Scalia?

[keltic63]

Have you seen this story? http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/032906scalia.htm

scalia says that gays have no constitutional rights.

This is disturbing. Can anyone find this from another news source? ( I always like to confirm stories in 2 or 3 sources. )

[NathanATX]

I agree that is scary... What would it take to remove a justice?

#############

Article III of the Constitution provides that the Justices, and all other federal judges, hold their offices "during good Behaviour." (and while they serve, their pay cannot be cut.) They may resign at any time, or retire when eligible. Once confirmed, however, they may be removed—in accordance with Article II—only by "Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In effect they serve for life. Never in the Nation’s history has a Supreme Court Justice been removed by impeachment.

[Lydia]

[QUOTE=keltic63]Have you seen this story?
This is disturbing. Can anyone find this from another news source? ( I QUOTE]

This is the only thing I could find:

http://www.bartcop.com/1270.htm

But I'm afraid it's not much help.

[keltic63]

I've often gone looking for news stories that 365gay has published, and I can't seem to find them anywhere else. Sometimes I think this is good that they're finding things that other media have not covered. Then sometimes I think that it needs to be confirmed somewhere else to be considered legitimate. Obviously, if 365gay is the only source reporting on this Scalia speech and quote, there is a bias to the story. I'd be more comfortable knowing that the story was also reported in a mainstream outlet.

[pnggrad79]

I didn't know Antonin Scalia wrote or framed the Constitution which says that every citizen, (no qualifiers) was entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hmm, he looks old, but didn't know he was there at the Constitutional Convention or wherever it was.
He must be a slave owner, too and voted to keep black people 3/5 of a person. How ludicrous!!! The Constitution didn't envision women having equal rights either. Should they be excluded now as well?
Who the *&&^% does he think he is?

[Daniel]

The Constitution didn't envision women having equal rights either. Should they be excluded now as well?

Women, in point of fact, unfortunatley, do NOT have equal rights- any more than gay people do. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) failed by one vote, was never passed, and was a significant victory for Phillis Schlafly in 1982.

Answers.com note that "Schlafly argued that ratification of the ERA would lead to compulsory military service for all mothers, unisex toilets in public places, automatic fifty percent financial responsibility for all wives, and homosexual marriages."

There is a substantial article on Schlafy in last weekend's Magazine at the NYTimes.com

[RyGuy23]

So, would bringing the ERA back into the courts lead to actual equality for women and for us (GLBT folks)?

[Zerbie]

When my mom was first married she was a passionate activist for the ERA. Firey. She kept her ERA YES promo materials for years, I ended up owning them for a while as a very small child (after the ERA failed).

It was after ERA failed that my mom dropped out of feminism, and ultimately went conservative, but without any conviction.

What I never understood was why my mother blamed homosexuals for the failure of the ERA. She told me that gays had blocked equal rights for women, and she stood by this for years. She taught that to me from my earliest childhood, 'never be friends with gay men, they stopped the ERA because they hate you." At least now I know where she got that seed planted, even if her logic was a bit skewed!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

At least now I know where she got that seed planted, even if her logic was a bit skewed!

Boy Oh Boy are you right about this! She (Schlafly) used that time old tactic of blaming the people you are persecuting.

Even without the ERA, we already have two of the things she feared: NYC has unisex toilets in the streets (got them from France I think) and women are already responsible for earning half of the income in a family. The days of men taking care of the financial burden is long over. The world Schafly and others like her feared is here already.

[Zerbie]

Unisex toilets - geez louise, that's something to be *frightened of*?!?!

I don't know why we segregate them in the first place - unless so that men can have the convenience of urinating without being concerned that women will see. . . . Someone did once assure me that gender segregated toilets protect women from rape, because a man cannot follow a woman into a public bathroom to assault her. As IF someone willing to break boundaries so much as to rape someone would be stopped at the restroom door by their conscience saying, "Oh, but I can't go into the ladies' room, that's not allowed." Come ON.

I was wondering what Schlafly's argument meant that women would be 50% financially responsible in marriages. . .ok, so it was a warning that women would have to work? Sorry but that's an economic issue, not an equal rights issue (unless you are talking about access to career opportunities). And the growing gap between high income/high wealth families and lower income families has now become astronomical, in the last couple of decades. It's a completely separate issue that corporate greed has fed into that growing gap, and obligates everyone except the priveleged to struggle just to make ends meet.

Did anyone in the mainstream take Schlafly seriously then? Or did the ERA fail for other reasons? Sincerely asking, as I'm not old enough to have any memory of it.