SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas Embraces Two Of America's Most Active Anti-Gay Activists

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Jan 22, 2015 7:15 PM GMT
    SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas Embraces Two Of America's Most Active Anti-Gay Activists

    B79-7jHIYAAZghF.jpg

    On the left is Ryan T. Anderson of the very anti-gay Heritage Foundation. On the right is none other than Robert P. George.

    By comparison, Anderson hasn't had that great an impact on the LGBT community. He's been the anti-equality voice on CNN, and he's the co-author of the book What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, along with Robert George. Anderson believes gay people should forgo sex, does not believe in same-sex marriage – calling it a "lie" – supports harmful ex-gay therapy, and says rights for gay people are "makebelieve."

    But it's Robert P. George that the LGBT community and all on the left really should know better.

    Prof. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. He's also the co-founder of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage. George has other notches on his anti-gay belt.


    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/look_scotus_justice_clarence_thomas_embraces_two_of_america_s_most_active_anti_gay_activists
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Jan 22, 2015 8:22 PM GMT
    I generally respected George H W Bush although I disagreed with much of his "laissez-faire" domestic policy. But I felt he was basically honorable and his pillory by the Right for raising taxes when and how he did was a stroke of pure political courage. It set the stage for Clinton's balanced budget. But this appointment was just true political malice and shows how far the Right can go to appease its crazy base and how little they care who is targeted to be hurt. Thomas is slime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 8:31 PM GMT
    Destinharbor said
    Thomas is slime.

    Thomas & Scalia both. They no longer even pretend to follow the US Constitution. They are entirely all about political ideology. They have already declared how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them. And Thomas' wife is a radical Teabagger. Both of them are disgraces to our Supreme Court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2015 10:10 PM GMT
    "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:16 PM GMT
    "Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:17 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Destinharbor said
    Thomas is slime.

    Thomas & Scalia both. They no longer even pretend to follow the US Constitution. They are entirely all about political ideology. They have already declared how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them. And Thomas' wife is a radical Teabagger. Both of them are disgraces to our Supreme Court.


    Please cite one or the other's "declarations" of "how they will vote on same-sex marriage." Cf., Obama's recent statement hoping that SCOTUS will allow it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 5:34 PM GMT
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.

    ummm... should an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court be seen within 100 yards of two of the most prominent homophobes in the country, when he knows he'll be hearing cases concerning gay civil rights?

    He understands who the Hell they are, that their organizations are bankrolling these cases he'll be hearing. He shouldn't be in the same room with them, not smiling in a photo alongside them, "embracing" or not.

    And where was this pic taken? At a cocktail party of some Washington socialite? An innocent happenstance meeting?

    No, in the Supreme Court Building itself. By named invitation. What does this tell us about the objectivity of Justice Thomas?
  • thadjock

    Posts: 2183

    Jan 23, 2015 5:53 PM GMT
    metta8 saidSCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas Embraces Two Of America's Most Active Anti-Gay Activists

    B79-7jHIYAAZghF.jpg



    ironic, cuz they look like 3 big ole queens ( no offense to actual queens implied)

    I always imagined clarence as a cross dresser, and his whole macho heterosexual harassment theater just smokescreen for Ronnie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 6:03 PM GMT
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.

    If Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen posing with Chad Griffin, Dan Savage, or Evan Wolfson, the Religious Right would be calling for her head...or at the very least, for her to recuse herself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.

    ummm... should an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court be seen within 100 yards of two of the most prominent homophobes in the country, when he knows he'll be hearing cases concerning gay civil rights?

    He understands who the Hell they are, that their organizations are bankrolling these cases he'll be hearing. He shouldn't be in the same room with them, not smiling in a photo alongside them, "embracing" or not.

    And where was this pic taken? At a cocktail party of some Washington socialite? An innocent happenstance meeting?

    No, in the Supreme Court Building itself. By named invitation. What does this tell us about the objectivity of Justice Thomas?


    So you admit he's not "embracing" them, and that your use of that word was incorrect, if not ill-advised; good, we're making progress. Now, how about that "declaration" you mentioned? And, how do you know they were there at the express "named" - is there any other kind? - invitation of someone you also fail to mention?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 6:52 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.

    ummm... should an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court be seen within 100 yards of two of the most prominent homophobes in the country, when he knows he'll be hearing cases concerning gay civil rights?

    He understands who the Hell they are, that their organizations are bankrolling these cases he'll be hearing. He shouldn't be in the same room with them, not smiling in a photo alongside them, "embracing" or not.

    And where was this pic taken? At a cocktail party of some Washington socialite? An innocent happenstance meeting?

    No, in the Supreme Court Building itself. By named invitation. What does this tell us about the objectivity of Justice Thomas?

    So you admit he's not "embracing" them, and that your use of that word was incorrect, if not ill-advised; good, we're making progress. Now, how about that "declaration" you mentioned? And, how do you know they were there at the express "named" - is there any other kind? - invitation of someone you also fail to mention?

    Incorrect, because I never used the word embrace. Go back & check. Are you confusing me with metta8? Flattering, but still incorrect. Though I suppose "disgrace" sorta rhymes with "embrace".

    And for the record, one doesn't gain admittance to the private rooms in the US Supreme Court Building without a by-name invitation. Nor have your photo taken there with one of the Justices, without their explicit permission.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 9:46 PM GMT
    Where's the liberal outrage over this:

    Obama with homophobic racist liberal icon_evil.gifSharpton:

    Al-Sharpton-and-Obama.jpg

    obama-sharpton-immigration-jpg.jpg

    528877933.jpg

    Obama with his "Good Friend" the Sultan of Brunei who passed a law to execute gays by stoning:

    barack_obama.jpg

    Here's Obama with the President of Kenya who doubled down on denying gay rights after Obama's visit and where 60 suspected gays were recently arrested:

    http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/07/07/60-arrested-suspected-homosexuality-kenya-nightclub

    OBAMA-MICHELLE.jpg

    Hillary and hubby Bill have accepted millions from the Sultan:

    clinton-sultan-of-brunei-ap.jpg

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

    Jan 23, 2015 9:57 PM GMT


    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 10:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.


    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 23, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    meninlove said

    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.


    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.


    I'm curious about that as well, because isn't this the same Scalia that was the deciding vote in overturning prop 8?

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

    Jan 23, 2015 10:52 PM GMT
    Democracies are not fun or clean to make. I will say that both sides play to the base. If you deny that both side play to a base, this is not logical. Just watch the SOTU speech Obama just gave.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 23, 2015 11:30 PM GMT
    The poetic irony that Clarence THOMas embodies the self-hating, appeaser, and servile Tom portrayed in "Uncle TOM's Cabin" will never get old.

    You couldn't writ this stuff. How dare G H Bush nominate Uncle Tom in place of the intellectual lion Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was dynamic and sharp, always questioning and engaging litigants. Thomas has fallen asleep in open court before, and has not asked a question for, is it 8 years now? Not a single d*mn question. Thomas tries to say it's because the Justices have already been brief (they have) and the oral arguments are pointless, but that misses the mark. Oral arguments are only pointless if you're so entrenched in your beliefs and extreme that there is, literally, nothing you wonder about or could want clarified. Let's not forget, Thomas is still the sycophant that thinks the 14th Amendment does not apply to the states, which if held valid, would nullify 99% of federal legislation. I can't with Thomas. Oh, and he sexually harassed and almost raped a female colleague of his, and then he tried to pass it off as a "public lynching." Puh-leeze.

    (admittedly, former Justice Marshall harkens to the Colonel)
    Thurgood-Marshall.jpg

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

    Jan 24, 2015 12:18 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    meninlove said
    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.

    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.

    Sure, glad to help your memory there. I'll start with Scalia that I mentioned, since Thomas is almost mute, both in public and from the bench. Here are some of Scalia's public statements:

    1. "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

    2. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct ..."

    3. "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality ... is evil."

    4. [Defending laws that would ban benefits for same-sex partners.] "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the "life partner" of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."

    5. "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.


    (The American Enterprise Institute being an extreme Right Wing Conservative group at which Scalia is often a featured speaker)

    Now if those aren't declarations of Scalia's anti-gay prejudices, I'd like to know what you call a declaration.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jan 24, 2015 12:24 AM GMT
    @ArtDeco DAAAMMMMMNNNNNNNN, you threw the gauntlet down in citing Scalia's declarations and clear bias against homosexuality.

    @MGINSD, response? (I only have 20 minutes, please make it fast!)

    tumblr_inline_ncvtk4xKUZ1sudmuy.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 1:10 AM GMT
    Svnw688 said@ArtDeco DAAAMMMMMNNNNNNNN, you threw the gauntlet down in citing Scalia's declarations and clear bias against homosexuality.

    @MGINSD, response? (I only have 20 minutes, please make it fast!)

    We'll see. I already demolished his lie that I said "embracing". With his Right Wing homophobic tail now between his legs, maybe he'll just slink away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 2:02 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said
    meninlove said
    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.

    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.

    Sure, glad to help your memory there. I'll start with Scalia that I mentioned, since Thomas is almost mute, both in public and from the bench. Here are some of Scalia's public statements:

    1. "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

    2. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct ..."

    3. "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality ... is evil."

    4. [Defending laws that would ban benefits for same-sex partners.] "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the "life partner" of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."

    5. "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.


    (The American Enterprise Institute being an extreme Right Wing Conservative group at which Scalia is often a featured speaker)

    Now if those aren't declarations of Scalia's anti-gay prejudices, I'd like to know what you call a declaration.


    Wrong again, guys; that was my kickboard between my legs as I was swimming laps. And while some may see me as a stinker, I'm no slinker; some of us DO have lives outside of RJ.

    But I digress; nothing Art's posted above, even assuming any of it's accurately attributed to Scalia - what happened to Thomas, BTW? - are declarations of "how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them." (Emphasis added; original addled.) They may well be statements of his personal views, but neither he nor Thomas - assuming he's still in the picture - is so unprofessional as to declare how he'd vote. Cf. J. Marshall's out-of-court statement late in his tenure that one of the decisions he disagreed with "too shall soon pass." In fact, the statements are historically accurate, however much you may disagree w/ them. And yes, this is the same Scalia who confounded the left and people who simply don't know what they're talking about by effectively voting to overturn Prop. 8. Wasn't that a hoot - or should I say kick?

    As for your latest addition to your ever-expanding universe of "extreme Right Wing Conservative group[s]" - and as misplaced there as Heritage Fdn. - consider this piece posted on AEI's site, which once gain gives the lie to your frantic declarations:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/political-support-grows-for-same-sex-marriage/

    OK, it's Friday night, back to my personal life. Happy weekend to all!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 2:49 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said
    meninlove said
    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.

    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.

    Sure, glad to help your memory there. I'll start with Scalia that I mentioned, since Thomas is almost mute, both in public and from the bench. Here are some of Scalia's public statements:

    1. "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

    2. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct ..."

    3. "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality ... is evil."

    4. [Defending laws that would ban benefits for same-sex partners.] "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the "life partner" of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."

    5. "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.


    (The American Enterprise Institute being an extreme Right Wing Conservative group at which Scalia is often a featured speaker)

    Now if those aren't declarations of Scalia's anti-gay prejudices, I'd like to know what you call a declaration.

    Wrong again, guys; that was my kickboard between my legs as I was swimming laps. And while some may see me as a stinker, I'm no slinker; some of us DO have lives outside of RJ.

    But I digress; nothing Art's posted above, even assuming any of it's accurately attributed to Scalia - what happened to Thomas, BTW? - are declarations of "how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them." (Emphasis added; original addled.) They may well be statements of his personal views, but neither he nor Thomas - assuming he's still in the picture - is so unprofessional as to declare how he'd vote. Cf. J. Marshall's out-of-court statement late in his tenure that one of the decisions he disagreed with "too shall soon pass." In fact, the statements are historically accurate, however much you may disagree w/ them. And yes, this is the same Scalia who confounded the left and people who simply don't know what they're talking about by effectively voting to overturn Prop. 8. Wasn't that a hoot - or should I say kick?

    As for your latest addition to your ever-expanding universe of "extreme Right Wing Conservative group[s]" - and as misplaced there as Heritage Fdn. - consider this piece posted on AEI's site, which once gain gives the lie to your frantic declarations:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/political-support-grows-for-same-sex-marriage/

    OK, it's Friday night, back to my personal life. Happy weekend to all!

    Game, set, match. Back to the clubhouse showers for me, and return home. You totally lost this game. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2015 3:40 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Art_Deco said
    MGINSD said
    meninlove said
    MGINSD, 'embraces' is the word used in the article's title. You should write to the article's author. Art Deco didn't say it.

    Yes, I stand corrected. But, I'm still waiting for Art's response to my "declaration" question.

    Sure, glad to help your memory there. I'll start with Scalia that I mentioned, since Thomas is almost mute, both in public and from the bench. Here are some of Scalia's public statements:

    1. "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

    2. "Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct ..."

    3. "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality ... is evil."

    4. [Defending laws that would ban benefits for same-sex partners.] "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the "life partner" of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."

    5. "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.


    (The American Enterprise Institute being an extreme Right Wing Conservative group at which Scalia is often a featured speaker)

    Now if those aren't declarations of Scalia's anti-gay prejudices, I'd like to know what you call a declaration.


    Wrong again, guys; that was my kickboard between my legs as I was swimming laps. And while some may see me as a stinker, I'm no slinker; some of us DO have lives outside of RJ.

    But I digress; nothing Art's posted above, even assuming any of it's accurately attributed to Scalia - what happened to Thomas, BTW? - are declarations of "how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them." (Emphasis added; original addled.) They may well be statements of his personal views, but neither he nor Thomas - assuming he's still in the picture - is so unprofessional as to declare how he'd vote. Cf. J. Marshall's out-of-court statement late in his tenure that one of the decisions he disagreed with "too shall soon pass." In fact, the statements are historically accurate, however much you may disagree w/ them. And yes, this is the same Scalia who confounded the left and people who simply don't know what they're talking about by effectively voting to overturn Prop. 8. Wasn't that a hoot - or should I say kick?

    As for your latest addition to your ever-expanding universe of "extreme Right Wing Conservative group[s]" - and as misplaced there as Heritage Fdn. - consider this piece posted on AEI's site, which once gain gives the lie to your frantic declarations:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/political-support-grows-for-same-sex-marriage/

    OK, it's Friday night, back to my personal life. Happy weekend to all!


    "that was my kickboard between my legs"

    REALLY .... its that big?
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Jan 24, 2015 11:50 PM GMT
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.


    I don't think the word "embraces" is meant to be taken to mean a physical embrace. It describes equally as well accepting someone else's ideology. Such as to "embrace a philosophy" or "embrace a culture."

    From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

    em·brace verb im-ˈbrās

    : to hold someone in your arms as a way of expressing love or friendship

    : to accept (something or someone) readily or gladly

    : to use (an opportunity) eagerly
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2015 12:32 AM GMT
    jeepguySD said
    MGINSD said"Embraces?" I don't see Thomas' arms anywhere but at his sides in this formal, posed pic, which looks as if it were taken at a convention or seminar, not in any intimate surroundings suggesting anything more than a casual acquaintance. Criticize the man if you will, but don't lessen the force of your argument by senselessly exaggerating it.


    I don't think the word "embraces" is meant to be taken to mean a physical embrace. It describes equally as well accepting someone else's ideology. Such as to "embrace a philosophy" or "embrace a culture."[Definition deleted.]


    Certainly, and I would never be so dense as to use it that way, even if the caption to the photo strongly suggests it. But, apart from the fact that it was the article, not Art, that used the word that way, there's still nothing to indicate that Thomas wholeheartedly subscribes to the "anti-gay" views of either man he's shown with, even assuming being opposed to gay marriage is "anti-gay." And, despite his own disqualified claim of winning this "game" - since when do the players determine the winner? - he's yet to show that either Thomas or Scalia have "declared how they will vote on same-sex marriage, before the case has even come before them." He may have one the game, though only by default given my admission, but hardly the set, and he's lost the match by refusing to play up as the rules require.