You really think we want your approval? That has to be one of the most hilariously IGNORANT things I have read here in a long time.

To want the approval of such a puss-filled little worm as yourself, I would hve to be one of th most self-loathing people I have ever known.

There IS a reason we are disussing the supreme court here you idiot. We are wish to have our rights affirmed in the same manner as previously oppressed people. The majority is not always in the right, you fool.

If the majority was allowed to rule over everything, then we would still have the Jim Crow Laws, Women would most likely not have the vote, etc.

Your bigoted ravings are the blather of a spoiled brat who needs his behind paddled and sent to bed without supper. If I WERE to be unfortunate enough to meet you on the street, I would try not to step in you so I wouldn’t need to clean my shoes.

Grow up.

Bring back justice for ALL, say I, and make the government get their noses out of the bedrooms of the nation.

I, for one, am very much interested in the Constitution of the United States and do not view it as a document whose relevance is “dead” because society has changed over the 200 years since it was written. The founders of America wrote the Constitution as an interpretive document because they knew at that time that society has a tendency to change itself. There are very, very few *specific* liberties that are granted by the US Constitution and with good reason: the founders of America and the framers of the Constitution understood what could happen to that document if too many people determined it was oppressive – there would be a coup and all of their hard work would have been undone.

Part of the reason we have judges (including the Supreme Court) is because not every little legality is outlined in the Constitution. If not for those judges, the Constitution would never have been interpreted, at least not in the manner in which it has been over the last 200 years. If not for judges, any minority group could be held hostage by the majority with legal precedent.

The quality of a judge does not rest in his or her prejudices or beliefs, but how he or she is willing to rule based upon the evidence put before them. Condemning anyone for a belief is patently wrong; condemning anyone for attempts at legislating those beliefs or forcing them upon others is what we need to be doing.

Perhaps a low number with many names…Lydia, Blade, Tim, RJLiger, Jeff Barea, Char, T Culbertson…ad nauseum, ad nauseum… They serve no purpose other than to disrupt, harrass and annoy.

I doubt you can find an LGBT person that wants heterosexuals thrown in prison for their consensual relationship like Scalia wants for us, or any with even close to a negative and misinformed view. Your the Coward.

“When are these LGBT cowards going to stand behind empirical data that supports their position?”

There is FAR more that supports our “position” than yours, and we have stood up for it. Your delusions don’t change reality.

I notice that the comments do have several similarities. Most of them here seem to reiterate the same ideas in different words, and to greatly overestimate opposition to gay rights. They could be coming from mainly one person.

All the best!