Skip to comments.
A.P. intentionally misquotes Scalia
A.P. ^
Posted on 06/26/2003 1:51:26 PM PDT by Capt. Jake
This is what the AP reports Justice Scalia as writing in dissent in the Texas sodomy case: "The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." Here is what he actually wrote: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 14thammendment; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ap; associatedpress; ccrm; conservativebashing; conspiracylaws; deceit; druglaws; homosexualagenda; incestlaws; keywordsgohere; lawrencevtexas; lyingmedia; mediabias; piracylaws; privacy; prostitutionlaws; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; scalia; scotus; scotuslist; slipperyslope; sodomylaws; texassodomylaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
I have no doubt that this misquote was intentional. Watch for it to appear in all major papers tomorrow.
To: Capt. Jake
The very act of saying "nothing against homosexuals" allows them to claim a status they are not entitled to. There are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts. Those acts are immoral. Would anyone say "nothing against adulterers" or nothing against shoplifters"? To the extent that a person identifies themselves with a behavior, a person has every right to be for or against it. Better he would have said "Nothing against humanity" or "nothing against men."
But your point about the AP is noted.
2
posted on
06/26/2003 2:03:18 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: Capt. Jake
A VERY good point, but your posting of it could stop them.
To: The Old Hoosier
I've emailed the editor of my local paper already. The paper was running the story online. When the Maureen Dowd column misquoting Bush on al Qaeda first appeared in the NY Times, I alerted my paper to the misquote. Even though the Dowd column was a regular one, the editors agreed that the quote was misleading and did not run it.
To: Capt. Jake
Of course, the intent of taking that quote out of context makes him out to sound flippant and "insensitive"...akin to "some of my best friends are (name your minority)"
5
posted on
06/26/2003 2:17:22 PM PDT
by
larlaw
To: larlaw
Or Seinfeldian: "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
To: Capt. Jake
Doing the right thing has never been the easy thing...I am sure all 3 of the brave disenting Justices are going to get many attacks...Thanks you for doing the right thing.
7
posted on
06/26/2003 2:21:29 PM PDT
by
OREALLY
To: Capt. Jake
Bttt
8
posted on
06/26/2003 2:27:06 PM PDT
by
firewalk
To: Capt. Jake
Do you have a link to the CORRECT quote?
9
posted on
06/26/2003 2:29:00 PM PDT
by
Az Joe
To: RAT Patrol
Bravo. What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle. What the court has done is decide in favor of a deviant, unhealthy sex act. The SCOTUS is really dizzy these days.
To: Capt. Jake
These media weasels. I'm sure you're right that it's an intentional misquote.
Scalia wrote:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.
If you take out "or any other group", which is grammatically non-essential, you get:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.
So the reporter basically took the above sentence and recast it as:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals.
This has a different meaning and sounds kind of gauche (as larlaw mentioned in post #5).
I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox.
To: caisson71
What many miss in arguments by homosexuals is that homosexuality is defined by a sex act, not necessarily a lifestyle.What you don't know about homosexuals is a lot.
12
posted on
06/26/2003 2:50:16 PM PDT
by
ItsJeff
To: Yardstick
The homosexual agenda was advanced today and it wasn't through democratic means. We do not elect the Supreme Court and the legislature did not overturn the laws.
Evidence points that the men charged in Texas conspired to create the circumstance that they found themselves in. They wanted a test case and a homosexual roommate and lover of these men made the false emergency call to the police.
If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?
13
posted on
06/26/2003 2:57:50 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: Capt. Jake
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers."
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against serial killers being given the death penalty."
*****************************************************************
Hmmm.... according to the AP, the first line is a fair excerpt from the first.
14
posted on
06/26/2003 3:00:50 PM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: Travis McGee
From the second. Whoops.
15
posted on
06/26/2003 3:01:45 PM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: Capt. Jake
In that case, I had better save this to foreward to the AJC and Cynthia Tucker tomorrow.
16
posted on
06/26/2003 3:16:28 PM PDT
by
freeangel
(freeangel)
To: Capt. Jake
I don't understand, how was Scalia misquoted? How did the reporter twist his words?
17
posted on
06/26/2003 3:19:51 PM PDT
by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: weegee
If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?
Scalia says he is fine with gays advancing their agenda through legitimate democratic processes, so his dissent shows that he considers the advancement of the gay agenda through this court decision *not* to have been the result of a legitimate democratic process. He would probably feel the same way about similar decisions involving incest, drug, and prostitution laws. He would feel that the SCOTUS would be wrong in ruling against them.
To: Capt. Jake
Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals." Oh yeah ? Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me, says the gay in the cramped elevator.
19
posted on
06/26/2003 3:22:20 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Yardstick
"I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox." For example, I read a 600-word obituary of Lester Maddox last night. Somehow, not a single one of those 600 words was "Democrat"...
20
posted on
06/26/2003 3:22:34 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-31 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson