- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,704
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
What in Sam Hill does made for TV have to do with reality? Nothing.
Ginsberg agreed to officiate the marriage of her "gay" friend and his partner. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone but it should be a wakeup call to many that the political appointed judiciary has an agenda and are willing to overturn the votes of millions of Americans to see that agenda fulfilled.
She should recuse herself from all future cases regarding SSM that may go to the SCOTUS.
Stay classy.Ginsburg should do America a favor and move the South Africa where she would be happier with their constitution.
Just looking at her, she would be one of the few who wouldn't have to be worried being raped on the streets of Johannesburg.
This woman continues to be a disgrace to this country.
From an opinion devoid of standards, morality, tradition and Godliness.
Not impressed.
And what better way to accentuate a couple's love for each other than having a member of the SC give an old, boney, middle finger to her political rivals?I think this is Ginsburg giving all those close minded haters the finger. Awesome!
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony, the Washington Post reports, marrying Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts on Saturday.
Justice Ginsburg Becomes First Supreme Court Justice To Officiate Same-Sex Wedding | ThinkProgress
"Not getting your way every time you stomp your feet" isn't "being discriminated against". If those people oppose gay marriage, they're free to not get gay married. No issue.
In state after state, when the voters have had the decision put before them, they don't want it. For a wide range of reasons. Tradition, religion, family values, morality, common sense,... whatever.
But the thought police do nothing but attack and "stomp their feet" and make accusations and have many non thinking people think this is the most important issue in the world. It's not. Gays can be gay without getting married.
But back to the discrimination part. Just the other day while listening to the radio a news story came on about a bakery, I think, where a gay couple wanted the owners to do their wedding. The owners declined their business based on whatever reason it was that they had against gay marriage. Now of course, a lawsuit has been filed so the bakery owners said screw it, and closed up their shop. So the thought police win this one. But it won't end there. The thought police will continue to feel more and more righteous and vindictive and will seek more legal control over peoples thoughts, words and actions and will discriminate against them by any method.
given by a person who claims to hold liberty as the highest good but seems more authoritarian than a libertarian. You want to stamp on your standards, morals, tradition and religious views upon others. I am sorry, but you do not sound like a libertarian at all.
And what better way to accentuate a couple's love for each other than having a member of the SC give an old, boney, middle finger to her political rivals?
I think this is Ginsburg giving all those close minded haters the finger. Awesome!
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the nation’s first Supreme Court justice to officiate a same-sex ceremony, the Washington Post reports, marrying Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser and economist John Roberts on Saturday.
Justice Ginsburg Becomes First Supreme Court Justice To Officiate Same-Sex Wedding | ThinkProgress
Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you can't have standards, morals or religious traditions.
AWESOME!!!
just one more stone in the road for america to finally grant equal rights and end one more of our discrimination and infringements.
Off topic. But why do so many Americans display such disrespect towards older people? She is an extraordinarily accomplished woman and her age has NOTHING to do with the conversation.
umm..she's presiding over a same sex wedding, not writing laws, not deciding cases, she isn't doing anything of substance...... it's political theater, nothing more, nothing less.
thats why its just a stone and it does have substance IMO because she is the first
and as a bonus at the very least it pisses bigots off and thats great entertainment too
1.)nobody cares that she is the first ( besides the odd fringe supporter)... and nobody is pissed off.
2.) i think it's rather silly to overshadow 2 peoples wedding with overt political theater... but that's just me being all weird.
1.yes, the media is spreading the "information"... generally the lefty media in order to do exactly what the OP likes about it ( the middle finger to political rivals)1.) false, many LARGE groups are spreading this info
2.) false, there are people in this thread that seem pissed and there are definitely people in the word blasting this on blogs message boards etc. Saying she should not be a judge, shes is evil she shouldnt be allowed to sit on any cases involve equal rights now etc
3.) what if the people in the wedding are super thrilled about it and its what they want? doesnt their opinion matter or is that just being all weird also
that's true enough... but then there's a matter utilizing the state to coerce others into living by your standards, morals, and religious traditions that doesn't reconcile very well with libertarianism.
the progressives we have around here won't like that you are opposed to it at all...anything short of full support is unacceptable to them.
1.yes, the media is spreading the "information"... generally the lefty media in order to do exactly what the OP likes about it ( the middle finger to political rivals)
2.. beware of assuming being opposed to something is equal to being pissed about it..i'm willing to bet very very few people care at all
3..it's telling you have to ask "what if...?"... ya see, the story was never about the folks getting married.. it was about the Justice presiding over it.. the wedding and the people in it come a distant 2nd, they are ancillary to the "real" story.... and that is what I find sad about it... but meh, political theater and giving middle fingers to political rivals is what a lot of people are all about today.
She should recuse herself from all future cases regarding SSM that may go to the SCOTUS.
LOL....I was WAITING for someone to say this. ...and of course you believe that anyone who performs straight only marriages should recuse themselves as well? Right?
How is performing a gay wedding "taking side" any more than someone performing a "straights only" wedding? There is absolutely no basis for recusal.If there was a law in place set to repeal straight marriage yes. When they perform gay "marriages" they have become personally invested in such a thing and the ruling may directly reverse what they previously did. I don't care if they speak out on views, but if they lead an organization or have vested interest (like a law that may impact "marriages" they performed) they need to recuse themselves.
How is performing a gay wedding "taking side" any more than someone performing a "straights only" wedding? There is absolutely no basis for recusal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?