[ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ]
[h=1]Giorgio Armani Wants Gay Men to Stop Dressing so Gay[/h] 16
7
Reuters
by Kelli Serio20 Apr 201580
[h=2]Italian fashion designer Giorgio Armani has a few choice words regarding men’s fashion.[/h] The 80-year-old designer, who identifies himself as gay, told The Sunday Times Magazine recently that a man, regardless of his sexual preference, should always dress like a man.
“A homosexual man is a man 100 percent. He does not need to dress homosexual. When homosexuality is exhibited to the extreme- to say: ‘Ah, you know I’m homosexual,’ that has nothing to do with me. A man has to be a man,
[h=1]Giorgio Armani Wants Gay Men to Stop Dressing so Gay[/h] 16
7
by Kelli Serio20 Apr 201580
[h=2]Italian fashion designer Giorgio Armani has a few choice words regarding men’s fashion.[/h] The 80-year-old designer, who identifies himself as gay, told The Sunday Times Magazine recently that a man, regardless of his sexual preference, should always dress like a man.
“A homosexual man is a man 100 percent. He does not need to dress homosexual. When homosexuality is exhibited to the extreme- to say: ‘Ah, you know I’m homosexual,’ that has nothing to do with me. A man has to be a man,
[ Primary public school kids forced to read transgender freak book ]
[h=1]Some Parents Upset They Weren’t Even Informed Before Elementary Students Got This Lesson on ‘Tolerance’[/h] Apr. 20, 2015 4:46pm Jason Howerton
[h=2]2.6K[/h] Shares
Parents of some students at Mitchell Primary School in Kittery, Maine, are criticizing school officials for failing to notify parents before their kids were read a children’s book about a transgender child. Superintendent of Schools Allyn Hutton said in a statement that the book was part of a lesson on “tolerance and respect.”
The book, titled “I Am Jazz,” centers around a child who knew “she had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body” since she was 2 years old. The story is based on “real-life experience” and is told in a “simple, clear way that will be appreciated by picture book readers, their parents, and teachers.”
“I Am Jazz”
At least one mother didn’t appreciate how the situation was handled, however. She reportedly told Hannity.com in an email last week that she was upset that the school took away her right to have a conversation with her child about the sensitive subject matter.
“I feel like my thoughts, feelings and beliefs were completely ignored….My right as a parent to allow or not allow this discussion with my child was taken from me. It is very upsetting to me that I didn’t have an option at all,” she said.
[h=1]Some Parents Upset They Weren’t Even Informed Before Elementary Students Got This Lesson on ‘Tolerance’[/h] Apr. 20, 2015 4:46pm Jason Howerton
[h=2]2.6K[/h] Shares
Parents of some students at Mitchell Primary School in Kittery, Maine, are criticizing school officials for failing to notify parents before their kids were read a children’s book about a transgender child. Superintendent of Schools Allyn Hutton said in a statement that the book was part of a lesson on “tolerance and respect.”
The book, titled “I Am Jazz,” centers around a child who knew “she had a girl’s brain in a boy’s body” since she was 2 years old. The story is based on “real-life experience” and is told in a “simple, clear way that will be appreciated by picture book readers, their parents, and teachers.”
“I Am Jazz”At least one mother didn’t appreciate how the situation was handled, however. She reportedly told Hannity.com in an email last week that she was upset that the school took away her right to have a conversation with her child about the sensitive subject matter.
“I feel like my thoughts, feelings and beliefs were completely ignored….My right as a parent to allow or not allow this discussion with my child was taken from me. It is very upsetting to me that I didn’t have an option at all,” she said.
[h=1]Same-Sex Marriage Rejected by Majority of Countries Around the World[/h] 18
1
26
AP Photo/Armando Franca
by Austin Ruse22 Apr 2015181
[h=2]The left often argues the U.S. must get with the rest of the world, that the U.S. is a backwater if we don’t. This argument is being made in the Supreme Court case over same-sex marriage by the former Dean of the Yale Law School who is also the former principle lawyer in Hilary Clinton’s State Department.[/h] Professor Harold Koh and a handful of legal luminaries have told the Court the U.S. must join the “emerging global consensus” in favor of same-sex marriage and that same-sex marriage is about to sweep the world.
But is this true?
Law professors Lynn Wardle, Cole Durham, and 52 other legal scholars say “not so fast.” In a dueling brief, Wardle, Durham, and the rest point out that same-sex marriage is quite rare around the world. There is no “emerging global consensus.”
Only 17 of the 193 member states of the UN allow for same-sex marriage, and a court imposed only one of those. Wardle and Durham point out that 47 nations have constitutional provisions enshrining man-woman marriage, and more are coming.
Same-sex marriage proponents conclude such positions can only come from hatred or animus toward homosexuals. Wardle and Durham say no: “95 of the 176 states allowing only traditional marriage have decriminalized homosexual conduct. Eight-eight have affirmatively extended constitutional and/or legislative protections to LGBT individuals.”
Koh says the nations that have refused to adopt same-sex marriage are “anti-models”, those that a constitutional democracy like the US should not follow. Wardle and Durham say, in fact, “they are constitutional democracies that share our values of individual freedom.”
Wardle and Durham survey the global justice system and find that courts, both national and international, uphold man-woman marriage:
The professors chide Koh for only referencing two of these many decisions upholding man-woman marriage. They say, “Particularly notable is the repeated refusal by the European Court of Human Rights to mandate same-sex marriage,” and, “the European Court’s Grand Chamber declined to recognize a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”
Wardle and Durham are keen for the High Court not to freeze the public discussion and argue that electoral and legislative resolutions and compromises result in greater stability. They say:
1
26
by Austin Ruse22 Apr 2015181
[h=2]The left often argues the U.S. must get with the rest of the world, that the U.S. is a backwater if we don’t. This argument is being made in the Supreme Court case over same-sex marriage by the former Dean of the Yale Law School who is also the former principle lawyer in Hilary Clinton’s State Department.[/h] Professor Harold Koh and a handful of legal luminaries have told the Court the U.S. must join the “emerging global consensus” in favor of same-sex marriage and that same-sex marriage is about to sweep the world.
But is this true?
Law professors Lynn Wardle, Cole Durham, and 52 other legal scholars say “not so fast.” In a dueling brief, Wardle, Durham, and the rest point out that same-sex marriage is quite rare around the world. There is no “emerging global consensus.”
Only 17 of the 193 member states of the UN allow for same-sex marriage, and a court imposed only one of those. Wardle and Durham point out that 47 nations have constitutional provisions enshrining man-woman marriage, and more are coming.
Same-sex marriage proponents conclude such positions can only come from hatred or animus toward homosexuals. Wardle and Durham say no: “95 of the 176 states allowing only traditional marriage have decriminalized homosexual conduct. Eight-eight have affirmatively extended constitutional and/or legislative protections to LGBT individuals.”
Koh says the nations that have refused to adopt same-sex marriage are “anti-models”, those that a constitutional democracy like the US should not follow. Wardle and Durham say, in fact, “they are constitutional democracies that share our values of individual freedom.”
Wardle and Durham survey the global justice system and find that courts, both national and international, uphold man-woman marriage:
Twelve national and international tribunals in eleven countries have explicitly upheld male-female marriage as consistent with human rights. These include some of the jurisdictions with the earliest and strongest LGBT protections in the world. They are hardly backwoods courts or bastions of bigotry.
The courts and tribunals that have upheld man-woman marriage against claims of discrimination include the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, along with national courts in Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Chile, and Colombia.
The professors chide Koh for only referencing two of these many decisions upholding man-woman marriage. They say, “Particularly notable is the repeated refusal by the European Court of Human Rights to mandate same-sex marriage,” and, “the European Court’s Grand Chamber declined to recognize a fundamental right to same-sex marriage.”
Wardle and Durham are keen for the High Court not to freeze the public discussion and argue that electoral and legislative resolutions and compromises result in greater stability. They say:
Only one country on the entire planet — Brazil — has mandated via its judiciary that same-sex couples across its nation have access to traditional marriage. If the US Supreme Court is concerned about being out of step with the world’s leading democracies, it couldn’t make a bigger mistake than becoming one of only two nations in the world to cut democracy off at its knees and force its judicial will upon the people.
Joe doesn't have a preference....he needs to take what he can get. We all saw that purple flowers pic....zero chance he can pick and choose.Of course he does, but he's only 65, so one of their young demographic. I wonder which Bruce Casper would rather have alongside him in the purple flower patch? I think he'd make sweet music with either version.
[h=1][ Wow... some of these Supreme Court Justices must be bigots and homophobes because they are
pushing back against gay marriage. They must be racist too. There using some of the same
arguments I've been pushing for years. ]
Alito Fires at Same-Sex Marriage Advocate: Four in a Marriage Okay?[/h] 50
13
AP Photo Susan Walsh
by William Bigelow29 Apr 2015152
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito decided to make same-sex marriages advocates face the logical extension of their position, asking bluntly why four people of opposite sexes could not marry, given the argument that two people of the same sex should be able to wed. Earlier in the day, he also challenged the basic premise of her same-sex marriage argument, prompting an apology.
Alito fired the question of four partners in a marriage at Mary L. Bonauto, the attorney arguing for same-sex marriage advocates. Alito, a staunch Roman Catholic, threw down the gauntlet in the following exchange:
Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that there is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because —
Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn’t understand your answer.
Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one —
Bonauto: No, no.
Alito: — then you can come back to mine.
Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –
Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not — it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under — under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right —
Alito: But — well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?
Bonauto: The question is one of — again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.
Earlier, Alito had challenged Bonauto’s basic premises, asking, “How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way, or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?”
Bonauto answered lamely, “Your Honor, my position is that times can blind.” She added,
Bonauto: And if you think about the example of sex discrimination and what it — again, I assume it was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, but it took over 100 years for this Court to recognize that a sex classification contravened the Constitution.
But then, in short order, between Reed and Craig v. Boren, we went from a rational-basis approach to — to heightened scrutiny, acknowledging that this kind of discrimination is invidious. And in the same vein here, we have a foundation of Romer, of Lawrence —
Ginsburg (interrupting): And an institution —
Alito: I don’t really think you answered my question.
Bonauto: I’m sorry.
pushing back against gay marriage. They must be racist too. There using some of the same
arguments I've been pushing for years. ]
Alito Fires at Same-Sex Marriage Advocate: Four in a Marriage Okay?[/h] 50
13
by William Bigelow29 Apr 2015152
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito decided to make same-sex marriages advocates face the logical extension of their position, asking bluntly why four people of opposite sexes could not marry, given the argument that two people of the same sex should be able to wed. Earlier in the day, he also challenged the basic premise of her same-sex marriage argument, prompting an apology.
Alito fired the question of four partners in a marriage at Mary L. Bonauto, the attorney arguing for same-sex marriage advocates. Alito, a staunch Roman Catholic, threw down the gauntlet in the following exchange:
Alito: Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?
Bonauto: I believe so, Your Honor.
Alito: What would be the reason?
Bonauto: There’d be two. One is whether the State would even say that there is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons. But I want to also just go back to the wait and see question for a moment, if I may. Because —
Justice Antonin Scalia: Well, I didn’t understand your answer.
Alito: Yes. I hope you will come back to mine. If you want to go back to the earlier one —
Bonauto: No, no.
Alito: — then you can come back to mine.
Bonauto: Well, that’s what — I mean, that is — I mean, the State –
Alito: Well, what if there’s no — these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it’s not — it’s not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous marriages that existed in other societies and still exist in some societies today. And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under — under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case? What would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto: Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people. Setting that aside, even assuming it is within the fundamental right —
Alito: But — well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before, recognizing that is a substantial break. Maybe it’s a good one. So this is no — why is that a greater break?
Bonauto: The question is one of — again, assuming it’s within the fundamental right, the question then becomes one of justification. And I assume that the States would come in and they would say that there are concerns about consent and coercion. If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife? There are issues around who is it that makes the medical decisions, you know, in the time of crisis. I assume there’d be lots of family disruption issues, setting aside issues of coercion and consent and so on that just don’t apply here, when we’re talking about two consenting adults who want to make that mutual commitment for as long as they shall be. So that’s my answer on that.
Earlier, Alito had challenged Bonauto’s basic premises, asking, “How do you account for the fact that, as far as I’m aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex? Now, can we infer from that that those nations and cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way, or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?”
Bonauto answered lamely, “Your Honor, my position is that times can blind.” She added,
Bonauto: And if you think about the example of sex discrimination and what it — again, I assume it was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, but it took over 100 years for this Court to recognize that a sex classification contravened the Constitution.
But then, in short order, between Reed and Craig v. Boren, we went from a rational-basis approach to — to heightened scrutiny, acknowledging that this kind of discrimination is invidious. And in the same vein here, we have a foundation of Romer, of Lawrence —
Ginsburg (interrupting): And an institution —
Alito: I don’t really think you answered my question.
Bonauto: I’m sorry.
