Comments on: Supreme Court Rules Petition Signers’ Names to Remain Private

By: Darcy

Darcy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:50:03 +0000

Knowthyneighbor are a bunch of thugs who like to intimidate people. They will be smacked down by the Supreme Court and rightfully so.

By: Ahwilde

Ahwilde — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:05:43 +0000

Why do heathens rage?

By: Marco Luxe

Marco Luxe — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:45:30 +0000

I find it the use of the term "harassment" disingenuous and biased. The discomfort perceived by the three Californians typically cited by the anti-equality faction is not harassment. These misguided folks felt the outrage of their former friends, colleagues and patrons, who were surprised and shocked by their religiously inspired bigotry [LDS in all three CA cases]. These people worked in gay-friendly environments, but were blinded by their LDS leadership. This was deserved social opprobrium, not harassment.

I also find the Supreme Court's acceptance of the appeal disturbing. When in history has there ever been a case of the powerful majority being harassed by a disenfranchised minority? It just doesn't work that way. For this reason alone, the 9th Circuit ruling makes sense, and should stand.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:25:02 +0000

Do I smell a future referendum on an upcoming ballot?????? I think I do.

You know, the one that states that only referendums pertaining to the further abuse of gay citizens may be carried out anonymously.

You heteros would pass that with flying colors, I assume. (P.S. – You ARE aware that you are participating in the Apartheid of the very gay children that are EXCLUSIVELY heterosexually created aren't you? Oh, that's right, you don't CARE. Instead, you'd like to scream your heads off about morality???)

As usual, the immoral are screaming their heads off about morality while committing crimes against humanity.

Morality indeed, folks. Morality indeed.

By: Nate

Nate — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:59:46 +0000

Laura Glendinning appears to be mistaken.

To say that the US Supreme Court "accepted Protect Marriage Washington's claim" is disingenuous.

The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Accepting the case means that a majority of justices voted to hear the case.

No date has been set for oral arguments, and the Court has not rendered a decision.