32 Replies to “The Tolerant Left”

  1. Teh Gheys won! Congratulations to all of the Lettuce Bacon and Tomato with Gay sauce sandwich fans/eaters in America!
    I guess we won’t hear anything from the Gaystapo ever again will we?

  2. Three years ago, Obama announced his support for gay marriage. Before then he was against it.
    So apparently his views four years ago were equivalent to being “racist, anti-Semitic or sexist”.
    Did “The Patriot News” endorse this bigot for president in 2008?

  3. “We will no longer accept nor print letters in opposition to same-sex marriage, for they are Doubleplus Ungood in Big Brother’s eyes.”

  4. You know, I’m fine with the SCOTUS ruling, I don’t think it’s a badge of honour, but I’m shacked-up, so who am I to criticize. Where it goes over the line is the suppression of dialogue, and that has been going on too long. Great quote was “if they are so damn proud they can pay for their own parade”
    Bottom-line is, I don’t and will never feel comfortable watching two men kiss.

  5. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/scalia-dissents-gay-marriage/2015/06/26/id/652358/
    Scalia: SCOTUS Majority is A ‘Threat to American Democracy’
    Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision and called the majority on the high court a “threat to American democracy.”
    The ruling “says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” Scalia said.
    Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Samuel Alito, Scalia and Clarence Thomas all dissented in separate opinions.
    There are currently 13 state bans in place, while another state, Alabama, has contested a court ruling that lifted the ban there.
    Scalia’s dissent was among the strongest:
    “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he wrote. “It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best.”
    “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law,” Scalia argued. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its ‘reasoned judgment,’ thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.”
    Scalia took the harshest tones against the majority:
    “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he writes. “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
    “And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he argued. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”
    In short, the US is no longer a democracy, as the ballot box is no longer reflective of the US. Notwithstanding, that Americans garnered millions of signatures abjuring gay unions in 30 states.
    So if you don’t vote ‘progressive’ at the ballot box; they will see to it that you get it from the judicial bench. You will become progressive and if not they will shove it down your throat. Same deal, different nation, just like our former PM Paul Martin.
    Rinse and repeat…
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  7. How long before it becomes a hate crime to express a negative comment about gay marriages and a thoughtcrime if “they” even think you might be opposed.
    To quote Bob Hope in 1975, “I’ve just flown in from California (ie USA) where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they made in compulsory.” If then were now he’d never dare say that and be allowed to still have a career.

  8. I think gay men are very courteous. One of them once offered to push my stool in.

  9. There’s a lot of truth in that old joke. Mark Steyn quoted it in his last and possibly most famous column in National Review, along with the old Dean Martin joke – “How to you make a fruit cordial?” – both as part of a larger point.
    The final line of his column riffed on the Dean Martin punchline (“Be nice to him”) by adding “Or else.” This ruffled the feathers of the young “Managing Editor” popinjay who dared to lecture Steyn in the huffiest of tones (thereby acting out in real life Mark’s punchline) and Steyn subsequently severed his connections to National Review.
    What’s currently going on demonstrates yet again how very prescient Steyn can be.

  11. ope this news rag soon gose bankrupt and lay off several hundred leftists propegandists

  13. If this is what ‘tolerance’ looks like, then ISIS is probably the most tolerant group on the planet.

  14. Mighty white of them, I’m sure. Those pesky other rights and all, who nneds ’em?

  15. Many commenters in The Patriot accuse it of censorship, but this is not censorship but freedom of the press. A web site is no more obligated to allow a post than it is obligated to run a letter to the editor.
    Having said that, few people on any part of the political spectrum are fond of authoritarian dicks, and these guys are being authoritarian dicks.

  16. I understand your point but these guys aren’t censoring opposite opinions because they don’t want to man the political floodgates.
    But I am not worried about this Supreme Court ruling. This matter will be dealt with state by state and certainly by the “restive” Islamofascist masses of which the left is awfully fond.

  17. No, they haven’t won. Why is it that every time Conservatives win a court battle that Leftists reject it as a ‘written-in-stone’ victory and keep on fighting to overturn it, while we Conservatives don’t?everything the Left has done legislatively or through the courts, can be challenged and re-challenged again and again until these odious decisions are overturned or repealed just like Leftists do to the our heritage or conservative initiatives/agenda.
    Community standards and values change. That is the core truth of a vibrant liberal democracy. Nothing is written in stone. I reject this as a defeat, for to me it is only temporal.
    Why should I not regard it, as Leftists do, as a mere temporary setback too when I can continue to fight for what I want and let these rank materialists know that the fight will never end?
    Let us learn a small thing from the Leftists in order to not be defeatists and for those who have faith, …trust in your God but keep on fighting.
    The future is written, but it wasn’t written by Godless atheists.

  18. cnn was pretty much throwing a party to celebrate, fags.
    But the decision might set the stage for a nouveau marriage thingee, or something.

  19. Good point Oz. You never hear a leftist say: “We’re on the wrong side of history, so let’s give up on this issue and move on.”
    Imagine if the court had ruled the other way today. What would the liberal mob do? Give up and go home? Or vent their fury and then vow to fight on? The latter, of course: we’ve seen it time and again. It’s why they always win in the end.
    It’s time to tale a page from their manual. It’s time to learn that victory only comes to those that FIGHT ON.

  20. Thank you for getting my point, Ellie in TO.
    “It’s why they always win in the end.”
    So we have to decide that this is not the End. I’m perhaps an alcohol abuse to some extent.
    Do I go to AA, hang out and tell them my ‘story’?
    Feck, NO. I refuse to hang out with Quitters! 🙂

  21. Notice all of the crap from Scalia about “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, family”, “fulfillment”, “dignity”, and “a love that may endure even past death”
    A question I have always had for people who support same-sex marriage: “In the strictly legal sense, what do any of these things have to do with marriage?”
    I am not aware of any law anywhere in the history of Western Civilization that attempted to establish or gauge the emotional parts of marriage. On the religious/cultural side – yes. But, as a matter of law, I have never heard of things like “love” as being a pre-requisite for getting married. I was asked to prove several things before I got my marriage license. But, no one ever asked me if I loved (or could prove that I loved) my wife to be. The law is supposed to be about cold, hard facts. The requirements for marriage under the law should not include any of this so-called “reasoning.”

  23. The biggest problem with suppressing free and open speech is that it makes crazy, dangerous and stupid people much harder to pick out of the crowd. I would rather hear peoples’ thoughts, even distasteful ones, and know for certain that they are nuts/stupid/ignorant/delusional than be left only suspecting.
    Me wonders if this topic would still even be an issue if activists didn’t mash the word “marriage” in opponents faces instead of settling for another tem such as “union”. It went beyond “rights” and became an obvious attack on the religious right’s values.
    Most gay activists are nothing more than hateful friggin’ heterophobes.

  24. “In short, the US is no longer a democracy, as the ballot box is no longer reflective of the US. Notwithstanding, that Americans garnered millions of signatures abjuring gay unions in 30 states.
    So if you don’t vote ‘progressive’ at the ballot box; they will see to it that you get it from the judicial bench. You will become progressive and if not they will shove it down your throat. Same deal, different nation, just like our former PM Paul Martin.”
    Well reported and well said.
    And like Glen said @ 4:58, “If you like your church, you can keep your church. Stand by.” It will not be long and the progressives will be attempting to brand churches through the courts as enemies of the people. They have already tried and we know they will persist in branding the Bible as hate speech.
    The Soviet world is coming upon us fast.

  25. Borack should have made a deal with Caitlin Jenner for those little used and useless balls he had sliced off,,, they wern’t much to bne sure,,,, but they were probably a step up from the ones he is supposed have now..

  26. scotus has been doing something that is in violation of the constitution, they are writing law. scotus can be impeached for unconstitutional acts but I doubt that the current population of the US are intelligent enough to know just what laws were broken let alone do anything about it.

  27. And fight on you will, faithful defenders of American liberty!
    And once Obergefell v. Hodges is finally overturned, you can turn your attentions to striking down Loving v. Virginia (1967) too. Because the question of whether black and white couples in America should be allowed to marry is really something that should have been left to state ballot boxes.
    SDA, on the wrong side of history since 2004!

  28. I wonder if that news service would have had the same attitude in the 1856 when the US Supreme Court upheld the rights of slave owners in the Dred Scott decision? When you believe in nothing you fall for everything.

  29. Ooz, you fail big time when you try turning a social/legal issue into a moral issue. These types of moral debates detract form the discussion, and are not supported by us rite wing atheists. Keep your bible to yourself and those who think like you, don’t be like the lefties and try and shove it down my throat. This whole thing is down to “democracy” as it was intended rather than by SCOTUS. We have the same problem here in Canada. As to the censorship, they can stuff those rags, with the internet it can be bypassed.

  30. “As a result of the 1789 Bill of Rights, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to gun rights or the Second Amendment.”

  31. Doubtless, you support a Christian baker’s right not to cater a homosexual wedding for religious reasons, right? After all, they are “keeping their bible to themselves”, yes?

  32. ..So if you don’t vote ‘progressive’ at the ballot box; they will see to it that you get it from the judicial bench. You will become progressive and if not they will shove it down your throat. Same deal, different nation, just like our former PM Paul Martin.
    Rinse and repeat…
    I can add absolutely nothing to that HANS…we have the EXACT same issue in this country today, let alone with Paul Martin was PM.
    A Supreme Court who believes they know Better.
    The Supreme Arrogance can be detected even against the prevailing winds.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation