High Court Homophobia

[hazlnut]

Never mind the retard who went off and had to be escorted out.... look at some of the things the homophobic justices said -


Supreme Court gay marriage arguments The 9 most awkward moments - POLITICO


1. Arguing that animosity or prejudice might not be motivation for same-sex marriage bans, Justice Samuel Alito notes that not all cultures that historically rejected same-sex marriage were hostile to gays:

ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was — it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?

BONAUTO: Yeah. They don’t — I don’t believe they had anything comparable to what we have, Your Honor. You know, and we’re talking about —

ALITO: Well, they had marriage, didn’t they?


2. Alito asks whether, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, they could hold the line against (for lack of a better term) two-on-two marriage:

ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?



3. Justice Antonin Scalia points to the potential fallout from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, asking if that would mean a minister could be forced to conduct a gay wedding:




It's time for a couple of these old men to step down.

 

[occupied]

I am interested in what their legal rationale will be when the conservative judges vote against it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Never mind the retard who went off and had to be escorted out.... look at some of the things the homophobic justices said -


Supreme Court gay marriage arguments The 9 most awkward moments - POLITICO


1. Arguing that animosity or prejudice might not be motivation for same-sex marriage bans, Justice Samuel Alito notes that not all cultures that historically rejected same-sex marriage were hostile to gays:

ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was — it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?

BONAUTO: Yeah. They don’t — I don’t believe they had anything comparable to what we have, Your Honor. You know, and we’re talking about —

ALITO: Well, they had marriage, didn’t they?


2. Alito asks whether, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, they could hold the line against (for lack of a better term) two-on-two marriage:

ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?



3. Justice Antonin Scalia points to the potential fallout from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, asking if that would mean a minister could be forced to conduct a gay wedding:




It's time for a couple of these old men to step down.

It's time these Judges stood up.
And come right out and acknowledge
1. All ppl have equal right to their beliefs
2. Govt has no business forcing one side or another to change or compromise their beliefs
3. So ppl need to either work out an agreement on their own, or agree to separate.

If ppl want govt to manage their social, financial and health care arrangements, but they can't agree on terms and conditions,
Then they need to separate policies.

 

[Geaux4it]

Go justices

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

 

[asterism]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

 

[occupied]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

 

[hazlnut]

Even Supreme Court justices can fail to understand the issues of a case; with regard to the conservative justices, it's likely willful ignorance.

At that highest level, ideally, the justices should be beyond that.

The moderate justices use logic and reason, asking smart questions.

The Con judges embrace some old school Catholic mentality. That has no place in a hight court.

 

[hazlnut]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Then you don't understand what Homophobia means.

Not all bigotry is as overt of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[asterism]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom does include the right to have different views.

 

[asterism]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Then you don't understand what Homophobia means.

Not all bigotry is as overt of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Not all resistance to social change is bigotry either. Instead of just telling me that I don't understand as a way to dismiss my comments why don't you try to educate me? What am I missing?

 

[occupied]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

None of them are valid points when considering questions of constitutionality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

No. They are not valid points. Valid points are not easily argued.

 

[asterism]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

None of them are valid points when considering questions of constitutionality.

That is one opinion, hence the forum to bring forth the arguments. It's not homophobia, it's dialogue. The answer is obvious (to me) but things don't change by declaring oneself correct and demonizing those who disagree.

It was a Republican Judge appointed by a Republican President that got the ball rolling, try to remember that.

 

[asterism]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

No. They are not valid points. Valid points are not easily argued.

That's not true. In social change the valid points are those held by the opposition. That they are easily argued against just means they are wrong.

Personal ownership of firearms is a Constitutional issue since it's right there in the Constitution. The damage caused by firearms is not a Constitutional issue and yet it was a valid point that was easily defeated in Heller.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Never mind the retard who went off and had to be escorted out.... look at some of the things the homophobic justices said -


Supreme Court gay marriage arguments The 9 most awkward moments - POLITICO


1. Arguing that animosity or prejudice might not be motivation for same-sex marriage bans, Justice Samuel Alito notes that not all cultures that historically rejected same-sex marriage were hostile to gays:

ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was — it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?

BONAUTO: Yeah. They don’t — I don’t believe they had anything comparable to what we have, Your Honor. You know, and we’re talking about —

ALITO: Well, they had marriage, didn’t they?


2. Alito asks whether, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, they could hold the line against (for lack of a better term) two-on-two marriage:

ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?



3. Justice Antonin Scalia points to the potential fallout from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, asking if that would mean a minister could be forced to conduct a gay wedding:




It's time for a couple of these old men to step down.

Jeezus those judges sound like they got their talking points right off rightwing radio.

Counterpoint number one - it doesn't matter what people did thousands of years ago. Do we still dress like this?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

No. They are not valid points. Valid points are not easily argued.

That's not true. In social change the valid points are those held by the opposition. That they are easily argued against just means they are wrong.

Personal ownership of firearms is a Constitutional issue since it's right there in the Constitution. The damage caused by firearms is not a Constitutional issue and yet it was a valid point that was easily defeated in Heller.

If they are wrong.....they are not valid.

This is a blast. Let's keep going.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom does include the right to have different views.

Abortion was legal in America when the Constitution was being written.

I have supported gay marriage for over 20 years but I don't see the homophobia in the comments posted. What am I missing?

Three of the main scare tactics used to fight marriage equality.

It's not traditional.

Opens the door to plural marriage and even animal marriage.

Loss of religious freedom.

Those are valid points to raise when considering the change of social dynamics and should easily be argued. Abortion wasn't traditional. Interracial marriage did not open the door to bestiality and religious freedom doesn't include the right to have different views.

None of them are valid points when considering questions of constitutionality.

That is one opinion, hence the forum to bring forth the arguments. It's not homophobia, it's dialogue. The answer is obvious (to me) but things don't change by declaring oneself correct and demonizing those who disagree.

It was a Republican Judge appointed by a Republican President that got the ball rolling, try to remember that.

Phobias are irrational fears. It's irrational to fear legal same sex marriage, therefore it qualifies as a phobia, i.e., homophobia.

 

[Geaux4it]

deleted- Posted in wrong thread

-Geaux

 

[NYcarbineer]

Never mind the retard who went off and had to be escorted out.... look at some of the things the homophobic justices said -


Supreme Court gay marriage arguments The 9 most awkward moments - POLITICO


1. Arguing that animosity or prejudice might not be motivation for same-sex marriage bans, Justice Samuel Alito notes that not all cultures that historically rejected same-sex marriage were hostile to gays:

ALITO: But there have been cultures that did not frown on homosexuality. That is not a universal opinion throughout history and across all cultures. Ancient Greece is an example. It was — it was well accepted within certain bounds. But did they have same-sex marriage in ancient Greece?

BONAUTO: Yeah. They don’t — I don’t believe they had anything comparable to what we have, Your Honor. You know, and we’re talking about —

ALITO: Well, they had marriage, didn’t they?


2. Alito asks whether, if states are forced to recognize gay marriage, they could hold the line against (for lack of a better term) two-on-two marriage:

ALITO: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?



3. Justice Antonin Scalia points to the potential fallout from finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, asking if that would mean a minister could be forced to conduct a gay wedding:




It's time for a couple of these old men to step down.

It's time these Judges stood up.
And come right out and acknowledge
1. All ppl have equal right to their beliefs
2. Govt has no business forcing one side or another to change or compromise their beliefs
3. So ppl need to either work out an agreement on their own, or agree to separate.

If ppl want govt to manage their social, financial and health care arrangements, but they can't agree on terms and conditions,
Then they need to separate policies.

What nonsense. You want a compromise between the anti-same sex marriage people and the pro-same sex marriage people?

How?