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
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#640 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It's never been clear to me how the maintenance on those bridges is split. I know we own them, but I assume Vermont helps out with the cost of maintaining them.(Afterall, Vermonters need them to come here, where they can save the sales tax!)
actually, Vermont only pays for what is above the high water mark on the VT side...
VT actually offered to try to pay for a part of the bridge, but NH wasn't into putting up anything...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

I wonder how many members of your gay and lesbian caucus voted against marriage equality?
funny, I know of two men who, maybe in jest, claimed to have wanted a no vote so that their partner wouldnt try to up the ante...
I believe one referred to the prospect of married life as "bland"...
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Actually, lesbians have never had that conversation around me. They must be tweaking the noses of straight men. Perhaps they heard you and your friends bragging about your penises and wanted to let you know how well they had that covered. Or perhaps they were hinting that you might want to give one as a gift to your wife or girlfriend.
Oh no, they were rather adamant that they wanted to give theirs to my wife!

but seriously, it was not an isolated observation, so I was just curious...

odd question, but do you watch modern family?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#641 Dec 5, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that just because our marriages involve 2 people of the Same-Sex that we DON'T have to overcome any differences, says who?
no. I didn't say you don't overcome ANY differences...
I said you do not have to overcome the very differences in the sexes, and you don't!

You can deny there are differences between the sexes, but most people including me aren't buying that...
I mean if you are lesbian, you are unattracted to men as a whole, how can they not be different when you choose only one sex to be with? If there was no difference, you would have no preference!

Women are from venus, men are from, what do you care....

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#642 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married, BUT don't have children together, your assessment is not wrong, but totally irrelevant.

Again, both the right to marry and the right procreate are FUNDAMENTAL and can not be removed for any reason, which has been demonstrated in cases like Skinner, Zablocki, Loving and Griswold.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#643 Dec 5, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are married, BUT don't have children together, your assessment is not wrong, but totally irrelevant.
Again, both the right to marry and the right procreate are FUNDAMENTAL and can not be removed for any reason, which has been demonstrated in cases like Skinner, Zablocki, Loving and Griswold.
right, they say that if our right to keep procreation is "none of the government's business" than we must have some right to marry should we choose that as the way we want to have those kids:

" The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Skinner was a forced sterilization case in which they discussed marriage anyway...curious, since you say they are not related. Skinner was then cited in Loving, a marriage case...curious that a sterilization case was used to support the proposition that marriage was a fundamental right in loving...
Zablocki, see the quote above...
And Griswold is a case where procreational privacy was found protected in marital relationship...

so procreation was discussed and connected to marriage in all four of these cases...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#644 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
" The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
You seem to be fixated on certain parts of cases that really are irrelevant to the case itself......like the above quote from Zablocki vs Redhail.........which had NOTHING to do with what the State of Wisconsin attempted to do to Zablocki!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#645 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, they say that if our right to keep procreation is "none of the government's business" than we must have some right to marry should we choose that as the way we want to have those kids:
" The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
Skinner was a forced sterilization case in which they discussed marriage anyway...curious, since you say they are not related. Skinner was then cited in Loving, a marriage case...curious that a sterilization case was used to support the proposition that marriage was a fundamental right in loving...
Zablocki, see the quote above...
And Griswold is a case where procreational privacy was found protected in marital relationship...
so procreation was discussed and connected to marriage in all four of these cases...
Marriage and Procreation WERE mentioned in all 4 cases, that DOESN'T mean they are connected......otherwise, heterosexual couples who do not procreate would otherwise be denied the right to marry and their not!!!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#646 Dec 5, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Which is served by punishing same sex couples and their non-biologically related families how?
what punishing?

they don't qualify...
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>

Dear, under common law, the federal government
I would ask you to put up any support for this novel theory...
I would expect you to find the mantra "there is no federal common law"

As the Erie Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", with the operative word being "general."

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#647 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no. I didn't say you don't overcome ANY differences...
I said you do not have to overcome the very differences in the sexes, and you don't!
You can deny there are differences between the sexes, but most people including me aren't buying that...
I mean if you are lesbian, you are unattracted to men as a whole, how can they not be different when you choose only one sex to be with? If there was no difference, you would have no preference!
Women are from venus, men are from, what do you care....
No, you've implied before that because we happen to be of the same sex that we don't have to overcome any differences.....but hey, lie if ya need to, it must be a real ego buster for ya!!!

Besides, how do you know what any Gay man or Lesbian has had to go through.......you simply don't and ya think you know everything about our lives and experiences just because a few Lesbians are supposedly interested in your wife......which I simply doubt, but regardless of whether you believe that or not.......it's simply irrelevant to this discussion!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#648 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
Oh no, they were rather adamant that they wanted to give theirs to my wife!
In that case, I would have to think they were telling you to stick something large somewhere.
but seriously, it was not an isolated observation, so I was just curious...
odd question, but do you watch modern family?
Modern family? No. We watched I think an episode and a half. Which was two episodes too many for us.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#649 Dec 5, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be fixated on certain parts of cases that really are irrelevant to the case itself......like the above quote from Zablocki vs Redhail.........which had NOTHING to do with what the State of Wisconsin attempted to do to Zablocki!!!
in Zablocki, they tried to deny them the right to marry...

It was a part of a LONG discussion in Zablocki where the court essentially follows the logic I have explained...

I mean, EVERY SCOTUS case that you can find that discusses procreation discusses marriage and vice versa...
thats a pretty big coinkidink!

And if the logic were any different, how could they affirm the decision in baker which is clearly using procreation as the distinguisher...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#650 Dec 5, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you've implied before that because we happen to be of the same sex that we don't have to overcome any differences.....but hey, lie if ya need to, it must be a real ego buster for ya!!!
Oh, I get it, I said that another time...not this time though right, even though you pretended I did?

"but hey, lie if ya need to"

How about the more probable scenario which is thatyou misread it last time EXACTLY as you did this time?

And since I already specifically said I do not think you have NO differences to overcome..
I mean, duh, I have friends!
So I'd say its not likely I ever said that because I don't MEAN that...
and it seems clear you have little interest in what I said or mean, you just want to call me liar! Which is odd since you are the one not being really honest...
anything to avoid the actual comment, that you do not have to overcome the differences in gender is a FACT!
You just know not to be so bold as to suggest there are no differences between the genders...
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

Besides, how do you know what any Gay man or Lesbian has had to go through.......you simply don't !
right, because the relationships are totally DIFFERENT right?

“Science not Conservatism”

Since: Jan 12

Progress, not Denial

#651 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I was saying the court found gay marriage wasn't a right. you agree right?
So the reason is the courts decision in baker specifically finding that to be the case...
We specifically need to pass a national defense of MARRIAGE law which includes gay people. If the courts can't be trusted to guarantee our rights, the Congress must step up and do the right thing.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#652 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
In that case, I would have to think they were telling you to stick something large somewhere.
funny, but no. I do wonder though, if they love penis so much, why can't they love men?
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>

Modern family? No. We watched I think an episode and a half. Which was two episodes too many for us.
Just so you know why I asked, while its been touted as a show in support of gays, I actually think its kinda critical in a reality based way (as much as tv can relate to reality at all).

Anyway, I was going to suggest that the gay couple's problems with their kid are similar to what i have seen...
almost too much love...

they also had an episode about the issue of biological relation....

I mean its a fictional show and all, but I though it was a good basis for a discussion because no one can really be offended by fiction...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#653 Dec 5, 2012
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
We specifically need to pass a national defense of MARRIAGE law which includes gay people. If the courts can't be trusted to guarantee our rights, the Congress must step up and do the right thing.
actually, its up to the legislature in all cases...
we just got used to judicial activism, that doesn't make it right...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#654 Dec 5, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage and Procreation WERE mentioned in all 4 cases, that DOESN'T mean they are connected......otherwise, heterosexual couples who do not procreate would otherwise be denied the right to marry and their not!!!
they were mentioned in alomst every case that discusses marriage...
and many of them base the right to marry on procreation...
but thats not to say its REQUIRED.

To that they affirmed this language:

"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

That's you argument right there being basically laughed out as a "rhetorical demand"... that's fancy for bulls!te...

So is it bigotry to mention procreation or is it just acknowledging all of this case law over the last 100 years?
Anonymous

United States

#655 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
The post I replied to showed the SCOTUS has done so in every single marriage case...
so I'd flip it and say you can deny it until you are blue int he face but...
but you guys seem to like rhetorical type arguments better so I will ask you, do we bar close relatives from marrying?
the reason is an intersection of the expectation of procreation (incest) and marriage...
go figure!
I've already given you alternate reasons for this. And the court has only mentioned procreation tangentially. It's never directly stated you need to have kids to be married or be married to have kids. You know that's true.

I do anesthesia for a living. I don't practice law. Don't expect me to quote cases.

However, I am aware that 10 cases sit in limbo before the SCOTUS and they ALL favor gay marriage. So there must be some legal experts who think you're FOS, and I agree.

I also know you like to point out that a majority of states have laws against gay marriage. Point taken. Many of those states enacted those laws in the 90s however, and times change.

Also, with a majority of anti-gay being closer to 88 than 18, is say times are changing fast.

If I were a betting ma, I'd put all my money on gay marriage. I wouldn't be sitting in your shoes for anything.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#656 Dec 5, 2012
AdamAZ wrote:
<quoted text>

However, I am aware that 10 cases sit in limbo before the SCOTUS and they ALL favor gay marriage. So there must be some legal experts who think you're FOS, and I agree.
see I knew you like the rhetorical rather than factual or legal arguments!

you should read some of them..
the DOMA cases in particular...
they don't say what you think they do...
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#657 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you are a bigot.. face facts.
This is the kind of contention that I call an "act of rape" on the part of someone like you.

Believing it to be "extremely terrible and damaging," you make this contention on a public board, and people like you seem to get pissed off when the other person gets back in your face -- like I'm about to do in 3, 2, 1 ...

You realize this board shows a *PUBLIC RECORD* of our conversation and thus shows you to be willfully, deliberately lying about this specific matter? In fact, it looks to me like you, knowing you're bigoted and prejudiced, are trying to "turn the tables," but if you've read this far, you know you've failed.

What kind of antigay monster would make a contention like this when the *BOARD PUBLICLY SHOWS* that you're lying and that you are, in fact, the hatefully prejudiced and bigoted individual here?

You tell me, because I'm right here and you were told I don't suffer fools gladly.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#658 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
classic...
yah, I leave that "legal argument" alone...
I mentioned Lawrence v. Texas multiple times; you avoided every mention of it.

Logic dictates that if you believe your legal arguments, you *disagree* with that ruling -- meaning you don't leave the "legal argument" alone.

My guess is, you're too spineless to CALL the judges out on their misapplication of fact. The pro-gay are able to *diagram why* verdicts against gay rights are bullshit; you sit there thinking you will *STOP* them or me from making this statement?

You think you will *STOP* people from making this statement by "ridiculing" them when the pro-gay can *diagram* the reasons these verdicts are nonsense.

Try again, because I'm sitting here and I apparently didn't fall for it, and am *reiterating* that verdicts against gay rights make judges look: uneducated, unknowledgeable, and illogical.

Doesn't it suck when I just come right back and *reiterate* what I said as if you didn't even speak?

How's that working out for you?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#659 Dec 5, 2012
Again: Judges who render verdicts *against* full gay rights are:

uneducated,

unknowledgeable,

and illogical.

Why do I so *boldly* make this statement multiple times, no matter what "JANE DOUGH" says?

Because in less than two minutes, any pro-gay-rights person can *diagram fact for fact* why it's true, explaining *explicitly* why these verdicts do *NOTHING* to stop the existence of gay people or their rights to form relationships and raise children, serving the *sole* purpose of upholding *animus and hatred* against them by *depriving* them of state rights we know are legitimate because *heterosexual couples* have them,

period.

The difference between me and "JANE DOUGH" is that she would be terrified to make these statements and I would tell any judge to his face without blinking that I doubted his acumen, education and sensibility in light of an antigay verdict.

Wouldn't. even. blink.

Mark my words.

Again, why?

Because of *l-o-g-i-c*; look it up.

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) 1 hr Brian_G 6,077
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,726
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr NorCal Native 3,025
The NE Jade Christmas Day Thread 3 hr Farmsworth 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr Religionthebiglie 51,284
After 30 years, AIDS has become a 'Black disease' (Jun '11) 3 hr Jason 37
26 'Gay' Men Arrested at Cairo Bathhouse Caged ... 3 hr KiMerde 1
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 5 hr NorCal Native 5,169
Florida clerks won't give gays marriage licenses 5 hr NorCal Native 21
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 11 hr Poopdeck Pappy 68,588
More from around the web