Its been said that democracies are run by vocal minorities. The Supreme Court apparently conducts itself as if it believes it even though America was never intended to be a democracy. There are important cases affecting everyone the current Nine Nimrods refuse to tackle. The Eligibility Clause is one such case. I guess they would not take it on because the majority wanted it, or maybe they refused to hear the case simply to protect a minority of one the present occupant of the White House.
Socialists in government forcing Americans to purchase whatever they dictate is another case involving everybody that the High Court refuses to hear. (To be fair, justices would probably be assassinated by Wall Street hit men the minute they put a forced purchase case on the docket.) Yet here they go again for another tiny minority the homosexual community.
If I had to predict the outcomes of Prop 8, (same sex marriage) and the Defense of Marriage act, Id have to say theyll screw them up the way their predecessors did with the minority in Roe v. Wade. Not to be outdone by dead lawyers the current bunch really eff-ed up the Affordable Care Act.
Roe v. Wade sanctioned the murder of an estimated 50 million babies since the day 7 douche bag lawyers decided that case in favor of a minority comprised of murderous mothers, not to mention the tens of billions of tax dollars used to pay for the slaughter. The deaths, brutality, and suffering the ACA ruling will cause is still unknown, while the cost is easily calculated; trillions after a minority of parasites dive headfirst into the public purse.
The thing that annoys me about the SCOTUS is that every corkscrew case the High Court takes on is made to look like it protects the individual. Yet collectivism is strengthened every time the ruling comes down. If judges hold one thing more sacred than the individual Id like to know what it is. To hear judges, the media, and courtroom dramas tell it the individual is God. Its always the individual this, and the individual that. If our judicial system continues to protect individuals the way theyve done throughout my lifetime, I say the time has come to F the individual.
Scalia
As soon as I heard the SCOTUS was going to hear to homosexual cases, I decided not to post any messages on the topic until after the decision. Pre-decision messages would amount to nothing more than commenting on media chit-chat. Justice Scalia changed my mind:
I have to admit that I never thought about Scalias question. I dont think we amateur Constitution-lovers think along those lines.
My objection to homosexuals marrying lies in making such unions equal to heterosexual marriages. As near as I can determine, a partnership contract, wills, living wills, and so on gives homosexuals everything heterosexuals have except Social Security benefits. There are some fringe issues like visitation Rights if one homosexual partner ends up in the slammer for a long time. Problems like that are not difficult to solve. Of course, the visitation problem becomes insurmountable the instant the courts decide to protect the Rights of horny individuals separated by bars.
Looking back, as Scalia did, is not as important as is looking ahead. My questions to attorney Ted Olson would have centered on Where is this going? Now thats a real puzzle to those us living in the lowlands surrounding Mount Olympus.
Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: You must associate with me. It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe homosexual marriages will evolve into forced associations. I offer this scenario to make my point:
I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. Thats called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.
Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.
Free speech
Somewhere along the way free speech dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:
The sly transition that goes from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:
In the past few years, several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage.
Now that the US Supreme Court is hearing a same sex marriage case, I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether? I ask the question because several years ago things were looking mighty bleak for free speech. Thats when gay became the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech.
I cant say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:
blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious
Were I to overwork the word homosexual, I would be accused of homophobia. Aiming for savoir-faire in the rest of this message, I have decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay where appropriate.
Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts youll find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.
The vivacious community is only one group. Put a sock in it if you oppose me is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.
You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone elses. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlaflys article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.
You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. Indeed, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.
The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone elses lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages, the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.
The next excerpt from Schlaflys column provides an example of censorship:
Numerous examples of censoring free speech were reported since 2006. Rather than beat the free speech issue to death, Ill move along to the arts.
Art for the common folk
Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, the twist, got started. I dont know if the story was ever proved true, but it is worth repeating.
It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern Californias beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance the twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and the twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.
My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishments nose à la the twist. If that was the merry communitys intent, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.
I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it has. Now that theyre being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists and try to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a constitutional Right. Socialists love the Constitution whenever they see a way to tear it down.
Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I dont care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It wont build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though its not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.
Traditional art
Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed, as one of their own, every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble. Michelangelos talent was the face they tried to put on homosexuality.
Dont fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and wouldnt dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry should have stayed with the artistic image.
There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.
One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. Thats a good thing for them if thats the case, but it doesnt mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.
One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy theyll have to relinquish the gay misnomer.
Socialists in government forcing Americans to purchase whatever they dictate is another case involving everybody that the High Court refuses to hear. (To be fair, justices would probably be assassinated by Wall Street hit men the minute they put a forced purchase case on the docket.) Yet here they go again for another tiny minority the homosexual community.
If I had to predict the outcomes of Prop 8, (same sex marriage) and the Defense of Marriage act, Id have to say theyll screw them up the way their predecessors did with the minority in Roe v. Wade. Not to be outdone by dead lawyers the current bunch really eff-ed up the Affordable Care Act.
Roe v. Wade sanctioned the murder of an estimated 50 million babies since the day 7 douche bag lawyers decided that case in favor of a minority comprised of murderous mothers, not to mention the tens of billions of tax dollars used to pay for the slaughter. The deaths, brutality, and suffering the ACA ruling will cause is still unknown, while the cost is easily calculated; trillions after a minority of parasites dive headfirst into the public purse.
The thing that annoys me about the SCOTUS is that every corkscrew case the High Court takes on is made to look like it protects the individual. Yet collectivism is strengthened every time the ruling comes down. If judges hold one thing more sacred than the individual Id like to know what it is. To hear judges, the media, and courtroom dramas tell it the individual is God. Its always the individual this, and the individual that. If our judicial system continues to protect individuals the way theyve done throughout my lifetime, I say the time has come to F the individual.
Scalia
As soon as I heard the SCOTUS was going to hear to homosexual cases, I decided not to post any messages on the topic until after the decision. Pre-decision messages would amount to nothing more than commenting on media chit-chat. Justice Scalia changed my mind:
I have to admit that I never thought about Scalias question. I dont think we amateur Constitution-lovers think along those lines.
My objection to homosexuals marrying lies in making such unions equal to heterosexual marriages. As near as I can determine, a partnership contract, wills, living wills, and so on gives homosexuals everything heterosexuals have except Social Security benefits. There are some fringe issues like visitation Rights if one homosexual partner ends up in the slammer for a long time. Problems like that are not difficult to solve. Of course, the visitation problem becomes insurmountable the instant the courts decide to protect the Rights of horny individuals separated by bars.
Looking back, as Scalia did, is not as important as is looking ahead. My questions to attorney Ted Olson would have centered on Where is this going? Now thats a real puzzle to those us living in the lowlands surrounding Mount Olympus.
Remember that equal Rights, civil Rights, non-discrimination, quotas, affirmative action, and all of the other touchy-feely liberal causes can be summed up in one sentence: You must associate with me. It happened in the workplace, the schools, the military, in private clubs, and everywhere else; so there is every reason to believe homosexual marriages will evolve into forced associations. I offer this scenario to make my point:
I invite a dozen or so neighbors to a cookout. I specifically do not invite a homosexual couple who live down the street. They sue me for discrimination. I lose the case and money. The court orders me to associate with all of my neighbors. Thats called protecting the individual while teaching me that I am part of the collective in all things.
Just to be clear on this. I simply do not want to associate with homosexuals. I do NOT wish bodily harm on anyone, nor would I take part in violence directed against homosexuals.
Free speech
Somewhere along the way free speech dropped out of the homosexual marriage debate. Nevertheless, public schools continue to attack free speech today as much as they did in 2006 when Phyllis Schlafly pointed out:
The sly transition that goes from tolerance to acceptance reminded me of an old adage:
In the past few years, several states moved homosexual marriage into legislation leaving most of us behind in the tolerate stage.
Now that the US Supreme Court is hearing a same sex marriage case, I have to ask if liberals will lift their ban on free speech altogether? I ask the question because several years ago things were looking mighty bleak for free speech. Thats when gay became the politically correct word for homosexual at the expense of free speech.
I cant say exactly when the homosexual community became the gay community, but here are synonyms for the word gay:
blithe
happy
light-hearted
lively
merry
vivacious
airy
bright
sunny
homophile
homosexual
effervescent
hilarious
Were I to overwork the word homosexual, I would be accused of homophobia. Aiming for savoir-faire in the rest of this message, I have decided to risk an allegation of flippancy by substituting synonyms for gay where appropriate.
Every time you examine any issue near and dear to liberal hearts youll find that free speech is always the first casualty. With that in mind I want to comment on a few blithe causes collectively referred to as the hilarious agenda.
The vivacious community is only one group. Put a sock in it if you oppose me is the bumper sticker for every liberal cause espousing this, that, or the other. It would all mean very little were it not for the judges, and employers who fear the judges. Neither of those two groups is noted for their love of free speech.
You would think that the First Amendment Rights of government employees are protected more than anyone elses. You would be wrong in spite of powerful government employee unions. Schlaflys article cited several incidents involving government employees who suffered at the hands of the light-hearted community.
You would be wrong again if you think that colleges and universities form the first line of defense against assaults on free speech Rights. Indeed, sunny Rights always displace the First Amendment in institutions of higher agendas.
The happy community, the judges, and just about every liberal in the country forget that hate speech requires the most protection, or at least the same protection liberals enjoy when their hate speech is aimed at someone elses lifestyle, personality, or beliefs. Example: When an airy entertainer tries to be funny by denigrating stereotypes who oppose effervescent marriages, the attempted humor is usually rendered with thinly veiled hate speech.
The next excerpt from Schlaflys column provides an example of censorship:
Numerous examples of censoring free speech were reported since 2006. Rather than beat the free speech issue to death, Ill move along to the arts.
Art for the common folk
Once upon a time I read somewhere how that dance craze, the twist, got started. I dont know if the story was ever proved true, but it is worth repeating.
It seems that there was an ordinance in one of Southern Californias beach towns prohibiting same sex partners from dancing with one another in the local gin mills. However, same sex partners tripping the light fantastic had to touch each other in order to be in violation of the law. Homosexuals began to dance the twist without touching one another just to tweak the noses of the local constabulary who were obviously commanded by Inspector Clouseau. The craze spread, as such things have a way of doing, and the twist became part of the culture with a lot of help from Chubby Checker.
My first thoughts about same sex marriage cautioned that it might be just another bit of tweaking the establishments nose à la the twist. If that was the merry communitys intent, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams thanks to judges.
I doubt if any of them ever thought their inside humor would go as far as it has. Now that theyre being taken seriously they have no choice but to run with the Socialists and try to make it stick. I name the Socialists specifically because the same sex marriage issue is so easily turned into a constitutional Right. Socialists love the Constitution whenever they see a way to tear it down.
Now that a few states are dispensing marriage licenses look for a constitutional amendment to resurface. Speaking for myself, I dont care one way or the other if there is a constitutional amendment to deal with the issue. It wont build discrimination into the Constitution as some claim, but it will trivialize the Constitution to some extent. An amendment specifically designed to address gay nonsense may not be what the light-hearted community expected, but they do have square apples from academe pontificating about same sex marriages as though its not the silliest damned idea to ever come along. How the merry must be laughing at the straights.
Traditional art
Not many years ago color coordinated gays claimed, as one of their own, every creative artist that ever wrote a play, composed an opera, smeared paint on canvas, or chiseled away at a piece of marble. Michelangelos talent was the face they tried to put on homosexuality.
Dont fret. There has been a make over. The new face is less artistic, but infinitely more monogamous than the old face. The latest story is that they all love their chosen partner, work hard at ordinary jobs, never part company, and wouldnt dream of infidelity. All things considered, the merry should have stayed with the artistic image.
There is one major problem with the new face: How did HIV/AIDS decimate the hilarious community with all of that monogamous love and devotion going around? I have no answer.
One possible result of casual liaisons that kill is that the blithe community stumbled upon fidelity out of fear of HIV/AIDS. Thats a good thing for them if thats the case, but it doesnt mean that same sex marriage should be legislated by judges or by anybody else.
One final observation: Now that homosexuals admit they are stodgy theyll have to relinquish the gay misnomer.
