As I write, another federal court has ruled the wicked, perverted Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.  While I have not seen the opinion, just out now, I can raise at least five good arguments why it could not pass Constitutional muster.  Take for example the Due Process and Equal Protection guarantees.  What is good for some is good for all, and  if  some want to define marriage as "between one man and one woman," they demand strict scrutiny in their claims.  It is akin to claims about the existence of God: fantastic claims demand extraordinary proof.  Now that we know that we have a presidential candidate whose grandpa had more than one wife, we learn how glibly Mitt Romney can go along with DOMA-pushers, although the law should be called the Offense to Marriage Equality Act (OTOME).  His support of heterosexuals-only marriage is mostly to curry the favor his base -- and I do mean base.  Stick around, Mitt may etch another sketch.

Want to bet Justice Scalia is salivating to slather DOMA with dogmatic sanctity, just as he has with many other social issues, perhaps betraying in his nastiness and tight-assed opinions his conservative brand of Catholicism.  The New Majority will do precisely what was done in Bush v. Gore: Sweep aside a century of precedent and a hands-off policy toward the States in election conducting, thereby annointing GWB as Pope of the U.S.A.  (And yes, I know that Bush was an evangelical, nominally, but the new coalition of evangelicals, whether you call them "evangeliCatholics" or "Cathevangelicals," these two extremist religions fit hand and glove when the chips are down in social issues.)  SCOTUS probably won't get the issue soon, but we can easily predict the yea's and nay's.  Scalito will go along with fellow Catholic Scalia; Roberts will pull back from his Obamacare centrist position to reassure Big Business he is still a conservative, and Clarence, if he can take enough time off from his porno collection, will follow Scalito in following Scalia.  

That leaves the other Catholic on the fence.  If anyone can figure Kennedy out, please email me privately.  I have wondered for years.  Oh, and Scalia in an interview said that several states had anti-sodomy laws for years before the Court struck them down.  As far as he is concerned having anti-sodomy [read: anti-gay] laws in place and fully sanctioned by the Constitution is a "no brainer."  That would come easy for Scalia, who lets the Vatican do his thinking for him, and who never fails to eschew self-recusal even when a corporation having business before the court goes to lunch with this ideologue.

Views: 568

Replies to This Discussion

I'm an optimist.  I think there is someone for every one.  In scalia's case, someone with a fetish for aging gremlins.  

Sort of reminds me of a right wing wag's comment on the not so comely daughter of an avowed communist professor back in the 60s: "You can tell she's a commie: the only way she could get a date is by public decree." In his interviews, Scalia comes off as a smug, self-righteous pomposity.

Same sex marriage IS an economic issue.  New York, as I am sure Gov. Cuomo will tell you, has been making a lot of money off gay weddings.

Of course it's an economic issue!  I'd LOVE to hear some self-righteous dip try to tell me that there isn't advertising that targets the LGBT community ... and that there isn't a response to such targeting!  This is the brand of naivete that lost the GOP this last election!

They added it up, potentially 51% of all the population (women), 3 or 4 percent gay or lesbian or other, fifteen percent African-American, 15 to 20 percent Latino; they don't matter.  The ones who would be voting for us have their minds made up and the others will vote for Obama.  Now, they talk of courting the black and brown vote.  Guess what, guys?  Most of them don't think you have anything but ossified ideas and that your party is basically a bunch of angry racist white people, mainly angry white men.

If the Republican party is going to change, the base ideas they hawk will also have to change, that simple.  If they can get back to the concept of limited government and spending without going overboard on social issues (which have NOTHING to do with limited government) - in other words, if they can get back to core Republican principles, maybe they have a chance.

I just caught a bit of Ben Stein on CBS Sunday Morning, claiming that the GOP has been dead before and risen from its ashes.  Maybe so, but the circumstances were different, particularly in that they were never so far to the right before now, now were their platform and policies so radicalized.  If they can't acknowledge that that rightward move was a massive mistake, they WILL render themselves irrelevant, and all the Faux Noise blathering and pundits pontificating won't change that.

It's way too early to think the republican party is dead.  I think people were saying the Democrat party was dead 10 years ago. A lot can happen in a few years.  Disasters, fads, the rise of a new messiah (George Prescott Bush?), who knows?  The pendulum swings back and forth.  

The Republicans will have to sort out how to market themselves to an expanded demographic.  They did a really bad job of it this time, and spent too much time trying to chat and manipulate the electorate, and pandering to the loonytune religious fanatics. But they, like the South, can still rise from the ashes.

Ben Stein, as usual, is part of the problem, not the solution.  He mistakes early release of a few blacks from prison and eating collard greens with ham hocs as "making inroads" into a significant electoral block.  He thinks that if he eats menudo now and then and drives around in a low-rider car he can simply gloss over the policy changes going to the heart of the election.  The GOP party platform has little of interest to either minority, and since the party is packed with Solid South racists, all these folks need to do is look at the TV image of Haley Barbour to know that the GOP is not their party.  They know that the programs Paul Ryan urged on them would mean the end to many entitlements, things that keep folks from starving.  The choice, for them, was a no brainer.  At this time, "black Republican" and "Hispanic Republican" are either oxymoronic or else euphemisms for Uncle Tom's and Aunt Tomasina's.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service