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

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#69 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
You don't have to, but behavior has consequences, and you choose which ones to suffer or not. It's your call.
And where would these "consequences" come from?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#70 Oct 8, 2012
snyper wrote:
Could Scalia's comment be ground to demand his recusal?
One can always ask. The problem is that it would be Scalia that would be deciding if he can or can't be impartial.

And since he's the very definition of an "activist judge" when it comes to any decision he can use to force his Roman Catholic beliefs onto the rest of the country, I kinda doubt he would consider himself to be impartial on a gay rights case.

Even if he would actually question is own partiality on an issue, do you think someone with his voting record was give up the opportunity to punish all those filthy queers by handing down a "decision" that severely injures us and our families for decades??

Not on your life he wouldn't!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#71 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Heterosexuals who are black cannot choose to not manifest black skin or blood either. Just further proves the comparison of sexual orientation treatment to race discriminaton is misplaced.
I never mentioned anything about race.

I dealt solely with your statement that a homosexual could choose to not manifest gay behavior. My observation was to point out that the opposite would also hold true. That a heterosexual could choose to not manifest straight behavior.

So if choosing to manifest any particular sexual orientation is a choise (you do admit so in post #64) then those benefits grated to those choosing to manifest straight behaviour should also extend to those who choose to manifest gay behaviour. You wouldn't want 'special rights' for only one choice would you?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#72 Oct 8, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
And where would these "consequences" come from?
==========
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.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#73 Oct 8, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I never mentioned anything about race.
I dealt solely with your statement that a homosexual could choose to not manifest gay behavior. My observation was to point out that the opposite would also hold true. That a heterosexual could choose to not manifest straight behavior.
So if choosing to manifest any particular sexual orientation is a choise (you do admit so in post #64) then those benefits grated to those choosing to manifest straight behaviour should also extend to those who choose to manifest gay behaviour. You wouldn't want 'special rights' for only one choice would you?
==========
Our system of law is in consensus that marriage is defined as between man and woman, throughout our case law and High Court decisions. So to recognize same gender unions as marriage would be to grant gays a special right. A right outside of the rule-of-law and one that when challenged in the highest Court will not pass muster.

It might be possible to use the term quasi-marriage for gay unions.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#74 Oct 8, 2012
Whether one mentions race of not it is always good to point out comparing gays to blacks denial of rights does not work. Homosexual proponents invariable bring it up just as was done in this forum. One is a behavior and the other is not.
NoQ

New York, NY

#75 Oct 8, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>One can always ask. The problem is that it would be Scalia that would be deciding if he can or can't be impartial.

And since he's the very definition of an "activist judge" when it comes to any decision he can use to force his Roman Catholic beliefs onto the rest of the country, I kinda doubt he would consider himself to be impartial on a gay rights case.

Even if he would actually question is own partiality on an issue, do you think someone with his voting record was give up the opportunity to punish all those filthy queers by handing down a "decision" that severely injures us and our families for decades??

Not on your life he wouldn't!
Good thing the decision is not up to me. I'd take good care of you good ole Queers.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#76 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.
SO, when "consensus" changes will you then be in support of marriage equality?

The law is slowly but surely changing.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#77 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Our system of law is in consensus that marriage is defined as between man and woman, throughout our case law and High Court decisions. So to recognize same gender unions as marriage would be to grant gays a special right. A right outside of the rule-of-law and one that when challenged in the highest Court will not pass muster.
Case law in Massachusetts includes male-male and female-female marriages.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule. But the court is supposed to wait to read briefs and hear legal arguments before rendering their decision. Scalia seems to have already made up his mind. Wouldn't you have a problem with a judge that had already decided your quilt before even hearing your case? I would and do. Scalia should recuse himself from any upcoming marriage case for already prejudging the case.

Granting gays and lesbians the same access to marriage would be equal rights. If they are the same, how could it be construed as somehow 'special'? Keeping marriage for heterosexual couples only would make it a 'special' right; something I am not in favor of.
WMCOL wrote:
It might be possible to use the term quasi-marriage for gay unions.
So it should have been alright to call the education given to blacks prior to 1954 'quasi-education'?

Separate is never equal. That is case law. So why should gay and lesbian couples legally married in their state accept something 'less-than'? Would you? Rosa Parks didn't. I won't.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#78 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
Our system of law is in consensus that marriage is defined as between man and woman, throughout our case law and High Court decisions. So to recognize same gender unions as marriage would be to grant gays a special right. A right outside of the rule-of-law and one that when challenged in the highest Court will not pass muster.
It might be possible to use the term quasi-marriage for gay unions.
I have a better idea and one that DOESN'T discriminate toward anybody. This would also get the government out of the "marriage business", grant everybody who wants to form a new leagel family unit a "Civil Union or Domestic Partnership" all Federal/State/Local Government rights would flow to this. IF a couple want to get "Married" they would go to their "house of worship"; but, NO GOVERNMENT RIGHTS would go to that "marriage". That way everybody is treated equally under the law.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#79 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Whether one mentions race of not it is always good to point out comparing gays to blacks denial of rights does not work. Homosexual proponents invariable bring it up just as was done in this forum. One is a behavior and the other is not.
The pigment of ones skin color is an immutable trait.(The concept of 'race' is a cultural construct not supported by biology.)

Ones sexual orientation is also an immutable trait.(Having sex contrary to ones orientation does not negate the underlying orientation.)

Denying rights based upon immutable traits are civil rights issues.

QED
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#80 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Whether one mentions race of not it is always good to point out comparing gays to blacks denial of rights does not work. Homosexual proponents invariable bring it up just as was done in this forum. One is a behavior and the other is not.
Your inferring that being gay is a choice and it is not, just like being black is not a choice. Your behavioral aspect is flawed too, a person can identify as gay and never have sex. But then the whole point to your argument is not to seem like a bigot and fight against what you think are 'special rights' when in actuality they are the same rights you have. You just don't get to 'deem' gender for everyone else. If your going to call other posters typical in their responses, you might want to look at yours.
Sgt Common Sense

Fairfield, CT

#81 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
Whether one mentions race of not it is always good to point out comparing gays to blacks denial of rights does not work. Homosexual proponents invariable bring it up just as was done in this forum. One is a behavior and the other is not.
"Would you ask me how I'd dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare, and I do compare them. I know what it means to be called a n****r. I know what it means to be called a fa***t. And I can sum up the difference in one word: none. "
Mel Boozer at the 1980 Democratic Convention

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#82 Oct 8, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Case law in Massachusetts includes male-male and female-female marriages.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule. But the court is supposed to wait to read briefs and hear legal arguments before rendering their decision. Scalia seems to have already made up his mind. Wouldn't you have a problem with a judge that had already decided your quilt before even hearing your case? I would and do. Scalia should recuse himself from any upcoming marriage case for already prejudging the case.
Granting gays and lesbians the same access to marriage would be equal rights. If they are the same, how could it be construed as somehow 'special'? Keeping marriage for heterosexual couples only would make it a 'special' right; something I am not in favor of.
<quoted text>
So it should have been alright to call the education given to blacks prior to 1954 'quasi-education'?
Separate is never equal. That is case law. So why should gay and lesbian couples legally married in their state accept something 'less-than'? Would you? Rosa Parks didn't. I won't.
==========
Again, Rosa Parks was about discrimination based on skin color, an unchangeable feature, not behavior, which can be changed.

As far as the law changing, I will abide by the rule-of-law. It is all that keeps the nation together, but I will strongly oppose all laws that seek to call gay unions marriage.

Again, marriage is between opposite genders. That's the rule. The normal. The natural. Any alignment between same genders by law is a special right.

I don't care for Scalia but he is gonna have to be judged on what he does in Court and not what he says on some talk show.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#83 Oct 8, 2012
Blacks education was "quasi-education" but was not based on gender alignment which is behavior, but on skin color which is not changeable.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#84 Oct 8, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
One can always ask. The problem is that it would be Scalia that would be deciding if he can or can't be impartial.
And since he's the very definition of an "activist judge" when it comes to any decision he can use to force his Roman Catholic beliefs onto the rest of the country, I kinda doubt he would consider himself to be impartial on a gay rights case.
Even if he would actually question is own partiality on an issue, do you think someone with his voting record was give up the opportunity to punish all those filthy queers by handing down a "decision" that severely injures us and our families for decades??
Not on your life he wouldn't!
==========
It's not totally left to Scalia if he lets his partisan leanings effect his decisions on the Court.

Scalia's conduct if not "good behavior" is reachable through the process called Impeachment.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#85 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
>>>Did YOU choose to be heterosexual?<<<
No, but acting in a heterosexual way is a choice, just as acting in a homosexual way is a choice, unless gays, unlike heterosexuals, cannot control their behavior.
Total Bullsh*t and unbelievable, try again... BTW your bigotry is showing

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#86 Oct 8, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Total Bullsh*t and unbelievable, try again... BTW your bigotry is showing
----------
"Total Bullsh*t and unbelievable, try again..." BTW, your position just faltered.
Uve

Desert Hot Springs, CA

#87 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
"Total Bullsh*t and unbelievable, try again..." BTW, your position just faltered.
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.

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#88 Oct 8, 2012
WMCOL wrote:
<quoted text>
==========
You don't have to, but behavior has consequences, and you choose which ones to suffer or not. It's your call.
your rite... your continued choice to be an ignorant bigot is a behavior well noted... thanks for playin fucktard...

next

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min fetch almighty 1,109,081
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 10 min Kentucky-Mitch 10,765
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min positronium 261,536
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 17 min That Girl 53 2,698
Obama to boost U.S. involvement in fight agains... 17 min Shinichiro Takizawa 10
Obama vows "relentless" fight against ISIS 22 min Righteous 55
Obama immigration delay a pre-election curveball 23 min RayOne 245
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 1 hr ApePeeD 3,926
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr ChromiuMan 116,523
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 1 hr kuda 172
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••