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

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,144

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.

Full Story
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#452 Dec 3, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except NONE of the courts think so...
Oh, no, "JANE DOUGH" opened her big mouth again! I better believe what she believes, I might die! I better not dare speak *my* mind, I better listen to her and whatever goddamn courts she's talking about.

I'm not interested in what the courts think on this subject; if they're getting it wrong and if you're an attorney, you know flat-out full well that courts have gotten it wrong before; see: Plessy v. Ferguson, my *FAVORITE* example of this.
Jane Dough wrote:
and you don't get to INVENT anything you want and then claim anyone who disagrees with you, hates you.
I sure do get to invent anything I want and then claim anyone who disagrees with me hates me, because *you* just invented your own set of facts to presume you KNOW MY ORIENTATION on an anonymous message board. If you're going to open your big mouth over and over, I will do *exactly* as you do; don't like it? Stop responding to me, because I'm not interested in your feelings or your attempt to control this conversation, "attorney."
Jane Dough wrote:
Even if you make up ridiculous scenarios and attribute them to me, there is no factual similarity between gays and blacks, no HISTORICAL similarity and no legal similarity...
Sucks to be you since anyone who wants to can draw similarities between the two. You're laughable and pathetic if you think you can *force* people to stop thinking something when they see *PLENTIFUL* similarities.
Jane Dough wrote:
and for all these reasons, blacks are a "suspect class' and gays are not. That is a fact. And a fact that anyone who knows it gets called a bigot by your for knowing...
Yet here you are, flapping your big mouth again, and pretending it's *NOT YOU* who brings this upon yourself. Fancy that, "JANE DOUGH." Fancy that.

You're the one who keeps responding. Don't tell me what to think when I will speak as I please and think as I please, the end.

You don't get to make up your own set of prejudices and then attempt to *literally FORCE* them into the minds of other people.
Jane Dough wrote:
when in reality is simply that you don't know and want to INSIST anyway...
Um, I am comparing two things that are highly comparable.

If you don't like it, go find someone whom you can *force* to think as you do. Stop pretending you have the right to do that here.
Jane Dough wrote:
In reality, I don't hate anyone and you just HATE that...
In reality, I just *watched* you attempt to force me to think as you do, and ya failed. So, know what? I take it that you cannot stand their right to say you hate them. I mean, there you are, arguing *clearly* on one side of the issue and not the other, because now the precious little antigay scumbags and rapists don't have the "state vote" crap to fall back on anymore. They *lost* and Obama was reelected.

*shrug* Not my problem.

Glad to see me here, and you over there. I wouldn't have it any other way, champ. Enjoy the next four years.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#453 Dec 3, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately the SCOTUS can indeed hold these cases indefinitely.
I wish there was something we could do to force their hand, but we can't.
Even if the 9th circuit removed their stay on the Prop 8 case, the anti-gays would just get an emergency indefinite stay from the SCOTUS.
So we wait; possibly a year or more........
I'd be extreeeemely interested in knowing from an authoritative source what is the *absolute longest* they ever waited before moving on an appeal to them. I find it impossible to believe it was more than 2 years, and even then, I feel like it was 2 years because people were sleeping.

I did actually read that they appear by their actions *never* to consider that a person awaiting a verdict is near the end of their life. I cannot decide whether I deem that despicable or actually fair, since business is business.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#454 Dec 4, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
Redheads also comprise 2% of the population; do you consider them abnormal as well? I'm sure that you have some characteristics that are not considered "normal" by your definition. Should that fact deny you equal rights?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#455 Dec 4, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Did you miss the part about animals pookie. Nature states it's abnormal. Go ahead and argue with mother nature. When you are only 2% of the world, you are abnormal. Normal is the majority, abnormal is not. You may get a liberal judge to say you can wed, but it won't change the definition of marriage.
Just out of curiosity, at what point does this "abnormal" become "normal"? Is it 5%, 10%, 25%, of the population? Or does a group have to be in exactly equal numbers to be considered normal? At the time of the Equal Rights movement of the 60's, I believe blacks were approximately 10% of the population. Does that mean they were "abnormal", and not entitled to be considered equal? I was taught in school, many, many years ago, that we are all born equal in the eyes of the law. Are you telling us this is not true? Please, enlighten the board of your wisdom on this.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#456 Dec 4, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite whatever court/legal crap all you want, still won't make you less bigoted, argumentative or 'right'....
right, like how you don't care about any reality or fact, you will insist its bigotry...
no matter what reality or fact I post, you will not change...
I get it
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
And to reiterate, your a waste of time to debate with because you deflect and change the subject rather than actually debating the issue, just like your doing now...
see above.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#457 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>

The first circuit is flat-out wrong.
.
says you.

see how easy that is?

A few month ago, a high court of judges found something, and little ole you thinks you saying its wrong means anything...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#458 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no, "JANE DOUGH" opened her big mouth again! I better believe what she believes, I might die! I better not dare speak *my* mind, I better listen to her and whatever goddamn courts she's talking about.
I'm not interested in what the courts think on this subject; if they're getting it wrong and if you're an attorney, you know flat-out full well that courts have gotten it wrong before; see: Plessy v. Ferguson, my *FAVORITE* example of this.
<quoted text>
I sure do get to invent anything I want and then claim anyone who disagrees with me hates me, because *you* just invented your own set of facts to presume you KNOW MY ORIENTATION on an anonymous message board. If you're going to open your big mouth over and over, I will do *exactly* as you do; don't like it? Stop responding to me, because I'm not interested in your feelings or your attempt to control this conversation, "attorney."
<quoted text>
Sucks to be you since anyone who wants to can draw similarities between the two. You're laughable and pathetic if you think you can *force* people to stop thinking something when they see *PLENTIFUL* similarities.
<quoted text>
Yet here you are, flapping your big mouth again, and pretending it's *NOT YOU* who brings this upon yourself. Fancy that, "JANE DOUGH." Fancy that.
You're the one who keeps responding. Don't tell me what to think when I will speak as I please and think as I please, the end.
You don't get to make up your own set of prejudices and then attempt to *literally FORCE* them into the minds of other people.
<quoted text>
Um, I am comparing two things that are highly comparable.
If you don't like it, go find someone whom you can *force* to think as you do. Stop pretending you have the right to do that here.
<quoted text>
In reality, I just *watched* you attempt to force me to think as you do, and ya failed. So, know what? I take it that you cannot stand their right to say you hate them. I mean, there you are, arguing *clearly* on one side of the issue and not the other, because now the precious little antigay scumbags and rapists don't have the "state vote" crap to fall back on anymore. They *lost* and Obama was reelected.
*shrug* Not my problem.
Glad to see me here, and you over there. I wouldn't have it any other way, champ. Enjoy the next four years.
I went from reading to scanning to skip.
have a nice day.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#459 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What is more local and home-grown than a vote of the legislature?
A vote of the people, but you dont like those do you?

But that's all a sidestep to the fact that national organizations focused on Vermont and hand picked it and your "just so" story was a lie...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that the national groups recognized that Vermont was fertile ground for our campaign is a statement about Vermont, not a condemnation of our efforts.
It is proof they hand picked Vermont for it being small and a low money required state and you know it...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#460 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Jane, divorce is allowed, and a parent can be granted sole custody, which means the child will not be being raised by two biological parents.
yup, but do they get marriage benefits still?
oh, they don't?

you are merely claiming we must not have laws against crime since there IS crime...

you also seem to ignore what OPTIMUM means, it DOESN'T mean everything else sucks...
Its OPTIMUM to go to college, does that mean anyone who didn't is nothing?
By your logic, yes, but its just silly...
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#461 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
says you.
see how easy that is?
A few month ago, a high court of judges found something, and little ole you thinks you saying its wrong means anything...
Congrats on putting your own foot down your throat. If this is true, then by logic, what the judges have said is meaningless, as well as what you have said.

Again (you keep trying *exactly* the same thing over, and over, and over), you don't get to "decree" some reality unilaterally.

Get over it. I'm not falling for it.

If you want to pronounce everyone's words "meaningless," do your thing; I disagree. I am calling the judges out for being *literally wrong and illogical*, but of course you can't refute that; you don't have the tools, the intelligence, or the know-how.

From me to you.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#462 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I went from reading to scanning to skip.
have a nice day.
Your laziness or inability to refute are not my problem.

You aren't the only one on the board, champ.

My response is there for aaaaanyone else who wants to see it.

Trust me, all these "techniques" of yours are not going to work. You get in the face of the pro-gay, they get back in your face, and that includes me. Don't like it? Learn to play on your "I can't handle this and I can't read" level.

Stop crying about it like you have a problem with life.

Christ.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#463 Dec 4, 2012
I don't get why the antigay are so *weak-willed*, above all else. I see nothing but spinelessness and anti-Americanism.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#464 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
yup, but do they get marriage benefits still?
oh, they don't?
you are merely claiming we must not have laws against crime since there IS crime...
you also seem to ignore what OPTIMUM means, it DOESN'T mean everything else sucks...
Its OPTIMUM to go to college, does that mean anyone who didn't is nothing?
By your logic, yes, but its just silly...
Not at all, Jane.

You were arguing that the state has a legitimate interest in children being raised by two biological parents. I merely pointed out any number of things that the state allows, or regulates, that prove your assertion incorrect.

The state allows divorce and sole custody, which results in a child not being raised by two biological parents.
The state allows adoption, which results in a child not being raised by two biological parents.
The state removes abused children to foster care, which results in a child not being raised by two biological parents.
There are any number of other instances that illustrate that your claim that there is a legitimate state interest in children being raised by two biological parents is simply WRONG.

However it is fun to watch you ineptly attempt to put words in my mouth.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#465 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Congrats on putting your own foot down your throat. If this is true, then by logic, what the judges have said is meaningless, as well as what you have said.
Again (you keep trying *exactly* the same thing over, and over, and over), you don't get to "decree" some reality unilaterally.
Get over it. I'm not falling for it.
If you want to pronounce everyone's words "meaningless," do your thing; I disagree. I am calling the judges out for being *literally wrong and illogical*, but of course you can't refute that; you don't have the tools, the intelligence, or the know-how.
From me to you.
A court of lifetime judges, versus your opinion....
you just don't carry much weight...
I wouldn't say its meaningless, but its not as valuable an opinion for sure...
especially when you rely on unsupportable claims of bigotry and nothing more as you do...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#466 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
Your laziness or inability to refute are not my problem.
You aren't the only one on the board, champ.
My response is there for aaaaanyone else who wants to see it.
Trust me, all these "techniques" of yours are not going to work. You get in the face of the pro-gay, they get back in your face, and that includes me. Don't like it? Learn to play on your "I can't handle this and I can't read" level.
Stop crying about it like you have a problem with life.
Christ.
no, it was merely useless and boring so I scanned it...

like this little pack of nonsense above...

I didn't claim to remove it or anything, its still there for anyone to see, but I suspect most will do the same as I did...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#467 Dec 4, 2012
hi hi wrote:
I don't get why the antigay are so *weak-willed*, above all else. I see nothing but spinelessness and anti-Americanism.
stereotyping mixed with prejudice?
whats that called again?

consistency is not their virtue...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#468 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, Jane.
You were arguing that the state has a legitimate interest in children being raised by two biological parents. I merely pointed out any number of things that the state allows, or regulates, that prove your assertion incorrect.
no , it doesn't. at all.

We encourage home ownership as a society right?

but why does the govt give rent vouchers...

false logic is all you have here...

and no support in reality, that's why you NEVER have a source...
like i said, you use your ignorance as a sword...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#469 Dec 4, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

However it is fun to watch you ineptly attempt to put words in my mouth.
its funny to me that you think you are making any case here...

I give you 2 posts before your back to capabilities...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#470 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
A vote of the people, but you dont like those do you?
Would you like to have a vote on your civil rights? I don't think so. Nonetheless, we are going to be stuck with votes on our rights for some time to come. And you seem not to have noticed that the results are now turning around.
But that's all a sidestep to the fact that national organizations focused on Vermont and hand picked it and your "just so" story was a lie...
<quoted text>
It is proof they hand picked Vermont for it being small and a low money required state and you know it...
Frankly, all I hear is sour grapes. We mobilized sympathetic resources in the state and won the same rights that you take for granted. Obviously, we began with states where those sympathetic resources existed already. That's how change begins.

No armies came in and forced the legislature to vote to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage. We made the arguments--as did your side--and we won.

You have yet to show how involvement of outside resources was somehow unfair when your side employed even more outside resources. Outside resources are fine for you when your side wins. All your whining is just about making yourself feel better because you lost.

So boo hoo cry baby. You still lost.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#471 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like to have a vote on your civil rights? I don't think so. Nonetheless, we are going to be stuck with votes on our rights for some time to come. And you seem not to have noticed that the results are now turning around.
<quoted text>
Frankly, all I hear is sour grapes. We mobilized sympathetic resources in the state and won the same rights that you take for granted. Obviously, we began with states where those sympathetic resources existed already. That's how change begins.
No armies came in and forced the legislature to vote to include gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage. We made the arguments--as did your side--and we won.
You have yet to show how involvement of outside resources was somehow unfair when your side employed even more outside resources. Outside resources are fine for you when your side wins. All your whining is just about making yourself feel better because you lost.
So boo hoo cry baby. You still lost.
Given I showed you how national organizations looked at a map and decided to focus on Vermont, will I still see you around here pretending it was a local movement?

I never claimed the oppositon was all local, but you sure did claim your side was...

you take it back, right?
(no pun intended)

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
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 21 min Obvious 757
Same-sex marriage is just the beginning 56 min Michael L 26
Evangelicals with gay children challenging church 1 hr david traversa 19
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 1 hr NorCal Native 3,622
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr barry 2,473
VIDEO: Anti-gay Russian gangs film wins award 1 hr Christian Taliban 4
Students' project on gay rights a no-go for Cat... 1 hr Christian Taliban 6
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,980
Gay brains similar to opposite-sex straight brains 8 hr Belle Sexton 31

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE