Archive for Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Rep. Frank calls Scalia a ’homophobe’

March 24, 2009

Advertisement

— Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a “homophobe” in a recent interview with the gay news Web site 365gay.com.

The Democratic lawmaker, who is gay, was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called on to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages.

“I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court,” said Frank. The video of the interview is available online.

Attempts to obtain a comment from Frank were not immediately successful Monday. Scalia had no comment.

Scalia dissented from the court’s ruling in 2003 that struck down state laws banning consensual sodomy. He has complained about judges, rather than elected officials, deciding questions of morality about which the Constitution is silent.

Comments

Flap Doodle 6 years, 4 months ago

I expect he doesn't want this at the top of the news que.

"WASHINGTON -- In a series of pretrial motions for the upcoming corruption trial of former Rep. William Jefferson, the Justice Department is asking permission to show the jury a copy of the government's indictment while Jefferson's lawyers want it excluded for fear it would "prejudice" jurors. The briefs were filed Monday and late last week in advance of the May 26 trial in which the New Orleans Democrat faces 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, conspiracy and other charges. If convicted on all or most of the charges, he could spend the rest of his life in federal prison.

In its filing, Justice Department prosecutor Mark Lytle said that unlike in many cases, where there's a one or two transactions at issue, the charges against Jefferson involve "16 distinct counts alleging various public corruption schemes, detailing fact-specific payment dates, invoices, communications, contracts, negotiation notes, travel correspondent and instructions to congressional (staffers), among other items."" http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/excongressman_william_jefferso.html

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

Well if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd...

No need to state the obvious, Mr. Frank. But good point on not letting it go to the SCOTUS.

staff04 6 years, 4 months ago

Snap, I doubt that Barney cares much about a has-been Representative under investigation, but if that's what floats your boat...

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

What is "gay marriage"? To most Americans, "gay marriage" is as congruous as a "gay telephone" or a "gay stop sign." There's simply no such thing.

grammaddy 6 years, 4 months ago

What does this story have to do with Rep. Jefferson.? Scalia is a scuz. Love you Barney.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

What is “gay marriage”? To most Americans, “gay marriage” is as congruous as a “gay telephone” or a “gay stop sign.” There's simply no such thing.

One of the more hilarious things I have ever read. Are you telling me that there are such things as "straight telephone" or "hetero stop sign"? If not, then your simplistic logical system doesn't really work (which is a common occurance with your posts).

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

I think my stop sign has been hitting on me for some time. The city should discriminate against it and get rid of it.

It's also obviously Communist too. Why else would it be red?

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

Poon 6 years, 4 months ago

Oh fuque a duque, here we go again...

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Oh, I got distracted.

Scalia might be just that, but it's stupid for Frank to even bring it up, certainly using this method.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

cthul and duplenty,

Re-read my post. Then read it again. I can use easier-to-understand analogies if you like.

TheOriginalCA 6 years, 4 months ago

Per Bahney Fwank, "If you don't love gay people, then you are a homophobe."

I wonder how many times Fwank hath had conthenthual thodomy....

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"I can use easier-to-understand analogies if you like."

I think most of us would prefer you use ones that hold water and actually make sense. That would, of course, help facilitate understanding, but right now I think the problem is actually that you are able to understand your own analogies, not that other people cannot.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

STRS, yes please do use another analogy, as I tried to take your advice of re-reading your last post, but every time I do, I think I feel my IQ drop a couple of notches.

Maybe if I keep it up, it will eventually make sense.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

No such thing as a gay apple. No such thing as a gay stop sign. No such thing as a gay marriage.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

The problem is actually that you are able to understand your own analogies, not that other people cannot.

No need for an "I think" anymore.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

Firrst of all, "gay marriage" shouldn't be the hot topic. The equal right/opportunity to form recognized contracts amongst each other should be the topic. The current acts of discrimination hurt not only homosexuals, but all other people who wish to form legally-binding contracts with one another without pretending like they're going to want to wake up in the same bed from here until death. The whole thing is absurd. But I digress...

STRS -

Two men can get married in Spain. Two women can get married in Massachusetts. So, ummm, "gay marriage" does exist. Everywhere except your head and your church, and frankly, my dear, the rest of the universe doesn't care about what goes on in those places.

Language shapes our reality.

Therefore, if we end the discrimination and allow two men or two women to get "married," then yes, "gay marriage" does exist - whether f-tards like STRS like it or not.

Got a problem with it? Take it up with your pastor, your priest, your god. I'm sure he'll get right to it!

Not one single bigot can produce an argument (not based in religious ideology) for why the GOVERNMENT should choose to deny recognition to same-sex couples. Not one.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually Liberty, I heard it's illegal to kill unicorns in California. I can't find the statute though...

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

sound,

You're welcome to continue ignoring my point. Not arguing it only helps me.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

STRS -

You're welcome to continue ignoring my point. Not arguing it only helps.

You respond to arguments about whether apples are gay or straight, but you can't respond to facts and real-life scenarios? Why is that?!!!

Oh, it's that you've got nothing but tired old bigotry and semantics to spew. Nevermind.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"Not arguing it only helps me."

That could almost be an admission that when forced to defend your points you make yourself look worse, couldn't it?

If so, then we have something to agree on.

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

Nothing more can be gained by arguing with STRS, as he convienantly ignores posts that do argue against his point, which is exactly what is to be expected from this particular breed of moron. When silly things like "logic" and "facts" are used to argue (like the fact that gay marriage does exist), it's simply over his head, but then it's our fault for not understanding his analogies. I dont' believe that he is at fault, though, as his parents probably don't realize what he is doing online when he should be in school.

However, I must ask: If you found out that your phone was gay, would you still put your mouth on it?

KansasVoter 6 years, 4 months ago

The government needs to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage. How can we keep the institution of marriage sacred if half of all married couples decide that the marriage vows that they took mean nothing?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"I dont' believe that he is at fault, though, as his parents probably don't realize what he is doing online when he should be in school."

Hard to tell, but I deeply fear he is what he claims to be, an older man who believes he speaks wisdom. Won't ever know for sure, I suppose.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

C'mon, guys! Cut me some slack here. I'm single-handedly representing the views of the majority of society on this chat thread. All you KU faculty and Sierra Club field reps have more time to screw around on the computer than we conservatives do.

And, I've gotta eat once in a while, so it sometimes takes a while for me to get back to defending civilization from total and complete moral depravity.

In the meantime, keep repeating this:

One man and one woman = marriage

One man and one man ≠ marriage

One woman and one woman ≠ marriage

cthulhu_4_president 6 years, 4 months ago

I honestly don't know. I'm still on the little kid hypothesis, because his last post is reminiscant of a 5 year old being told that the tooth fairy isn't real, then sticking his fingers in his ears and going "Lalalalalalala" really loud so he never has to hear the bad news. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt anymore! (that joke makes more sense if you say it out loud).

Either way, he is undeserving of the attention he receives here, but he probably doesn't get any anywhere else. I don't mind throwing him a bone if these flagrant confrontations really make him happy.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

"I'm single-handedly representing the views of the majority of society on this chat thread."

I doubt you can claim to represent the majority of American society when you can't even name ten friends.

That's fine, STRS. You're a joke and everybody with half a brain knows it. If you're ever interested in joining the real world and making some friends, feel free to stop hating and start appreciating. I bet some way, somehow, you're different too. It'd be a shame if someone tried to deny your worth and your rights just because of it.

Just keep repeating this:

Marriage is a social contract between two people.

Marriage is a social contract between two people.

Marriage is a social contract between two people.

And there you have it.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

Can I get out of a ticket by telling the judge that I don't believe in stopping for gay stop signs?

Q: "What does one man and three women =?"

A: A really good HBO series.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

sin,

No, marriage is a sexual relationship endorsed by society that also has exclusive legal benefits. Marriage between one man and one woman has existed for millenia for the purpose of birthing and raising healthy children. No society on Earth has ever accepted homosexual "marriage" as a mutation of traditional marriage. And no one wants to deny you your right to love and be with who you want. Just don't expect society to tear down one of its last remaining pillars because of your made-up, wished-for right.

Sadly, I predict our laws will eventually change to endorse your new view of "marriage." It's too bad. Until then, however, I'm not happy with 35 out of 35 states having passed either laws or constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the adulterated world which you desire. I'm working on getting states 36-50.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

I'd be happy to never have to hear Barney "Buddy Hackett" Frank opine on anything ever again, and though I'm not familiar w/ Scalia's actual stance on this matter I certainly believe Frank's out of line labeling an SCJ anything. Sure would be nice if the SCOTUS were still political agenda-free, but guess those days are long over, so now I 'spose this type of game gets to play out.

STRS,

By your statement, "defending civilization from total and complete depravity", I take it you believe homosexuality to be a "lifestyle" choice, let alone a perversion, and therefore you are a heterosexual. If all that is true, would you mind enlightening us all to when, where, and how old you were when you 'chose' to be hetero? I mean, it would be logical to presume that if sexual preference were a matter of choice then we'd all have to choose, now wouldn't we? So when was your Aha! moment?

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker,

I believe that the science is clear that sexuality is not a matter of choice. It is primarily a function of genetics and, to a far lesser extent, whether a person was sexually abused as a child.

If you're point is that anything a human is born with must be good, you're going to have to try again. A person may be born with a predisposition to lie, cheat, steal, and have sex with anyone he or she chooses but it doesn't make those impulses right.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

Left-handed people shouldn't be allowed to marry. They are in the minority, they aren't "normal" like us right-handed folks. It is Adam and Eve, not Adam and "Lefty."

strs, should men with defective sperm be allowed to marry? How about post-menopausal women? They can't have children so they shouldn't be allowed to marry, correct?

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Sinverguenza… “The equal right/opportunity to form recognized contracts amongst each other should be the topic.”

I agree, can you believe that paternalistic judges who wanted to create 40 hour work weeks to protect women!?! What about their freedom of contract with their employer. The same goes for minimum wage laws etc.

Oh wait, I almost forgot, the law doesn’t consider marriage a contract, it considers it a status. So I guess that argument is moot.

“Not one single bigot can produce an argument (not based in religious ideology) for why the government should choose to deny recognition to same-sex couples.” – Sin

While a bigot may not be able to do so, there are multiple arguments based on the social impact same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage would have on society. Whether you agree with those arguments doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you want to enter into a serious debate you might want to read some actual arguments other than the straw-man arguments created by the gay/lesbian interest groups used to hoodwink the ignorant.

madameX 6 years, 4 months ago

"While a bigot may not be able to do so, there are multiple arguments based on the social impact same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage would have on society."


If this sentence read "the social impact same-sex marriage, etc. >>>IS BELIEVED BY SOME<<< would have on society." you might be on to something. I'm familiar with some of the effects opponents have hypothesized, but these are theories. Where's the proof that it actually has a negative effect?

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

I am with Beatrice, why do we allow these backward people (“lefties”) to marry? Allowing them to marry will only produce more backward offspring.

Maybe we should all be like Rep. Frank and just label anyone who we don’t agree with a derogatory term. After all isn’t that what liberals are so good at? If you can’t convince the populace with arguments based on facts and reason, then label and demonize the opposition. Isn’t that the main tactic used by these crazies? Ex: If you don’t agree with Affirmative Action then you are racist, if you don’t agree with the gay agenda then you are a bigot or a homophone, etc.

Personally, I am grateful people are free to disagree with one another, and I don’t think America should be a country where you should be called demonized simply because you have a different perspective (except for “lefties”). But I guess I am just a traditional liberal.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

"Oh wait, I almost forgot, the law doesn’t consider marriage a contract, it considers it a status. So I guess that argument is moot."

You keep repeating this, and I don't think it's true in the way you seem to believe. Can you refer us to your source for this assertion? There are obvious contractual aspects to marriage, just as there are obvious status aspects to it. Why do you deny one side to exist?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

That is to say: Marriage is a status conferred when two people freely enter into a contract with each other to be married. Suggesting that there is not a contractual aspect seems like weasely technicality logic.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"I believe that the science is clear that sexuality is not a matter of choice. It is primarily a function of genetics ..."

So if it's scientifically proven to be a matter of genetics, where does the "depravity" fit in?

"If you're point is that anything a human is born with..."

Oh. So you see homosexuality as something akin to a disease or a mutation of DNA? Again, how does 'depravity' fit in there? And do you consider autism to be another example of an "impulse" that shouldn't be acted upon? And to "lie, cheat, and steal" would fall under anti-social behavior that can end with the maltreatment of individuals other than oneself. Sorry, homosexuality doesn't fit that bill.

KansasVoter 6 years, 4 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says… "there are multiple arguments based on the social impact same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage would have on society."

Would you please list some? I could use a good laugh.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

STRS says...

"No, marriage is a sexual relationship endorsed by society that also has exclusive legal benefits."

So we can't get married unless we promise to have sex? What about old men off the Viagra, eunuchs, etc.?

"And no one wants to deny you your right to love and be with who you want."

Except you and the government, of course.

Your old arguments.... still old, still tired, still irrational and based in bigotry - if not just against homosexuals but also against any two people who chose a non-traditional familiar unit.

Satirical says...

"While a bigot may not be able to do so, there are multiple arguments based on the social impact same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage would have on society."

First - don't do the slippery slope grouping of same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage. They are completely different things and utilizing such a fallacy in your argument makes you look dumb.

Secondly, about those multiple arguments.... I noticed you failed to bring any with you. I guess you must have left them in the car. That's fine, we'll wait. Waiting.... Waiting.... Waiting...

Satirical says...

"Oh wait, I almost forgot, the law doesn’t consider marriage a contract, it considers it a status. So I guess that argument is moot.”

How do they get the status, Sat? Oh wait, I almost forgot... they get it through a contract. A piece of paper you sign at the courthouse. Got a fancy little one myself.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

And on a side note, I love the way Liberty_One loves the Constitution. That's a "real" American! ;)

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

sati, nice play on "lefties." Funny. However, I think you missed the mark on the use of derogatory terms when you label "liberals" as "crazies."

TacoBob 6 years, 4 months ago

Frank has all sorts of issues - but one of the biggest is his 'contibution' to Fannie and Freddie.

Bounce this guy out of office. Boy howdy.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Jonas_opines…

Of course I agree there are contractual aspects of marriage, but once you become married it is no longer a contract it is a status. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Liberty_One…

Again, it is a contract up to the point of marriage, then it becomes a status. I agree pre-nuptial agreements, anti-nuptial agreements, separation agreements, etc are all contracts, but these are different than marriage.

If marriage were a simple contract between two individuals then you would not need to involve the courts when getting a divorce. Since as I am sure you are aware of, a contract may be rescinded by agreement among both parties. Also, if marriage were a contract, the U.S. Constitution would protect its impairment. However, it is the U.S. Supreme Court declared it is not a contract, it is a status. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). More proof that marriage is not a simple contract is the fact federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to hear the cases (see Anastasi case). Also, the court continues to restrict who is able to marry, see Reynolds v. U.S. stating there is no fundamental right to bigamy.

While you may want the argument to be compelling, the challenge made by Sinverguenza was not a compelling argument, but simply a non-religious argument. Also, society choosing only to recognize and define certain relationships as marriage doesn’t impair any freedom of association. Lastly, you criteria for what laws may be created to prevent negative social impacts (narrowly tailored and least restrictive method) is a strict scrutiny method which is not adopted by any courts.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Sinverguenza… “First - don't do the slippery slope grouping of same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage.” - Sin

While you may be comfortable in advocating for equal rights for some groups, but denying that to others, it is clear any non-arbitrary argument one can use to advocate for same-sex marriage can be used for polygamy, and group marriage. The difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy is numerical, which is less significant than the difference between the current definition (one man and one woman) and same-sex marriage (gender).

“Secondly, about those multiple arguments…. I noticed you failed to bring any with you.” - Sin

Your challenge was to produce a non-religious argument, which I did by stating there are social consequences to allowing same-sex marriage. These consequences would be similar to changing the definition of allowing polygamy, and group marriage.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"it is clear any non-arbitrary argument one can use to advocate for same-sex marriage can be used for polygamy, and group marriage"

Hate to disagree, sat, but the argument for same sex marriage never includes multiple partners. All same sex marriage would amend would be the wording "man and woman" to "two people". As you say, the difference is numerical, but it's a significant difference.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker... "As you say, the difference is numerical, but it's a significant difference."

Since you don't mind denying marriage when there is a significant difference from what we currently allow, then by that logic you also wouldn't support denying same-sex marriage since there is significant difference between "one man and one woman" and "two men" or "two women" (same-sex marriage); just like "any number of people" (polygamy).

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Liberty_One….

It is obvious you have not taken a Family Law course. If you know anything about the law you should realize that the interpretation of a case is often based on later cases, not just the exact words used in the case. Maynard did say marriage is MORE than a contract = not the same = different. Later cases have used this case as support that marriage is a status. The dictum you quote in Reynolds isn’t controlling authority.

Again, the law recognizes a difference between a promise to marry (contract) and marriage itself (status).

The CJS section you selectively quoted (note it was on conflict of law, not family law) didn’t say marriage WAS a contract, it said “marriage may be CONSIDERED a civil contract (for the purposes of conflict of laws).” As I stated previously marriage does resemble of possess elements of a contract, but is a status.

So yeah, marriage is a contract that doesn’t resemble a contract in several significant ways, including the fact it can’t be rescinded by mutual agreement, and has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to be regarded as a status in Maynard. (So yeah, marriage is more than a contract = different than a contract = not the same thing as a contract)

Also, you didn’t even attempt to explain why federal courts don’t have jurisdiction over marriage. If it is a contract, the federal courts would have jurisdiction? Also, if a marriage were a contract why doesn’t the Constitution prohibition against impairment of contracts apply?

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Liberty: "Satirical, you didn't actually read any of those cases did you?"

Well, out of curiosity I did a google search for "marriage is not a contract" and found plenty of op-ed pieces distilling said case for the masses in bite-sized pieces.

"If marriage were a simple contract between two individuals then you would not need to involve the courts when getting a divorce."

Messy breakings of contracts often require the courts. But since this particular contract, and the status that it confers, has a significant amount of government-conferred rights, it makes sense that the institution would be involved in confirming and anulling said contract.

Regardless, we can quibble on the contract of marriage and the status of being married, I suppose. I would of course say that the government has no more business denying a status it confers to people on their personal choice than it does denying them the freedom to enter into the contract that leads to the conferring of that status. Courts may disagree, and I will disagree with them.

TacoBob 6 years, 4 months ago

Why is a person who does not support gay 'rights' labeled a homophobe?

Tolerance?

Respect for opinions that don't match yours?

Seriously, if someone speaks their conscience and convictions........everyone here does it.

Satirical 6 years, 4 months ago

Jonas_opines… “Messy breakings of contracts often require the courts.”

Breach of a contract often involves the court, but mutual rescission of a contract does not. If two people mutually agree to be divorce, the law doesn’t allow it unless they go through a divorce proceeding. Therefore, marriage and simple contracts are different.

While you may be of the opinion the law should not discriminate, or “den(y) a status it confers to people on their personal choice…”. When the law creates the status it is up to it to decide who is allowed to label themselves with it. All laws must discriminate. Discrimination = defining. If laws weren’t defined there would be even more problems.

jonas_opines 6 years, 4 months ago

Sigh, did you miss the rest of the paragraph right after that one sentence? It doesn't seem like you did, but then again it does.

While it is true that laws discriminate by their nature, it is of course simplistic to simply leave it at that. The Law has decided to discriminate in many many cases where later The Law was decided to have been very unfair or wrong in its discriminations.

But also of course, The Law cannot decide anything. It is a concept and writing in books. People are free to change The Law when it is perceived as unfair. (and of course if they have the numbers or authority to change it and make it stick)

Harpo 6 years, 4 months ago

Not sure what this means, but after reading this thread I became somewhat conflicted, yet aroused, at a 4-way stop on my way home from work.

sinverguenza 6 years, 4 months ago

Satirical says...

"While you may want the argument to be compelling, the challenge made by Sinverguenza was not a compelling argument, but simply a non-religious argument."

The challenge is also a compelling argument. Tell me, what purpose is there in a non-compelling argument other than to skirt debate and continue pointless rhetoric? I can argue that Earth is flat but who the heck cares? You're not an idiot Sat, so stop playing one on the internet.

Satirical says...

"Your challenge was to produce a non-religious argument, which I did by stating there are social consequences to allowing same-sex marriage."

No Sat, my challenge was for you to produce a compelling, non-religious argument. Not state that there are arguments. I want to see them! If there are social consequences to allowing same-sex marriage, what are they? Do you have proof or are you just talking out of your arse some more?

Like I said, stop playing dumb. It's not cute on junior high school girls and it's not cute on you.

You have an argument and something to back it up? Show your cards. Otherwise, stop pretending your bigotry is some greater enlightenment.

sourpuss 6 years, 4 months ago

It was never clear to me how two people you don't know being married or not had any impact on your life. Oh, that's right, some people like making up arbitrary reasons why they are "better" than another person.

jaywalker 6 years, 4 months ago

"Since you don't mind denying marriage when there is a significant difference from what we currently allow, then by that logic you also wouldn't support denying same-sex marriage since there is significant difference between “one man and one woman” and “two men” or “two women” (same-sex marriage); just like “any number of people” (polygamy)."

Nope, that's false logic.

KansasVoter 6 years, 4 months ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says… “there are multiple arguments based on the social impact same-sex marriage/polygamy/group marriage would have on society.”

Would you please list some? You say that there are multiple arguments, but you haven't bothered to mention one.

beatrice 6 years, 4 months ago

Harpo, now that was funny! Thanks for the laugh.

TacoBob: "Why is a person who does not support gay 'rights' labeled a homophobe? Tolerance? Respect for opinions that don't match yours? Seriously, if someone speaks their conscience and convictions……..everyone here does it."

Why should people tolerate intolerance? Consider your question about "conscience and convictions," then apply it to something like gender or race. Should we tolerate others who want to limit rights of a given gender or race just because that is their personal opinion regarding others? I don't think so.

Just because men in the Taliban have the conscience and conviction to force all women to wear burkas and live like slaves doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it because that is what they believe. Their conscience and conviction tells them to scream "Death to America" and mean it. I'm quite sure you wouldn't accept their views about us, just as I don't consciously or with conviction accept someone else's views that limit the rights of others when it comes to things like gay marriage.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.