Comments about ‘Gay-rights advocates begin media blitz’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 4 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Stalwart Sentinel

@ vince

My apologies for past, present, and future grammatical errors; I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews.

Stalwart Sentinel

"You once again fail to make your case, another sad pattern in the history of Stalwart Sentinel."

you make me smile. your way of life is under direct attack and being inundated by the growing number of individuals who dispell your backward thinking. all this is occuring within the pages of the conservative newspaper for one of the more conservative states of the union, a stronghold, a mecca of shortshighted values, a bulwark for villifying the 'other side',

and you propose to deem my lot as 'sad'

see, now that's irony!!!


Please cite a federal case that declares that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 12:10 p.

"Baker is crumbling, everyone knows it but you."

I find it very revealing that you, once again, dismiss the state gay marriage bans that have relied on Baker and that continue to strengthen Baker to make your opinion appear meritorious. Everyone indeed knows you and other gay-rights activists hope Baker is crumbling, but that conclusion is simply is not supported by the evidence.

"not on Wikipedia?"

I suppose you would need to speculate wildly over the source of my information, given that you seem unwilling, or more likely, incapable of dealing squarely with the constitutionality of gay marriage. If you fail to rebut my apparently "Wikipedia"-based arguments, I would hate to see you try to make your case in a courtroom.

"Its only a matter of time."

How very like Gavin Newsome's "Mission Accomplished" moment. In case you fail to see the irony, just as you fail to see so many other things, I believe there's a website called Google that can help you learn more about how clairvoyant your hero was in his moment of triumph.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 12:19 p.

See my above comment regarding the rearview hypothesis.

"Marriage has always been a fundamental right...people like you are slow to catch on."

I suppose the framers of the Constitution were slow to catch on also. What were we thinking?

"why all the religious zealotry to combat these few states?"

It's become painfully obvious that precedent is an impossible concept for you to grasp, but I'll try once more time in this context. Here we go.

Courts look to previous rulings from other judges to help guide their decisions. Some judges are bad. These judges engage in what's called "judicial activism," which means they try to create new laws, instead of simply interpreting laws. Judges are supposed to interpret laws. If an activist judge creates a precedent, for, say, gay marriage, other courts might look to the activist judge for guidance. That would not be good. In other words, judicial activism is bad. Some of these bad judges live in places like CA, MA, and CT. I know that's what you dearly hope will happen, but judicial activism is really is bad. Should I bring it down to the preschool level for you?

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:05 p.m

"The 14th Amendment is the place to start. That is what makes gay marriage bans unconstitutional...It works in my favor."

And yet gay marriage bans remain, even after Baker and the multitude of lower court rulings.

I rest my case.

Regarding the "peaceful protests" that occur "every single day of every single week," I've noticed an interesting pattern. You make a nonsensical claim. Your claim is challenged. You fail to address the challenge, so you restate your claim.

So the pattern continues with your claim that domestic terrorists are really just the "lowest common denominator" because your spidey senses can detect the "peaceful protests" that occur "every single day of every single week." I thought I was going easy on you by asking for all the peaceful protests just this week. Im sorry I figured you could manage such a simple task.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:09 p.m.

"are you satisfied w/ tertiary simplifications of issues?"

I know this is overly-simplistic for some, but a few of us actually do care for the rule of law. Gay marriage bans are, in fact, legal because they are, in fact, constitutional. It doesn't get much simpler than that, as much as you appear to enjoy the Rube Goldberg approach.

SLCSKP 8:39 p.m. appears to share your enthusiasm for the glorious future day of gay marriage. My reaction to the conspiracy theory can be found at the end of my 5:22 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009 post.

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:17 p.m

"I tend to be more lackadaisical in my postings on the desnews."


My 2 cents

8:15 a.m. Feb. 4, 2009,

Ok, lets not stereo type here. I am a proud Democrat and still voted for Prop 8. Obama and Biden are Democrats and still support traditional marriage. 2/3rds of the Californian ellectorate is Democrat, yet the majority still voted for prop 8. Just because the left wing of the party supports gay marriage and abortion doesn't mean that all of us do.

Remember all the Regan Democrats in the 70's that left the Dems in droves because they let the left-wing radicals take over the party? We are the reason the Republicans have had so much power over the last few decades. Now that the Repubs have abandaned mainstream values and have alowed the right-wing extremists to take over the party, we are flocking back to the Democratcs.

Do you see a pattern? Maybe we conservative Democrats should just form our own party. Many Latin American and European countries have a conservative Democratic Party, why can't the U.S.??

Stalwart Sentinel

Re: your "Wikipedia"-based arguments

First, they're not apparently Wikipedia based, they are Wikipedia based. I read the site's synopsis.

Second, your Wiki arguments are based off incorrect data, are overly inclusive, and pejoratively unencumbered by rationale. You just fail to acknowledge that.

re: "case in a courtroom"

I have not asked much of you, only to address one issue and do a little research. You have refused to do both. I would "love" to see you try to make your case in a courtroom, especially the part when you completely fail to address the other side's position.

Re: "Its only a matter of time."

It is, sorry. While I dont waste time watching Mission Impossible, you have now moved from basing your topical discussions off of Wikipedia to basing it off of fictional television. Good show, great regression. Maybe you should watch Desperate Housewives for some new talking points?

Stalwart Sentinel

Re: Stalwart Sentinel 2:05 p.m | 5:53 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

"The 14th Amendment & And yet gay marriage bans remain, even after Baker and the multitude of lower court rulings.

They all sidestepped the real issue (the one you wont argue) which is not present in any of the holdings in any of your cases. I have retrieved them for you to read in earlier posts. Remember?

I've noticed an interesting pattern. You fail to address the points that render your argument a dying cause.


i think everyone here needs to calm down because i think everyone is wrong on both sides. the ones supporting prop 8 are wrong because they are trying to mix religion with politics, and not everyone is the same religion, and not everyone holds the same religious beliefs. The ones against prop 8 are wrong because the unnessecary violent reponse to prop 8 was out of control and rubbed too many people the wrong way. I think everyone just needs to step back and reassess why you believe what you believe and why you think it is nessecary to make people different than you believe what you do, even though they do not want to. I don't believe in the Christian god; i'm not christian, yet people push that down EVERYONE's throat by mixing religion with politcs [again]. I think we should grant gays the right to marry and pass legislation protecting those who choose to live a gay lifestyle. It's not deviant, and it's none of your business if u dont support it. the only way it should matter to u is if u plan to sleep with that person. wake up, people. please.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments