Shameful Joke

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

    Apr 30, 2015 1:57 PM GMT
    Justice Scalia’s Shameful Joke
    you would think Scalia had gone to college and experienced some sort of prior life but:

    "
    There was a shocking, ugly moment during the same-sex marriage case, in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Right after Mary Bonauto, the lawyer challenging marriage bans in several states, completed her argument, a spectator rose from a back row and started screaming, “If you support gay marriage, you will burn in Hell!” As the man yelled, “It’s an abomination!,” guards carried him from the courtroom. That wasn’t the ugly part, though. In the quiet moment after the man was removed, as his shouts vanished into the hallway, Justice Antonin Scalia filled the silence with a quip. “It was rather refreshing, actually,” he said...
    "



    reference:
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/on-gay-marriage-its-not-scalias-court



    Toobin-Scalia-Gay-Marriage1-690.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 30, 2015 6:04 PM GMT
    Yes, but we're men not Southern Belles so we can handle it. And if the joke was meant to be taken seriously I'm sure his steady opera buddy Ruth Bader Ginsburg will throw her fan at him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 2:45 AM GMT
    But isn't it great telling people who are afraid of homosexuality that millions of same sex couples are having it pretty much everyday? Just say it over and over and watch them implode and it's actually really entertaining. Like seeing their power going away so easily just reminds you of how weak people are, and it's somehow vindicating in a maleficent way. icon_cool.gif

    People's opinions and words only hurt if you believe them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    Why do we need gay marriage anyhow? I'm perfectly happy with domestic partnerships.

    As long as I'm not taking it in the wallet, what the hell do I care?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 3:19 AM GMT
    Because not everyone offers domestic partnerships - and even in states that *do*, they do not always confer all the legal benefits of marriage.

    Add to that the complexity of crossing state lines and finding your rights go out the window, because the next state over doesn't recognize *your* state's "domestic partnership" or "marriage"...

    *THAT'S* why they have to rule - the current situation is untenable.

    Doctor9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 3:47 AM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidWhy do we need gay marriage anyhow? I'm perfectly happy with domestic partnerships.

    As long as I'm not taking it in the wallet, what the hell do I care?


    If money is motivating to you instead of morality, consider this case before the Supreme Court in 2013, United States v. Windsor.

    NYT: In that case, Edith Windsor, the survivor in a legally married same-sex couple, challenged the I.R.S.’s denial of her marital status after her spouse’s death. If she had been recognized as the spouse, she would have owed no inheritance tax. Because she was not a spouse under DOMA, she owed $363,053. The Supreme Court said that the part of the law requiring the federal government to ignore same-sex marriages was unconstitutional and that Ms. Windsor was thus entitled to rely on her valid same-sex marriage to determine her status. Two months later, the I.R.S. issued its new guidelines.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/business/yourtaxes/victory-and-tax-changes-for-same-sex-couples.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 9:51 AM GMT
    pellaz said“It was rather refreshing, actually,” he said...


    Time to retire nasty bitch.
  • madsexy

    Posts: 4843

    May 01, 2015 3:24 PM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidWhy do we need gay marriage anyhow? I'm perfectly happy with domestic partnerships.

    As long as I'm not taking it in the wallet, what the hell do I care?

    My opinion which may be tainted because I am currently a very excited fiancé but it's about having equal rights and not having lesser or different rights. I don't want something that's specially designed as a concession to me as a gay man - I want to be able to do the same things as a straight man without having to fight to be able to do so - and then I want to be able to do the same things as ANY gay person male or female without having to fight to be able to do so.
  • madsexy

    Posts: 4843

    May 01, 2015 3:35 PM GMT
    bon_pan said
    pellaz said“It was rather refreshing, actually,” he said...


    Time to retire nasty bitch.

    Amen brother IF he was serious and not making a terribly expressed joke to lighten the moment! And if he was doing that then he could have been far more effective by referencing someone exercising their constitutional right to free speech than by saying what he did. I believe he expressed his reprehensible opinion.

    Since the appointment to SCOTUS is for life we have no mechanism to naturally remove those who no longer represent prevalent views of the constituents as voting does for politicians. Yet SCOTUS - in being the arbiters of the constitution - have acknowledged that the intent and meaning of the original constitutional provisions must be adapted to fit more contemporary circumstances. This can't only mean technological changes or environmental changes - it must include changes in the popular view of how our world should be governed - no?

    In my country the equivalent highest court - de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - which literally means High Council - does NOT interpret or rule on constitutionality but instead is the highest court of appeal as to matters of existing laws which are below the constitution. And since the King appoints the members of the Hoge Raad for life it has even more danger of becoming outdated yet a more limited reach of its decisions.

    Food for thought. But death to the bigots and homophobes - being entitled to one's opinion is liberty but causing harm to others is malice. Ooops so I shouldn't wish death to the bigots . . . except in this case it's the only way to get them off the Supreme Court or Hoge Raad. icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 4:59 PM GMT
    I thought his comment had more to do with the crazy being vehement and excitable. I figured he was trying to defuse tension and make everyone laugh at the crazy.
    I have listened to arguments at the SCOTUS before. They're more than a bit stilted and dry. Well rehearsed and practice. Therefore a bit dull. I can see how some 'bible thumping screwball' letting lose would be a ludicrous counterpoint to everything else said that day.
    Maybe I'm being overly generous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 5:23 PM GMT
    I'm glad I wasn't the only person offended by this; I was just as ticked off that the media coverage seemed to gloss over it.

    From anyone else I'd believe it was a reference simply to the interruption for interruption's sake, but this is Scalia, and if he meant the very worst by it, it would not be out of the ordinary from what I've typically heard attributed to him. If he did not mean this in the most vile sense, then I may have misinterpreted a lot of what I've thought I heard him say about the moral authority of the religious right.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 5:57 PM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidWhy do we need gay marriage anyhow? I'm perfectly happy with domestic partnerships.

    As long as I'm not taking it in the wallet, what the hell do I care?


    I commend to you and others the superb book written over a decade ago now by one of the most engaging public intellectuals of our time, Jonathan Rauch. http://www.jonathanrauch.com/ He lays out the case for gay marriage in great detail and raises points not usually made in the ongoing public debate.

    Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America

    754738.jpg

    One can only hope that the nine justices of the Supreme Court have also already read it (or at least that their law clerks have.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 6:25 PM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidI thought his comment had more to do with the crazy being vehement and excitable. I figured he was trying to defuse tension and make everyone laugh at the crazy.
    I have listened to arguments at the SCOTUS before. They're more than a bit stilted and dry. Well rehearsed and practice. Therefore a bit dull. I can see how some 'bible thumping screwball' letting lose would be a ludicrous counterpoint to everything else said that day.
    Maybe I'm being overly generous.


    That's what I got from it too. I'd of preferred "amusing" instead of "refreshing" but the heckler was made fun of....which was the best part. And it speaks of the inevitability even with conservatives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    CLTMike46 saidWhy do we need gay marriage anyhow? I'm perfectly happy with domestic partnerships.

    As long as I'm not taking it in the wallet, what the hell do I care?


    I think it's perfectly fine NOT to get married. I'm against the institution of marriage in general. I'd never of married my exes. My sister was married to an abusive husband, after divorce she lived with her current BF for 40 years! But (and it's a HUGE BUT!) I absolutely believe in the right to get married.

    AT 59 I can still change my mind!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 01, 2015 6:54 PM GMT
    Wyndahoi saidI thought his comment had more to do with the crazy being vehement and excitable. I figured he was trying to defuse tension and make everyone laugh at the crazy.
    I have listened to arguments at the SCOTUS before. They're more than a bit stilted and dry. Well rehearsed and practice. Therefore a bit dull. I can see how some 'bible thumping screwball' letting lose would be a ludicrous counterpoint to everything else said that day.
    Maybe I'm being overly generous.


    That's how I took it as well, and I think it is the more accurate interpretation of events. Scalia is known to be a provocateur, so he would enjoy someone mixing things up. And oral argument is often pro forma ... the Justices have likely already decided how they will vote. He's also much too smart to agree with the substance of gays burning in hell.
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    May 01, 2015 9:07 PM GMT
    I imagine that Justice Scalia yearns for a satisfying witch burning too -- ah, those heady days of puritanical fervor!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2015 12:23 AM GMT
    Gay marriage. We closed a loophole. Just wait a few years and tell me this was the right thing to do.