PC LOAD LETTER: Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.
Grungehamster: What are you talking about? Scalia is the father of the "strict constructionist" argument; of course he pretends to be impartial. Maybe impartial is the wrong word: he claims to be unbiased by personal opinions and rules strictly by what the founders intended (which, of course, perfectly is mirrored by the views of modern conservatives.) His opinion of gays as inherently corrupt and sinful individuals has nothing to do with how he will rule. No, the fact that the founders would have been offended by two men marrying one another.ra
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.
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.
abb3w: So, it's pretty unlikely he's going to support either Hollingsworth or Windsor. (It's not news, it's Fark.)
Philip Francis Queeg: Milo Minderbinder: Lawnchair: Milo Minderbinder: At law, a marriage is not valid until it is consummated.Um, no.Mostly no. 13 states still have non-consummation in the books as specific grounds for annulment (and you can probably get an annulment in most of the rest), but the marriage is not invalid solely for non-consummation if neither party complains.Still no. There is a difference between an annulment and a legal basis. Do any of those 16 states require ability to complete consummation as a prerequisite? Instead, they just let people out for that reason short of divorce./No boner policeWait, you mean that I really wasn't required to give the Judge a video of my wedding night?
Philip Francis Queeg: Wait, you mean that I really wasn't required to give the Judge a video of my wedding night?
Forty-Two: I mean, wearing pink to show you support breast cancer research is pointless--who honestly thought that you didn't already support that?
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.
PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.
Rapmaster2000: Scalia LITERALLY reads the Constitution and if you study it out then you will see that the Founders agreed on everything, but especially that marriage is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN for purposes of PROCREATION ONLY.Just study it out like Justice Scalia did. Study it out.
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.
syrynxx: I bet Scalia sits on a butt plug all day.
gingerjet: d23: Impeach Scalia.For what exactly? For having an opinion?
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.
Felgraf: 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....
Nome de Plume: A lot of straw in that article.
JerseyTim: I'm sure he'll say something stupid again today. Let's not all act shocked.
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.
Karac: 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.
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.
mrshowrules: PC LOAD LETTER: My cousin was his Law School roommate. Scalia may be a twat, but he's a very smart man.Stupid is as stupid does./he's also a bigot
bdub77: 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.
mrshowrules: Scalia is the last of a dying breed. We know hot that works out in the end.
namatad: Shouldnt scolia recuse himself on homosexuality cases?He is REQUIRED to obey the church and therefore lacks all impartiality.
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 17 2018 09:12:33
Runtime: 0.530 sec (529 ms)