I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection.'"
April 4, 2014
"Justice Thomas Was Right/Citizens United and the defenestration of Brendan Eich."
James Taranto connects the Eich ousting to what Clarence Thomas wrote, dissenting, from the part of the Citizens United opinion that was 8-1:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
Slightly less perspicuous and elegant than Holmes in Schenck, but an admirable interpretation nevertheless
Progressives hate free speech. It is unruly.
I realize that a corporation has the right to choose it's officers and employees, but to me that doesn't really make the board of directors in this case anything less that poor excuses for adults. People who revel in destroying people in this manner are simply thugs. They are without honor. To me there is no greater insult that can be hurled.
Given that the law is intended to enable the government to limit individual donations by requiring registration of donors and their donations with the government, what exactly is the additional compelling government interest or narrowly tailored means in publishing the names in the face of such intimidation?
The small minded zealots who drove this guy from his job will pay for it someday in some way. The people who stayed silent and just stood by will regret that as well.
I think this whole issue is sui generis because of its equal protection dimension. The rapid movement toward a legal and societal embrace of gay marriage represents not just a legal shift, not just a political victory, but a rapid shift in mores. That is why Mozilla evidently sought his resignation, and why, probably Eich himself surrendered without much of a fight.
The culture has changed dramatically as a result of the societal epiphany that discrimination in this instance rest on a non-existent legal foundation.
Positions that were mainstream 15 years ago are rapidly being seen as hostile to equality, and that can't stand the light of day. The culture has been ahead of its leadership, as seen when Democratic politicians, seemingly more in touch with the gay community, have had to scramble to catch up -- and notably have suffered no political damage from having embraced gay marriage.
Does anyone think gay marriage will help the GOP in the next presidential election as it apparently helped George W. Bush 10 years ago? No one thinks that. I suspect most political pros think the normalization of gay marriage will proceed as it is, no matter which party takes the White House in 2016.
If Eich had done what, for instance, Obama did and make a public statement that he'd changed his mind and regretted having donated to the Prop. 8 campaign, he would have easily survived this. Obama has given all such leaders the language for this shift -- "My position has evolved." It's not an apology, it's a reflection of the change in the culture and the beliefs of tens of millions, especially the younger voters.
I know some people fear this kind of pressure will start to be brought to bear on leaders for a whole range of political issues. I seriously doubt that would be effective or tolerated. There is no comparable shift in mores on budgetary issues, defense issues, taxation, health care, or the environment, just the same style debates as always.
Gay equality transcends politics, just as the Civil Rights movement transcended politics in the 1960s. In those days, opponents to civil rights for blacks and women eventually paid a price -- the price of losing their claim to leadership. Eich won't go to jail, just as Lester Maddox didn't go to jail. Indeed, segregationists who evolved often remained in power. But not as segregationists.
How about an argument that disclosure of individual contributions violates the spirit of the constitution (not just free speech, but the notion of a secret ballot) but since a corporation is granted it's status by the state, therefore those contributes must be fully disclosed.
Some day, the first amendment will have a better friend on the SCOTUS than Clarence Thomas. Today is not that day.
The selective exclusion of other dysfunctional behaviors will need to be reconciled. The current movement to normalize homosexual behavior through executive orders, judicial decrees, indoctrination, and simple threats does not address the moral hazard it has created.
I made the same point in a tweet two days ago. The battle to come will be over mandatory disclosure rules. The Court will eventually toss out the whole campaign finance framework, or whittle it down to nothing, but mandatory disclosure will remain. The Mozilla case well illustrates the dangers of requiring disclosure of political contributions. At this point, I cannot predict how the Court will rule on these issues, and the law professors who specialize in these matters haven't told us what they think will happen. This would make a good note or article topic, kids.
The small minded zealots who drove this guy from his job will pay for it someday in some way.
The whole thing makes me want to show up to work on Monday and fire everyone who donated to an anti-prop 8 group.
I don't know if the mass of gay Americans approve of what was done to Eich, but it strikes me that they're being led into a social ghetto not that different than the one they just emerged from.
Wait, aren't contributions above a certain level reported as a matter of course?
That's the crucial thing about Citizens United, isn't it, that it created a loophole that allowed people to donate to some political campaigns, constituted as independent efforts, without having to disclose that they made the donation?
Otherwise, donations are public acts under our laws since the 1970s. That's nothing new, is it?
John Stodder said...
I know some people fear this kind of pressure will start to be brought to bear on leaders for a whole range of political issues. I seriously doubt that would be effective or tolerated.
Right. We can trust the left because they've exercised such restraint where they already control the environment, in academia, media, and government for example.
In truth the only response is to start defending every part of society not already overrun. Otherwise non-leftists will be denied any but the most menial occupations by the time your grandchildren reach working age.
Will Oremus of Slate justifies the persecution and firing of Brendan Eich on the grounds that opposition to gay marriage "sends an awful message" by the CEO and public face of an organization.
Perhaps I missed something, but did Eich declare his opposition to gay marriage in public? Or did he quietly, without fanfare, contribute money in support of Prop. 8 as a private citizen? How was Eich acting as the "face of Mozilla" by donating money if he did not speak out publicly on the issue?
Call those people Mccarthyites. They'll just HATE that.
Charles Krauthammer, tonight on the Fox News Channel... Asked what would be happening if a major tech CEO were being ousted for having made a donation to a pro-gay cause:
"The story would lead the national nightly news for nine weeks."
I'm using IE to view this thread and write this comment. There is no Mozilla on this machine; there never will be again.
And leave it to Clarence Thomas to be the most far-sighted justice on the Court.
@big mike - IE? Really? I've been thinking the same thing. I don't like to buy products from fascists, but...maybe chrome? Damn. Tough choice.
Joe makes a good point. Individual contributions could be treated differently from corporate donations.
It seems, however, Federal and State reporting requirements ask not just for a name, but also each person's employer. So at the moment, a personal donation implicates both.
Nate Silver plays around with the data here.
Justice Thomas has been right on every important issue for 20 years. I would love see his NCAA bracket.
@Bob, I think Google is worse than Microsoft. Chrome helps Google collect more personal data when it already is collecting more than it should be allowed to.
The major Leveller tracts, Locke's Second Treatise, Paine's Common Sense`, and countless other critiques of despotism were published anonymously because their authors rightly feared retribution. The major works defending the Constitution--the Federalist Papers--were published anonymously. I am not sure why California is regarded as "progressive" when it adopts transparency policies that would have seemed deeply reactionary two centuries ago.
John Stodder: The rapid movement toward a legal and societal embrace of gay marriage represents not just a legal shift, not just a political victory, but a rapid shift in mores. [...]
The culture has changed dramatically as a result of the societal epiphany that discrimination in this instance rest on a non-existent legal foundation.
"Societal epiphany". Ah so that's what happened. Just don't stop clapping.
I wonder what "epiphany" is coming around the corner next.
Eich won't go to jail, just as Lester Maddox didn't go to jail. Indeed, segregationists who evolved often remained in power. But not as segregationists.
Well, people who like political power do have a remarkable ability to "evolve", don't they?
So, is there any limit to what can be analogized to Civil Rights in the '60s? After all, what must we "evolve" to if the sole criteria for any re-arrangement or destruction of institutions are "equality" and "non-discrimination"? "Everything is exactly the same as everything else". Famous last social axioms.
This is all starting to sound more like Soviet and Chinese "societal epiphanies" of the '30s and '60s, respectively, than American civil rights progress in the '60s.
P.S. If Eich had done what, for instance, Obama did and make a public statement that he'd changed his mind and regretted having donated to the Prop. 8 campaign, he would have easily survived this. Obama has given all such leaders the language for this shift -- "My position has evolved." It's not an apology, it's a reflection of the change in the culture and the beliefs of tens of millions, especially the younger voters.
This paragraph is nauseating.
Interesting how, on a Court stuffed with Ivy-Leaguers, the one who singles out harassment and vilification campaigns as a free speech issue is the one who has personally been a victim of a vilification campaign.
I'm sure that Elena Kagan, say, or John Roberts could identify the issue intellectually if it came before them. But in actual practice, they've been good apparatchiks their whole careers. Threats to free speech are something that happens to other people.
If Eich had done what, for instance, Obama did and make a public statement that he'd changed his mind and regretted having donated to the Prop. 8 campaign, he would have easily survived this. Obama has given all such leaders the language for this shift -- "My position has evolved." It's not an apology, it's a reflection of the change in the culture and the beliefs of tens of millions, especially the younger voters.
Renouncing your beliefs as a condition of keeping your job is McCarthyism. Once upon a time, I was led to believe that America had grown past things like that.
"rapid movement toward a legal and societal embrace... a rapid shift in mores...the societal epiphany"
Is it societal, though? In the U.S. at least, gay marriage is something that generally gets rammed through by judicial fiat. How many states have adopted it by popular vote?
I use several browsers routinely, and I've found Firefox to be the most reliable one. I wonder out loud: even though Firefox supports the "do not track" initiative, it is trivial for a browser developer to collect tracking data about its users.
Shall we be comfortable visiting politically controversial websites with browsers developed by organizations that are comfortable ostracizing people for holding politically incorrect views, even if those views are held by roughly half the population?
Looking forward to the day when we have to rely on discreet pamphleteering to share politically subversive information.
This is all starting to sound more like Soviet and Chinese "societal epiphanies" of the '30s and '60s, respectively, than American civil rights progress in the '60s.
I feel like I've been watching a cultural revolution scene out of Farwell My Concubine these past few days. Such unabashed hatred. That kind of passion is not what helped the civil rights movement succeed.
Slate's Will Oremus said:
"Opposing gay marriage in America today is not akin to opposing tax hikes or even the war in Afghanistan. It's more akin to opposing interracial marriage: It bespeaks a conviction that some people do not deserve the same basic rights as others...."
Several observations:
1. Mr. Oremus talks about rights but obviously doesn't include freedom of speech in those rights. He is kind enough to carve out an exemption so conservatives can still express opposition to tax increases but that exemption is arbitrary and can be removed at will.
2. He has elevated opposition to "gay marriage" to a moral crime. Although lefties don't have an absolute moral standard, that does not prevent them from elevating differences of opinion to moral issues. Indeed, since they have no absolute standards, anything they wish becomes a moral issue. Since they are evil, moral transgressors deserve to be punished. Without an absolute moral standard the punishment can be anything the leftie punisher wishes.
3. Traditional Marxism takes all conflicts back to economics. The new left has added race (and secondarily gender) as primary drivers of human behavior. This need to explain everything by class warfare or racial warfare is why Oremus is compelled to make the dubious analogy between interracial marriage and the oxymoron called gay marriage. Once he ties the issue into race he can then elevate it to a moral issue.
----The selective exclusion of other dysfunctional behaviors will need to be reconciled.
Is this a highly abstract reference to pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia….?
My new browser will filter Garage.
Qwerty Smith: The secret ballot was at one time controversial, though. Many thought it was cowardly.
John Stoddard promises that this won't happen again until they decide that it will. Free speech is like a train for these guys. Once they get to their stop, they get off.
We had a pretty big societal epiphany on the subject of Communism after World War II, but history has not been any kinder to the studio execs who signed the Waldorf Statement on that account.
Right. We can trust the left because they've exercised such restraint where they already control the environment, in academia, media, and government for example.
I'm not saying people on both the left and the right won't try or haven't tried. But the left would fail if it made, say, support of Obamacare a condition of being a prominent leader. As I said, gay marriage is equal protection, and that transcends other political issues. That's why I used the Jim Crow example. At some point, Southern leaders had to "evolve" or be marginalized. That happens sometimes.
Sorry so many here on this Friday night bemoan that process. Funny how you never explain yourselves, but you should. Gays are not deserving of equal protection under the law because....? Go ahead, put it into words.
Is it societal, though? In the U.S. at least, gay marriage is something that generally gets rammed through by judicial fiat.
Yep. Prop 8 passed, was struck down by a single homosexual judge, and the successful appeal was vacated on standing grounds as if 20 million voters don't have a dog in this fight when their vote is reversed by fiat. I can't think of a better example of totalitarian judicial chutzpah.
Mr. Oremus talks about rights but obviously doesn't include freedom of speech in those rights.
How is Eich being deprived of his right of free speech? His customers and colleagues reacted to what he said. They decided that someone with those beliefs shouldn't run this particular company. All of that happened within the bounds of free speech on all sides.
Unknown:
I am noting that there is no legitimate (e.g. moral) basis to discriminate against similarly tolerable dysfunctional behaviors. Whereas there was an objective basis to normalize heterosexual relationships, there does not exist a similar standard for homosexual and other orientations.
This observation is similar, but not equivalent to the so-called "slippery slope" argument. There is a real concern for all people when laws are predicated on a subjective or selective basis. It creates a moral hazard which will need to be reconciled.
John Stodder said...
"How is Eich being deprived of his right of free speech? His customers and colleagues reacted to what he said. They decided that someone with those beliefs shouldn't run this particular company. All of that happened within the bounds of free speech on all sides."
This is not correct. Fortunately, for the present we have the constitutional guarantee of free speech which provides the legal right to speech but that has already been abridged. The homosexual leftist groups who spearheaded the persecution and firing of Eich are not just ordinary individuals expressing their opinions, they are members of a specially protected group who are legally designated victims who are personally immune to retribution because of hate crimes legislation. Because of their protected status, these leftist hate groups can operate with impunity knowing they will not receive any similar type of retribution.
Gays are not deserving of equal protection under the law because....? Go ahead, put it into words.
This is easy and you already know the answer
Replace gays with pedophiles. Or necrophiliacs. Or those in incestous relationships. Or polygamists. Etc.
"Judicial fiat" is expressed as if such things are beyond the pale.
On issues like equal protection, "judicial fiat" is sometimes required and is perfectly legitimate under our Constitution.
Or does "Loving vs. Virginia" strike some of you as overreach?
Stodder, Eich co-founded and contributed to much of what and how that company treated it's employees.
So, John, what demands for "equality" don't transcend politics to the point where a disagreement is permitted at all?
Just so we all can learn when we do not have to agree with the hivemind.
What 'rights' are gay people being denied? By framing the argument as a 'rights' issue, one builds a straw man.
Is marriage a right? By being denied this 'right' what are you really being denied? Almost all of the 'denied' things are government, or government ruled, chits. A lot of that is monetary based.
There's a big difference between one group being given something and, at the other end one group having something taken away. Is something being 'taken away' from gays - because they are gay- or because they want to do something which is not recognized by the government. A lot of people are denied things from the government, and, indeed, other areas of society because of who they are, what they are and what they have or do not have. This is not discrimination in the legal sense.
Having said that, I believe the vast majority of Americans have the 'do what you like but not in my back yard' attitude, but would not necessarily agree that a gay marriage is a real thing, but have very little problem with gay relationships. But when you put it to the vote, and make it every American's business, you are forcing the fence sitters to choose sides.
What is disconcerting is the outrage when the fence sitters fall on the side opposite of where you think they should fall.
I believe gay marriage will be inevitable, but the vitriolic attitude of those who claim the moral high ground is not doing anyone any good.
As a side note, I was in the airport the other day, and saw two guys walking along holding hands. They seemed pretty happy with a spring in their step, they looked - pretty gay.
You know what I didn't see? Monstrous hordes of people with pitch forks and burning brands, pelting them with stones.
Ii'm certain I'd be taken to task for singling out (observing) the gay couple. But guess what? The majority of people are not gay, so an outwardly gay couple is unusual. Why would I bring this up, and make a note/issue out of it, if I didn't have some rooted prejudice? I wouldn't except that I'm forced to take note of it.
John Stodder said...
But the left would fail if it made, say, support of Obamacare a condition of being a prominent leader.
A general support of leftism will be made a defacto requirement as already proven in multiple industries. Being overly specific is just a method to avoid admitting reality.
As I said, gay marriage is equal protection
Arguments are easy when you simply assume the conclusion.
Gays are not deserving of equal protection under the law because....?
This is exactly how the leftist ideology works. They generalize all issues to some core principle discriminate on that.
I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who don't think this is appropriate. But their opposition means nothing. They don't control the institutions driving these reults and never will. Nor will they remove their support from those who do. It's like being a member of a gang who claims they wish they didn't kill innocents as an intimidation tactic, but who nevertheless remains in the gang and contributes to their ability to retain control. Their entirely theoretical opposition is irrelevant to the impact on residents in the gang's turf.
John Stodder, you are a lousy constitutional lawyer.
Your query restated: "Gays are not deserving of equal protection under the law because....? Go ahead, put it into words."
Easy. Homosexual acts and same-sex marriage are not covered under standard 5th- and 14th-amendment equal protection considerations because when the 5th and 14th Amendments were enacted, and for their entire existence up until the inexplicable decision in Lawrence v. Texas, homosexual activity was never considered as protected constitutionally. Virtually all states and localities had laws prohibiting such conduct, and nobody thought it barred by the Constitution.
Of course the Constitution can be significantly amended. That's how slavery was (constitutionally) ended. That's how women got the vote. It's how we enacted, then repealed, prohibition.
Loving v. Virginia was decided on a constitutional basis; that while states could surely craft their own marriage laws (age, consent, etc... and of course gender requirements), states with anti-miscegenation laws were practicing invidious racial discrimination. Which is specifically prohibited.
John if the gay rights cause is so blindingly obvious and such an overwhelming societal sea-change, it should not be necessary to get lifetime-appointed federal judges to ram it down the public's throat.
And, polygamy?
Is marriage a right? By being denied this 'right' what are you really being denied?
Lots of questions, but it seems like this is the only crucial one. Yes, it's a right. When I got married, the requirements were minimal. As I recall, I had to sign some things, pay a few bucks, prove I was who I said I was, promise a few other things like I'm not already married, and I got a marriage license, because I was marrying a woman. It never occurred to me anyone would say no to this application on the grounds of who I was marrying or what gender.
I cannot see how to argue that a gay marriage should be handled any differently. There's no slippery slope, no Rick Santorum fantasies about marrying dogs, or marrying one's immediate family, or marriages of more than two people. Two people can legally get married if they are of the opposite sex and otherwise qualified. Thus it should be accessible to two people who are of the same sex.
I've read a fair amount of Maggie Gallagher and the other anti-gay-marriage warriors. She is a smart writer and able polemicist. She's written hundreds of thousands of words on the topic. And despite her best efforts, none of them cohere into a concrete and logical argument.
Many people are turned off by homosexual sex. I'm sorry about that, but their disgust is not a proper basis for public policy on matters of equal protection. There are other realms to deal with sexual issues, ways and venues to discuss morality and sexuality. Those who are hung up on gay sex have free speech rights to express it. May a thousand Maggie Gallaghers bloom. But neither she nor any of you have a right to deploy the power of the state such that one group, heterosexual couples, has the right to get married, and another group, homosexual couples, has no such right. You can say, "I wish they wouldn't." But you can't say, "I need the police to stop this."
Although, of course, in some states, you could do that. You could call the cops. In some states, you'll probably be able to do that for another decade or two. But my real point was, this phenomenon, this dreadful outcome for Mr. Eich, is a result of a rapid shift in mores that has, in my opinion, blossomed from a wide recognition of the equal protection principle's appropriate application to this issue. Those of who on whom this has dawned might all be "lousy constitutional lawyers," but we know what's fair and what's unfair. It's unfair to prevent blacks from enjoying 100 percent of the same civil rights that whites enjoy, with regard to voting, housing, employment, the list goes on, and it includes marriage. Thus, it is also unfair to deprive gays of same.
In a sense, the reliance on the Constitution creates unusual situations. My argument, in essence, is that banning gay marriage was ALWAYS a violation of gays' constitutional rights, only nobody seized on this issue until 10 or 20 years ago. There is tension between a tradition of discrimination that was equally observed by liberals and conservatives, and the discovery that, geez, the right to equal protection applies to this, too. But the culture is resolving that tension, folks. Not all gay marriage allowance is due to "judicial fiat," although in such instances judicial fiat is perfectly appropriate and part of our system. Voters are moving rapidly in that direction. You try Prop 8 again in California, and the polls suggest this time it would lose.
That was a lot of words to type for somebody who made not one point worthy of response. Everything was conclusion.
Of course there is no slippery slope, John Stodder concludes. And moral disgust is no basis for law, John Stodder concludes.
So what, John Stodder, should keep two lesbian sisters from marrying? Or two gay brothers? Or a brother and sister where children are impossible?
"Go ahead, put it into words."
Or at least admit all you have done is argue from your conclusion. Because even those who agree with you on the merits can find your conclusions lacking.
" My argument, in essence, is that banning gay marriage was ALWAYS a violation of gays' constitutional rights, only nobody seized on this issue until 10 or 20 years ago. "
= = = = = =
Hunh?
Marriage has ALWAYS, and ONLY, been "the union of a man and woman which grants their issue (if any) legal rights of inheritance."
Gay "marriage" wasn't "banned". Gay "marriage" is IMPOSSIBLE. Now quit assigning new definitions to words whose meanings are CENTURIES old.
John S.,
" It never occurred to me anyone would say no to this application on the grounds of who I was marrying or what gender. "
Please, please don't insult the rest of us here by thinking we might actually believe you when you say it never occurred to you!
Even if you were born yesterday (and thus way to young to be marrying every with parental permission), if you're from the US or got married here, you've lived under precisely 2 regimens regarding gay marriage: (1) a long, long period, ever since the founding or actually before, in which gay behavior might be more or less tolerated in some degree, but under which the idea of "gay marriage" was inconceivable, and (2) a more recent and much briefer period during which the whole concept has been hugely controversial!
John Stodder said...
Greater societal alarm over this is not warranted.
The most effective tactic to support the blacklist would be convincing people not to fight against it.
My argument for gay marriage is based on the 14th amendment:
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.
How does that square with a law depriving gay people of the right to marry when non-gay people are given that right?
I might be arguing from conclusion, but I'm up against people who don't even bother to make an argument at all, except by citing a comforting fairy tale that "marriage has always meant X."
But the real reason I weighed into this swamp -- a former regular commenter on Althouse who stopped a few years ago as the commenters began to depart from the thoughtful tone of the blogger in ways I couldn't be bothered with -- was to make this point primarily: Stop panicking! There is no blacklist. There are no other issues like the gay marriage issue that would prompt this particular kind of response. What makes this issue unique from every other left-wing issue is that the net result of the right's position is to make of a large group of people second-class citizens. For a company situated like Mozilla, this is not only "inconsistent with their values," it is bad for business. Eich, though obviously a genius and probably a good man, could not continue leading a company like Mozilla with publicly-stated views like his. So they made a business decision, a sad one, but one its board believed was unavoidable.
Please, please don't insult the rest of us here by thinking we might actually believe you when you say it never occurred to you!
You misunderstand. I'm straight. When I got married, I didn't have to think about it. The law takes care of me, and I had no doubt that it would.
Why should gays who want to marry be treated differently from me? I'm accused of making no arguments, but hell, what am I arguing against exactly? No one has come up with a rational nexus for discriminating against gays in this manner. Make the argument, and I will treat it with respect as I try to counter it.
But you guys are like three-year-olds spitting out food you don't like. I don't really have an argument as to why you should eat your carrots, but it's not like you're giving me anything to work with.
I might be arguing from conclusion, but I'm up against people who don't even bother to make an argument at all, except by citing a comforting fairy tale that "marriage has always meant X."
Someday someone is going to write some heretofore unknown other-group out of our constitutional protections by claiming they don't qualify as persons. I'd like to believe the people who are so vociferous in expanding the current definition of freedom will resist that, but I don't believe it. It's far more likely they'll be part of the lynch mob.
Tofday they defend the metaphorical lynch mob, tomorrow their heirs are the lynch mob.
Today they defend the metaphorical lynch mob
But was it really a lynch mob? Yes, the (unrepresentative) world of Twitter ignited against him, and so did a dating website that no one had heard of til now. But I think it was the board that did it, and they were hearing from employees primarily.
That's so wrong?
John Stodder writes, conclusively: "How does that square with a law depriving gay people of the right to marry when non-gay people are given that right?"
Assumed: right to marry.
Assumed: deprivation.
Assumed: given a right.
One cannot be given a right by the state unless it a states right to give. You have not established the point and so I need not attend to your conclusion.
You are incapable of forming a cogent argument. Yet you accuse others of having no foundation for their respective positions.
Explain yourself and lay bare your reasoning or give up your flailing. Start sentences with "it is my opinion" and quit pretending at logic.
Assumed: right to marry.
Assumed: deprivation.
Assumed: given a right.
That's how you're going to defend your position? With the sheerest sophistry?
What silly people you are, especially given how seriously you take yourselves.
John Stodder said...
That's so wrong?
I find myself hoping that Mozilla goes under and everyone who tweeted support for his firing realizes they're now blacklisted. Is that wrong?
Post a Comment