Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

[YWN666]

Meh ... there are plenty of openly gay people in high positions, they do things no different than anyone else. So who cares.

I agree. I bet there are even more people in high positions that are gay and we don't even know it.

 

[Nik]

The Supreme Courts main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine every law passed whether federal or state and determine if said laws adhere to the Constitution of the United States.

Personally I think homoexuals are an abomination, but if one was to be appointed to the supreme court I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as he/she upheld the duties outlined above and not try to legislate from the bench.

Answer this question, if a person is against gay marriage, does that make that person a homophobe?

Not necessarily, but many who are against gay marriage are against it because they are homophobes. And everyone who is against the idea of a gay justice is a homophobe.

Could you explain this a little more, I don't see the connection.

Give me another plausible reason that one would have a problem with a gay justice.

 

[manifold]

Most people don't it's as rare as the naturally born hermaphrodites, though they exist it's so rare most people don't know anything about them. But the government lumps them up with gay people, guessing it was for lack of a better category, but really it's not fair.

Why isn't it fair? It seems like you're saying there's something wrong with being gay.

Meh, read it how you want, I know you will. It's not fair because it's not a "lifestyle" or a "sexual orientation" .... that's why it's not fair. It should be considered a disability.

I consider them freaks. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Amanda]

Most people don't it's as rare as the naturally born hermaphrodites, though they exist it's so rare most people don't know anything about them. But the government lumps them up with gay people, guessing it was for lack of a better category, but really it's not fair.

Why isn't it fair? It seems like you're saying there's something wrong with being gay.

Meh, read it how you want, I know you will. It's not fair because it's not a "lifestyle" or a "sexual orientation" .... that's why it's not fair. It should be considered a disability.

I'm not "reading how I want to" I'm trying to understand what you're saying. It still sounds like you're saying there is something wrong with those people. Are you or aren't you?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Meh ... there are plenty of openly gay people in high positions, they do things no different than anyone else. So who cares.

I agree. I bet there are even more people in high positions that are gay and we don't even know it.

I think it's safe to say you can count on that.

 

[Mr. President]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Amanda]

Not necessarily, but many who are against gay marriage are against it because they are homophobes. And everyone who is against the idea of a gay justice is a homophobe.

Could you explain this a little more, I don't see the connection.

Give me another plausible reason that one would have a problem with a gay justice.

Um...no. You made an assertion, it's your point to prove or not.

 

[jillian]

"Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

As long as the openly gay justice is an originalist, I've go no problems with him or her.

but no one who's a constitutional scholar is an "originalist" because there's no such thing in constitutional construction.

 

[Mr. President]

How many gay republicans do you know. Maybe republicans/conservatives just dont want another "liberal" interpretation in the Supreme court? The question isn't is America ready for it the question is does America want it.

 

[jillian]

Um...no. You made an assertion, it's your point to prove or not.

He said he could see no other reason. Neither can I.

Why don't you give it the old college try.

 

[Ravi]

Who cares?

I don't recall anyone asking if America was ready for another white man when Bush made his pick.

 

[jillian]

How many gay republicans do you know. Maybe republicans/conservatives just dont want another "liberal" interpretation in the Supreme court? The question isn't is America ready for it the question is does America want it.

The big name gay "conservative" repubs are just "closeted".

but...

Log Cabin Republicans - Home

Gay Republicans

 

[Amanda]

Um...no. You made an assertion, it's your point to prove or not.

He said he could see no other reason. Neither can I.

Why don't you give it the old college try.

I didn't ask for another reason, I asked for the reasoning behind what he said.

If I said, "I can see no reason why we should have a gay justice" my logic and reasoning for the statement would open for discussion. You'd be all over me for answering that I simply can't see any reason for it. If you want someone to give the old college try maybe you can explain why not being in favor a gay justice makes someone a homophobe.

 

[Mr. President]

Would you say that Homosexuals voted primarily democratic or republican tickets?

 

[KittenKoder]

Would you say that Homosexuals voted primarily democratic or republican tickets?

Even mix.

 

[Mr. President]

Really? Seriously?

 

[manifold]

Amanda,

Please stop trying to pull a Ravi. You suck at it.

If someone is indeed a homophobe, then logically they would oppose a homosexual SC Justice. This should be obvious even to you. So therefore it is ONE reason why a person might object. Nik's position is that it's the ONLY reason since he cannot fathom another. Right or wrong it's sound reasoning. If you disagree, it's actually up to you to offer a second reason why someone would object. It's not up to him to prove that homophobes would object.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No

I bet.

 

[Nik]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

You didn't answer the question.

Oy. You are a stupid one, aren't you?

 

[jillian]

Really? Seriously?

no not really...... but there are more than you'd think.

no accounting for people who vote against their self-interest... although gays do have one of the highest socio-economic demographics of any group.