High Court Homophobia

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Raising the polygamy question is bush league. That's something a tv judge would do, and not anything a Supreme Court Justice outta be doing. Limit yoruselves to the issue at hand. Worry about polygamy is that actually comes about. Amateurs.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Raising the polygamy question is bush league. That's something a tv judge would do, and not anything a Supreme Court Justice outta be doing. Limit yoruselves to the issue at hand. Worry about polygamy is that actually comes about. Amateurs.

Is that some kind of argument?
Because the polygamists and incesters are already looking to the gay marriage fight for arguments for their own POV. Smart people consider the consequences of their actions. Stupid people post shit on this board.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

When you concede the acceptability of civil unions equal in all ways to marriage except in the use of the term marriage,

you have made the best argument for the right to same sex marriage.

It's a play on words, you do know words mean something for the weaker mind right? Its the same legal rights, but not the same moral rights, which a smart person like you wants.

Dont you see it downgrades society even more?

 

[MaryL]

I am a homophobe. They are all icky and got cooties. And AIDS, hepatitis, various STDs . And put their weenies up an other mans....yeah know. I am disgusted with that behavior. I don't have to accept it. Hetrophobia, strap that one on for size, weirdoes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is somebody trying to outlaw homosexuality? That isn't the topic.

Gays have 2 arguments, and 2 only, for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really Negroes c.1960
2) Courts have ruled in their favor.
That's it. Every post from the gayhaddis here boils down to one or the other or both of those points. The first is wrong, the second is irrelevant.

Courts ruled in favor of blacks too.

Argument 1. thanks for demonstrating my point, dum-dum.

So you condemn the decision by the Court to strike down anti-miscegenation laws?

lol, idiot.

I do, dum-dum. Such laws would have gone by the wayside anyway, and were already well on their way.
Why do you hate democracy, dum-dum?

And I guess we can add to your list of condemnations the Court striking down gun bans.

Very interesting.

 

[peach174]

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.

They are not moderate justices, they are liberals who rule against the basic principals of the constitution. They do not like the constitution, especially Ginsburg.
In other words common sense conservative ideology has no place or voice in this nation any longer even though they are the other half of this nation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I still dont understand why gays insist on marriage when a civil union does the same thing. Protecting assets... When we the people voted in the past it was always against even in California.

When you concede the acceptability of civil unions equal in all ways to marriage except in the use of the term marriage,

you have made the best argument for the right to same sex marriage.

It's a play on words, you do know words mean something for the weaker mind right? Its the same legal rights, but not the same moral rights, which a smart person like you wants.

Dont you see it downgrades society even more?

There is no need at this point to pander to an irrational attachment to semantics, or to an irrational claim by some to the word 'marriage'.

It's the equivalent of a pro-lifer saying okay you can have the right to an abortion, but you have to let us give it a different name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

They are not moderate justices, they are liberals who rule against the basic principals of the constitution. They do not like the constitution, especially Ginsburg.
In other words common sense conservative ideology has no place or voice in this nation any longer even though they are the other half of this nation.

Elections have consequences. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by 96 elected Senators and 1 elected president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Except we aren't talking about slavery, we're talking about separate but equal. You've heard of it yes?

Even if your supposition were true (it's not), what difference does it make in a free society? A person chooses their religion. Does that mean they should be relegated to 2nd class citizenship as a result?

As an aside, how long have you been choosing to be straight and when did you realize you were attracted to men?

A free society? You mean one where people can vote on public policies? Yes, exactly what the faghaddis want to suppress by running to gay activist judges to impose standards by force.

Judges are a product of the election process. Not to mention a product of the Constitution.

More stupid from the Chief Dumbbell of USMB.
Federal judges are appointed by the president, dum-dum.

And approved by the Senate. The president and Senators are elected representatives.

That makes judges a product of the election process. Which is what I said. Have someone read my posts to you.

By that reasoning everything is part of the election process, dum-dum. That's obviously false.

Would you prefer to leave gun laws up to the states? The counties? The cities?

 

[kaz]

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.

If one believes that the purpose of government marriage is children, it's not hard to imagine they just would not see the point in government granting "marriage" to gays without having any moral objection to gay sex at all. My grandmother took care of my great aunt (her sister) for decades. No one considered calling that government marriage

 

[kaz]

Would you prefer to leave gun laws up to the states? The counties? The cities?

Would you prefer to leave free speech up to the states? The counties? The cities?

 

[peach174]

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.

They are not moderate justices, they are liberals who rule against the basic principals of the constitution. They do not like the constitution, especially Ginsburg.
In other words common sense conservative ideology has no place or voice in this nation any longer even though they are the other half of this nation.

Elections have consequences. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by 96 elected Senators and 1 elected president.

Yes and the far left ruled at the time who also does not like the constitution.

Still did not address the issue that only liberal ideology should have a voice in this nation and conservative ideology should be silent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

They are not moderate justices, they are liberals who rule against the basic principals of the constitution. They do not like the constitution, especially Ginsburg.
In other words common sense conservative ideology has no place or voice in this nation any longer even though they are the other half of this nation.

Elections have consequences. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by 96 elected Senators and 1 elected president.

Yes and the far left ruled at the time who also does not like the constitution.

Still did not address the issue that only liberal ideology should have a voice in this nation and conservative ideology should be silent.

The far left did not have 96 Senators in Congress. They probably had 10 or 15.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Would you prefer to leave gun laws up to the states? The counties? The cities?

Would you prefer to leave free speech up to the states? The counties? The cities?

I'm not the one arguing that the Courts are illegitimate. Idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am a homophobe. They are all icky and got cooties. And AIDS, hepatitis, various STDs . And put their weenies up an other mans....yeah know. I am disgusted with that behavior. I don't have to accept it. Hetrophobia, strap that one on for size, weirdoes.

Note that she does not express disgust for lesbianism.

ooh la la

 

[peach174]

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.

They are not moderate justices, they are liberals who rule against the basic principals of the constitution. They do not like the constitution, especially Ginsburg.
In other words common sense conservative ideology has no place or voice in this nation any longer even though they are the other half of this nation.

Elections have consequences. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by 96 elected Senators and 1 elected president.

Yes and the far left ruled at the time who also does not like the constitution.

Still did not address the issue that only liberal ideology should have a voice in this nation and conservative ideology should be silent.

The far left did not have 96 Senators in Congress. They probably had 10 or 15.

Try more than 32 or 33 and Dems had control of the Senate.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

hazlnut
Likewise, I can't seem to find other liberals
Equalminded enough to see the targeting of Christians and Christianity, such as suing to remove references to God and crosses merely due to "difference in belief but no harm caused" while these same factions pushing "separation of church and state" push their OWN beliefs of gay marriage and right to govt health care on others.

Where is the demand for tolerance when its the liberal beliefs being pushed? Why is the opposing view always ASSUMED to be the prevailing predominant "oppressive majority" that should be FORCED by govt to change, but minority views are protected? Does the First and Fourteenth Amendment specify that certain creeds deserve greater protection than other beliefs? Why this onesidedness against Christianity?

hazlnut about overt bigotry
Can you admit that liberals can be bigoted against Christians in ways I don't see Muslims being questioned or criticized. Also Whites are blamed openly, but where is the criticism of rhe Black community for not accepting homosexuality.

Isn't there a bias going on there, to pick on Christians and Whites to invoke anger and sympathy for political exploitation in the media?

hazlnut if you can answer honestly
that these biases are on BOTH sides
you will at least answer your own question
as to how bigotry happens. It is a mutual
problem and mutual responsibility to address.

It's not like your side is the faultless victim.
You have just as much invested in the dynamic
And you have Equal Ability to change your side of the equation. If you want ppl to accept homosexuality then quit rejecting and blaming Christianity, and treat ppl beliefs with the same respect and tolerance or forgiveness you ask. You can do more to influence and inspire change by practicing rather than just preaching, or youvare hardly different from bigots you blame when they do that too!

I trust you are a compassionate soul and will see what I mean. Best wishes in your active outreach, which I hope turns to peacemaking and away from nitpicking and projecting blame. The conflict is never onesided. Taje care of your side, and youcan better compel others to reciprocate and meet you halfway.

 

[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.

I think the point here is that a justice of the supreme court is supposed to already be educated on an issue rather than present ignorant counter arguments based on phantom fears.

Read District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

[Iceweasel]

I won't get worked up either way but I'd love to see the gays lose just to watch them implode after all the garbage they've been doing. Many states will quickly overturn their judicial decrees and de-legitimize all same sex marriage.

 

[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.

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

How?

NYcarbineer
By agreeing that beliefs about marriage are equal and to keep them out of govt so all beliefs are treated the same and NONE are endorsed by govt in violation of Amendment One.

Or creating separate social administration tracks by party where ALL social beliefs can be separated from govt like separate religions. Separate prochoice from prolife, separate govt health care from free market, and gay marriage from traditional only.

Let each party fund their own beliefs and manage their own social policies for their own voting membership that elects reps and denocratically decides their own policies by party. And agree to keep political religions and beliefs out of govt, same as religious beliefs.

Either write public laws so neutral that nobody objects, or create separate tracks if ppl cant agree on beliefs or laws, and require that ppl either mediate to include all beliefs equally or they are ordered to separate and not establish one belief over another by law.