Doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to homosexuals and it doesn't apply to heterosexuals.

It applies to the government.

The Constitution says what the feds CAN do, and the Bill of Rights says what it cannot do. nothing more, nothing less.

There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to make exceptions to people based on race, nationality, sexuality or anything else. People are people. period.

The best way to "protect" marriage, for example, would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. I don't need a permission slip from the king to marry!

Some reading on this:

"Here's How to Defend Marriage" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is painful...there's no sugar coating it....the Bush "legacy" will live on in the judiciary for about two decades. We have five Bush I & II youngish cronies on the Supreme Court who "owe" those who put them there. There's no voting them out...they're there for a long time.

This is the end result of the "righteous judges" bait & switch game played on the conned "values voters," voters who thought their votes would put in judges who would stop abortion.

After Bush won his "mandate" to stop gay marriages in 2004...he used this "mandate" for the "Ownership Society" scam...a ploy to wreck the New Deal that people saw right through.....Gay marriage was put on the shelve for the next election cycle (as always). This is exactly how the Supreme Court will view its "mandate." The real mandate is to empower the rich and powerful (as if they needed it)...and of course to champion the rights of corporations (who are now legally viewed as humans) over individuals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...you got what you voted for and will have to live with it. The log cabin Repukes just amazed me along with any blacks that belong to that party. You even have a vice president with a gay daughter who does not fight for her rights.

THE only solution to ALL the problems we have is to get rid of the Chimp and friends and the type of neoconazis that come with their ilk. Will we? I am very doubtful. Will we EVER have a true progressive candidate to help solve the problems created by the Repukes? I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just spoke to God. He said, "My plan for the planet earth is a forty per cent reduction in homo sapiens to three point eight billion inhabitants, you know, global warming, famines and all that shit.
A large component of the math is the 'how many babies per couple?' formula.
This turns out to be one point two six children per do-it-yourself couple planet wide.
This takes getting a whole bunch of weenies and vaginee parts to leave each other alone. Ergo, he continued, I'm going to crank up production of my weenies of mis direction children , or WMDs as the Neo-Theos call them until at such time that the planet's CO2, oxygen, food, water, etc return to homeostasis. This I call 'harmony with the divine.'
Actually, I sent Mr. Darwin down to sort of explain it all, but that's another story.
Speaking of other stories, Mr. Kvatch on his blognonymous website gets a gold star for his comments on the need for and the long term benefits from non reproductive sexual behavior.
Given his well honed sense of humor, may I ever so deliciously point out to him that if the NeoTheos and Big Benny forwent the skinny dipping good, Papal Penii Protection Bad Proclamations and pedalled condoms worldwide like their bigoted, capalist, money grubbing asses were falling off, I would not have to alter your planet's sexual mores for, hmm, let me see, I've got my notes right here, the next thirty one thousand years.

"Christ, is that right? Thirty one thousand.....?"
(at cognitorex)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a pro-life Democrat, I, too, am alarmed at the rightward trend on the Supreme Court.

The central issues in the abortion debate are the "personhood" or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and marital privacy.

Stephen Douglas has been quoted as having said in debate with Abraham Lincoln that human slavery should be resolved through the democratic process. Let the people decide: if they "want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited."

Whether or not democracy is the ideal form of government is not the issue here, but since we live in a democracy, what is wrong with Douglas' statement? It was through the democratic process that we gave women the right to vote, gave 18 year olds the right to vote, and even attempted the Equal Rights Amendment. Isn't this how we should extend human rights to the unborn? Isn't this how we should give rights to animals?

Roe v. Wade was decided in part by denying rights to the unborn, but also by assuming a right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut assumed a right to marital privacy regarding the use of contraception) which is not clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Can we overturn Roe without overturning Griswold? If human rights cannot begin until birth, is the solution to the abortion crisis to pack the Court with conservatives who might also oppose things like church-state separation (in the Newdow case regarding the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Justice Scalia had to excuse himself from the case, because he doesn't believe in complete church-state separation), deny us contraception and a right to privacy...or is the solution to enact a Constitutional Amendment to extend human rights to the unborn?

In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld a sodomy law. A few years ago, they reversed themselves, which outraged the religious right, but pleased lesbians and gays, the parents and friends of lesbians and gays, and political liberals. I cannot understand how pro-life liberals and pro-life Democrats, most of whom respect the private nonviolent behavior of consenting adults, support church-state separation, and support contraception and better sex education as the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, would want to align themselves with pro-life conservatives and pro-life Republicans in order to pack the courts with conservatives in the hopes of eventually overturning Roe v. Wade.

It's my conviction that we do have a fundamental right to privacy, and I cannot advocate putting the women of America unwillingly under electronic surveillance, probing their past without their consent, denying them contraception, or even going through their personal effects (although the Fourth Amendment does protect us against unwarranted search and seizure). There must be a better way.

Unlike Republicans, pro-life liberals advocate real social support for pregnant women and mothers.

In the December 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious left, editor Rose Evans writes:

"This editor has long been aware of the relative success of the Dutch support system for pregnant women, compared to that of the U.S. The Dutch abortion rate is a minute fraction of the American. I believe the rate for young women in their teens is about one-twentieth of the U.S. rate. And this is done not so much by restrictive laws (although there are some restrictions) as by real social support for pregnant women and mothers.

"The situation for pregnant women in the U.S. who don't have assured income, family support and medical insurance is abysmal and getting worse. Choice is a joke. Women don't have money for decent food, decent housing, or decent medical care, nor adequate support after the child is born."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is jurists who are strict constructionists. Those that do not legislate from the bench, but interpret the Constitution. It's that simple really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since most homosexuals don't reproduce it is a real benefit to our overpopulated earth. Therefore, gay people are helping to saving the planet and we should all be thankful and stop being mean to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is such a misleading and biased article. Until I came to the Alternet site, I did not know that liberals--much less Progressives engaged in such deceptive practices. I think it hilarious that the author utilizes such terms as "Gay supporting," Gay Friendly" to distinguish the difference between today's court as opposed to prior courts.
Why not just exchange the word "Gay," for "Nazi," to see if the author is still comfortable with her sentences. The fact is that the Supreme Court has no business engaging in advocacy work of any kind. Their sole job is to interpet Constitution of the United States. If they are interested in passing laws and righting alleged wrongs , they should resign and run for political office.
Regardless as to whether you are conservative, independent, liberal or progressive, the thought of a heavily politicized Supreme Court is frightening. Yet, that is precisely what has occurred, and from what I gather, the current court is interested in reversing this vulgar trend. More power to them I say.

As far as this heterosexual hate mongering on the part of this author is concerned, none of this is true. The United States Military is interested in keeping one's gender preferences to oneself. Currently the Homosexual community is engaging in a campaign to force the Military into accepting Gays as true equals. As an ex military man, if I were required by regulations to shower and sleep next to overtly gay men, I know I would be no more comfortable than a woman being required by regulations to shower and conduct intimate personal activities with men.
Now I am not interested in changing someone's opinion, but I am asking that Alternet quit allowing advocacy writers to write articles that are patently misleading or pure lies. There is nothing wrong with stating one's opinion, and even writing in favor of one's position, but there is something very wrong with the constant misquoting, misrepresenting and misleading of readers by authors interested in furthering their won political agendas. We should not tolerate or condone this activity by Conservative writers, and we should not allow it with Progressive writers as well.
But apparently Alternet Editors do not feel this way. Too bad, as it diminishes a key ingredient in what makes Alternet unique. As I write this, I note that Alternet Editors are getting more and more autocratic and rigid--one is not allowed to criticize or make personal attacks on the writers anymore. The fact that these are professionals that get paid to write these articles is of no consequence. Apparently it is perfectly fine to criticize the President: call Cheney and Bush Liars, war mongers and war criminals but it is "uncivilized" to call a writer a name because he or she is misleading and misrepresenting a position--even if they are making a profit on their ability to do so.
So it is perfectly okay to target conservative writers and pundits like Rush Limbaugh, but totally uncool and crude to comment on Alternet writers. Doing so can and will get your "commenting privileges" cancelled.
Furthermore if you are progressive, you can rant and rave about any and all conservatives without any regard to having your privileges curtailed, but if you are a moderate or conservative--watch out, you're not welcome.
Way to go Altenet--so much for freedom of the press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]