Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  'allies'

Ann Coulter Tells GOProud’s Gays: You Have No Right To Get Married

Men wearing “Freedom is Fabulous” greeted guests last night at GOProud’s Homocon fundraiser, hosted at billionaire investor Peter Thiel’s New York City home, where headliner Ann Coulter treated guests to laughing at their own expense. “The people who get gay jokes are gays,” she told her audience in a nod to once calling John Edwards a faggot — just one of her rich experiences in gay culture. Coulter’s best joke, then? That marriage “is not a civil right –- you’re not black. … Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’” I do love it when Ann speaks for blacks and gays. Particularly when gays pay her to do it.

By:           Max Simon
On:           Sep 26, 2010
Tagged: , , ,

  • 65 Comments
    • uu
      uu

      In order to be welcome at Aunt Coulter’s house, all you have to do is hate yourself, so she won’t have to do it for you!
      It’s in the purest Christian tradition!

      Sep 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      She’s just mad because no man or woman will marry her.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kev C
      Kev C

      Someone actually paid for her uneducated opinions and low class humor? Oh my.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      I think this event brought self-hatred to a whole new level. Homocons, she’s laughing AT you, not with you. And so are we.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      wow. a conservative who believes that blacks are entitled to civil rights. that’s…progress?

      Sep 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike L.
      Mike L.

      Is there a lgbt version to the phrase “Uncle Tom” we seriously need to use it. How about Uncle Mehlman and Aunt Cheney?

      Sep 26, 2010 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      I’ve seriously had it up to here with these “Gay Republicans”.
      Sick, selfish bastards, the whole lot of them.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      Mann Cruntler showed his true colors when he spewed disgusting rhetoric upon 9/11 widows, calling them among others “harpies, only trying to cash in on their husband’s deaths”. He has proven that he is nothing more than a publicity whore of the most extreme. He simply lobs the most extreme bombs he can think of and watches the surrounding publicity with glee.

      That he basically made a mockery of those silly clueless Gays paying him to appear is yet another result of Gay karma. Toss coin in a vile hatefull pandering bigots pocket. And he turns around and basically spits in the shrimp cocktail…………

      [img]http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/sack.jpg[/img]

      To all the posters ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ up there: For the first time in Queerty history everyone is absolute 100% dead on correct…….

      @whatever: Priceless

      @Mike L.: Not the same group but I have coined The Uncle Tom’s Log Cabin Repugnaticans…… :p

      Sep 26, 2010 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      So the white lady thinks that civil rights only belong to blacks?

      New Caanan High School, Cornell University, and the University of Michigan School of Law should all lose their accreditations for providing this witless idiot with a diploma.

      Christ, what an asshole.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Raymond Barker
      John Raymond Barker

      She is vile in every way. And those GOProud Homocons are an embarrassment.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      It’s true, water tends to find it’s own level.

      Though in this case it’s really more of a mud puddle.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 5:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Well, the right wing gays might love Ann Coulter but many in Gay Inc love Lady Gaga. What’s Lady Gaga got to offer? A meat dress?

      We’re totally screwed as a community, and it’s partly because we idolize women for no good reason.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nineinchnail
      nineinchnail

      Dumb c–t!!!!!

      Sep 26, 2010 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bareback Hussein Osama
      Bareback Hussein Osama

      I am so glad this is distracting attention from me defending DADT in court!

      Sep 26, 2010 at 7:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @jason: I don’t think GaGa is promoting anti-gay stuff like Coulter. I think there’s a big difference between the two.

      Coulter: Hates gays
      Gaga: says she’s pro gay

      Sep 26, 2010 at 7:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mac McNeill
      Mac McNeill

      Ann Clouter is the “goddess of the right wingers”, and what will happen in November is going to be even scarier if the “teabaggers” get elected. They are all clones of her. I’m disappointed in the Log Cabins Repubs in inviting her. It shows they only care about greed like the rest of the republican party and not about the rights of gays. It’s a sad state of affairs.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      Here’s some info about homocon Peter Thiel:

      He supports anti-gay Meg Whitman for Cali govenor.

      He believes America starting going downhill when women got the vote.

      He financed James O’Keefe’s ACORN “sting”.

      He said the following: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy is compatible”

      He blames the great depression on blacks collecting welfare.

      Any queer who uses PayPal, and FaceBook is supporting that douchebag.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      I read on another site that Michael Lucas was at this event. Why am I not suprised?

      I wonder if he pissed, or farted on anyone.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • easyguy
      easyguy

      I must be a fucking moron because I just don’t get it. It makes no more sense to me than the naacp inviting the grand wizard to be their keynote speaker. And not only inviting, but PAYING for it. Nope, I don’t get it at all.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D'oh, The Magnificent
      D'oh, The Magnificent

      I visit this site mostly to read the nutty shit that Jason writes. Big Up jason. Keep that nuttiness real!

      Sep 26, 2010 at 10:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Meher Zaman
      Meher Zaman

      This is funny and ironic because Ann Coulter dated Rachel Maddow. What is she talking about?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPjk5n_kUck

      Sep 26, 2010 at 10:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • R.J.
      R.J.

      @Mike L.: Maybe instead of “They could have their own show on Bravo” or “Friends of Dorothy” it could be “They could have their own show on TLC” or “Friends of Cheney”?

      Sep 26, 2010 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • randy
      randy

      Worse, she is wrong. Several courts have ruled that same sex marriage is indeed a right. (Although I do know several courts have ruled to the contrary).

      But this is just ridiculous.

      Sep 26, 2010 at 11:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ogre Magi
      Ogre Magi

      She looks like one of the Skeksis from The Dark Crystal

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ian
      Ian

      @Ogre Magi: Now that’s just not very nice…to the Skeksis I mean ;)

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tjr101
      tjr101

      Well, GOProud certainly got what they paid for.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryanthehulk
      Ryanthehulk

      Ann Coulter? Seriously? Did the even try to get Meghan McCain? Or her mom, or Laura Bush, or Margaret Hoover, or Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen? Christ, a Ouija board trying to reach Dixie Carter would have been better than Ann Coulter!

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bareback Hussein Osama
      Bareback Hussein Osama

      Can you guys start a Gay ACORN for me?

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sug Night
      Sug Night

      A horse is a horse, of course of course…..

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • wompman
      wompman

      Ryan, according to the fools at GOProud all the people you mentioned are RINOs, while a right-wing bomb, bomb throwing clown like Coulter represents a “real conservative.” The attention whores over at GOPround do and say stupid things so people will notice them. They have no intention of making the GOP more open to gays, they just want to jerk off to their piles of money and hope they aren’t taxed.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gay Conservatives = Certifiable John from England)
      Gay Conservatives = Certifiable John from England)

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones:

      Really? Wooah. Thanks for that-hate pay pal and Facebook anyhow but will spread this around.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 5:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Why All the h8? (John from England)
      Why All the h8? (John from England)

      @Gay Conservatives = Certifiable John from England):

      Just checked wiki, he has also invested in linked in.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 5:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Mike L, No. 6….actually the bulk of the Uncle Toms can all be found in the Log Cabin group and the GOP as a whole! Nothing new, its GOP tradition, self-hating is an asset to be one of them, a party that has no intention of giving the nod to full equality. What gay man or woman in their right mind would persistently support and vote for a party that doesn’t want them and which votes against any legislation favoring LGBT people? Its really sick and perverse. I daresay there may be a few who aren’t like that in the LCG but for the most part, that’s what they consist of and some of them are even in lockstep with the right wing to keep DOMA in place.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 6:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      I don’t mind gays who have more conservative opinions on issues that are traditionally associated with the GOP. That is fine. What isn’t fine are the gays that consider themselves GOP trying to lie and pretend that the party isn’t anti gay. There is a huge differencve between saying “I support some conservative viewpoints and I’m working to change the party” and doing what the head of Log Cabin and GOProud do which is try to whitewash the gay hatred and bigotry current in the GOP.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 7:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Cam, No. 33, I too don’t mind if some gays have conservative views, well I guess they have to in order to be a republican and to a lesser extent some democrats, but what I do object to are those who just because they don’t want marriage equality for example, would vote against it. I don’t know which changes GOProud and the LCG are all about, but I’ve not seen one thing that the GOP would support in favor of gays, perhaps a small handful who would vote to repeal DADT, but the majority in their party wouldn’t to appease their base. The GOP is quite clear that there will be NO marriage equality, no ENDA and that individual states should determine if they wish to uphold DOMA or not. What enrages me is that even though some gay republicans want DADT and DOMA overturned, they continue to vote for a party that works against them. I think they are deluding themselves if they really think they can change their party from within. Maybe I’ll give that some credence when I see the head of the LCG address the next GOP convention. Thus far, that hasn’t happened. So much for the party that portrays itself as a party of inclusion, quite the contrary.

      I agree with you though, the LCG and GOProud need to address the antigay hatred and bigotry in its party as well as the sanctity of marriage touting philanderers who rail against same-sex marriage. I don’t recall ever hearing the LCG or GOProud fire back at them, have you?

      Sep 27, 2010 at 7:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      Cam, No. 33….I too have no objection to gays who have more conservative opinions on issues in tandem with the GOP, I supposed they would have to in order to be republicans. I agree, both the LC and GOProud need to address the inherent anti-gay hatred and bigotry which produces the ilk of Ken Mehlman, Larry Craig et al, as well as the anti marriage equality and sanctity of marriage touting philanderers such as the Vitters and Sanfords. When was the last time the LC was allowed to address a GOP convention? I don’t recall any do you? So much for the party of inclusion. Are both groups that delusional to believe that they can change the party from within? Just how would they accomplish that I wonder. They’re against marriage equality, against ENDA, against repealing DADT and DOMA. Its baffling as to why any gay man or woman in their right mind would persistently vote for and support a party that clearly doesn’t want their equality. Perhaps full equality isn’t a priority for them.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 7:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter
      Peter

      Look at her NECK ! ! !

      IT’s like a giraffe.

      Those GOProud guys stand for what exactly???? Certainly not gay rights. Why exactly are they organized? Is it a front for a dating service for like-minded self loathing homosexuals ?

      Sep 27, 2010 at 8:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • meego
      meego

      Bigotry dressed up as a joke is still bigotry!

      Sep 27, 2010 at 8:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      If Ann’s saying that there is no explicit reference to gay marriage as a civil right in the Constitution, she’s absolutely correct. If, on the other hand, she’s saying that we do not deserve to have a civil right in the form of marriage, that’s another thing altogether. There’s sort of a linguistic and semantic ambivalence in how she’s put this.

      In any case, Ann makes the important point that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was written for black people and not anybody else. Don’t blame her for this. She’s simply pointing to the exclusivity of the 14th Amendment.

      I’m not a vast fan of hers but she does hit a bullseye at times.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 9:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      No. 38, Jason…Actually, Jason….the 14th amendment by extension could cover marriage equality just as the right to bear arms only applied to the militia at the time of the revolutionary war, not to peace time, it too has been extended. Likewise, the 14th amendment could be applied to same-sex civil marriage. Loving vs. Brown as far back as 1967 already stated that marriage is a right even though the constitution doesn’t necessarily state that it is. I believe the 14th amendment will be the only way we’ll ever get marriage equality at the federal level.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron
      Aaron

      Right-wing troll trolls at convention of right-wing trolls, surprise surprise.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 11:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @robert in nyc:

      The right to bear arms DIDN’T apply only to the militia at the time of the revolutionary war. The Bill of Rights were enacted in 1791. The war was over in 1783.

      Second, the introductory language involving militias was an explanation of the new federal government’s reasoning and interest (the public should actively contribute to the defense of the nation against enemies within and without) for establishing why Congress shall not infringe “the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms.”

      Had they intended the matter to apply specifically to soldiers during war and peacetime, they would have said so.

      Indeed, the very next amendment does precisely that.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rick Gold
      Rick Gold

      In the United States, constitutional rights are derived from the people themselves and are protected primarily by the enumerated amendments to the US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Persons may also have constitutional rights protected by the constitution of a state.

      Civil rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. These rights are derived from statutes enacted by governments.

      SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia that “the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual…and cannot be infringed by the State.”

      SO, marriage is NOT a civil right, as it does not flow from an statute, but rather from the sovereignty of the people.

      Ann Coulter is correct.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 11:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Rick Gold:

      Sorry, no. You are describing “civil liberties.”

      “Civil rights” represent the basic right to be free from unequal treatment arising from identification with a group having certain characteristics.

      Moreover, a “fundamental right” is inalienable, and is akin to a “human right” — in other words, your right by virtue of being born as a Homo sapien. Marriage has been described as a “fundamental right” in several landmark Supreme Court cases.

      The argument that gay people have no civil right to enjoy a given fundamental right is, at its essence, arguing that gay people do not deserve equal treatment because they are neither an identifiable group, nor are they even human.

      As usual, Ann Coulter is wrong.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kenny
      kenny

      @Rick Gold:

      Ann Coulter is NEVER correct about anything shes a fucking idiot shes about as stable as Glenn Beck Sean Hannity Bill O Reilly and Rush Limbaugh combined. Marriage has nothing to do with the color of someones skin it has always been and always will be about one thing and one thing only: LOVE.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Black Pegasus
      Black Pegasus

      Ann Coulter is a venomous witch!

      And the Conservative Racist Gay men who idolize that bitch are worthless, self loathing sons of whores!

      They Deserve each other!

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @jason said, “If Ann’s saying that there is no explicit reference to gay marriage as a civil right in the Constitution, she’s absolutely correct.

      There is no reference to heterosexual marriage either. That doesn’t mean straight people have no right to marry.

      “In any case, Ann makes the important point that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was written for black people and not anybody else. Don’t blame her for this. She’s simply pointing to the exclusivity of the 14th Amendment. I’m not a vast fan of hers but she does hit a bullseye at times.”

      What a puzzling assertion.

      Amendment XIV, § 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Please explain how “all persons” and “any person” means “only black people”?

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert in nyc
      robert in nyc

      No. 40, I stand corrected. However, I still don’t understand why there is such an intense love affair with guns and the right to own them. Its no wonder the U.S. arguably has one of the highest, if not the highest crime rate involving guns in western society. The laws currently on the books obviously do not do enough to regulate they’re use or abuse. Its all too easy nowadays to get access to them and it should be made much tougher. Our society seems to glorify them. Its nothing to be proud of. We have an armed police force to supposedly protect society and a military authorized to use them. Civilians owning them only increase the chance of violent crimes being committed, many of them fatal. Then there’s the issue of stolen guns. Its a vicious circle and its time something was done to address it once and for all. To hell with the NRA. If I had it in my power, I’d ban them. They’re not necessary in a civilized society. With no access or less access to them, there would be less violent crime.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @robert in nyc:

      It is true the police exist to protect society, but they have no legal obligation to protect YOU. (For particularly gruesome explanations, see Warren v. District of Columbia and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services).

      In the case of Riss v. City of New York, Ms Riss had been subjected to increasingly violent threats from an ex, had sought police protection several times and always been refused, she subsequently applied for a gun permit and was likewise refused, then as she left her engagement party, the ex- threw acid in her face, blinding and disfiguring her.

      She sued the city and lost. The lone dissenting judge observed, “What makes the City’s position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”

      Your totalitarian wish for an absolute ban that treats lawful and unlawful owners equally fails to explain the pervasive existence of violent crime prior to the invention of firearms. The fact is that humans are violent by nature, not due to the availability of guns. Absent a gun, they will use, say, acid.

      The individual has a fundamental right to self-defense. If you’re attacked, you bear no legal obligation to make it a fair fight, thus, when confronted, no man however large is any match for a small woman with a big gun. It is immoral to leave her with no more recourse than harsh language.

      I’ve never had my life threatened by a civilian with a gun. I’ve had my life threatened more times than I can remember by a civilian with a car. There are many reasons why one might wish to own or collect cars, but I refuse to assume it’s done with the specific intent to kill me. People should be punished for misusing an instrumentality, not for merely possessing it.

      A more sensible way to address gun violence is to make the use of a firearm a criminal aggravation. Thus, if a burglary conviction gets you 3 years, a burglar in possession of a firearm, or one who stole a firearm, gets +3 years.

      Finally, thank you for the civil way you have engaged in this discussion. Sadly, that is rare. I admire you for it.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jhon
      Jhon

      Well… seeing as marriage is an institute initiated by God… then I believe God makes the rules.

      And God’s rules are Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

      Therefore logical conclusion… homosexuals have zero right to marriage.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cassandra
      Cassandra

      Jhon

      Those are your rules, but you are not God. I know God, and you are no god.

      Please repent of your sin of idolatry and pride.

      Thanks in advance.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @Jhon:

      Wow. You’re almost correct. In fact, you’re only off by five letters and a space!

      Theological conclusion… homosexuals have zero right to marriage.

      Your god also says that adulterers, witches and disrespectful children have zero right to live, and slavery and genocide are totally cool.

      We’re going to ignore that too, because we’re not bronze-age savages anymore.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • edgyguy1426
      edgyguy1426

      The fact that Jhon’s still stick to the arcane notion of a ‘God’ because you read so much about him in the bible makes me want to go to new York to meet Spiderman.

      Sep 27, 2010 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      Jhon….religious cults do not own civil marriage, nor did they invent it. The states issue marriage licenses, not the cults. Polygamy is also condoned in the old testament and so is incest if you look at the creationist fairy tale. How did the planet become populated if Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race? It would imply that their children would have had to have committed incest to propage the earth which explains why devolution exists with the likes of you spewing your religious nonsense and bigotry.

      Sep 28, 2010 at 12:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert
      robert

      No. 47, how is it then that in countries where guns are difficult to obtain or banned, that the incidence of violent crime are far lower than in the U.S? Thank you for you kind words.

      Sep 28, 2010 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      I appreciate the attempts at discussion, but they need to be honest and on point. I link/respond to one person, but I see several comments which need to be addressed…

      @the crustybastard:

      The 14th Amendment was written with three objectives in mind, all designed to address racial issues post-Civil War:

      1. Overrule the Dred Scott decision, which specifically held that black people were not, and could not, become citizens of the United States.
      2. Protect black Americans from “Black Codes”, laws written in southern states which recreated slave-like conditions; for example, preventing them from testifying in court, suing, restricting their movement, and forcing them into labor contracts.
      3. To address the increase in lynching and violence against freed slaves in the south.

      To take the 14th Amendment out of its proper historical context as the second of three Reconstruction Amendments is intellectually sloppy and/or dishonest. While courts have obviously expanded the number of classes protected under the 14th Amendment, to deny that it was written and ratified to do anything but address Reconstruction-era racial issues is disingenuous.

      So, yes, when the Amendment was written and ratified, “all people” referred solely to black Americans.

      @the crustybastard:

      Actually, marriage is not a fundamental right as it applies to same-sex couples. On October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Baker v Nelson dismissing a challenge under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment as well as the right to privacy under the 9th Amendment “for want of a substantial federal question”.

      Since the case came to the US SCt through mandatory appellate review, this dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case. Therefore, there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage as held by the United States Supreme Court.

      While courts are beginning to re-examine this holding and the impact of stare decisis on same-sex marriage in 2010, this is still binding law until the United States Supreme Court overrules it (just as sodomy laws were legal until the Lawrence decision in 2003). It was referenced positively in 2006 (Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, the Nebraska state Amendment case), and as binding law in 2005 (Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court, dismissing a challenge to Florida state laws and DOMA based on Baker v Nelson’s holding). Oddly enough, Judge Walker didn’t even address Baker, which could be problematic when and if the case hits the US Supreme Court; I can think of several justices who will not be happy about that.

      Sep 28, 2010 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @robert charmingly asked, “how is it then that in countries where guns are difficult to obtain or banned, that the incidence of violent crime are far lower than in the U.S?

      The true answer is complicated in the extreme because of the cultural variables and even the manner in which violent crime statistics are reported (or unreported, as is sometimes the case).

      Most gun-related deaths in the US are suicide. Most gun-related homicides in the US happen among the small minority of young urban men, black and hispanic, with prior felony convictions.

      While the Japanese gun ban is quite draconian, and the incidence of gun violence is likewise very low, the incidence of gun violence is likewise extremely low in Japanese communities living in the US.

      Sep 28, 2010 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @DR said, “So, yes, when the Amendment was written and ratified, “all people” referred solely to black Americans.”

      Yes, the amendment addressed the government’s minority problem de jour, but no, it was deliberately written broadly, contemplating other minorities.

      “marriage is not a fundamental right as it applies to same-sex couples.”

      Currently. There was also a very long time when courts solemnly pronounced that black people didn’t have fundamental rights either.

      They can only torture logic for so long.

      Sep 28, 2010 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      @the crustybastard:

      No, it wasn’t. Reread your history. It has been *interpreted* to include other minorities, but it was a direct response to racial injustice specifically targeting the black community in a specific historical period. Stop rewriting history.

      Clearly you missed the point about stare decisis. Right now, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. You can argue for the sake of argument, but that’s the law of the land until the Supreme Court makes a new decision.

      Yes, things change as we saw with Bowers/Lawrence, and hopefully Perry will overrule Baker. The courts are evolving and addressing these issues in new times when the social landscape changes. And that’s great.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 8:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @DR

      ISSUE 1: Stamp your foot all you like Minister Farrakan, but “all persons,” “any person” and “citizen” in no way specifically and exclusively applies to blacks. Not historically, not textually, and not legally.

      ISSUE 2: Right now, marriage IS a fundamental right, and gay people are being, in a manner most unconstitutional, grouped together for the purpose of denying them that fundamental right — which by any existing legal definition also makes them a suspect class, rendering any such discriminatory laws almost presumptively unconstitutional. Most judges likewise turn a blind eye to that issue as well.

      “Stare decisis” is Latin for “because we’ve always done it this way.” In any language, that’s as insipid and worthless an argument in the legal profession as it is in any other workplace, particularly in the presence of demonstrably superior ways of doing things. Stare decisis has some useful application in the legislatively regulated fields such as contracts and property where legal finality and legal consistency are necessary to reassure parties that they will not be forced to change horses midstream.

      However, stare decisis is not a constitutional argument. In that area of law, it is merely the last stand of reactionary authoritarians and curmudgeons.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @DR

      I’m certain the editors of Cornell University Law School’s respected Annotated Constitution project would be interested to learn from you that their understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment is as profoundly incorrect as you have found mine.

      Indeed, they write in introduction “…While the Court early recognized that African Americans were the primary intended beneficiaries of the protections thus adopted, the spare language was majestically unconfined to so limited a class or to so limited a purpose…”

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14ffrag3_user.html

      I humbly suggest you correct their gross misapprehensions posthaste!

      And with that, I almost certainly have exhausted this topic.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 10:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mimi
      Mimi

      Strangely enough, she doesn’t seem to have contemplated the idea that there are black gay people.
      I wouldn’t have expected her to, though. Every time I hear something she said, I lose a little faith in the human race.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DR
      DR

      @the crustybastard:

      Gee, Cornell is rewriting history, isn’t that interesting.

      Oh, wait, no it isn’t. The footnote to your argument is a link to a case decided almost 60 years later.

      Interpretation by the Courts versus legislative intent. I stand by the history involved in the framing of the statute, which clearly indicated that the Amendment was deigned solely to protect blacks and that any additional protections to other minority groups is based on judicial interpretation.

      Sep 29, 2010 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      @DR insisted, “I stand by the history involved in the framing of the statute, which clearly indicated that the Amendment was deigned [sic] solely to protect blacks.”

      And yet you provide no EVIDENCE to support your absurd and false premise, instead relying on mere repetition of same premise, coupled with an insistence that several Supreme Courts, the editors of the Cornell Law Annotated Constitution, and myself are simply wrong and you are unassailably correct.

      Even if you were correct — and you are not — it would be legally irrelevant.

      “What individual Senators or Representatives may have urged in debate, in regard to the meaning to be given to a proposed constitutional amendment, or bill or resolution, does not furnish a firm ground for its proper construction, nor is it important as explanatory of the grounds upon which the members voted in adopting it. In the case of a constitutional amendment it is of less materiality than in that of an ordinary bill or resolution. A constitutional amendment must be agreed to, not only by Senators and Representatives, but it must be ratified by the legislatures, or by conventions, in three fourths of the states…”
      - Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900) (citing United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., 166 U.S. 290, 318 (1897).

      “Everybody’s wrong but me!” is not a persuasive legal argument, no matter how loudly you whine.

      Sep 30, 2010 at 1:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kalifani6
      kalifani6

      GOProud…the ultimate GOPunks. Masochistic freaks.

      Oct 8, 2010 at 8:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.