What do you make of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's defense of past comments he has made on homosexuality and its morality?
If Judge Scalia is wrong (as judges often are) and homosexual "marriages" are "normal", and no more men and women "get together" and have children and all marriages in the future are between homosexuals, the world would have no more humans within a century.
That is if all nation's judges of the world went "down that road".
It would appear that "Freedom of Speech" is not universal within the US, but
is reserved for only that which is politically correct from one generation to the
next. Today's correctness is measured and approved or disapproved by the
media types such as TCP, Tennessean, NYT, and MSNBC.
Here we go with the freedom of speech crap...I had no idea that Scalia was prevented from speaking his mind.
Oh yeah, he wasn't. But hold him responsible for what he said, and there's a problem. I know, responsibility is a foreign concept to some.
This has nothing to do with freedom speech. What I see is that Scalia has already made up his mind on the subject.
I understand, gdiafante, Concept is foreign to many.
Their attitudes seem to be; If you don't think as I do, and speak as I think you should, you're wrong. Looks awful familiar here, doesn't it?
How long should it take for anyone to make up their mind on homosexual marriage, dumba$$?
For at least 7 decades in my lifetime, it was never mentioned or thought of, but it seems to be an every day argument recently. In the homosexuals favor, of course.
Should a Supreme Court Judge keep his mouth shut on his personal beliefs? Only if they may differ from his known legal technical knowledge.
I agree, Nemo. That's the real issue. Justices are supposed to be open-minded, with the abilty to weight the evidence presented and then make judgment. Many will see these statements as prejudicial, and they wouldn't be wrong.
gdia If I was Scalia, I would excuse myself. However if I was activist judge, I would remain.
Even as a judge, I would think it very hard to vote for something that the very core of your being is totally against. Thank goodness, I am not a judge.
It's easy, bfra,
You only have to simply go by the law to be a good judge. You're personal thoughts should not matter and if a 'judge' uses their personal thoughts instead of the law as written, they aren't a judge.
By law, bfra, if a law abiding judge sees a case in a personal consideration, they can refrain from the case and have it turned over to someone else.
Too often, too many see their personal thoughts above the law.
What do you think of the recent "60 Minutes" TV show of all of those men who had been released from prison after spending many years there, who had been put in prison for something the didn't do.
A prosecutor only believes in guilty as claimed and many times a judge allows them to refuse evidence in favor of the one being prosecuted.
You aren't only a lousy judge, bfra, you aren't even a good accuser. Shouldn't an accuser offer proof of their knowledge to make an accusation?Where's your proof I'm wrong on our disagreements on Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama? I'm still waiting.
Well, gotta go the Lebanon. Maybe you can prove me wrong by this afternoon. I'm looking forward to it.
That's part of the job description, Bfra. Justice is blind.
g - I know & judges are not supposed to be biased, I was just expressing my own feelings. Although, I have seen judges, that IMO were biased or maybe bought.
Good morning, Nashville.
Antonin Scalia, the alpha Italian stallion on the SCOTUS, cracked wise: "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder, can we have it against these other things (bestiality)?"
When challenged on that ridiculous remark, the wise-assed Scalia said that his dissents were meant to be "a reduction to the absurd," not a comparison between homosexual acts and murder.
Excuse me sir, but reducto ad absurdum is a well-known debating tactic that falls under the rubric pf "Logical Fallacies". One reosrts to the "reducto" tactic when one is out of logical ammo...those who use the technique are trying to win the argument by ridiculing their opponent and his views, not by way of valid points and logic.
Dim-witted A-holes routinely resort to the reducto ad absurdum" tactic...so it does not surprise me at all that this Reagan-appointee would stoop to this level and it is not surprising that he also refuses to recuse himself on a case in which he has already clearly demonstrated his personal bias.
Judge Scalia regards his conflicts of interest as confluences of interests....this disgusting and exceedingly arrogant judge is a supreme example of a man who is suffering from self-bullshitization.
The question remains: Is the former altar-boy and now Supreme Court Justice a closeted gay? Hypocrisy sucks!
Pardon my typos, missing punctuation marks etc. in my 7:39 post...have not taken my meds yet....need another latte too.
I agree with Nemo. He should excuse himself.
bfra, I have managed to change my opinion against what was taught a normal way of life. It is called growing and adapting to life’s unpredictable events. I grew up in a time where there were separate water coolers and restrooms. That seems so far behind me now, but taking another look I see that nothing has changed. We are still fearful and prejudiced to different opinions and manners of others.
Homosexuality is not my way of life, but who am I to tell who to fall in love with or marry. Inter racial marriage was once considered as being sinful and against Gods perfect order. But that has been removed from most people’s hearts and minds today. Not totally, as to what Scalia said as an example.
Nemo - Agree, I'm not saying I am pro or con, just stating how it would be hard, in any circumstances, to vote for something if you are totally against it. Also agree, he should excuse himself, after the statements he has already made.
This is an example of why I think government should be focused on being secular.
Antonin Scalia, the dour, dough-faced, bigot on the high court, is out there hawking and peddling his new book...he has created a news item out of the book's release...maybe he plans on cashing in big with his latest BS-filled tome....publicity means book sales...."Tony" Scalia likes the sweet life...la dolce vita...the book revenues should augment his relatively low-paying SCOTUS gig.....all I can say is, Vaffanculo!
I think these people would have a point if it weren't for the fact that homosexuality is found in nature.
So, how can it be unnatural? We already have historical documents that show humans have engaged in homosexual activity (cough...Bible). So it would seem that, contrary to what some believe, this actually is somewhat natural.
Now, obviously for reproductive purposes it isn't, but sex, as designed, is purely for reproduction, yet it's enjoyable. Who among us has done the deed solely for reproduction? So, you could argue that every sex act that was entirely for enjoyment, rather than reproduction, is unnatural.
Yet, we think of it as natural as can be...part of the normal biological process...we have needs...unless you're hardwired differently, then you're an abomination. It makes no sense.
This is the first morning that frost as carpeted my yard so deeply.
Loner, did you "italianize" that for yogitard! How thoughtful.
Agreed, g. Well put.
My heart goes to the victims of the Portland Mall shooting.
The USSC has no constitutional authority to butt into the validity of the marriage laws across the land...if the federal government issued Federal Marriage Licenses, they would have a stake in the argument.
The fifty states each issue their own marriage licenses...this is a bedrock states rights issue, IMO...but the normal states rights advocates do not see it that way, they want big government, Uncle Sam himself, to step into the fuming culture war. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the states rights advocates.
gdia, I have seen it take place between inter species before and I’m not talking bestiality. Life is life no matter what you want to believe in.
States rights! Except for federal funding and marriage laws. Otherwise - States Rights!
Yes, Bn, I Italianized it to enhance the ethnic flavor of the quip...glad that you noticed and appreciated the extra effort that I put into it....enjoy!
Yeah...Bn...and Obamacare too!
That's a good point, Loner.
I read about that mall shooting...I'm waiting for Bob Costas to come out against the culture of hockey masks...
Nemo - Amen on the Portland shooting. If someone is so distraught, do whatever to yourself, but leave innocent people alone.
Some great Scalia cartoons:
Scalia is right. He was making an effective 'where do we draw the line?' point that the gays always get indignant and outraged about because being indignant and outraged is the only effective counter-response to the valid point.
Most people never hear the real argument. They only hear it reported that so-and-so says gays are pedophiles, or other such nonsense and everyone gets outraged at the speaker.
It's political correctness and speech police, run rampant.
The underlying point is that society does have a right to control what it deems to be acceptable moral behavior and that can be exhibited by something as simple as statutory rape or bestiality laws that most everyone (except the freaks) agree with. If you want to go down the 'minority rights' path you can't ignore any minority no mater how small or freaky... so we have to come to a consensus as a society what behaviors are acceptable. This is not something that should be decided either way by a judge.
OK, freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Those who are accused of being "politically correct" are often those who choose to speak responsibly. But then there is the segment of our society that doesn't care to take responsibility....
The underlying point is that society does have a right to control what it deems to be acceptable moral behavior and that can be exhibited by something as simple as statutory rape or bestiality laws that most everyone (except the freaks) agree with.
Ben this argument has been used through out the millenniums and has been challenged and defeated before. It is only a matter of time.
I'm fine with gay marriage, Nemo... I've said so many times before. I don't have any right to impose that view on the rest of society though if it's not something that society at large is willing to sanction.
Ben it was against the law for white and blacks to marry. During the Korean War it was forbidden for service men to marry Japanese women.
Was this the handiwork of another law-abiding gun owner who suddenly snaps and goes berserk? Funny how those law-abiding, gun-owners, with no previous criminal record seem to be vulnerable to madness....thousands of those human time-bombs are free to wander about the country....Judge Scalia is their robed champion.
The cops have not yet released the alleged shooter's identity...we shall see if this case fits the terribly familiar pattern.
But society at large is starting to accept its sanction, Ben. Scalia and his ilk are becoming the minority. I don't have a problem with him saying what he said if that's what he believes, I just think he should recuse himself from the case because of it. Because he has made his personal opinion part of the public record. Because this means its very unlikely he can shut that down and be unbiased.
By the way, I do believe, regardless, it should be left to the states and that's how the USSC will rule with or without him.
Not at the moment, Ben, However the day will come just like so many times before that gay marriage will be as common place as intermarriage is today.
Scalia is not right and your defense of him is not right.
Gay Marriage Poll: More Americans Support Marriage Equality
I'm fine with it being left up to the states. And gays having the right to marry isn't imposing anything on anyone else. It's more like the other way around, isn't it?
I have a question. State A it is legal for same sex marriage, but not in State B. If people marry in State A, then move to State B, will their legal marriage, be legal? There needs to be a common answer for this, don’t you think?
It's not his personal opinion, gd... it was anything but. He was making a legal technical point.
Again, let me just say that since the states, not the federal government issue marriage licenses, the federal government has no business butting into a legitimate states rights issue. This is unwarranted federal meddling in state affairs....this is a church versus state argument; in a secular, constitutional democratic, republic, the state, not the church, is the final arbiter of what is right or wrong...fair or unfair.....legal or illegal....and that's what the Founders had in mind.
Since the SCOTUS justices have somehow agreed that they have the constitutional authority to act on this matter, the USSC ought to recommend that Congress determine federal marriage license criteria and that the US federal government issue federal marriage licenses...a document that would be recognized across the fruited plain...otherwise, it's clearly a states rights issue.
I don't think that the American Founders envisioned Congress formulating marriage license rules and regulations...they would be dumbfounded to witness this absurd turn of events.....this whole process has been reduced to the absurd; not just Scalia's asinine rantings.
Loner, are you saying that he can't have feelings against murder, homosexuality, bestiality, or other things such as child abuse, poligamy, armed robbery, and other issues?
I personally have moral feelings against some things. It's our right and freedom of speech to voice what we choose. But when we speak against it, we are racist or whatever. I don't care if every state in the union endorses gay marriage. I am not ever going to be for it. Nor will I endorse poligamy. It is one in the same to me. But then I don't think people should marry their dogs, but some day it will be an issue in this country. Just wait and see.
capt. do you mean interracial marriage? If not, what is intermarriage?