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

Anti-gay-marriage group argues case in Maine

There are 73 comments on the WCSH 6 Portland story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Anti-gay-marriage group argues case in Maine. In it, WCSH 6 Portland reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WCSH 6 Portland.

“Romans 13: 8-10”

Since: Feb 08

Oklahoma City, OK

#21 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia--"there is no basic civil right to marry,"

Wrong. Loving v. Virginia confirmed it IS a civil right.

"and if there is one, its based in the natural right to procreate and thus is inapplicable to gays.."

Lie. The marriage vows are applicable to a couple based in love and committment, NOT a promise to make babies. Couples who choose not to have kids or cannot have kids are just as married, and my marriage didn't stop being valid when my wife passed the age of having babies.

"you start with a position of being entitled"

The position of ALL PEOPLE BEING EQUAL, yes.

"and work backwards..its called BOOTSTRAPPING and its a silly tactic..."

It isn't backwards, it's forwards. It's called justice, and it's not a "tactic," it's what decent people fight for.

"you hate society with your quest for what YOU WANT..."

Lie. I hate injustice and inequality, "what I want" is justice and equality. You seem to think this is some selfish thing I want for myself, well idiot I'm not gay and I've been married almost 25 years.

It's about something you obviously don't understand--concern for other people.

"did that hurt you? no? same as you and your silly bigotry claims are for me..."

It's not "silly." Your bigotry and hate are killing people and destroying lives, not to mention denying basic civil rights to millions for absolutely no legitimate reason.

"Cu's are the correct balance of the competing interests..."

LIE!!! it is NOT EQUALITY!!! it is a second class status, a seat in the back of the bus. SCREW that. MARRIAGE. EQUALITY.

Simple equality. Nothing more is asked. Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing less is REMOTELY acceptable. It will NOT be civil unions, it WILL be what it is, a marriage.

Competing interests my ass. The interest in equality vs. the "interest" in hate and lies and bigotry. They aren't competing at all. Homophobia is crumbling fast, because there is no legitimate basis for it.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#22 Apr 12, 2013
OkieDarren wrote:
Francisco dAnconia--"there is no basic civil right to marry,"
Wrong. Loving v. Virginia confirmed it IS a civil right.
"and if there is one, its based in the natural right to procreate and thus is inapplicable to gays.."
Lie. The marriage vows are applicable to a couple based in love and committment, NOT a promise to make babies. Couples who choose not to have kids or cannot have kids are just as married, and my marriage didn't stop being valid when my wife passed the age of having babies.
"you start with a position of being entitled"
The position of ALL PEOPLE BEING EQUAL, yes.
"and work backwards..its called BOOTSTRAPPING and its a silly tactic..."
It isn't backwards, it's forwards. It's called justice, and it's not a "tactic," it's what decent people fight for.
"you hate society with your quest for what YOU WANT..."
Lie. I hate injustice and inequality, "what I want" is justice and equality. You seem to think this is some selfish thing I want for myself, well idiot I'm not gay and I've been married almost 25 years.
It's about something you obviously don't understand--concern for other people.
"did that hurt you? no? same as you and your silly bigotry claims are for me..."
It's not "silly." Your bigotry and hate are killing people and destroying lives, not to mention denying basic civil rights to millions for absolutely no legitimate reason.
"Cu's are the correct balance of the competing interests..."
LIE!!! it is NOT EQUALITY!!! it is a second class status, a seat in the back of the bus. SCREW that. MARRIAGE. EQUALITY.
Simple equality. Nothing more is asked. Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing less is REMOTELY acceptable. It will NOT be civil unions, it WILL be what it is, a marriage.
Competing interests my ass. The interest in equality vs. the "interest" in hate and lies and bigotry. They aren't competing at all. Homophobia is crumbling fast, because there is no legitimate basis for it.
this is all just silly whining...

one thing we do know, when they decided loving they didn't mean gays...

I mean what does the fact that the court will NOT find a right to gay marriage say about all your tripe?

you are not entitled to marriage rights...you may get people to offer them to you (which is fine with me), but you are not entitled...that's a fact!

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#23 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
but the gays go tot he houses and smash windows, see a difference?
not through your sense of entitlement I bet you don't!
the question was, what are the donors afraid of, and my response the very realistic and proven possibility of imminent DANGER to them and their families...
"but the gays go tot he houses and smash windows"

Imminent danger my butt! Tell that to a young man strung up to die on a fence in Wyoming. Tell that to thousands of homosexuals rounded up and gassed by the Nazis. Tell that to the gay victims of redneck hatred.

Now, please give me some credible references about gays smashing windows. Some credible references to "realistic and proven possibilities of imminent DANGER."
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#24 Apr 12, 2013
qwerty26 wrote:
<quoted text>
"but the gays go tot he houses and smash windows"
Imminent danger my butt! Tell that to a young man strung up to die on a fence in Wyoming. Tell that to thousands of homosexuals rounded up and gassed by the Nazis. Tell that to the gay victims of redneck hatred.
Now, please give me some credible references about gays smashing windows. Some credible references to "realistic and proven possibilities of imminent DANGER."
I noticed you tried to refute that gays do these thing sby crying that others did it to gays?

is this rational to you?

or did you just want to whine?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#25 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
that's who will attack creating a reason to protect the donors?
see that now doll face?
So then you would have no problem for providing exceptions to donor list laws for gay and lesbian groups because obviously they are more likely to face attack than good upstanding people like you.

Oh wait, people who join gay and lesbian groups know they may end up on a donor list and are willing to stand up publicly for their beliefs, even if it means facing harassment. Seems strange to me that people such as yourself who take such a strong stand for "morality" would be proud to let people know their views as well.

After all why should anyone be ashamed for fighting against Satan's forces, which is the basis for most of these organizations unless I'm mistaken.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#26 Apr 12, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>So then you would have no problem for providing exceptions to donor list laws for gay and lesbian groups because obviously they are more likely to face attack than good upstanding people like you.
Oh wait, people who join gay and lesbian groups know they may end up on a donor list and are willing to stand up publicly for their beliefs, even if it means facing harassment. Seems strange to me that people such as yourself who take such a strong stand for "morality" would be proud to let people know their views as well.
After all why should anyone be ashamed for fighting against Satan's forces, which is the basis for most of these organizations unless I'm mistaken.
the question was, what are they afraid of?
the answer is GAYS ATTACKING...
and you do.

I don't care what else you are talking about...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#27 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
but the gays go tot he houses and smash windows, see a difference?
not through your sense of entitlement I bet you don't!
the question was, what are the donors afraid of, and my response the very realistic and proven possibility of imminent DANGER to them and their families...
I challenge you to provide a documented case where gays destroyed private property because the person was found to be a donor for NOM.

Love your wording BTW. The "proven possibility of imminent danger". Funny thing is that same argument has been rejected every time at every level of the court system. So when that fails at the State Supreme Court level I'm sure we can expect you and NOM to cry foul and insist on once again shopping the judicial system for a sympathetic judge. And of course if the appeal is denied then it's not because your claim lacks merit, but because of those horrible liberals who have ruined your country.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#28 Apr 12, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I challenge you to provide a documented case where gays destroyed private property because the person was found to be a donor for NOM.
Love your wording BTW. The "proven possibility of imminent danger". Funny thing is that same argument has been rejected every time at every level of the court system. So when that fails at the State Supreme Court level I'm sure we can expect you and NOM to cry foul and insist on once again shopping the judicial system for a sympathetic judge. And of course if the appeal is denied then it's not because your claim lacks merit, but because of those horrible liberals who have ruined your country.
so according to you gays have not attacked private property for their agenda?
are you sticking with that before I do the research again?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#29 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed you tried to refute that gays do these thing sby crying that others did it to gays?
is this rational to you?
or did you just want to whine?
The point is, Einstein, that no gays or lesbians would be angry enough to smash windows in protest if homosexuality were accepted by society.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#30 Apr 12, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, Einstein, that no gays or lesbians would be angry enough to smash windows in protest if homosexuality were accepted by society.
your are NOT ENTITLED to marry...so your justification ISN'T ONE...

So the bible thumpers are also justified in attacking RIGHT?
if how they feel marriage should be is not followed, they have the right to smash windows, RIGHT?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#31 Apr 12, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, Einstein,
by the way, this is as far as I needed to read to know you were a childish moron...

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#32 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
your are NOT ENTITLED to marry...so your justification ISN'T ONE...
So the bible thumpers are also justified in attacking RIGHT?
if how they feel marriage should be is not followed, they have the right to smash windows, RIGHT?
That is only your opinion and not a fact. If heterosexuals are allowed to marry, then why not homosexuals? It's not about bearing children, it's simply about ACCEPTANCE.

Nobody has the "right" to smash windows.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#33 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
by the way, this is as far as I needed to read to know you were a childish moron...
I don't care what you think; rational arguments are useless on you. So if I resort to childish behavior, it's only because I'm having a little fun.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#34 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
this is all just silly whining...
one thing we do know, when they decided loving they didn't mean gays...
I mean what does the fact that the court will NOT find a right to gay marriage say about all your tripe?
you are not entitled to marriage rights...you may get people to offer them to you (which is fine with me), but you are not entitled...that's a fact!
It's a fact because what? You say it's a fact? Get real.

Loving wasn't about gays specifically that's true but Loving WAS about discrimination and states using that race based discrimination to keep from marriage two people who loved one another. In that, the parallel exists as true today for the LGBT citizens of this country as it did in 1968 when Loving was decided.

The facts are real simple - ALL citizens should have the same rights and responsibilities. THAT, my dear, is truly a civil society and a fair and democratic one as well. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. Period.

“Where's my fairy wand!”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#36 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so according to you gays have not attacked private property for their agenda?
are you sticking with that before I do the research again?
I'm sure some misguided gay person somewhere did something they shouldn't have done and damaged someone's property.

I'm equally sure that gay people have DIED at the hands of straight people who object to people being gay.

Here's some research for you - go find how many cases there are of gay people MURDERING straight people JUST because they were straight.

We have dead gay people around the globe because of bigotry, hatred and prejudice and you want whinge and whine about a few broken windows. Get some perspective.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
some of us are more concerned about society than our own personal gain....
that is clearly not you.
did the scotus seem to think you had a right?
not from what I heard...so its just your sense of entitlement...
Again with the Apophasis!

I call BS.

Your "concern about society" is only your own anxiety. You wish to minimize your anxiety, brought on by how you think about "society" and gay people.

It's YOUR problem.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#38 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe its because of the way you guys attack?
I cant wait until the gay refuses to provide flowers to the church...
Not likely, but if such ever happened you'd never hear about it. We'd just be "all book-up for that date" with no other comment.

More likely, we'd happily take the money ... then spend it to get Marriage Equality in yet another State.

We don't mind you funding our efforts, AND we'll glaadly report it to the Elections Commission.

It's coming.

It's time.

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#39 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed you tried to refute that gays do these thing sby crying that others did it to gays?
is this rational to you?
or did you just want to whine?
What is NOT rational to me is your claim that gays destroy property and smash windows. Where are you getting this kind of information? Give us some references please, because I am not aware of any such cases.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#40 Apr 12, 2013
qwerty26 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is NOT rational to me is your claim that gays destroy property and smash windows. Where are you getting this kind of information? Give us some references please, because I am not aware of any such cases.
We broke a few windows during the "White Night Riots". Some punks joined the protest by torching some police cars.

NO charges were even considered.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#41 Apr 12, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
your are NOT ENTITLED to marry...so your justification ISN'T ONE...
So the bible thumpers are also justified in attacking RIGHT?
if how they feel marriage should be is not followed, they have the right to smash windows, RIGHT?
Wow. I remember hearing the same thing said about blacks in the 60's when they rioted.

Oh and perhaps you haven't heard but back in the mid 90's the Federal Government gave States the right to allow same sex couples to marry when it passed DOMA. Yet you insist on continuing to distort reality with outright lies.

Gays and lesbians ARE entitled to marry. Several State Supreme Courts have ruled that way. It's called equal protection under the law.

But just as blacks had to deal with people like you in the 60's, gays and lesbians still face the same threat of discrimination.

And as you have pointed out several times,, a clear THREAT of potential harm should justify ignoring regular civil laws, right?

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) 9 min carter county res... 24,150
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 25 min Rose_NoHo 5,049
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 35 min Rose_NoHo 397
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 39 min Rose_NoHo 44,244
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 12,719
News 'I am appalled and disgusted': Councillor accus... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 2
News Idaho tax bill advances despite gay marriage ob... 3 hr jcofe 1
More from around the web