43 Comments on “RWW News: Judges Pushing Gay Rights Are Attacking America”

  1. Does anyone else see an inevitable violent uprising of christian
    conservatives in our future? Just look at the symptoms:

    -1) Their numbers are shrinking as majority social opinion turns against
    them which makes them feel attacked.
    -2) They’re willing to endlessly lie and twist the facts of reality to make
    themselves out to be the victims of some kind of discrimination.
    -3) They’re hoarding most of the guns.
    -4) They believe the wrathful, insanely violent creator of everything is in
    their corner justifying every hateful, bigoted feeling they have.

    I fear we’re headed for another, far more destructive civil war. I’m not

  2. This sounds like the exact same shit the racists were saying when the
    courts were making decisions in favor of equal rights for Blacks… and
    Asians…. and…

  3. As right wingers love to constantly point out, the United States is a
    Republic, not a Democracy. Under a Democracy, the will of the majority can
    take away the rights of the minority. Under a Republic, the minority is
    supposed to be protected from the will of the majority. That’s why these
    oppressive laws like Prop 8 are ruled Unconstitutional. What if America
    were predominantly atheist and decided they wanted to make it a felony to
    practice Christianity? Under a Democracy, we could collect 800,000
    signatures, get a proposition to outlaw Christianity on the ballot and vote
    away the rights of Christians.

  4. “Judicial attack on Traditional Marriage?” Oh please. NO ONE is taking the
    right of straights to marry away by allowing gay couples to marry. As to
    the two idiotic women who spoke, the will of the people means nothing if it
    goes against the Constitution and those things that were listed ARE rights
    because they’re all legal activities and are personal choices that everyone
    is entitled to make. You do not take away a right to something just because
    you’re uncomfortable with it or it goes against your religion. That video
    is nothing but pathetic right-wing propaganda based on falsehoods.

  5. Oh, my God! They are creating new rights that were not in the
    Constitution!!! And everybody knows that the slave owners Founding Fathers
    would never go for that!

    So, seems that the proposition is to go back to the times when
    African-Americans, women, workers and everybody that had no land had no
    rights at all. Those times were so sweet for about 2.5% of the population!

  6. Is anyone surprised by this video? The people in it are all white,
    Christian, republicans who are paranoid that their sheltered worldviews are
    no longer accepted as they feel they should be. Phillis Shefly could also
    be heard on there and that wasn’t a shocker considering she’s a 2000 year
    old anti feminist. 

  7. Oh, whew. I thought this was going to be about the Patriot Act, NSA’s
    domestic spying, Citizens United, or Hobby Lobby.

  8. With a 52% (heterosexual) divorce rate, they should really look at getting
    their own act together before dictating to others what makes them feel
    *uncomfortable* . 

  9. When the law or a judge goes your way, it’s a victory. When they go a way
    you didn’t want them to, you claim victim. Go suck a rock!

  10. Yeah, those goddamn activist judges saying a corporations is a person able
    to give unlimited donations to political parties, a for profit corporation
    is a religious institution with the ability to dictate what their employees
    can have in their insurance (for starters) Hobby Lobby, permitting prayer
    at public meetings, gutting the civil rights act. These activist judges on
    the supreme court are attacking America.

    I guess these people in the video conveniently forgot to mention these

  11. 50 years ago they were also against someone who is black marry a white
    People just need to accept things and go with the time.

  12. Oh yeah, I have gay people trying to force me into marriage with them ALL
    the time… *I roll my eyes*

    @ 1:10 “We’ve hated gay people from the start, and an activist judge ruled
    our discriminatory laws to be unconstitutional, BOOHOO!” Will someone call
    her a wahmbulance? Appeal to tradition? Well, it was traditional in america
    to own slaves… I highly doubt you would advocate we should return to the
    days of slave ownership, you daft tit. No one has said anything about
    “throwing out man &woman marriage”, so take your agenda and cram it so far
    up your ass you taste your own shit.

    @ 1:35 “Land of the free, we are… so ban all pornography, ban gay people,
    ban… well… everyone’s freedom, of course!” <- I think I paraphrased that fairly well!

  13. Dear anti gay Christians if you read your Bible Timothy 2:12 we would not
    allow women teachers, Leviticus 21:5 shaving your head would be a crime,
    Corinthians 14:34 women would not be allowed to sing in church,Leviticus
    19:19 wearing wool blend clothing is an abomination,Exodus 35:2 working on
    the sabbath would be a death sentence, Leviticus 21:18 to23 Clergy that
    wear glasses could not approach the alter…. Who gives you the right to
    pick and choose which passages in the bible will suit you best, when you
    then use other passages to condemn the Gay and lesbian life style.. Romens
    2:1 to 5 Whoever thou art that Judgest, wherein thou judgest anyone thou
    condemnest thyself. Ask yourself are you working for Satan in making gays
    and lesbians suffer…this is your wake up call!

  14. You cannot vote into law things which are unconstitutional, you stupid
    fuckers. It is the JOB of federal judges to strike down unconstitutional
    laws enacted by a vote of the majority. Either you speak in favor of the
    constitution ALL them time or against it ALL the time….you cannot pick
    and choose.

  15. I don’t know about you, but all of those extra rights sound pretty sweet to
    me. Bring on the debauchery!

    Also, you wouldn’t recluse yourself from a McDonalds lawsuit just because
    you’ve eaten a Big Mac before.

  16. “Creating new rights that are not in the Constitution. Like the right to
    corporate personhood” oh wait, you love that new right don’t you.

  17. Rights aren’t voted on, that’s why they’re called rights. Rights supercede
    your bigoted opinion. 

  18. “2,000 years of traditional marriage”

    Do these morons even know what “traditional” marriage is?

  19. That’s the point of judges. Desegregation wasn’t the will of the majority
    when the supreme court ruled on it. The courts are supposed to defend the
    rights of the minority from the dangerous aspects of democracy.

  20. They’re not “pushing gay rights”. They are upholding equality, and freedom
    from discrimination, as they are required to do by the law.

  21. That’s what judges are fucking for you nimwits. They are SUPPOSED to take
    an unpopular opinion (and most of the time they do).

    Rule with Hobby Lobby’s religious privilege… “Hooray! we love courts!”

  23. The will of the people means shit if it’s against the constitution, if the
    will of the people was to ban all fire arms the Republicans would be up in
    arms waiting for a judge to say it was unconstitutional, that is a fact. A
    judge is not there for the will of the people, they are there to uphold the
    law, and the constitution, the people mean shit to a judge as it should be.

  24. Judges are not responsible for what the majority of people think, if that
    was the case, there would be no point to judges.

  25. What is up with that simple bitch at the end? Does she really want big
    brother to police the privet sexual habits of ADULTS with sodomy and anti
    pornography laws?
    Also “in God we trust” was not on our money till the 1950’s. 

  26. Were the supreme court judges who wrote the Hobby Lobby case considered
    “activist judges”?

  27. Yeah, the entire point of the judicial branch is to examine the
    constitutionality of laws. It’s their job. They examine the law in
    question, the Constitution, and previous cases on the same topic.

Comments are closed.