NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: EDGE 263

The leaders of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage are furious that the LGBT community made great strides after Election Day.

Full Story

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#230 Dec 7, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
You're welcome. You guys, it doesn't *matter* what the court says about Baker. Are you NUTS? Not to be extreme or vicious toward YOU, but I want to make my point. Come on, already; get a grip. PLESSY V. FERGUSON was controlling *SUPREME COURT* precedent for decades; look at the decision. Look at what the court found. Go look. Go look for yourself what the *SUPREME COURT* declared and decreed to be:
sensible,
just,
fair-minded,
and equitable under law.
And someone like "Jane Dough" is going to tell *me* that the supreme court is calling Baker precedent; I don't know exactly what her argument is, my point being that I don't care what *anyone* is saying about Baker. It's a scumbag decision, again:
Baker is a scumbag decision.
Am I clear enough?
NINE STATES now have gay marriage. If the *best* anyone can say is that times have changed, then I am certainly entitled to call anyone who calls Baker precedent:
uneducated.
Period.
End of story.
Again, thank you and: you're welcome.
OK OK calm down please. We both know Jane (who is actually a man) has issues.

I just like getting him to make a fool of himself. But then again, he really doesn't need any help in that area.

He has a hard on for Baker for some reason. It took me nearly two months before he FINALLY agreed that Baker only applies to MN and is is NOT a "federal precedent" unless one considers cases SCOTUS rejected becaus3 they contained no Constitutional question "federal precedents".

Baker can not be enforced outside MN because it's a STATE Law and a STATE RULING.

But I know you already know this.

Jane just wants to muddy the waters, cloud the issues and hope no one notices his BS.

And no I have no idea why he posts under a woman's name. But then again, he says he's a lawyer so lying must come naturally to him.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#231 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, nothing of substance here, just more personal attacks, I see a PATTERN HERE...
Love it when you whine about reaping what you sow.

You attack an entire community as well as our heterosexual brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers and then want a pity party when people respond to you in kind.

You have two choices.

1) Grow a set and Grow up.

or

2) If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#232 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
these guys aren't at that level, they are claiming it is not a scotus precedent AT ALL, so we are arguing over the very basics.
In other words, they would have to admit its a scotus precedent first before we debate its application...
BUT YOU ignore this part from the first circuit a few months ago:
"The Legal Group says that any equal protection challenge to DOMA is foreclosed at the outset by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). There, a central claim made was that a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage violated federal equal protection principles. Minnesota had, like DOMA, defined marriage as a union of persons of the opposite sex, and the state supreme court had upheld the statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed summarily for want of a substantial federal question. Id.
Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
I do appreciate that you read every on eof my posts and comment though...
you love me...
maybe that's why you enable me to use you as a way to set the record straight!
Hey, did you tell everyone that I never said "protected class" with the same vigor in which you insisted I did?
You are a fraud dude!
So we're back to "protected classes". Show me any court ruling that says a U.S. Citizen only gets Constitutional Protections if they belong to a "protected class".

You can't.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#233 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text> It took me nearly two months before he FINALLY agreed that Baker only applies to MN and is is NOT a "federal precedent"
you are:
1. wrong
2. lying that I ever agreed to such stupidity...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#234 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
2) If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Why would there be "heat" when I am merely discussing the issue?

Is it because YOU and many on your side go right towards personal attacks thinking they are "arguments"?

(yes)

AGAIN (and again) if you want to discuss the issue, you need to do more than ignore fact...
Baker is a SCOTUS precedent ..its not an argument to claim it is not...

So far, and for the record, you have done two things, insisted that Baker is not a federal case and attacked me. both are stupid.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#235 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So we're back to "protected classes". Show me any court ruling that says a U.S. Citizen only gets Constitutional Protections if they belong to a "protected class".
You can't.
you are barging into a context of which you are unaware, and likely wont understand anyway...
here's a tip, when what you write is stupid, its likely not coming from me, but from you.

for example, see your post above.

So if you want to discuss this, learn some more and we can intelligently and politely discuss it, if you want to toss around snark and insults, obviously I can do that too...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#236 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
And no I have no idea why he posts under a woman's name. But then again, he says he's a lawyer so lying must come naturally to him.
so I guess you real name is DNF?
you had mean parents...
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#237 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So we're back to "protected classes". Show me any court ruling that says a U.S. Citizen only gets Constitutional Protections if they belong to a "protected class".
You can't.
They get anti-discrimination protection only if they belong to a protected class. For example, the KKK cannot successfully sue a gay B&B and "force" them to hold an anti-gay marriage rally (even though Jane thinks they can). The KKK is NOT a protected class. It is NOT illegal for a gay B&B to discriminate against the KKK.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#238 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there be "heat" when I am merely discussing the issue?
Is it because YOU and many on your side go right towards personal attacks thinking they are "arguments"?
(yes)
AGAIN (and again) if you want to discuss the issue, you need to do more than ignore fact...
Baker is a SCOTUS precedent ..its not an argument to claim it is not...
So far, and for the record, you have done two things, insisted that Baker is not a federal case and attacked me. both are stupid.
No we understand they aren't "arguments" They are simply opinions based on facts.

Now you're going to whine when people call a spade a spade.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#239 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so I guess you real name is DNF?
you had mean parents...
And you whine about personal attacks on you.

Like I said, grow up.

But of course one of the basic tactics of any attorney when they see they are losing is to attack the character of the witness and ignore facts.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#240 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there be "heat" when I am merely discussing the issue?
Is it because YOU and many on your side go right towards personal attacks thinking they are "arguments"?
(yes)
AGAIN (and again) if you want to discuss the issue, you need to do more than ignore fact...
Baker is a SCOTUS precedent ..its not an argument to claim it is not...
So far, and for the record, you have done two things, insisted that Baker is not a federal case and attacked me. both are stupid.
I have always agreed with yoiu that due to mandatory review Baker became a FederalCase.

It's not my fault you want to try to make a case the court dismissed because it contained no Federal Question (SCOTUS's words not mine) a "federal precedent".

For THE LAST TIME Baker is a State law that SCOTUS refused to overturn. Being a a State law means it's binding only in that state not the entire Federal Judiciary.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#241 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so I guess you real name is DNF?
you had mean parents...
That rich coming from a man who posts under the name "Jane".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#242 Dec 7, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>They get anti-discrimination protection only if they belong to a protected class. For example, the KKK cannot successfully sue a gay B&B and "force" them to hold an anti-gay marriage rally (even though Jane thinks they can). The KKK is NOT a protected class. It is NOT illegal for a gay B&B to discriminate against the KKK.
remember when you cut and pasted that whole thing and none of it had me suggesting they were a protected class?

so do I

turned out it was a stupid thing that YOU said...

why do you insist on lying, we all know!

like how you pretend it was not an argument about what I COULD be in the future...
but just as you write to me, yet never write to me, your dishonesty is plain for anyone to see...
but it helps me so I love it...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#243 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>That rich coming from a man who posts under the name "Jane".
right, so we BOTH don't use our real name and our gender is not discernible...
see how that works?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#244 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I have always agreed with yoiu that due to mandatory review Baker became a FederalCase.

For THE LAST TIME Baker is a State law that SCOTUS refused to overturn.
see you are conflicting and utterly wrong within your own post...

Baker is a federal case that addresses a state law...
its that simple yet you seem unable to grasp this...
all you had to do is google it, but you would rather post another post of erroneous snark...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#245 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And you whine about personal attacks on you.
Like I said, grow up.
But of course one of the basic tactics of any attorney when they see they are losing is to attack the character of the witness and ignore facts.
so you too will insist I am not one until you agree you always knew I was one...

you are the one admitting personal attacks...so how about you grow up?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#246 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>No we understand they aren't "arguments" They are simply opinions based on facts.
since your facts are wrong, then what do you have?
just insults...
glad you know they are not arguments, but somehow i expect you will shape shift again by next post

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#247 Dec 7, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
*crickets*
Oh look, Jane has yet to made any valid points.

Is this a surprise to anyone?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#248 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>OK OK calm down please.
I'll take this as a lighthearted joke; I normally don't react well when people tell me to "calm down" online, as they cannot see or hear me.
DNF wrote:
We both know Jane (who is actually a man) has issues.
I wouldn't know; if this drags on and on (with her), I begin to suspect this.
DNF wrote:
I just like getting him to make a fool of himself. But then again, he really doesn't need any help in that area.
He has a hard on for Baker for some reason. It took me nearly two months before he FINALLY agreed that Baker only applies to MN and is is NOT a "federal precedent" unless one considers cases SCOTUS rejected because they contained no Constitutional question "federal precedents".
Baker can not be enforced outside MN because it's a STATE Law and a STATE RULING.
But I know you already know this.
Jane just wants to muddy the waters, cloud the issues and hope no one notices his BS.
And no I have no idea why he posts under a woman's name. But then again, he says he's a lawyer so lying must come naturally to him.
Thank you.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#249 Dec 8, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take this as a lighthearted joke; I normally don't react well when people tell me to "calm down" online, as they cannot see or hear me.
<quoted text>
I wouldn't know; if this drags on and on (with her), I begin to suspect this.
<quoted text>
Thank you.
I'm not sure why he did but a few weeks ago Jane explained to me that he posts under a female name. I didn't bookmark it so I don't know where it is but I wish I had. His words are much better than mine in this case.

His explanation for posing as a female was "intriguing".

I thought it was just an exercise in mental masturbation but it's Jane's reason so I can't really dispute it. Unlike his obsession with Baker.

I've watched him go though what he went through with me over Baker with three other people on these threads. In each case, everyone finally agrees on Baker's importance but the reasons differ.

Frankly I'm at the point where Jane has joined the David Moore list.

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
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Wondering 3,463
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 9 min Wondering 277
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 17 min WeTheSheeple 969
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 19 min Cali Girl 2014 50,015
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 22 min Cali Girl 2014 25,084
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 27 min DaveinMass 988
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 32 min Poof1 84
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 34 min Poof1 2,237
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 57 min Wondering 97

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE