NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay ...

NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support

There are 263 comments on the EDGE story from Nov 14, 2012, titled NOM Sets Sights on Starbucks for Gay Marriage Support. In it, EDGE reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#125 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah well, he's normal....
A friend of mine from High school with the same twisted sense of humor I have once said:

"Some people think normal is pooping twice a day"

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#126 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
How about this question: If SCOTUS refuses to hear Perry, does it become federal precedent for States voting on marriage rights?
oh I LOVE it!
Stay tuned folks. This otta be good!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#127 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
He lives on Fake Lawyer Island.
i hope you'll forgive me for going more off topic than we already are but I wanted to ask about something.

I'm a fan of the TV show "The Good Wife".

Last night featured a case involving SSM and spousal privilege.

I think it's in a Federal Court since it involved a case against the Dept. of Justice.

In it the judge ruled spousal privilege isn't covered because of DOMA.

But isn't spousal privilege a State issue? And if it's a State issue and the State legally recognizes Same Sex couples wouldn't spousal privilege have to apply in this case?

I know it's a fictional case but it made me think about all the nuances that we'll face in the future.

I was tempted to ask Jane but......
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#128 Nov 26, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>i hope you'll forgive me for going more off topic than we already are but I wanted to ask about something.
I'm a fan of the TV show "The Good Wife".
Last night featured a case involving SSM and spousal privilege.
I think it's in a Federal Court since it involved a case against the Dept. of Justice.
In it the judge ruled spousal privilege isn't covered because of DOMA.
But isn't spousal privilege a State issue? And if it's a State issue and the State legally recognizes Same Sex couples wouldn't spousal privilege have to apply in this case?
I know it's a fictional case but it made me think about all the nuances that we'll face in the future.
I was tempted to ask Jane but......
I'm a fan of the show, too.

Since I am not a lawyer, and have never claimed to be one, I really do not know the answer to your question. My best guess would be that it depends on which Court is hearing a case, state court or federal court. DOMA is currently the law, regardless of whether it is constitutional or not. We won't have much longer to worry about it. SCOTUS will do the right thing and overturn it.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#129 Nov 26, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a fan of the show, too.
Since I am not a lawyer, and have never claimed to be one, I really do not know the answer to your question. My best guess would be that it depends on which Court is hearing a case, state court or federal court. DOMA is currently the law, regardless of whether it is constitutional or not. We won't have much longer to worry about it. SCOTUS will do the right thing and overturn it.
That was my thinking as well.

It wasn't clear to me if Bebe Neuwirth was playing a State Judge or Federal one but I got the impression it was in a Federal Court since it involved a case against the Dept. of Justice.

I'm still looking forward to reading Jane's explanation of how a case that SCOTUS says has no Constitutional Question can establish Constitutional law and precedent.

I notice he disappeared rather quickly after I asked.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#130 Nov 27, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
in cannibalistic cultures it is....
but thanks for contributing to my point about "normal" being relative even though I know you didn't realize you were...
And equating that to homosexuality makes sense how?
Your "points" really don't make much sense.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#131 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
you remind me of a quote:
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

kid, in the real world I work in this area and you know nothing....

AGAIN, DOMA cases can not overturn Baker since Baker dealt with a STATE law and DOMA is a FEDREAL law...

and is this the way you admit to being very wrong about baker?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#132 Nov 27, 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.
like when you invent stupid stuff and attribute it to me...

you have pounded for MONTHS I claimed the KKK was a protected class, but you lied didn't you?

I'll keep playing, you tactics don;t work with me...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#133 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Is that you way of saying you were wrong and insulted me for being right?

you did do that ya know...

and you are still wrong...
The state decision permitting a ban on gay marriage had no constitutional implication (meaning it offended no Const. right ).
That is the federal law of the land: no "right" to gay marriage.
and that is the answer to your question, I am not dodging it, you are failing to grasp it...
google it and read wiki for cripses sake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005)
Two Florida women who married in Massachusetts claimed that Florida's marriage statutes and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment (and implicitly the Fifth Amendment),[25] among other claims. The judge dismissed the claims against the U.S. Attorney General in part because Baker controlled: "The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."[26]

The laugh is that I am patient enough to deal with a young punk like you...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#134 Nov 27, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
And equating that to homosexuality makes sense how?
Your "points" really don't make much sense.
I take you missing the point as a compliment...
the point is that BS claims about what is "normal" is BS....no matter the subject...
that's the connection dude...
claiming something is "normal" is sopping with BS...

its normal for very depressed people to cut themselves...
SO WHAT.
Does that mean cutting yourself is like homosexuality?
only you would think so...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#135 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still looking forward to reading Jane's explanation of how a case that SCOTUS says has no Constitutional Question can establish Constitutional law and precedent.
I notice he disappeared rather quickly after I asked.
Its called the process of Mandatory review which you claimed you understood.

"In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]"

When they pass on the case they are ENDORSING the decision below. Its that simple...
They PASS by saying the decisions doesn't offend the constitution ie "no federal question." It is therefore the equivalent of a scotus decision (with some technical differences)

and I could explain the spousal privilege, but first lets see if you grasp this...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#136 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>oh I LOVE it!
Stay tuned folks. This otta be good!
Again, "mandatory review"....
Is Perry under mandatory review?
Consider that they are this week CHOOSING whether to look at the case...

and guess what else?

I love the DOMA cases and sincerely hope the court takes and affirms them.
They find the state has the right to define marriage.
And I agree with that.
A vote of the people of a state is a vote...

I would also love for them to take the Perry case, but you guys would lose bad on that one...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#137 Nov 27, 2012
Anyone who doesn't immediately recognize that Prop 8 was BLATANTLY unconstitutional, has shit for brains.
Priest

Tulsa, OK

#138 Nov 27, 2012
Queerviticus 4:13

"Let not two fruit pies unite in holy matrimony. For it surely is an abomination and will cause fire and ash to way the land."

And it makes Jesus cry.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#139 Nov 27, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>i hope you'll forgive me for going more off topic than we already are but I wanted to ask about something.
I'm a fan of the TV show "The Good Wife".
Last night featured a case involving SSM and spousal privilege.
I think it's in a Federal Court since it involved a case against the Dept. of Justice.
In it the judge ruled spousal privilege isn't covered because of DOMA.
But isn't spousal privilege a State issue? And if it's a State issue and the State legally recognizes Same Sex couples wouldn't spousal privilege have to apply in this case?
I know it's a fictional case but it made me think about all the nuances that we'll face in the future.
I was tempted to ask Jane but......
Law & Order did one of a similar nature a few years ago. Married in Canada, and testifying in New York (before Marriage Equality there) a man claimed spousal privilege. It didn't fly in that (fictional) case.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#140 Nov 27, 2012
Priest wrote:
Queerviticus 4:13
"Let not two fruit pies unite in holy matrimony. For it surely is an abomination and will cause fire and ash to way the land."
And it makes Jesus cry.
You should devote your humorless assholism to something that actually effects you..Like say, Obesity

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#141 Nov 27, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I take you missing the point as a compliment...
the point is that BS claims about what is "normal" is BS....no matter the subject...
that's the connection dude...
claiming something is "normal" is sopping with BS...
its normal for very depressed people to cut themselves...
SO WHAT.
Does that mean cutting yourself is like homosexuality?
only you would think so...
The issue here is that I see you as turning it into something negative. Homosexuality is a normal category of sexuality, that's a fact. People here are saying homosexuality isn't normal, though it is. We then rebuke. You came in and started relating homosexuality to canobalism in order to try and say that normality is a moot point.

You could have easily stated that in a less negative way. You could have easily just said that normality is not a valid argument or point and then stated why without any negative connotations.

I agree with you now that I get what you're saying; normality is subjective and doesn't matter.
Priest

Tulsa, OK

#142 Nov 27, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You should devote your humorless assholism to something that actually effects you..Like say, Obesity
I devote myself to things that DO "effect" me. Or "affects" me.

I'm not obese, not an alcoholic, no bad habits, so I fight against queer marriage. God does not like you friuty people.

Keep dancing little strange puppet.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#143 Nov 27, 2012
Priest wrote:
<quoted text>I devote myself to things that DO "effect" me. Or "affects" me.
I'm not obese, not an alcoholic, no bad habits, so I fight against queer marriage. God does not like you friuty people.
Keep dancing little strange puppet.
Mastery of the English language and spelling are things you might consider studying....So you claim to speak for God too? Huh, didn't know 'God' was such a hateful bigot...And YOUR calling ME strange?
Priest

Tulsa, OK

#144 Nov 27, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Mastery of the English language and spelling are things you might consider studying....So you claim to speak for God too? Huh, didn't know 'God' was such a hateful bigot...And YOUR calling ME strange?
I speak from God's word. The Bible.

If you're going to preach spelling and syntax you should learn of what you speak. "And YOUR calling ME strange?"

That should be "And YOU'RE calling ME strange?"
You're welcome for the lesson. Now, stop making God cry over your sickness.

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.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 6 hr Tm Cln 3,131
News GOP Rep. Darrell Issa tells Bill Maher a specia... 7 hr Hostis Publicus 11
News Ad targets Romney on abortion, Planned Parenthood (Jul '12) Sun Barbara P Bush 78
News Romney on minimum wage: 'We ought to raise it' (May '14) Feb 23 Slum lord n Chief 29
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Feb 19 Cordwainer Trout 35
News 'They friends of yours?': Trump asks black repo... Feb 18 Supreme_Kremlin_A... 4
News Liberal media OK with normalizing Iran and pedo... Feb 15 southern at heart 13
More from around the web