Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, ...

Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, Lying: The Anti-Gay Amicus Briefs

There are 15 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Mar 11, 2013, titled Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, Lying: The Anti-Gay Amicus Briefs . In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

A torrent of briefs filed from the anti-gay groups trying to protect marriage discrimination are full of inaccuracies, distortions, lies and obfuscations.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#1 Mar 11, 2013
Shouldn't there be punishments that can be applied to those parties that tell lies to the court?
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Mar 11, 2013
The right wing lie, never! Just kidding of course they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them over their heads.
WestCoaster

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Mar 11, 2013
But the SCOTUS should be able to work their way thru the lies to the truth.
JrEsq

United States

#4 Mar 11, 2013
"Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, Lying".
Those words are more descriptive of the greatest misinformation campaign in human history, that perpetuated by the homosexual lobby.
SirAndrew

Honolulu, HI

#5 Mar 11, 2013
Junior, go away and let the grownups talk.

The headline is slightly misleading in that it doesn't include the word "hilarious". I've read the opposition briefs and I couldn't stop laughing at the inanity of their arguments and statements of "facts." SCOTUS will have no problem sorting through the lies to get to the truth. The only danger is if one or more of them injure themselves when they fall off their chairs from laughing.

The other side has less than nothing of value to say, yet they said it anyway. Their attorneys should be disbarred for taking up the Court's time with their stupidity.
JrEsq

United States

#6 Mar 11, 2013
SirAndrew wrote:
Junior, go away and let the grownups talk.
The headline is slightly misleading in that it doesn't include the word "hilarious". I've read the opposition briefs and I couldn't stop laughing at the inanity of their arguments and statements of "facts." SCOTUS will have no problem sorting through the lies to get to the truth. The only danger is if one or more of them injure themselves when they fall off their chairs from laughing.
The other side has less than nothing of value to say, yet they said it anyway. Their attorneys should be disbarred for taking up the Court's time with their stupidity.
"The headline is slightly misleading.."
No sh!t. Is there ever a gay headline that is NOT twisted, distorted, or misleading?

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#7 Mar 11, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
"The headline is slightly misleading.."
No sh!t. Is there ever a gay headline that is NOT twisted, distorted, or misleading?
Do you have any posts that are NOT just empty echoes of what you hear around you? Do you ever provide any PROOF with your name-calling assertions?

Are you just trying to stop people from making YOU gay, or is it your goal to make sure that NO ONE can live a comfortable life as a gay person? What "distortions" are you whining about? If you don't LIKE it that you must share this world with happy, healthy, successful, well-adjusted gay people, I don't know what to tell you. ANYTHING is going to sound like a "distortion" to you, if you simply WANT to be blind to our existence.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8 Mar 11, 2013
And yet no one has offered a legitimate governmental interest for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.

Same sex couples are now legally married in 11 states and DC. They are similarly situated in all respects with the one exception that they cannot have unplanned, unwanted babies. Yet procreation has never been a requirement, and the court has made is clear marriage remains a fundamental right even when precreation and even sex are impossible.

And yet same sex couples still have babies and are raising children, just like many straight couples. Some, like many straight couples, cannot or choose not to raise children.

Empty fear mongering and pejorative terminology remain the best tools to support prejudice and discrimination.
Noodles Romanov

Boulder Creek, CA

#9 Mar 11, 2013
The phrase to watch out for is "similarly situated".

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10 Mar 11, 2013
Gill v. OPM

"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11 Mar 12, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
"Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, Lying".
Those words are more descriptive of the greatest misinformation campaign in human history, that perpetuated by the homosexual lobby.
Still waiting for you to show one country, or state, that was ruined by allowing gay people to marry who they love. Just one.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#12 Mar 12, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
"Inaccurate, Obfuscating, Distorting, Lying".
Those words are more descriptive of the greatest misinformation campaign in human history, that perpetuated by the homosexual lobby.
Misinformation? What misinformation? Oh... you mean the information you don't like because it makes you look ignorant.... got it.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#13 Mar 12, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Misinformation? What misinformation? Oh... you mean the information you don't like because it makes you look ignorant.... got it.
POT MEET KETTLE.
Front Line Fighter

Irwin, PA

#14 Mar 12, 2013
Interesting to note: Only 47% of psychologists in the U.S. belong to the APA (and it is losing members), and only 23% of doctors belong to the AMA. Should touting what they believe to show support for gays is the voice of less than half of psychologists and less than a quarter of medical doctors. I think it is entirely possible that, like in the case of the AARP, the leaders are taking a political position that is not supported by all of the members. Could that be why the APA is losing members?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#15 Mar 12, 2013
Front Line Fighter wrote:
Interesting to note: Only 47% of psychologists in the U.S. belong to the APA (and it is losing members), and only 23% of doctors belong to the AMA. Should touting what they believe to show support for gays is the voice of less than half of psychologists and less than a quarter of medical doctors. I think it is entirely possible that, like in the case of the AARP, the leaders are taking a political position that is not supported by all of the members. Could that be why the APA is losing members?
Probably not.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 13 min Strel 15,834
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 26 min Strel 51
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... 29 min Imprtnrd 45
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 41 min Born Liars 174
News WikiLeaks Outs Saudi Gay Man, Rape Victims, and... 1 hr Love 10
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 5 hr superheterodyne 18
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr lake bay boy 38,754
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 7 hr WasteWater 72
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 21 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,957
More from around the web