In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles

There are 20 comments on the Nov 28, 2012, Reuters story titled In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both sides gearing up for more battles. In it, Reuters reports that:

Scott Everhart and Jason Welker hold each other before exchanging wedding vows at a comic book retail shop in Manhattan, New York June 20, 2012.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#357 Dec 1, 2012
I'm shocked by this comment from NOM:
Still, in many states the gay marriage fight remains an uphill battle. The National Organization for Marriage says its own polling has found well over half of American voters believe marriage should be defined as a union of one man and one woman.

Is anyone really surprised by what their own poll shows? I'm not!!!
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#360 Dec 2, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You must not read many posts by us then.
We've been saying that from the beginning.
I'll generously concede that some "topix fairy" must be magically guiding me to miss almost all of those posts, because I never, ever, ever see them. Ever. In fact, it's the *only* point I make about the state votes and I *never* see anyone else making it.

*shrug* Guess I'm missing all those posts, then. Because (think about it) I've been LOOKING for it, and I can't find anyone making that point but me. I mean, at this point, I'm looking like a RABID VAMPIRE for those posts. No joke.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#361 Dec 2, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>My deepest thanks. Jane D'oh has been claiming for weeks in replies to me that Baker is Federal law.
Just today they finally admitted it's a State law and only applies in MN.
True it became a Federal Lawsuit under mandatory review but just because a case becomes a Federal Lawsuit you and I (and hopefully most 4th graders) know that doesn't make it Constitutional precedent as D'OH! claimed.
You are welcome.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#362 Dec 2, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
If the constitution contained a right to gay marriage, there would be a federal question...
so you are merely not understanding (so this is not an argument, its an error).
So if you were Scalia on the supreme court after Lawrence v. Texas was passed, you would be turning to your fellow judges and telling them they were "in error" even though their verdict carried the day and Lawrence v. Texas now governs NATIONAL LAW even though there is *nothing* about gay sex in the United States Constitution.

No, "Jane Dough," what you claim is happening is not at all what's happening, as I just demonstrated in the paragraph above. Your snottiness is not changing the fact that you don't get to "win" by laying claim to what is "pertinent." What you are saying has *NOTHING* to do with what's going on, or perhaps you think you know more than the supreme court.

Don't bullshit someone who sees through you immediately. Thanks.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#363 Dec 2, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
same as gays bring up racial civil rights even though they have very little to do with marriage laws and try to ignore other marriage laws as you do here...
No, what they're doing is *telling* you, not asking you or discussing with you, that RACIAL civil rights is conflatable with GAY civil rights.

If you don't like it, find a *far* more intelligent way of attempting to "disabuse" others of their notions, because your comments about what I am "ignoring" aren't fooling me.

You don't get to *force* others to think as you do. End of statement.
Jane Dough wrote:
we either have a fundamental right to marry whom we wish or we don't...
So you, champ, just argued for the marriage between a man of 35 years of age and a girl of 6. Congratulations.

No, the right is not "unlimited," as you attempt to claim here.

But you see, this is what the antigay (like you) do; you don't care about the law, you don't care about precedent, you don't care about what is good for society.

You *hate* gay people and your every argument is an attempt to rape *THEM* of their rights -- no one else.

You don't care about polygamy. You don't care about interracial marriage.

The *SUM* of your arguments is based upon and directed at *gay people in specific*, nothing more, nothing less.
Jane Dough wrote:
you can claim we do and just hide another marriage ban as if it doesn't exist...
Or I could be just like you and start telling 40-year-old men that they can marry 6-year-old girls because "Jane Dough" comes onto a message board claiming "everyone has the right to marry anyone of their choice." No thanks, I'd rather sound intelligent.
Jane Dough wrote:
polygamy completely deflates your argument that we can marry anyone we wish...
And yet *you* are the one supporting polygamy by making that argument. Your problem is that you *utterly ignore* the paradigm, and then when I explain the paradigm, you *utterly ignore* it again. If I were to explain the paradigm again now, you'd ignore it again.

Why?

Because then you don't get to *hate gay people* and try to take away their rights. Your *sole* concern with polygamy is to *take away* the rights of GAY people; you don't care about polygamists at all. NONE of you people ever talked about polygamy *until, specifically until* you could attempt to use those arguments to rape *gay people* of their rights.

If you think you're so right and if you think your arguments are so sound, get a goddamn backbone and tell this board *why* you are arguing these things rather than *lying* about it and bringing up arguments I can shoot holes in, and have repeatedly shot holes in.

Because I explained the paradigm and the evidence on the board shows you *ignored my explanation* because if you paid attention to it, YOU don't get to argue for polygamy anymore, which is your way of arguing AGAINST gay marriage.

Seriously.

Get a backbone.

And tell the board *why* you argue these things. The *real* reasons.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#364 Dec 2, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, I love how you are so adamant at being wrong.
and deceitful too...
I would never "admit" to your clear error...
I even showed you were a FEDERAL court stated it was binding on them and you continue...
I would say act your age, but you are!
Here is that again:
" 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."
"subsequent scotus precedent?
guess what that means?
Baker is a previous scotus precedent BEING applied in FEDERAL court...
but do go on...
and notice how many on your side cheer your ignorance...
Luckily, in this case, there is a fact to be right or wrong on, and you are flat wrong.(and lying about it)
No one is making any errors but you. You're like a *joke* on these boards, pretending to know anything "factually." Nine supreme court justices *CANNOT* agree amongst themselves on the application of the law, and here's you flapping your lip and telling the board YOU know these things in "point of fact"; you don't.

And you're not fooling anyone. I see through you a mile away; you're ridiculous. Like a gnat.

You're trying to tell the board things that are a reflection of your personal animus; nothing more, nothing less. Christ, you actually think people will believe *you* can apply the United States constitution or any state-level law to a concept of inalienable rights? Because I pointed out the paradigm, and the *very protected existence* of heterosexual marriage destroys everything you are saying unless you look OUTSIDE the paradigm, which I have clearly demonstrated to anyone with an IQ is what you are doing.

Left and right.

Day after day.

Because to stop doing so would take away your "right" to literally hate gay people, the *only* thing that concerns you in these arguments, if you had a backbone and were telling people the truth.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#365 Dec 2, 2012
Christ, you people make me want to vomit. You *lie and lie* about your REASONS for attempting to "protect the family"; why not just put your money where your snouts are and admit you hate gay people?

What is so difficult about this?

Why such *fear*, especially your attorneys in courts of law, in *admitting* this?

God damn, you're all ridiculous.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#366 Dec 2, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Don't like the polls? Exclaim that they are WRONG! Where have I heard that before? It seems to me it was pretty recent. Oh yes! It was just the beginning of this month: You know, right before Obama was re-elected and same-sex marriage was approved in three states? And another state beat back a DOMA amendment. Yes, those polls were wrong, according to everyone who didn't like their results.
<quoted text>
Go ahead and rejoice in your short-lived victories. Times are changing. Any idiot can see which way the wind has been blowing, if only they would open their minds to some reality.
<quoted text>
Yes, the majorities in some states were large. But the majorities in many of the states were small. Votes could be overturned in California, Oregon, and several other states by 2016. That's one of the problems with easily-changed constitutions, isn't it?
The real problem with your claim, though, is it requires looking backward. Yes, we lost North Carolina this year. But we gained the first state south of Mason-Dixon. We now have states with marriage equality in the Northeast, Mid-west, South, and Northwest.
Do you remember how angry Vermonters got at civil unions a decade ago? And now they unabashedly support marriage equality. So much so that the legislature overrode the governor.
<quoted text>
Yet, for every same-sex couple, we can point to a half-dozen similarly situated opposite-sex couples. Are those opposite-sex couples hurting someone? With 40% of marriages ending in divorce, a very large cohort of children do not live with both biological parents. When you add in all the single parents (including widows and widowers) and adoptive parents, a child is as likely as not to live withou at least one biologcal parent present in the home. And yet this 2% of the population getting married is somehow going to upset the balance of the ether?
<quoted text>
But these are NOT single people. They are couples who have built their lives together. When I was single and had roommates, I had a stereo and my roommate had a TV. I had chairs and my roommate had a couch. There is no such division of property for most married couples. And the law recognizes that.
<quoted text>Again, married couples enjoy unlimited property transfer, which can never be accomplished by lawyers. I thought you were a lawyer. Claiming that we can get all the benefits of marriage through contracts amounts to malpractice. You should be disbarred.
If that person is a "lawyer," they're even more full of stinking shit than I thought. That's EXACTLY how lawyers argue: They know the facts, you don't, they are right, you are wrong.

Really, weird, "nhjeff," help me out here: If that's true, then why do attorneys *LOSE* cases? In fact, in every single court case since the beginning of time, why does one side *ALWAYS* lose?

Oh, that's right: Because attorneys who attempt to make those arguments are ... full of shit. They want you to think they know it all. They don't. They're arguing what they *wish* were true because law school trains them to act like they "know it all." I am seriously glad so many of you are not fooled; seriously.

Moreover, how parasitically selfish of anyone to argue that you guys can get the benefits of marriage "through contracts"; wait a sec!, last time I checked, that's *EXACTLY* the point of marriage, so you *DON'T* have to do that.

Thank you for your post.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#367 Dec 2, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not with this SCOTUS they aren't, and that's the ONLY thing that matters.
Hang you hat on a 40 year old precedent from a SCOTUS which no longer exists in a country which has signficantly changed how gays & lesbians are viewed.
I do agree that the level of review will ultimately be the most important thing to come from these cases, if they ever get around to hearing them. But again, it all depends on WHAT the 5 majority justices want to do that will determine that outcome.
If 5 justices want to uphold DOMA & Prop 8, then they will find a way to do so. They'll most likely use rational basis & state's rights as they justification.
If 5 justices want to overturn DOMA & Prop 8, then they will find a way to do so. They may use rational basis or heightened scrutiny, depending on whether or not they want to go all the way and overturn every state ban (doubtful), or if they just want to allow the states to battle it out for awhile yet buy want to lay the groundwork for future lawsuits.
IT'S ALL UP TO THE JUSTICES.
And then, if the justices rule against gay rights, it's up to YOU and US and WHOEVER to find ways to fight that nonstop for as many years or decades as it takes.

Little hint: Look to the conservatives who may not be your favorite people for the *best* lessons in how to do this. Conservatives, with their precious "religious" beliefs, do not care *WHAT* the court rules. They couldn't ... care ... less. In their minds, their moral conviction trumps EVERYTHING any human being could say, and history will show that they fight *vehemently* even when the odds are near zero. This is what the pro-gay should be doing, and may well need to do.

There will *always* be a battle to be waged to expand your rights -- always. It should be meaningless to the pro-gay for more than a day or two of mourning what the court has decreed, if it should decree against gay rights; *dirrrrrectly* on the heels of such a verdict or verdicts, the next stages in the battle should be being plotted with a verve that should *worry* your opponents. This is *exactly* how conservatives behave, nonstop, and I *love* every small, scattered, fleeting instance in which I see progressives behaving in exactly the same way. It inspires me more than anything else because it is, mark my words, mark my words, mark them between now and eternity, the *only* language those conservatives understand. And that's why I will never stop advocating it, never. This is me cheering for YOU and YOURS.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#371 Dec 2, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
Idiot, homosexuality could demolish the american family. Just like what rick said.
How?

Be specific.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#372 Dec 2, 2012
RU Bloggers 4 Real wrote:
Hey doc!!!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#373 Dec 2, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, homosexuality could demolish the american family. Just like what rick said.
Sorry, but NO THE FRUCK IT CAN'T!!!!

The American family will continue to be here because why? Gays and Lesbians are American citizens and they have families too!!!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#375 Dec 2, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
Gays = sexual deviants. And an end to motherhood and fatherhood, and love in society.
Get a clue.

Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Procreation is possible without marriage, and marriage is possible without procreation. Do you have an argument that isn't simplistic and wrong?

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#376 Dec 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a clue.
Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Procreation is possible without marriage, and marriage is possible without procreation. Do you have an argument that isn't simplistic and wrong?
No, that troll doesn't have anything but rhetoric and not even interesting rhetoric!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#377 Dec 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How?
Be specific.
The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."

Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement

Even the highly paid and experienced lawyer for prop 8 couldn't come up with more than unknown fear of the future.

In fact, anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in favor of Prop 8, had to admit: "Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”

And that is from a guy who opposed marriage equality!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#378 Dec 2, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a clue.
Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Procreation is possible without marriage, and marriage is possible without procreation. Do you have an argument that isn't simplistic and wrong?
I have yet to see an argument that explains why straight people will stop having accidental pregnancies, let alone planned ones. Why would anyone think gay people getting married will result in straight people not having sex? Irrational and unsupportable fear is the only tool they have.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#379 Dec 2, 2012
"George Rekers is a major anti-gay figure that has worked against equality and tried to "cure" LGBT people for more than thirty years. A former University of South Carolina professor, Rekers is a founder of the Family Research Council, a former board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), and he testified as an expert witness in favor of gay adoption bans in both Arkansas and Florida. In both states, the courts deemed Reker’s testimony biased and untrustworthy.

Rekers has also published several anti-gay books, including, "Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity" and "Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality."

In May, reporters Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp of the Miami New Times discovered that Rekers took a male escort that he met on Rentboy.com to Europe. According to the escort, Rekers "likes younger guys to hang out with."

At first, Rekers said he only hired the young man to "lift his luggage". However, after people doubted his story, Rekers changed his tune, claiming he was only trying to convert sinners to Christianity." http://liftmyluggage.org/about-reckers.html

And the "rent boy" confirmed, sex was involved, showing one of the most anti-gay men in the country is a closet case, yet even being immersed in his own anti-gay propaganda couldn't change his orientation, so he acts it out in secretive, destructive ways.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#380 Dec 2, 2012
NARTH is really a religious based group posing as a secular scientific organization. They promote harmful "conversion therapy" complete with electric shock and emetics. One of their top leaders was recently caught with a "rent boy" and resigned. Other past leaders of "conversion therapy" have later denounced it as abusive and harmful, often leading to self destructive behavior including suicide when the client realizes they cannot change their same sex attractions. "Conversion therapy" relies heavily on religious shame and guilt to suppress behavior.

“We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality,” Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, said in CNN’ 360 Degrees with Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2007. At the Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix, the “secular” therapist told the audience,“When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.” http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth/

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversation therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.” 8-11-06 APA (from http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/08/apa-rele... )

Insufficient evidence to support sexual orientation change efforts : Mental health professionals should avoid telling clients they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments, according to a resolution adopted by the APA's Council of Representatives on Aug. 5 during APA's 2009 Annual Convention.The resolution was based on the recommendation of the APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, which reviewed decades of research and found insufficient evidence that such treatments work.(October 2009) http://search.apa.org/search...

The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by the science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.[38][40](Wiki)
Dan

Roseville, CA

#381 Dec 2, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays = sexual deviants. And an end to motherhood and fatherhood, and love in society.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

An end to motherhood and fatherhood.

ROFL!!!!

Funny....but I doubt if we allow a minority of the population, the gays, to marry each other it's going to end popcorn production, filtered water, the legalization of murder or the end to motherhood & fatherhood you idiot.

As far as homosexuals being "sexual deviants" well Junior that's your opinion.

To some hearing Brits boinking each other while exclaiming "Oh good Poppy, right there.....right there!!!" might be seen as "deviant" to some.

LOL!!!!
Dan

Roseville, CA

#382 Dec 2, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, homosexuality could demolish the american family. Just like what rick said.
Bullshit.

I see no evidence to the same.

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 2 min No Surprise 2,832
News Religious leaders plan to protest changes to RFRA 10 min david traversa 8
News Online Fundraiser For Oregon Bakery Removed Aft... 17 min Elijah 14
News Gay NYC businessmen who hosted Ted Cruz try to ... 1 hr Clayton 1
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 1 hr DebraE 184
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr LuxGurl 32,058
Poll NoHo or NorCOW: Who Has Bigger Balls? 1 hr Elijah 2
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Elijah 2,145
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Prep-for-Dep 19,990
Are the mods fair and balanced? 3 hr Elijah 669
News Top U.S. court appears on cusp of declaring rig... 5 hr Fa-Foxy 25
More from around the web