Selwyn Duke:
There is one particular thing that illustrates better than anything else the unreasonableness — and some would say gall — of homosexuality activists. It’s not demanding that bakers, shirt printers and wedding planners be party to events and expression deeply contrary to their principles, as offensive as that is. What I speak of is something even more fundamental, something again brought to light by the recent Vatican synod on the family.
As many know, the synod made news with an unwisely released and widely misrepresented mid-term report containing language that the secular media interpreted as signaling Church capitulation on the matter of homosexuality (an excellent article on this by Paul Bois is found here). And when it emerged that the language was the handiwork of just one or two individuals and was roundly rejected by the bishops, melancholia — and Machiavellianism — defined the media. “What a shame it is that the Church rejected the more welcoming tone,” we heard. “We thought tolerance and deference to the times were winning out, but then the voices of prejudice quashed progress.” They thought? Insofar as these leftists think at all, they do it all wrong.
The media’s notion that the Catholic Church isn’t “welcoming” to people with same-sex attraction (PSSA) is at best due to ignorance, at worst driven by insidious manipulation. Just consider the following passage — which expresses a long-held Church position — from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
What about that sounds “unwelcoming”? Let me add that for nigh on 20 years I’ve attended Mass every Sunday and on Holy Days in parishes all over my area and in other parts of the country, and I have never, ever heard a priest rail against homosexuality; in fact, lamentably, I can’t even remember a priest mentioning it during a sermon, let alone talking “about these issues all the time,” as one rather prominent Catholic put it last year. In other words, the notion that priests are smoking PSSA out of churches with fire-and-brimstone, acid-tongued preaching is a media assumption — and invention.
It’s also quite stupid. Does anyone think the Church turns away adulterers, fornicators, artificial-contraception users or self-gratifiers? So why would anyone think it’s at all different with PSSA? In accordance with Jesus’ saying that “the healthy are in no need of a physician,” that God rejoices more over one lost sheep found than 99 who were never lost, the Church’s business is attracting sinners. And, of course, since she teaches that we’re all sinners, she’d have to close her doors if her market were confined to angels.
The reality is that homosexuality activists and the media (redundant, I know) are guilty of projection. They’d have us believe that the Church and other traditionalists can’t stop talking about PSSA, when they’re the ones who cannot. Much like a man who rains down unprovoked blows upon another and then screams “Why are you so violent!?” when the victim merely raises his arms to block, they start a fight and then are shocked when others defend themselves; not only that, they then portray their offensive against tradition as defense and the defense of it as offensive.
But the Church exercises no double standard. Her teaching lists homosexual behavior as just one of many behaviors at variance with God’s plan for man’s sexuality. It’s homosexuality activists who have the double standard, and this brings us to what they really want. Since the Church has always welcomed PSSA, the issue is not one of accepting “homosexuals.”
The activists want the Church to accept homosexuality.
Perhaps this is stating the obvious for many, but framing this properly illustrates its absurdity. The activists want a special dispensation from Church sexual teaching — and, of course, this can be applied to all of traditionalist Christianity — for their particular behavior. But consider where this leaves us:
Is the Church supposed to say adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, self-gratification is a sin, viewing pornography is a sin, but homosexuality is, what? A lifestyle choice, sort of like living on a houseboat?
This would be comical to anyone who didn’t fail at mastering childhood categorization problems (i.e., what things belong together?). It would be like saying that devil’s food cake didn’t belong with sugar cookies, petits fours, Napoleons and ladyfingers in the category of desserts because it’s the favorite of some corpulent, Jabba the Hut-looking slob who’ll feel better about himself if it’s classified as a vegetable.
@George+Wells: George, you ever heard the saying: ” Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
The way it is, is that gays always stayed in the closet for a reason. I’ll let you conclude what that reason was/is. Why someone in that position would want to now have those same things acknowledged publicly is also their business. I strongly suspect that many will choose to remain in the closet for the same reason they did before. You ever see the response when someone is erroneously identified as ‘gay’? How quick are they to be pissed off and set the record straight? You think that’s gonna change?
This is interesting:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/table/homosexuality/
Specifically this graph:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/10-overflow/20141030_aapl.jpg
So, how do Americans compare to the rest of the world, in attitudes toward gays/homosexuality?
Note how, in the above list of 40 countries for 2013, all of the Islamic or Muslim-majority countries were at 78% disapproval or higher (Egypt at 95%).
Compared to 37% or much less, for the U.S. and Western Europe (Spain at 6%).
And we’re not talking about ”gay marriage.”
This is simply about acceptance of homosexuality at all.
Demographically, those countries with high acceptance of homosexuality are in death spirals.
On the other hand, those countries where homosexuality is not considered moral are growing at high rates.
An ex-pat homosexual American, Bruce Bawer, has been knocked around from one country to the next since leaving the USA many years ago. Everywhere he’s tried to put down his roots with his life partner, the tide of opinion has moved against freedom or even life for homosexuals, forcing him into yet another move to yet another country.
@Redteam #51:
Yes, Redteam, that is already changing. Just yesterday, the CEO of Apple Corp. came OUT OF THE CLOSET. It is becoming so much the thing to do that at some point, some STRAIGHT people will make start making similar announcements, SAYING that they’re gay when they are not. The world you and I grew up in is gone, Redteam. Things have changed.
By the way, it was Ben Franklin, I think.
@George+Wells:
And toward what purpose? Does being gay allow him to do his job better, or worse? Does it change how he interacts with employees, or store managers? Does it elevate him to a position he didn’t have previously? What is exactly the purpose of making public your private life?
One thing it does do is now stop me from buying a new iPhone. When I get ready for an update on my cell service, and a new phone, I’ll buy another brand simply due to the fact that the CEO of Apple decided to make a “political” move with his announcement.
@Nanny #52:
Because I already understand that you are a Republican, I can also appreciate that you might view the progress made in civil rights in this country over the past 150 years to be a “death-spiral,” but I don’t share that opinion. Neither do I share your admiration of Islamic countries and African despotic regimes that persecute homosexuals. Fortunately, this country isn’t moving backwards, and it would take a WHOLE BUNCH OF BACKWARD to sink to where those countries are. I’m happy here, thank you very much. Are YOU planning to move???
In spite of what the Bible says about proper management of slaves, I think freeing them was a good idea, even over the concerted objections of the Confederate States of America. In spite of what the Bible says about a man’s proper treatment and punishment of his property (his wife or wives) I think that allowing women to vote and otherwise have what rights that they have (not quite equal, yet, sadly) is a good idea, the objections of male chauvinist pigs not-with-standing. And in spite of what the Bible says about homosexuality being an abomination – and what should be done about it – I understandably believe that giving gays equal rights is a good idea, over the lamentations of the evangelical Christian right. I also think that having a population that isn’t GROWING is a good idea. We can’t keep the roads we have maintained, much less build enough for another 330 million people. And on and on. Enough is enough. Depending on population growth for economic growth is a pyramid scheme – a scam. Don’t fall for it.
@retire05 #54:
” What is exactly the purpose of making public your private life?”
The purpose is to stop lying about ourselves. When a straight couple hold hands and push a baby carriage down the street, the assumption is that they are straight. They don’t HAVE to make an announcement to prove the point. They have made it over and over again, making their spouses their beneficiaries, bringing them to company dinners, and on and on. Straights are not asked to live a lie as gay people have been. That’s changing.
Gay people are rejecting the guilt that straights have been teaching them for centuries. So you’re going to hear more of this in the future. What will you spend your money on when ALL companies have gay-friendly policies, when ALL companies embrace their gay employees and give them equal rights? Have you checked the record of Fortune 500 companies’ gay-friendly policies lately? You might have to go back to sending smoke signals.
@George+Wells:
Very little. Think of the money I’ll save not buying stupid stuff and toys. I don’t care if a company hires gays. I do care when they make a political issue out of it.
Well, that makes an ASS out of you. It could be the baby’s aunt and uncle and they could be gay.
But unlike queers, heterosexuals don’t make a big deal about their being heterosexual. You do. I think we should start calling you George, the Flamer.
@George+Wells:
Why do you continue to push a false meme with the “equal” rights crap?
I said,
When you look at the median age of ETHNIC Europeans in the USA and Europe you find it is very high (age 38 or so) ….at the end of childbearing years.
BUT if you look at the median age of their immigrant populations you find it is MUCH younger, late teens to early twenties!
And look at Spain…..6% Muslim, also 6% according to Pew find homosexuality unacceptable.
ALL of your proclaimed ”progress made in civil rights in this country over the past 150 years” can disappear tomorrow.
We’ve noted how blacks attempts to play their race card is falling on deaf ears when Hispanics and other, newer immigrants had no guilt whatsoever over ancient American history.
This will be even more noticeable in the future.
As to gays who have tried to adopt civil rights’ language to make their own power plays, that ploy hasn’t been accepted even by their fellow liberals who happen to be black.
You admitted it yourself, some gays take it too far.
Most people in the USA can marry a same sex partner without having to travel out of state.
But that’s not enough.
And, no matter what pssa’s get it will never be enough.
Ever read the autobiography of Quentin Crisp? (The Naked Civil Servant)
He said of his pssa life, it was 99% just waiting.
No wonder pssa’s are never happy.
Little children grow out of asking, ”are we there yet?”
pssa’s never do.
@retire05 #57:
“heterosexuals don’t make a big deal about their being heterosexual.”
Oh. I see. All those love scenes in movies and TV aren’t actually making a “show” of heterosexuality, are they? All of the heterosex in advertising? Same thing, right?
Of course it all seems fine to you – it’s YOUR 98% that’s the elephant in the room, not my 2%. Everyone just ASSUMES that everyone else is straight. That is, until they are TOLD otherwise. Either a gay person TELLS the TRUTH (and you can rest assured that we are asked repeatedly throughout our lives by the straights around us) or else he lies.
Plenty of gays would be perfectly happy to stay in their closets if heterosexuals would do the same, BUT THEY DON’T. For some reason, the world is full of men who can’t keep the sordid details of their sex lives secret, particularly from their casual co-workers. I can’t speak for women, though I’ve heard that they do a lot of the same thing. So basically, straights rub their business in our faces, but don’t want us to do the same in return. Not fair. Won’t comply. Sorry.
@Nanny #59:
“You admitted it yourself, some gays take it too far.”
I certainly did. They DO. However, that is no more my FAULT than the fact that some heterosexuals are child molesters is YOUR fault.
I should point out that as recently as several years ago, the vast majority of states allowed neither gay marriage nor gay civil unions. The Republican Party was dead set against BOTH. Well, as you point out, now about 60% of the country already has gay marriage (no thanks to the Republican Party) and the majority of Republicans are suddenly all for gay civil unions. Well, what the hell is it? Yes, or No? The Republican Party is proving that it is no more principled that the Democratic party, just a bit slower.
I should ALSO point out that at this point, approximately 300,000 gays have married. That’s a whole lot of good fortune for those 300,000 gays. It will be difficult to rationalize how this enormous benefit might be offset by a few straights who decide not to buy I-phones because Apple’s CEO came out.
Per your “death-spiral” fantasy, I see nothing worthy of comment.
Regarding those North Carolina bigots who have resigned their jobs rather than perform CIVIL weddings for gay citizens:
These are government employees, NOT clergy.
Judges are responsible for the adjudication of secular laws, NOT for enforcing religious commandments. Judges are better off unemployed than at work deciding cases based upon their personal “beliefs” instead of the merits of legal arguments. The same applies to hired magistrates. Their job is to perform civil functions, not religious ones. If they are so anguished over gay marriage, they would be better employed as Southern Baptist clergy.
One has to wonder if these wing-nuts are equally committed to fighting some of the OTHER Biblical “abominations”:
1) sleeping in the same city as a menstruating woman.
2) eating shellfish.
3) eating dairy and meat on the same plate
(do they protest MacCheeseburgers?)
4) touching Pork skin or eating pork
5) getting a haircut
6) Disrespectful children
Note that Article II of the Treaty of Tripoli signed into law by President John Adams states that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”
Just so there was to be no ‘misunderstanding’ about content & intent Adams wrote beneath his signature “Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof.”
These clowns should leave unto God that which is His.
If they CAN’T do that, they DO need to find other work.
@George+Wells:55
George, you might want to stay on a subject that you have some knowledge of, apparently the Confederate States of America is not one of those. The Constitution of the CSA did not allow for slavery,
http://listverse.com/2010/12/06/10-surprising-facts-about-the-confederacy/ and as you well know, neither Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware were part of the Confederacy.
56:
Then why do gays have to ‘make an announcement’? I don’t think I have ever announced to anyone that “i’m straight” or “i’m not homosexual’. I don’t see why it’s not enough to let someone draw their own conclusions unless they want special consideration for their status.
George, I will make this point, though it’s not something I’m looking forward to. As more and more people get ‘their rights’ that means more people that don’t support homosexuality, especially Muslims, will get their rights and Muslims are not as friendly at demanding their rights as homosexuals are. And I suspect that one right the muslims will want to protect is their right to not have to put up with homosexuals. So let’s not hope ‘too many’ people get more of ‘their rights’ or you won’t have any.
@George+Wells:
Maybe it’s just the law of averages or sheer numbers, but I have personally encountered exactly 3 child molesters and all three were homosexual.
@Redteam #63:
How on EARTH can you say in one sentence that:
“The Constitution of the CSA did not allow for slavery”
And in the VERY NEXT sentence say:
“The Confederate Constitution…permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so.”???
Well, guess what? they DIDN’T WANT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY!
Lincoln freed the slaves, not the CSA!
Geez Louise, Redteam! Get real!
Regarding the question of self-announcement of sexual orientation, I don’t EXPECT a straight person like you to grasp exactly how heterosexual the world really is – it seems quite natural to you, and you probably don’t ever give a thought to all of the constant barrage of heterosex that shows up in movies, TV, the work place, the culture. But for gays, it ISN’T natural. It is a constant reminder that they are different. On top of that, straights are all the time ASSUMING that everyone IS straight (not a very wrong assumption, given that it is about 97% correct) and they impress this assumption on the gay people around them. It is innocent enough, but when a gay person is asked if they are married or if they have a girlfriend, they are faced with a choice: Either they lie, or they tell the truth. Every last one of us faces this dilemma over and over again, and lying gets quite tiresome. So what do we do? we proactively get the word out. Sorry if it bothers you, but you asked. Over and Over and Over again.
Didn’t I just get finished explaining this a couple of posts ago. Short attention span?
@Redteam #64:
We went over this before, remember? The reason was that you were TOO CUTE! Maybe if you had “butched” it up a bit, or hit yourself in the face with a rock a few times, you wouldn’t have been so appealing. Or perhaps you were hanging around too many gay bars. I don’t know – I wasn’t there.
You might also recall that I felt insulted that no males EVER attempted to molest me. In fact, it was older women who 4 or 5 times tried some pretty cleaver tricks to get my goodies in play. Apparently they didn’t have functioning “gaydar”.
But neither of these anecdotal accounts have any significance beyond our personal lives. They are statistically irrelevant. You can try to inflate their importance into something more than they are, but they aren’t.
@George+Wells:
Lincoln was around in 1868? Better tell John Wilkes Booth that.
@George+Wells:
But you’ll persist because you have an agenda.
It’s pointed out quite vividly when two guys start slobbering all over each other. Nothing gets the channel changed any faster. I think when an audience is watching a show and 98% can relate makes a hell of a lot more sense than making a movie that 98% will change the channel. But if it makes you feel good, espouse it.
I don’t recall any ‘gay bars’, not that I would’ve heard about any back in the 50’s, remember it wasn’t ‘gay’ back then. You know what they were called back then.
not back then, no such thing.
I don’t agree with that. I knew of several other boys that were accosted by homosexuals. I suspect if that were analyzed it would be because little danger would be felt by accosting a small child vs a grown anti-homosexual adult. I personally know of two homosexuals that were killed, according to testimony, because they accosted an anti-homosexual male. You can say that had no significance, but it did to the families on both sides of those events. As you well know, there are still plenty of men that gays avoid because they are afraid of the consequences.
@George+Wells:
More correctly stated would have been that the Constitution did no require it or prohibit it. It was up to the states
@Redteam #68:
“But you’ll persist because you have an agenda.”
My only “agenda” was answering YOUR question. That was the polite thing to do, wasn’t it?
I have no further agenda here. I’m not pushing for acceptance, or normalcy, or for services from people who prefer not to give them to gays. Nothing. My goal is achieved.
I assumed that you wanted an answer to your question, and I thought that I had an answer that MAY not have occurred to you. If all you want is to argue, you can get that from someone else.
@George+Wells: Some countries aren’t going to accept it as much as the libs here are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/03/russian-monument-to-steve-jobs-taken-down-after-apple-ceo-cook-says-he-is-gay/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
@Redteam #71:
So what are you saying, Red? That you prefer to align yourself with Russia, Iran, Uganda, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea? Instead of England, Canada, France, Spain and the other WESTERN CIVILIZED nations that allow gay marriage?
You should be embarrassed to call attention to such a poor argument as that.
I am PROUD that the United States is that much BETTER than Russia, Iran, Uganda, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and North Korea. You should be, too.
@George+Wells:
I didn’t say anything. It was public opinion speaking.
@Redteam #73:
“I didn’t say anything. It was public opinion speaking.”
No, Red, you DID say something. I don’t quite know what you meant by posting that piece, but it wasn’t “public opinion.” The post described an action of an arm of the Russian government. Why DID you post it? Were you SUPPORTING the action of the Russian government? Feel in the mood for some aiding and abetting the enemy?
Maybe you should give some more thought to which side you want to be on…
Or does “REDteam” really give away your true allegiance?
@George+Wells:gettin under your skin just a little?
It doesn’t really matter that it was the Russians with the nerve to say that traditional family values are important, that sexual perversions among minors is wrong. That honoring people that promote homosexuality is a choice that doesn’t ‘have to be made’. I think more people should stand up for those values everywhere.
@Redteam #75:
You lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
On this issue, the company you keep says all that needs to be said:
Iran. Russia. Uganda. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. North Korea. Texas.
If I laugh any harder, I’ll wet myself!
@George+Wells:
true, better get a good flea powder.
Personally, I prefer not to lie with dogs in the first place. Thus my reluctance to side with Russia, Iran, Uganda et.al.
It is YOU, my friend, that needs to take a powder.
Why the continuing fuss over gay stuff, anyway? This country will have gay marriage in all 50 states QUITE soon. Already 90% of Fortune 500 companies have non-discrimination policies that include gay employees. American approval of gay rights – including gay marriage – is at a 2-to-1 ratio and is INCREASING. Republican Party Platform opposition to gay marriage and other gay rights will soon be watered down to simply a reiteration of the importance of respecting individuals’ freedom of religion.
Whether or not homosexuality is “sinful” in the religious context, or “healthy” in the medical context, or “normal” in the biological context doesn’t matter in the social or legal or economic contexts that matter most to the vast majority of Americans. Dithering on about Russia taking down a statue of a gay man is about as relevant as arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. (Note that some of the World’s most revered statues – including Michelangelo’s “DAVID” and “THE PIETA” – were produced by a gay man. The Vatican has no problem housing “THE PIETA” in a position of supreme honor. Russia can go F itself.)
@George+Wells: Then why do you find it necessary to defend your position? If ‘everyone’ takes it as ‘normal’, then why ‘defend’ it? Gonna be traveling to the Mid east anytime soon?
@Redteam #79:
” If ‘everyone’ takes it as ‘normal’, then why ‘defend’ it?”
Who takes it as “normal”? “Everyone”? Since when?
“IF…(false fact), then (question)” is not a logical premise. If you are attempting to make a logical argument, then do not include false facts in your equation.
If you have a legitimate question to ask, ask it.
“Gonna be traveling to the Mid east anytime soon?”
If I was a straight, 25 year-old, 300-lb linebacker for Green Bay, I wouldn’t travel to the Middle East.
Again, even if you are only trying for a bit of humor, you need to start with a plausible premise before you attempt some sick irony.
No, I’m not going to Iran, Russia, Uganda, Egypt, North Korea or Texas any time soon. Are you?
@George+Wells: You are the one that hypothesized that it is or will soon be ‘normal’, it isn’t my idea:
so are you attempting to portray it as the norm, or not?
@Redteam #81:
“You are the one that hypothesized that it is or will soon be ‘normal’, it isn’t my idea:”
Oh, YES it is your idea. In none of the material I posted and that you copied can you find the word “normal”. Don’t put that word in my mouth. The word “normal” has a precise meaning that I have NEVER applied to homosexuals, and this goes a very long way back. Homosexuality is as abnormal as red hair, both occurring at a rate of approximately 2% of the human population.
Everything that I gave you in #78 was either fact already or prediction of what will come to pass in the near future. I’m not “attempting to portray” anything. It is what it is. The facts you can look up. And if you can’t see where this is going in the future, you’re blind.
I would think that by now, you’d have figured out that the way you and Retire05 wanted things to go wasn’t going to happen, that your predictions were wrong, and that just MAYBE your understanding of how this country works needs to be re-evaluated. We no more belong to a Christian Theocracy than we belong to a Islamic Caliphate. We are a secular nation that values a wide variety of individual freedoms and that follows the rule of our own laws.
Over the course of our discussions, you and Retire05 have argued the meanings of words and have interpreted laws and the Constitution in ways that are inconsistent with current views on these topics. Perhaps clinging to archaic notions is what you believe it means to be “conservative,” but it isn’t. The sooner you disillusion yourselves of this error, the sooner you can be at peace with the world that is clearly changing all around you.
@George+Wells:
Well, at least one appeals court may not be so agreeable
LOL.
You don’t think you’re making the claim that being ‘gay’ is becoming the norm? Then you address the wrong part of your hypothesis.
Quit arguing that it is going to be as commonplace as McDonald’s restaurants but not ‘Normal”.
@George+Wells:
apparently not all courts agree with you. Read that story.
If the Supreme court takes it up again, past rulings seem to favor one man, one woman.
Read more at
@Redteam #83:
“Quit arguing that it is going to be as commonplace as McDonald’s restaurants but not ‘Normal”.”
I’m not sure where you are going with this. There is 2% gay, maybe 3%. That’s the extent of it. It can’t be considered “normal” by any meaning of the word. Commonplace? How “commonplace” can it be if it cannot be any more “common” than 2%? Your argument here is mush.
“Then you address the wrong part of your hypothesis.”
What hypothesis? I’m not claiming homosexuality is “normal”. You’re just making up stuff to keep this thread going, aren’t you?
If there is something you are trying to get out, say it. I’m not going to dance around in a circle with you all night over this BS “normal” crap.
@George+Wells: George, go and read your 78.
you’re the one arguing that 100% (that’s a little over 2%) of the states will go ‘gay’, and that over 90% (that’s a little over 2%) of the Fortune %00 companies will go ‘gay’. and now you’re pretending you didn’t say that. OR, are you afraid of:
and want to pretend it didn’t happen.
@Redteam #84:
“apparently not all courts agree with you.”
Thank GOD! If we had to go through this for every one of the 50 states, it would take for YEARS!
If you haven’t figured out yet that the Supreme Court has been waiting for a conflict at the appellate level to jump in and finish what Kennedy started ten years ago, let me give you a friendly push: If the SCOTUS grants a writ of certiorari, all 50 states will be done. I promise.
You think it won’t, Fine. I’ll laugh you down, Sweet Pea. Those precedents you reference are way obsolete. Baker is much more recent, and IT is no longer binding. Hardwick said “NO” to sodomy, and Lawrence reversed that only ten years later. But I’m not even going to try to spell it out for you. So, go ahead and keep your head buried where the sun don’t shine. Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?
The ONLY option that might hold up the full-50-state victory is if the SCOTUS decides NOT to take any of the conflicting appellate decisions, letting the conflict resolve itself over time, or simply allowing the SCOTUS to resolve the conflict later – as in, after ALL of the circuits have had their say.
Here is why this will all be finished SOON. Ginsburg has to finish the issue, because she won’t live forever. Kennedy has to finish the issue before Ginsburg dies, because he can’t depend on a Ginsburg’s replacement being a liberal. (Because a liberal replacement can’t get confirmed by the Republican-dominated Congress, regardless of who the next president is.) The other three liberal SCOTUS justices are in the bag. It is uncertain how Roberts will vote, but if he sides with Kennedy (a distinct possibility) the decision would have a 6-3 majority, not 5-4.
Finally, the SCOTUS would NEVER reverse all of this. Not because of Stare Decisis, but because the consequences of such a reversal would create a legal mess of disastrous proportions. I can promise you that, too.
@Redteam #86:
What is this “GO GAY” BS? Why do you NEED to change the words I use, and then question what I said?
“Already 90% of Fortune 500 companies have non-discrimination policies that include gay employees.”
That is a FACT. It doesn’t mean that they are “GOING GAY.” Idiot.
“This country will have gay marriage in all 50 states QUITE soon.”
That is a PREDICTION. It is based upon the fact that a conflict now exists between appellate courts, and the SCOTUS USUALLY resolves such conflicts, and the SCOTUS WILL decide in favor of gay marriage, for the reasons already given. It doesn’t mean that the states are “GOING GAY.” It means that they will all get gay marriage rights. Not the same thing. Idiot.
@Redteam:
I can save you a whole lot of time.
Whenever I say something in the form of “ABCD,” and then you come back asking if I meant “ABFZ,” my answer will ALWAYS be “NO.”
I promise you that.
Categorically.
Every time you play this silly little game, changing something that I said and then asking me if I meant something different, the answer is ALWAYS, INVARIABLY going to be “NO.”
The words I use are chosen carefully. If I meant something else, I would have said something else.
Your bad habit of frequently changing what I have said proves that you have no real argument of your own.
Get one or shut up.
And if you don’t like being insulted, stop playing games and present a real argument. Make a real prediction, and let’s see which one of us really understands what is going on. (Hint: I’ve been right so far, and you and Retire05 have been wrong.)
@George+Wells:
trying to get me to take up some of your practices? no way.
geez, you celebrate something then pretend you didn’t. Is that a gay game you’re playing?
Ahhh, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that when you say ABCD and I come back asking about ABCD, you can’t remember what ABCD was or that you said it.
Sorry sir, YOU do not have the ability to insult me. You are the one trying to improve your status, not me. I have all of the constitutional rights I need.
@Redteam:
Nail, meet hammer.
@Redteam & Retire05 :
“trying”(???) to improve your status…”
No darlings. I GOT what I wanted, remember? But at least you acknowledged that gays DON’T have equal rights.
Paul and my millions are now protected via marital exemption upon the death of either, and the wills can no longer be contested by greedy family members as yet unrevealed. THAT’S what I wanted. Not the word “marriage.” Such a silly thing to fight over, anyway…
I’ve never demanded anything else. No cakes, no photos, etc. And I don’t give a damn if you clutch your Bibles to your breasts and hold your breaths until you turn blue, your approval was never something I sought. What earthly good would having THAT do?
No, I’m not normal, and I don’t know anyone who is. That was never an issue either.
I’ve been here to teach you something, but it has evidently been a waste of time. You’ve doubted my honesty and denied my predictions, which have ALL come true.
But now this must come to an end. I’ve got two estates to execute that will take up a lot of my discretionary time, and as I pointed out, you’re not benefiting from my intended gift.
Congratulations on the Republican wins in Congress, and good luck in 2016.
@George+Wells:
Some people would be missed George, you’re not one of them.