Discussion: Anti-Gay Group: SCOTUS' Refusal To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases 'Absurd'

I keep hoping that something will happen to Scalia that will force him from the bench. His son is a Roman Catholic priest…Scalia has abandoned any and all pretense of actual judicial ethics already and it really is time that someone investigate Thomas for illegal activities- for that matter, Alito as well. After all, Alito has been very publically taking stuff from the people he has to rule on.

18 Likes

Naturally.

3 Likes

So, the problem is inactivist judges?

10 Likes

Oh, I know. I used to run a newsblog for several years covering this stuff. I always laughed in their faces over that whole idiocy. Maggie Gallagher really hated me. The worst possible thing I ever said to her was that I pitied her. You see, I’ve been working on two degrees, a novel, and getting better physically and mentally while all of this has been going on. I knew the day would come when this would be over, and yet, I watched as Gallagher, Brown, and Perkins all panicked over the impending loss of their cash cow.

11 Likes

Aww, NOM, it’s so cute how you still think you’re relevant. Bless your hearts.

12 Likes

Brian S. Brown apparently doesn’t realize how goddam lucky he is that the Supreme Court refused to grant cert. in any of these cases. Why should they? The appellate courts are all in agreement so far. If SCOTUS took up any of these cases, they’d have to uphold the appellate court rulings. Even Scalia says so.

If they did grant cert., Brown’s schtick would be over right then and there. Now he can continue to fleece the rubes and fight another battle in another state.

9 Likes

“The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,” he wrote. “That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.”

“The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to selectively ignore the law has existed in every state in the union since 1789 when the 1st Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,” he wrote ABOUT THE HOBBY LOBBY RULING. “That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.”

FIFY

I mean, setting aside that there are several examples of the conservatives on the SCOTUS itself pulling shit that fits into his complaint in just the past few years, it’s also just a fundamentally fucking moronic argument he’s making in terms of how the Constitution is supposed to work anyway.

Moreover, he’s really just lamenting that “man…we were able to oppress and discriminate against these people so badly for 200+ years in order to force them to silence and they finally rose up and spoke out…can’t we just silence them again? Anyone got any thoughts on a final solution?”

12 Likes

I owe Maggie and Briney a big thank you. I no longer have to think to automatically spell Schadenfreude.

11 Likes

There are many species who mate for life. We just invented the paperwork.

10 Likes

God will remember you said that! Oooo boy are you gonna get it.

3 Likes

“that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently”

Ridiculous argument. “Nobody” noticed it all right, “Nobody” just didn’t like it so it’s taken this long to gain in law what was already guaranteed by the Constitution.

This is no different than the Civil Rights Act which “Nobody” hates. So much so “Nobody” has managed to get The Supremes to gut it. Don’t see ya crying foul there.

I will speak with my God tonight; ask you be blessed with a gay child so you may find unconditional tolerance, acceptance, and true love in your heart for *all, especially those different from you, Mr. Nobody.

2 Likes

True, but humans aren’t one of those species.

Also, there are quite a number of species where individuals of the same sex mate for life.

2 Likes

THis IS the WOrst NOn-DecisiON the SUPreme COurt HAs Ever MADe since iT deCLINEd to HEar THE 2014 “I :heart: boobies" bracELEt case. WHY arE thesE conserVATIve JUdgeS SO LIBTArd???/???

9 Likes
time is on the side ... of those who see same-sex marriage as an attack on their "religious freedom."

Someone should take these people aside and have a quiet word with them about what the phrase “religious freedom” means, because it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

11 Likes

Well that’s the point. “Unnatural” would be like between animals or two boys or two girls or between a dark and a regular white person. People who are not born into the same financial caste level or have more than four years between their birthdays are “unnatural”. Also, if the girl is of equal height or taller, that’s "unnatural. Sick people, unattractive people or extremely short people are “unnatural” because they or their parents made God angry and we should accept His punishments and not struggle against them.

4 Likes

Looking at this purely from the court’s point of view, there is no split of circuits for the supreme court to resolve. There is nothing unusual about the decisions reached by the various circuits. All of them are following long recognized law. I don’t blame the court for not taking the case. It is about the best decision they have made in years.

3 Likes

The only way for true conservatives to respond appropriately is by boycotting the general election. Let’s teach those RINO’s some tough love. My bible says we don’t have to tolerate this vicious attack on our values, and if the Republican party won’t stand up for us, we won’t stand up for them.

#ConservativesStayHome2014

20 Likes

Yes!

2 Likes

“The effect of the lower court rulings is to say that a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage’ has existed in every state in the union since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, but somehow nobody noticed until quite recently,” Brown wrote. “That’s the absurd belief we are being told to accept.”
You’d think someone named Brown would be familiar with the 1954 ruling against the Board of Ed that similarly relied on the 14th Amendment. Or maybe he thinks the Supremes got that one wrong too?

5 Likes

Brian Brown didn’t “spew” word salad, he “tossed” one.

5 Likes