Did anyone deny that, or did people simply say they were not at that time ruling on SSM? Because two things can simultaneously be true:
The OP itself says nothing of the sort.
I guess you yourself are dealing with hidden (or unacknowledged or unexpressed) intent. 
The apparent purpose of the disclaimer was to deny that this was necessarily the implication of that ruling. This is how it was interpreted at the time.
The idea was that a court likes to back away from making overly sweeping rulings if they can avoid it, especially if they’re on tenuous ground in terms of popular and legal support . Scalia was trying to portray the ruling as a more sweeping one by virtue of this implication, and the majority was disclaiming this.
It’s almost like a supervillain rant as delivered by a really lame supervillain.
Wrong in less than 20 words. There’s no point in even discussing your OP when you’re too ignorant on the subject to understand the difference between transgender people and transvestites.
Scalia may have tried to twist those statements in the earlier opinions to contradict the later result (if you’re representing him accurately). But he is wrong to do so. Obergefell was not compelled by either Lawrence or Windsor. Those precedents surely helped. But there were lots of ways to distinguish the cases, and many judges and Justices did so in the intervening years.
I get that these are your paraphrases of what the majority opinion and dissent said. In a quick skim of both, I’m not seeing either. Can you quote the specific words you’re so paraphrasing?
Here’s the ruling. I’ve also skimmed the wikipedia article. What exactly are you relying on here?
I’m not gonna quote the dumb OP again, but yes, it deals directly with an (imaginary) response to an (imaginary) declaration of Obama’s (imaginary) intent to do something in 2008. And an imaginary reaction that people should be having to their imaginary wrongness.
Ah, forget it. The OP isn’t right, and it’s not even wrong. It’s pointless to compare it to actual events.
By golly, yes. Treating everyone as normal citizens due all of the rights and privileges of every other citizen!
When will this nonsense end! :eek:
Jan 2017, if the Republicans have anything to say about it.
Is this intended to help people who are going to have a sex change operation, and are experiencing what it is like to be of a different gender on a day to day basis?
How many transgender folks are there in high school?
The OP is a talented fortune teller:
Is what intended to help what??
Is it your belief that the NC bathroom law only applies to high schools? Or that it doesn’t apply to “true” transgender folks (whatever that means), but only those curious, potentially trans people dipping their toes in the water, so to speak?
And there are quite a few transgender high schoolers, for your information. But even if there were only one, their uniqueness would be no excuse to treat them like shit.
Our local high school has five to ten transgender students. This isn’t much ado about nothing.
I’m not sure what you’re asking in that first part. Transvestites are not transgender people “trying it out” before they undergo surgery. Many transgender individuals never undergo reassignment surgery.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly, but best as I can tell this is the opposite of what I said he did.
I said “the apparent purpose of the disclaimer was …” etc. I didn’t claim to be paraphrasing it.
I get that you’re hung up on the notion that the majority opinion didn’t do anything explicitly more than say that this opinion doesn’t go any further. I don’t think that’s something worth arguing about, especially as my main point was about Scalia’s prediction, not about the majority being coy about it.
No. I’ll try again to help you understand.
You’re characterizing Scalia as saying this: the earlier opinions said they did not necessarily require an eventual ruling in favor of gay marriage; and such claims were contradicted by the later finding of a gay marriage right while citing the earlier opinions.
But, if your characterization of Scalia’s views is correct, his argument is a bad one. Obergefell was indeed not compelled by either Lawrence or Windsor.
No, that’s not what I said. I’ll repeat it again, but pay closer attention this time. Or read my earlier posts more carefully. Or either of the cites that I linked, which you apparently did not read, or any number of similar cites out there.
Scalia did not claim that such claims were contradicted etc. as you said. Scalia predicted, in his dissents to those earlier opinions themselves, that the reasoning used in those majority opinions would later be used to legalize gay marriage. This prediction by Scalia was subsequently validated when all sorts of judges did just that, some of whom specifically pointed to Scalia’s dissents in doing so (to support their claim that the majority opinions supported the gay marriage right).
That’s not the language you used in post #82, which I quoted in my first response. You said, and I quote again, “The apparent purpose of the disclaimer was to deny that this was necessarily the implication of that ruling.” Your new version ignores half of the issue (which you previously recognized), which was the claim that the statements of the majority limiting the opinions was disingenuous or dishonest or inaccurate.
It seems obvious that further discussion of this will not be fruitful with you, so I’ll give you the last word.
My “new version” ignored that because I was responding to you, and your post was focused entirely on Scalia and not on the majority. Since you misrepresented what I said about Scalia, I restated what I had said about Scalia. You didn’t say anything at all about the majority opinion in those decisions so neither did I. I stand by what I wrote earlier.
That’s fine. Next time, if there is one, please try to pay better attention upfront, so this won’t be necessary.
Let’s say you’re right and it’s statistically insignificant.
Up until recently, I wasn’t in fear about a transwoman sharing a public bathroom with my daughter. Thought never even crossed my mind. Why? Because it was never a demonstrable issue of concern to anyone. Now, thanks to NC and soon Texas Republicans, I live in constant fear of it. :eek:
Wait… No. I fucking well don’t. Do you?
meh
If, in 2008, anyone had said that general changes in attitudes toward transgender people would be met by Right Wing Paranoids with dishonest claims about “transvestites,” I suppose a number of Right Wing persons would object to being characterized as “Paranoids,” (thus trying to shift the topic in an effort to refuse to admit its accuracy).
And so it goes.