Anti-gay-marriage group argues case i...

Anti-gay-marriage group argues case in Maine

There are 203 comments on the WDBO-AM Orlando story from Apr 7, 2013, titled Anti-gay-marriage group argues case in Maine. In it, WDBO-AM Orlando reports that:

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments this week on a national anti-gay-marriage group's efforts to keep its donor list confidential.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WDBO-AM Orlando.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#188 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about you, but I'm celebrating on the inside as well as the outside, because we're about the get both DOMA and Prop 8 overturned!
Save me a bottle of bubbly. I'm not celebrating until the decision is release (and there's time to actually read it)!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#189 Apr 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Save me a bottle of bubbly. I'm not celebrating until the decision is release (and there's time to actually read it)!
I've decided I'm tired of waiting for the courts to do anything so I'm just going to celebrate not and get if over with.

That way at least I get to celebrate our victory in case I should get hit a by a bus before it officially comes out!

Yipee!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#190 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
curiously, its the police power...
like real estate, its too personal to let the mobs define...
It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality and culture. As the Supreme Court observed long ago,
[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581 (1979)(quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)); see also Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 7 (1967)(marriage).
the police power over WHAT???
broad police-power authority over morality and culture.
morality and culture...
thats why...
put another way, we don;t let the fed decide for exactly the reason YOU want federal authority...
Sorry, Boo Boo. I'm a Federalist and always have been.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#191 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're unable to explain why I don't have to get remarried when I go to Iowa even though you claim my marriage has been invalidated?
This one will REALLY throw you for a loop.
If I want to get married to a woman in Michigan, I have to first get divorced from my husband in another state!
Yes, I double checked with the country clerk; I can not marry a woman in Michigan if I'm currently married to ANYONE in ANY other state.
Now how can that be if I'm not married anymore??
same as its a contract in Co to sell weed and its squat in VT...

will that state grant you a divorce? NO, WHY NOT?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#192 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? So you never said states will be able to force the federal govt to give marriage rights & benefits to civil unions?
Gee, but I'm pretty sure you did.
.
right, and you added social security and IMMIGRATION???
see that now?

And by the way, will you eat your crow when the DOMA decision makes the fed accept CU's as "married under federal law" if the state determines it to be so?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#193 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Did you hear the part where Justice Roberts called you a sham of a lawyer? Or did you just ignore it because it was unfavorable to you?
no more a fiction than anything else you write...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#194 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, they'll likely not address the fundamental question because the cases can be resolved without reaching that question.
C
If there was such a right, it would fully resolve the case...if one already existed that is...
but we both know there isn't...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#195 Apr 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the burden on the state is because under DOMA the federal govt refused to recognize legally married same-sex couples in the state.
NO. This is your entitlement coming through, the burden is a federal determination IN ANY WAY...
which implicitly means a state determination of NO MARRIAGE to gays is just fine and dandy...

Those questions were asked by the justices if the fed defined marriage to include ssm, would it be equally unconstitutional, it would be...

OH by the way, your need to resort to that fake lawyer crap is PATHETIC.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#196 Apr 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Boo Boo. I'm a Federalist and always have been.
then you would respect a states rights...
and realize the fed is not always supreme...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#197 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
right, and you added social security and IMMIGRATION???
see that now?
And by the way, will you eat your crow when the DOMA decision makes the fed accept CU's as "married under federal law" if the state determines it to be so?
I will wash down the crow with Dom Perignon. But I will much more likely settle for Moet et Chandon when the decision is released.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#198 Apr 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I will wash down the crow with Dom Perignon. But I will much more likely settle for Moet et Chandon when the decision is released.
you and me both...
I love state's rights decisions...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#199 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
you and me both...
I love state's rights decisions...
With the increased mobility of modern couples, it can no longer be a State's issue. It is now National.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#200 Apr 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
With the increased mobility of modern couples, it can no longer be a State's issue. It is now National.
says you, not our system of laws...what you are saying is the OPPOSITE of what the DOMA case will find...in short, its PURE fiction..

gun licenses too, right?
a federal driver's license, professional licenses, they are all moving that way RIGHT?

you are deluded!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#201 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
says you, not our system of laws...what you are saying is the OPPOSITE of what the DOMA case will find...in short, its PURE fiction..
gun licenses too, right?
a federal driver's license, professional licenses, they are all moving that way RIGHT?
you are deluded!
It's merely a completely logical, eminently make-able, case that just has never been proposed.

The only "fiction" is that our Legal Codes are constructed rationally, consistently and with integrity.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#202 Apr 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
right, and you added social security and IMMIGRATION???
see that now?
And by the way, will you eat your crow when the DOMA decision makes the fed accept CU's as "married under federal law" if the state determines it to be so?
I mentioned social security & immigration, because those are just 2 of the 1100+ federal rights & benefits limited to married couples.

It is simply fantasy to think the states will be able to force the federal govt to give social security benefits, immigration rights, tax benefits, etc to civil union partners.

The states will continue to determine WHO can be married or get civil unions in their state, while the federal govt will decide what benefits are given the married couples or civil unions.

IF the federal govt decides to offer the same benefits of marriage to civil unions, that will be up to the federal govt to decide, not the states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#203 Apr 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
says you, not our system of laws...what you are saying is the OPPOSITE of what the DOMA case will find...in short, its PURE fiction..
gun licenses too, right?
a federal driver's license, professional licenses, they are all moving that way RIGHT?
you are deluded!
Good examples for once, since the states set standards for a driver's licence, professional licenses, etc., but they do NOT dictate to the federal govt what rights are given to that license.

For example, the states don't dictate to the federal govt that their state driver's license is acceptable for proving citizenship to cross the border by land or enter a federal building or fly on an airplane.

It is the federal govt who makes the determination of what federal rights a state drivers license will qualify for.

Just as it will be the federal govt who makes the determination of what federal benefits a state marriage license will qualify for.

States DO NOT dictate policy to the federal govt.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#204 Apr 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
If there was such a right, it would fully resolve the case...if one already existed that is...
but we both know there isn't...
Irrelevant; if there is no standing there is no case and no way to get to the question of whether the right exists.

Basic judicial procedure; one would think a "lawyer" like you would know that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#205 Apr 14, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
NO. This is your entitlement coming through, the burden is a federal determination IN ANY WAY...
which implicitly means a state determination of NO MARRIAGE to gays is just fine and dandy...
Those questions were asked by the justices if the fed defined marriage to include ssm, would it be equally unconstitutional, it would be...
OH by the way, your need to resort to that fake lawyer crap is PATHETIC.
The feds WON'T be defining marriage; that will be left to the states as it should.

The feds WILL be defining what federal rights & benefits are given to couples who are legally married; just as they do now. The only difference will be they won't be able to pick and choose WHICH legal marriages get the federal rights & benefits of marriage like they currently do.

According to your logic, the state could force the federal govt to give $1 million to every married couple in their state, since as you claim it's the states which determine what federal benefits are given to their residents.

THAT is why it's obvious to everyone you're a fake lawyer- or a REALLY REALLY bad one....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#206 Apr 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Good examples for once, since the states set standards for a driver's licence, professional licenses, etc., but they do NOT dictate to the federal govt what rights are given to that license.
For example, the states don't dictate to the federal govt that their state driver's license is acceptable for proving citizenship to cross the border by land or enter a federal building or fly on an airplane.
It is the federal govt who makes the determination of what federal rights a state drivers license will qualify for.
Just as it will be the federal govt who makes the determination of what federal benefits a state marriage license will qualify for.
States DO NOT dictate policy to the federal govt.
Perfect.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#207 Apr 14, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The feds WON'T be defining marriage; that will be left to the states as it should.
The feds WILL be defining what federal rights & benefits are given to couples who are legally married; just as they do now. The only difference will be they won't be able to pick and choose WHICH legal marriages get the federal rights & benefits of marriage like they currently do.
According to your logic, the state could force the federal govt to give $1 million to every married couple in their state, since as you claim it's the states which determine what federal benefits are given to their residents.
THAT is why it's obvious to everyone you're a fake lawyer- or a REALLY REALLY bad one....
Almost perfect, except for the " ... as it should ... "

"States Rights" is a false doctrine. Individual Citizens have Rights. Organizations do not. Rights are not collective, additive, or compoundable. It's one of the hangover irrationalities in our system, requiring pretzel logic to sustain, and generating no end of problems.

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 min Respect71 30,699
Choose not to be gay 27 min lides 370
News Justicea s gay marriage order halts licenses in... 38 min lides 327
News Cruz embraces supporters on fringe of GOP 52 min DisgusTED 47
News A little fat, sugar ok for kids if diet is healthy (Feb '15) 2 hr Berick 2
News Gay-Straight Alliance club comes under fire in ... 5 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 1
News ACLU-TN Lawsuit Supports Students' Right to Fre... 5 hr Belles Echoes 17
News New research says sex education ignores gay and... 7 hr Frank Merton 1,186
More from around the web