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.

Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#108 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy.
-Married inter-racial couples whose marriages weren't recognized by all states for centuries.

They were/are still married.
See how easy that was.
that's funny because the Justices at the high court didn't say my analogy was bad, but they did recently say yours was...

given marriage IS recognition, what the hell are you talking about?

I was a president of the united states, just no one recognizes me as one...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#109 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The court gave the state the option to either amend the state marriage laws to allow same-sex couples to marry or create civil unions.
so, they didn't see an inherent inequality, eh?

that you think the DOMA decision will somehow magically overturn Cu's is really delusional...

By the way, the federal government takes inconsistent positions on eligibility for medicaid and SS based on the differing states of residence?
did you know that?
it kinda deflates your grand schemes...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#110 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
that's funny because the Justices at the high court didn't say my analogy was bad, but they did recently say yours was...
given marriage IS recognition, what the hell are you talking about?
I was a president of the united states, just no one recognizes me as one...
No, marriage is the legal license given out by the state. Some states refuse to recognize the marriage licenses issued by other states as valid in their state. Some states did it with marriages of inter-racial couples, and first cousins, and now same-sex couples.

It doesn't mean the couple isn't still legally married, it just means some states don't recognize that legal marriage.

Why am I explaining the bacis to you? Did you have a stroke recently?

Btw, yet another failed analogy. You really should stop; you obviously have no clue how analogies work.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#111 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so, they didn't see an inherent inequality, eh?
that you think the DOMA decision will somehow magically overturn Cu's is really delusional...
By the way, the federal government takes inconsistent positions on eligibility for medicaid and SS based on the differing states of residence?
did you know that?
it kinda deflates your grand schemes...
Magic? No. It will be a rational process through either the state judiciary or their legislatures.

Believe what you want, it won't stop same-sex couples in New Jersey and all the other states which currently have civil unions from being able to marry within the next year or two.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#112 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, marriage is the legal license given out by the state. Some states refuse to recognize the marriage licenses issued by other states as valid in their state. Some states did it with marriages of inter-racial couples, and first cousins, and now same-sex couples.
It doesn't mean the couple isn't still legally married, it just means some states don't recognize that legal marriage.
lots of words
but since marriage is RECOGNITION...you are full of it...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#113 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so, they didn't see an inherent inequality, eh?
that you think the DOMA decision will somehow magically overturn Cu's is really delusional...
By the way, the federal government takes inconsistent positions on eligibility for medicaid and SS based on the differing states of residence?
did you know that?
it kinda deflates your grand schemes...
Try to follow along. Once the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in states that allow them, New Jerseyites will see that civil unions cannot provide all of the same benefits to same-sex couples that marriage provides. Therefore, New Jersey courts will force the legislature to act again, if necessary.

But New Jersey is already very close to overriding Cristie. Federal recognition of same-sex marriages will provide sufficient impetus for a couple more legislators to support full equality. They will no longer have the excuse that civil unions are "the same."

Of course, the whole point of creating civil unions was to create something different and inferior. Ending federal DOMA will just make that tangible.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#114 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Magic? No. It will be a rational process through either the state judiciary or their legislatures.
Believe what you want, it won't stop same-sex couples in New Jersey and all the other states which currently have civil unions from being able to marry within the next year or two.
I already said the DOMA decision wont hurt, but it sure wont help...
that was the point you were making and it is pure fiction...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#115 Apr 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Magic? No. It will be a rational process through either the state judiciary or their legislatures.
Believe what you want, it won't stop same-sex couples in New Jersey and all the other states which currently have civil unions from being able to marry within the next year or two.
also, you didn't address this:
"so, they didn't see an inherent inequality, eh?"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#116 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
lots of words
but since marriage is RECOGNITION...you are full of it...
Nope, marriage is the license issued by the state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#117 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I already said the DOMA decision wont hurt, but it sure wont help...
that was the point you were making and it is pure fiction...
Without DOMA in place, civil unions can no longer provide all the rights & benefits which marriage provide.

That helps with those lawmakers or jurists who believe same-sex couples SHOULD have all the same rights & benefits as opposite-sex couples, because after DOMA falls civil unions can no longer do that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#118 Apr 10, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
also, you didn't address this:
"so, they didn't see an inherent inequality, eh?"
Not at the state level because they couldn't do anything about the federal law. So they felt that at the state level civil unions could provide the same level of rights & benefits.

Assuming the federal law is overturned, that is no longer the case.

And actually, the federal court gave them to go ahead with their lawsuit that regardless of DOMA, civil unions were STILL providing the same equal treatment the court required.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#119 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Without DOMA in place, civil unions can no longer provide all the rights & benefits which marriage provide.
yes, just as the state decided should occur...you keep missing you have NO RIGHT TO MARRY...
its the state's RIGHT to define who receives what benefits...
the DOMA case is merely saying that definition MUST go from the state up and NEVER from the top down...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#120 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at the state level because they couldn't do anything about the federal law. So they felt that at the state level civil unions could provide the same level of rights & benefits.
Assuming the federal law is overturned, that is no longer the case.
And actually, the federal court gave them to go ahead with their lawsuit that regardless of DOMA, civil unions were STILL providing the same equal treatment the court required.
A MAJORITY of the justices seem to be looking out for the states who offered Cu's...the SCOTUS sees no problemo with them...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#121 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, marriage is the license issued by the state.
and what does it do?

it shows state recognition...

if the state doesn't recognize you, you are not married...
If you moved to NJ, you would not be married!
you could say you were, but we wouldn't RECOGNIZE it..
you are truly deluded!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#122 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, just as the state decided should occur...you keep missing you have NO RIGHT TO MARRY...
its the state's RIGHT to define who receives what benefits...
the DOMA case is merely saying that definition MUST go from the state up and NEVER from the top down...
So a state has the right to define which benefits a military servicemember receives?

Really? Are you sure about that??

Could Vermont decide anyone from Vermont serving in the US Navy doesn't get combat pay but those in the US Army do?

Can Michigan decide only officers get medical treatment, but enlisted don't?

I don't think so.

States define state benefits.
Feds define federal benefits.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#123 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
A MAJORITY of the justices seem to be looking out for the states who offered Cu's...the SCOTUS sees no problemo with them...
The SCOTUS may not see a problem with them, but some state courts likely WILL based on their own state constitutions- i.e. New Jersey.

That's how overturning DOMA will move marriage forward in the states; civil unions will no longer be able to provide the same rights & benefits as marriage because the federal govt doesn't recognize civil unions.

It pushes the ball foward in many states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#124 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
and what does it do?
it shows state recognition...
if the state doesn't recognize you, you are not married...
If you moved to NJ, you would not be married!
you could say you were, but we wouldn't RECOGNIZE it..
you are truly deluded!
Nope, a marriage license is a legal contract which establishes legal kinship and grants specific rights, benefits, & legal protections from the state where it was issued.

Just because I'm traveling through a state where my marriage isn't recognized doesn't mean I'm no longer married. The state of Massachusetts doesn't immediately revoke all the rights & benefits I'm receiving just because I'm physically in another state.

I'm still married whether other states recognize it or not.

Just as I'm still alive whether they recognize my birth certificate from Minnesota or not.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#125 Apr 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, just as the state decided should occur...you keep missing you have NO RIGHT TO MARRY...
its the state's RIGHT to define who receives what benefits...
the DOMA case is merely saying that definition MUST go from the state up and NEVER from the top down...
Nope, it's the state's right to define who is married.

The federal govt decides what federal rights & benefits are given to married couples.

The state govt decides what state rights & benefits are given to married couples.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#126 Apr 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to follow along. Once the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages in states that allow them, New Jerseyites will see that civil unions cannot provide all of the same benefits to same-sex couples that marriage provides. Therefore, New Jersey courts will force the legislature to act again, if necessary.
But New Jersey is already very close to overriding Cristie. Federal recognition of same-sex marriages will provide sufficient impetus for a couple more legislators to support full equality. They will no longer have the excuse that civil unions are "the same."
Of course, the whole point of creating civil unions was to create something different and inferior. Ending federal DOMA will just make that tangible.
except the DOMA cases are going to say that CU's are just fine, therefore deflating your nonsense that they are not...

States will have the right to determine who gets federal benefits...
its that simple...

its rational to reserve federal benefits to those more likely to have kids...

your problem is that you start with you winning and work backwards...
its kinda delusional...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#127 Apr 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So a state has the right to define which benefits a military servicemember receives?
Really? Are you sure about that??
talk about spin, you made up me saying something and then asked me if i was sure about it?

YOU SAID IT NOT ME!

I would say military is a red herring...
and yes, i am sure of that...

SS disability and medicaid all based on differing state definitions...
no EP problem...

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 Pulse nightclub massacre is Florida's top story... 22 min gary 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 27 min lides 44,022
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min lides 23,883
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 35 min Demon Finder 201
News The Case for Decriminalizing Gay Sex in Public ... 48 min Southern Charm 2
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 1 hr Southern Charm 1,433
News Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
More from around the web