Supreme Court rulings help advance ga...

Supreme Court rulings help advance gays, but women less so

There are 16 comments on the Bellingham Herald story from Aug 4, 2014, titled Supreme Court rulings help advance gays, but women less so. In it, Bellingham Herald reports that:

In its gay rights rulings, she told a law school audience last week, the court uses the soaring language of "equal dignity" and has endorsed the fundamental values of "liberty and equality."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Bellingham Herald.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2 Aug 5, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
In the 1970's there was a big, but ultimately unsuccessful effort, to pass the "Equal Rights Amendment".... I wonder if our cause for equal rights for LGBT Americans would have been speeded up if the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified.
Probably it would have helped our cause a lot. That's why so many people were crapping their pants over it in the '70s. Remember all the screaming and panicking and fear-mongering over it??

"Men with have the right to watch women use public bathrooms!!!"
"Gynecologist will be thrown in prison if they don't treat men, too!!!"
"Enforced coed locker rooms in elementary schools!!! Boys and girls naked together!!!!"
"No more men-only social clubs!!! Nooooo!!!!!"
"Your daughter will be assigned a MALE roommate in the college dorm!!!"
"The Junior League will be forced to let GAY guys in!! The horror!!!!"
"No more laws against sexual predators!!! Perverts will be running around everywhere!!!"

It was so ridiculous. I was a teenager during that time. It was one of my first real realizations the a-holes will resort to panicking stupid people when they can't get their way through the truth.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#4 Aug 5, 2014
The manipulative propaganda in the above post is ridiculous. It's the typical extremist Leftist methods adapted by most Democrats in current events. They dream up extreme representations of their perceived opponents before their opponents have even a chance of expressing themselves. By dominating discussions up front with such nonsense, they self-validate an undeserved confidence of actually having said something relevant. An example of this is the current shrill nonsense coming from the Alinsky driven Democrats in shouting the Republicans want to impeach Obama, when the Republicans for weeks have said the opposite. Homosexual activists on Topix are trained in the same use of extreme accusation and rhetoric. It will behoove people to learn to recognize its illegitimacy.

There were very studied and relevant objections to the ERA. Women had gained the unprecedented "right" to kill 57 Million babies for convenience, lust and stupidity. What more could they want?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5 Aug 5, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
...
There were very studied and relevant objections to the ERA. Women had gained the unprecedented "right" to kill 57 Million babies for convenience, lust and stupidity. What more could they want?
Aren't the "fathers" who sired those unwanted children just as liable for their deaths? Wasn't it also THEIR convenience, lust, and stupidity? Funny you only mention women.

“A long time ago”

Since: Nov 09

in a galaxy far, far away....

#8 Aug 5, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
They dream up extreme representations of their perceived opponents before their opponents have even a chance of expressing themselves.
No, Republicans have been expressing their extreme selves just fine. From "legitimate rape" to science advisors bemoaning lies from the pit of hell, to Paul Revere warning the British, to squelching references to climate change in legislative text... it goes bizarrely on and on.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Women had gained the unprecedented "right" to kill 57 Million babies for convenience, lust and stupidity. What more could they want?
A lump of tissue is NOT a "baby". It's amazing that you think a woman needs to "gain" the right to control her own body.

The mythological thinking of the right wing of our nation is astounding.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Aug 5, 2014
The ERA was a completely unnecessary amendment which just duplicated the 14th amendment.

If judges don't uphold equal protection for women under the 14th amendment, what makes anyone think they would do so under the ERA?

Judges simply need to do their job.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#10 Aug 5, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
The manipulative propaganda in the above post is ridiculous.....
I rarely respond to your posts because you never say anything worth responding to, but for the sake of anyone else reading this thread, I didn't make those things up. Those ARE examples of the manipulative propaganda that the right-winger crazies were panicking stupid people with over the ERA.

And, sadly, the American population proved to be stupid enough to believe it.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#11 Aug 5, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't the "fathers" who sired those unwanted children just as liable for their deaths? Wasn't it also THEIR convenience, lust, and stupidity? Funny you only mention women.
That's just another example of right-wingers cherry-picking reality to suit their own purposes.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many right-wingers seem to think that women get pregnant all by themselves. When they declare that birth control and abortion are "women's issues"--who the hell do they think those women are having sex with that created the need for those things??? Certainly not other women!

Sadly, if the women of the U.S. would all just refuse to have sex with men unless they have access to both birth control and safely provided heath care (including abortion services), both those issues would be handled overnight. Not ALL right-winger men are secretly gay. SOME of them want to have sex with women.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Aug 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The ERA was a completely unnecessary amendment which just duplicated the 14th amendment.
If judges don't uphold equal protection for women under the 14th amendment, what makes anyone think they would do so under the ERA?
Judges simply need to do their job.
That notion was certainly floated around in the '70s, too. If memory serves, the argument was that the ERA *was* needed specifically *because* judges continued to skirt the issue of gender equality in case after case before them. The ERA was an attempt to make them stop it by being so clear that even the Supreme wouldn't be able to pretend it's not there.
Dan

United States

#14 Aug 5, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just another example of right-wingers cherry-picking reality to suit their own purposes.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many right-wingers seem to think that women get pregnant all by themselves. When they declare that birth control and abortion are "women's issues"--who the hell do they think those women are having sex with that created the need for those things??? Certainly not other women!
Sadly, if the women of the U.S. would all just refuse to have sex with men unless they have access to both birth control and safely provided heath care (including abortion services), both those issues would be handled overnight. Not ALL right-winger men are secretly gay. SOME of them want to have sex with women.
"When they declare that birth control and abortion are "women's issues"--who the hell do they think those women are having sex with that created the need for those things??? Certainly not other women!"

Um, if legislation is proposed that would place any limits whatsoever on birth control and abortion, does the left side of the aisle not term that a "War on Women"?

Are they wrong? These are not actually "women's issues" after all? The Democrat party seems to believe that they are.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#15 Aug 5, 2014
Duncan wrote:
<quoted text>
100% spot on as always.
Out to lunch again?
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#16 Aug 5, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That notion was certainly floated around in the '70s, too. If memory serves, the argument was that the ERA *was* needed specifically *because* judges continued to skirt the issue of gender equality in case after case before them. The ERA was an attempt to make them stop it by being so clear that even the Supreme wouldn't be able to pretend it's not there.
Memory doesn't serve you well.

There are elements of the 14th Amendment that need to be repealed; they were and are overreaching violations of common sense and direct assaults on a workable Republic.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#17 Aug 5, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Memory doesn't serve you well.
There are elements of the 14th Amendment that need to be repealed; they were and are overreaching violations of common sense and direct assaults on a workable Republic.
LOL!!! Whatever, dude. Good luck with that.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#18 Aug 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The ERA was a completely unnecessary amendment which just duplicated the 14th amendment.
If judges don't uphold equal protection for women under the 14th amendment, what makes anyone think they would do so under the ERA?
Judges simply need to do their job.
The ERA amendment is more direct, and specifically addresses the issue of sex. The 14th amendment, like much in the Constitution, is too often "interpreted" to satisfy ideological beliefs. The ERA amendment makes partisan interpretation a little more difficult.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Aug 5, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The ERA amendment is more direct, and specifically addresses the issue of sex. The 14th amendment, like much in the Constitution, is too often "interpreted" to satisfy ideological beliefs. The ERA amendment makes partisan interpretation a little more difficult.
Which could be precisely why it failed to get ratified. Maybe too many people wanted to be able to use that leeway to continue discriminating against women.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#20 Aug 5, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Which could be precisely why it failed to get ratified. Maybe too many people wanted to be able to use that leeway to continue discriminating against women.
Quite likely.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#22 Aug 6, 2014
Simple.

Resurrect the ERA.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump appointee resigns after racist, sexist an... 3 min Lawrence Wolf 99
News Why Gay Is Not the New Black 7 min Wondering 17
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 9 min Wondering 990
News Texas middle school teachers resign after anti-... 15 min TerriB1 13
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 18 min Wondering 657
News Police plan to ramp up security at Jackson Brow... 21 min Aspirin Between M... 1
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 24 min EdmondWA 17,665
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 4 hr Ramos 27,304
More from around the web