Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Frank Calls Scalia a ' Homophobe! '

Posted by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 5:02 PM
  • 11 Replies

 

Rep. Barney Frank calls Scalia a 'homophobe'

Gay lawmaker made remark about justice in interview on Web site

updated 7:04 p.m. CT, Mon., March. 23, 2009

WASHINGTON - Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in a recent interview with the gay news Web site 365gay.com.

The Democratic lawmaker, who is gay, was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

"I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court," said Frank. The video of the interview is available online.

Frank's office did not respond to a request Monday to expand on his remark. Scalia had no comment.

Scalia dissented from the court's ruling in 2003 that struck down state laws banning consensual sodomy. He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent.

Controversial topics like gay rights and abortion should not be in the hands of judges, he has said, calling on people to persuade their legislatures or amend the Constitution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29843734/

by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
hsteele
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:17 PM

It shouldn't be in anyone's hands. No branch of government federal or state should get to decide who gets to marry and whether a group of people should be giving the same rights as everyone else. It should be automatic, a non issue.

Heather

Proud Pagan Mama

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin~

blondekosmic15
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Than let's surrender our Nation to polygamy in all 50 states!!! Homosexuality has been practiced upon this earth even in OT times but marriage between a man & a woman has been the law of the land here in America in spite of this way of life~

Eilish
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM

*SIGH*

Don't make me bust out my "Constitutional View of Marriage" journal again.

The gay marriage issue shouldn't be heard by the Supreme Court, instead people should be fighting to abolish marriage licenses (and the benefits/penalties associated with them). I would support a case against marriage licences being heard by the Supreme Court.

hsteele
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:38 PM


Quoting blondekosmic15:

Than let's surrender our Nation to polygamy in all 50 states!!!

Polygamy is a religious based issue. Right? The argument against it comes from religious ideology which has no place in legislation. Give me legal or economic reasons why polygamy should be disallowed or gay marriages for that matter that are not based in your religious ideology then I will take the argument into consideration.

Heather

Proud Pagan Mama

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin~

hsteele
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:41 PM


Quoting Eilish:

*SIGH*

Don't make me bust out my "Constitutional View of Marriage" journal again.

The gay marriage issue shouldn't be heard by the Supreme Court, instead people should be fighting to abolish marriage licenses (and the benefits/penalties associated with them). I would support a case against marriage licences being heard by the Supreme Court.

But don't marriage licenses provide the benefits of marriage, shared insurance, the rights to inheritance, visiting in hospitals etc? Not arguing just asking. In the military the marriage license dictates whether i get to travel with my husband, receive military benefits etc. How can this still occur without a marriage license?

Heather

Proud Pagan Mama

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin~

blondekosmic15
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 8:55 PM

 

Quoting hsteele:

 

Quoting blondekosmic15:

Than let's surrender our Nation to polygamy in all 50 states!!!

Polygamy is a religious based issue. Right? The argument against it comes from religious ideology which has no place in legislation. Give me legal or economic reasons why polygamy should be disallowed or gay marriages for that matter that are not based in your religious ideology then I will take the argument into consideration.

Not necessarily. I am aware of many Americans who do not embrace any religious beliefs who are against a law being enacted to support gay marriage. For many it's a logical reasoning~

blondekosmic15
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 9:01 PM


Quoting Eilish:

*SIGH*

Don't make me bust out my "Constitutional View of Marriage" journal again.

The gay marriage issue shouldn't be heard by the Supreme Court, instead people should be fighting to abolish marriage licenses (and the benefits/penalties associated with them). I would support a case against marriage licences being heard by the Supreme Court.

Elaborate....summarize pls.

Eilish
by on Mar. 24, 2009 at 9:09 PM

I'll post this snipit ...

Black's Law Dictionary defines a license as "a personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor (red flag) and is not assignable." Did George Washington have a marriage license? (No.) Did Thomas Jefferson? (No.) Did they simply ask the women they loved to settle down with them and perhaps raise a family? ..... Uh Yes! Ever heard of a Common Law marriage? Did you know that the ONLY reason why we have marriage licenses to begin with was to "approve of" interracial marriages. (red flag)

Because rights are derived from property, the ONLY way for marriage to be a right, is if you OWN your significant other. Owning a person is slavery and it not a right because (we all know this), it infringes on a personal liberty. Your rights cannot infringe on my rights and visa versa.

The Constitution was not designed to give the government the power to grant privileges to certain (or any) groups of people for any reason. Let me say this again......

"We the People" NEVER gave the government the authority to license , permit, or otherwise grant special privileges to anyone for anything!

The authority lies with in our own power to exert our own rights. For this reason (marriage) licenses are unconstitutional. However, under the current law, their is a civic injustice which discriminates against a certain group of people - in this case homosexuals.

If marriage is a religious issue and the government has no business involved with this, then why do you ....

  • permit the government to license marriage?
  • permit (and accept) government endorsed privileges?
  • try to misuse the Constitution -which dictates federal law - to fight a culture war?

Remember, the Constitution doesn't grant rights but it also doesn't restrict the people.

If BOTH sides want justice .....

If you want true justice you should be fighting to get the government OUT of marriage by calling for the immediate discontinuation of the issuing of marriage licenses, the discontinuation of government endorsed privileges associated with marriage (and while we are at the penalties too), and revoke the authority of Justices of the Peace to marry couples. After all, the only reason to legally marry under current law is to reap the benefits associated with it.

The "benefits" associated with marriage license (with the exception of the income tax issue which is unconstitutional in and of itself) are all things that you can have done without the a license with the help of an attorney. Marriage licenses are not simply a "permission slip" or a certificate that the State recognizes your marriage, it is a contract with the State. And if you break that contract, then there are severe consequences. Example: If there are children from the marriage and you divorce your husband, the State gets jurisdiction over your children - neither you nor your husband get it.

The "benefits" (IMO) do not outweigh the consequences. Both sides should be fighting to get the government out of marriage completely. Then they BOTH can have their way.

hsteele
by on Mar. 25, 2009 at 5:51 AM


Quoting blondekosmic15:


Quoting hsteele:


Quoting blondekosmic15:

Than let's surrender our Nation to polygamy in all 50 states!!!

Polygamy is a religious based issue. Right? The argument against it comes from religious ideology which has no place in legislation. Give me legal or economic reasons why polygamy should be disallowed or gay marriages for that matter that are not based in your religious ideology then I will take the argument into consideration.

Not necessarily. I am aware of many Americans who do not embrace any religious beliefs who are against a law being enacted to support gay marriage. For many it's a logical reasoning~

Could you please explain that logical reasoning to me?

Heather

Proud Pagan Mama

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin~

hsteele
by on Mar. 25, 2009 at 5:54 AM

Thank you. Good points. However: For my family legal advice and services are free since we are military. I already have a general power of attorney, most military wives do. But what about other families that cannot afford the services of attorneys.

Quoting Eilish:

The "benefits" associated with marriage license (with the exception of the income tax issue which is unconstitutional in and of itself) are all things that you can have done without the a license with the help of an attorney. Marriage licenses are not simply a "permission slip" or a certificate that the State recognizes your marriage, it is a contract with the State. And if you break that contract, then there are severe consequences. Example: If there are children from the marriage and you divorce your husband, the State gets jurisdiction over your children - neither you nor your husband get it.

The "benefits" (IMO) do not outweigh the consequences. Both sides should be fighting to get the government out of marriage completely. Then they BOTH can have their way.


Heather

Proud Pagan Mama

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin~

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured