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

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#740 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
again, no. See how you both have to exaggerate my point and then pretend to be offended by you own exaggeration?
Do same sex couples have to deal with the differences in genders as straights do?
answer: NO.
anything else is coming from you. One clown thinks it means you have NO ADVERSITY at all?????...
we all know that just silly, so you take it to mean that I said its MORE IMPORTANT than regular adversity...but somehow I never said that
all of it is a silly deflection from the truth which is :
Do same sex couples have to deal with the differences in genders as straights do?
answer: NO.
So we are DIFFERENT in that way right?
Yet it seems to assume gender differences are greater than individual differences. Each individual is different, and those differences don't necessarily depend on gender. Still, it offers no excuse for denial of an individual right guaranteed to all persons.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#741 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
so the weighed in on it, but didn't "rule" on it?
The sky is NOT green...
Do you understand what dismissed means?

The US Supreme Court DISMISSED the case. They did not hear oral arguments, they did not issue a ruling, they did not "weigh in", they dismissed the case for want of a substantial federal question.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#742 Dec 6, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand what dismissed means?
The US Supreme Court DISMISSED the case. They did not hear oral arguments, they did not issue a ruling, they did not "weigh in", they dismissed the case for want of a substantial federal question.
Don't you just love it when a "lawyer" insists a case SCOTUS says lacks a Federal Question somehow creates a Federal Precedent on a question that SCOTUS says isn't part of the case?

No matter how drunk I get that still makes no sense.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#743 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
very true, but understand that when the court finds the states have tee right to decide, it means the states have the right to decide...
just as 32 have done and you don't agree with...
For now.The next SCOTUS will deal with the remaining state bans.

In the meantime we'll just have to overturn those bans state-by-state.

The 1100+ federal rights & benefits are way more important to most gay couples than state recognition.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#744 Dec 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
For now.The next SCOTUS will deal with the remaining state bans.
In the meantime we'll just have to overturn those bans state-by-state.
The 1100+ federal rights & benefits are way more important to most gay couples than state recognition.
I keep picturing Jane appearing on Judge Judy. In this vision Judge Judy listens to Jane for about two minutes before she instructs him to shut up.

She then tells Bert that if Jane speaks again take your billy club and whack him on the head.

3 Months later Jane is back on TV on the People's Court trying to convince Judge Milian that he deserves damages from Judge Judy over his extended hospital stay.

Judge Milian then dismisses the cas4 because Jane sued Judy and not Bert!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#745 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
that the courts have used rational basis to decide....
you wont address this....
<quoted text>
talk about a strained reading...you want to pin your hat on "for all individuals" when you know this was decided when gays were not even a blip on the radar...
but again, what do you say of the clear theory that the right to procreate IMPLIES the right to marry....
to me that modifies what you wrote to all individuals who could procreate...
Actually the 2nd circuit used intermediate scrutiny; even the 1st circuit used an "enhanced" rational basis test to overturn DOMA.

If the SCOTUS wants to overturn DOMA using rational basis, they'll find a way to do so. I do think it's more likely they'll follow the 2nd circuit and grant quasi-suspect classification and use intermediate scrutiny. That not only makes it easier to overturn DOMA, but also lays the groundwork to overturn all the remaining state bans in the future.

It all depends on whether there are 5 justices who want to overturn DOMA. We all know there are 4 for sure; it all hinges on what Kennedy & Roberts want to do.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#746 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
which you haven't shown.
the fact is, that a gay marriage is an infertile one, 100% of the time...
As is an elderly marriage, 100% of the time.

Fertility and/or procreation have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.

Marriage has NEVER been a requirement of procreation.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#747 Dec 6, 2012
"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." (Justice Kennedy in Lawrence.)

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#748 Dec 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the 2nd circuit used intermediate scrutiny; even the 1st circuit used an "enhanced" rational basis test to overturn DOMA.
If the SCOTUS wants to overturn DOMA using rational basis, they'll find a way to do so. I do think it's more likely they'll follow the 2nd circuit and grant quasi-suspect classification and use intermediate scrutiny. That not only makes it easier to overturn DOMA, but also lays the groundwork to overturn all the remaining state bans in the future.
It all depends on whether there are 5 justices who want to overturn DOMA. We all know there are 4 for sure; it all hinges on what Kennedy & Roberts want to do.
It's going to be interesting watching SCOTUS try to dodge issues like the Supremacy clause and FF&C in all this. Not to mention the commerce clause.

And they will most probably try to ignore anything related to the 14th Amendment in all this as well as the guarantee of religious freedom.

DNF

“Judge more and you love less”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH-Baltimore MD-S.Fla

#750 Dec 6, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As is an elderly marriage, 100% of the time.
Fertility and/or procreation have NEVER been a requirement of marriage.
Marriage has NEVER been a requirement of procreation.
On another thread Kimare is using the idea of a gentic defect to argue against SSM.

But they fail to explain why genetic defects aren't applied to heterosexual couples when limiting marriage rights. A child born blind has a genetic defect but no one is claiming they are trying to re-define marriage.

If two people marry and they carry the Muscular Dystrophy gene, does anyone try to ban them from marriage or claim they are "re-defining" marriage?

Does anyone ever accuse these people of trying to get polygamy legal?
Anonymous

United States

#751 Dec 6, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I read that you are currently serving your Country, is that correct? If so, Thank you for your service and may you have Fair Seas and Following Winds:-)
I'm in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. I'm not in armed service. My hats off to them.
Anonymous

United States

#752 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
very true, but understand that when the court finds the states have tee right to decide, it means the states have the right to decide...
just as 32 have done and you don't agree with...
I can drive. I already did.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#753 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to support yourself...
Then you're misunderstanding what I said,
Jane Dough wrote:
why not go back and look through the public record and cut and paste anything prejudiced that I said...
because what I am saying is that your *attitude* comes off as antigay,
Jane Dough wrote:
I know why you won's as as you point out, anyone here is free to do the same...
Oh, really?

Wait, wait.

So here you are saying what you say and I respond *right back in your face*(so to speak) and you *DON'T* think I would do that again, no matter *WHAT* you had to say?

Do you realize that your *attitude and viewpoints* make you appear prejudiced and bigoted? And that that alone gives me the backbone to stand up to you *anytime*?

You did realize this, right? You did realize why I keep responding to you as I do, correct?
Jane Dough wrote:
I can do this for you as I have already done...need more?
You're free to do as you wish; you know full well I will knock you off your pedestal and rip what you say to shreds,*because* you have the gall to act like you have "rectitude" when you come off as prejudiced and bigoted.

Notice how I'm, for some weird reason,*NOT* backing down right now. The question is, do *YOU* want more?
Jane Dough wrote:
you simply don't like to hear that you are acting like you pretend only other people act...
Well, no: What I'm doing is *standing up for gay people*, and YOU don't like that, so you and flail and flail and *literally lie* about my intentions on the board, and then you come at me here again with your big mouth, acting as if *you* have something to prove about *my* behavior on the boards.

Perhaps you just can't ever get it through your thick, thick skull, but I am standing for *equality and fairness* and so nothing you say is making me flinch or blink. If you don't like it, move to another country. I will *NOT* back down, least of all for some big goddamn mouth who acts like *depriving* people of their rights is somehow "fair."

So it looks like your little "threats" didn't work, "JANE DOUGH," and I have been sure to note them on the board.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#754 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no i don't. I have addressed it many times, including now:
as the first circuit said a few months ago:
"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. "
No, no. No: You are not acknowledging that its *existence* shows that *supreme court justices* can have opinions which are:

meaningless.

Because you don't like that. You don't like that someone like Scalia was overruled and acted like a spoiled, snot-nosed child about it.
Jane Dough wrote:
and again, don't you see yourself doing exactly the same things you accuse me of?
because you are!
This type of comment in gay rights exchanges is *misleading and wrongheaded* for a simple reason, by analogy, which shows just how ludicrous it is:

I direct you, right here and now, to tell me and the board unequivocally that if a white supremacist and a black person are arguing about black rights, it is *fair*-- by your logic -- to claim the black person is behaving just as badly as the white supremacist *for merely arguing FOR the rights of black people*.

Because that's what you just said.

You just acted like the "two sides" are on equal footing. THAT is the huge mistake that makes you sound:

bigoted

and

prejudiced.

Equality is equality. Justice is justice. Your endless, endless refusal to see this *makes you look less-than-stellar* to some other people here.

I realize that people like you feel you are being "silenced." That's because you tried to *FORCE* your reality upon others; over thirty states *BANNED* the right of gay people to have a normal life like anyone else. It was fair to dislike gay people or not want to see or know them; crossing the line and taking away their rights in law has led -- as you can plainly see -- to some of the most vicious exchanges this country has probably ever witnessed, and I am *CERTAINLY NOT* backing down in the face of the vitriol and vomit and horse shit of the antigay,

period.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#755 Dec 6, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
exactly you think your rights
You just assumed these are "my" rights. You assumed that.

Wanted to note that to the board; thanks.
Jane Dough wrote:
are based on how you FEEL about them, and that is simply not true...
When I look at a sentence fragment like:

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,"

looks to me like the founders of our nation were describing:

feelings,

and opinions,

and their very feelings about these existentialities.

So ya know what?

Looks like I'm in good company.

That old "claim" that republicans deal in facts and progressives deal in emotions has forever been annihilated: I have never seen such a bunch of trembling, snotty crybabies, weeping and wailing and screaming, as the *antigay* where gay marriage is concerned. In fact, progressive are dealing in fact and *your* ilk are dealing in emotions, and how they *feel* about "the gays."
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#756 Dec 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
I also mistook what "JANE DOUGH" said when she claimed she was going to start "showing me what I have said"; I was all, uh, know what,*I* wrote it so I'd know, and I am *certainly* making clear to you, "JANE DOUGH," that I *absolutely* will not back down for a nanosecond,

and then a later post clarified her position:

She wasn't literally (at least, I don't think) "threatening" me; she was endeavoring to point out that I am "on the same footing."

That's a laugh.

Like white supremacists and anti-racists are on the same footing?

Uh, no. One side here is RIGHT, and one is WRONG. It really is that simple.

'Cause if it's not, then America is making a joke and a piece of toilet paper of her Constitution and her principles.

Period.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#757 Dec 6, 2012
I just don't get it.

No matter how you contort,*couples raising children* are being denied federal benefits. They are being told they CAN'T have them, and their kids cannot benefit, and the family is *NOT ALLOWED* to take part in those benefits designed to *ease the economic hardships of couples who are raising kids who need love and good care*...

... because the spouses are gay.

How? is? that? not? bigoted?

How are these families "separate" from other families so that they must *bear every hardship* of raising children and *WATCH* the other couples smilingly and happily gain benefits they *CANNOT* have? What purpose does it serve? Why in god's name are *stupid losers* fighting to keep this status quo? When if it were them, they'd *fight for decades* to make sure they had the same rights everyone else did?

Every last individual who doesn't see how bigoted and rapist this is is not a true American, in my eyes. I mean, you might as well take a mimeograph of the United States Constitution and just *cross out* the parts you don't like; just pretend they don't exist. Then use that Constitution to wipe the shit out of your ass. That's what I think of those people, seriously: How do you deprive these families and their kids of these rights? You better hope there's no hell, and no spot waiting for you there; I'll tell you that. I'll tell you that without flinching or blinking. Because *kids* are suffering here. CHILDREN. Goddamn antigay monsters.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#758 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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

4) BAKER is the definitive SCOTUS case on SSM from the last 40 years.
these are a fact
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>here we go again.

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

5) SCOTUS did in fact NOT decide to rule on BAKER
where did you get these from?
this is what lides says...
these are errors...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#759 Dec 7, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Brilliant.

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.
I said I try not to, its really tough with you though....what you have in attitude you unfortunately lack in knowledge...(that not a dig at capacity, you simply do not have the background knowledge and you refuse to accept it...)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#760 Dec 7, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
why would investigating any individual sham marriage be any different from this?

it wouldn't.

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
Christmas Eve NE Jade Party 9 min Alvin 6
Poll: Support for gay marriage drops in Mich. (May '14) 15 min scs2011 61
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 29 min Lars 68,586
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 36 min sam 201,186
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr KiMare 26,892
Church-based institutions ponder same-sex benefits 1 hr Mitt s Baptism of... 10
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 1 hr Mitt s Baptism of... 50
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr jesusHchrist 6,013
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 3 hr NorCal Native 5,128
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr Mikey 2,997
US Moves Toward Dropping Lifetime Ban on Gay Bl... 8 hr NorCal Native 22
More from around the web