Maine's Anti-Gay Marriage Supporters Kindly Request You Stop Calling Them Bigots

And I kindly say: Never!

This is a joke right?

Bigots who are ashamed of the title... I wonder why they're so ashamed? Could it be that there is a grain of truth in it? I'll take it as a good sign the opposition is ashamed of their own opinions. Let's not be afraid to call a hater what a hater is. The shoe fits.

I'll stop calling them bigots when they stop calling me a perverted child molestor.

whitefalcon1678 wrote:

I'll stop calling them bigots when they stop calling me a perverted child molestor.

!!!!!

EXACTLY.

http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/vide...

News report with video from the "rally"

At the end, they mention that donations were requested as their "coffers are drying up"

big⋅ot [bi g-uht]
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Origin:
1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE b&#299; God by God
Dictionary.com Unabridged

Gee, that shoe certainly fits. If they weren't being bigots, no one would be calling them bigots. If they really have such a problem with the truth, there is something they can do, stop being bigots and vote No on 1...

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
"Winky?" Didn't your parents teach you the proper words for the human genitalia? The word is "penis." Are you five years old?

Well, I figure it's Tim's pet name for his own penis. You know, he wouldn't want a total stranger making about 90% of the decisions in life for him.

With the DoJ giving us the shaft on DOMA, I've a feeling that Maine may wind up being a lost cause. Not that I'll stop doing what I can on the left coast...and now, Arizona is deciding that Utah looks good.

http://tinyurl.com/me8rsc

deeter1013 wrote:

<quoted text>
I just have ONE question..
When did Obama JOIN NOM?
He is CLEARLY a member.

Deeter, you're starting to sound like Daniel P. From Long Island.

Just to remind outselves what a bigot is, here is a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary: "1. A hypocritical or superstitious adherent of religion. 2. An obstinate and unreasonable adherent to a religious or other opinion; an intolerant and narrow-minded person."

Gee, which word is it specifically that they object to? Hmmmm.

If the shoe fits...

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>I knew deep down that logic and reason were probably a complete waste of time with you, but I had hoped it was worth the effort. It wasn't. So with that, I'm done playing with your ignorance, irrationality and insanity, you're nothing more than a waste of perfectly good server space on this site.

It was worth it. Other people, reasonable people, who might wonder the same thing got answers from you. There's this Perry Mason view of the law, that if you're innocent you should be able to name the killer. It's seen all the time in jury selection in criminal court, and it's even worse for civil law. Some folks assume that if a judge or prosecutor disagree with a law that they can just stand up in court, recuse themself, and then all is well with the world. Your point about who defends the law is very valid, and reminds me of DAs who don't want to see someone go to jail so they go to a grand jury. If the doj refused to defend this case,(and by keeping it they have the option to do a half@ss job of course), focus on the family and the mormon church and all the little rally-starters would pool their money and hire a team of cutthroat constitutional law experts who would pull no punches in decimating the opposition. By keeping this in government hands, with an administration who sides with the lawsuit anyway, there is a much better chance for the outcome we want. Deeter/Daniel P and their ilk just can't see beyond the moment. Too much video games and internet porn, makes them expect instant gratification at every turn.

dante2810 wrote:

http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/t op_stories/videos/wgme_vid_632 .shtml
News report with video from the "rally"
At the end, they mention that donations were requested as their "coffers are drying up"

I hope their coffers dry up in a hurry!
Put this up on my face book.

Jeff Watson wrote:

With the DoJ giving us the shaft on DOMA, I've a feeling that Maine may wind up being a lost cause. Not that I'll stop doing what I can on the left coast...and now, Arizona is deciding that Utah looks good.
http://tinyurl.com/me8rsc

So this country is becoming a theocracy. Its all in the name of "their god".

I hope "their god" screws them over big time!

CDMelton wrote:

<quoted text>
It was worth it. Other people, reasonable people, who might wonder the same thing got answers from you. There's this Perry Mason view of the law, that if you're innocent you should be able to name the killer. It's seen all the time in jury selection in criminal court, and it's even worse for civil law. Some folks assume that if a judge or prosecutor disagree with a law that they can just stand up in court, recuse themself, and then all is well with the world. Your point about who defends the law is very valid, and reminds me of DAs who don't want to see someone go to jail so they go to a grand jury. If the doj refused to defend this case,(and by keeping it they have the option to do a half@ss job of course), focus on the family and the mormon church and all the little rally-starters would pool their money and hire a team of cutthroat constitutional law experts who would pull no punches in decimating the opposition. By keeping this in government hands, with an administration who sides with the lawsuit anyway, there is a much better chance for the outcome we want. Deeter/Daniel P and their ilk just can't see beyond the moment. Too much video games and internet porn, makes them expect instant gratification at every turn.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I should have realized that my post was going to be read by more than the "I'm not happy unless I have somebody to piss at" likes of Deeter. After nearly 30 years of working on various efforts to secure our civil rights, I know all too well that the I want it yesterday kind of attitude is a sure fire way to spend your life disappointed. I may not be an expert in the law, but I can more than hold my own as an amateur. Even if Obama had the DoJ not oppose the Gill case, somebody would be found who would. This isn't like small claims court where you win by default if the other side doesn't show up. Yes, the law is being defended, but the defense is lackluster at best and that beats the hell out of a vicious anti-gay defense mounted by a well financed host of lawyers put up by proponents of DOMA which could bury an organization like GLAD in filings for years to come. Better the devil we know than the devil we could get...

To quote Bette Davis, "But ya are Blanche ya are!" Yeah and isn't FRC one the great orgs coming out against health care reform??? Where is the family in that? Oh yeah rich repub evilgelical family of depositors.

eesch! here's something that is 'just plain not right'. taking tax dollars from the people you have stripped rights from. hell hitler, why not just gun us down in the street? who would you hate on then? it couldn't be the cheating, skanky, white bread right wing wacko politian, could it? or possibly the pedophiles inhabiting the catholic church? or maybe the business men keeping the titty bars in business? Stop hating, bullying, depriving us from our rights and sucking all our financial resources dry. Either it's equal rights for all or give back our money. I'm pretty sure 'no taxation without representation' is a right when you are a citizen of the USA. No matter how many religious and white wing nut jobs hate on us out loud. I'm 100% sure if Jesus was here today, he would show love and understanding toward gays, no hate and dirision. Go back to your bible father, pastor, brother, etc.

Tim wrote:

(complete and total intolerant, bigoted, "good Christian(tm)" hatred)

Health care is going up because of corporate greed and big pharma's meddling in political machinations, not because of AIDS.

"Winky" is a euphemism for the penis, not the anus.

So, contained within the few lines of your post, you've managed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the so-called "Christian Right" *IS* about hatred, intolerance and discrimination. Well done.

Further, you've have demonstrated just how much they love wallowing in the pits of their own ignorance, willingness to allow themselves to become brainwashed so severely as to lose the capacity for reason, and most importantly of all, complete hypocrisy to the point of being AGAINST all that Christ stood for.

Everyone get a good look. This is the face of the new "Christian nation", bared for all to see.

It's well past time for us to fight back.

I'm starting to agree with cockroach_sleepe r here - it's time to arm ourselves, though I would first suggest arming ourselves with as much knowledge, specifically knowledge within the legal field, as we can prior to (or in addition to) arming ourselves with handguns.

Even my most ultra-left-wing liberal friends are starting to talk about a coming rebellion and/or civil war.

Now, with Arizona following in lock-step with Utah, Miss California with her "Jesus Told Me To" routine, the raids in Atlanta and Texas...this is just the start. It's going to get worse.

CDMelton wrote:

<quoted text>
It was worth it. Other people, reasonable people, who might wonder the same thing got answers from you. There's this Perry Mason view of the law, that if you're innocent you should be able to name the killer. It's seen all the time in jury selection in criminal court, and it's even worse for civil law. Some folks assume that if a judge or prosecutor disagree with a law that they can just stand up in court, recuse themself, and then all is well with the world. Your point about who defends the law is very valid, and reminds me of DAs who don't want to see someone go to jail so they go to a grand jury. If the doj refused to defend this case,(and by keeping it they have the option to do a half@ss job of course), focus on the family and the mormon church and all the little rally-starters would pool their money and hire a team of cutthroat constitutional law experts who would pull no punches in decimating the opposition. By keeping this in government hands, with an administration who sides with the lawsuit anyway, there is a much better chance for the outcome we want. Deeter/Daniel P and their ilk just can't see beyond the moment. Too much video games and internet porn, makes them expect instant gratification at every turn.

well F*ck you too.

you too can enjoy the view from under the bus.

You weak little screaming queens who think you know so much are the reason gays are so far behind.

We have NEVER recieved any rights by sitting on the curb waiting for the right time for the Government to do the right thing.
NO civil rights movement has.

so you get comfy in your little computer chairs..while the rest of us do the REAL work.

and then when we accomplish our goal...
it is the people like you who will claim victory first.

run along now...you have to get ready for happy hour I'm sure.