Court favors disclosing anti-gay marr...

Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors

There are 1786 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1801 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? Stop dancing all around the request. You claim all of these "greater protections" but can't list them. They don't exist, you're stupid.
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?

By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.

Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.

Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#1802 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?
By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.
Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.
Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.
He reminds me of "Frankie"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1803 Jul 29, 2014
Imprtnrd wrote:
He reminds me of "Frankie"
Ironically, Frankie, although seldom on topic, does attempt to defend the BS argument that he is making, even if he isn't very good at it.

Wondering is neither smart enough to support his arguments with facts, nor is he smart enough to come up with anything on his own. If it hasn't been written by someone else (Frankie, massresistance, David Parker, etc), wondering wouldn't be able to come up with anything on his own.

Currently he is really doing a fine job of making himself look foolish as he keeps on advancing an utterly irrelevant point, in spite of the fact that he regularly chides people for being off topic.

Neither of them is the brightest bulb in the box.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1804 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, are three people more, less, or equal to two?
By definition expanding the definition of marriage to cover three or more people is creating an increased protection of the law.
Were you to be able to count you would understand this, and also see the increased burden in employers offering spousal benefits, as well as the potential legal chaos of joint ownership of property as well as full or partial divorce between three or more people.
Would you care to stop being an idiot for a moment and explain how any of this is relevant to the topic of disclosing donors to political campaigns? It appears you are off topic once again. Of course, if I were trying to defend and indefensible position, I might try to obfuscate as well.
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? You can't list them and you can't stop being an idiot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1805 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically, Frankie, although seldom on topic, does attempt to defend the BS argument that he is making,
You don't. If you did you would list these "greater protections."
You can't, you fail.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1806 Jul 29, 2014
Polygamous families may want greater protections, or they may want lesser protections. We can't tell because their self-appointed advocates won't share with us the model of legally-recognized polygamy that they have in mind.

The only thing we can be sure of is that many changes will have to be made to the marriage contract in order to accommodate three or more spouses.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1807 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? You can't list them and you can't stop being an idiot.
I have, polygamy, by defintion seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into a single marriage.

Learn to count.

Would you care to quit being an idiot an indicate how this has any relevance to the topic at hand?

Face it, Wondering, you are too stupid to defend your idiotic notion that disclosing anti-gay donors subjects them to "illegal harassment," a claim that has been disprove by the fact that such donors were disclosed in around 12 states, and no such harassment occurred. So, instead you return to this idiotic and off topic drivel, which merely exposes the depths of your stupidity and lack of comprehension of basic concepts like counting.

Polygamy seeks to include more people in one marriage, ergo greater protection. 2 = 2 3 or more > 2. This isn't rocket science, kiddo.
Wondering wrote:
You don't. If you did you would list these "greater protections."
You can't, you fail.
Wondering, I have time and time again. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would understand that polygamy, by definition seeks greater protection of the law for three or more people to enter into one marriage.

Would you care to return to the topic at hand, or continue to make a fool of yourself by offering hopelessly off topic babble that doesn't even have any relevance to same sex marriage, much less disclosing the identity of donors to anti-gay marriage political campaigns?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1808 Jul 29, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
Polygamous families may want greater protections, or they may want lesser protections. We can't tell because their self-appointed advocates won't share with us the model of legally-recognized polygamy that they have in mind.
The only thing we can be sure of is that many changes will have to be made to the marriage contract in order to accommodate three or more spouses.
Changes were made for gays, no problem.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1809 Jul 29, 2014
lides wrote:
Wondering, I have time and time again.
You haven't once. Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? I doubt you can.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1810 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Changes were made for gays, no problem.
That's right. The changes were simple and straightforward. Basically, they amounted to changing a few pronouns. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that polygamous relationships can be supported so easily. Or perhaps you are really as dumb as you sound.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1811 Jul 29, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. The changes were simple and straightforward. Basically, they amounted to changing a few pronouns. It is disingenuous of you to pretend that polygamous relationships can be supported so easily. Or perhaps you are really as dumb as you sound.
Is "easy" a requirement? Laws and documents were changed or deleted here, including the state constitution, all to accommodate gays. I have no problem with change, why do you?

If you really think you can hear me you shouldn't be throwing stones.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1812 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Is "easy" a requirement? Laws and documents were changed or deleted here, including the state constitution, all to accommodate gays. I have no problem with change, why do you?
If you really think you can hear me you shouldn't be throwing stones.
I didn't say easy was a requirement. But where change is requested, we have a right to ask what the changes are. Especially if the changes are complicated and not obvious. Especially if it is unlikely that any two polygamous families will agree on the changes they want.

I have pointed this out to you many many times. It's okay with me if you wish to ignore the obvious in your "logical" processes. But don't keep bringing up the same argument. You know I've already debunked it. There's no point in bringing it up again.

Do you really think I'm going to forget why your arguments are illogical and infantile?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1813 Jul 29, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say easy was a requirement. But where change is requested, we have a right to ask what the changes are. Especially if the changes are complicated and not obvious. Especially if it is unlikely that any two polygamous families will agree on the changes they want.
I have pointed this out to you many many times. It's okay with me if you wish to ignore the obvious in your "logical" processes. But don't keep bringing up the same argument. You know I've already debunked it. There's no point in bringing it up again.
Do you really think I'm going to forget why your arguments are illogical and infantile?
It's none of your business what others want to do unless it harms you in some way.
How do you know what polygamists would want and why is it any of your business?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1814 Jul 29, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It's none of your business what others want to do unless it harms you in some way.
Supposedly, polygamists are requesting some sort of recognition of their relationships. It's completely reasonable to ask what that entails. I'm not for or against it until I know what they are actually requesting.

Since no group of polygamists has put forward a concrete proposal, it's reasonable to assume that this entire polygamy argument is a red herring brought up only to distract idiots from the matter at hand.
How do you know what polygamists would want and why is it any of your business?
I don't know what they want. And that's why I am not going to fabricate new laws to "help" them. They probably won't appreciate it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1815 Jul 30, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Supposedly, polygamists are requesting some sort of recognition of their relationships. It's completely reasonable to ask what that entails. I'm not for or against it until I know what they are actually requesting.
Simple question, what's it to you?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1816 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You haven't once. Could you stop being an idiot for a few minutes and list them? I doubt you can.
Wondering, first off, it is you who are being an idiot, both by asserting that I haven't addressed your claim directly, I have and made a fool of you, but also by offering this utterly irrelevant drivel, which similarly makes a fool of you.

Would you care to make yourself looks slightly less foolish by indicating just how polygamy has any bearing upon the issue of disclosing the origin of political donations?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#1817 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple question, what's it to you?
Actually, it's completely disingenuous of you to ask that. You have never stated what "it" entails. Your question merely exposes your lack of sincerity, integrity, and intelligence.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1818 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, first off, it is you who are being an idiot, both by asserting that I haven't addressed your claim directly, I have and made a fool of you, but also by offering this utterly irrelevant drivel, which similarly makes a fool of you.
Saying repeatedly that you've listed and explained your "greater protections" doesn't make it true. Why is it so difficult for you?

I've explained to you that rights and protections are individual. You've never said otherwise. Then you come out with 3<2 nonsense that explains nothing except that you have no real response. Shouldn't you be coloring or playing with your alphabet block?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1819 Jul 30, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying repeatedly that you've listed and explained your "greater protections" doesn't make it true. Why is it so difficult for you?
I've explained to you that rights and protections are individual. You've never said otherwise. Then you come out with 3<2 nonsense that explains nothing except that you have no real response. Shouldn't you be coloring or playing with your alphabet block?
Wondering, polygamy, in addition to being utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, seeks inherently greater protection for three or more people by its very definition. Were you not a half-wit, you might understand this simple fact.

Then again, were you not a half-wit, you could probably stay on topic.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#1820 Jul 30, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, polygamy, in addition to being utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand, seeks inherently greater protection for three or more people by its very definition. Were you not a half-wit, you might understand this simple fact.
Then again, were you not a half-wit, you could probably stay on topic.
Yet another cop-out. Just say you made it up to help your weak, non-existent, argument. Everyone knows that anyway.

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 Vallejo and Benicia locals celebrate same-sex m... 3 min Anonymous 59
News 'You can't have marriage equality without polyg... 3 min INFIDEL 74
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 min EdmondWA 33,944
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 8 min Fa-Foxy 60
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 13 min DaveinMass 160
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 14 min AntiAstrologernum... 748
News 10 Questions for Christians Who Support Gay Mar... 15 min Wondering 24
News Governors vow to fight SCOTUS ruling on gay mar... 16 min Rose_NoHo 695
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 34 min Novus Ordo Seclorum 507
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 39 min NorCal Native 7,050
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 hr Fa-Foxy 271
More from around the web