In U.S. fight over gay marriage, both...

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

There are 1144 comments on the Reuters story from Nov 28, 2012, 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#597 Dec 5, 2012
NoQ wrote:
Yea, for the same reason a brother can't marry his sister or a man can't marry his daughter. It's illegal.
Sorry, charlie. There's a compelling state interest served by bans on marriage between close relatives. You see, procreation between close relative produces a demonstrably higher incidence of birth defects and mental disorders. The same cannot be said of same sex unions.

Can you indicate a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I bet you cannot even indicate a legitimate state interest served by doing so.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#599 Dec 5, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you aren't very bright, are you?
Hernandez has been superseded by legislation. I don't know how much clearer that can be made for you.
superseded (transative verb)
1a : to cause to be set aside
b : to force out of use as inferior
2: to take the place or position of
3: to displace in favor of another
Walker's decision does stand, although it is currently stayed and under appeal to the US Supreme Court.
It is worthy of note that I have note cited Walker's decision, but rather rhetoric from pre-trial motions (via an article from the New Yorker, where said interchange was labeled as being just that).
You have prove incapable of refuting the rhetoric. But there again, you seem to suffer from the delusion that there is a procreative requirement relative to legal marriage even though it has been plainly illustrated to you on a number of levels that there is not.
Feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
Yes, feel free to parade around that Hernandez is superseded and use a dictionary reference to back that up.

I am also fine with anyone who accepts that kind of support, agreeing with what you said. But in reality its delusional...but who cares about that, right?

And also feel free to insist walker's ruling stands.

so you cliam:

1. Baker is not a fedreal case
2. hernandez is not a valid case
3. Walker's ruling still stands

and I am officially tired of your ignorance!

You are flat wrong on all three counts.
Dan Salazar

Long Beach, CA

#600 Dec 5, 2012
Geez .......let the gays get married. We have bigger problems. We only have Obama for four more years and could face complete financial collapse under the dead weight of his Collectivist agenda.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#601 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The best thing about Vermont is you have a terrific view of New Hampshire. Especially in places like Bellows Falls.
Yah, I dig the live free or die deal..
no seat belts and 5 dollar smokes...

but there is nothing like real woods and real vermonters...
so I stay on this side of the river except to stock up on my tax free indiscretions...

Would it surprise you to know that i represent a great many gay people here?
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#602 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Its special because its a beautiful place...
its not always all about you gays ya know...
actually most of the time its not about you...
Spent some time in Hawaii for my job.

Went to 3 islands. Had a blast on my free time and started partying with some of the locals whom became friends of mine.

During the last month there I ran into the biggest douchebag they had which reminded me there are always a few jerkoffs no matter where you go.

And then we have you and Vermont.

Lady(???),

You're nothing more than the tear in the seat to a beautiful Ferrari. The stain on what what would have been an otherwise perfect quilt. The missed brushstroke on a masterpiece painting. Your existance there only takes that state down a notch.

And don't come to California. We've already GOT enough ugly.

LOL!!!

As Vermont not "being about you"....does Vermont fall under the jurisdiction of the United States nad it's laws? Does not Vermont also believe in the Constitution and it's attached Amendments? Does not Vermont believe all it's citizens should have a full set of liberties?

You're an idiot.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#603 Dec 5, 2012
Dan Salazar wrote:
Geez .......let the gays get married. We have bigger problems. We only have Obama for four more years and could face complete financial collapse under the dead weight of his Collectivist agenda.
I call bullshit on that last line.

Little like being a KKK member only to lay claim you represent the local African American community.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#604 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
psst, a zing is a joke....
seriously are you using an English translator?
Funny....but I've never heard it.

Is 'zot' a joke too?

How about 'skow'.....is that a joke?

Talk about making no sense. Your so ignorant you'd claim farting is yet another language.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#605 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you go back and actually READ and realize that was never what I was saying...
Your opinion.

You were unable to anything outside of provide a post which contained a typo only to advise you were unable to understand it.

Put it to bed already....I buried you last night as it was.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#607 Dec 5, 2012
Is there ever a time when you are not lying?
Jane Dough wrote:
And also feel free to insist walker's ruling stands.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general...
Jane Dough wrote:
so you cliam:
1. Baker is not a fedreal case
I never claimed that. I have said that the US Supreme Court has never ruled upon the case, which is true. I have also said that it is not a terribly powerful precedent, a fact that is clearly illustrated by the handful of federal, and appeas, courts that have ignored it.
Jane Dough wrote:
2. hernandez is not a valid case
Is gay marriage legal in NY state, yes or no? If the answer is yes, then Hernandez, and the question is addresses have been superseded. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.
Jane Dough wrote:
3. Walker's ruling still stands
See above. It is stayed, pending appeal, but has been affirmed upon review.
Jane Dough wrote:
and I am officially tired of your ignorance!
You are flat wrong on all three counts.
Actually, it appears you are nothing more than a liar. Of course, that hardly comes as news. YouÂ’ve been dodging simple questions that you find inconvenient from the beginning.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#608 Dec 5, 2012
NoQ wrote:
No Charlie here Fa$$ot, but there's not an argument there because if Queers can't reproduce then they don't have to reproduce either. Besides you HO:MOS are a product of birth defects.
You are quite right, I am sorry. There is merely a moron who hates the US Constitution and wishes to enslave their fellow citizens. Congratulations, you shown yourself to be an arrogant and ignorant imbecile.

Feel free to come up with that legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would render such a restriction constitutional.

For that matter, feel free to pony up some scientific proof to back your claims of birth defect.

Until you do, I shall just regard you as the fool you are, spouting opinion that you have no hope of supporting with fact.
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#609 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah, I dig the live free or die deal..
no seat belts and 5 dollar smokes...
but there is nothing like real woods and real vermonters...
so I stay on this side of the river except to stock up on my tax free indiscretions...
Would it surprise you to know that i represent a great many gay people here?
Sorry about post #603 to the mighty Dan Salazr..LOL!!!

It was meant for this post to the Queen of Stupidity, Jane Dough.

---So tell me....how is a person who goes against the very freedoms of a group become a representative of them?

Looks like bullshit to me.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#611 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Spent some time in Hawaii for my job.
.
don't care, saw an insult and didn't read the rest.
so you typed all that for nothing...

try again without the insults and maybe I will read it...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#612 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny....but I've never heard it.
Urban Dictionary: zing
The new term for owned, said after saying something witty to someone in an insulting manner.

see, I taught you something else!
you are welcome!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#613 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>

You were unable to anything outside of provide a post which contained a typo only to advise you were unable to understand it.
yup, this is the stuff right here above...its not the typos dude, what the heck are you trying to say here?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#614 Dec 5, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have Fa$$ot. I know it's hard for you freaks to accept but what can you expect from born liars like you.
No, you have merely offered irrelevant posts like this one that fail to advance any argument whatsoever, and are peppered with infantile personal insults that make you look like a child. And not a very bright child at that.

Are you capable of indicating a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, or are you satisfied with the juvenile insults you so regularly express?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#615 Dec 5, 2012
lides wrote:
I never claimed that. I have said that the US Supreme Court has never ruled upon the case, which is true.
now being right is a lie to you?

AGAIn, google it...
you are WRONG on all three counts, so I dont mind you repeating them...
and again, you RATIONALIZATIOns are not support, an independant perosn saying hwat you say is...and you hav enone becaeu non eexists to support you since you are flat wrong...

Lets start with this:
1. http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay-issu...

'72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases
The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether it's going to take up a key gay marriage cases. But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.

That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."

want to take a potshot at gayopolis as bigoted?
why do you think they call baker a 72 supreme court ruling?

So there is no "grey" to it, you are flat wrong, as usual.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#616 Dec 5, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have merely offered irrelevant posts like this one that fail to advance any argument whatsoever, and are peppered with infantile personal insults that make you look like a child. And not a very bright child at that.
Are you capable of indicating a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry, or are you satisfied with the juvenile insults you so regularly express?
yup, back to capable...

you are a one trick idiot lides...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#617 Dec 5, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
Queen of Stupidity, Jane Dough.
yup, I saw the insult and read no further, you wasted your time by insulting...
lets see how long it takes for me to train you to be polite...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#618 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
now being right is a lie to you?
AGAIn, google it...
you are WRONG on all three counts, so I dont mind you repeating them...
and again, you RATIONALIZATIOns are not support, an independant perosn saying hwat you say is...and you hav enone becaeu non eexists to support you since you are flat wrong...
Lets start with this:
1. http://www.gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay-issu...
'72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases
The Supreme Court will decide Friday whether it's going to take up a key gay marriage cases. But many people don't realize the high court already kind of ruled against gay marriage in 1972.
That year, the nation's highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson that same-sex unions were not a fundamental right under the federal Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the Minnesota decision, writing only: "Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question."
want to take a potshot at gayopolis as bigoted?
why do you think they call baker a 72 supreme court ruling?
So there is no "grey" to it, you are flat wrong, as usual.
It could, but it won't.

You have decided to hang your hat upon a court case that was decided (by a state supreme court) at a time when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder. If you don't think that fact alone would not color a courts opinion, then perhaps you have a mental disorder.

the reality remains that you have been able to cite Baker, which was never ruled upon by the US SUpreme Court (who dismissed it for want of a substantial federal question; and Hernandez, which was overturned by an act of the legislature. Seeing as Hernandez was a NY state court decision, it only applied to NY. Is same sex marriage allowed in NY? If so, there went half your argument.

The reality is that you have not made much of a case for your position at all, you've merely indicated the same cases over and over. Oddly, I don't need to turn to case law, I can simply cite the equal protection clause, which you have utterly failed to refute by presenting ANY legitimate state interest served by denying equal protection for same sex couples to marry.

I just reposting the following because I find it delightfully inept.
Jane Dough wrote:
you are WRONG on all three counts, so I dont mind you repeating them...
and again, you RATIONALIZATIOns are not support, an independant perosn saying hwat you say is...and you hav enone becaeu non eexists to support you since you are flat wrong...
Dan C

Sacramento, CA

#619 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
don't care, saw an insult and didn't read the rest.
so you typed all that for nothing...
try again without the insults and maybe I will read it...
Err...

....you're not the only one who reads these posts moron.

LOL!!!

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 LGBT kids should be very nervous about Betsy De... 34 min Core Feminist No ... 1
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr guest 496
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 2 hr Bubba Cooder 26
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 3 hr Ryan Blue eyed boy 25
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,504
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 hr TRUMP WINNERS 1,857
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 5 hr Rainbow Kid 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 hr Respect71 42,770
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 8 hr lides 22,323
More from around the web