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

#720 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
say do gays provide both a mother and father?
No. Neither do single parents, divorcees with sole custody, or single adoptive parents.

You see, it has been illustrated for you time and time again that the state Has no legitimate interest in a child being raised by two biological parents, or two opposite sex parents. Do you realize that the vast majority of states even allow gay couples (whether married or not) to adopt?

Any one of these points negate your inept argument on this point.
Jane Dough wrote:
another rational distinction between the infertile and gays...
Well, it’s another mindless rationalization, at least. The state does not have an interest in children being raised by opposite sex parents. This is illustrated by the fact that the state does not intervene in the case of single parents, and will allow adoption to single parents and gay couples (in most jurisdictions).
Jane Dough wrote:
BTW, this counts as a reason, you can agree or not, but claiming I never gave one is BORING...
No, Jane, it doesn’t, because it has been concretely illustrated that the state does not have a legitimate interest in children being raised by biological parents or opposite sex parents.

This is just another pathetic rationalization, that fails to stand up to the lowest level of scrutiny.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#721 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
how many cases do you rely on...
NONE?
and talk about lies...
is Baker a SCOTUS precedent, yes or no?
And the legislature doesn't "overturn" a court...
you rely on basic falsehoods...
With you lying that I ever lied, I think I am totally bored of you now (again).
I don't need to rely upon any at all?

Do you know why?

Because the 14th Amendment mandates that states provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; and you lack the ability to show any state interest served by denying same sex couples such equal protection to marry.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#722 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Neither do single parents, divorcees with sole custody, or single adoptive parents.
and none of these people get marriage benefits..
see how that works?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#723 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to rely upon any at all?
Do you know why?
Because the 14th Amendment mandates that states provide ALL PERSONS within their jurisdiction EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; and you lack the ability to show any state interest served by denying same sex couples such equal protection to marry.
And the first amendment guarantees free speech, except when it doesn't...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#724 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
See, I am explaining to you fact, and you are denying it thinking we are having a "discussion".
We aren't, you are merely stomping your feet telling me the sky is green...and you thinking I should be embarrassed by claiming it is blue...
But way back you claimed it was a state ruling only so at least I got your to learn a small shred even though you wont admit it...
No, you are offering a court case, decided by a state court, at a time when homosexuality was still classified as a mental disorder, that was dismissed by the US Supreme Court for want of a substantial federal question, and has recently been ignored by a number of federal and appellate courts, that you are utterly incapable of defending.

You see Jane, you are utterly incapable of indicating a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Instead, you offer inept rationalizations, such as your assertion that the state has an interest in children being raised by two opposite sex parents, or two biological parents; both of which have been easily disproved.

Oh, and Jane, Baker was only a state ruling. Please provide the full text of the US Supreme Court's ruling on the issue including the majority opinion and any dissent. You can't, because it does not exist.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#725 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
and none of these people get marriage benefits..
see how that works?
That’s irrelevant, the fact that state’s allow the aforementioned people to raise children disproves your idiotic notion that there is a legitimate state interest that children be raised by two opposite sex parents.

Try to keep up. I know you are making things up as quickly as you can, but you really should attempt to remember what rationalization you are trying to make.
Jane Dough wrote:
And the first amendment guarantees free speech, except when it doesn't...
Equal protection can be suspended, when doing so serves a compelling state interest. You simply lack the intelligence to offer any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#726 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

Oh, and Jane, Baker was only a state ruling.
I try not to insult, but this is just stupid.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#727 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
the sky is green, you are not capable of proving the sky is blue.
who is left on the fence
?
lides, you are a d in the middle of lies....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#728 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I try not to insult, but this is just stupid.
If I am wrong, it should be easy to call me out.

Provide a link to the decision of the US Supreme Court on Baker. I bet you cannot.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#729 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
If I am wrong, it should be easy to call me out.
Provide a link to the decision of the US Supreme Court on Baker. I bet you cannot.
psst, I already did...

http://purpleunions.com/blog/2012/11/usa-72-s...

"USA:’72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases"

what case is the article referring to?

the sky is not green...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#730 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
psst, I already did...
http://purpleunions.com/blog/2012/11/usa-72-s...
"USA:’72 Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Current Marriage Equality Cases"
what case is the article referring to?
the sky is not green...
That's not a decision, it is a dismissal.

From your article:
"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.”"

Thank you, for confirming that you are weak minded.

The US Supreme Court has NEVER heard oral arguments, or ruled upon, same sex marriage.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#731 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>

That year, the nation’s highest court briefly weighed in on a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Nelson

The US Supreme Court has NEVER heard oral arguments, or ruled upon, same sex marriage.
so the weighed in on it, but didn't "rule" on it?

The sky is NOT green...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#732 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what punishing?
they don't qualify...
Please show us which part of the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments explains which U.S. Citizens don't qualify for the protections and guarantees of all citizens which are found in the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#733 Dec 6, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You must remember at all times that Jane's dough spent too much time in the BAKER!

Any active yeast cells died a few decades ago in that brain.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#734 Dec 6, 2012
Dan C wrote:
<quoted text>
"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!!!
I'd love for Jane to explain how his claims about Baker being Federal Law, then changing it to what I said aren't a form of judicial activism!

It's going to be so fun tossing whichever SSM cases SCOTUS refuses to hear into Jane's face and make the same claims about them he does about Baker!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#735 Dec 6, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
They do when they reveal that the 'rule' is not based on anything legitimate.
Let's say you, me, 4 other men, and 4 other women are stuck on an island. Some food is found. New rule: men get to eat the food.
I give the food to myself and all the men...and then the 4 other women too, but not you. Why aren't you being fed, Jane? Because you're a woman and the rule is that food is for men. You say the other women get to eat? Well, they're just exceptions. Sorry.
Oh, also our history of hating you has NOTHING TO DO with the food distribution at all.
Jane is actually a man posting under the name "Jane". They explained it to me once.

Needless to say it made no sense.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#736 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I try not to insult, but this is just stupid.
here we go again.

Here is what Jane has claimed in posts written to me.
1) Baker is Federal Law

2) Baker is Federal Precedent

3) Since Baker was never heard by SCOTUS and remended back to MN it's applicable only in MN.

4) BAKER is the definitive SCOTUS case on SSM from the last 40 years.

5) SCOTUS did in fact NOT decide to rule on BAKER

I hope you're better at staying in a lane when driving than you are when being legal counsel for some poor unfortunate.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#737 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I try not to insult, but this is just stupid.
Brilliant.

Not only do you demonstrate your immaturity you also demonstrate your dishonesty.

How about you go back and look at the all the posts you've written and show us where you insulted people.

If you can challenge other posters to do that you should be man enough to take up your own challenge.

But we both know you won't.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#738 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
which is the same you figure it out for polygamy, DUH!
Not necessarily. If I were a man who was inclined to take on wives, what would stop me from marrying the one woman I truly love and also marrying other women who wished to immigrate? We could have a nice little row of adjacent houses, just like Big Love. Pehaps my extra wives would have to pay the mortgages on the houses that were in my name. Perhaps they would also have to perform other duties for the comfort and enjoyment of me and my real wife--or perhaps not. Who is to say whether I visit each of my houses often enough to make the polygamous marriage "real?"

The point is that I can always marry someone else without renouncing my fictitious relationship. People who make one-to-one commitments can't do that.

BTW: I know of gay men who married women for immigration purposes. Since they couldn't marry their true love, they didn't think they were giving anything up. So prohibiting same-sex marriage contributes to immigration fraud.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#739 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so the weighed in on it, but didn't "rule" on it?
The sky is NOT green...
Here's the question you always dodge because it pops your Baker Balloon.

If Baker is the legal precedent you try to claim it is how did DOMA get passed? If every Federal court is bound by Baker like you claim then we'd not have all these other cases now under consideration by SCOTUS. Baker would have been the final word on all of them, if your claims are correct.

Next you'll probably cry "judicial activism" all the while ignoring the judicial activism SCOTUS plays every year when they decide if they have the guts to take on a tough case.

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 Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 1 min Frankie Rizzo 8,767
News Supreme Court extends gay marriage nationwide 1 min TomInElPaso 1,421
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 min Prep-for-Dep 1,048
News How a county clerk is refusing to issue gay mar... 1 min Gremlin 4
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min Helen 34,815
News Standoff over gay marriage licenses wears on, d... 1 min Rainbow Kid Histo... 34
News Well-Known San Antonio Drag Performer Murdered ... 1 min Gremlin 1
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 min lides 2,938
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 min Frankie Rizzo 25,625
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 9 min LeDuped 197
More from around the web