Olson: Time is right to bring gay mar...

Olson: Time is right to bring gay marriage before Supreme Court

There are 80 comments on the www.dailyreportonline.com story from Dec 20, 2012, titled Olson: Time is right to bring gay marriage before Supreme Court. In it, www.dailyreportonline.com reports that:

Theodore ("Ted") Olson has argued 59 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, but his 60th argument before the justices has the potential to be the one for which the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner will be most remembered.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.dailyreportonline.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#63 Dec 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
On your side. The attempt to justify homosexuality because of over population would be one example.
Smile.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Justify" is a neurotic obsession of protestants. lol
Epi-genetics IS Lysenkoism.
I would hardly limit legitimate 'justification' to one segment of one religion.'Justification' has been a primary pursuit of every culture in human history. Can you explain why?

Moreover, attempting to equate redumbant gender couples to diverse gendered couples (marriage) is far more accurately a "neurotic obsession"...

"Lysenkoism
the theories of the 20th-century Russian geneticist Trofim Lysenko, who argued that somatic and environmental factors have a greater influence on heredity than orthodox genetics has found demonstrable; now generally discredited."

Epi-genetics is not a 'environmental factor'. It is however, a somatic mutation. Something that is proven;

"Somatic mutations are changes to the genetics of a multicellular organism which are not passed on to its offspring through the germline. Many cancers are somatic mutations.

Somatic is also defined as relating to the wall of the body cavity, particularly as distinguished from the head, limbs or viscera.

It is also used in the term somatic nervous system which is the portion of the vertebrate nervous system which regulates voluntary movements of the body."

In your defense, perhaps this is an example of scientific 'theory' being adjusted for reality?

Smirk.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#64 Dec 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I work in that field and had opportunity to ask peers. I thought it might come up handy when I deal with people in denial...
Now, answer my questions.
Do you have a letter?
What would your family and friends say if you asked if you needed a letter?
Smile.
Yeah, sure I believe you "work in that field", and if I remember correctly, you are haz-mat certified. I believe you work in a "field", but nothing having to do with "shrinks" and haz-mat, unless of course you actually have the "shrinks" because of your interest in haz-mat.

And no, I don't have such a letter, have ever needed such a letter, and don't anticipate ever needing such a letter. Only a person on the edge would feel they needed such a thing.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#65 Dec 24, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is, you "opinion" should be stated as thus, not fact.
yours too, right?
consistency is not even on your radar...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#66 Dec 24, 2012
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sure I believe you "work in that field", and if I remember correctly, you are haz-mat certified. I believe you work in a "field", but nothing having to do with "shrinks" and haz-mat, unless of course you actually have the "shrinks" because of your interest in haz-mat.
And no, I don't have such a letter, have ever needed such a letter, and don't anticipate ever needing such a letter. Only a person on the edge would feel they needed such a thing.
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!

Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.

You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#67 Dec 24, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yours too, right?
consistency is not even on your radar...
When I state fact, I usually post it as such. If not, watch for IMHO, or something akin to it.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#68 Dec 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!
Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.
You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?
What makes you think I'm "afraid" of asking? It's just that so far, there has been no need to ask.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#69 Dec 24, 2012
It's quite obvious people have questiond your sanity, thus the supposed "letters". They no doubt have questioned it for good reason. Unfortunately letters such as that could have a problem of validity within hours if not days.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!
Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.
You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#70 Dec 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!
Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.
You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think I'm "afraid" of asking? It's just that so far, there has been no need to ask.
Most people I know have no qualms asking family and friends. You are quick to judge me, and yet you keep avoiding the issue for yourself.

Pretty obvious...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#71 Dec 24, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!
Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.
You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?
TomInElPaso wrote:
It's quite obvious people have questiond your sanity, thus the supposed "letters". They no doubt have questioned it for good reason. Unfortunately letters such as that could have a problem of validity within hours if not days.
<quoted text>
You have a problem distinguishing a septic system from a playground. I hardly think you are qualified to tell others what is obvious.

Add to that your same avoidance of asking family and friends for their caring opinion only confirms you are at risk.

Come back when you have a honest reply, otherwise, your opinions have less weight than they did before.

Smirk.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#72 Dec 24, 2012
The letters of opinion of sanity only apply to the moment you receive them. That obviously changes over time in your case.
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
So bitterly judgmental and defensive!
Peers regards my professional life and haz-mat my private. Any valid question of my sanity would invalidate both.
You avoided my personal question. What would your family and friends say if asked about your sanity? Why are you afraid to ask?
<quoted text>
You have a problem distinguishing a septic system from a playground. I hardly think you are qualified to tell others what is obvious.
Add to that your same avoidance of asking family and friends for their caring opinion only confirms you are at risk.
Come back when you have a honest reply, otherwise, your opinions have less weight than they did before.
Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#73 Dec 24, 2012
TomInElPaso wrote:
The letters of opinion of sanity only apply to the moment you receive them. That obviously changes over time in your case.
<quoted text>
Please, tell us what your family and friends said! We all want to know!!!

I just wish I could be present to enjoy the moment with you. And of course support you.

:-)
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#74 Dec 25, 2012
I don't know if any of those responses are to me; they're not being quoted properly, and so I did not catch my name and I skipped them all.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#75 Dec 26, 2012
AdamAZ wrote:
Ok. Sotomayor, Kegan, Breyer, Ginsberg - all going to support equal rights for gay couples.
Scalia, Thomas, Alito are going to vote against gay equality.
Roberts is PROBABLY going to vote against equality.
Who thinks Kennedy is going to vote against gay equality? I don't. Not in either case.
So where is Jane getting her smug attitude? If I were her, Kennedy would make me nervous.
Yep! And I STILL have the strong premonition that Roberts is ALSO going to come down on the side of equality. He knows enough about both the constitution and the public's changing opinions. I think he's too smart to come down on the side of bigotry.

But we'll know in six or seven months, won't we??
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#76 Dec 26, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! And I STILL have the strong premonition that Roberts is ALSO going to come down on the side of equality. He knows enough about both the constitution and the public's changing opinions. I think he's too smart to come down on the side of bigotry.
But we'll know in six or seven months, won't we??
I wish there were a Plan B and there either isn't, or else people will *claim* there's a Plan B and I will find it a laughable "liberal" Plan B. What I mean is, this is all well and good but NATIONAL groups need to have a response TO the supreme court if it doesn't vote FOR equality. One example would be, the day after an antigay verdict, they should start amassing lists and clients to lodge lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit (bad example, but it gets my point across). I love you guys for your optimism because I continue to believe the court couldn't possibly be pro-gay in both its rulings. Indeed, as you said, we shall see. But I would be MUCH happier with a really vehement, no-holds-barred Plan B that *refused* to respect the supreme court if it doesn't rule FOR equality, because I will not respect them a shred if they don't, that's for damn sure.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#77 Dec 26, 2012
In my mind, the court literally has no choice in this matter. I would pointing and laughing at them if it weren't for the fact that a court verdict is NEEDED because economic and governmental benefits come into play. For instance, the Lawrence v. Texas thing is great and all, but I can only point and laugh: The court *NEVER* had a right to legislate consenting gay sex, and the ruling is simply a formality; they have *ZERO* right to do so -- no matter what the scumbag, Scalia says; he is ABSOLUTELY and LAUGHABLY wrong, wrong, wrong.

So a court verdict is actually needed here -- and to me, there's only one way to rule.

Knowing that the *court* doesn't see it that way, if I were in charge of these groups, we'd be spending the seven months between then and now getting together a massive game plan that would be put into play *the day after* any unfavorable rulings were announced -- like clockwork. It would be perfectly legal (just in case anyone is confused on this point) and perfectly in line with the constitution, but it would send a massive message that a massive brand new push was being begun *immediately* in the nonstop fight for equality -- and it would send this message in a way that would unmistakably *bat* the supreme court verdict out of the way as being incorrect, amoral, and horribly misguided.

And ya know what?

If they rule IN FAVOR OF YOU GUYS and if they rule FOR GAY RIGHTS, everything I just described ... is exactly how the antigay are going to react. Exactly how. You wait and see. Wait and see.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#78 Dec 26, 2012
hi hi wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish there were a Plan B and there either isn't, or else people will *claim* there's a Plan B and I will find it a laughable "liberal" Plan B. What I mean is, this is all well and good but NATIONAL groups need to have a response TO the supreme court if it doesn't vote FOR equality. One example would be, the day after an antigay verdict, they should start amassing lists and clients to lodge lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit (bad example, but it gets my point across). I love you guys for your optimism because I continue to believe the court couldn't possibly be pro-gay in both its rulings. Indeed, as you said, we shall see. But I would be MUCH happier with a really vehement, no-holds-barred Plan B that *refused* to respect the supreme court if it doesn't rule FOR equality, because I will not respect them a shred if they don't, that's for damn sure.
Well, there ARE some logical Plan B's, such as overturning Prop H8 at the ballot box, which will still be an option for Californians regardless of what the SCOTUS rules on it. And I suspect public opinion (not to mention humiliation) has changed enough there that a public vote WOULD overturn it....

I don't know what the next steps would be on the Federal DOMA if the court leaves that one as is, but that's just because I'm not up on those things, not because no one is.

I think the reason you're not hearing much about "next steps" or "Plan B" is because there's not a whole lot of point in doing much planning until we know for sure what the SCOTUS rules. There are just way too many possible outcomes for that to make sense right now.

One thing IS for certain, though. No matter WHAT the SCOTUS rules on those two cases,*someone's* going to be bitching about it the day after. Just wait....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#79 Dec 26, 2012
hi hi wrote:
....If they rule IN FAVOR OF YOU GUYS and if they rule FOR GAY RIGHTS, everything I just described ... is exactly how the antigay are going to react. Exactly how. You wait and see. Wait and see.
Oh, no doubt they'll be crying their eyes out and predicting the end of the world.

But you know what?? That's the same thing that happened when schools were integrated, when interracial marriage bans were struck down, when no-fault divorce laws were passed.... They ALWAYS kick and scream and predict God's vengeance upon us.

But, just like all the other issues (except abortion--that one's different), once they're done raking in as much cash as they can squeeze out of the issue, they'll drop it and move on to another more lucrative issue to panic their followers over.

What's interesting, of course, is that, with the exception of abortion (which will never go away), they're running out of such issues to make money off of. I wonder it that will signal the beginning of the end of hate-based churches when they can no longer make money off of their followers ignorance and fear?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#80 Dec 26, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! And I STILL have the strong premonition that Roberts is ALSO going to come down on the side of equality. He knows enough about both the constitution and the public's changing opinions. I think he's too smart to come down on the side of bigotry.
But we'll know in six or seven months, won't we??
Another consideration is that Roberts knows he's going to be the Chief Justice for a long time, but that his current conservative majority is unlikely to last much longer. Does he really want to author an opinion opposing equality only to have it overturned by a liberal majority while he's still Chief Justice?

That's why I think the opinion overturning DOMA is likely to be a 6-3 majority authored by the Chief Justice himself.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#81 Dec 26, 2012
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/
articles/253971.php

Do you understand the implications of epi-marker discovery?

"Different kinds of epi-marks safeguard different sex-specific characteristics; some protect the genitals, others protect sexual identity, and this study suggests others keep safe sexual partner preference.

When these epi-marks are passed between generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they have the potential to result in reverse effects. The outcome is feminization of characteristics in sons or masculinization of some characteristics in daughters, occasionally affecting sexual preference."

First they will identify different epi-markers. Next they will be able to correct markers mistakenly left. Literally shape not just gender, but the masculization or feminization of either gender!

The whole issue of homosexuality will be rendered mute!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#82 Dec 27, 2012
Epi-genetics is an outgrowth of Lysenkoism, and highly theoretical.

Most gay men I've ever known were very far from having "feminized" ANYTHING ... especially genitalia.

lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Antonin Scalia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Janus v. AFSCME could end forced union contribu... Oct '17 Carol Welsh 2
News It will be momentous': Supreme Court embarking ... Oct '17 Fundie Sniffling 8
News Sen. Harris to support Sanders health bill Sep '17 carol Welsh 1
News Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies (Jun '15) Jul '17 UAW 48
News The fight to confirm Donald Trump's Supreme Cou... (Nov '16) Jun '17 Wealth Management 21
News New high court challenge to labor unions follow... Jun '17 slick willie expl... 129
News Nine Things the GOP Congress Must Do (Dec '16) Apr '17 Defeat Maxine Wat... 2
More from around the web