In2 Ruling Gays Ridiculous…

First you all attack those that oppose your view most prominently seen via the Prop 8 backlash. Perhaps you could make a case that you were exercising your Constitutional rights but I think it’s a bit of a stretch.Ironically you had a fit over Miss California exercising her 1st Amendment rights and pressured a vote to go your way.I don’t know but it seems no matter how justified you feel you are in your actions your delivery sucks.

Now you demand an openly gay justice.

Call me a phobe if you must but you all are crazy. Being gay isn’t about being another species. You’re all human right ? What makes a human special ? I foolishly thought it was who they were inside not how they like others getting inside them. I have to say I’ve had about enough from the homo boosters that think demanding something is appropriate even though the same folks try diligently to silence others. You can’t have it both ways even if you’re Bi.

Again, now you demand an openly gay justice.

The SCOTUS has a lot of issues as far as I’m concerned, just like the whole country does. I also think that it would be great if the judicial branch could concern itself with the law. No tokens. No shills. No agenda drama. Just qualified jurists that care about the country, it’s people and the Constitution.



  1. Elric66 says:

    Now you know how I feel. Welcome to the ‘phobe club. 🙂

  2. Marc says:

    Who’s justice are they denying Alfie. Last I checked Prop 8 voters and Miss California can still get married. And as far as I know, no one’s been actually hurt because of pro-gay marriage demonstrations, and despite the fact that prop 8 donors addresses were published, I don’t believe there was ever a protests outside of an individuals home.

    As far as the SCOTUS, don’t you think it’s funny that everytime gay marriage goes to the state supreme court’s they rule in favor of it? Of the top of my head I can name about a half a dozen constitutional reasons for why gay marriage is allowable. If you want to have that debate I’m willing.

  3. Alfie says:

    First the fluff. I doubt the full measure of Prop 8 backlash is/was as benign as some think. Miss Ca. deserved to win by many folks reasonable measures. I personally don’t do pageants so I don’t care. I do free speech and thought all day though.
    As for SCOTUS and any potential Ear v. Fray debate,well we’ll see after the meat.
    This post was never meant as a marriage rights post. It’s about pursuing unnecessary tokenism. The maddening pursuit of hyphenated Americans pisses me off to no end. Bottom line the various segments of the population don’t deserve anything other than the best.
    Just because you asked though,well kind of.
    I’m against state recognition of marriage. I believe the government and the governed can regulate what is considered united. From a governmental and taxation stand point I’m a civil union kind of guy.
    Marriage is a religious thing and let me lay it on the line here. Christian churches that marry same sex couples, polygamists, adulterers etc. are all wrong and will answer to their boss.

  4. Elric66 says:

    “This post was never meant as a marriage rights post.”

    But you know how they operate.

  5. Marc says:

    I’m pro-civil unions too, to me, separation of church and state means no governmental mucking in marriage period – meaning they have zero right to define it. Most countries view it this way actually and wedding couples have to ceremonies, their civil union and their marriage – 2 separate events.

    As for whether or not she deserved to win, I don’t care either way. I figure their actual political opinions figure little into the winning (though they always ask). But if you make such a statement like that, in such a public way, on a controversial issue, be prepared to take some heat.

  6. Elric66 says:

    That must mean you support polygamy as well.

    “I figure their actual political opinions figure little into the winning”

    LOL Riiiggghhhttt

  7. Marc says:

    That must mean you support polygamy as well.

    Oh really? Explain your rational for thinking so.

  8. Elric66 says:

    “Oh really? Explain your rational for thinking so.”

    Because you would be a hypocrite if you opposed it.

  9. Marc says:

    See, when I said explain yourself, I was asking you to well, explain yourself. If I’m a hypocrite, there has to be a reason.

  10. Elric66 says:

    Because you would be discriminating if you opposed polygamy; especially towards muslims and we all know you dont want to be an islamophobe” 🙂

  11. Marc says:

    No, No, No Elric, you’re doing this all wrong.

    Should of pointed out that if government has no role in religion then why’d they tell Mormons they can’t have multiple wives. Much stronger argument.

  12. Elric66 says:

    So Marc are you saying that a business has no right to set its own work hours but the government cant tell Akmed he cant have 2 or more wives?

Comments are closed.