Here we go again. For those with a very low IQ and the inability to look words up in a dictionary, by definition, “disagreement” is not “hate”! Me believing that my viewpoint is correct and yours is not, is not hate. Believing I am better than you because my viewpoint is right, could be hate and, in some cases, even racism.
Many were outraged last week when I posted my take on the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage. The haters popped a blood vessel, called me a hater, and then went on to say I have no business being on a local school board because I have a different opinion on the issue. They said things like, “he doesn’t believe gays and lesbians deserve equal treatment,” “he likened gays and lesbians to the issue of slavery,” and more garbage.
At first I wasn’t going to reply and just let them work themselves into a frenzy and do what they do best… spew hate and confusion. But then I would be guilty of the same thing I sometimes accuse my audience of… complaining and not taking action.
After seeing all these posts about SCOTUS “getting it right,” “equality finally wins” and so on, I remembered some other “landmark rulings” from the past. For Instance, Dred Scott v. Sanford (forced by the federal government) upheld by 7 to 2 that blacks could not be American citizens, whether they were free or slaves. The Nuremberg Laws, which excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of “German or related blood.” Also decided by their federal government. Then there is Roe v. Wade. The landmark decision that guaranteed women the right to a safe abortion. Once again, the federal government forcing a law over the land that many at the time were opposed to.
Justice Ginsburg has had much to say about Row v. Wade, both recently and in the past. In her speech at the 40th anniversary, Ginsburg said, “the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.” According to the University of Chicago magazine The Record Online:
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts”, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
OMG! Where is the outrage from the left?………….
Read more at: HATERS
It’s nice to have my opinion validated by yet another conservative American….When I’ve been the recipient of similar name calling I am sorely tempted to say “You have a right to be wrong”, usually I just ask for them for their reasoning and usually there is nothing more than additional buzz words of the week.
“Your opinion is important, so is mine.
Even when different we can make good traveling companions on the road to a ‘shared’ destination.”
The Supreme Court is designed for liberals and conservative Americans to ‘rule’ on existing laws and their respective Constitutionality….not to re-write them. (That’s Congresses Job) There is no ambiguity in the Constitution, only in a poorly written bill. Could it be that ‘loopholes’ were included for just this purpose?