Who are "some homosexual activists" and WTF is their "agenda"?

[Larry_Mudd]

Esprix: Keep your personal religious (and obviously heinously flawed) opinions off the bench and hear the case!

Now now, 'Sprix-- no need for personal remarks about the obvious flaws of the heiny on the bench. Honestly, you gay guys are so catty!

[NightRabbit]

Apos, the legal arguments he makes deserve some thought, it’s true. But then there’s the “oh no, the whole legal system is brainwashed by anti-anti-gay propoganda” argument, the “discrimination is legal, goddammit” argument, and the “they don’t agree with me, hence, they’re obviously biased” argument.

I mean, come on! None of that is necessary to his dissent- he’s just a whiny little prick, annoyed that the real world is leaving him in the dust.

[3trew]

I want to meet the other homosexual activists, whose existence can be inferred from the quote in the OP. You know, the ones who have an agenda of returning to (if not increasing) the moral opprobrium traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

I bet they have fun parties.

[kaylasdad99]

*Originally posted by NightRabbit *
**he’s just a whiny little prick, annoyed that the real world is leaving him in the dust. **

I got a lot of that subtextually, even before he started in on the “homosexual agenda” whine. The whole thing was difficult to slog through, what with every other sentence seeming to shoehorn in the message: “What are we wasting our time with this for, we should be busy overturning Roe v. Wade!”

Should I worry that Scalia plans to take the lemons he’s being handed with the overturn of Bowers v. Hardwick, and make some lemonade of “overturn Roe v. Wade?”

[rjung]

Maybe Scalia is himself a repressed homosexual?

[december]

Of course there’s a gay agenda. It’s a push for equal rights, an end to dsicrimination, marital rights, the right to serve in the military, etc. I support the gay agenda.

Thousands of other groups have agendas. E.g., the insurance industry presses for certain laws and court decisions. Unions have agendas. Doctors’ groups have agendas. The AARP has an agenda. And so forth. All these groups lobby for laws and regulations they prefer. They file lawsuits and friend of the court briefs to get Court decisions they prefer. This is all part of the democratic process.

Scalia claimed that the Court signed on to the gay agenda. He purposely chose the less PC term “homosexual” for some reason. That’s a significant charge. Suppose the courts signed on to the insurance industry agenda. Suppose they started looking for excuses to make decisions finding a Constitutional right to high insurance rates. That would be worth pointing out.

Scalia’s decision doesn’t expressly say whether he personally favors or opposes the gay agenda. In principle, that’s fine. In theory, he might be complaining that the Court has become a partisan player for a cause he supports. However, in reality I have no doubt that Scalia opposes the gay agenda of equal rights and equal acceptance. That’s too bad. It makes his comment look ugly and bigoted.

[Mockingbird]

*Originally posted by rjung *
**Maybe Scalia is himself a repressed homosexual? **

Ick.

[E-Sabbath]

*Originally posted by 2trew *
**I want to meet the other homosexual activists, whose existence can be inferred from the quote in the OP. You know, the ones who have an agenda of returning to (if not increasing) the moral opprobrium traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

I bet they have fun parties. **

Ex-Gay Ministries count?
I have to agree that Scalia’s legal analysis was good. It always is. But good lord, what bile it was wrapped in!

[Brutus]

The AFA’s take on The Homosexual Agenda(s). I think.

[Jack_Batty]

Interesting, Brutus. Might you also have the American Nazi Party’s take on the Jewish Agenda.

I like to read.

[Brutus]

Google it for yourself.

[Read_Neck]

Agenda?

Now that the court has ruled that these sodomy laws are unconstitutional, homosexuals are prepared to eliminate other forms of discrimination, said Ruth Harlow, lead attorney for Lawrence and Garner and legal director at the homosexual advocacy group, Lambda Legal.

Harlow said discrimination in marriage laws and by the U.S. military would be two of their targets.

“By knocking out both sodomy laws and the justification of morality, this decision makes it much harder to defend those discriminatory schemes,” she said. “The actual answer for those issues will be saved for another day.”

Even though the decision was based on the right to privacy and not equal protection under the law, Harlow still called it a resounding victory. She said it “very strongly recognizes gay people’s equal humanity” and guarantees homosexuals the equal rights under the Constitution.

Regarding the OP. You’re welcome.

[Kalhoun]

I mean, come on! None of that is necessary to his dissent- he’s just a whiny little prick, annoyed that the real world is leaving him in the dust.
Yeah, but he’s a very powerful whiney little prick. He and Clarence Thomas are dangerous. Fucking dangerous.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
**HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA FOR 6-27-03:

12:00 p.m. - Single out all religous right members and secretly brainwash their children into becoming homosexuals. See if R & D has perfected the “it’ll turn you gay” flouride treatment for the water. World domination is but a step away.
**

Obligatory Onion story.

[Kalhoun]

I should have put quotes around my first paragraph, and attributed it to NightRabbit. But alas, I’m a careless schmuck. So sorry.

[Early_Out]

Hey, december, how dare you post something with which I agree completely?! If I can’t count on disagreeing with your opinions, what’s left?

Now, if we could just do something about Brutus, who manages to couple right-wing demagoguery with a charming bully-boy attitude…

[cleosia]

I’m beginning to think that actually, 10% of the population is heterosexual. The rest are just faking it.

If they all came out of the closet, world conquest would be complete and you could close all those recruiting centers. They’re expensive to run and take a huge chunk out of the annual budget.

[Monty]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA FOR 6-27-03:

{snip}

4:00 p.m. Twister.

{snip}

That can’t be right. 4:00 p.m. for that date has “Twister, green jello, and s’mores” as part of the Mormon Agenda.

[Homebrew]

The rest of his dissent is reasoned? Yeah, right.

Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.

“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas’ sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.” Ante, at 5.

Of course the same could be said of any law. A law against public nudity targets “the conduct that is closely correlated with being a nudist,” and hence “is targeted at more than conduct”; it is “directed toward nudists as a class.” But be that as it may. Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to “homosexuals as a class,” that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

He seems to be arguing that nudism is something more than elective behavior. Or that homosexuality isn’t.

[december]

*Originally posted by Homebrew *
**He seems to be arguing that nudism is something more than elective behavior. Or that homosexuality isn’t. **

He is arguing that Justice O’Connor’s legal reasoning was weak. She chose not to sign on to the majority decision, which was based on stronger legal reasoning, because she had ruled the other way on that basis in the past.

Frankly I would have have had more respect if she had just openly admitted that she changed her mind. As it is, her concurring decision shows that a judge can often justify whatever result she wants, just as one can often find a particular passage in the Bible justifying a desired result.