Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

Oct 5, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 375

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

Full Story
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#296 Oct 11, 2012
Cletus wrote:
I wish I would stop projecting my own fantasy of having sex with children onto gays.
There, fixed that for you. You're welcome.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#297 Oct 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know Jane just wants attention. So, he will get it. I figure it's better that he gets it here than by shooting up a mall or something.
More like toe tapping at the rest stop.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#298 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. We lose interest because we are looking for an intelligent debate on the law and you guys turn it into Jerry Springer...
Mona and Rose attack like bulldogs and it makes it not worth people's time...
but I have time, i am in the office long hours and I am on hold a lot.
So, like I said feel free to ignore me....another "not yet equal" or someone like"snyper" who can refrain from childishness will come along...
and the peanut gallery of Mona and Rose is obsessed with me, so plenty to respond to...
Yeah.... I'm obsessed with liars that claim to be lawyers and make statements like the KKK can force a gay B&B to hold an anti gay marriage rally. I'm obsessed with fake attorneys who cannot demonstrate a 3rd grader's ability to follow a line of thought. I'm obsessed with straight phonies that claim to be lawyers but have so much free time that they choose to spend it on gay forums picking fights over points they made up.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#299 Oct 11, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know Jane just wants attention. So, he will get it. I figure it's better that he gets it here than by shooting up a mall or something.
The more he writes, the easier it is to see what a liar he is. And he actually thinks he's fooling people with his bogus logic and RIDICULOUS interpretations of court decisions.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#300 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you google the case, learn what MANDATORY REVIEW is and apologize?
I know you won't so HERE from wiki:
"Baker and McConnell appealed the Minnesota court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, they claimed the Minnesota marriage statutes implicated three rights: they abridged their fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; discriminated based on gender, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and deprived them of privacy rights flowing from the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[12] On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[13]
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[14] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[15] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[16]"
Its the seminal case banning gay marriage and you are like the 20th person who doesn't know of its existence...
your side uses its ignorance as a weapon!
I know the case well. You're like the 20th person who's incorrectly quoted the state holding and attributed it to the SCOTUS.

As your own citation acknowledged, SCOTUS dismissed it for want of a substantial question. At the time, that dismissal served as a decision on the merits, but only regarding it's OUTCOME. The language of the lower court's opinion, especially the claim that marriage is for procreation, has never been adopted by the SCOTUS.

Far from being a "seminal case", Baker can no longer be legitimately cited as precedent on marriage cases, since the grounds for its dismissal (the lack of a substantial federal question) no longer exists. There is now a substantial federal question involved in same-sex marriage. Since 1973, all three branches of the federal government have passed laws or weighed in on cases pertaining to gay rights, civil marriage, and same-sex couples. The Congress passed and the president signed DOMA, and the Court as issued rulings in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas.

Baker is dead on the national level. Perhaps you ought to do a little more advanced or sophisticated research beyond Wikipedia.

Although you clearly owe one, I won't wait for your apology.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#301 Oct 11, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, of course, about the notion that citizens shouldn't have to prove themselves "worthy" of exercising a right or participating in a civil institution in the absence of any compelling state interest that would exclude them.
The other disturbing element of such a claim is that it turns the relationship of the citizen and the state on its head. Contrary to the implications of the "procreation argument," in a constitutional republic, citizens don't exist to benefit the state; the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. And in a secular constitutional republic with guarantees of equal protection of the law and minority rights, it takes a compelling governmental reason to deny a citizen's rights, whether it's the right to free speech, religion, press, or the right to travel, keep one's privacy, or obtain a civil marriage.
Very, very good.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#302 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't see it in a list with PROCREATION?
Its on the same level as they say ONE IMPLIES THE OTHER...
you cannot pull that line out of the decision, they expressly state, procreation implies the right to marry, and so, yes, they are on the same level...
now, does our procreational right implying a right to marry mean that it is required to procreate to marry?
nope.only that our "fundamental right" to marry is based on procreation.
that's why that argument is bad.
Zablocki vs Redhail(1978) was about marriage

Skinner vs Oklahoma(1940's) was about procreation

Loving vs Virginia(1968) was about marriage

Griswold vs Connecticut(1960's) was about procreation

The fact that they have been mentioned together is because both are important decisions like child rearing, buying a house and other big life important decisions.....not because they are based off of each other!!!

One has a fundamental right to marry and one has a fundamental right to procreate......AND NEITHER CAN BE TRAMPLED ON and they may have been implied as to be reliant on each other......but that is not the case today nor was it the case in the Zablocki case!!!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#303 Oct 11, 2012
The claim that a court's mere mention of procreation and marriage in the same sentence means that one is contingent on the other (as if civil marriage can only occur if the latter can lead to the former) makes as much sense as claiming that the right to freedom of assembly is contingent on the right to freedom of religion (as if freedom of assembly can only occur in a religious context) because both are mentioned in the same sentence in the First Amendment.

It's a nonsensical argument.

Civil marriage includes non-procreative couples right now, today. That's not going to change by ending gender restrictions in civil marriage. It won't interfere with any couple's ability or desire to procreate, but it will provide those children being raised by same-sex couples the same protections and benefits that are currently afforded to their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples.

No one has been able to offer a rational basis for denying those children these exact same protections under the law.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#304 Oct 12, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.
Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
as soon as you realize that it doesn't matter...

you dont have to be gay to be LGBT....
does that mean LGBT is not about gays?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#305 Oct 12, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.... I'm obsessed with liars that claim to be lawyers and make statements like the KKK can force a gay B&B to hold an anti gay marriage rally. I'm obsessed with fake attorneys who cannot demonstrate a 3rd grader's ability to follow a line of thought. I'm obsessed with straight phonies that claim to be lawyers but have so much free time that they choose to spend it on gay forums picking fights over points they made up.
FOUR!

you have been hounding me with the same three lines for months, even after you said you wee going to ignore me...
but clearly you can't... I know why!
so yup, obsessed and as usual delusional to it...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#306 Oct 12, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Zablocki vs Redhail(1978) was about marriage
Skinner vs Oklahoma(1940's) was about procreation
Loving vs Virginia(1968) was about marriage
Griswold vs Connecticut(1960's) was about procreation
The fact that they have been mentioned together is because both are important decisions like child rearing, buying a house and other big life important decisions.....not because they are based off of each other!!!
One has a fundamental right to marry and one has a fundamental right to procreate......AND NEITHER CAN BE TRAMPLED ON and they may have been implied as to be reliant on each other......but that is not the case today nor was it the case in the Zablocki case!!!
so you agree the court ALWAYS discusses them TOGETHER right?
what do you make of that?

not sometimes,, ALL THE TIME..
the court states the right to PROCREATE implies the right to marry...
is buying a house mentioned in EVERY marriage case?

how delusional can you be?

I do appreciate you attempt to support yourself though, but do you remember suggesting zablocki was not a marriage case?
yeah, so do I...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#307 Oct 12, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>The more he writes, the easier it is to see what a liar he is. And he actually thinks he's fooling people with his bogus logic and RIDICULOUS interpretations of court decisions.
FIVE!

why don't you have any support for your view (and I have tons for mine), why do you just carpet bomb personal attacks like the above?

Why do you not address the argument and only focus on little ole me for MONTHS!

I know why.
You insult and lie...
that's all folks...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#308 Oct 12, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I know the case well. You're like the 20th person who's incorrectly quoted the state holding and attributed it to the SCOTUS.
As your own citation acknowledged, SCOTUS dismissed it for want of a substantial question. At the time, that dismissal served as a decision on the merits, but only regarding it's OUTCOME. The language of the lower court's opinion, especially the claim that marriage is for procreation, has never been adopted by the SCOTUS.
Far from being a "seminal case", Baker can no longer be legitimately cited as precedent on marriage cases, since the grounds for its dismissal (the lack of a substantial federal question) no longer exists. There is now a substantial federal question involved in same-sex marriage. Since 1973, all three branches of the federal government have passed laws or weighed in on cases pertaining to gay rights, civil marriage, and same-sex couples. The Congress passed and the president signed DOMA, and the Court as issued rulings in Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas.
Baker is dead on the national level. Perhaps you ought to do a little more advanced or sophisticated research beyond Wikipedia.
Although you clearly owe one, I won't wait for your apology.
this is nothing but fiction.
truly.

Did you know the first circuit relied on Baker earlier this year?
"The Legal Group says that any equal protection challenge to DOMA is foreclosed at the outset by Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). There, a central claim made was that a state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage violated federal equal protection principles. Minnesota had, like DOMA, defined marriage as a union of persons of the opposite sex, and the state supreme court had upheld the statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed summarily for want of a substantial federal question. Id.
Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#309 Oct 12, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>

Although you clearly owe one, I won't wait for your apology.
The first circuits use destroys what you said here, so i will take that apology...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#310 Oct 12, 2012
Jerald wrote:
The claim that a court's mere mention of procreation and marriage in the same sentence means that one is contingent on the other .
Nope. Its based on the courts EXPRESS language in Zablocki:
"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. "

Get that? if the right to procreate means anything it IMPLIES a right to marry (i.e. the relationship people use to procreate).

But you do seem more versed than the usual poster so kudos to you...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#311 Oct 12, 2012
Jerald wrote:
No one has been able to offer a rational basis for denying those children these exact same protections under the law.
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
hold."

say the high court of NY. The court found it was a rational debate and the legislature could rationally find either way...

In NY, the legislature then opted to offer benefits, but they are not required to do so under the NY constitution...

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#312 Oct 12, 2012
Abortion is infanticide and that is non debatable.

It should have never been made legal and we look like savages to the world because of it.

No constitutional right for abortion and the MAJORITY have had enough of it.

“Stop the liberal madness”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#313 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
FIVE!
why don't you have any support for your view (and I have tons for mine), why do you just carpet bomb personal attacks like the above?
Why do you not address the argument and only focus on little ole me for MONTHS!
I know why.
You insult and lie...
that's all folks...
Mona thinks he is Obama who can lie with impunity but the lies have caught up to Obama even with the liberal medias help .

The country has had enough of Obama and his lies and the forum has had enough of Mona and his lies.
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#314 Oct 12, 2012
Mona Lott Aka "Aida Lott" requires links, such as:

.
Gay Sexual Practices Lead to Uptick in Disease

>
FECAL SEX About 80% of gays admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result?--the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined.

>

Gay Men and Shigellosis
What is Shigellosis?
Shigellosis is a disease that causes stomach cramps, fever, diarrhea and sometimes bloody diarrhea.
What causes Shigellosis?
Shigellosis is caused by the Shigella bacterium. Shigella is found in feces (shit).
Who gets it?
Anyone can get Shigellosis. Gay men get Shigellosis at higher rates than others. People with a weakened immune
system get more sick than others.
How do you get it?
You can get Shigellosis when feces comes in contact with your mouth. This can happen with oral/anal sex play. This
can happen when you use your fingers or hand for anal sex play and then touch your mouth. Even microscopic
amounts of feces that get into your mouth can cause Shigellosis.
How can I avoid Shigella?
Play safely. In addition to safe sex guidelines to prevent HIV, maintain good hygiene. Wash every
part of your body that is sexual with soap and water before, after and between sex play. Use condoms
or other kinds of barriers like dental dams, latex gloves or plastic wrap and be aware of
what body parts may have come into contact with feces during sex play. Wash them with soap
and water. Use condoms with sex toys, and discard the condoms after use.
What do I do if I think I have Shigellosis?
• If you think you have Shigellosis, see your doctor.
• Inform your partners.
• Wash your hands a lot.
• Don’t have sex until 7 days after symptoms end.
• Talk with a medical provider about what you can do to reduce your risk.
publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/docs/Shigellosi...
Cool Hand Luke

Scranton, PA

#315 Oct 12, 2012
Feces Consumption Leads High Incidence of Intestinal Parasites Among Gays

.
San Francisco -- San Francisco public health authorities have detected an unusual increase in cases of shigellosis, an unpleasant intestinal bug that can cause cramps, fever and bloody diarrhea for as long as a week.

So far this year, 205 cases of the bacterial infection, which is also know as bacillary dysentery, have been reported. That is nearly double the 113 cases reported during all of 1999. Of particular concern are the 50 cases reported in July and 60 cases in August -- the highest monthly rates since the city began tracking the disease in 1993.

A majority of the cases reported this year have been among gay men, who can be exposed to shigella bacteria through oral-anal contact. Day care workers also are at higher risk of contracting the illness.

``Because of the sharp increase in cases, it means people are engaged in behavior that puts them at risk for the disease,'' said Dr. Susan Fernyak, San Francisco director of communicable disease prevention.``It takes very few bacteria to transmit shigellosis. It's very infectious.''

There is no vaccine to prevent shigellosis, but it is readily treated with antibiotics. A similar illness, hepatitis A, does not respond to antibiotics, but cases of that illness have dropped sharply since a vaccine to prevent it became available.

Fernyak said those who are infected should not handle food. The bacteria may still be present in the body for as long as a week after symptoms of the illness are gone. It is possible for someone to contract a mild case of the bug and show few symptoms of the illness, but still be capable of transmitting it to others.

Dr. Tomas Aragon, director of Community Health and Epidemiology, said that there is a chronic low-level form of shigellosis in San Francisco's gay community and that periodically the number of cases will rise, particularly during the summer months.

Of the cases recorded this year, 82 percent were among men, and 63 percent of those volunteered information that they were gay or bisexual. Six men who contracted the diseases reported that they were heterosexual.

There were 17 cases of shigellosis among children under the age of 5 -- a rate that has not changed in recent years. Seven out of 10 cases reported this year involve a strain of shigella bacteria called sonnei, which tends to show up when the number of cases of the illness increases sharply. Another strain of the shigella, known as flexneri, is more common at chronic low levels of infection in the population.

Aragon said the number of cases reported so far this year put San Francisco on a pace to meet or exceed the 326 cases reported in 1995.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...
High Incidence of Intestinal Bug Among Gays

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

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
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 4 min Reverend Alan 2,217
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 4 min WeTheSheeple 269
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 8 min DebraE 618
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 8 min WeTheSheeple 966
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 11 min have faith 50,010
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 13 min The_Box 3,445
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 18 min KiMare 987
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 20 min TomInElPaso 96
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 43 min Frankie Rizzo 72

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE