Thousands demand anti-gay judge Scalia remove himself from Prop 8, DOMA case

  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Mar 27, 2013 3:23 PM GMT
    Thousands demand anti-gay judge remove himself from Prop 8, DOMA case

    Judge Antonin Scalia, who has compared his feelings about homosexuality to murder, is ruling on the US marriage equality cases

    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/thousands-demand-anti-gay-judge-remove-himself-prop-8-doma-case270313

    Petition:

    http://signon.org/sign/scalia-must-recuse-himself

    It reads: ‘Judicial bias has no place in the highest court in the land. Judge Antonin Scalia has expressed openly, time and again, his bias and contempt for GLBT issues.

    ‘For this reason, he should recuse himself from any deliberations by the Supreme Court of the United States on issues involving DOMA, California’s Prop 8, and any other gay rights issues.

    Yesterday (26 March) in the Prop 8 hearing, Scalia said if California legalizes same-sex marriage, then they would have to give gay couples the legal right to adopt, which could ‘harm the child’.

    He also asked a question about the constitutional merit of same-sex marriage, which many experts are now calling an attempt to trap attorney Ted Olson.

    He asked: ‘When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? When did the law become this?’

    To which Olson replied: ‘May I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriage? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?’

    In the past, Scalia has compared his moral opposition to homosexuality to his moral opposition to murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2013 3:59 PM GMT
    He asked: ‘When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? When did the law become this?’

    I actually thought that was a really interesting question and as much as a scumbag as this guy can be, while listening to that it made me oddly wonder if he wasn't looking for a reason to think differently even if he does wind up using that to no surprise against us.

    Counsel stumbled on that, eventually pulling out that people have come to realize that orientation is natural. But he could have dated that at least to 1974 when we were no longer considered a personality disorder and that alone would have given us about two generations, about 40 years, of contemporary provenance.

    Because I thought there were more outrageous things said: that there's been no history of gay marriage until contemporary times, and that even here it's only a recent discussion. I buried the love of my life in the 1980s and I was well aware then and still the fuck am that noone considered me his widow. Where was the humanity in that?

    And then how they talk about how this maybe should percolate some more. Sweetheart, you're burning the fucking coffee.

    Respect the Gay.

    Rights right now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2013 4:03 PM GMT
    History has a way of determining who was on the "right" side...and it's not necessarily those who are on the "Right".
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Mar 27, 2013 4:32 PM GMT
    Top 5 WORST Homophobic Quotes from Justice Scalia

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2013 4:48 PM GMT
    Those that cannot separate their legal views from their religious views should not be determining anything in regards to our government.

    God I hate fucking religions and their zealots. fuck them all icon_mad.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Mar 27, 2013 6:02 PM GMT
    dudewithabeard saidThose that cannot separate their legal views from their religious views should not be determining anything in regards to our government.

    God I hate fucking religions and their zealots. fuck them all icon_mad.gif


    +

    It would be an amusing case if a gay guy shot scalia, and in his case quoted him from Lawrence, (saying homosexuality is the same as murder )and Lawrence made homosexuality legal...so obviously he himself had no problem with being murdered. TomAto Tomato. No difference.

    I bet the three girls would accept it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 27, 2013 7:56 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidHistory has a way of determining who was on the "right" side...and it's not necessarily those who are on the "Right".


    But the left are not always on the right side, or even always right either; saddly they overlook any damage they may of created like creating DOMA and DADT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 1:50 AM GMT
    metta8 said It is unbelievable that we have someone like that on the Supreme Court of the United States. He is an embarrassment to our political system. Archie Bunker needs to RETIRE!
    Hell Archie Bunker would be better!
  • B71115

    Posts: 482

    Mar 28, 2013 1:53 AM GMT
    metta8 saidScalia Furious He Has to Hear About Gay Couples All Week



    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/scalia-furious-he-has-to-hear-about-gay-couples-all-week.html


    an outburst that shocked many onlookers at the Supreme Court today, Justice Antonin Scalia said that it made him “angry beyond belief” that he had to listen to people talking about gay couples all week.

    As Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether it was appropriate for the Court to hear a case about same-sex marriage at this time, Mr. Scalia stunned observers with an emotional outburst.

    “O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff right now?” Justice Scalia snapped at Justice Kennedy. “I’ve told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don’t understand why we’re going on and on about it unless you all hate me.”

    As the courtroom froze in dead silence, Justice Scalia seemed to gather steam, shouting, “For two days, it’s been gay this, gay that. You’re all just talking about this stuff as if it’s the most normal thing in the world. Well, it’s not, O.K.? It’s weird and it’s wrong. And just talking about it like it’s O.K. and whatnot is making me angry beyond belief.”

    As the other justices averted their eyes, Justice Scalia broke down, sobbing that he wished “things were normal, the way they used to be.”



    That's satire. Did you think those were facts? Hmm.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 1:54 AM GMT
    metta8 saidTop 5 WORST Homophobic Quotes from Justice Scalia

    "http://www.youtube.com/embed/0aXczS1t5EM


    MjAxMi1hN2M0ZDUyMTZjOTc5NmIx.png
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Mar 28, 2013 2:00 AM GMT
    sorry about that. I don't normally read the new yorker. I have never heard of the The Borowitz Report.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 2:22 AM GMT
    tru_blu_aussie said
    But the left are not always on the right side, or even always right either; saddly they overlook any damage they may of created like creating DOMA and DADT.

    As usual you are totally mistaken about US political history. It's a waste of time trying to educate you, since you never listen, and certainly never learn. But it would be nice if for once you kept your uninformed mouth quiet about things you know nothing about, and invariably get all wrong, rather than spreading your chronic misinformation on this site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 3:12 AM GMT
    It makes no sense to be upset about scalia when most U.S. gays support a president who is providing foreign aid to countries that execute gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 3:22 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidIt makes no sense to be upset about scalia when most U.S. gays support a president who is providing foreign aid to countries that execute gays.

    That Right Wing talking point has already been spammed here, and promptly debunked. You may need to update your sources, I think you're a version behind in your canned anti-Obama rhetoric.

    The Right is still foolishly trying to portray the most pro-gay President in US history as being as anti-gay as they are. You're really not advancing their agenda here very successfully.

    beating-a-dead-horse.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 3:41 AM GMT
    metta8 saidsorry about that. I don't normally read the new yorker. I have never heard of the The Borowitz Report.


    Borowitz Report -- very, very funny and available online free. He is a terrific pundit and satirist, brings a big smile and laugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 3:59 AM GMT
    Scalia has been on that sit for way toooo long(1986). He needs to move on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 4:09 AM GMT


    ‘When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?'
    Had I been there and been allowed to speak I would have said,
    When did it become unconstitutional to exclude different races from marrying? When the Supreme Court decided so. in 1967.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 4:13 AM GMT
    may11 saidScalia has been on that sit for way toooo long(1986). He needs to move on.


    People need to send him lots of sugary, refined wheat snacks with lots of sodium and fat. Clearly he hasn't had a movement in quite some time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 4:28 AM GMT
    Unintended said
    meninlove said

    ‘When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?'
    Had I been there and been allowed to speak I would have said,
    When did it become unconstitutional to exclude different races from marrying? When the Supreme Court decided so. in 1967.


    You misinterpreted Scalia's words.


    lol, oh probably. The whole thing mystifies me, that it would even come to such protracted arguments. icon_cry.gif
  • Zinc

    Posts: 197

    Mar 28, 2013 4:36 AM GMT
    I'm sorry, but you can't have a SCOTUS justice step down every time he or she disagrees with your views (or is just disagreeable). That's not how the system works. I don't understand why people think it's ok to insist to change the rules of the game, in the middle of the game, just because it suits them in this or that instance.

    By this same logic, the other side tried to argue that Judge Walker should have recused himself on account of his sexual orientation at the first federal trial of prop 8. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 28, 2013 4:50 AM GMT
    meninlove said

    ‘When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?'
    Had I been there and been allowed to speak I would have said,
    When did it become unconstitutional to exclude different races from marrying? When the Supreme Court decided so. in 1967.


    Perhaps in retrospect but at the time we were essentially considered a personality disorder by modern psychology until 1974, though not by Freud, generations earlier.

    What I find interesting is the idea of being illegal as opposed to not yet having legality recognized.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

    Laws against interracial marriage were on the books since the 1700s here. Laws against same sex marriage since the 1970s. From Freud to the 1970s we were considered defective and before that we were probably just scared out of our fucking minds.

    So what was it before it became illegal, unrecognized legal simply because no one tried to exercise their rights which had not yet been established? How do you draw precedence from that? I don't think that question was asked in attack. It questions how do laws arise and when would they be applied.

    If we were considered by psychology still to be a disorder, would we have this constitutional right?