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

Nov 28, 2012 Full story: Reuters 1,145

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

#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.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#660 Dec 5, 2012
Come on, "JANE DOUGH," ask yourself why my conviction is so rock-solid and so unwavering, and maybe you'll start getting a clue as to what "rights" are actually about and what "equality" and "humanity" are actually about. Because I'm clearly not hesitating,

again, and again, and again.

Thanks for reading.
Anonymous

United States

#661 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Yes I'm not here to make legal arguments. I've said it. You've agreed with it, I've agreed with you're agreement. If this goes any further well have to get tea.
What I do understand is that if the court strikes down DOMA, the federal government would begin applying federal recognition of marriages performed in states that have legalized it. Did I get that wrong? Please enlighten me because as someone on active duty, I'd appreciate knowing my spouse gets the same benefits as my heterosexual counterparts' spouses.

Since: Dec 12

Tampa, FL

#662 Dec 5, 2012
Gay couples could live together, but definitely not get married.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#663 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
seriously, are you in china translating into English?
you seem ignorant of our culture and the way we write...
Never been to China.

Don't know the language so it would be pretty TOUGH to translate it into English.

Ignorant of "our" culture and the way "we" write?

I don't use the 'Urban Dictionary' or talk like a ghetto pimp.....maybe you do.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#664 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
how about you just explain what the heck you were trying to say instead of getting snarky at me that what you wrote is undecipherable?
Don't forget....undecipherable to you.

Which leads me to think anyone speaking to you above a 6th grade level might leave you in confusion.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#665 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!!!
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!!!
Jane's argument also assumes gender differences are greater than individual differences, as well as ignoring the challenges gay people face as a result of the prejudice she displays.

Everyone is different. Finding a match goes well beyond gender for those who aren't participating in an arranged marriage.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#666 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
there sure are a lot of references to procreation and child rearing as well as a subtle tone that there is an interrelation between these concepts...
you must see it, right?
how is a piece of paper "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."? it snot, but procreation is...
wait, wasn't procreation in the original line from skinner? why yes it was...
inneresting isnt it?
"[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society”"
what interests, procreation and child rearing?
" an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." what is that purpose?
procreation?
either way, you have to admit there sure is a lot of talk about these things together for there to be no connection as you claim...
Procreation was brought into past arguments whic sought to ban gay marriage.

That is a fsct but it is also a fact latest court rulings give credence to your inference procreation is an essential factor in determining what constitutes a viable marriage.

The entire idea of it is asenine given many straight married couples either cannot or choose not to have children let alone the fundemental aspect of marriage is a union between 2 adults.

Dance around some more sister because you just lost any point you were trying to make.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#667 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you miss that the connection of marriage and procreation requires the procreation at issue to be between the parties to the marriage...
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
I call bullshit on this one.

We have 2 neighbors whom are both married and both are professionals. They are in their 50's and late 40's. Neither couple has kids.

Are you to tell me they aren't married???

LOL!!!!!!!

You God damned brain dead bitch. You're so loopy I'd be surprised if you didn't straddle the bathroom sink to take a leak and brush your teeth in the toilet.

LOL!!!

Ar
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#668 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
How many times did you flunk the LSAT before giving into the fact you'll never be a lawyer given your brains are more scrambled than a rasberry milkshake set on puree?

LOL!!!!!!

You ignorant bitch. Your arguments do not follow a train of thought....instead they dance around. You get nailed on one of your "points" only to slipshod your way into another area.

You wouldn't be convincing to a 6 year old in doing to much as telling him Santy Claus will be coming down the chimney on Christmas Eve you're so ignorant...LOL!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#669 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
And since I already specifically said I do not think you have NO differences to overcome..
I mean, duh, I have friends!
Really?

Who?

The people whom are caught in having to take a 3 minute elevator ride with you from the 1st floor to the 11th?

The clerk at 7-11 who sells you your nightly case of Budweiser Light?

Maybe you throw in your psychiatrist as well because he's nice to you as well.

ROFL!!!!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#670 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Listen moron....don't you think court cases involving the definition of marriage which bring procreation into the room will strike it given the fact you essentially are not required to pop out kiddies like popcorn if you get married?

Logic.

It's a concept that must confuse you entirely.
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#671 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, its up to the legislature in all cases...
we just got used to judicial activism, that doesn't make it right...
"Judicial activism"...LOL!!!

Love your introduction of non-existant scenarios and verbage.

When you get a ticket from the Vermont Highway Patrol for speeding....is it "biased police discretion" because you claim your minivan can't go over 52 MPH and you think the cop issued you a citation because he doesn't like fat women wear5ing curlers on the roadways?

LOL!!!
Dan C

Roseville, CA

#672 Dec 5, 2012
MichelH wrote:
Gay couples could live together, but definitely not get married.
Really.

Where?

In your backyard?

LOL!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#673 Dec 5, 2012
MichelH wrote:
Gay couples could live together, but definitely not get married.
Awww, it must suck to be you......because we are already getting married and staying married:-)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#674 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane's argument also assumes gender differences are greater than individual differences, as well as ignoring the challenges gay people face as a result of the prejudice she displays.
Everyone is different. Finding a match goes well beyond gender for those who aren't participating in an arranged marriage.
Exactly:-)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#675 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you miss that the connection of marriage and procreation requires the procreation at issue to be between the parties to the marriage...
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
Exceptions are made for heteros who can't procreate together. No reason another exception can't be made of same-sex couples who can't procreate together.

We'll just be another exception, like infertile couples, or elderly couples, and those who choose not to procreate.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#676 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you miss that the connection of marriage and procreation requires the procreation at issue to be between the parties to the marriage...
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
<quoted text>
no, they say that procreation is the right that forms the basis for marriage rights. I mean, what else could all those lines that you put forward mean?
How many times do they have to always add procreation after marriage does it take for you to at least admit they are generally treated as connected...
Commitment is not REQUIRED, and many do not commit... do you think commitment is connected to marriage?
the reality is that procreation is none of their business and if we want to be married to procreate then they have to back off...
I mean this is the logic that is central to every decision you cited... its right there in the very language you cited....
and stated expressly in Zablocki...
" 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."
"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection." IF our right to procreate means anything we have to be able to procreate in the relationship we wish... that's the law. that's why procreation distinguishes you..
its not bigotry, its understanding the basis of PRIVACY and how we do not have a right to privacy to GOVT RECOGNITION issued by the state...
you are messing up a whole line of privacy jurisprudence and skewing the very foundation of what our constitution does and whom it is meant to keep in check.
Adopted children and biological children of one parent are treated equally to biological children. The biological argument holds no weight. Adopted children are no less valuable under the law. Your both parent procreation requirement is your prejudice, not a reflection of reality.

Marriage is a commitment. It is a legally binding contract that commits the two parties to each other in a wide variety of ways.

I understand the connection has been made that raising children is important to continuation of the species, and marriage provides stability for adults and children alike, yet marriage isn't required for raising children, and children aren't required for marriage. Marriage is so fundamental of a right, that procreation is not required to make it a fundamental right. It is a right even for those who cannot possible procreate, or even have sex, as some of those court cases affirm. It is the joining of two people for life, even after any children have left, as well as for those who are sterile due to age or otherwise. While providing security for children and adults alike, children aren't required. Again, the biological argument is your prejudice, not the findings of the courts.

But lets look again at Zablocki: "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." Lesbians get pregnant. There is no law prohibiting a lesbian from getting pregnant. If her right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter into marriage. Zablocki concludes: "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.” Not just straight people who can procreate together, but ALL INDIVIDUALS.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#677 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
And some of them make it clear the right to marry remains a right even when the ability to procreate does not exist. None of them require the ability of procreation for marriage to be a right. They all agree it is a fundamental right of all persons.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#678 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you miss that the connection of marriage and procreation requires the procreation at issue to be between the parties to the marriage...
put another way, your right to marry each other is based on your right to procreate together...
<quoted text>
no, they say that procreation is the right that forms the basis for marriage rights. I mean, what else could all those lines that you put forward mean?
How many times do they have to always add procreation after marriage does it take for you to at least admit they are generally treated as connected...
by your standards nothing is required of a marriage but two people and a piece of paper, but clearly that is not what the court is referring to.
Commitment is not REQUIRED, and many do not commit... do you think commitment is connected to marriage?
And look at what a fundamental right is, as you said the other day, its none of the gov'ts business...
how is a marriage license they issue, none of their business...
the reality is that procreation is none of their business and if we want to be married to procreate then they have to back off...
I mean this is the logic that is central to every decision you cited... its right there in the very language you cited....
and stated expressly in Zablocki...
"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."
"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection." IF our right to procreate means anything we have to be able to procreate in the relationship we wish... that's the law. that's why procreation distinguishes you..
its not bigotry, its understanding the basis of PRIVACY and how we do not have a right to privacy to GOVT RECOGNITION issued by the state...
you are messing up a whole line of privacy jurisprudence and skewing the very foundation of what our constitution does and whom it is meant to keep in check.
what the institution is, is not just the state licenses, it is what our constitution has said it is, a fundamental relationship because it is one in which we are able to procreate TOGETHER....
and yes, there are couples that have no interest in kids at all who marry, and in a sense they are free riders....and there are always free riders...but that some are is no reason to say everyone must get it...
especially when their addition negates a basic element of what a marriage is as is clearly demonstrated in that case law...
I mean, what if we decided that people who married for legal status, like immigration, was just fine since other people don't commit in their marriages...
see what i mean?
Procreation is not a requirement for the purchase of a $35 marriage license
.
Both marriage license applicants are required to remain fully clothed with both feet planted firmly on the floor in front of the cashier's window

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
Questions linger on gay Boy Scout leaders as Ga... 10 min Fa-Foxy 7
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 16 min Brian_G 56,247
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 25 min Shiro Hima 1,631
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 35 min cpeter1313 696
Once more on fascism knocking on the Balkan doo... (Aug '09) 57 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 2,123
Beck: Liberals Won't Condemn Islam Because of '... 1 hr Fundies R Mentall... 10
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 1 hr WasteWater 10
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,277
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 2 hr Pietro Armando 1,033
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 3 hr Fundies R Mentall... 130
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 4 hr WeTheSheeple 165

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE