It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep. Frank Calls Justice Scalia a 'Homophobe'

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Source


Masscahusetts Rep. Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" in an interview released Monday on a gay online news site, and said he hoped a challenge to a federal law widely disliked in the gay community will not be heard before the high court until new justices are seated on the bench.

Frank, who is gay, made the remark in responding to a question about legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. The 1996 law says the federal government and states have no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages even if other states allow them.

"At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court," the congressman, a Democrat, said. "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court."

Last month a controversial judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the 12-year-old law unconstitutional. That's the second time a judge from the notably liberal court has made such a ruling.

But both rulings were administrative in nature and offered no precedent, thus making it unlikely they would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, a judicial marker has been set that has clearly drawn the interest of the gay community.



Barney Frank needs to keep his mouth shut these days. He's got enough trouble of his own without calling one of the Justices on the Supreme Court a homophobe.

True, the Defense of Marriage Act will more than likely come up for review within a few years due to many states legalizing gay marriage or getting on the road to legalizing gay marriage, but bad-mouthing a Justice does nothing to further Frank's cause in this instance.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Barney Frank is a brainless moron. I have no idea how he got to the position he's in and I have no idea how he manages to hold on to it. It's a real mystery.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


He manages to hold onto it because more than likely, his constituents are brain dead as well.

That, or they just vote for the name the recognize.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yeah, we'd be a lot better off if the court was made up of a bunch of liberal democrats like Frank. Then we could do all kinds of legislating from the bench.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Nobody wants that....I don't think.

But, bad-mouthing Justices does nothing to further the cause of any group. And, the less Frank talks, the better off everyoneis.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
Nobody wants that....I don't think.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Really?

I think Frank and most other leading Democrats would love to replace most of the Supreme Court right now.

It's their dream to be able to legislate all kinds if ignorant things from the bench. In their eyes, the Supreme Court is a place to create law rather than interpret law.

Adding gay marriage to the Constitution would only be the tip of the iceberg.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I should have said "nobody sane" wants that.

I am sure that the Dems would love to have a completely left-wing Court that would legislate from the bench and turn our socitey upside down. Hopefully, that will never happen.

Of course, we'll get a preview over the next 4 years....some are predicting that up to 3 Justices will retire during that time.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


It doesn't matter that Barney Frank is saying it. It matters that it is true; after all, Justice Scalia is the person who believes that gay school teachers will be trying to convert school children into a homosexual lifestyle.

What an incredibly ignorant, ridiculous and fear driven mindset. Seems like someone is afraid of gay's doing gay things to their newly recruited gay children.


The argument should pretty much end with the teacher statement...

I mean, hell, didn't the guy mention something from the bench about how employment non-discrimination was some sort of 'gay agenda'? The only other people I hear moan about some fictional gay agenda are some rather devout followers of the *all loving lord Jesus Christ


[edit on 3/24/0909 by spines]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
While I agree with old Barney that Scalia is a homophobic moron, it is highly inappropriate for him to say so.

If Justice Scalia and his cronies had their way "The Old Rugged Cross" would be the national anthem, women would be at home under the supervision of their husbands and pastors, and Christianity would be the state religion and gays would be considered insane or criminal.

The sooner the SC has some balance the better. Not all liberal or all conservative but a reasonable balance of views so real non partisan decisions can be made about the constitutionality of issues.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by redhead57]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


The kettle calling the pot black huh? A HETROPHOBE LIAR, THIEF, TREASONOUS PIECE OF TRASH that should be tarred and feathered and run out of this country on a rail with most of his friends in the House and Senate.

But hey, it is normal operating procedure if you have nothing of substance to say call someone a sexist, racist or homophobe, that usually does the trick. Question is will the American people wake up and stop it or will they buy it like Paula on American Idol buys vodka before the show...

EDITED FOR THIS - Where in the Constitution does the fed have any control over Marriage or civil unions as it would be with a State License to Marry. Anyone ever get a Federal Marriage License? More distractions and crapola to distract the people from what is really happening to this Nation...

Barney Frank should find something to put in his mouth to SHUT HIS ASS UP!


[edit on 3/24/2009 by theindependentjournal]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Oh so another person with an opinion needs to shut his mouth??

Frank is gay, if anyone has the right to speak in favor of gay rights its a gay person!!

Does he need to shut his mouth because he is gay and you are a homophobe as well? Can you elaborate on why Frank needs to keep his mouth shut?

Why should an American give up his right to free speech, just because he is speaking about gay matters, that directly impact his own life??

My mind is now boggled.

ETA:

So expressing an opinion on a subject that directly affects his life, is now badmouthing? Is this a real post, or just another lets bash Gay Marriage any way we can post?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by hotbakedtater]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Barney Frank is a brainless moron. I have no idea how he got to the position he's in and I have no idea how he manages to hold on to it. It's a real mystery.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


He needs to shut his mouth because every time he opens it, he seems to cause trouble for this country and/or whatever group he is speaking up for. :shk:

Do you think name calling and bad-mouthing people furthers your cause?? Do you think that is a good thing?

Edit to add: I am all for gay marriage. I have family and friends who that would benefit greatly. However, a blowhard calling a Supreme Court Justice a homophobe does nothing to further that cause.



[edit on 3/24/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Oh. Or everyone could ignore the small truth behind the big (and terribly chosen) words of Mr. Frank and focus the discussion on the democrats trying to create a situation ripe for asanine legislation.

Some nice 'gay issues' mixed in with a big dose of left v. right stirred up together with 24 hour news stations repeating it and disecting it to no end; what does this leave us with?

A bunch of wool to pull over everyones eyes...and then to hold their as long as possible if you ask me.

The issue itself isn't just good distraction, it is a legitimate one in my opinion. But it is never put across in any kind of legitimate context. Someone who doesn't know what tact is says something which is basically true and the whole country can loose it's god damn mind...and ability to take a coherent look at what else is going on these days.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


I can elaborate why Mr. Frank as you call him should shut his mouth.

1. Scalia is an Honorable man that mor than any other on that Court actually Interprets Law according to the Constitution not make Law from the Bench.

2. Barney Frank is not sent to Washington to represent Gays or Gay marriage.

3. Barney Frank destroyed Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and got lots o loot from the likes of AIG and other groups he is bailing out daily.

4. It is NOT a Federal Issue, Gay Marriage that is, States make their own Marriage Laws, always have and the Constitution of thier States and the U.S. gives the STATES that RIGHT.

5. He is a dip#!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
And so in a thread where the focus was deriding juvenile name-calling we get... juvenile name-calling...

The issue at hand, name-calling, defeats any argument immediately by the apparent admission that one can't come up with a good reason against the issue, only some apparently personal grudge.

I agree with skeptic1, resorting to name-calling does nothing to further anyone's argument against anything.

[edit on 24/3/09 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Name calling on the part of Congressmen does his cause no good what so ever...very true.

Neither does name calling amongst our members here...let's take a deep breath and knock it off.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
This is an obvious ploy by Barney Frank to steer the discussion away from the legal and constitutional aspects of the issue, into the realm of personal bias.

Scalia is only one Justice out of nine. He's not even the Chief Justice.

But he is one of my favorite Justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts. I loved it when he flipped off the reporter who was bothering him after church.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 



During the 1920s there was a rekindling of racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, whose membership grew dramatically. Intolerance was also manifested in other ways. In 1924 a Virginia law was passed that prohibited whites from marrying anyone with “a single drop of Negro blood” (12). Virginia was not unique; marriage between whites and blacks was by this time illegal in thirty-eight states. Furthermore, in 1924 Congress passed the Immigration Act, a series of strict anti-immigration laws calling for the severe restriction of “inferior” races from southern and eastern Europe.

As late as the 1950s, almost half of the states had miscegenation laws. While the original statutes were directed wholly against black-white unions, the legislation had extended to unions between whites and Mongolians, Malayans, Mulattos, and Native Americans

Link

Now considering that we have a bad (and recent) history with letting states determine marriage rights, at times it becomes necessary for the Supreme Court to step in and make a ruling on what is typically the arena of the states. That is, after all, the purpose of the Supreme Court.

If we always just "leave it up to the states" we would have a country in which 38 states prohibited the marriage, cohabitation, or sexual relations of interracial couples. Does this situation sound familiar to you?

It isn't a question of if gay marriage will be legal in the US, it is a question of when. That being said, Frank might have moved the "when" up a few years by making a SC judge angry.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join