Skip to main content

Mississippi Supreme Court judge takes gay marriage comparisons to a new level of stupid

Given the far-right's rhetoric I've heard over the past few years, it's extremely difficult for me to come away surprised by a fallacy used by such individuals to discredit the LGBT community as deserving of equal rights, especially with regard to marriage. The most common fallacy used by the anti-LGBT community is that of the slippery slope: "Well, if we legalize gay marriage, then what's next? Multiple spouses? Marrying animals? Marrying a pet rock named Softy?" In saying all of that, however, I'm still shaking my head by what Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Josiah Coleman recently said about the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling.

"[The Supreme Court's marriage equality decision is like] a United States Supreme Court decision that held the Constitution of the United States required every household in America to own a giraffe."

No, actually, it's not. In what has to be one of the most bizarre, most ridiculous quotes I've heard with regard to the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling, Supreme Court Justice Coleman couldn't be further off the mark. What does Justice Coleman think the Supreme Court's ruling was exactly? Given his comparison, he seems to believe the Supreme Court of the United States required all American households to include a gay or lesbian couple, or perhaps for every home owner to marry someone of the same sex. I'm sorry, but that's more off the mark than if a pitcher through a fastball to the centerfielder instead of the batter at home plate. Americans are not required by law to include anyone in their homes who happens to be gay and married like the judge insinuates. If he'd like a more accurate comparison, he could have instead stated, "The Supreme Court's marriage equality decision would be like if the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution of the United States allow any household in America to own a giraffe if they so desire."

Please allow me to calm your worst of fears, Justice Coleman. If you happen to be a heterosexual man, as you contend to be, the only thing you're now required to do is recognize same-sex marriages as legally valid. You don't have to morally agree with it; you don't have to befriend anyone in the LGBT community; you don't even have to invite members of the community to live with you; all you have to do is recognize the law, abide by it, and at least in legal terms, treat people equally.

Justice Coleman: "Recognize equality?!? Oh, the horrors! That'd be like being forced to own a giraffe!"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/11/06/3720007/mississippi-supreme-court-justices-break-out-jim-crow-era-arguments-to-defy-marriage-equality/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...