Gay couples ask high court for marria...

Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality

There are 220 comments on the The Daily Democrat story from Feb 22, 2013, titled Gay couples ask high court for marriage equality. In it, The Daily Democrat reports that:

Choosing a broad legal strategy with national implications, gay marriage advocates on Thursday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's ban on same-sex nuptials and declare all such state laws unconstitutional.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Democrat.

BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#176 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what we're doing by passing marriage equality.
One of the reasons I decided to get legally married after being together for 20 years was because I knew it would drive you & your fellow whacko fundies crazy!
It certainly seems to be working!!!
Obviously you know nothing, Sheeple.(What a surprise.) I'm nowhere a fundie, or a christian of any kind. Hell, I reject ALL organized religion! Had you any honesty (or memory), you would remember that I skewer fundies on a regular basis for being inflexibly anti-gay and/or just plain ridiculous... much like you tend to be.

Then again, perhaps you're just a lying.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#177 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Let me get this straight (pardon the expression). It's quite fine for you to TELL me what I should or should not do (i.e., "...don't suggest a CU) but I am not permitted to support something different than *you* favor. Your hypocrisy is glaringly evident.
I haven't seen any class at all coming from you, second, low, or otherwise, and I'm not talking in a legal context. Don't you ever tire of being exposed as a fraud?
The only fraud here is you. You reiterate this every time you argue for less than equal protection of the law, or a separate status for equal legal protection, both of which are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps you could indicate why same sex couples should be denied equal protection of the law to marry?

I can't wait to hear your spin.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#178 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can claim whatever you want; every post proves how anti-gay you are.
I don't need anyone's pity.
You get my pity and contempt anyway, and not because you are gay. Your orientation is of no concern to me. It's because you are so bitter, stupid, and a liar... although your being stupid is maybe not your fault. You were born that way.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#179 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
You get my pity and contempt anyway, and not because you are gay. Your orientation is of no concern to me. It's because you are so bitter, stupid, and a liar... although your being stupid is maybe not your fault. You were born that way.
Funny, you earn my contempt by arguing that fellow citizens should be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law, which is in direct defiance of the US Constitution.

Can you begin to offer any legitimate state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional?

I don't think you can.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#180 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Let me get this straight (pardon the expression). It's quite fine for you to TELL me what I should or should not do (i.e., "...don't suggest a CU) but I am not permitted to support something different than *you* favor. Your hypocrisy is glaringly evident.
I haven't seen any class at all coming from you, second, low, or otherwise, and I'm not talking in a legal context. Don't you ever tire of being exposed as a fraud?
Exactly what is hypocritical about refusing second class status?...and you aren't trying to conflate a freedom of speech arguement with a freedom to marry arguement, are you? No.... you would catch that before you click 'post comment.' Oooops... you missed one.

Don't you ever tire of being exposed as a damaged, neurotic mess? What the matter, did your dog die? Need someone to kick?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#181 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You get my pity and contempt anyway, and not because you are gay. Your orientation is of no concern to me. It's because you are so bitter, stupid, and a liar... although your being stupid is maybe not your fault. You were born that way.
Who worked a number on you? Parents? Big brother?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#182 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously you know nothing, Sheeple.(What a surprise.) I'm nowhere a fundie, or a christian of any kind. Hell, I reject ALL organized religion! Had you any honesty (or memory), you would remember that I skewer fundies on a regular basis for being inflexibly anti-gay and/or just plain ridiculous...
Yes, we know. It's called being two faced. You get off on spitting venon.... doesn't matter onto whom.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#183 Feb 25, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
two actions do not suddenly reverse the fact that you are a charlatan.
<quoted text>
feel free to specifically illustrate my prejudice. I support equal protection of the laws. It's in the constitution.
the insult to your intelligence is implied.
I quote you as follows:
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a partisan tool, and not even a particularly effective one.


Your "implied" insult to my intelligence is noted and ignored for cause.

You wrote one reasonable post. Most others are just silly BS and were ignored.n I should probably ignore your silly bullsh!t again.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#184 Feb 25, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, but he didn't ask "how" or "what" or "when" or "where" or "who", all easily demonstrable. He asked "why", which always asks for mere opinion.
A "mere opinion" from an intelligent person often has value in explaining things so that they can be understood.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#185 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
I quote you as follows:
<quoted text>
Your "implied" insult to my intelligence is noted and ignored for cause.
You wrote one reasonable post. Most others are just silly BS and were ignored.n I should probably ignore your silly bullsh!t again.
Let me know if you want to join the grown ups and offer a rational defense of your opinion that fellow citizens should be held as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the law in direct defiance of the US constitution.

You current response implies that you cannot offer such a defense.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#187 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What you seem to not understand is we don't care if many people "still won't like gays".
I don't believe you.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can hate us all you want,
I don't, of course. You made that up, which yet again shows you to be a liar. Your problem, not mine.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> as long as I have equal rights under the law, I couldn't are less.
As noted, I don't believe you because you have been shown to be a liar.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You can go to your grave hating gays,
Again, you lie, but since that's all you have, seems like you are powerless to do anything but lie. Again, your problem, not mine. How sad for you. But since you are not a nice person, I don't care.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> just as millions went to their graves still hating blacks after they finally got equal rights.
Poor, sad Sheeple. You really ARE desperate to be a victim! Sad for you. And have I mentioned that I don't care since you are not a nice person and you lie? Indeed, I support you being a sad, bitter, and insignificant person just as long as it makes you to happy to be that way.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#188 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Let me get this straight (pardon the expression). It's quite fine for you to TELL me what I should or should not do (i.e., "...don't suggest a CU) but I am not permitted to support something different than *you* favor. Your hypocrisy is glaringly evident.
I haven't seen any class at all coming from you, second, low, or otherwise, and I'm not talking in a legal context. Don't you ever tire of being exposed as a fraud?
Now THAT particular fallacy is called:

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresenting an opponent's position so as to more easily refute it.

In this case you intentionally change the colloquial form in "don't suggest" which indicates "such assertion has been disallowed", to one outside the parameter suggested by the statement preceding it about the Federal Court Ruling (cited) on precisely that assertion. You did this in order to allow for your objection and argumentation in a sphere more to your liking.

This can also be describes as imposing an "Equivocation" where none actually exists.

Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

There's also a use of the " fallacy of misplaced concreteness".

Timmy argues:

1.Billy is a good tennis player.
2.Therefore, Billy is 'good', that is to say a morally good person.

Here the problem is that the word good has different meanings, which is to say that it is an ambiguous word. In the premise, Timmy says that Billy is good at a particular activity, in this case tennis. In the conclusion, Timmy states that Billy is a morally good person. These are clearly two different senses of the word "good". The premise might be true but the conclusion can still be false: Billy might be the best tennis player in the world but a rotten person morally. However, it is not legitimate to infer he is a bad person on the ground there has been a fallacious argument on the part of Timmy. Nothing concerning Billy's moral qualities is to be inferred from the premise. Appropriately, since it plays on an ambiguity, this sort of fallacy is called the "fallacy of equivocation", that is, equating two incompatible terms or claims.

It's one of your favorites in discussions on these threads.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#189 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> Obviously you know nothing, Sheeple.(What a surprise.) I'm nowhere a fundie, or a christian of any kind. Hell, I reject ALL organized religion! Had you any honesty (or memory), you would remember that I skewer fundies on a regular basis for being inflexibly anti-gay and/or just plain ridiculous... much like you tend to be.
Then again, perhaps you're just a lying.
And yet you have the same position on marriage equality as those religous funides; some are even pretending to support civil unions now that we are achieving marriage equality.

Gee, I wonder why that is......

I have no doubt whatsoever the second we agree to give up on marriage equality they/you will immediately go back to opposing civil unions or any recognition whatsoever of our realtionships.

Hell, they/you are still fighting for the right to kick us out of the military and deny us employment & housing and even recriminalize private sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults.

Oh yeah, you're SOOO different.

When you lie down with dogs.....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#190 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> You get my pity and contempt anyway, and not because you are gay. Your orientation is of no concern to me. It's because you are so bitter, stupid, and a liar... although your being stupid is maybe not your fault. You were born that way.
I'm not bitter in the least; I'm look forward to the inevitable equality coming soon.

Your pity or contempt for me or anything else is irrelevant.

I'm just explaining why you & your fellow anti-gays are losing this battle.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#191 Feb 25, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe you.
<quoted text>I don't, of course. You made that up, which yet again shows you to be a liar. Your problem, not mine.
<quoted text> As noted, I don't believe you because you have been shown to be a liar.
<quoted text> Again, you lie, but since that's all you have, seems like you are powerless to do anything but lie. Again, your problem, not mine. How sad for you. But since you are not a nice person, I don't care.
<quoted text> Poor, sad Sheeple. You really ARE desperate to be a victim! Sad for you. And have I mentioned that I don't care since you are not a nice person and you lie? Indeed, I support you being a sad, bitter, and insignificant person just as long as it makes you to happy to be that way.
Believe what you want.

It won't stop us from getting marriage equality.

Knowing how much that obviously bothers you is what TRULY makes me happy!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#192 Feb 25, 2013
Gill v. OPM
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#194 Feb 25, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.
I couldn't agree more.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#195 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Believe what you want.
It won't stop us from getting marriage equality.
Knowing how much that obviously bothers you is what TRULY makes me happy!
You poor, pathetic, bitter old queen. Of COURSE I will believe what I want. I don't need your approval to be able to think for myself. And we'll see if your dishonesty and tantrums get you what you want. As I have said, there's a fair chance they will. Will it affect me? Surely you jest. There is nothing you could ever do or say that affects me because you are irrelevant.

Further, you expect me to believe the bullsh!t you spew. Yet you don't believe a thing I say because it is inconvenient to your agenda. You"know" so many things, but those things you claim to know are a lie that you need to satisfy your neuroses. You seem to have a need to feel like you can ever "beat" me. Poor, pathetic Sheeple. That just isn't possible. Why? Because you are a liar and your claims about me are lies, so any victory would have to be predicated on your lies. That and the fact that since I am not out to defeat you for any reason (you simply are not that important), how can you beat someone who is not an opponent and who doesn't consider you worthy of anything at all. Why do I continue to ridicule you? As stated, you are cheap entertainment, and I don't like people like you. People who are liars, hypocrites, and simply worthless in the overall scheme of things.

Poor worthless Sheeple. Assuming that your partner cares for you, that's the best you can hope for. And if he is as dishonest and hateful as you are, may you enjoy your co-dependent days together.

As long as you insist on being a dishonest fraud, I will have fun exposing you as a dishonest fraud. And you can continue to try to beat someone who doesn't care what you do. You are, after all, just cheap entertainment. That's all. Cheap entertainment. That, and a liar and a fraud, of course. But that has already been shown.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#196 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not bitter in the least; I'm look forward to the inevitable equality coming soon.
Your pity or contempt for me or anything else is irrelevant.
I'm just explaining why you & your fellow anti-gays are losing this battle.
No, Sheeple. You're just making up bullsh!t to try and feel adequate. How's that working out for you? I think you're upset because I don't take you or your tantrums seriously.

Yes, I pity you. Yes, I have complete contempt for you because of your dishonesty and hypocrisy. You deserve no less. Your community, however, deserves better.

My guess is that you are a very sad person, and deservedly so.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#197 Feb 25, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text> Hell, they/you are still fighting for the right to kick us out of the military and deny us employment & housing and even recriminalize private sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults.
You idiot! I served with gays in the military forty years ago under less than optimal circumstances! One of the best officers I knew was gay. We all knew and nobody cared because he WAS a good officer!

I don't care who you screw. It's none of my business.

Can't you get anything right? Is it any wonder I have only contempt for you?

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Copyright lawsuits involving hit songs Jun 24 John McCharlie 3
News Appeals court: No right to carry concealed weap... Jun 12 WeTheSheeple 79
News Concealed carry in public not guaranteed under ... Jun 12 payme 11
News Could appeals court concealed carry ruling impa... Jun 11 RiflemanIII 1
News Federal Court rules Arizona cannot legally deny... Jun 11 Nopal 71
News Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban r... Jun 11 Bama Yankee 1
News Illegal immigrants kidnapping children to sneak... Jun 8 tomin cali 1
More from around the web