamy and child rearing, despite the fact that many couples marry without any intention of having or raising children.
Third, you seem incapable of offering any relevant argument, and instead merely reaffirm that you are dumber than a rock.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1372 Jul 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
I remember way back when the RCC molestation scandal was raging, a judge issued a $50,000 (?) per day fine against an archdiocese for as long as it failed to comply to a court order for documents. Seems to me NOM can face the same action, but as you said, it will probably end up with very little action taken against them.
Maine has already fined NOM $50,000, which I believe is a substantial discount to what the law requires. They were originally fined years ago, with the fine increasing each day they were in non-compliance. It's so long ago now that a standard Google search can't find the stories.

The question is how the fine will be enforced. The archdiocese actually had a physical presence in the state and assets which could be seized.[Even so, I have a feeling the archdiocese weasled out of most, if not all, of the fine.] NOM does not. What is Maine going to do? Have Maggie and Brian extradited from whatever hell-hole they're occupying? They'll just move to Russia where--well, good luck.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1373 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I deleted the irrelevant, senseless part. Your post is a typical example of what you people do.
If anyone makes a comment you see as negative toward gays you point to a straight that did the same thing. In gay world you apparently feel that two wrongs make a right. Instead of addressing a comment you would rather point a finger at someone else who did the same thing.
The question is why you hypocritically judge gays because one did something, but you don't judge straight people because one did something.

Children losing their parents--whether through abandonment, death, or divorce--is of course unfortunate. Nevertheless, many children thrive under these circumstances.

You have never provided a shred of evidence that children raised from birth, on average, fare worse than children raised from birth by their biological or adoptive parents. The reason you do not provide evidence is that there is none. It is merely an article of faith with you. You may claim that you are not religious, but you blindly adhere to doctrine despite all contrary evidence. You may as well be a religious nut if you think like a religious nut.q

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Biggest Gay Lies 5 min Frankie Rizzo 1,616
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 9 min Frankie Rizzo 7
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 11 min mahz 49,470
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 21 min Frankie Rizzo 504
Residents see Europe best for gays and lesbians... 42 min TomInElPaso 28
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... 43 min concersuxs 63
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 50 min Ethan Allen 885
Legislature Says No to "Gay Panic" Defense 55 min Wondering 82
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 386
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr Reverend Alan 54,845
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••