NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: EDGE 263

The leaders of the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage are furious that the LGBT community made great strides after Election Day.

Full Story

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#105 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say it as many times as you like, it's simply not true.
How about this, find a credible source that supports your interpretation. Here is mine:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...
No. 10-2204
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
__________
Nos. 10-2207 & 10-2214
DEAN HARA,
Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
NANCY GILL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
KEITH TONEY, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON,
in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State,
Defendant.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). 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. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
In other words, Baker does not apply in full so as to resolve the case (as federalism concerns due to a a FEDERAL statute is at issue), but it does APPLY as BINDING PRECEDENT to prevent any claim to a right to gay marriage.
so, I have put up a recent federal court decision that fully supports me...WHERE IS YOURS?
again, you can intelligently claim Baker's precedential value is weakened due to certain factors, but saying it is not a federal case/law/precedent is just ignorant.
You want examples fine:

Look at the cases the Court is considering hearing this Friday that found we deserve equal protection under the 14th.

Defense of Marriage Act: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill; Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Massachusetts; Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski; Windsor v. U.S.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

And there are even more in the pipeline.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politi...

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#106 Nov 26, 2012
To Jane D'oh!

Here's another one that ignores your "Baker precedent".

November 25, 2012
Same-sex case ruling favors gay employee

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Same-se...

I'm starting to notice you have a hard time admitting when you make an error or 12.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#107 Nov 26, 2012
BTW that wasn't a misprint. I meant twelve!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#108 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
How can these newer Court decisions be possible if Baker is the law of the Land?
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
The other thing I've been wondering about is your apparent need to prove your smarter than me. Why do I make you insecure?
inneresting that you think I am threatened by you being flat wrong...which you are...
I noticed you provided no support for yourself...
just a veiled back peddle...("if Baker is the main legal precedent")
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW I still say if Baker is the main legal precedent in this area DOMA violates it. So until it's decided if separate but equal is allowed under DOMA, you're just whistling in the wind.
this is all off base...truly...
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
I've pointed out to you enough times the similarities between SSM and the battle over inter-racial marriage. You're welcome to ignore them all you want. They still exist.
again, off base. there is no connection factually or legally...
most importantly, blacks are the main suspect classification, and gays are not a suspect classification...
look them up.( i don't say that to "sound" smarter...I am simply saying if you want to know what is what, READ ABOUT IT...)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#109 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
To Jane D'oh!
Here's another one that ignores your "Baker precedent".
November 25, 2012
Same-sex case ruling favors gay employee
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Same-se...
I'm starting to notice you have a hard time admitting when you make an error or 12.
yup, here is ANOTHER DOMA case...just like the one I cited from that said Baker applies but does not fully resolve the issue a FEDERAL statute presents...

STATE'S rights!

speaking of refusing to admit an error (or 12), is Baker federal law?
Yes, you did not know about "Mandatory Review" and were wrong that the scotus refused to hear it...
care to man up?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#110 Nov 26, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Cannibalism is considered as normal behaviour? In what fantasy land do you live in where that's true?
He lives on Fake Lawyer Island.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#111 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>

again, off base. there is no connection factually or legally...
most importantly, blacks are the main suspect classification, and gays are not a suspect classification...
look them up.( i don't say that to "sound" smarter...I am simply saying if you want to know what is what, READ ABOUT IT...)
Federal Court decisions supporting the Right to marry for same sex couples is off base when discussing your insistence that Baker was the final word on this question?

Why ? Because you say so? Or perhaps its because they destroy your claims.

You challenged me to provide you cases, which I did.

Now you say those are irrelevant?

You're hysterical!

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#112 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, here is ANOTHER DOMA case...just like the one I cited from that said Baker applies but does not fully resolve the issue a FEDERAL statute presents...
STATE'S rights!
speaking of refusing to admit an error (or 12), is Baker federal law?
Yes, you did not know about "Mandatory Review" and were wrong that the scotus refused to hear it...
care to man up?
Care to man up now, yourself?

I've never claimed to be a legal scholar in Constitutional law. But yet I still seem to be able to counter nearly every claim you make. And yes I do know what mandatory review means.

Frankly I'm sort of flattered I've gotten under your skin.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#113 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
He lives on Fake Lawyer Island.
You are seriously pathetic. But we both knew that already...

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#114 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
He lives on Fake Lawyer Island.
Don't you love the fact that I can be so good in arguing with said "lawyer" when I'm a simple High School grad with no law degree?

Did he not ask me for cases?

Did I not provide them?

Didn't he just say those cases are irrelevant? I thought that part was hysterical considering one of the cases I used might be one SCOTUS decides to hear this Friday.

And he tells ME to man up?

LMFAO
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#115 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Federal Court decisions supporting the Right to marry for same sex couples is off base when discussing your insistence that Baker was the final word on this question?
!
What in the heck are you talking about now?

I dunno, I just know I never said this nonsense...

And BTW, I already said you can claim its precedential value is weakened...
which you "interpret" as "Baker is the final word"?
are you even reading?
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
You challenged me to provide you cases, which I did.
Now you say those are irrelevant?
You're hysterical!
No I said find support that Baker is NOT a federal precedent....and you will not find ANY...
I QUOTED you from a DOMA decision, obviously I am aware of those decisions.

But I have to ask honestly, If you were unaware of the seminal scotus cases and you cling to your erroneous belief (you are starting to see you were wrong) that Baker is a not a fedreal case at what point can you admit that I have more knowledge here than you..instead you have to get snippy that I think I am smarter... hardly! If i didn't think you could understand I wouldn't try to explain,
but the fact is I have lots of knowledge and experience here...

so why try to ignore that?

So again, that courts ruled against a federal law is not relevant to the precedential value of Baker...its that simple!

so, again, can you admit that Baker was a federal precedent?
I mean, its a FACT...so I am really just asking if you can grasp reality or not.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#116 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Care to man up now, yourself?
I've never claimed to be a legal scholar in Constitutional law. But yet I still seem to be able to counter nearly every claim you make. And yes I do know what mandatory review means.
Frankly I'm sort of flattered I've gotten under your skin.
lol.... it's quite easy. All one needs to do is point out the error in his "logic" and he flies into a narcissistic rage. The longer he rages, the faster he spits out clues to his lack of training.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#117 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You are seriously pathetic. But we both knew that already...
You're the one who just said my citing Defense of Marriage Act: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill; Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Massachusetts; Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski; Windsor v. U.S.
and Hollingsworth v. Perry were off base when discussing SSM rights and Constitutional law.

One of the biggest cases in History (Hollingsworth v. Perry) about all this you say is off base and irrelevant when SCOTUS may actually decide to HEAR it (which it didn't do with your precious Baker decision.

You're the one that needs to "man up".
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#118 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>But yet I still seem to be able to counter nearly every claim you make.
But you haven't, you just merely repeatedly fail to understand that
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And yes I do know what mandatory review means.
obviously not, or you would not be insisting Baker is a state case...
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Frankly I'm sort of flattered I've gotten under your skin.
That I am appalled you would insist on being wrong rather than look it up?
That's how you get your jollies, having other people be shocked at your erroneous pigheadedness?

good luck with that!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#119 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you love the fact that I can be so good in arguing with said "lawyer" when I'm a simple High School grad with no law degree?
Did he not ask me for cases?
Did I not provide them?
Didn't he just say those cases are irrelevant? I thought that part was hysterical considering one of the cases I used might be one SCOTUS decides to hear this Friday.
And he tells ME to man up?
LMFAO
I asked you for support that Baker is not a federal case...
if the computer lab is open, google and see if you can find it...

honestly kid, you think you are doing better than you are.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#120 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you love the fact that I can be so good in arguing with said "lawyer" when I'm a simple High School grad with no law degree?
Did he not ask me for cases?
Did I not provide them?
Didn't he just say those cases are irrelevant? I thought that part was hysterical considering one of the cases I used might be one SCOTUS decides to hear this Friday.
And he tells ME to man up?
LMFAO
Yeah well, he's normal....

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#121 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>.....
So again, that courts ruled against a federal law is not relevant to the precedential value of Baker...its that simple!
so, again, can you admit that Baker was a federal precedent?
I mean, its a FACT...so I am really just asking if you can grasp reality or not.
Ok I'm glad you explained that cases that can overturn a legal precedent you rely on aren't relevant to that precedent.

Happy Now?

LMAO!

I'd offer you a shovel but you're more in need of a really long ladder to climb out of the hole you dug yourself.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#122 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one who just said my citing Defense of Marriage Act: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill; Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Massachusetts; Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski; Windsor v. U.S.
and Hollingsworth v. Perry were off base when discussing SSM rights and Constitutional law.
One of the biggest cases in History (Hollingsworth v. Perry) about all this you say is off base and irrelevant when SCOTUS may actually decide to HEAR it (which it didn't do with your precious Baker decision.
You're the one that needs to "man up".
How about this question: If SCOTUS refuses to hear Perry, does it become federal precedent for States voting on marriage rights?

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#123 Nov 26, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you for support that Baker is not a federal case...
if the computer lab is open, google and see if you can find it...
honestly kid, you think you are doing better than you are.
Baker became a Federal Case under Mandatory review.

Yes I agree.

It was never heard by SCOTUS but remanded back to the State under the States Rights doctrine.

Since it was found to lack a constitutional question I find it odd you insist it sets precedent in Constitutional law!

Explain this please. How can a case that has SCOTUS itself says has no constitutional question be considered legal precedent under Constitutional Law.

It's the question you keep avoiding.

Feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.

I'll just sit back and laugh.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#124 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>lol.... it's quite easy. All one needs to do is point out the error in his "logic" and he flies into a narcissistic rage. The longer he rages, the faster he spits out clues to his lack of training.
SCOTUS says a case has no Constitutional Question and this one keeps saying it does.

LMAO!

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min Snitched off Elto... 57,146
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min John Galt 1,173,427
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min Igor Trip 142,394
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 21 min Blackhorse 12,456
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 21 min Tony17 11,242
McCain gives thumbs up to 'American Sniper' movie 27 min Dont Snow Me 102
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 36 min Gary 1
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr red and right 168,345
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 hr red and right 305,024
More from around the web