Best
402 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    Doesn't really make any difference since so many think the Constitution is an outdated document with no relevance to Todays society. Nevermind that it guided this country to over 200 years of prosperity and global leadership. What did they (founding fathers) know anyways?
  • #15
    !
    I don't consider it outdated, but I do believe that for it to remain useful there will be times that things need to change. When facts and human decency contradict the constitution then the constitution must change. The past 200 years have likely seem more changes in our world then any other 200 year period in history. Things that fail to adapt become extinct.
  • #80
    !
    @David944 Neither. I was simply conversing with the wolf made of iron. History has shown that as we evolve as a nation we realize that there will be times when facts or morality requires that we allow the Constitution to evolve as well. The founding fathers were very intelligent men who had some great ideas that form the basis of our government, but an evolving morality has already forced change. Slavery and the suppression of women's voting come to mind. I believe healthcare has evolved to the point that socialized medicine should be added to the constitution. I know it won't happen, but I wanted to give an example.
    Obviously there is a specific legal procedure for the Constitution. All modifications need to be made according to that procedure.
    There is no such need for such an amendment to allow homosexuality because it is not forbidden in the Constitution. This is just a politician being appointed to a judicial office.
  • #95
    !
    @Cheenoguy
    Not everyone agrees that sodomy is a moral right. In fact when California tried to allow a vote (proposition 8) they overturned popular vote and pushed it through the courts anyway. It's tyranny at best.
  • #97
    !
    @hwyangel Actually Proposition 8 was about gay marriage not gay sex. The vote was overturned because it the court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny people basic civil rights.
    And popular opinion is not always correct. It took over half a century and a civil war to get rid of slavery. Reality TV is popular, doesn't make it good.
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    !
    The Constitution is against marriage, libraries, supermarkets, interstate highways, movie theaters, etc, by his logic.

    The Constitution has always been thought of as something that limited government more than anything else.

    This idiot should be impeached.
  • #24
    !
    You are correct, it was intended to limit goverment. Sad to say, it just doesn't work quite as well as intended.
  • #33
    !
    @marine1 i think the constitution works fine,the people we put in charge of carrying out the duties of said document,not so much
  • #38
    !
    @MongoAPillager you won't find many that will argue that point with you. Discipline to job responsibility is NOT one of congresses strong point.
  • #8
    !
    Since when does it matter whether or not "gay sex" is in the constitution? What a stupid, narrow minded comment from a Supreme Court justice. "Justice" (and I use the term loosely in his case) Scalia should know that same sex marriage is PROTECTED by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    ==========
    I agree with this ruling by U.S. Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker on California's Proposition 8 (and, yes, I do realize he's a lower court than the Supreme Court -- BUT, he's obviously put the U.S. Constitution BEFORE his personal beliefs)

    "One of Judge Walker’s strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage “exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,” he wrote.“That time has passed.”
  • #39
    !
    You are wrong, Judge Walker was gay and he indeed put his personal belief, and he lied and said that the 14th Amendment upheld it. Two things, Prop 8 was a state level initiative, also the US Supreme Court had already set precedent with the 14th Amendment in Oklahoma when it upheld the state ban on same sex marriage.

    If you are black then the 14th Amendment in 1868, does apply to your civil rights and that was the intent. Gays were not a new class that suddenly appeared after the 14th was enacted, if gays were to be included then they would have been.

    If you argue that times have changed, then when you can get 38 states to agree, then times will change and Scalia is telling you that this is the law and it is not emotion. Homosexuality is not a suspect class on a federal level, Walker may have confused two things, his motivation and California's assignment of homosexuality as a suspect class on a state level.

    Emotions only cloud your reason, and hinder your cause.
  • #52
    !
    @Just_the_Truth --- Gays deserve ANY & ALL RIGHTS that eveyone else in this country have, and it doesn't matter whether or not Jude Walker was gay. He OBVIOUSLY applied the law & the U.S. Constitution backs him up. Scalia is a biased, self-rightous, narrow minded fool, and SHOULD NOT be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Oh, and by the way, I'm not gay, I just believe in the freedom & rights for EVERYONE to live their lives the way God made them.
  • #55
    !
    Did not intend to vote you up on this one. Did intend to reply however.
    He's one judge on a panel like it was designed... People need to deal with that.
  • #72
    !
    @ibcingu So, please explain why ex-judge Walker was forced to step down and overturned 6 times during the case, on appeal. The issue is same sex marriage, you not knowing that shows your bias and all individuals have the same rights. I guess you are the bias one. God did not make broken legs, people broke them, just like gays were born normal and then got broken. If there is nothing wrong with being gay,then why tell me that you are not, by the way.
  • #73
    !
    @Penn1699 Not quite, he will likely right the opinion for the court. I doubt you know what this means and I know that ibcingu does not know. Scalia has put up a wall, that no judge can get around.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    Watching TV isn't in the Constitution either. Neither is football or apple pie or cars or Coca Cola. Better get rid of all of those things too.
  • #10
    !
    I have no idea how he is interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps if he were to be A LOT MORE CONCISE and not just regurgitating his own personal feelings it would help. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not relegated to heterosexuals, who by the way perform many acts of sodomy as well.
  • #21
    !
    i am a patriot through and through but on this issue the constitution has nothing to do with it.it says in the bible that if a man lays with a man as a woman they shall be put to death and the reason that god destroyed the city of sodom is because it was full of whores and homosexuals and thats where the term sodomy came from so also to the guy that said america wasnt built on religious beleives then think about that part of the constitution
  • #41
    !
    The Bible does say that it also tells you how to handel your slaves, children, and wife. Its a book that breeds hate and prejudice. I believe in God, but the Bible was written by men so it is flawed as man.
  • #67
    !
    A man can't lay with man as he does a woman, so that's silly. What is not silly is the idea that this country was based on religious principles. It most certainly was not. It was based on many things, especially Enlightenment principles and english common law. The treaty of tripoli makes it clear that this is not a christian country.
  • #75
    !
    The Bible does exactly say that, but those like Weebles have a gay pocket book, for notes. The problem is this, they made the word homosexual up. Maybe, there is a blogger gene, I am sure that I do it more often that gays have sex and I blog a lot. Hmmm, maybe not.
  • R Load more replies

  • #16
    !
    Actually -- he's WRONG. It's protected by the 14th Amendment. Maybe Scalia needs to pull his head out of his ass & leave his personal beliefs at home when sitting as a justice on the U.S. SUPREME COURT. He needs to be removed from the court.
  • #22
    !
    That's mild. I'd bet after a comment like that there are plenty who believe he needs to be removed from earth. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
  • #48
    !
    @CitizenToker so you don't mind if someone kills a Supreme Ct. Judge because they don't like his opinion? Very enlightening.
  • #56
    !
    @ir0nw0lfe
    Not if he uses his authority and influence to deny citizen constitutional rights. However, your point is taken. That was a childish remark On my part and I should take care not to make a habit of it.
  • #63
    !
    @ir0nw0lfe
    Thanks but if I can keep from shooting off my mouth with the first emotional response that comes to mind every time I see something that ticks me off I shouldn't need luck.:)
  • R Load more replies

  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #161
    !
    @Kellso Religion is like a penis. It is fine to have one. It is fine to be proud of it; but unless someone expresses an interest, it is rather rude to shove it down their throat. NOT INTERESTED.
  • #162
    !
    @jamie91 It's not religion, its common sense and everyone has common sense if they choose to use it.
    I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. R U not thirsty at all?
  • R Load more replies

  • #69
    !
    "...he suggested that the Constitution doesn't give Americans the right to "homosexual sodomy"...". I bet his Boyfriend would disagree.
  • #45
    !
    I will never understand why our country is all worried about gay marraige. Shouldn't we all be worried about our army troops dying. I don't care who marries who! I worry more if our country gets bombed when we run out of troops.
  • #49
    !
    If this country should not be worried, then gays should be worried about our troops dying, instead of SAME SEX marriage. You are the type of person, who tells the opposition not to worry, while the gays are worried and changing marriage.

    This is a marriage issue, so why are you worried about changing traditional marriage, when you should be worried about our army troops dying.
  • #62
    !
    @Just_the_Truth Here's the problem with your argument, same sex marriage DOESN'T effect you. Same sex marriage is just an extension of recognition. Same sex marriage doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to get "traditionally" married. Same sex marriage doesn't mean that "traditional" marriages are going to become invalidated. Same sex marriage doesn't mean that churches are required to perform them. Same sex marriage doesn't mean that any other form of marriage are going to be legalized; because the others each have their own financial, genetic, and /or consent problems that make them impossible to legalize. Same sex marriage doesn't mean you have to agree or even recognize it.Therefore, it seem more reasonable to recognize same sex marriage in all the states and be done with it.
  • #77
    !
    @ultimaistanza No, here is the problem, you do not have a clue. Only six states have same sex marriage. The other states have traditional marriages and if you don't want one,then it does not effect you. Now, the 6 states got it, because legislators decided to change what effects me. If I take your car and claim it as mine, can I say that the car does not effect you. Get a clue, and find out the issues. Who cares what you think, pedophile marriages will not invalidate "traditional marriages" either. How about "adult same sex incest marriages? You do not have one reason to oppose them, except the same moral arguments against same sex marriage. How about adult incest marriages? Oh now, procreation matters. Incest marriages and marrying a dog do not mean that you have to agree or even recognize them. Only gays as slaves does not mean you have to agree or recognize them. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to do what we want, instead of what you want.
  • #112
    !
    @Just_the_Truth Now your finally showing your true face. Since your just kindof rambling on. I'll put my responses in a q&a list.

    "No, here is the problem, you do not have a clue. Only six states have same sex marriage. The other states have traditional marriages and if you don't want one,then it does not effect you. Now, the 6 states got it, because legislators decided to change what effects me."

    The other states offer only heterosexual marriage, so, it does actually effect me. And again I ask, how does the legislators recognizing same sex marriage effect you? You still are able to get "traditionally" married and "traditional" marriage isn't removed/invalidated.

    ----------

    "If I take your car and claim it as mine, can I say that the car does not effect you."

    The term marriage is not a material item,so, one cannot steal it. Everyone has their own interpretation of different words and we each associate different personal meanings to them based on our experiences. Also, same sex marriage isn't taking the definition of marriage, it's adding another possible meaning for people who have different beliefs from your own.

    ----------

    "Who cares what you think, pedophile marriages will not invalidate "traditional marriages" either. How about "adult same sex incest marriages? You do not have one reason to oppose them, except the same moral arguments against same sex marriage. How about adult incest marriages? Oh now, procreation matters. Incest marriages and marrying a dog do not mean that you have to agree or even recognize them."

    Like I was said before, same sex marriage is set up in a way that other forms of marriage can't follow. I'll try to be more specific. Same sex marriage is modeled after, so called, "traditional" marriage. What this means is, it's just two consenting people, of legal age, and unrelated. Besides morality, the other types of marriages; like polygamy, group marriage, polyandry incest, bestiality, pedophilia, objektophilie, necrophillia, and any other; can't follow same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage, because of the legal barriers. Polygamy has a minefield of financial issues that the US isn't equipped to deal with, incest has the genetic problems that can arise from offspring and the sociological issues that can develop with multiple generations of siblings marrying, and all the others are forms have the problem of lacking the developed mental faculties to actually consent.

    ----------

    In conclusion, the only thing you've done is go on an angry tirade and provide no argument against same sex marriage. So, I'll just refer you back to your earlier statement, "Get a clue, and find out the issues."
  • #120
    !
    @ultimaistanza Now, you have shown your true colors, a lie. The issue is marriage, not same sex marriage. Look at the state constitutions, none say a word about you gays.

    There is no model for same sex marriage, so do not lie. You all have simply requested specific privileges. Note, same sex does not imply or mean gay. It is part of marriage restrictions, which limit itself to consenting adults, competent adults, man and woman, citizens, and two party humans. You do not want marriage for grandpa and adult grandson, so stop pretending. Just stop lying after the fact, this issue start with Hawaii, when gays threatened to force Hawaii to allow them to marry under current marriage laws, no new model for same sex marriage occurred and never has. Form that point on every state and the government has simply put a protective clause to protect was always has been defined, in the form of DOMA, state and federal.

    I bet you do not know that Prop 8 is simply California's state DOMA. All you gays have done is tried to move homosexuality away from bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, necrophilia, group marriage and incest, and tried to raise it to traditional marriage status. Well, you have failed and in 32 states it is clear and 12 states are waiting to define it for you. Only 6 states have used the legislature to circumvent and those are your states. Same sex people wanting to marry have the same pitfalls, so stop lying. We have had to change paperwork, forms, and spent millions due to it. It is not a financial gain situation,because he other groups are part of a larger group. You gays have simply lied, the truth is there were only around 15,000 same sex marriages in California, 5,300 from out of state and that represented less than one percent of the gays and less than 50% of gays even voted against Prop 8.

    Conclusion: Like BashBack and ActUp, you are just an angry gay, pretending you are hated and even cared about. You are unwilling to face the truth, and you are willing to say that Matthew Shepard died via a hate crime, to promote your cause, when his gay lover, McKinney and friend, killed him for drugs and money, because hey hated coming down from a five day drug binge.

    In reality, if you get 1-3% of the population gays to agree to change our marriage laws, that is all the votes you are entitled to. So, put your sex back in your bedroom and stay out of my private ballot box regarding my marriage definition. Like Scalia said, manup and get 38 states to agree with you, which means 97-99% straights would have to give you at least 50% of that vote.

    Now, don't get angry, if your cause were better than the polygamist cause of 1864, then you would have no need for anger. Simply vote and if you win, then same sex adult incest has the same rights. Frankly, only a fool does not know that it is a moral issue and you have an immoral argument, just like adult same sex incest. Are you a fool or are you trying to fool?
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    !
    Yes, he is on point and gays have been told this for years. What people here and around don't want to do is follow the law. After slavery ended guess what happened, two amendments needed to be added to the constitution. There is a process.
    Gays have lied to each other and said that the 14th Amendment grants them the right, then one will say that the constitution does not matter. Get a little education, the 14th amendment is in the constitution.

    Now, a bigger problem, the 14th Amendment has already been used to uphold a ban against same sex marriage in Oklahoma. Scalia is saying follow the law, get 38 states to agree and ratify the constitution.
  • #42
    !
    @MongoAPillager Wow. Allusions aside, I am sure of it. You could probably come up with ALLUSIONS for just about any belief as far as the Constitution goes, but they are still allusions.

    Allusion
    noun. 1. a passing or casual reference; an incidental mention of something, either directly or by implication: an allusion to Shakespeare.

    All that article has is implications. Using that reasoning then Gay Marriage, sodomy, polygamy, etc are all allowable.

    In effect you give judges the power to "legislate from the bench".

    Do you really want to go there?
  • #19
    !
    Judge Scalia argues that people supporting gay rights or abortions should change the law through elected lawmakers, not through the courts – or they should amend the constitution. These groups go through the courts TO WORK AROUND the system (the laws and constitution). This is dead wrong! The supreme court's job is to INTERPET the constitution not to CHANGE it. But we have a few (that want to change it) that do not do their job peoperly. Judge Scalia is a constitutionalist ; he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them. This is the REAL way to make decisions in the supreme court..
  • #20
    !
    What people want to know then, is what are the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them that applies to "gay sex?"
  • #141
    !
    No, he's arguing something's constitutionality based on his opinions of what the founders thought, felt, or how they would've intended to deal with those issues. That's not his job.

    People go through the courts to address the constitutionality of things the lawmakers decide. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law, to rule on constitutionality, not to spin bias via ideas of the intentions of founders where specific language does not exist. THAT is changing the constitution.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #11
    !
    The constitution doesn't need to be changed to allow homosexuality because it doesn't forbid it in the first place.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #400
    !
    wow. what a completely anti-Constitutional view. the Constitution protects certain natural rights - it does not 'permit' or 'authorize' behaviours. our Constitution is fundamentally permissive -- unless specifically prohibited, individuals are at their own discretion.
  • R Load more comments...
Post