Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 90510

Anthony Kennedy wrote the infamous Lawrence v. Texas decision that made laws against sodomy unenforceable in America. The Court issued this egregious display of arrogant and immoral judicial activism despite the fact that sodomy had been a criminal offense in all 50 States until 1961 and was still against the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia when the Lawrence decision was issued.

So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.

Bryan Fischer, Rightly Concerned 62 Comments [11/5/2012 4:54:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 59
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Binky

> right to self-governance through their elected representatives
Let me tell you of this thing called the Constitution and how it prevents this other thing called the Tyranny of the Majority...

11/5/2012 5:01:43 AM

Voice of Humanity

Giving you the right to privacy in your own home is imposing our values on you? Do you listen to yourself when you talk? You should be thanking us you twisted cultist!

11/5/2012 5:04:58 AM

Filin De Blanc

So basically it's imposing their morality to tell you you can't impose your morality.

11/5/2012 5:05:01 AM

smartz

Listen. If you actually read the reason WHY the SCOTUS decide on that law (assuming you have the brain cells and attention span to read that much), the justices who voted in favor had clearly stated that the government has no rule over what people do in their bedrooms between 2 consenting adults. Is it alright to condone heterosexual couples from having anal sex while banning homosexual couples from doing the same thing? They both aren't having reproductive sex so why should there be a double standard? Would YOU wanted to be prevented from doing something while other people who are of exactly same citizenship, freedoms and pay taxes are allowed to? It isn't the homosexuals who have an agenda, but people like you who spout vitriol against your fellow citizens just because they love someone of the same sex. They aren't hurting anyone, except your self imposed "morals" from a book written by men thousands of years ago who had to explain to people that making babies was between men and women, unlike today where that is an obvious fact.

11/5/2012 5:13:43 AM

Pule Thamex

"And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad!"

It is, unless the imposition is against monstrous evil, like Bryan Fischer for instance.

11/5/2012 5:20:47 AM

Felix Wilde

You must have read the other post stating that gay organisations are trying to ban heterosexuality. Luckily for you that was a lie. You are still totally free to not fuck men, as it happens. Knowing this, I'm sure you'll agree you aren't having alien values imposed on you.

No?

Well fuck you. ;)

11/5/2012 5:24:23 AM



Imposing one's morality on others is when INDIVIDUALS are deprived of rights, not when individuals rights are expanded.

Also, do you know how stupid you fundies sound every time you use the phrase "judicial activism" to describe the courts correctly doing their job of upholding the Constitution?



11/5/2012 5:33:49 AM

shykid

"So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country."

This is exactly why the Constitution exists: because people like you twist issues of basic human rights into these abstract, irrelevant issues like "self-governance" that are intended to to distract the public away from the original issue at hand. Human rights trump states' and majority rights, and the Constitution makes that clear, but even if it didn't, that simply means it needs to be amended, since neither authority nor majority are inherently right or moral, but I digress. Anyway, why don't you actually read this "Constitution" document I speak of sometime?

11/5/2012 5:43:10 AM

Mister Spak

All this started in 1967 when an activist supreme court ruled that niggers could marry white women despite the fact that misegenation was still a criminal offence in all southern states.

So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.


11/5/2012 5:44:19 AM

Tempus

And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill.

"You're being intolerant of my intolerance! STOP PERSECUTING ME BY KEEPING ME FROM PERSECUTING OTHER PEOPLE!"

11/5/2012 5:53:23 AM

Filin De Blanc

As far as I can see, the right-wing position seems to be "gubmint shouldn't interfere in my life, they should interfere in the lives of everyone I don't like". If a state's self-governance included outlawing Fischer's American Fucktard Association he'd be screaming blue murder about how his rights were being violated.

11/5/2012 6:03:52 AM

Doubting Thomas

I'm guessing Bryan Fischer, and many right-wing conservatives like him, just don't understand the concept of the judicial branch of government and the system of checks & balances. No wonder they make comments about wanting to execute supreme court justices.

They also don't seem to understand the idea of tyranny of the majority and why the courts & Constitution was set up to prevent it.

11/5/2012 6:24:25 AM

dionysus

Okay. Then my friends and I will become legislators in my state and push through laws to make being white illegal and anyone seen being white will be heavily fined and possibly jailed. What's that? That's against federal law? But what about self-governance?

11/5/2012 6:48:59 AM

fishtank

Constitution, motherfucker.

It's outdated and dumb, but it's yours so deal with it.

11/5/2012 7:22:27 AM

Swede

Pro-abolitionists also imposed their "twisted version of morality" on the entire nation, including unwilling states.

It's not values that are imposed, but human rights. Human rights goes above and beyond values, asshole.

11/5/2012 7:34:05 AM

Frostythesnowman

Yet more on Mr Fischer's obsession with anal sex. Bryan, some people enjoy it, some don't regardless of their sexual orientation. Could you kindly remind us why you should have a say in exactly what two consenting adults choose to do during sex? Or to put it another way, what business is it of yours where someone's penis ends up?

11/5/2012 7:35:32 AM

Mattiedef

The supreme court exists for a reason. Stop being dumb.

11/5/2012 7:51:38 AM

Ebon

"judicial activist" = "judge made a decision I don't like"

11/5/2012 8:09:07 AM

J. James

It's called judicial review, you ass. The court gets to decide what's constitutional or not. That does not mean that every time they make a decision you like, it's constitutional, and every time they make one you hate, it's "judicial activism."

11/5/2012 8:20:55 AM

Anon-e-moose

"Anthony Kennedy wrote the infamous Lawrence v. Texas decision that made laws against sodomy unenforceable in America. The Court issued this egregious display of arrogant and immoral judicial activism despite the fact that sodomy had been a criminal offense in all 50 States until 1961 and was still against the law in 24 States and the District of Columbia when the Lawrence decision was issued.

So in one fell swoop the Court deprived almost half the Union of the right to self-governance through their elected representatives, the essence of a republican form of government, and imposed its own twisted version of morality on the entire country. And here we thought imposing your values on others was supposed to be bad! Silly us for believing that swill."

Your argument isn't just not valid...:



...it never had the fucking right to exist in the first place.

85% of people can't be wrong, Bryan.

11/5/2012 8:26:06 AM

Darwin

"...imposed its own twisted version of morality..."

Oh the irony.

11/5/2012 9:26:39 AM

John_in_Oz

But it IS forcing our values on him. Once gays have equal rights Bryan won't have any excuse for staying in the closet.

11/5/2012 10:07:38 AM

LAchlan

What exactly makes two consenting people bumming each other "immoral"?

11/5/2012 10:07:46 AM

Mudak

All right, Bryan. I'll bite. You know that Kennedy wrote the decision, but have you actually, you know, read it? I often find that reading any controversial supreme court decision helps to shed a lot of light on how they reached the decision and may even change your opinion of the decision itself. I know it did for me with Kelo v. City of New London, which held that property can be seized under eminent domain for purely economic purposes...

11/5/2012 10:39:14 AM

Osiris

Yeah kind of like how the Courts swooped in and declared Jim Crow laws to be unconstitutional, depriving half of the states the right to be bigoted, racist, pricks.

Majority rules but minority has rights. This is why we don't have a true democracy, but a federal representative republic. The states are supposed to have only very limited rights to self-governance because we are supposed to be a unified country, not a loose amalgamation of 50 tiny countries.

11/5/2012 10:42:26 AM
1 2 3