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
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#174 Oct 9, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't so concerned about 'the children' in your earlier posts..Like I said, When there's no rational to deny others rights, last resort use the excuse of child bearing..even if it ignores the fact of illegitimacy.
illegitimacy?

do you mean breeding before marriage?

sure sounds like a legal intersection of marriage and procreation...
inneresting isn't it?

why do we ban close relatives from marrying?

oops that "excuse" of the children again?
wait a minute, we bar MARRIAGE based on PROCREATIONAL concerns?
inneresting isn't it?

and sure, cut out all that court language and respond with more of your nonsense...

so the NY high court were just being bigots, RIGHT?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#175 Oct 9, 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.
The word marriage is reserved for male and female.
If you were indeed serious about your homosexuality you would relenquish any claim to word marriage and find another word for your unions.
It's obvious that gays will never be satisfied with "equal rights" when what they really want is acceptance of their unnatural and abnormal lifestyles. If it were otherwise, they would find a word other than marriage to use for your partnerships.
Only one word, marriage, stands between gays getting what they say they want.
The word marriage is a one-way street for husband and wife who are male and female.
Otherwise y'all are just spinning your wheels and will get nowhere and always be defeated by the masses and legal consensus on the highest level where all our disputes find their ultimate resolution.
The issue then boils down to "We don't want you to" and "Our gang is bigger than your gang" ?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#176 Oct 9, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue then boils down to "We don't want you to" and "Our gang is bigger than your gang" ?
when we talk about our "culture"...do we define that by a small section, or a large one?

a large one, so yes to your question...
just like defining the age to drink alcohol, we go by the majority view...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#177 Oct 9, 2012
yikes I left the door open to a false comparison to racial civil rights...will snyper jump right into that red herring?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#178 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. I no longer do..since I use only ONE NAME...
say, did you even admit to using more than one name at a time?
yup, you did...
you even admitted to changing your name so you can judge posts...
No I didn't. You made that up, among many other things. It's pretty sad when you have to resort to lies to make a point. Sad, like how you avoid taking responsibility for saying the KKK could force a gay B&B to hold an anti-gay marriage rally, as if the KKK is a protected class.

hahahahaha
ahahahahha

Way to give yourself away, phony baloney.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#179 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
when we talk about our "culture"...do we define that by a small section, or a large one?
a large one, so yes to your question...
just like defining the age to drink alcohol, we go by the majority view...
Gee.... I would think a REAL lawyer would understand the concept of "the tyranny of the majority." Guess who didn't go to law school?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#180 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
illegitimacy?
do you mean breeding before marriage?
sure sounds like a legal intersection of marriage and procreation...
inneresting isn't it?
why do we ban close relatives from marrying?
oops that "excuse" of the children again?
wait a minute, we bar MARRIAGE based on PROCREATIONAL concerns?
inneresting isn't it?
and sure, cut out all that court language and respond with more of your nonsense...
so the NY high court were just being bigots, RIGHT?
The NY legislature and the Governor helped them understand the meaning of equal protection.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#181 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yah, why give a crud about the children...
Here's the NY high court showing its "bigotry":
"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."
And what did the NY Legislature do?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#182 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
same as in yours....
Then why would you suggest getting a "different license?"
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#183 Oct 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>No I didn't. You made that up, among many other things. It's pretty sad when you have to resort to lies to make a point. Sad, like how you avoid taking responsibility for saying the KKK could force a gay B&B to hold an anti-gay marriage rally, as if the KKK is a protected class.
hahahahaha
ahahahahha
Way to give yourself away, phony baloney.
are you saying you actually saying you DON'T use multiple names?

be honest...
as if you could be...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#184 Oct 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why would you suggest getting a "different license?"
in your state for example, gay couples cannot get a license to marry ...
maybe they should try to get something that applies better to their relationship...

as to you, you can marry can't you since you are a man with a girlfriend, right?

gays have different reason they want the rights, so we should give them what they need...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#185 Oct 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
And what did the NY Legislature do?
took the invitation of the court to offer benefits even though the specifically court found they do not need to under the NY constitution...

but yes, that sort of deflates the idea the court was bigoted...
and by sort of I mean totally...
and yes, gay marriage is still not protected under the constitution of NY...

so what CAREER did you have?
you focus on mine so much....where's your consistency?
again, I know...its non-existent....
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#186 Oct 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess who didn't go to law school?
umm, you?

correct!
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#187 Oct 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The NY legislature and the Governor helped them understand the meaning of equal protection.
is this creative writing?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#188 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
are you saying you actually saying you DON'T use multiple names?
be honest...
as if you could be...
I said I didn't admit to using multiple names so I could use the judge-it icons. You really have difficulty following a train of thought, don't you? More proof of all your lies. You tell so many you can't keep them straight. Oh wait, you're not straight, you're LGBT, I forgot.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#189 Oct 9, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
illegitimacy?
do you mean breeding before marriage?
sure sounds like a legal intersection of marriage and procreation...
inneresting isn't it?
why do we ban close relatives from marrying?
oops that "excuse" of the children again?
wait a minute, we bar MARRIAGE based on PROCREATIONAL concerns?
inneresting isn't it?
and sure, cut out all that court language and respond with more of your nonsense...
so the NY high court were just being bigots, RIGHT?
illegitimacy? Yea the fact children are being born without regard to marriage. Obviously your too old for the concept of sex outside of marriage..look around you and get a clue. Quite frankly I could care less whether you marry your sister, aunt or your brother, but if you have a kid and it turns out to be an idiot it's your responsibility not the state's, so it's a little more than just procreation but medical and financial too. Yea I'll cut out all your court BS with no references and no dates, it was too long and too many characters to respond to. Funny when you don't have an argument other than bigotry, everyone's comment is deemed nonsense. BTW YOUR the one that called your NY court doc bigoted..But I feel safe in calling you one POS.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#190 Oct 9, 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.
The word marriage is reserved for male and female.
Doing that violates the 14th Amendment.
WMCOL wrote:
If you were indeed serious about your homosexuality you would relenquish any claim to word marriage and find another word for your unions.
That makes no sense.
WMCOL wrote:
It's obvious that gays will never be satisfied with "equal rights" when what they really want is acceptance of their unnatural and abnormal lifestyles. If it were otherwise, they would find a word other than marriage to use for your partnerships.
Not into logic, are you?
WMCOL wrote:
Only one word, marriage, stands between gays getting what they say they want.
That, and knuckle dragging idiots like you...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#191 Oct 9, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
<quoted text>Stop your childish projection, no one labeled you individuals as unworthy, we are saying that those types of marriages are not. You can have great worth and have a huge heart, give 1000s to charity, serve your country, love your family, but that does not entitle you to polygamy or marriage to some one of the same sex......trying to sing the black slogan of separate and not equal will not fly, because you are not black and never were enslaved for over 300 years and treated as property valued less than a horse.....also when blacks had separate but not equal schools and facilities, blacks never had access to the white facilities....you have access to traditional marriage and many people with gay urges have taken advantage of it......no you want to take 2 quarters and call it a dollar bill, because we never told you that civil unions were eqaul to marriages because your unions are not and never will be, same for polygamy.
I'm black. The gay marriage issue is an equal rights issue. Men don't have the same access to marriage that women do, and women don't have the same access to marriage that men do.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#192 Oct 9, 2012
Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:
<quoted text>You know, I saw a beautiful hot blonde walk into the ladies run and I followed her in and started unzipping....she and a few other females said
"That looks just like a male member, only smaller."

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#193 Oct 9, 2012
Junior Esquire wrote:
<quoted text>
Think of the complications a gl0riewh0le could cause in a unisex restroom.
A gay guy could plunge his member through the GH,
Why do you homophobes post your detailed gay sex fantasies here?

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
Islanders protest gay-marriage ban - Hawaii News (Feb '09) 18 min Joe Balls 165
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 36 min texcota 144
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 41 min Seven Fleas 56,627
SF gay pride event celebrates 40th anniversary (Jun '10) 1 hr happyass 112
GOP leader: NC officials can refuse to marry gays 2 hr Rainbow Kid 21
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 3 hr green3 28
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,063
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 5 hr cpeter1313 1,430
Gay kiss couple 'thrown off bus' 17 hr Lickalotta Lulu 27

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE