Comments on: Gay Justice?

By: Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 12 May 2009 17:05:06 +0000

“That she believes that (gay’s should have the right to marry) because she’s lesbian, and not because she believes the refusal to allow same sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, is another matter.”
What the hell is this? By this logic, you’re saying it’s a wrong for an African American to believe in equality because they are an African American even though they may agree that the courts of the past did not intend “equal rights” to include slaves or African Americans?
Clearly the founding fathers intended for our government to be adaptive, and they just as clearly did not intend the abolishment of slavery, equal rights for women and people of other races, and yet here we stand in a country where ALL men (mankind) are created equal.
Clearly homosexuality was not something our founding fathers ever intended to deal with, and whether homosexuals agree with that or not, that doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to ask to be recognized as American Citizens equal to you and every other person in this country, with all the same rights and freedoms.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Sat, 09 May 2009 14:58:55 +0000

Polygamy? Sure. Polyandry? Most certainly. Polyamory? How can the Courts deny citizens this? On what grounds? Religion? Surely not. After the Stonewall Riots, the modern movement for homosexual rights took off with an emphasis on homosexual men. Then Lesbian rights became a focus, then, in recent years, an outpouring of empathy and support for transgendered persons. What happened to the “B” in LGBT? Not quite ready for primetime is the “B”. Why? Because Bs are attracted to both sexes and hence polyamorism will be battering the craven courts for approval.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:45:19 +0000

How about a polygamist too?

By: Raymond

Raymond — Sat, 09 May 2009 00:34:38 +0000

We live at a moment in time when what it means to be human in the sense of being human as has been held for centuries is undergoing re-definition. If the new definition, allowing universal acceptance of homosexual behavior with all rights and priveledges to homosexual persons is codified in law, a revolution will have been accomplished and not one of the traditional sacrosanct beliefs held prior to this re-definition will remain unchallenged. We will have abandoned the Judaeo-Christian foundations of Western Civilization. Will that Civilization survive the seismic shift?

By: Paul Wall

Paul Wall — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:57:33 +0000

paul | May 8, 2009 2:10:01 PM wrote “Why go to all the trouble of granting gay citizens their equal rights when you can instead placate them with tokenism?” Paul, as a “gay citizen” i would rather have equal rights than a judge on the supreme court. but if you are saying that Obama’s appointing a gay nominee and not coming through on meaningful legislation and executive actions that would indeed be tokenism. and i would be pi**ed off. i don’t care who’s on the supreme court i just want to not be fired for who i am. so i think i agree with you. how many other gay people will i don’t know.
at any rate gay people are in the political market and will vote for the party that comes through on its word.
my guess is that if you could get a republican nominee that would add gays and lesbians to the civil rights act the gay vote will come through. i think the issue of civil rights is so much more important to most gays than getting married (certainly that is the case for gays in the red states).

By: Paul Wall

Paul Wall — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:23:54 +0000

Fascist Hyena—”heterosexual males and females are kept separate from one another in may respects to avoid the kinds of sexual tensions that can affect combat readiness.” sounds like the problem then is with heterosexual males and heterosexual females. gays are already serving, as they always have with full control of their sexual tensions. absolutely not a rational arguement for denying gays the right to serve. they are already serving, Fascist Hyena! they are already controlling their sexual tensions. what’s new?

By: Paul Wall

Paul Wall — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:12:18 +0000

Posted by: J House | May 8, 2009 4:49:11 PM “israel didn’t do so hot in its last 2 conflicts in Lebanon. Are you saying it is because they have a lot of gay soldiers?” no i am not saying that, J House. are you?

By: J House

J House — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:49:11 +0000

paul wall, israel didn’t do so hot in its last 2 conflicts in Lebanon. Are you saying it is because they have a lot of gay soldiers?

By: J House

J House — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:45:55 +0000

surely we’ve had a few gay justices already…what matters is whether they legislate from the bench, or not?

By: Akdogman

Akdogman — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:30:29 +0000

I expect that Obama will soon arrive at one of his photo-ops, or the Jay Leno show dressed as a, Spandex clad, Drag Queen in, 6-inch black leather, spike heels to show his solidarity with the Gay & Lesbian community who got him elected.
Question: How will Americana react to a Gay / Lesbian Supreme Court Justice nomination?