If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Out of all stupid things Antonin Scalia has said or written about homosexuality and equal rights for gay Americans, here are absolutely the 7 worst   (motherjones.com) divider line 46
    More: Asinine, Scalia, Americans, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sexual intimacy, adulterers, life partner, LGBT rights, Defense of Marriage Act  
•       •       •

8655 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Mar 2013 at 11:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-26 10:56:06 AM  
7 votes:
Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.


Which seems to point to Yahweh being down with welfare and assisting folks in need.

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

Yahweh seems to be down with helping the handicapped too.

Leviticus 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

So, apparently, lying and telling tales is not approved of, and that communities should stand together. Not just the pale people or the brown people, but all y'all's people...

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Guess wishing death and terribleness on your neighbors is out too. How many Democrats or Libertarians or Scientologist you think live in your neighborhoods?

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Gee. Love thy neighbor. Nor on the children of your people. Whuddathunkit?

And, of course, there is something about immigrants that is completely ignored by the rabid Christian nationalists...

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Does that mean we can end this ridiculousness about trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, since Leviticus was down with that sort of thing LONG before the Founding Fathers or Lincoln?

Or if we have to throw out Leviticus as being outdated, does this mean we can toss out the whole hating the gheys thing too?

You can almost hear the gears grinding and popping in the audience...

"Gay Lib. Now interestingly, here is an attempt by a hooked down and kind of persecuted minority to insist on their place rightfully, and their treatment rightfully, without it having anything to do with ethnic or religion or anything! It's really an exciting separate part of liberation. ...Sometimes we, if we're younger, we react to that in a way that we've been schooled. Then you kinda get your chops, and you get things okay and you understand and it's all right to be able to talk about that. Here's what I mean. The word "homosexual," many people who aren't in the position to having to decide this, they wonder:

"Is homosexuality... Is it normal? Is it natural? I ask you. Is it normal or natural? Is it unnatural and abnormal?"

Now those two words seem to revolve around it. Now let's look at those words for what they are...

"Natural." Hey. Means "according to nature." Is it according to nature? Well...probably not in the strictest sense because nature didn't presuppose it. Nature only gave us one set of sexual apparatus. A girl's got something for the guys, a guy's got something for the girls. As it is now, a homosexual is forced to "share" the apparatus that the opposite sex is using on this person. Certainly if nature was in command there'd have two sets of goodies. So nature was not ready. We leaped past nature again in our sociological development, way down the road ahead of nature.

Is it normal? Normal? Well what's "normal?" Well, let's see.. if you're standing in a room, stripped, and it's dark, and you're hugging a person and loving them and rubbing them up and down, and they're rubbing you, and you're rubbing together and suddenly the light goes on and it's the same sex, you've been trained to go

"AAIIIAUUGGGAIIIAEAAHHHHHHHH!"

But if felt okayy.... So maybe it was normal without being natural..."

Yeah. It's more than time to get past this. Using the Bible to back you up on keeping rights from folks, when folks within said faith can't even agree on it, is automatically a violation of folks' right to worship freely. UUs. Methodists. Even some Baptists. Even Catholics. There is no consensus on this issue, and there are plenty of clergy who have stood on the matter of marriage equality.

No special rights. No separate but equal. Folks simply want to be normal, and stop having folks being Nosey Nellies when it comes to what happens in their lives, in their churches, and in their bedrooms. It is time that we stop catering to the whims of some faiths over others. It's that simple. You can't imagine having to explain to your children why Jimmy has two Dads? Not my f*cking problem what you tell your kids, because MY daughter already knows that all God's chill'uns gots to dance, but they don't always do it to the same music, and so long as everyone involved are consenting adults, and are happy, that's just fine. Get over yourselves you pants besh*tting cowards. Get over yourselves.
2013-03-26 10:38:32 AM  
6 votes:

vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.


It's not trolling when you have real power. Maybe when he speaks, he's just toying with people. When he votes, he's crushing them.
2013-03-26 10:42:26 AM  
4 votes:
It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.
2013-03-26 09:24:22 AM  
4 votes:
Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.
2013-03-26 11:02:26 AM  
3 votes:
The first thing I thought of when reading the article was that "Flagpole Sitta" was an awesome song, and Harvey Danger is underrated.
2013-03-26 10:47:43 AM  
3 votes:
It's trolling when you go into a thread about evolution and say "Jesus did it" in order to get people to give you some attention because your dad didn't hug you enough or whatever the fark your problem is.

Actively voting to create suffering is completely different.
2013-03-26 12:52:14 PM  
2 votes:

verbaltoxin: bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.


I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?
2013-03-26 12:45:42 PM  
2 votes:

syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.


It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.
2013-03-26 12:02:18 PM  
2 votes:

Karac: bulldg4life: SCOTUSblog@SCOTUSblog
Arguments done. #scotus won't uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm.  #prop8 will stay invalidated.

Kennedy is a tool bag

Aside from the idiocy of thinking it's too early to rule on same sex marriage (is he hoping that if he shuts his eyes tight enough and goes into earmuff mode the issue will just go away?), does that mean that gay marriage is legal again in Cali?  The 'won't uphold or strike down' seems a bit confusing to me.  I was under the impression that they'd have to decide on way or another.


The circuit court ruling against prop 8 will stand, leaving same-sex marriage legal in CA.
2013-03-26 11:20:13 AM  
2 votes:
He's just a strict literalist who believes the Constitution is a dead document.

It's just uncanny how the strict literal dead Constitution falls on the right side of today's modern partisan lines 100% of the time.
2013-03-26 11:19:01 AM  
2 votes:
"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,"

Replace 'homosexual conduct' with 'black' and that'd fit in perfectly at Stormfront.

Scalia's dissent in Romer is a long lament over the supposed "special rights" being granted to people on the basis of sexual orientation.

Gays do not want special rights; they want the same rights everyone else has.  Gays do not want to be the only people allowed to enter into homosexual marriages, they'd be happy to allow 2 straight dudes to set up a sham gay marriage too.

 "It doesn't say you can't have-you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."

I seriously cannot wait for the lawyer who aks him when he chose to be straight; when did he try making out with another man and decide that that wasn't for him.
2013-03-26 10:49:02 AM  
2 votes:

vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.


Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies.  "If this is legal, why not this?  If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule.  It's a hell of a lot better than silence.  Like that Clarence Thomas douche.
2013-03-26 10:29:02 AM  
2 votes:
In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.
2013-03-26 10:13:15 AM  
2 votes:
Will Nixon's reign never cease?
2013-03-26 09:55:22 AM  
2 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.


That makes his moral bankruptcy all the more disgusting. He hasn't been cleverly manipulated into a crazy position. His knowingly and wifully a sack of shiat.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 09:37:32 AM  
2 votes:

namatad: Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.


He doesn't even pretend to be impartial.  This this guy is undermining the credibility of the court.  I am starting to wonder if it is intentional.
2013-03-26 03:59:58 PM  
1 votes:

codergirl42: I'd like to add some anecdotal evidence to this and use myself as an example. Prior to coming out and transitioning I suppose I could have been called "homophobic" not in the hating gays way or anything like that. However, I did tend to have a lot of anxiety around other people that were out or when discussions would turn to gays/transpeople. I wasn't afraid of gays per se it was more of a fear of being outed and being exposed by saying the wrong thing or acting/doing the wrong thing.


that's very understandable for someone coming to terms with his or her own sexuality. Whether it is because the person is in denial or has accepted the way they are and is afraid of being outed or whatever. I can see many people in that situation lashing out, perhaps irrationally (not to say you did), because of the internal conflict. I just think that there is a lot of anti-gay bigotry that is just plain old vanilla bigotry and not masking personal turmoil.
2013-03-26 01:58:18 PM  
1 votes:

skilbride: I'm just going to butt in here and say that majority of what you people hear about Scalia is fear mongering from the left


There's no way you could know that.

Every single lawyer I've talked to has made withering criticisms of Scalia. And these people are not "leftists".
2013-03-26 01:36:40 PM  
1 votes:
And, Scalia's opinion doesn't matter anyway - the vote is going to go like this:

4 liberal justices:  For striking it down.
4 conservative justices:  For leaving it alone

Tie breaker:  Anthony Kennedy (who has already authored two important gay rights decisions)

Supreme Court decision?  Bans are unconstitutional.
2013-03-26 01:23:55 PM  
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: In all fairness, pretty much everything out of Scalia's mouth is stupid. This is the guy who once said that torture doesn't violate the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because it's not punishment. Some misfiring neurons in the gray mass of goo that passes for a brain in his skull actually managed to flop his big stupid jaw up and down and vibrate his vocal cords and pump his lungs to make those sounds come out of his fat gob. I had a retarded kid as a neighbor for a while who'd stand out in the backyard smacking himself on the head over and over with a tree branch going "HYEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWNGGGG" over and over again, and that kid is a freaking Einstein-level genius compared to Scalia.


In all fairness, Scalia is the only justice on the court right now who cares about your individual rights when it comes to search and seizure.  So, I'll take his backhanded bigoted views on this issue and be glad there's at least one person on the court who doesn't believe in absolute government power.

See:  Kylo v United States, and more recently United States vs. Jones.
2013-03-26 01:13:56 PM  
1 votes:
ShadowKamui:
Actually they can punt on both of the issues by saying the House Committee isn't a valid solicitor for DOMA & that the prop 8 people aren't because they weren't the original people who argued at the state level (the governor basically no-showed).

What would a punt on standing mean in each of these cases?

On the Prop 8 case, the appeals court ruling would set precedent in 9 states.  It was broadly decided (not just on the "because California once permitted it they can't rescind it", but on the broader equal protection grounds).   Hello SSM in Montana and Arizona, if not nationally.

On the DOMA case, there really can't logically be split in the circuits.  Either DOMA is unconstitutional, nationally, or it isn't, and all the lower court decisions on this are that it isn't constitutional.  Clearly Edie Windsor had the standing to bring the case in the first place (and won), the question is whether the congressional committee had the standing to appeal the decision.

So, punting invalidates DOMA and brings SSM to 8 more states.  A clear if not total win for the SSM advocates.
2013-03-26 01:06:22 PM  
1 votes:

PonceAlyosha: skozlaw: I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Except those studies compared their erectile latency to that when shown heterosexual or lesbian porn, and they got the hardest fastest when watching gay sex. GAY. SEX.


GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX!

/what?
//I thought we were doing a bit.
2013-03-26 01:05:43 PM  
1 votes:

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.

That "last of a dying breed" has at least 3, and possibly 5 votes on the current Supreme Court. :-/

/My worthless prediction: on today's case, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas: HELL no. Roberts and Kennedy: punt on states rights grounds
//Will be hilarious to see the mental gymnastics Scalia goes through to justify carve outs to the Full Faith and Credit clause
///Slashies come in threes.  Scalia thinks this is as horrible as murder


It's going to come down to Roberts, then. If he sides with the liberals, it will establish Roberts as the centrist who's realized somebody has to counter-balance Scalia.
2013-03-26 12:58:52 PM  
1 votes:

gingerjet: No I won't.  Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing.  Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead?  Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)?  Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment.  Sorry.


I'm usually against useless gestures that allow people to feel like they're doing something when they could have actually done something, but wearing something to show support of gay rights is one of those rare occasions where donning a different color might actually do some good. I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you  didn't already support that? But someone who hasn't come out as gay yet is on the defensive; in order to protect themselves, they've learned to assume that someone  won't be okay with them being gay unless they have a solid indication otherwise. Showing support like this might come as a surprise or a relief and make it easier to come out later.

Your perspective is likely different if you live and work in an environment with a lot of people who are already out, but I work at a college, where students may have mostly figured themselves out but they're still unsure about dealing with people around them.

/Sadly, I don't own a single article of red clothing.
2013-03-26 12:56:59 PM  
1 votes:
Car_Ramrod:
Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.

I had never considered this blatantly obvious concept before.  I had always looked at it as 'How does the marriage of any two or more other individuals impact my marriage (regardless of sex)?'  I had never considered the gender discrimination as well.
2013-03-26 12:55:22 PM  
1 votes:

skozlaw: verbaltoxin: bugontherug: syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.

It is empirically established that opposition to homosexuality correlates with the presence of homosexual desire. Further, that intensity of opposition to homosexuality correlates with the intensity of homosexual desire.

Homophobic men get boners when shown gay porn. It's been studied. Closely. Deeply.

I always wonder if those studies try to account for the possibility that the same people that are so derpy about homosexuality are also often derpy about sexuality generally.

Is it that homophobes actually get off on gay porn, or are they just so deeply repressed across the board that any sexuality becomes arousing when presented because it's a novelty?


Here's the study, and here's an article from Psychology Today. My ballpark guess it's a study that shows correlation.

Abstract:

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
2013-03-26 12:39:47 PM  
1 votes:

gingerjet: hubiestubert: It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.

No I won't.  Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing.  Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead?  Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)?  Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment.  Sorry.

/gay
//also not changing my avatar to that idiotic red equality sign


I am not sure what he's referring to when he says "show up" but isn't showing up for something showing effort and commitment?
2013-03-26 12:33:11 PM  
1 votes:

hubiestubert: It's going to be an interesting day. For those who show up today, wear red. It's time to move past this, and finally deliver on rights to all our citizens. On grounds of religious freedom, on grounds of equality under the law, on grounds of privacy. It is long past time.


No I won't.  Seriously - its idiotic and doesn't do a damn thing.  Why don't you mentor to a gay high school student instead?  Or give money to a local gay rights organization (like Out Front in Minnesota)?  Oh wait - that would actually require effort and real commitment.  Sorry.

/gay
//also not changing my avatar to that idiotic red equality sign
2013-03-26 12:11:22 PM  
1 votes:

Last Man on Earth: The appellants (the people who appealed to the Supreme Court, the pro-Prop 8 people) don't have standing.  Since they are neither representatives of nor agents of the state, they don't have an interest in the state law being upheld.  As such, the appeals court decision that Prop 8 had to go stands, but it creates no precedent at the federal level, so other states can still have similar laws.


It would create no Federal precedent if the SCOTUS backs out of a decision on standing.  But, wouldn't it then still hold as a precedent in the 9th Circuit, meaning that litigants could take the broad 9th Circuit ruling and force SSM legality in at least Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon (plus Washington and California)?
2013-03-26 12:09:23 PM  
1 votes:

Flaming Yawn: What's saddening is that there's are a thousand little kids somewhere who will grow up to be just as bad if not worse.


but when those new round of asshole kids tease a boy hanging out with another boy and say "If you like Steve so much, why don't you marry him?"

Adam can say "Maybe I will farknuts, what of it?"
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 12:06:11 PM  
1 votes:
Impeach Scalia.
2013-03-26 11:41:37 AM  
1 votes:
I read what seems to me to be very selectively chosen remarks in the context of states rights.  Absent the topic of homosexuality, I agree with much of what he is quoted as saying - I'd rather read the entire opinion(s).

From my perspective, this marriage issue comes down to three questions:

1. can a majority of the citizens of a sovereign state limit "marriage" to a man and a woman;
2. can the federal government do number 1; and
3. does the federal constitutional right to equal protection under law trump numbers 1 and 2.

I have no personal opinion on the subject because I have not had any reason to investigate the issue, but it seems to me that the nation would be best served by number 3.
2013-03-26 11:33:58 AM  
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: In all fairness, pretty much everything out of Scalia's mouth is stupid. This is the guy who once said that torture doesn't violate the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because it's not punishment. Some misfiring neurons in the gray mass of goo that passes for a brain in his skull actually managed to flop his big stupid jaw up and down and vibrate his vocal cords and pump his lungs to make those sounds come out of his fat gob. I had a retarded kid as a neighbor for a while who'd stand out in the backyard smacking himself on the head over and over with a tree branch going "HYEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWNGGGG" over and over again, and that kid is a freaking Einstein-level genius compared to Scalia.


I have all of his books. Very insightful.
2013-03-26 11:29:35 AM  
1 votes:

Nome de Plume: A lot of straw in that article.


Far more than a lot. What a laughable piece.
2013-03-26 11:26:33 AM  
1 votes:

JerseyTim: I'm sure he'll say something stupid again today. Let's not all act shocked.


How about if a third of us act shocked, a third of us ACT shocked and a third of us act incredulously smug because we "called it"?
2013-03-26 11:26:12 AM  
1 votes:
In all fairness, pretty much everything out of Scalia's mouth is stupid. This is the guy who once said that torture doesn't violate the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" because it's not punishment. Some misfiring neurons in the gray mass of goo that passes for a brain in his skull actually managed to flop his big stupid jaw up and down and vibrate his vocal cords and pump his lungs to make those sounds come out of his fat gob. I had a retarded kid as a neighbor for a while who'd stand out in the backyard smacking himself on the head over and over with a tree branch going "HYEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWNGGGG" over and over again, and that kid is a freaking Einstein-level genius compared to Scalia.
2013-03-26 11:25:29 AM  
1 votes:

hubiestubert: Yeah. It's more than time to get past this. Using the Bible to back you up on keeping rights from folks, when folks within said faith can't even agree on it, is automatically a violation of folks' right to worship freely. UUs. Methodists. Even some Baptists. Even Catholics. There is no consensus on this issue, and there are plenty of clergy who have stood on the matter of marriage equality.


And the United Church of Christ. Who had ads banned from television, 'cause promoting love and tolerance is waaaayyyy to controversial, apparently.

I recall going to a gay wedding presided over by the pastors at the church I grew up in when I was five. I hated it, but that was because I was five, and bored out of my goddamn skull....
2013-03-26 11:20:44 AM  
1 votes:
"Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex."

Rich people are also banned from panhandling and sleeping in ATM vestibules.

Once again, at it's very base concept, if men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, that's blatant gender discrimination.
2013-03-26 11:20:33 AM  
1 votes:
But think about all the stupid things he  hasn'tsaid yet.
2013-03-26 10:50:46 AM  
1 votes:

Babwa Wawa: vernonFL: In an interview with Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow said that Scalia is a troll. He says things to intentionally get a rise out of the other Justices and the attorneys, staff and public who are present during arguments.

He's a troll.

Scalia's an ass, but I articles like this misrepresent his asshattery.

Part of what folks do in the legal profession is draw and play games with analogies.  "If this is legal, why not this?  If this is illegal, why not that?" is a big part of the theory of law.

The actual back and forth brings a microscope to the thinking of a particular justice, and in fact I like the fact that I know what Scalia's thinking, why he thinks it, and how he's likely to rule.  It's a hell of a lot better than silence.  Like that Clarence Thomas douche.


In fairness if we want to know how Thomas is going to rule we can just listen to Scalia.
2013-03-26 10:31:55 AM  
1 votes:

mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed.  We know hot that works out in the end.


Yeah but it's sure taking a goddamn long time to die.
2013-03-26 10:19:59 AM  
1 votes:
Scalia will be sucking Satan's thorny cock in hell for all eternity at least
2013-03-26 10:19:23 AM  
1 votes:

PC LOAD LETTER: Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.


His arguments on gays in the military, DOMA, abortion rights, and citizens united speak otherwise.
2013-03-26 10:08:04 AM  
1 votes:

Cadderpidder: All together now - let's pretend that politicians saying stupid things while talking out of their arse is a new thing.


Yeah... but this politician is a Supreme Court justice
2013-03-26 09:48:28 AM  
1 votes:

namatad: Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?
He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.


What if his impartiality is based on his reading of the law?

Impartiality has something to do with conflict of interest not with having an opinion.

/Scalia's deep thoughts: "If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?"
//He really is a sick puppy.
2013-03-26 09:28:20 AM  
1 votes:
Where was "If his dick tastes like sh*t, you mustn't acquit"?  That jurisprudential gem puts the bow on the puppy...
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report