CNN: It’s No Longer Legal To Talk About Gays They Way We Used To

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed Justice Scalia’s dissent in a prior case, and stated what Leftist are surely thinking about anyone discussing gays in a negative manner. This comes via the transcript at Newsbusters

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Blistering dissent, Jake (Tapper), but it’s very different. And I think, if you want illustrations of how much the country has changed in the past decade or so, you need only look at Justice Scalia because in 2003, in the case of Lawrence V. Texas, he also dissented, another Anthony Kennedy opinion. And that was the case that said gay people could not be criminally prosecuted for having sex. And listen to this, what Justice Scalia wrote in 2003. He said:

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

I mean, really, just outward bigotry against gay people. Now, today Justice Scalia begins his dissenting opinion by saying this issue is of no particular importance to me, and the only real issue here is the democratic process, who makes the decisions. Should it be the courts? Or should it be the people?

Even Justice Scalia, who is the biggest social conservative on the court, he cannot talk the way he used to talk about gay people because culturally, politically, even legally, it’s simply not appropriate, and even legal in many, in ways to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.

This may have been directed specifically at Justice Scalia, but, think about it: you have the senior legal analyst at Leftist CNN stating that a Supreme Court justice cannot legally speak his mind anymore, vis a vis gays, essentially criminalizing Free Speech and dissent. It’s more than censorship of free speech under the guise of “hate” speech. Think it’s not coming? Who would have thought the Supreme Court would override the votes of citizens in states who were against gay marriage being legal just 5 years ago? Who would have thought bakers would be fined out the wazoo for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to their religious belief just 5 years ago? Liberals have long been working hard to criminalize “hate”: think they won’t attempt to criminalize speech they don’t like?

If you think that I’m still being a bit over the top, consider what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, via Chicks On The Right, noting this article by Dawn Stefanowicz

Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

You can be reported the Canadian Human Rights Commissions And Tribunals. They can come into your home to gather material, and it can cost tens of thousands in legal fees. The accusers have their legal fees paid by the government. Even saying that marriage is between a man and a women is considered hate speech and verboten.

Meanwhile, Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins discusses a notion I brought up the other day

Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.

Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Now the question–Are 2nd Amendment rights among those “protected by this Clause”?

If we take the SCOTUS at its word, then yes, 2nd Amendment rights are protected under the 14th Amendment. After all, it was by viewing 2nd Amendment rights as incorporated under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down Chicago’s gun ban inMcDonald v Chicago (2010).

The Constitution also requires reciprocity in Article 4, Section 1: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Combine that with the 14th and this court ruling, and States should be required to respect and recognize legal gun permits, the same as they must respect gay marriage licenses.

Of course, equal protection under the law only applies to things Liberals like.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “CNN: It’s No Longer Legal To Talk About Gays They Way We Used To”

  1. Jeffery says:

    A skeptic might ask Toobin for a an example or two where “even legally, it’s simply not appropriate, and even legal in many, in ways to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.”

    Here’s what Toobin cites as Scalia’s now “illegal” speech:

    “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

    According to Toobin, this example is now illegal speech. Really?

    Toobin described Scalia’s talk as bigotry. It clearly was not. Scalia was describing, accurately for that time, the opinions of many Americans.

    CNN is hardly leftist (unless you consider anything to the left of FOX leftist). Anyway, you should send tweets Toobin’s way and ask him what the hell he’s talking about.

  2. CavalierX says:

    Oh, the gay fascists are going to be quite busy taking down churches who refuse to bend over and accept the new dictum (so to speak).

  3. Jeffery says:

    the gay fascists are going to be quite busy taking down churches who refuse to bend over and accept the new dictum

    10 out of 10 on style points. Bravo.

  4. Dana says:

    Justice Scalia said:

    Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

    It ought to be obvious: regardless of how “tolerant” people are of homosexuality, if the Boy Scouts are going to allow openly known homosexual men to become Scoutmasters, the response of the parents of boys is to not allow their sons to join the Boy Scouts. Tolerance is one thing, but exposing your children to a perceived danger is quite another.

    Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has spent a lot of time documenting teachers molesting students, and while some of those cases are heterosexual, far more than 2% of those cases are homosexual in nature, when homosexuals make up only about 2% of the population. I didn’t count, but it seems that at least 50% of the cases Mr McCain has noted are homosexual in nature.

    Boarders in their homes? Most people who take in boarders are taking in singles, not couples.

    But the big part is “partners in their business.” With this ruling, businesses will have to recognize homosexual “marriages” as legal marriages for purposes of health insurance and even income tax withholding. While there’s no particular reason that a homosexual cannot drive a truck or repair a diesel engine or balance the books as well as a normal person, this ruling creates an incentive for business owners who do not view homosexual relationships as real marriages to decline to hire anyone they suspect of being homosexual, and for getting rid of any who are already on the payroll; churches and religious institutions should certainly do that.

  5. Jeffery says:

    I’m not questioning Professor McCain’s academic bonafides, but other academics have found different results from his:

    Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as “fixated”(on children); 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that “in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women….There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males…” (p.180).

    Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

    Anyway, there is no good evidence that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles than straight men, the Catholic Church scandal notwithstanding.

    Yes, some parents may continue to discriminate against gays in the Boy Scouts, based on unscientific bigotry, yet still send their children to Mass where there is a slight, but proven risk.

    this ruling creates an incentive for business owners who do not view homosexual relationships as real marriages to decline to hire anyone they suspect of being homosexual, and for getting rid of any who are already on the payroll; churches and religious institutions should certainly do that.

    Do you really think it right to discriminate against married people?

  6. Yes, some parents may continue to discriminate against gays in the Boy Scouts, based on unscientific bigotry..

    Or, maybe parents do not want their kids around gay men, exposed to the homosexual lifestyle. They have a valid concern, a valid feeling (hey, I thought feelings were super important in liberal world?) about the safety of their sons.

    Yes, most gay men (and women) are no more likely to engage in inappropriate behavior, and, I would say that most who volunteer to be scout masters are sincerely interested in being a good leader. But, there is still a concern.

  7. Dana says:

    I just loved Jeffrey’s source. It tries to tel us that adult males who molest boys aren’t really homosexual, because they say that they aren’t, but are somehow “regressed” heterosexuals, and that:

    To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

    Translation: every bit of common sense has been educated out of them!

    They are very busy trying to explain away the fact that adult male child molesters choose boys rather than girls as their victims at far greater percentages than the homosexual portion of the population; if they cannot do so, then that increased choice of boys as victims must mean that homosexual males are a far greater risk of being child molesters than are normal men.

    Jerry Sandusky would tell you that he’s heterosexual, because, after all, he’s married to a woman; the fact that he raped at least ten boys, and no girls, why that doesn’t mean that he’s homosexual in any way, right?

    If it was an attraction simply to youth, then we should expect to see an equal number of male and female victims, and the vast majority of child rapists having both male and female victims; that is not he case at all.

    The answer is obvious: if same-sex child molestation occurs with greater frequency than the 2% of the population which are homosexual, then homosexuals must be a greater risk to children than normal people.

    The John Jay Report of abuse among Catholic priests and deacons (a population that is 100% male) found that 81% of the victims were boys. Yet there are more minor girls than boys participating in the kinds of activities which would bring them into greater contact with priests, altar servers being the most obvious. If the abuse rate had been 50% (or close to it) boys versus girls, it could be argued that it was simply attraction to youth, not gender, and opportunity, not gender. That 81% figure shows that boys were targeted far more frequently than girls, and that indicates a gender preference.

    The statistics are there, and they are real, and it doesn’t matter how much the oh-so-sophisticated left try to explain them away, child molesters have shown a marked preference to victims of their own sex; that is homosexuality, period.

  8. Dana says:

    Jeffrey gets stupid:

    this ruling creates an incentive for business owners who do not view homosexual relationships as real marriages to decline to hire anyone they suspect of being homosexual, and for getting rid of any who are already on the payroll; churches and religious institutions should certainly do that.

    Do you really think it right to discriminate against married people?

    I think it perfectly reasonable, for the reasons I gave, for business owners to discriminate against homosexuals. To discriminate against married people would be to discriminate against normal, heterosexual people, because, regardless of what the courts have said, homosexual unions are not legitimate marriages.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Dana reveals his asshattery.

    And this is the same reasoning you use to support your white supremacy.

    Unfortunately for vile bigots such as you, the Supreme Court disagrees, as does a majority of decent Americans. Your bigotry and religion does not trump the rights of “other” Americans that you consider inferior.

    Yet there are more minor girls than boys participating in the kinds of activities which would bring them into greater contact with priests, altar servers being the most obvious.

    Can you support that claim from the John Jay report? Recall too that the dates ranged from 1950 to present.

    You didn’t even look at the actual report did you? Are you brave enough to reveal where you got the citation?

  10. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Dana reveals his asshattery.

    And this is the same reasoning you use to support your white supremacy.

    Once again, Jeffrey decides to claim that I am a white supremacist; I s’pose that if he couldn’t use strawman arguments, he’d have no arguments left at all.

    Can you support that claim from the John Jay report? Recall too that the dates ranged from 1950 to present.

    You didn’t even look at the actual report did you? Are you brave enough to reveal where you got the citation?

    Didn’t you know, Jeffrey: I am Catholic! And I’m Catholic enough to see what goes on in the social aspects of our Church beyond just Sunday Mass. I’ve had two daughters in Catholic schools, and both of my daughters were Altar Servers. The Church would have preferred males only, but if females were excluded from being Altar Servers or Eucharistic Ministers, we’d never have enough of them. Very regrettably, too many families wind up with the mother taking the kids to Mass, while the father sits at home.

    Furthermore, while the report does begin with 1950, with accusations against 4392 priests, 3300 of the priests accused were not investigated because they had already died; the accusations from the 1950s and 1960s were mostly passed over because the offending priest was dead.

    And of course I’ve read the report. It’s dry as death, no doubt about that, but as much as it doesn’t want to condemn homosexuals, the statistics show that the abuse was primarily homosexual in nature. More, while we think of it being primarily pedophilia, much of the problem was hebephilia (sexual interest in children 11 to 14 and ephebophilia (sexual interest in children 15 to 17.) Those things are much more clearly choices which have to do with the sex of the victim.

    Psychology Today wrote of the report:

    The report concludes that the vast majority of clergy sex offenders are not pedophiles at all but were situational generalists violating whoever they had access to. Pedophiles, by definition, seek sexual gratification from pre-pubescent children of one gender and target this age and gender group (especially while under stress). Clergy sexual offenders in the Church were more likely to be targeting whoever was around them (and they had unsupervised access to) regardless of age and gender.

    The researchers conclude that there is no causative relationship between either celibacy or homosexuality and the sexual victimization of children in the Church. Therefore, being celibate or being gay did not increase the risk of violating children. So, blaming the clergy abuse crisis in the Catholic Church on gay men or celibacy is unfounded.

    But that’s pure bovine feces, trying not to hurt the feelings of homosexuals, or be politically incorrect. If the problem was one of “situational generalists” preying on whomever the priests found as likely victims, the victims, in general, would be roughly 50% female; in fact, 81% of the victims were boys, not girls. I don’t care how politically incorrect it is to say it, but the statistics show, clearly, a preference for male victims. (The probability of males being randomly selected 80% of the time in an even sex environment is 1.56%.)

  11. Jeffery says:

    You typed:

    Yet there are more minor girls than boys participating in the kinds of activities which would bring them into greater contact with priests, altar servers being the most obvious.

    I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my query. Can you point out in the document where it says that there were as many girls as boys available to be victims? Your anecdotes are not evidence.

    If the problem was one of “situational generalists” preying on whomever the priests found as likely victims, the victims, in general, would be roughly 50% female; in fact, 81% of the victims were boys, not girls.

    Of course, this only holds if the priests had equal access to teenage boy and teenage girls. You claim that that’s the case but have presented no evidence. It’s convenient that your conclusion supports your bigotry even though it’s contradicted by the experts.

  12. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Yet there are more minor girls than boys participating in the kinds of activities which would bring them into greater contact with priests, altar servers being the most obvious.

    I guess I wasn’t specific enough in my query. Can you point out in the document where it says that there were as many girls as boys available to be victims? Your anecdotes are not evidence.

    Actually, my “anecdotes” are evidence. As a real Catholic, I’m in church and see what is going on there.

    While some parishes sponsor Boy Scout troops, others sponsor Girl Scout troops; these things tend to balance out. Catechism classes are pretty evenly balanced, and Altar Servers tend to be slightly more often girls rather than boys. Not every parish has a Catholic school, but the parochial schools are fairly evenly balanced between girls and boys. And at age 62, I’ve been a Catholic for along, long time. (Ever hear of the term “cradle Catholic?”)

    If the problem was one of “situational generalists” preying on whomever the priests found as likely victims, the victims, in general, would be roughly 50% female; in fact, 81% of the victims were boys, not girls.

    Of course, this only holds if the priests had equal access to teenage boy and teenage girls. You claim that that’s the case but have presented no evidence. It’s convenient that your conclusion supports your bigotry even though it’s contradicted by the experts.

    The experts were deathly afraid of being politically incorrect. But, read the report: where does it state that boys were much more frequently available as victims? You are the one claiming that this is so, that the available victim population was markedly different from the population in general; where is your proof? At least I actually go to Mass, and see these things first hand; do you?

    In the past, before girls were allowed to be Altar Servers, it might have been the case. But Canon 230, of the Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, allowed local bishops to permit girls to serve at the altar. I pointed out that most of the accusations against priests went uninvestigated because the accused priests were deceased. This means that the older cases, the ones before Canon 230, were the ones least likely to have been investigated.

    You are trying every possible conniption and convolution to avoid seeing what the plain statistics tell you. That makes you the worst kind of wrong, wrong because you are willfully blind.

  13. Jeffery says:

    OK, you have no evidence. So it’s you against the experts.

    Don’t feel bad. This is typical for conservatives who are driven by ideology and emotions rather than evidence. That you think your experience in church is evidence of a broader truth is diagnostic of the right-wing authoritarian thought process. You twist your own experiences to support your bigotry. Maybe you should feel a little bad.

    You accuse the experts of fraud based on your unscientific beliefs.

    Recall you typed this earlier:

    To discriminate against married people would be to discriminate against normal, heterosexual people, because, regardless of what the courts have said, homosexual unions are not legitimate marriages.

  14. Jeffery says:

    If predatory homosexuals enter the priesthood to find boys to rape, why are you still a Catholic?

    What have you done to stop the abuse?

  15. Doc Rock says:

    To discriminate against married people would be to discriminate against normal, heterosexual people, because, regardless of what the courts have said, homosexual unions are not legitimate marriages.
    ______________

    Oh my…you dont come close to being able to identify as “normal” with views like yours. News Flash…YOU dont get to decide what normal is for everyone. Our Courts and public opinion decide that, which you now find yourself on the wrong side of both.

    You and your ilk are now, in the eyes of the law, irrelevant to the question of gay marriage. Go ahead and discriminate against gays in your business practices…and get your asses sued off, and rightly so.

    You can whine and cry from now on and waste time and money on losing and very expensive court battles, for all the difference it will make going forward, which is none.

  16. Dana says:

    Dr Rock wrote:

    Oh my…you dont come close to being able to identify as “normal” with views like yours. News Flash…YOU dont get to decide what normal is for everyone. Our Courts and public opinion decide that, which you now find yourself on the wrong side of both.

    I chose the word “normal” to refer to heterosexuals very specifically and deliberately, to stress that homosexuality is not normal. According to the CDC, 96.6% identify as heterosexual, 1.6% identify as homosexual, 0.7% identify as bisexual, and 1.1% identified as “something else” or could not provide an answer. When you have 96.6% of the population identifying as one thing, that has to be what is normal for people, while the 3.4% outside the norm simply are not.

    Now, I use the word normal very specifically to be controversial, to be politically incorrect, because I understand the real goal behind the push for homosexual “marriage.” If this was just about hospital visitation or inheritance or insurance, then civil unions or domestic partnerships or the other forms of legal union would have been sufficient. They were not because the primary goal was the word marriage; only by including homosexual unions in the word marriage can homosexuals claim that their relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, and just as normal as heterosexual ones. I, for one, refuse to participate in that propaganda. (You’ll also note that I do not use the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals; to be sinful is not gay, in the original meaning of the word, in the slightest.)

  17. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    If predatory homosexuals enter the priesthood to find boys to rape, why are you still a Catholic?

    What have you done to stop the abuse?

    That some priests have sinned does not make the faith wrong.

    The response of the Church to the Jay Report was the statement by Pope John Paul II’s chief spokesman that homosexual men ought not be ordained. The Church’s position has long been that homosexuals are “gravely disordered,” and I agree with that position.

    Now, why have so many homosexual men become interested in the priesthood? My personal belief is that they entered seminary knowing that homosexual activity is sinful, and hoped that, with the grace of God, they could find the strength to remain celibate, as their vows required. (The state of being homosexual is not considered sinful; it is acting upon homosexual impulses which is the sin.) For some, this seems to have worked; for others, it was not enough.

  18. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    What have you done to stop the abuse?

    If I had ever met a priest whom I suspected of such abuse, I would have reported it to both the bishop and the police, but I have never encountered a priest I so suspected. It would be fair to say that my statement has not actually been tested.

  19. PrincepsCO says:

    Dana…I appreciate your viewpoint and ability to debate the gay Mafia in a way that is both logical and moral. My thanks for your insight.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6022 access attempts in the last 7 days.