Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1782 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from May 20, 2014, titled Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCRA-TV Sacramento.

“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

Miami, FL

#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

Florence, 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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#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
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1375 Jul 3, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is why you hypocritically judge gays because one did something, but you don't judge straight people because one did something.
The question is why do you assume I'm judging gays? I said a child, all else being equal, is better off with a mother and a father. There are many situations that would leave a kid without one parent. Not everything is about gays.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1376 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The question is why do you assume I'm judging gays? I said a child, all else being equal, is better off with a mother and a father.
Wondering, you are an idiot.
A) your second sentence, in addition to having no factual foundation, does tacitly condemn same sex parenting.
B) What relevance do you think this has to the topic at hand?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1377 Jul 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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?...
Actually, I think the argument here isn't banning veterans' widows from remarrying. I think what the bigots are suggesting is that having one vagina-parent and one penis-parent in constant attendance in a child's life is *SO* important, more important that the mother or her feelings, that when a serviceman doesn't come home, replacing that penis-parent is so critical to the child's well-being, that the widow should be forced by law to immediately remarry within a set amount of time, say 30 or 60 days, so as to not cause the devastation to the child that not having a penis-parent around would so obviously create.

Mom clearly has NO business being so selfish as to mourn her fallen husband or to make her own decision as to when or who to remarry. How selfish is that?? She's got that child to think of, not her own narcissistic desires. If she refuses to remarry immediately, the government should simply select someone and force them to get married. After all, there are tens of thousands of homeless men in the U.S. that would LOVE to get married to a widow with veterans' benefits. That's way better than sleeping on the streets or at the local homeless shelter. And it would kill two birds with one stone--save a child from the unimaginable horror of a child without a parent possessing a penis, and save a homeless dude from sleeping on the streets.

The government should also, of course, ban divorce between couples that have children, unless those children were adopted--they don't count because they're not a *REAL* family to begin with. No one cares about adopted children anyway so those parents are okay to go Splitzville and dump the kid again. I mean, it's happened before, so is it really a problem if it happens again to the kid??

Then there are those selfish women that get themselves knocked up when they're not married!! I say they should all be thrown in to jail and kept there until they can convince some man to marry them! If nothing else, it will be a major deterrent to women being so careless as to get themselves preggers when they don't have the means to support a child. They should be punished for such ungodly behavior. Jesus would never have been to foolish as to get himself knocked up when he wasn't married. Let that be a lesson to them!

The bottom line is the same. It's common knowledge that children are, from the moment they're born, completely sexually obsessed with the genitals of their parents. This obsession must be catered to at all times and at no point should a child ever face the pain and suffering that comes with not being able to enjoy both types of genitals in their parents at any given time. Children DO have needs and only a truly selfish and horrible parent wouldn't recognize and cater to those whims. After all, none of this is rocket science.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1378 Jul 3, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Ss marrage is inferior to marriage.
Ss couples deliberately deprive a child of a mother or father. Horrific.
Not the ones I know. They have THREE parents loving and caring for them--both their same-sex parents AND the third parent, the bio-parent. That happens quite often in families headed by same-sex couples.

So much for your "deprive a child" fantasy, huh?

You REALLY should get a clue about what you're talking about one of these days.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#1379 Jul 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is why do you assume I'm judging gays? I said a child, all else being equal, is better off with a mother and a father.......
That's nice. Except that there's absolutely ZERO evidence to support such a claim.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1380 Jul 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. Except that there's absolutely ZERO evidence to support such a claim.
There is, you have to look for it. It's easy to find. The problem is that you don't want to find it and wouldn't believe it if you did.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min Terra Firma 15,673
News Lesbian pastor, United Methodist Church agree t... 13 min Fa-Foxy 5
News Vt. military college holds gay pride week (Mar '12) 37 min Brandon Cole 7
News Openly gay police chief suspended from job in S... 1 hr Christians In Nam... 1
News ACLU settles lawsuit over 'Some People Are Gay'... 1 hr The Stealth 13
News After gay couple's home is egged, a community r... 1 hr The Golden Ruler 5
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 18
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Respect71 38,683
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,945
Dying off like flies 13 hr Rainbow Kid 18
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 23 hr Frankie Rizzo 162
More from around the web