Specifically, Scalia said: "As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by '"bare . . . desire to harm"' couples in same-sex marriages."
I started a new tag today. No, not "argle-bargle." Paraphrase. I've become immensely interested in the concept of paraphrasing, and I'm hypervigilant about paraphrasing about paraphrasing, and I see that there. Scalia has a really cheeky way of saying "so what you're really saying is...": whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow....
Memorize that. Use it. It's sure to annoy some people and give others a great sense of relief. For example, law students may enjoy hearing the lawprof say whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle Justice X chose to follow, the real rationale is...
So high-handed! So liberating!
The (unlinkable) OED traces "argle-bargle" — which means "Disputatious argument, bandying of words, wrangling" — back to 1872:
1872 A. J. Cupples Tappy's Chicks 252 During these days of ‘argle bargle’, as our smith's wife called it.UPDATE: 2 days later, I actually did make a tag for argle-bargle — as the continued use of the term appealed to me — and came back to add it here.
a1881 Carlyle in W. A. Knight Retrospects (1904) 15, I have for a long time given up the argle-bargle of metaphysics.
1927 Observer 11 Dec. 15/2 Can they..stand up to a good and sufficient argle-bargle that lasts for the best part of three hours?
Posts
135 comments:
Argle-bargle is a wonderful word, but part of its wonder is in its rarity. And as Danny Zuko once said, "that's my name, don't wear it out."
Such a kerfuffle over some garrulous judge's desultory shibboleth.
Usually employed by Wesley Pruden
That's what passes for scathing and dripping with sarcasm?
Justice Scalia went a bit overboard with his characterization. Kennedy doesn't go as far as he says, but by Scalia's characterization, it looks like it goes further than it actually does.
I'm gobsmacked with Argle-Bargle.
Just yesterday me wife says to me, she says, "Can you..stand up to a good and sufficient argle-bargle that lasts for the best part of three hours?"
I said I would be willing to try.
It's actually Scalia who gets to the meat of things:
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples.
I'm sure there's enough "argle-bargle" in lawyers to remove the barriers to marriages of more than 2 individuals. Otherwise, you'd have to argue "What's special about two?"
Scalia's an old bigoted pig who's willing to slime his colleagues just because he hates the faggots so much.
Or, the argle-barglers could pose that marriages could run concurrently between 2 individuals. It wouldn't be marriages of 3 or more, just multiple marriages of 2.
Is Argle-Bargle another way of saying bullshit?
Don't bullshit a bullshitter... or something.
Seems to me that "argle-bargle" could just as well have been written as "baloney".
I guess there's been a sale on new tags lately.
Pretty bad that even though I'm subscribed to the RSS feed, I'm still not exactly sure what they decided. I appreciate your insight, but sometimes this legal stuff needs some simple news garnering to figure out what your talking about.
I do enjoy your commentary as well, I just need a point of reference.
Joy to Despair in 24 hours.
Yesterday Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg's was pissed and today major homo hater Scalia almost went into cardiac arrest.
Look for legal seminars focusing on advanced argle-bargle coming soon to a resort near you!
Palladian said...
Scalia's an old bigoted pig who's willing to slime his colleagues just because he hates the faggots so much.
More like the other way around.
Scalia was right as usual but he should have said,"bull shit" as one of the comments above translated.
I think that's what Ann would have said.
Remember those of you with traditional religious and moral beliefs are hateful bigots.
It can not be said too often
DOMA is not exclusively about couplets. It also applies to other unions without regard for numbers, forms, and kinds, which are antithetical, or are at least not in compliance, with evolutionary fitness.
Why has this issue been intentionally distorted to misrepresent the purpose of its consideration?
This is the same game played by pro-abortion/choice activists, and others yet who support resurrection of the institution of redistributive change. They exploit emotion-based arguments to substitute for objective reasoning.
Anyway, what defense do they have for not supporting equal protection in equal measure according to their selective standards. Or is that the answer: selective standards?
The majority opinion is a disgrace.
Not such a good idea to have women on the court, I guess.
If Scalia meant to say bullshit, but wanted to be polite about it... then I guess his comment is dripping and smell of something the receiving side of his dissent don't like.
Slammed for being polite.
Why doesn't Scalia just keep his opinions to himself?
Palladian or anyone else,
Please read Scalia's dissent and argue with any of it point by point.
The first part, about standing, is brilliant. I don't believe it ever mentions gay marriage or homosexuality. The second part is much more scathing, but again, try to argue with any part of it. Is anything he's saying untrue?
He is calling bullshit on the idea that the majority isn't setting up the other shoe to fall - that states can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Quite simply, the majority is lying when they say they aren't. Regardless of how one feels about gay marriage, being lied to deserves our contempt.
The majority opinion is a disgrace.
Not such a good idea to have women on the court, I guess.
6/26/13, 5:00 PM
Everytime some rightist makes such comments, women's ears perk up, we remember and vote for Democrats. 54%. Keep being the regressive party.
It's always characterized as hate. So much easier than actually debating the merit of a decision. If I hear hate used in an argument I know the other person is not arguing in good faith.
"Everytime some rightist makes such comments, women's ears perk up, we remember and vote for Democrats."
We have so many real problems, and this woman is claiming the main impetus behind her voting is random people on the internet.
You're proving his point, honey.
Remember those of you with traditional religious and moral beliefs are hateful bigots.
It can not be said too often
Sweety, it's a general attitude common to the right wing, not just one commenter here on Althouse, deary.
It sounds like women are just a bunch of teenagers still rebelling against daddy. And some of them are proud of it.
Inga said...
The majority opinion is a disgrace.
Not such a good idea to have women on the court, I guess.
6/26/13, 5:00 PM
Everytime some rightist makes such comments, women's ears perk up, we remember and vote for Democrats. 54%. Keep being the regressive party.
Just pointing out the correlation: absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing decision, and 3 women concurring.
Keep voting for Dems then, foolish girl.
And "women" don't vote for Democrats in a majority. That total is spoiled by group-think Blacks, 1/2 of who are women, voting 97% Dem, and against their own interests, lol.
"Argybargy" was the best Squeeze album ever, until "East Side Story" came out the following year.
Frances "Gidget" Lawrence: Funny thing about life. A few hours ago, I hit the lowest point of my whole absolute existence. And now I'm riding so high, I can't even see Cloud 9 when I look down. John would say that shows a lack of maturity, and I can't argue with him. When you're young, it's not easy to level off and fly right. It's too bad you can't be born with maturity - and then lose it later on when you're old enough not to need it anymore.
[gasps]
Frances "Gidget" Lawrence: I wonder if thinking about stuff like that means I'm a philosopher.
[yawning]
Frances "Gidget" Lawrence: Oh, I hope not. Because I'm too tired for all that jazz.
(Gidget, 1965)
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples.
That sounds almost exactly like Rev's argument.
I wish someone would build a Big Mountain Scalia.
Althouse, this is a pacification smokescreen come from you. It's transparent to me.
There are many issues that concern women, and daddy rebellion doesn't play into it. Even seriously considering this as something that motivates women to vote as they do is erroneous at best. I could say bullshit, but I'll be a nice little woman. :)
Squeal, social cons, squeal!
Considering the magnitude of the idiocy of this decision the use of the term argle-bargle is a study in restraint.
I'm really to all these discussions. But I have one question i can't find an answer to.
Obama refused to defend Doma. Why was there a decision? Why not say there is no standing?
I love it when leftist and rightist ideologues have their plans for Statist social control dashed. The leftists got dashed the other day (Fisher, et al) and the social cons got it today.
Yay freedom.
Squeal!
How thoughtful and well reasoned. I'm completely persuaded by the reason and care that went into that argument.
In the world where only feelings can lead to knowledge all statements of feeling are true and worthy.
What a brave new world we live in now.
Or I guess the feelers call it freedom.
Yay!
Inga wrote:
There are many issues that concern women, and daddy rebellion doesn't play into it. Even seriously considering this as something that motivates women to vote as they do is erroneous at best. I could say bullshit, but I'll be a nice little woman. :)
You know what didn't impact women's voting for democrtats?
Passing of DOMA.
I love it when social cons call their extreme feelings against fags "reasoning".
Bill wrote:
Obama refused to defend Doma. Why was there a decision? Why not say there is no standing.
Great question. Anyone have an answer on this?
You know what didn't impact women's voting for democrtats?
Passing of DOMA.
The major Democrat Victim Groups would vote for Democrats even if they passed a law requiring public burnings of homosexuals, as long as that baby-killing thing was protected.
Democrats saw the error of DOMA, now didn't they? Can rightists learn from their mistakes, or are they in a continuous cycle of repeating them, over and over again. Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward.
I have no extreme feelings about "fags."
I have extreme feelings about morality and it's relationship to the downfall do decency and freedom.
n.n. says it very well.
I can disagree and give my reasons why and I don't call people haters. I'm actually sad that "fags" feel hated, but not so much that I'm willing to give them the right to take down civilization.
I have extreme feelings about morality and it's relationship to the downfall do decency and freedom.
Ah, feelings.
Well, keep your feelings off my freedom and out of the government of this country.
That goes for so-called "liberals" as well.
Male gays better be careful what they wish for. The weddings might indeed be fabulous, but given their legendary promiscuity, the divorces are going to be even more awesome! And legally and financially problematical.
I look forward to the show.
I have extreme feelings about morality
You wouldn't know what was moral if it bit you on the ass.
Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward.
Sure, assuming "forward" is the direction you want. From where I sit it seems Democrats are going backward to the 1930s.
Oh yeah? Well Palladian, take some of your own advice about freedom. Your own regressive ideas about a women's right to choose decries your love of freedom. Makes you sound like a hypocrite.
What role did NSA spying play in Robert's decisions?
Ah yes, the woman's right to vacuum out the brains of her 8 month old fetus.
Freedom! Choice!
And ....so?
Does this ruling change the IRS codes? Estate taxation rules? Change Social Security rules? So, you can call yourself married. How does this change the financial issues that were the heart of the lawsuit.
forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and paving the way for it in California, the most populous state.
As expected, however, the court fell short of a broader ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry, meaning that there will be no impact in the more than 30 states that do not recognize gay marriage.
Is the IRS and the Federal Government going to come up with different rules and laws depending on where you are married? Or will they make the rules and taxation the same even IF you are in a state that doesn't recognize SSM? If so.....then what is the point of forcing States to recognize SSM if you get everything you want on the Federal level.
The point? Still to stick it to those who want only to recognize as marriage the traditional form. If you have everything you want....why don't you STFU?
Personally I don't give a shit. I just detest chaos and vindictive activism.
'Freedom of choice' is a nonsensical liberal construct. It only applies to abortion, nothing else, while purposefully obfuscating the fact that you are terminating human life.
The fact that you still use such disgustingly obtuse language speaks languages about how intellectually dishonest you are, Inga.
Well Palladian, take some of your own advice about freedom. Your own regressive ideas about a women's right to choose decries your love of freedom. Makes you sound like a hypocrite.
I'm more concerned about the rights of the human being that women too stupid to use birth control can unilaterally take away.
Speaks volumes, rather.
Fredder
I would recognize that immorality is the reason that every great civilization has fallen. I recognize that the destruction for the family and of mother love for children and father love and protection of the family is a precursor to every fall. When you can give me any proof to the contrary I'll recognize your right to tell me what morality is.
Inga wrote:
Oh yeah? Well Palladian, take some of your own advice about freedom. Your own regressive ideas about a women's right to choose decries your love of freedom. Makes you sound like a hypocrite.
In light of your own views on limting abortions to the first trimester you might talk to yourself about decrying the love of freedom.
And by the way, why isn't third trimester abortions a question of freedom?
Yes Palladian I confess to having feelings. But reason preceded them.
Yes Palladian I confess to having feelings. But reason preceded them.
Same here.
Palladian wrote:
Well, keep your feelings off my freedom and out of the government of this country.
That goes for so-called "liberals" as well.
in the case of marriage, insofar as it is defined the govt will be involved.
Why then, would the state not be able to regulate marriage in any way?
Reason says I can hate the sin while I love the person. I don't have to endorse the sin. II do have to love the person. Or rather I choose to separate the sinner from the sin based on reason and love everyone.
Incest is a moral question. And there are those in incestual relationships who may want to marry today. Meaning the state will have rules that either allow or preclude such a pairing.
Should society be neutral on the incestual couple (or trio) going to city hall?
Because Jr. I understand the baby has a right not to be "Alive" in a legal sense, when aborted, this citeria of "life", which happens with brain activity and the sensation of pain.
Absolutists in any regard will lose every time. Life is not black and white, but shades of gray.
Not going to continue with an abortion discussion here. I'm glad for the decision today.
That was directed at Palladian with his/her:
"Well, keep your feelings off my freedom and out of the government of this country."
*Criteria*
Argle-bargle doesn't exactly roll off the tongue even after a glass of wine.
Inga wrote:
Absolutists in any regard will lose every time. Life is not black and white, but shades of gray.
I would argue that the gay marriage advocates are the absolutists on this position. And if you are not onboard with redefining marriage the way that you want, then the only possiblity is that you hate gays.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency...
Oh, what a fun game:
By formally declaring anyone supporting same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency...
An argument that can be so easily flipped isn't an argument.
Let's be honest, Scalia's entire argument hinges on his hatred of all things homosexual. Like all too many on the religious right, he throws reason and consistency out the window when the subject arises. In short, Scalia is all for federalism until it becomes an afront to HIS moral sensibilities.
Inga said...
Because Jr. I understand the baby has a right not to be "Alive" in a legal sense, when aborted, this citeria of "life", which happens with brain activity and the sensation of pain.
Absolutists in any regard will lose every time. Life is not black and white, but shades of gray
Tell it to Thaddeus Stevens and William Lloyd Garrison.
PS "a right not to be "Alive".
Get that one from Dr Goebbels?
Edutcher we as Americans "pull the plug" on humans with no brain activity. Even the Pope agrees with this criteria of "life". Don't like it, call the Pope.
Or ask Saint Croix to explain it to you, Ed.
What the Pope would agree with, Inga, is a right not to be kept alive with artificial means.
But "a right not to be "Alive" is right out of the Newspeak Dictionary.
I'm sure it was the punchline of all the good gags about Babi Yar.
Here are the democrats who signed on board for DOMA. A lot of them have been serving in congress for years after DOMA passed,meaning a lot of people have voted for them for close to 20 years after DOMA passed. Suddenly though DOMA is this litmus test for whether you hate gays or not:
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y)
Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-N.V.)
Inga: "Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward."
Yes,the left has plans for many a "Great Leap Forward" for all of us.......
There are absolutes. If there weren't there would be no safety no guarantees, no God, no life, no surety of anything.
What these insane decisions by the Supreme Court are doing is removing absolutes from our lives and we are all less secure, safe and free than we were before.
Can anyone point to any charge by anyone on the left that Bill Clinton was a "hateful bigot" for supporting and signing DOMA?
Inga wrote:
Inga: "Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward."
were you saying this when Clinton passed DOMA.
Inga said...
Oh yeah? Well Palladian, take some of your own advice about freedom. Your own regressive ideas about a women's right to choose decries your love of freedom. Makes you sound like a hypocrite.
How is right to choose remotely considered freedom. So you are choosing the right to kill your baby while in the womb and get away with murder? Yeah, some choice that is. The only hypocrisy is the life you think you live as a lover of freedom because you are a democrat. You are a fucking slave to a pitiful ideology.
The argle-bargle made Scalia go higgeldy-piggeldy.
jr565 said...
Incest is a moral question. And there are those in incestual relationships who may want to marry today. Meaning the state will have rules that either allow or preclude such a pairing.
Should society be neutral on the incestual couple (or trio) going to city hall?
It's this ridiculous idea that discrimination should never exist. Anywhere and yet law is rife with discrimination and yet it is seen as bigotry and hatred for the sheer sake of extolling the emotion that such discrimination takes into account. Yet the gnashing of teeth against discrimination is done at the behest of those that wish to be free of the shackles of it. What will stop people from choosing status that are state sanctioned that will most monetarily benefit them in the name of eliminating discrimination for example.
Inga said...
Because Jr. I understand the baby has a right not to be "Alive" in a legal sense, when aborted, this citeria of "life", which happens with brain activity and the sensation of pain.
Brain activity and sensation of pain, huh? I trust you're a 7th level vegan, then.
somefeller said...
The argle-bargle made Scalia go higgeldy-piggeldy.
Murky SCOTUS decision made homosexuals go giggity.
Drago wrote:
Can anyone point to any charge by anyone on the left that Bill Clinton was a "hateful bigot" for supporting and signing DOMA?
Wasn't Clinton the keynote speaker at the democratic convention? As recently as a few years ago? Wasn't he the star of the party? HE's still got it, pundits would say.
Yet, democratic gays had no problem voting for Mr. DOMA twice, nor Obama twice. And I'll note Obama didn't have a problem with DOMA till his second term.
Prior to their very recent conversion I guess Obama and Clinton hated fags.No other possibility.
Indubitably!
jr565 said...
Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward.
were you saying this when Clinton passed DOMA.
No, she said it when Willie was pursuing Monica and the She Devil of the SS was dreaming it was her.
"Ooohhh, Willie..."
wyo sis said...
What these insane decisions by the Supreme Court are doing is removing absolutes from our lives and we are all less secure, safe and free than we were before.
Or as Pope Benedict put it, we have a "dictatorship of relativism".
Actually, there's no shortage of Clinton on DOMA from the left. Just read Andrew Sullivan (a social liberal, if not an economic one). The basic criticism is that he cravenly catered to bigots, not that he was one. Those criticisms aren't hard to find and I'd agree with them on this issue.
jr565 said...
Drago wrote:
Can anyone point to any charge by anyone on the left that Bill Clinton was a "hateful bigot" for supporting and signing DOMA?
Wasn't Clinton the keynote speaker at the democratic convention? As recently as a few years ago? Wasn't he the star of the party? HE's still got it, pundits would say.
Yet, democratic gays had no problem voting for Mr. DOMA twice, nor Obama twice. And I'll note Obama didn't have a problem with DOMA till his second term.
Prior to their very recent conversion I guess Obama and Clinton hated fags.No other possibility.
Not even close. As I quoted in an earlier post, Willie told an assemblage of Gay Caballeros in LA during the '92 campaign, "Ah have a vission fo' 'Merca and y'all are a part of that vision".
DOMA was a subterfuge to take people's minds off Monica.
And any criticism of him from the Left didn't start until around '98, well after they voted twice for him.
The past 24 hours were awesome.
Yesterday tards were deva and pubes thrilled.
Today pubes devastated and tards in ecstasy.
It's like riding on Space Mountain. Major lows and major highs!
Win win in my book.
The basic criticism is that he cravenly catered to bigots, not that he was one. Those criticisms aren't hard to find and I'd agree with them on this issue.
So you're seriously suggesting, I mean with a straight face, that one can "cater" to "bigots" but not be one by signing legislation you publicly claim to support?
This is actually supposed to be a serious claim?
jr565
Clinton and Obama came around. Why not join them?
Methadras wrote:
It's this ridiculous idea that discrimination should never exist. Anywhere and yet law is rife with discrimination and yet it is seen as bigotry and hatred for the sheer sake of extolling the emotion that such discrimination takes into account. Yet the gnashing of teeth against discrimination is done at the behest of those that wish to be free of the shackles of it.
Insofar as you are regulating marriage discrimination HAS to exist. You have to define what marriage is and then you also define what it isn't. If you say marriage is two people, then any marriage with three or more is discriminated against.
Of course those, like Inga who are for gay marriage but against polygamy will argue that there is a legitimate interest to so discriminate in one but not the other. They of course are not bigots when they say such marriages should be restricted. Because they buy the argument for why the marriage should be restricted in the one place but not in the other. And in the case where they are for lifting restrictions you are a bigot if you don't agree. Whereas if they are not for lifting the restriction they of course are not bigots because the reason for the restriction makes perfect sense.
How convenient. Always in the moral right no matter what. Always able to yell "bigot" while immune from the charge of bigotry when it comes to restrictions they uphold.
You can be behind history or ahead of history you see. And where history is going is exactly in line with where they are on the issue.
At least the "get govt out of all marriage even if it means that polygamy, bigamy and incestual couples are allowed to marry" crowd are consistent.
Matt wrote:
Clinton and Obama came around. Why not join them?
I was already for civil unions with all the rights of marriage when CLinton passed DOMA. I just didn't think the issue should be resolved through redefining traditional marriage based on a faulty premise.
Because gays cannot marry. Marriage is defined as between a man and woman.
And I don't like people yelling bigot at me and saying I hate fags to get me to acquiesce.
Clinton and Obama came around.
LOL. See, this is why so-called "liberals" are just as disgusting as Statist social cons: you're either naive or your just a bunch of liars. Clinton and Obama "came around" because it served their political purposes to do so. The whole "evolution" storyline is a bunch of bullshit.
As I said before, the Democrats would "devolve" back to their old positions if it was politically expedient.
Jr. I never said I was against polygamy, get it right.
jr565
Okay, you're not a bigot or a homophobe. You're just wrong on the issue. Or at least the Supreme Court says you're wrong. How's that?
Palladian
I agree with you. Clinton and Obama tested the political waters and didn't necessarily come around. I'm not naive about that face. Just having fun with jr565.
Inga said...
Jr. I never said I was against polygamy, get it right.
But give her time.
She'll have 4 husbands and 3 kids by the time it hits SCOTUS.
Titus said...
The past 24 hours were awesome.
Yesterday tards were deva and pubes thrilled.
Today pubes devastated and tards in ecstasy.
Hardly, one one part of DOMA was overruled.
Civil Unions is what a gay marriage is. It's a union codified by society, not by the church.
I look at gay marriage like this.
Marriage is a round hole. Gay marriage is a square peg. You can't put a square peg into a round hole. The round hole has been in existence since the countries founding as the shape of marriage. Saying you're a bigot because you don't want to change the hole that's always been there and has perfectly valid reasons to be circular is a bullshit argument.
If the argument is we should add a square hole to fit the square peg, that's worth looking into. It would be a separate but equal type scenario but that's because they would be two separate institutions. The word Gay in front of the word marriage kind of gives the game away.
So, do I hate gays if I want to keep the hole circular? No. Because I understand the reasoning behind marriage being the way it is.
So, giving gays rights through a civil union i'm ok with. Redefining marriage to include gays or I'm a hateful bigot, I'm not.
Inga wrote:
I never said I was against polygamy, get it right.
I'm pretty sure you did. I don't feel like going back into the archives to find the quote though. But I'm 99% positive that you said you were against it.
Do you think those who don't support redefining marriage to include polygamy are bigots?
Like do you know what Obama's position is on Polygamy? Are you going to call him out on his bigotry if he doesn't think marriage should be like the show Big Love?
And what about incestual marriages. Same question. Are you for or against, and if against are you a bigot for holding that position?
How do we know whether we are on the right side of history and/or whether we are a bigot on any and all marriage restrictions?
Should we consult with the liberals to get our talking points?
NO, Jr. I never said I was against polygamy. Ask Darleen, she was quite shocked and horrified I when I said I was Ok with it.
Inga, rather than going down the list of restrictions that a marriage may have how about if I ask it this way?
Are you for the state being able to define marriage in any way at all?
inga wrote:
NO, Jr. I never said I was against polygamy. Ask Darleen, she was quite shocked and horrified I when I said I was Ok with it.
So when people who are for gay marriage say it will only be about marrying two people and not be a slippery slope towards polygamy you actually have Rick Santorum's position?
I seem to recall that Argle Bargle IV (or someone very much like him) was the high king at Ribroast. In the 1,623rd year of the Third Age, the Naugahyde brothers, Brasso and Drano, led a large following of boggies across the Gallowine River disguised as a band of itinerant graverobbers and took control from the king. In return for the King's grudging acquiescence, they set up toll booths on the roads and bridges, waylaid his messengers, and sent him suggestive and threatening letters. In short, they settled down for a long stay.
wyo sis:
Someone claimed that "feelings are our most genuine paths to knowledge." I would suggest that "feelings" must be reconcilable with reason in order to reach a viable conclusion.
It concerns me that the homosexual activists, and their heterosexual patrons, do not support equal protection in equal measure. The latter is especially guilty of this bigotry. This suggests that they have ulterior motives or are acting on "feelings" without principles or reason.
Actually, there's no shortage of Clinton on DOMA from the left. Just read Andrew Sullivan (a social liberal, if not an economic one). The basic criticism is that he cravenly catered to bigots, not that he was one.
And the bizarre thing is, that's offered as a *defense* of Clinton.
Whatever private moral system Sullivan follows, it is apparently one in which consciously doing evil for personal advantage is a lesser sin than unknowingly doing evil out of ignorance.
argghhh I don't get how Scalia can vote with the majority but write a dissent...this is the most confusing shit.
Whatever private moral system Sullivan follows
LOL.
Scalia whole point is that whether you want Polygamy or not, Justice Kennedy isn't the man to decide. We don't need 5 Ivy League Lawyers in black robes deciding it.
The other 300 million of us should have a voice too. But I don't think this Judicial Tyranny will ever end until the LEFT is hurt. the RIGHT is too dumb and apathetic to do anything.
They worship the Constitution, but the Constitution is whatever Justice Kennedy says it is. And if Obama gets another SCOTUS judge, it will be whatever Ruth Buzzi "I'm from the ACLU" Ginzberg says.
Revenant wrote:
Whatever private moral system Sullivan follows, it is apparently one in which consciously doing evil for personal advantage is a lesser sin than unknowingly doing evil out of ignorance.
I guess as long as Clinton winked when passing DOMA all is forgiven. Even though gays lived with DOMA for more than a decade.
I can deal fine with politicians acting in their own interests. Whati can't stand is when their followers get on a soap box and call people names while ignoring the sin of the person they voted for.
Same thing with Clinton and deregulation of banks. Same thing with Clinton and Iraq. Same thing with Obama and drone strikes,and not closing Girmo.
I'm pretty sure that Althouse was against polygamy.
Inga, do you think Althouse is a bigot for opposing polygamy the same way that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. Are you prepared to call her names? Well, maybe not her since its her blog and you want to be respectful, but people like her. Bigoted people who hate polygamists and are on the wrong side of history.
I'm a newbie on the politically correct lefty standards and am a little confused about what bandwagon I'm supposed to jump on. Do I start calling anti polygamists names or are the majority of libs who don't just not liberal enough yet to know that they should? How can you tell when the time is right to stand for or against the restriction? Do you need a plurality of liberals, a majority?
I find it hard to take any of these Althouse comment threads on the SCOUTS seriously. I mean, what are you arguing about? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE SCOTUS. They aren't elected.
Second, all these comments are just: Yeah, the philosopher kings ruled my way or Boo, the philosopher Kings ruled against me.
Its like Abortion. It doesn't matter what YOU think about it. Unless you can get 5 SCOTUS judges or a constitutional amendment, then Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.
And frankly there's no reason why 5 SCOTUS judges couldn't rule that an amendment outlawing abortion was "unconstitutional" - and then what would you do?
Argle-bargle leaves me unmoved but when Justice Scalia writes that the majority of the Court is prepared to characterise the defenders of traditional marriage as hostes humani generis I suspect that he is purposefully alluding to the fact that the first Christians were so described by the defenders of the Roman pagan, imperial cult Christianity would eventually supplant; perhaps he is warning us believers that we had best prepare to retreat to the catacombs.
jr565: " So when people who are for gay marriage say it will only be about marrying two people and not be a slippery slope towards polygamy you actually have Rick Santorum's position?"
Oh, heavens no.
I mean, Inga will have precisely the same position Rick Santorum has on legalization of polygamist relationships, but it will be "different" because she will have arrived there for the "correct" reasons.
Thus, "different".
Better even.
Even though exactly the same.
Much like Obama and the praise he gets for doubling and tripling down on formerly Bush policies (which were wrong of course), but like totally "right" for Obama.
Of course, the doubling and tripling down on Bush policies would be wrong if done by a Republican.
But now "correct", 'cuz Obama.
Why?
Just because h8terz!
If you haven't actually read Scalia's dissent, do so. It is readable by anyone, persuasive and brilliant. And not a long read. The first part, on standing, says nothing whatsoever about gays or marriage or gay marriage, but about separation of powers. Again, it is brilliant. The only way to counter it is to keep people from reading it by declaring it a "rant" of a hateful bigot.
perhaps he is warning us believers that we had best prepare to retreat to the catacombs.
Once you're down there, can we lock the hatches from the outside?
[i]"Democrats pursue progress, going forward, not backward."[/i].
What a load of BS. Yesterday, Dems squealed like stuck pigs when 1964-1972 data could no longer be used to justify Section 4 of the VRA.
Tell me how that's "going forward", Inga?
Students flock to the best MBA colleges in
Bangalore that have earned their reputation.
Many of the MBA colleges in Bangalore have
been ranked in the Top MBA colleges in
Bangalore in noteworthy education.Best MBA College Bangalore
Everytime some rightist makes such comments, women's ears perk up, we remember and vote for Democrats. 54%. Keep being the regressive party.
You also applaud women who filibuster bills asking that abortion clinics be held to the same cleanliness standards as actual medical establishments and to oppose abortions beyond a 20 week gestation period.
So, you keep sentencing women to infections and the like. As a man --- so I've been told --- I have no business giving a shit if a woman dies from infections and the like caused by filthy abortion clinics.
Well, your side did say you wanted it safe, legal, and rare --- you never did mention sanitary.
After reading what people claim Kennedy, Roberts and Scalia wrote, I decided to read it. I found Kennedy's opinion very lucid, direct and well based on the constitution. I found Roberts' and especially Scalia's dissents to be little more than tantrums. They lacked almost any reasonable, constitutional basis and barely, if that, argued against the points Kennedy made. In other words, Roberts and Scalia had no counter-argument, just disgust that they didn't get their way for very vague reasons. If this is the best he can do, Scalia is an intellectual lightweight (which I know he isn't, so why act like such? I can think of only one reason; he had no valid constitutional argument.)
Joe, are you for or against gay marriage? My guess is that you are for it, and therefore it was the besest thing ever. And meanwhile Scalias rant is nothing but bigoted griping.
No?
Instead of argyle bargle it should have been hubris (a la Ruth Bader) Ann, perhaps then you would have got a thrill up your leg
Interesting! Me and my chandler dentist appreciates this so much. Keep sharing. Thanks a lot.
Post a Comment