"The Supreme Court has declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States."
From the Scotusblog...
The Chief Justice has the principal dissent, which is 31 pages long. Toward the end of it, he says, "If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
119 comments:
"But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."
Seems to be alot of that going around over there. Do they even have a copy in the building?
According to Fox News the chief justice appears, in todays decision, to contradict what he said in yesterdays decision.
Such Roe v. Wade top-down decisions have a way of lingering for decades and opinions change over time.
Popehat sais... "Now, and this is a real point, how do we bar polygamy, line marriages, etc., other than by saying "TWO IS A MAGIC NUMBER"?"
I think it's selfish to rip a baby away from a mother, all for your stylish ego-needs. It felt like a "I'm rich and fancy congress person and F U I can do what I want."
That is the next battleground: absolute equal access to adoptable children. The sad thing is that almost every adoption has a sad backstory--it's the reason why a baby or young child is available in the first place. As the demand grows for same-sex adoptions, so too must the number of sad backstories to meet the supply.
So I should expect attacks on the church by next week?
"Surpemes" in the Drudge headline is a deliberate slur? LOL
I don't deny the sad back-stories and that 2 moms or 2 dads are better than foster care or worse. or that 2 moms /2 dads could make wonderful parents. Still, there's a fashionable element to it that portends potential cruelty. My observations above are just that - honest observations. Not observations that I feel I can share because I'd be burned at the stake.
PS - I know gay couples who love the fact that they are outside of the mainstream. They don't want to marry and they don't want kids. Take that!
"The Constitution had nothing to do with it"
He meant yesterday's Obamacare decision, right?
You know who is all giddy this morning.
G Joubert said...
You know who is all giddy this morning.
The same person who would never seriously confront/consider Roberts' dissent? I ceased going there for serious legal annalysis long ago.
Trust us, we promise not to torture churches and bully individuals who don't agree and celebrate SSM.
"So I should expect attacks on the church by next week? "
=======
Why would you expect it to take that long?
Well, somebody is happy.
(and it ain't Troop)
AprilApple said...
If two consenting adults want to get married - whatever
See that's where you went wrong.
Give them the Rhineland and they take everything from Calais to Stalingrad, and still want Baghdad, Cairo, London, Dublin, Buenos Aires, Delhi, Gotham...
The British officer who wanted to shoot Hitler in '34 from his bathroom had the right idea.
Give them nothing.
The same person who would never seriously confront/consider Roberts' dissent? I ceased going there for serious legal annalysis long ago.
I didn't go there. It intruded at Instapundit.
I personally expected this so I am not surprised, but to me the most troublesome part of it is 25 years or so of pop culture is all it takes to undo the wisdom our forebears derived via 4,000 years of experience with the human condition.
It is better to follow the example of Saint Benedict.
Here's one for Troop, cause he's into show biz
What happens to all the Westerns where somebody's a Southerner or (ex-)Confederate?
I mean whole casts served under Gen'l Hood or somebody:
the Maverick boys
Johnny Yuma
all the guys on "Rawhide"
Little Joe Cartwright (do they go back to all the episodes and make him the brother who left and digitize Adam in his place?)
The Searchers - "I still got my sword"
The only character who is safe is Colonel James Langdon. For obvious reasons.
Well put.
I'm looking forward to the first gay marriage at a Mosque.
The head count at the reception will take on an entirely new meaning.
You know, Obama is heading down to the South Carolina church to celebrate the life of their former pastor. He should also celebrate this historic decision by officiating a gay marriage in that church.
5 lawyers know better than every society ever for thousands of years regarding marriage.
AprilApple said...
If two consenting adults want to get married - whatever.
To me, to my horrible un-hollywood politically incorrect mind, this is about families and children and the unintended consequences of gay adoption.
In theory, why wouldn't two loving adults be good parents? right?
I have a client who lives in the same building as Jared Polis. (Our congress-person for life.) Anyway, Polis is gay and he and his partner have adopted sons. I was around for the first adoption. A little baby.
My heart broke when I saw the poor baby pushed around in a stroller by the partner. [...]
"Un papa!
Une maman!
On ne ment pas
aux enfants!"
Shouted in the standard protest-march cadence.
(Don't mind me. I'm just a Hatey McHating omniphobe, as everyone knows.)
It took many years, but eventually pro-abortion legal minds began admitting publicly just what a legal train-wreck the Roe v. Wade decision is. The same will happen eventually with this decision by Kennedy. (What's it called, anyway? Obergefell?)
The seemingly bottomless capacity for results-are-all-that-count progressives still manages to amaze me.
Kennedy essentially contradicts himself from only two years in Windsor, when he went to great pains to explain why the question of marriage was a state matter.
The dissenting justices all rip him up -- each writing an individual dissent (Sidebar question: how common is that?), and Kennedy can't manage to defend himself at all. I admit I skimmed over some of his ruling -- did he even once respond to the criticisms of the dissents? If you read other court opinions, they frequently do. Kennedy had virtually nothing to say.
Meanwhile, both Thomas and Roberts point out a pretty substantial legal time-bomb in this decision: the revival of Lochner-style "substantive due process." That used to be something that liberal jurisprudence cared about. A lot. That had to be destroyed in order to pave the way for the New Deal.
Not that the progressives will ever disown the result; but it won't be long before they disown much of what passes for reasoning in this decision, just as they have in Roe.
(What's it called, anyway? Obergefell?)
Obergefell rhymes with "Oberbefehl" in German.
Fr. Martin: Meanwhile, prepare for loss of the Church's tax exempt status, and for your ability to sign marriage licenses, since you can't marry every couple who comes before you. It will get far worse before there are any changes for the better.
Look how long it has been since Roe v Wade was decided, and it remains law, even after many legal challenges.
More troublesome is how seemingly easy it is for the Supreme Court to bow to the whims of social trend.
Its hard to care too much - It was expected given Kennedy's track record. Plus, there's not much to say about the decision. Just another politically driven outcome. Very few talk about the legal basis for the decision because what does it matter? Even Scalia and Thomas seemed somewhat bored by the whole thing. They've seen this movie a 100 times.
As for the little people. As long you support Judicial supremacy arguing about the basis for their decisions is useless. Its like Monarchists bitching about some ruling by the King. It makes them feel good, but is irrelevant.
Fr Martin Fox said...
It took many years, but eventually pro-abortion legal minds began admitting publicly just what a legal train-wreck the Roe v. Wade decision is. The same will happen eventually with this decision by Kennedy
My thoughts, too, Padre, but I don't think it will take 20 - 40 years
More like weeks.
The Church will soon be under direct attack. Prepare to hunker down and prepare your congregation for the storm that will come. The Catholic Church has weathered the attacks of Caesar before and it can do so again.
As Michael Haz has pointed out before we should look to the example of Saint Benedict.
It is as simple as that.
Michael:
The tax-exemption issue won't hurt the churches so much. It won't hurt me. I pay taxes already. (It's the parish that's tax-exempt.) It'll hurt parishioners more.
And they can have my license to perform marriages anytime they want. That won't create any problems for me, but again, for parishioners.
Render onto Caesar.
But you don't think they are going to stop at removing the tax exemption or stopping you from performing marriages?
Fr Martin: I didn't mean your tax situation, I meant your parish's exemption form having to pay property and income taxes. Sorry about the lack of clarity.
Trooper --
I really don't know. But I think ministers aren't the main target.
When the Obama Administration sought to force everyone -- including religious organizations -- to help them provide everyone contraception, my suggestion was that all the bishops (then meeting in DC) should march over to the White House gates, face the mansion with arms outstretched, saying, "come arrest us now; we will never obey." If the courts side with Obama against the Little Sisters, that's what they should do, in essence. Refuse to obey, refuse to pay any fines, and make someone from the government come and enforce the matter against the sisters. That's the one thing that Obama doesn't want.
So it is here: arresting clergy for non-participation isn't good optics. If they ever get to that, it'll be way down the line.
No, the target of the propaganda machine is everyone who still maintains the truth about marriage. Everything is gearing up to pummel us, collectively, into submission. It's very simple: if you believe marriage is man+woman, you are the same as the KKK. It will be everywhere before very long.
Not that that won't be unpleasant for priests and ministers, it will be far harder on laypeople. My boss is the bishop; he's in the same boat, so he's not going to punish me. But who's your boss? And you -- and how about you?
What is likely to happen is the impoverishment of those churches that defy the new orthodoxy. It won't be government action; but rather, the laity who are converted to the new orthodoxy who will stop coming. In Elizabethan England, the people were coerced as a matter of law to stay away from the Catholic Church. In our times, it'll be coercion by social sanction.
Michael:
I understood you, I was just clarifying for others.
We can handle the property tax. And as far as paying a corporate income tax, you only pay a tax on profit -- if you even make one, isn't that right? And can't corporations apply losses over several years to mitigate their tax liability?
My point is, most churches don't reliably make a profit; one year we have a surplus, another year, a deficit. And if we make a profit, it's small. And we'll be able to do all the things other taxable corporations do to minimize their tax bills.
I'm not saying no church or religious institution will be hit hard; only that I think for most, it won't be a thing.
To put it another way: it wouldn't be all that hard to end up with a net yearly profit of $1, year after year.
Forget the money. The whole idea of claiming a tax deduction for "giving back to the Lord" always seemed dubious anyhow, so I never have. Much more will ride on the extent to which faith-based exceptions will be allowed to protect clergy from being forced to do acts that violate their religious beliefs. From what we've seen so far from this crowd, there won't be many.such allowances. These gay rights advocates are nazi-like, and take no prisoners.
Meade:
"And now a priest is counting his shekels and fretting about his temple's profits."
I'm sure somewhere, in there, is a decent person; but you choose to behave in an utterly reprehensible way. In this statement, you manage not only to traffic in crude anti-semitism, but you also lie. The whole point of my response was to make clear I was not fretting about profits, but shrugging off the removal of a tax-exemption.
Why don't you go bother someone else?
And to the hosts of this blog: it's your house, of course, so it's your rules. But I do wonder why you allow some clearly bad-faith commenters here. I guess I'll just say, I admire your forebearance.
Of course he is making things up Titus. He knows nothing about me or my situation. He is trolling to bring hits and comments to his meal tickets failing blog.
Even on a day where his fondest wish to legitimize deviancy is realized he still has to come over here in the hopes he can generate some interest in his mark's rice bowl.
I understand that people like Turley have civility rules that prohibit the doxing of fellow commentors. I don't know what Lem's rules might be. Maybe he appreciates this kind of thing. I don't know. I would hope not but I have been disappointed before.
Comments referring to other commenters personal information will be removed.
Are you casting stones, Meade? I get all comments emailed to me. How about a choice Mary Glynn quote from your wife's blog about you that you can't delete? How about a steady stream of them? Will you and Althouse make that phony little shushing sound you did when we met?
Trooper York said...
The Church will soon be under direct attack. Prepare to hunker down and prepare your congregation for the storm that will come. The Catholic Church has weathered the attacks of Caesar before and it can do so again.
The Church is at its best when it has to stand up for its principles.
The Andrew Greeley, cafeteria Catholics will winnow away, and the rest will shine before God.
Meade said...
Wow. In a matter of days it seems, social conservatives have become the newest and the biggest victim class.
Can't stop Obamacare.
Can't keep gays from sharing in were their special marriage rights.
Can't wave their confederate flags.
Can't get their faces unscrunched.
I wondered what Ritmo did in the daytime.
Fr Martin Fox said...
And to the hosts of this blog: it's your house, of course, so it's your rules. But I do wonder why you allow some clearly bad-faith commenters here. I guess I'll just say, I admire your forebearance
Only a couple of times has Lem stepped in since we parted with TOP.
I used to see a "Keep it civil" request, but can't see it today, but no matter.
I think Lem knows the regulars here are more than a match for the hoi polloi that drifts in now and again.
I'm reminded of Rex Harrison's line in "Cleopatra", "Have you broken out of your nursery just to annoy the adults?".
Anywho, I think we can all agree the abuse is an indication we are winning and they are out of ammunition, intellectual and moral.
Plus, you've pretty much outed yourself now as a stalker, Meade. For shame.
I deleted my question-I don't care about commenters personal lives-I was just extremely surprised by Meade's statements about another commenter....but i will share with you when I get some prime piece of ass.
Meade is the face of the gay mafia and their enablers and hangers on. He will sink to any depth and utter any lie or calumny he can devise.
They have won a great victory for deviancy and it is still not enough. They can not stop to celebrate their victory because what they want they will never receive. They will follow you into your home, your business and your personal life.
The depth of their depravity is limitless.
Remind me, Bruce. Were we shushing when your artist friend was liberally using words like "f*ck" and "sh*t" in front of your two young children because we were appalled that you seemed to be doing nothing at all to protect them from hearing such language? That's the only "shushing" I can remember wanting to do.
No, that conversation about Mary happened after Bill and his wife left. He doesn't read Althouse and would have been bored to tears if I had mentioned such minutia. Stick to the truth, meade, if your memory serves.
But the part about swearing in front of children rates an LOL -- at least in our household.
I called you a stalker because you made allegations about information which you could have only gleaned by stalking.
Jesus, there is lots of history here. I never knew you all met-how weird.
I would never meet any of you.
I don't want to meet my friends and never attend any office function....I don't like people in general...but dogs-hello-heaven!
My boss told me I am extrovert at work and an introvert outside of work.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
tits.
It is a Friday night and the drinking must have already begun. It is winding down to the time for another epic blow up. They usually happen in July or at the Holidays.
It is a shame that it can not be contained over at the pig trough but has to spill over here for collateral damage.
So Lem when you started this site is this what you envisioned it to be? Where a crazed stalker looks up the personal records of other commentors to use to buttress his arguments? Is this the type of place you run now?
This is like Deja Vu all over again. I'm outa here.
I wish Lem and everyone would make up their mind. Do you like battling with Meade or not?
Because I'm tired of reading the complaints after you engage him for the 1,000 time.
Titus
I would never meet any of you.
We may have met. I may have dated one of your sisters in HS. You would have been about 7 or 8.
Meade said...
You know, I think I'm beginning to understand some of the anxiety social "conservatives" have over marriage equality. They are becoming desperately afraid that the facts of THEIR OWN marriages and divorces will now become public
A door that swings (no pun) more than one way.
Remember the Greeks.
Only a couple of times has Lem stepped in since we parted with TOP.
Ed, Lem might not be seeing your comments right now. He spends some time these days commenting over at TOP
Funny, I just peeked over there and Lem hasn't had a word to say in any of the ssm posts.
Don't lie.
That sums it up, Father Fox. @ 5:40.
Meade said...
The hypocrisy astounds. Everyone else's marriages and personal definitions of "marriage" are somehow their business. But when the light is turned on their own behaviors we get only lightly-veiled defamation, defensiveness, and self-righteousness.
And they consider themselves to be our moral leaders.
Oh, so if someone has some issues in their past they are recused from speaking in judgement or making some sort of claim as hypocrisy? Unbelievable the level of douche you've become. As to your attack on Fr. Fox as a question of WWJS, well, I think Jesus would look you, Meade, straight in your crossed eyes and tell you parable-way to shut the fuck up because you don't know shit, Meade Snow.
Something Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter seems to fit the day:
"[I]t is easy to see that the moral sense has been bred out of certain sections of the population, like the wings have been bred off certain chickens to produce more white meat on them. This is a generation of wingless chickens, which I suppose is what Nietzsche meant when he said God was dead."
Meade said...
.
.
.
She is just fine and I thought just asking didn't constitute a free consultation.
Nice to know where I stand.
Remember, you picked a fight with me. I tried to keep it civil.
I have lots of close gay friends, and had a gay wedding and reception at my home a couple years ago. I raised a gay stepdaughter. I spent last week at a gay couple's home. I certainly think gays should have all the legal rights of straights. I may even be gay myself if I ever get over my obsession with the female body, but I still don't support the logic or method of this decision, and I definitely don't support the ugliness of many of its cheerleaders. The court and its supporters simply got comfortable with lies, and uncomfortable with anything that would preclude them from the end they wanted at any price, including their own dignity. Can you even imagine there being any argument or fact - no matter how grave or serious - that would make them change sides? Of course not. Debate is worthless. Hate and bullying are what they have found a taste for, like chimps discovering cannibalism and finding out they really like it.
I'm going to delete my post about Jared Polis. Perhaps a bit too gossipy a post about a pubic figure. Plus, honest and open opinion is our PC culture is, well, you know. No longer tolerated. I just wanted to get it off my chest.
I think kids are harmed when they are treated as arm candy or props.
AngleLyne - "A mom"
Yeah - a mom. We are so hater mcHatey for suggesting such a pedestrian idea.
"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there." - Justice Kennedy (what?)(what?) (what?)
"fortune Cookie" - Justice Scalia (oh)
Or Kennedy channeling Oprah.
Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.
So, marriage is predicated on fear rather than love?
Dino Valenti rolls in his grave.
It's as if someone opened the window and the fart blew away. ah.
Dang, I went away a little while and the crazy train pulled into the station. Looks like it's gone now. Toot. Toot.
On a serious note, there's something wrong with the guy. You can't be in a position of at least some small social responsibility as the spouse of a public figure and behave the way he does without an underlying psychological problem. If events in his life become unfavorable he could become violent, and I would respond to him with care if your identity is known to him.
I'm a little tired of hearing "Love wins" trope.
Yeah right.
Is it love when you purposefully target a Christian baker and then sue that baker and ruin their livelihood. Is that love?
The emotional neediness is exhausting.
AprilApple said...
I'm a little tired of hearing "Love wins" trope.
Yeah right.
Is it love when you purposefully target a Christian baker and then sue that baker and ruin their livelihood. Is that love?
The homosexuals came to the baker and said bake me a cake for our wedding and the baker said no. Drama ensued. Now look at what is happening. Remember who started the drama. Remember who the drama queens have always been. The dog whistler would have you believe that those that don't support this regardless of who they are using the victim card. Well, newsflash, we didn't start. Homosexuals wanted acceptance and they shoved it in our faces. This is their mess, not ours. I'm not the victim. I didn't ask for this.
A song for the occasion
Judge said to the hooker, "Can you come out to play?
I've been condemning people all day long, that's how I get paid
My dreams are full of criminals frolicking about
Open up the window, let the bad air out! "
Strangled by confusion, my mind is in decay
Can't picture tomorrow, can't remember yesterday
Send out for the Black
... & Decker and the psychiatric couch
Open up the window, let the bad air out
Traitors in high places take my money, tell me lies
Take a walk past Parliament, it smells like something died
They ask for trust, but somehow I've got serious doubts
Open up the window, let the bad air out
It's a brief countdown to polygamy and polyandry. And guess what. It isn't just the fundamental LDS.
Certain Muslims will be on board, and along with the 4 wives comes sharia law and a bigger drain on the social safety net. Look at Britain. Inbreeding has left them with huge problems in providing care for children with disabilities.
I have about of a libertarian streak ... if someone wants to make a contract with someone else and form a civil union great ... give them the legal "benefits" of civil marriage. But please don't pretend it is the same thing as a man and a woman because it is not. and that's not a statement about "love."
As for Christians (or Jews or Muslims for that matter) don't tell us who can be married in our faiths and require that. (Get religious groups out of gov't unions altogether?) As it is now our pastors (NC) are not obligated to marry anyone that they don't feel they should. So I am not sure how the change will come.
But hey -- obnoxious people demanding wedding cakes and flowers and venues from Christians have found a way to get their weddings for free, and besides, that will show those narrow minded bigots who's in charge NOW. Besides, the ruling allows In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.
So there. Now it's all even-steven, hunkey-dory.
Right.
Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.
It's like a combination of Deepak Chopra and the Beetles.
I'm a little tired of hearing "Love wins" trope.
Love is constitutional now.
When the Obama Administration sought to force everyone -- including religious organizations -- to help them provide everyone contraception, my suggestion was that all the bishops (then meeting in DC) should march over to the White House gates, face the mansion with arms outstretched, saying, "come arrest us now; we will never obey."
Geez. A little over the top with the drama, there.
(What's it called, anyway? Obergefell?)
Don't bother yourself with it. You don't care anyway, remember?
The result of the ruling will not become more unpopular or contentious over time. Quite the opposite.
But what do I know? I'm not a loveless celibate seeking to dictate to others in the romance department.
Render onto Caesar.
I thought the Roman Catholic Church was modeled after the offices of the old Roman Emperor anyway. Wasn't it? Was there a language called "Catholicism" that introduced to us words like "pontiff"? And here I was, thinking it was the Latin word for an old Roman office of the official (PAGAN) state religion that came before it. Silly me!
One thing you can say about the RCC - it really didn't mind repurposing a whole bunch of pagan and imperial practices in order to fit better with its own ambitions.
No, the target of the propaganda machine is everyone who still maintains the truth about marriage. Everything is gearing up to pummel us, collectively, into submission.
Are you saying you prefer domination to submission? I prefer neither and seek to partake of neither.
I never understood sado-masochism, let alone the spiritualization of it.
In Elizabethan England, the people were coerced as a matter of law to stay away from the Catholic Church.
I guess that's why we were lucky to be colonized by those enlightened Englishmen, rather than some basketcase country like Spain or Italy. Could you even imagine if we had a history as violent and tyrannical as those of the South American countries! The spirit shudders!!!
These gay rights advocates are nazi-like, and take no prisoners.
You could always wear a pink triangle to protest your treatment, and explain precisely how it relates to the history behind your newly adopted symbol of oppression.
I guess I'll just say, I admire your forbearance.
Yes. You could learn a lot from it, couldn't you.
But the part about swearing in front of children rates an LOL -- at least in our household.
I always regretted for couples needing to "protect" kids from "inappropriate" language. Sure, I guess you could want to be careful around 2 or 3 year olds who will repeat everything, but probably not very far along after that point.
chickelit said...
G Joubert said...
You know who is all giddy this morning.
The same person who would never seriously confront/consider Roberts' dissent? I ceased going there for serious legal annalysis long ago.
June 26, 2015 at 11:59 AM
The same person who believes in a woman's right to abortion but no paper abortions for men. So much for equality under the law. Her body, her choice (for abortion anyway). His body, government court/healthcare agency's choice.
I was just a lurker during that debate what, two years ago but it was both amusing and enlightening reading over a weekend. To see a law professor defend women's abortion rights while attacking men for not doing their traditional duty as fathers, for daring to want equal rights to not be a parent. Then turning around and promoting gay marriage. So much for tradition or equality.
And so it begins.
It's all about LOVE, Haz.
who did that? An Islamist or an angry leftist?
btw- angry leftists share the same metal disorder. If you disagree with them, they want to hurt you. They will hurt you. Out of LOVE.
Odd they are obsessed with rape. They want to force so much upon us, hiding behind love. Rapists do that.
Who did that? An Islamist or an angry leftist?
Scant difference.
And...the next crazy train pulls into the station. Toot, toot.
(Sorry Rabel.)
Did the neutered guy just call me crazy?
If you want to understand the sorry state of Catholicism's declining relevance in America today, witness the dogmatist above, who can't countenance a single challenge to his marching orders. He just parrots what he's told, after feigning the martyred victim ploy.
Why does Catholic leadership suck? Because the nerds who might even have the talent to lead it, aren't allowed to reproduce. It's a Darwinian demonstration of irrelevancy. It's like kicking oneself in one's own balls, repeatedly. Every day of one's life.
That's your leadership, social conservatives.
I see Ritz is back on the payroll.
I'm not getting paid what the Loveless Celibate Martin Fox is getting paid to lecture on romance and commitment. But maybe that's why my opinion is aligned with what the country already largely knows. To go against that much knowledge, experience and intuition takes some active intellectual and social malice, but luckily for him, he gets paid for it. And unluckily for everyone else.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I'm not getting paid what the Loveless Celibate Martin Fox is getting paid to lecture on romance and commitment. But maybe that's why my opinion is aligned with what the country already largely knows. To go against that much knowledge, experience and intuition takes some active intellectual and social malice, but luckily for him, he gets paid for it. And unluckily for everyone else.
Smarm and snark is all you have. It's all you ever had. You may think that somehow it gets you by with a well laid little quip here there and everywhere, but ultimately people see you for what you are; A person who relies on witticism that accomplishes nothing. You may think you are smart. I suspect that you really aren't and just pretend to be. Just that silly 5 year old who yells at his mom to look at him jump in a pool. "Look at me mom, look at me." that's what I see now whenever I see your name on a post. A 5 year old attention whore. Enjoy.
The majority of the country, the majority of the Supreme Court and just about anyone with a brain agrees with my reasoning. The jokes and witticisms are just thrown in to distract guys who could never reason their way through the issues in the first place. Guys like you. I'm glad you feel they're all anyone has on this issue. It gets tiring talking to people who only care for joking distractions as if they had any respect for reasoned argumentation in the first place.
Go read the opinion, if you want something more than jokes. But I don't mind them. Scalia's full of them. It's all his side has. But who can blame him? It's all his spiritual "leaders" ever prepared him with.
Rhythm and Balls said...
The majority of the country, the majority of the Supreme Court
It doesn't matter now. 5 people decided for the country. Not the majority of people. I'm in California. I already had my say so and lost in the courts too, so votes as much as words really don't matter anymore when an outcome can be sued away. You deflect, you don't reason. You never have. That's why you wrap your tired and stale 'argumentation' in snark and smarm. To give the impression that you actually know something. Even your last missive here didn't disappoint. Look at me mommy. Look me jump in the pool.
It doesn't matter now. 5 people decided for the country. Not the majority of people. I'm in California. I already had my say so and lost in the courts too, so votes as much as words really don't matter anymore when an outcome can be sued away.
Really? Tell that to Democratic voters in Texas or any other red state during any presidential election. Or Florida voters in 2000. The fact of living in a democracy means making sacrifices and compromises to how far your voice can go, or how much it matters when weighed against everyone else's. Recognizing that fact is part of maturity. No one always gets everything that they want when there's a system to respect. How it is that someone who calls themselves "conservative" rails at this I don't understand.
You deflect, you don't reason. You never have. That's why you wrap your tired and stale 'argumentation' in snark and smarm. To give the impression that you actually know something. Even your last missive here didn't disappoint. Look at me mommy. Look me jump in the pool.
Read the preceding reply and tell me which argument wasn't valid. That's all that matters, you realize, when making one: An argument's validity. Whatever reason for which you think it was made is also beside the point. Am I really supposed to apologize because you think I tried to hard to impress? Again, attack the argument, if you have an argument against it. That's the entire definition of reason.
Post a Comment