Scalia says abortion, gay rights are ...

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

There are 375 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 5, 2012, titled Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#215 Oct 10, 2012
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing the decision is not up to me. I'd take good care of you good ole Queers.
Aw, that's so sweet of you, Poodle. But, unfortunately, you don't have any more power to grant marriage equality nationwide than anyone else does.

But keep fighting the good fight, okay?? We'll have equality nationwide sooner than you think! This is one area of the civil rights movement that can't be rolled back. There are too many people that understand how critical civil marriage equality is for it to be rolled back.

Does that make you feel any better?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#216 Oct 10, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>

When you make exceptions applicable to only some of the population, then by definition, you are discriminating.
I know you do not want to believe it, but the basis for you being denied marriage rights is procreation...
its tough because it indicates you are not the same (no better or worse, but not the same), which you apparently really want to be...

so, some people who like the opposite sex are LGBT (some transgenders)

so if your position is correct, the only reason the exception is not applied to all straights is discrimination?

so, is the LGBT a bigoted organization?
or is it possible that we can try to foster one group without it being animus at another?

I would really like an answer, can we FOSTER one group without it being DEROGATORY to those not included?
or is it only with YOUR clubs that this is possible?

I get that LGBT is not exactly the same as a marriage, but to the extent I am asking you about them, they are!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#217 Oct 10, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
When the first state makes having a child together a requirement for marriage, lets talk.
REQUIREMENT is false logic...
all rules have excpetions and so nothig is ever 100 %

LGBT is even 100% gay for cripses sake

nothing is "required" of a marriage but a piece of paper...
there are however many things we expect from a marriage...
love, commitment, and procreation...
none of them are REQUIRED, do you think that means all of these are not related?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#218 Oct 10, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
The number of states having same-sex civil marriage equality does not negate my argument.
yes, it does. On what basis are you being denied...you say bigotry, I say PROCREATION...

I have a scotus case that supports me, what do you have?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#219 Oct 10, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>....SSM in it's low-scale present form, probably is, for the most part, between committed couples. However, if allowed to grow to a large scale, possibly due to granted economic benefits, the makeup of SSM would change from a "commited" type of marriage to a more "open" type of marriage, more suitable to the homosexual lifestyle.
Knowing human nature, this "open" type of marriage would then flow to the heterosexual side, completely eliminating "traditional marriage", meaning mainly, the loss of a stable environment for raising children.
This wouldn't happen overnight, it might take 100 years, and the process would certainly not be reversible, and probably not recognized until too late.
So that is the likely mechanism by which SSM would destroy society.
Oh. You seem to have missed the fact that heterosexual marriage has ALREADY been redefined, by straight people, to include that more "open" type of marriage that you fear so much. It's called "no fault divorce", "serial marriage", "open marriages", "monogamish marriages", and "single parenthood."

You seem to be laboring under the false impression that marriage is what you fantasize it was in the 1950's--Father and Mother in a hilariously funny, warm and loving marriage, with a couple of rambunctious children that are just too cute for words. Is that what you think?

You need to get out of your house and learn about the world around you. You're WAY behind the times. There are countless "types" of wonderfully successful marriages and families out there that you wouldn't even recognize. You're so busy trying to force everyone into your ideological fantasy, that you're missing an entire world of happy, healthy, wonderful families.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#220 Oct 10, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Find a word other than marriage for your homosexual unions and you will have no problem getting the "rights" you think you are entitled to....
Not true. Your type fights civil unions and domestic partnerships just as vehemently and with just as much lies and misinformation as you do civil marriage equality.

So, you see, it's YOUR fault that we're fighting to for full equality and not "settling for" civil unions, isn't it?? If you type would have "settled for" civil unions, this fight would have been over years ago.

If we're going to have to fight just as hard either way, why shouldn't we go for full equality??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#221 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, when two gays are going to have a child TOGETHER and will provide both a mom and dad, lets talk...
Okay! When heterosexual couples that can't or don't have children are forcibly divorced by the government, let's talk...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#222 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
I know you do not want to believe it, but the basis for you being denied marriage rights is procreation...
You keep bringing up procreation and marriage.

NO STATE requires procreation take place to receive a marriage license!

NO STATE requires the ability to procreate to receive a marriage license!

NO STATE nullifies a marriage absent procreation!

NO STATE requires that procreation only take place within a marriage!

So forgive me when I take exception to the notion that because I cannot naturally procreate with my intended spouse as a legal reason to deny me a right given to others. It is only you and other fundamentals that seek to apply a standard for marriage to gays and lesbians that NO ONE applies to straights. You want to apply a procreation standard? Then apply it to all!!
Uve

Indio, CA

#223 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
wait, you do get that illegitimacy is children born out of wedlock right?
so they are NOT born without regard to marriage...
follow?
And I called the NY court bigotry as a joke since that is what you need to argue rather than address what the court said...
how about you address what the court said?
oh right, its all bigotry and doesn't need to be addressed, right?
And i am a POS simply because I disagree with you...
see how silly that is?
Not really, they are just born..No regard to marriage. Is an animal that gives birth have to be married or get married? And why should I address your post of the court? How about YOU address my previous post? Rather than ignoring it and posting some other issue to deflect. Besides, your court post isn't what ultimately happened in NY, it's mute. And I am addressing bigotry..YOURS. You can disagree, I don't really care, but that doesn't make you NOT POS. What makes you POS is that your not open to changing your views and just on here to argue and spread misinformation. You may hate gay people but arguing on a gay topix web site is not going to make them go away or change them into being straight. It's called diversity, and it gives civilization it's strength in knowledge and understanding, not something to hate and fight against.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#224 Oct 10, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
It is only you and other fundamentals that seek to apply a standard for marriage to gays and lesbians that NO ONE applies to straights.
You just typed out the same argument in a longer form...

no, its not REQUIRED...nor is LOVE..are you suggesting love has nothing to do within marriage?

So, our SCOTUS has discussed marriage along WITH procreation for over 100 years....how do you explain that because bigotry over gay marriage doesn't cut it...

Have you read the SOCTUS marriage cases?
find one that doesn't have the word procreation...
further, here is one from 1974:
http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt...

"As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, see Roe v. Wade, supra, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings, see Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 768-770, and n. 13 (1977); Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U. S. 164, 406 U. S. 175-176 (1972). Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

What you miss is that our right to privacy extends to having kids, but not directly to GOVT RECOGNITION, since it by definition is not being free from govt to request a GOVT ISSUED LICENSE...

So our right to procreate (which is a privacy issue) IMPLIES a right to marry...

so your "no requirement" BS is way off the point...

In short, you do not have a freedom from government to a GOVT ISSUED LICENSE...
but notice there is no birth LICENSE...

That you believe procreation was invented solely to deny you is a product of your ignorance, not the bigotry of others.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#225 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, they are just born..No regard to marriage.
what is a "bastard"?
so REALITY indicates differently...

I saw a bunch of insults so i read no further than this...
if you want to converse with me fully, stop your childish insults...
or don't, but don't expect me to read your rants...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#226 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay! When heterosexual couples that can't or don't have children are forcibly divorced by the government, let's talk...
can't be done.

We have a right to procreate and a right to choose not to...
all within the marriage context...

a choice not to is not the same as an inability to do it...

if you understood that our right to privacy extends from procreation and not a GOVT ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSE, you would realize how silly your position that we invented it just to hate you really is...

All of what you guys write was already addressed by the SUPREME COURT...so your making these arguments only indicates you unawareness of that court...

I know if it were rights i was concerned with I would at least be KNOWLEDGEABLE about them...
why aren't you?

Read some marriage cases and tell me what they say...but you will find one word in all of them besides marriage...(way back 100 years) I'll give you a hint...it starts with a p and ends with a rocreation...

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#227 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You just typed out the same argument in a longer form...
no, its not REQUIRED...nor is LOVE..are you suggesting love has nothing to do within marriage?
So, our SCOTUS has discussed marriage along WITH procreation for over 100 years....
Your continued insistence that marriage and procreation are linked makes you look really foolish. They're just not. The fact that 40% of first born children are born to unmarried parents should give you a clue that people CAN and DO have children without being married.

Until the government starts forcing people to get and stay married when they have children together, and denies infertile couples marriage licenses, you're just pounding sand.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#228 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
can't be done.
Why not? Of course it can. Just as easily as banning marriage for same-sex couples. Pass a law and hope it stands up to judicial scrutiny.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>We have a right to procreate and a right to choose not to...
As do we.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
all within the marriage context...
And WITHOUT the marriage context. As do we.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
a choice not to is not the same as an inability to do it...
Not from a legal point of view, it isn't. It still means "no kids", and since that's your entire basis for making marriage a special right for straight only, it's exactly the same.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
if you understood that our right to privacy extends from procreation
LOL!!!! Actually, it extends from the U.S. Constitution, which as NOTHING to do with procreation! Too funny!!
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>and not a GOVT ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSE, you would realize how silly your position that we invented it just to hate you really is...
That's not my position. Who said it was?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
All of what you guys write was already addressed by the SUPREME COURT...
Not really.... Not in the way you dream it has been.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>so your making these arguments only indicates you unawareness of that court...
Actually, you're the one showing your "unawareness" of the court. 14 times in the last hundred or so years they've mentioned marriage as a basic civil right. But you didn't know that, did you?
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I know if it were rights i was concerned with I would at least be KNOWLEDGEABLE about them...
Back at ya'.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
why aren't you?
I am. You're not if you continue arguing what you are.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Read some marriage cases and tell me what they say...
Do your own research. I HAVE read those cases. That's how I know you're wrong.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>but you will find one word in all of them besides marriage...(way back 100 years) I'll give you a hint...it starts with a p and ends with a rocreation...
Keep dreaming, hon. We're not as stupid as you think we are.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#229 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Your continued insistence that marriage and procreation are linked makes you look really foolish. They're just not..
says you.

Why not quote me a supreme court case that discusses marriage and NOT procreation?

because you can't?

explain bans on marriage between close relatives...
why would we have procreation concerns at the time of marriage if procreation was not implied by marriage?

you position they are not related is based on your feelings and your ignorance.
Uve

Indio, CA

#230 Oct 10, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
what is a "bastard"?
so REALITY indicates differently...
I saw a bunch of insults so i read no further than this...
if you want to converse with me fully, stop your childish insults...
or don't, but don't expect me to read your rants...
LOL.. Too bad you should have read it..the 'Reality' is people are having children with out regard to marriage and people can be married with out regard to children. End of conversation, it's pointless, it's like arguing with a brick wall. You can't/won't change your ingrained viewpoint and I'm not straight, never will be.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#231 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Do your own research. I HAVE read those cases. That's how I know you're wrong.
sure, then just post the SCOTUS marriage case that discusses marriage and doesn't mention procreation..

I'll wait.

Or how about you comment on this one:
"Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Explain how the SCOTUS in 1978 found the right to procreate IMPLIED a right to marry?

" if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to [marry].

whats that quote you guys love from Loving, oh right its actually from Skinner v Oklahoma a forced STRILIZATION case...wait...why would they discuss MARRIAGE in a case about STERILIZATION?
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

It doesn't say marriage OR procreation does it?

So, every case that discusses marriage discussed procreation....that proves they are linked...where's your support that they are not linked?

is it that ther eis no RREQUIREMENT to porcrete?

been there, done that:
"he equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

it also explains why it is not constitutional to do what you suggested to procreators...

how could you have read these cases and be so far off base?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#232 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.. Too bad you should have read it..the 'Reality' is people are having children with out regard to marriage and people can be married with out regard to children. End of conversation, it's pointless, it's like arguing with a brick wall. You can't/won't change your ingrained viewpoint and I'm not straight, never will be.
what, you mean people have kids outside of marriage?

WOW what a whopper....wonder why none of the SCOTUS justices knew that...
or maybe its not relevant to the point being made?
(in reality that's what it is, not that the justices are ignorant of a basic fact.)

If you want to pretend all opposition is based in bigotry, fine, but do you really expect me or anyone who HAS read the scotus cases to believe that?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#233 Oct 10, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

Actually, you're the one showing your "unawareness" of the court. 14 times in the last hundred or so years they've mentioned marriage as a basic civil right. But you didn't know that, did you?
actually, I did, and EVERY ONE OF THEM mentions procreation...didn't know that did you?

yup, its your ignorance not other people's bigotry...
but its MUCH easier to declare it hate than have to address it right?
Maybe I should try it..
why do you hate society and our laws so much?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#234 Oct 10, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.. Too bad you should have read it..the 'Reality' is people are having children with out regard to marriage and people can be married with out regard to children. End of conversation, it's pointless, it's like arguing with a brick wall. You can't/won't change your ingrained viewpoint and I'm not straight, never will be.
"end of conversation"?
Oh,. you meant that instead of reading any of the cases you wont discuss it with me anymore...

good, then keep your word and STFU.

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
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 14 min Bruce Chee 68,969
News Parade kicks off Erie's pride festival 51 min Homophobe pride 7
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Big C 16,017
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Terra Firma 38,811
News Gay group puts heat on Sizzla*Aug. 27, 2016, 11... 4 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
News Not 'old white guys' - Shriners to ride in Calg... 4 hr Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 4 hr Rose_NoHo 81
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 hr June VanDerMark 11,315
More from around the web