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
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

#89 Oct 8, 2012
As a SCOTUS Justice, Scalia must carry out responsibilities to society, as well as to the individual.
Gays tend to view things only in terms of self, or the individual, and tend to disregard the greater needs of society.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#90 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
As a SCOTUS Justice, Scalia must carry out responsibilities to society, as well as to the individual.
Gays tend to view things only in terms of self, or the individual, and tend to disregard the greater needs of society.
Really!? So now your an expert on how gays view things? However, the view does change when your the one being discriminated against. It would be interesting to see what YOUR view would be if, shall we say, the 'shoe was on your foot'...jerk
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

#91 Oct 8, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!? So now your an expert on how gays view things? However, the view does change when your the one being discriminated against. It would be interesting to see what YOUR view would be if, shall we say, the 'shoe was on your foot'...jerk
"Shoes" and "feet" have to do with the individual, not society, so you make my point.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#92 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
...Again, marriage is between opposite genders. That's the rule. The normal. The natural.
This claim isn't even an argument, nor is it entirely true. It remains the law in most states, but not all. Civil marriage for a same-sex couple is as normal and natural for them as civil marriage is for opposite-sex couples.

What you're doing is merely begging the question: what compelling governmental interest justifies denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the gender of the partners? Why SHOULD your claim be "the rule"?

The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so.
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>Any alignment between same genders by law is a special right....
As for the specious claim of a "special right", what right would be conferred to one class of citizen that would be unavailable to any other class of citizen? Certainly not civil marriage, since that's the only right at issue.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#93 Oct 8, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
No it didn't..your too hung up on the behavioral aspect of being gay and the generalizations you have of gay people. Do you even know any one gay? What you 'deem' normal is only true for you and unless somebody made you the moral guide to civilization..I'd STFU.
==========
You're the one who can't defend your own dung-holing. YOU need to STFU... NO, you need to keep talking. It shows the overwhelming weakness in your position.
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

#94 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
This claim isn't even an argument, nor is it entirely true. It remains the law in most states, but not all. Civil marriage for a same-sex couple is as normal and natural for them as civil marriage is for opposite-sex couples.
What you're doing is merely begging the question: what compelling governmental interest justifies denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the gender of the partners? Why SHOULD your claim be "the rule"?
The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so.
<quoted text>
As for the specious claim of a "special right", what right would be conferred to one class of citizen that would be unavailable to any other class of citizen? Certainly not civil marriage, since that's the only right at issue.
"The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so."

You just made your own "specious claim".

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#95 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Blacks education was "quasi-education" but was not based on gender alignment which is behavior, but on skin color which is not changeable.
It's easy to change your skin color. Stand out in the sun. Or avoid it.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#96 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
As a SCOTUS Justice, Scalia must carry out responsibilities to society, as well as to the individual.
Gays tend to view things only in terms of self, or the individual, and tend to disregard the greater needs of society.
That's a bunch of BS. Homophobes have no real arguments, just their inability to deal with their own confusion and same sex attractions. So, homophobes try to demonize gay people. There is no evidence gay people are any less concerned with the greater needs of society than straight people are.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#97 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
You're the one who can't defend your own dung-holing. YOU need to STFU... NO, you need to keep talking. It shows the overwhelming weakness in your position.
Most men into anal sex are straight.
Ask your mom if she's ever given a guy a "backstage pass".

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#98 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>

As for the specious claim of a "special right", what right would be conferred to one class of citizen that would be unavailable to any other class of citizen? Certainly not civil marriage, since that's the only right at issue.
==========
Marriage means between man and woman, male and female, opposite genders, husband and wife. It's case law and High Court consensus since we have had law. To try to make something that is between man and woman, for man and man or woman and woman, is to try to have a special right for those same gender unions.

Should the High Court ever confound the law by deciding same gender couples are entitled to use the word marriage I will naturally accept the Courts conclusion. Until then I will oppose gays using the word marriage for their partnerships and strongly defend the word marriage for unions between a man and woman.
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

#99 Oct 8, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a bunch of BS. Homophobes have no real arguments, just their inability to deal with their own confusion and same sex attractions. So, homophobes try to demonize gay people. There is no evidence gay people are any less concerned with the greater needs of society than straight people are.
"No evidence"?
Here's just one-
Gays are more likely to practice unsafe sex.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#100 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Just told you, behavior. If you mean who or what judges behavior, it is long standing consensus across nation in our rule-of-law that marriage is defined as between husband and wife, man and woman.
I wasn't asking about judges in my thread to you.

What consequences and from where?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#101 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>Should the High Court ever confound the law by deciding same gender couples are entitled to use the word marriage I will naturally accept the Courts conclusion.
SCOTUS isn't going to tell the States whether or not Same-Sex Couples are entitled to use the word "Marriage" or "Married".......if a legal state issued marriage license was issued to a Same-Sex Couple.....then the Couple is legally MARRIED in the eyes of the State and the laws........SCOTUS will just decide if DOMA Section 3 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL or not!!!

You don't have to like or agree with my being married......but I am legally MARRIED according to the State I live and any other State that recognizes the legal marriages from other States!!!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#102 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so."
You just made your own "specious claim".
If you claim that such a compelling governmental interest exists, feel free to articulate it.

Otherwise, STFU.

Scalia was correct when he stated in Lawrence:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest'... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#103 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage means between man and woman, male and female, opposite genders, husband and wife. It's case law and High Court consensus since we have had law. To try to make something that is between man and woman, for man and man or woman and woman, is to try to have a special right for those same gender unions.
Absolute nonsense, and on two counts. You fail to address the main points I raised in my post.

Marriage is what human society says it is. You simply fall on a logical fallacy of argument from history, as if simply because something has always been practiced in a particular fashion (and the fact remains that it has NOT), then the practice should be maintained solely for that reason.

That's a form of circular argument, and begs the question.

WHY should it remain so?

Second, the right to obtain a civil marriage remains available to opposite-sex couples if same-sex couples are allowed to obtain a civil marriage.

Feel free to provide evidence of any jurisdiction that has denied opposite-sex couples this "special right."
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>Should the High Court ever confound the law by deciding same gender couples are entitled to use the word marriage I will naturally accept the Courts conclusion. Until then I will oppose gays using the word marriage for their partnerships and strongly defend the word marriage for unions between a man and woman.
Which still begs the question: what compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples?

Since there is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage harms anyone, and there is ample evidence that allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage benefits the couple, their children, and society, civil marriage bans based solely on the gender of the partners should be removed.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#104 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that such a compelling governmental interest exists, feel free to articulate it.
Otherwise, STFU.
Scalia was correct when he stated in Lawrence:
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest'... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
That was a dissent, dude.

What do you mean, he "was correct"?

According to who, you?
Junior Esquire

El Segundo, CA

#105 Oct 8, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that such a compelling governmental interest exists, feel free to articulate it.
Otherwise, STFU.
Scalia was correct when he stated in Lawrence:
"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest'... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
"If you claim that such a compelling governmental interest exists, feel free to articulate it.
Otherwise, STFU."

Actually, you first claimed in your Post #94-
""The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so."

So I didn't make any claims, you did. I was just asking you to prove YOUR claim. So don't throw the burden of proof on me, because it was YOUR claim, not mine.
Typical queer tactic.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#106 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a dissent, dude.
That doesn't make his statement untrue simply because it was in dissent.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean, he "was correct"?
According to who, you?
Yes, according to me. I made my opinion that he was correct. You are free to disagree. That would be according to you.

Disagree? Then feel free to provide a legitimate governmental interest in denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#107 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you claim that such a compelling governmental interest exists, feel free to articulate it.
Otherwise, STFU."
Actually, you first claimed in your Post #94-
""The fact remains that no compelling governmental interest exists to deny civil marriage on the basis of the gender of the partners; indeed, there remains no rational basis for doing so."
So I didn't make any claims, you did. I was just asking you to prove YOUR claim. So don't throw the burden of proof on me, because it was YOUR claim, not mine.
Typical queer tactic.
Apparently, this line of discussion is too difficult for you. Perhaps if I type more slowly you'll catch on.

My claim is that there IS NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL REASON for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage.

None.

I can't provide one.

There. Understand now? That's my claim.

To refute it, you'd need to come up with a legitimate governmental interest.

So far, you've failed.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#108 Oct 8, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
"No evidence"?
Here's just one-
Gays are more likely to practice unsafe sex.
Sorry, but practicing unsafe sex is not just confined to Gays and Lesbians, but to straights as well!!!

And if we don't deny the right to marry for heterosexuals based on their sexual behavior.......then your argument fails for denying the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples!!!

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
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 min Cowobunga 57,027
Judge: Michigan must recognize 300-plus gay mar... 8 min Belle Sexton 269
Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in N... (Aug '13) 15 min Belle Sexton 936
California bars judges from Boy Scouts membership 19 min Belle Sexton 44
Ala group: some judges might give same-sex marr... 32 min Belle Sexton 11
Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... 36 min Belle Sexton 3
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr In Your Opinion 8,044
Evangelicals to Gays: We Have Nothing For You |... (Mar '10) 3 hr Fa-Foxy 18,818
Analysis: Equal rights or statesa rights on gay... 6 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 192
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 6 hr DebraE 277
More from around the web