Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
nice. all i want is the right to homosexual sodomy. yeah, that's it. because it's still 1787. :|


Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – Fri, Oct 5, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Antonin Scalia says his method of interpreting the Constitution makes some of the most hotly disputed issues that come before the Supreme Court among the easiest to resolve.

Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

He contrasted his style of interpretation with that of a colleague who tries to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world. This imaginary justice goes home for dinner and tells his wife what a wonderful day he had, Scalia said.
This imaginary justice, Scalia continued, announces that it turns out "'the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.' No kidding."

As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

"It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment," Scalia said. He once calculated that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment, he said.

In a lengthy question-and-answer session, Scalia once again emphatically denied there's a rift among the court's conservative justices following Chief Justice John Roberts' vote to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law. Scalia dissented from Roberts' opinion.

"Look it, do not believe anything you read about the internal workings of the Supreme Court," he said. "It is either a lie because the press knows we won't respond — they can say whatever they like and we won't respond — or else it's based on information from someone who has violated his oath of confidentiality, that is to say, a non-reliable source. So one way or another it is not worthy of belief."

"We can disagree with one another on the law without taking it personally," he said.

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases - Yahoo! News


gee, no offense taken at your inability to see me as a human being, Scalia. slavery was legal for more than 80 years under your sacred, eternal, static "text." i'll try not to take it personally.
 
Scalia's always been a dumbass, so sadly, this doesn't surprise me much.

MrsS is right, though, the fact that he's still on the Supreme Court is very troubling.

As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution

He's anything but a dumbass. Scalia is absolutely right that when the Constitution is reticent it falls to the people and their representatives to make the law.

But that's hard work and doesn't sit well with the Left who trust "experts" and "masterminds" more than they trust the people when it comes to keeping the country "spinning forward" and view the Constitution and its negative rights as a roadblock to their utopian visions.
 
If you one could quiet sit down in a room with Scalia and calmly engage him in conversation over a couple of hours, I do believe both people could come to the same conclusion.

Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.


the conversation would eventually get around to how does a texualist find that the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them, leads to a Corporation being a person.

As the people who wrote and adopted the words in the Constitution. After a bit of a struggle, with this and other findings that he has made that do not fit his textualist description. Being a reasonable and intelligent man, he would have to agree that he has a bias, that leads to bigoted conclusions. Both men could shake hands and find agreement. :up:
 
The Constitution is a mediocre constitution.

Right, it only led to the most prosperous, tolerant and freest society... like, ever. The beacon of liberty, champion of free enterprise*, the sole superpower*, emancipator of slaves and Europe (twice), engine to scientific and technological innovation, beneficiary of the most advanced health care in the world*, home to more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and finally, the "last best hope of earth."

*pending results of 2012 election
 
INDY500 said:
Right, it only led to the most prosperous, tolerant and freest society... like, ever. The beacon of liberty, champion of free enterprise*, the sole superpower*, emancipator of slaves and Europe (twice), engine to scientific and technological innovation, beneficiary of the most advanced health care in the world*, home to more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and finally, the "last best hope of earth."

*pending results of 2012 election



How do you think non-Americans react when they read something like this?
 
Right, it only led to the most prosperous, tolerant and freest society... like, ever. The beacon of liberty, champion of free enterprise*, the sole superpower*, emancipator of slaves and Europe (twice), engine to scientific and technological innovation, beneficiary of the most advanced health care in the world*, home to more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and finally, the "last best hope of earth."

*pending results of 2012 election
Holy shit.
 
I know it's meant to get a rise in what is now a moderately left forum, but really, it sounds like you're compensating for the fact that you can't get one of your own anymore.
 
He's anything but a dumbass. Scalia is absolutely right that when the Constitution is reticent it falls to the people and their representatives to make the law.

But that's hard work and doesn't sit well with the Left who trust "experts" and "masterminds" more than they trust the people when it comes to keeping the country "spinning forward" and view the Constitution and its negative rights as a roadblock to their utopian visions.

I called him that because of his "homosexual sodomy" comment more than anything else. I value the Constitution very much, and am not entirely sure what exactly you're getting at with the last part of your post there. On an issue like this, I don't really care whether the decision is made by the people or by "experts" or whatever. All I know is that there are plenty of logical reasons why it should be legal for gay couples to marry. It's the right, just, fair thing to do. To deny them the right is discrimination, and our government should not be endorsing discrimination.

Today I saw an ad for Minnesota's marriage thing that was arguing to keep marriage between a man and a woman. The main crux of its argument at the end was, "People are allowed to love who they wish, but they aren't allowed to change the definition of marriage" and noted that it should be "up to the people, not judges" to make these sorts of decisions as to whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

To which I ask, so if that's the case, and we DO leave it to the people to make this decision, and it turns out they DO think the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples-which is becoming a more likely scenario given the support for same sex marriage continues to increase...what do the conservatives think should happen then in that instance?
 
Right, it only led to the most prosperous, tolerant and freest society... like, ever. The beacon of liberty, champion of free enterprise*, the sole superpower*, emancipator of slaves and Europe (twice), engine to scientific and technological innovation, beneficiary of the most advanced health care in the world*, home to more immigrants than the rest of the world combined and finally, the "last best hope of earth."

*pending results of 2012 election

It's silly to say that all of this was a direct result of the Constitution. And it's even sillier to use this as an excuse to argue for the infallibility of the Constitution. The Founders were not divinely inspired. In many ways, the political system that they created has been and will remain a problem for the United States to overcome. Of course, in many ways, it's a fantastic document. I think "mediocre" may have been somewhat too harsh. For its time, it was an incredibly progressive, brilliant document. Certainly the best political system that had been devised. However, I do not believe that it deserves the sort of reverence that it often receives in the United States. Primarily, I really question the existence of states.
 
How do you think non-Americans react when they read something like this?

I laughed, really hard. Especially at tolerant and free, when I glanced at the topic title.



But really, it's probably true. America is really tolerant and free, except when you're different from the standard white straight rich stereotype!
 
Yeah!!!!! America can get back to kicking the world's ass *once we get rid of that America hating apologist kissing enemy ass President.

Last best hope on Earth? Hope is not a strategy.
 
I can never comprehend the people who believe America is so great based on our liberties. Don't they realize we are not the only country in the world that has freedom of speech, voting rights, etc? Yes, there are many other countries that do not have those rights, but we are not alone in having them. The U.K. is not under a dictatorship, Canadians aren't silenced by their government, Germans can choose their leader, the list goes on.

Also, people who focus on our liberties seem to forget that not everyone had them for most our history. Native Americans, blacks, women anyone?
 
I wish I could be that brainwashed. I hear ignorance is bliss.

And it's good to see Scalia is still out there proving time and time again that he truly is batshit crazy. He's always reminded me of those people who interpret the bible literally.
 
Its rough for them, ya know. All the minorities/women are getting preference on the civil service tests these days and they don't get to live up to those childhood dreams of being firefighters and cops without a military service record.


Oh wait, that's not true at all.
 
if you guys don't agree that America is the best at everything ever, then you must hate America and everything it stands for.

that's how it works.
 
if you guys don't agree that America is the best at everything ever, then you must hate America and everything it stands for.

that's how it works.

While there are some people who truly hate America, not everyone who criticizes it hates this country. I think its because we see hypocrisy and ignorance going around to trump up patriotism and it doesn't make sense.

Not that I'm not seeing your point, Irvine, but I wanted to make my point clear.
 
if you guys don't agree that America is the best at everything ever, then you must hate America and everything it stands for.

that's how it works.

Should I start burning flags?


Man, I better start by buying an American flag then, cause I don't own one.
 
I can never comprehend the people who believe America is so great based on our liberties. Don't they realize we are not the only country in the world that has freedom of speech, voting rights, etc? Yes, there are many other countries that do not have those rights, but we are not alone in having them. The U.K. is not under a dictatorship, Canadians aren't silenced by their government, Germans can choose their leader, the list goes on.

When I asked INDY about how the Canadian society had disintegrated once gay marriage was legalized he actually pointed me to an article in which Michael Coren (a well-known homophobe and bigot - but I'm sure INDY doesn't know a thing about him) complained that his rights had been curtailed because there was an increase in complaints filed with the various provincial human rights tribunals in the wake of gay marriage being legalized. In other words, our country had gone to shit because gays started to insist that their rights be respected.

So you see, the real problem is that bigots can't be bigoted in public anymore.
 
Chris Kluwe posed for the cover of Out magazine, I don't know if any current NFL player has ever done that. Guess he's making a statement, and I think it's great that an athlete is that secure and confident in himself and his beliefs. He has a punter's body, not that there's anything wrong with that.

kluweOUTcover.jpg


KluweOUT560.jpg
 
It's silly to say that all of this was a direct result of the Constitution.
It's not silly at all. Our constitution cultivated rule of law, limited government and Judeo-Christian values. The American Dream exists because our society, above all others, fosters a view of aspiration, rather than envy, towards success. We prosper because of that. We are freer because we value liberty over equality of outcome. We are more tolerant because we have been from the outset a nation of E Pluribus Unum.
And it's even sillier to use this as an excuse to argue for the infallibility of the Constitution. The Founders were not divinely inspired.
Who thought that? The Bible doesn't have an amendment process. (Mormons may have another view about that. :wink: ) The constitution does... for a reason.
In many ways, the political system that they created has been and will remain a problem for the United States to overcome.
Not when the American people support you. Our system is supposed to move with deliberation and consensus. That's only a problem when you're an imperial president trying to move "forward" while the majority of the country is yelling "stop!!"
Of course, in many ways, it's a fantastic document. I think "mediocre" may have been somewhat too harsh. For its time, it was an incredibly progressive, brilliant document. Certainly the best political system that had been devised. However, I do not believe that it deserves the sort of reverence that it often receives in the United States. Primarily, I really question the existence of states.

States are a vestige of our political past but thank God for them. They are part of the checks and balances of our system. Which begs the question, which state would be the model for the entire country?
 
How do you think non-Americans react when they read something like this?

Depends on if they're educated or indoctrinated.

An educated person would not be threatened by facts -- would be able to articulate and defend the values and successes of his/her own country.

Those indoctrinated in cultural relativism and anti-Americanism... who cares?
 
It's not silly at all. Our constitution cultivated rule of law, limited government and Judeo-Christian values. The American Dream exists because our society, above all others, fosters a view of aspiration, rather than envy, towards success. We prosper because of that. We are freer because we value liberty over equality of outcome. We are more tolerant because we have been from the outset a nation of E Pluribus Unum.

You have a rather simplistic understanding of American history, I'm afraid. But I'm guessing if you'd lived back in the 1840's you would have supported Manifest Destiny and States Rights no?



Not when the American people support you. Our system is supposed to move with deliberation and consensus. That's only a problem when you're an imperial president trying to move "forward" while the majority of the country is yelling "stop!!"

The above response was too easy a retort. How about addressing this:

To which I ask, so if that's the case, and we DO leave it to the people to make this decision, and it turns out they DO think the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples-which is becoming a more likely scenario given the support for same sex marriage continues to increase...what do the conservatives think should happen then in that instance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom