My gaydar had been fairly unreliable in the past, I think stereotypes are loathsome, and I think the whole thing of accusing all anti-gay bigots of being self-loathing closet cases, when some are clearly just hateful straight assholes, is kind of silly.
But damn.
Whatâs even more bizarre is that if you go read this imbecileâs argument, itâs very much steeped in the whacky belief that the GOP/Teatrolls of today are, in fact, owed credit for being the party (back then) that stopped slavery and fought for equal rights, etc. Once you understand that this is the braindamage underlying his entire argument, then you just add in his religious belief that buttfucking, etc., is an epic atrocity that is just as bad as slavery and boomâŚyou see where this is goingâŚthatâs rightâŚhe views the GOP/Teatrolls/fundamentalist conservative Christians as the selfless heroes fighting to stop a crime against humanity, just as their selfless forebears were with respect to slavery. So yeah, vague delusions of grandeur and holy righteousness galore.
Except, you know, the people who were Republicans back then would be Dems/liberals now and largely vice-versa, because after the CRA in 1964, the parties slowly split along pretty much the same geographic lines that demarcated the civil war.
HahaâŚyou just hobbled your high horse lol
" In the same-sex marriage rulings it is the false idea that men can marry men, and women can marry women, and that democratic peoples cannot say otherwise."
apparently, mr. franck has a serious reading comprehension problem. you see, right there in the constitution, which a free people democratically agreed to, it says the federal constition is the law of the land. it is more commonly known as the âSupremacy Clauseâ. then, later on, again, a free people democratically enacted the 14th amendment, 14A contains, among other things, whatâs commonly referred to as the âEqual Protectionâ clause. together, those clauses mean that both the constitution, and any laws legislated by congress, are the law of the land, regardless of what any individuals, or groups of individuals, or states, think otherwise. further, all those laws will be applied to everyone in the united states, equally, regardless of their station in life, absent a really, really compelling reason to do otherwise.
there is, so simple even someone like myself, a non-lawyer can understand it.
As Doctor Who says, âBow ties are cool.â So watch your mouth.
None of those churches have ever âmarriedâ a couple in the US. You have to have a license issued by the state/county in order to get married. What a minister/rabbi/iman/whoever does in a marriage service doesnât matter as long as the form is signed at the end.
Letâs see. On one hand, youâve got one person owning another. On the other hand, youâve got a couple asking to be left alone to live their lives with the same rights as everyone else. I must be an idiot, because I really donât see the comparison. Did gay couples ask for the right to own heterosexuals and I missed it?
Iâve noticed a trend. When you see a man in a bow tie, nine times out of ten heâs a jerk. I think itâs deliberate. Bow ties make someone seem folksy, down home, and friendly â things the average bow tie wearer is not.
Having read Franckâs original statement, it is my firm belief that he has shown himself to be not only an asshole, but criminally stupid.
Oh yeah - just like Dred Scott - except NOT at all
Matthew J. Franck has his head in his own rectum - and apparently refuses to remove it.
It seems to me he may have been intimating this decision by the Supremes to not make a decision will lead to civil war just as the Dred Scott decision led to civil war but when asked to clarify, he didnât want to go there in such an explicit way so he tortured the idea of analogy to death. Thatâs what I think.
Criminally stupid --snerk!
The only tangential relationship the gay marriage debate has to the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision is that many if not most Rightie Republicans, Tealibangelicals and Conservatives would prefer that gay men and women be considered 3/5ths of a human being, have no standing to sue for equal rights, stay out of sight and do as theyâre told.
THOSE are the points of Dred Scott v. Sanford that apply here in the fetid mind of people like Franck and his depraved ilk.
Franck should take his absolutely personal and loathsome âopinionâ and shove it where the sun donât shineâŚsideways. His personal bigotry be damned.
OhâŚMr. Franck Hereâs to you__âŁâ˘)ââŠâ
Jesus will these people never just STFU!
Actually the Dred Scott case ruled that simply due to the fact that Dred Scott was a Black man he had no standing to access the court in the first place. This meant that no Black person had any protection from the court for any offense that was committed against them.
There are No similarities between Dred Scot and this most receint court action.
Odd how he didnât cite the Supreme Court case that is the closest prescedent: Loving v. Virgina, where the Supremes abolished state laws banning inter-racial marriage on the grounds that âdemocratic peoples cannot say otherwiseâ
This is way off. It is SOOOO Nazi Germany. Why canât he admit it? Are Obamaâs ACORN thugs harassing him?
Love the bow-tie. Itâs fabulous!
I havenât even bothered to check anyone elseâs comments before I post this, but Iâm guessing there are a ton of them remarking on Franckâs festive bow-tie, delicately-trimmed beard, and bouffant hair.
Iâm just sayinââŚ
But with that said, Franckâs false equivalency between 1) permitting people to marry people despite their gender and 2) permitting people to own people because of their skin-color says something unspeakably repugnant about Franckâs moral universe.
A Conservativeâs logic is like a pretzel with five holes.