Rick in Kansas

New York Must Recognize Gay Marriage In Other States: Court

The ADF itself doesn't have standing to sue, but they can always find themselves a useful idiot to serve as a shill who does. In these cases, they represented "concerned taxpayers", "upset" over the alleged "misuse" of their tax dollars being spent providing spousal and family benefits, in effect recognizing relationships the Court of Appeals itself stated could not be married under New York law. (17 hrs ago | post #12)

BULLSH*T NON-RESPONSIVE RESPONSE. Unless and until you can provide A CASE, any case which fits the criteria that you yourself have laid out, there is nothing further to discuss because you have been proved WRONG. (17 hrs ago | post #141)

New York Must Recognize Gay Marriage In Other States: Court

The NY Court of Appeals treats the issue of same sex marriage as so radioactive, they might as well have but up a lead shield in the court room and worn protective suits instead of robes. Their ruling in these cases desperately tries to ignore the big glowing pile in the middle of the room, which was a lower court ruling recognizing out of state marriages as legally valid. They confined their opinion ONLY to the offering of benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if the ADF finds a way of challenging that ruling somehow, I also wouldn't be surprised that the Court of Appeals finds a way of punting it to the Legislature too... (17 hrs ago | post #10)

Doctors group votes to oppose 'Don't ask, don't tell'

The only person you have managed to fool is yourself, but that doesn't take much doing apparently. (18 hrs ago | post #291)

New York Must Recognize Gay Marriage In Other States: Court

Unfortunately, the ruling did not go far enough, it answered only the question of, if other states say these couples are married, can these governmental entities offer them benefits as if they really were? It didn't answer the question that we really needed the answer to, that if other states say these couples are married, does New York state say they are married too? Once again the New York Court of Appeals has copped out and frantically punted the issue in the hope that the Legislature will actually do something. Instead of forcing the state to say that these couples are legally married, they have thrown them into limbo until the Senate can somehow get its act together. (18 hrs ago | post #5)

Homosexuals- Condemned to HELL !

Simply repeating the verse is not really an answer to the fact that it is a mistranslation of itLev:20-8 "And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them, I am the Lord which sanctify you." (KJV) I'm making two points here, neither of which you will bother to respond to. The first is that Leviticus was not written as the salad bar you treat it to be, but an all or nothing proposition. If YOU are not in compliance with all of these rules you are violating all of them, a point which is repeated in every chapter of the book. Unless YOU are living faithfully to this code, your invocation of any part of it against others is hypocrisy. The second is that although included in the Christian canon, the requirements of Leviticus as a holiness code has never been enforced by the Christian faith, so your invocation of any part of it against others is simply silly. (19 hrs ago | post #258)

So many replies to me with so little said by you. Let me make this easy for you. Please provide an example for each of the following: 1)SCOTUS case in which the ACLU either supported or argued for an anti-Catholic position which either was beneficial or neutral to Protestant concerns: 2)SCOTUS case in which the ACLU either supported or argued for a pro-Protestant position which was detrimental to Catholic concerns: 3)SCOTUS case in which Justice Hugo Black's personal anti-Catholic prejudices became an anti-Catholic legal opinion: 4)SCOTUS case involving any state version of the Blaine Amendment which involved enforcement against the interest of Catholic Schools either to the benefit of or was neutral to Protestant School interests: These examples will allow you to prove, once and for all, the following yet unsubstantiated claims: The ACLU is anti-Catholic. That Justice Hugo Black was an anti-Catholic Supreme Court Justice (as opposed to being merely an anti-Catholic). And that the Blaine Amendments have a history of Anti-Catholic enforcement in addition to their anti-Catholic legacy. If you are not up to this challenge, please realize that will constitute proof that I have been right all along. (19 hrs ago | post #138)

You have got to be kidding. A source so obvious in its own bias that it is not even worth discussing. (19 hrs ago | post #137)

And yet, when Black ran for re-election in 1932, he was opposed by the Klan, evidence you have yet to refute. Also unsubstantiated by you is any evidence whatsoever that Black's personal prejudices EVER became "legal" prejudices in ANY of his opinions on the Court. (19 hrs ago | post #136)

Ad hominem attack with no basis in reality. I have offered substantiation for each of my refutations of your unsubstantiated claims and yet you still see me as the one who is poorly informed. AbsurdIt's undeniable that their origin is rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment, but there is NO EVIDENCE from you that they were EVER anti-Catholic in their enforcement. How is that a problem except for your argumentNo the problem isn't the anti-Catholic LEGACY, although incredibly offensive, it did lead to laws that from ALL evidence presented thus far on this thread that were ENFORCED against ALL on an equal basis. The problem is that you keep leaping to completely unsubstantiated conclusions that you cannot support with factUnnecessary tangentA freedom of religion is also a freedom for others from it, governmental support of purely secular activities should be prohibitedYou haven't proved that they ever were. (20 hrs ago | post #135)

You have not evidenced ANY selective enforcement of the various forms of Blaine Amendments advocated by the ACLU or enforced by the Court. Again UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS BY YOU ARE NOT FACTS. (20 hrs ago | post #134)

If there is "plenty of evidence", why do you refuse to provide itThe next time you are doing "research ", you might want to look up the definition of the word adequate. While the WSJ EDITORIAL states the the Blaine Amendments WERE at their origins anti-Catholic, NOWHERE does the EDITORIAL state that the ACLU's continued defense of them now, in general or in the Davey case in particular (which upheld the constitutionality of Washington's state version of a Blaine Amendment, by the way), IS ant-Catholic. Your syllogism is simply a logical fallacyI care about the truth, that is why I have continually pressed you to provide it. There simply has been no evidence presented to dismiss, only your unsubstantiated claims. You on the other hand have not even bothered to address ANY of the evidence that I have presented which consistently contradicts those claimsYou have yet provide, let alone prove, a single instance where Black's personal prejudice against Catholics resulted in an anti-Catholic opinion by him or the Court. You have yet to provide, let alone prove, a single example of the ACLU even supporting, let alone arguing a case which was anti-Catholic either during Black's tenure or at any point since. UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ARE NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FACT and it doesn't matter with how much certainty you want to state them, you have offered no proof of your claim of "truthDisinge nuous much? Despite Prof. (Rev.) Peter Masten Dunne's (S.J.) criticism, while traditionally, the American people and in turn the government may have traditionally aided religion and the founding father's may have "feared" such an interpretation of the establishment clause, original intent is not always what is constitutionally acceptable. (20 hrs ago | post #133)

Doctors group votes to oppose 'Don't ask, don't tell'

The problem is that there were some brilliant replies that got swept up with the trash, their only sin being that they saved the garbage. They should have a way of only removing the offending material allowing "Genie" to see each time she visits this thread the reality of just how badly she was beaten... (Friday | post #208)

Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign

It simply does not matter whether they are engaging in sexual intercourse or not, marriage sanctioned by the state means that the state is being required to play a role in the risk to potential offspring and there is a compelling interest against that. Yes, crack heads and other addicts are permitted to legally marry and yes they run a risk to potential offspring, but any attempt by the state to screen such people out would quickly run afoul of privacy concerns, something which would not apply to Dick and his sister, since their being siblings has always been a matter of public record. You are 0 for 2 on this oneBut the rights, benefits and protections of the sibling relationship are far greater than those of that in a relationship between legal strangers. They cannot be included on insurance and their rights are considered as secondary to those of the sibling relationship in terms of inheritance, survivorship, health decisions and any number of other areas. The unmarried same sex couple can try to jump through some very expensive legal hoops in establishing powers of attorney, wills and such, but there are far too many examples of where they have been either completely disregarded or allowed to be overridden by a legal relative such as a sibling. Something which cannot happen to Dick and his sister as they are legally related. This makes you 0 for 3As it turns out, it is just as ridiculous now as it was when I first replied to it and you've done nothing here to bring any life to your very dead straw man. Your attempting to justify discrimination against same sex couples who are otherwise legally qualified to marry other than the partners being of the wrong sex, with a couple who is not legally qualified because there is a clear and very compelling interest for them not to be permitted to is nothing short of absurd. If Dick and his sister wish to fight for a "right" which for them probably will never be recognized as existing, then they can do so. There is no double standard no hypocrisy here, I can argue a basis as to why their relationship can be denied, by arguing their relationship, not by tossing silly straw man invalid comparisons in their path. You can toss as many different straw man "other" marriages that are in your imagination being denied their "right" to recognition if we recognize same sex marriages too, but you will find that I am more than able to knock the stuffing out of them as well. Unless you can provide a clear and compelling interest of the state as to why same sex and same sex couples ONLY cannot be permitted to marry, you lose. (Friday | post #939)