Because Winkler is no longer the most ineptly, tone-deafly racist commentator in recent American history.
I’ve had the odd chuckle as George “Mr. Sulu” Takei has oozed back into a wry, giggly mainstream prominence. He can be a funny guy. And he’s got an interesting story; growing up in an internment camp, building a career in Hollywood at a time when an Asian couldn’t get a break, yadda yadda.
But someone’s gotta slap him:
In a nasty, racist rant captured by a Fox affiliate in Arizona, former Star Trek actor-turned-gay rights activist George Takei lashed out at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, calling him a “clown in black face.”
Here, a man who became famous sitting on a TV set pushing fake buttons and saying “Warp Factor Five, Aye-Aye” and running a snarky but occasionally hilarious Facebook account, gaysplains to one of America’s most accomplished jurists…
…not only using terms that are groaning with racist baggage, but also legally full of Roddenberry dust. Thomas is, unfortunately for Takei, correct. The Obergefell decision was, like Roe V. Wade, conjuring up law from nothing – or, worse than nothing, pure emotion.
Back to snarking on Facebook, George.
Takei is a cartoon character. Hilarious.
That being said, I’m guessing Thomas would beat the fuck out of him given the chance.
That would be more hilarious.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: Pickett’s Charge and the Last Full Measure : The Other McCain
This is not a new right. This is a right to marry that has been pointed out by the SCOTUS fourteen separate times. There is nothing written in the Constitution that you have the right to marry someone of a different race. There is nothing written in the Constitution saying you have the right to go to school with people of different races. There is nothing written in the Constitution saying that you have the right to marry someone of the same sex. But what there is written into the Constitution is the right to equal protection of the law and you don’t have to look very far to find it. It’s capitalized and it’s part of our Constitution. It says that you cannot say to somebody because they are black or white or straight or gay or Catholic or Jewish or Atheist that you don’t get the same right rights as everybody else does. That’s part of our culture and it’s part of our Constitution.
You don’t look for something in the Constitution that says you don’t discriminate against women, you don’t discriminate against blacks, you don’t discriminate against gays. It’s not a tax code, it’s a set of principles and one of the most basic principles is the principle of equal protection.
Ace of Spades said it well: “Space retard says something stupid again.”
I still can’t fathom how Japanese Americans that were imprisoned by the Democrats during WWII, in many cases losing businesses and property, can even think of being a Dem. But then, liberals/Democraps don’t mind being treated like stupid, third class citizens, as long as it comes from their progressive heroes.
“The Obergefell decision was, like Roe V. Wade, conjuring up law from nothing – or, worse than nothing, pure emotion.”
We can’t have in this country, laws that take away individual rights and instead say we’ll just wait until the American people are willing to vote to ratify that injustice. That is not acceptable. That is why we have a Constitution, and why we have a Bill of Rights, that is why we have a judiciary. When individual rights are being taken away even if popular sentiment is moving in the right direction, you can’t just wait for that.
Martin Luther King talked about this in his letter from a Birmingham jail, which is probably one of our finest documents in our Constitutional history. ‘When people say wait they mean never’ and that’s what the court decided.
Even if they could have won in every state (legislatively) it was important of the Supreme Court to say as a matter of Constitutional law; everyone is equal. It was important as a matter of Constitutional law for the Supreme Court to say everybody is entitled to the dignity to be able the person that you love. if the legislature gives you something the legislature can take it away. It’s only when you recognize the Constitutional right it cannot be taken away.
I’ll be kind, Emery, and assume that you did not read Robert’s and Scalia’s dissents, since they refute everything you have to say about the decision. Even Kennedy mentioned the threat that a right to SSM poses to religious believers. You don’t.
When the moderator clears my earlier post, you’ll have another opportunity to be “kind”. ;^)
Have a great 4th!
“We can’t have in this country, laws that take away individual rights and instead say we’ll just wait until the American people are willing to vote to ratify that injustice.”
Where does the authority to override the will of the American people come from? The constitution is just a piece of paper. It didn’t come from God. If enough states and congress agree, SSM could go into the dustbin with a constitutional amendment — or the SC could overturn it. Would that make it as “wrong” and illegal as when it was found to be legal and “right” when Kennedy found it lurking in the 14th amendment? A fundamental right that is neither mentioned explicitly nor hinted at in the actual document?
There is a strong tendency on the pro-SSM side to believe that the pro-SSM side is simply made up of better people than the anti-SSM or anti-Kennedy side (they are not the same). But of course this is self-serving twaddle. Every group thinks that it is “better” at deciding these things the the opposite side because it is made up of “better” people.
Dog Gone believes that “history is on the side of SSM”, but of course history has no sides. Even Hegel never claimed that history had a right side and a wrong side that we could know and act on (though Marx said there was).
Emotional twaddle is meaningless. There is as much hate, or more hate, on the pro-SSM side as their is love. What Takai said was extremely mild by the standards of SSM advocates.
2009
John Cornyn: “Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?”
Kagan: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
2015
Gay Wedding Dress Up Day is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution.
How is it these lying, leftist slobs are never hung from their heels from a lamp post?
PM: Chief Justice Roberts objection to the gay marriage ruling, is like Roe v. Wade, it weakens the court by leading rather than trailing legislative action. If at least 25 states had already voted to legalize gay marriage, I believe he would have backed it. The Chief Justice doesn’t play the politicians short term political game. He plays a much longer game, constitutional power politics. Although I am curious how Roberts (and you) squares his position on ‘SSM’ with Loving v Virginia. Both involved the Court telling states which did not want to allow certain persons to marry that they had to do so anyway. How is the current case different in any substantive sense?
Re: Scalia: I don’t believe Justice Scalia is bigoted or prejudiced. I believe that he believes very strongly in the peoples ability and willingness and Constitutional right to change things under the Constitution. Scalia believes that you interpret the Constitution and legislation based on the words in the legislation or the words in the Constitution.
Now the problem for Scalia is that he’s been saying since a case came out in Colorado, Romer v Evans and the Lawrence v Texas case and the Windsor case involving the DOMA. Justice Scalia has been saying that the logic and words of the majority in those cases mean that marriage will be respected under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution which the Supreme Court has already decided. Scalia hasn’t quite given up. I think the language of the decision is unfortunate. This was a rather harsh opinion and it was harsh in the Obama case too. But it was less harsh than in some of his earlier opinions. I think it is what it is with regard to the Justices opinions. They bring their own backgrounds to the Supreme Court and you have these 5–4 decisions. But we’ve had those throughout our history and the country continues to grow. I’m an optimist and I believe this country will accept this decision.
Minorities lose when you put them to popular vote. They might win tomorrow, but they might lose the next day. That is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and an Equal Protection Clause. If you start thinking about the Civil War and people tell you that things would have come out OK. They would not have come out OK.
When I mentioned the Loving v Virginia case, that was in 1967 and sixteen states still made it a felony for there to be interracial marriage. If you talk to people today they will say that that was never the law in these states of the United States. If you talk to young people today about marriage equality, 70% to 80% will ask what are you talking about? So I think this country is evolving. We’ve had a terrible past, with slavery, with incarceration of Japanese American citizens, discrimination against women, but the one thing that’s really good about this country is that most of us believe in the ideals of equality.
“one thing that’s really good about this country is that most of us believe in the ideals of equality.”
Leftist slobs’ idea of equality depends on what will best serve their agenda. That’s why Obama lied about Obamacare, it’s why Kagan lied before a Congressional hearing.
It’s why Mark Zuckerman uses his social media empire, and his fortune to manipulate the ignorant masses.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/06/were-all-those-rainbow-profile-photos-another-facebook-experiment/397088/
Black Americans today enjoy the more equality than at any other time, in any other place, including Africa. Racism permeates our society, but it is directed more towards bad behavior by minorities rather than the color of their skin.
That is why Gay Wedding Dress Up Day is such a hollow victory. Homosexuals are defined by their behavior, and the vast majority of Americans will continue to be repulsed by that behavior. The gay mafia knows this, which is why they try so hard to separate their behavior from their agenda, and as with the case of the homosexual invasion of the Catholic church and the inevitable pederasty that followed, they have had much success.
I believe that San Francisco holds a lesson for us. As homosexuals took control, their true nature was brought out into the streets. If you’ve seen pictures of a SF “pride” parade you may have been thrown for a loop at the display of debauchery and perversion. Just wait until that starts happening in Omaha.
Swiftee salutes freedom and equalty!
http://static.flickr.com/23/33908462_f72484ce82_o.jpg
Sorry to have pissed on your parade of inchoate twaddle, Emery. The facts have a truthful bias that usually make leftist slobs feel very marginalized, but there they are with with their middle fingers waving in the breeze.
In yesterday’s WaPo, Jonathon Turley previews exactly what I’m talking about:
“None of these concerns take away from the euphoria of this liberating moment. And the justices can certainly tailor their new right in the coming years. But if we are to protect the dignity of all citizens, we need to be careful that dignity is not simply a new way for the majority to decide who belongs and who does not in our “Nation’s social order.”
[Emphasis mine]
The gay mafia would have been outraged a month ago at the suggestion that GayWeddingDressUpDay was a “new right”. That’s one of the central argument against it, and they had expended much time and treasure burying such Thoughtcrime.
But now it doesn’t hurt a whit to speak the truth. In the coming years there will be no reason to stifle any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle.
George:
One little thought you’re ignoring. The US Supreme Court which should’ve protected your parents didn’t in part because they thought this was helping to protect the country so they had to go along. In this case one of the judge’s you’re going after is because that judge had the nerve to say a thought, “I believe marriage should be between just a man and a woman and I shouldn’t be punished for thinking it” Is that like, “You’re Japanese so you must be punished even if you’re not a spy or a terrorist.”
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Emery:
Technically you’re wrong. A law that says a man can go and marry any woman has no equal protection problems since the law applied the same way to every man.
So can the law say I can’t marry more than once?
How will the law protect the spouses in that case?
And silly question if what makes me happy is to go out and murder people why should there be a law that affects my happiness since murder is moral judgment and has no argument to have laws stopping it from happening.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Mr. Hanson, you’re commenting to the wrong person.
The Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision has decided the right to marry is about “equal protection” of the law, and it’s a constitutional right that cannot be taken away.
Emery:
Um you’re saying it’s in the constitution. Since the law of equal protection applies to everyone equally the law can be written to say a man can only marry a woman. you on the other hand are pretending that the law can’t be written that way. What happened with that decision a couple of days ago judges were saying once again that a state didn’t have the power to regulate who asked for a marriage license. I seem to remember the constitution gave that power to the states.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
“Minorities lose when you put them to popular vote.”
False. The voting rights act of 1964 was passed by lily-white US Congress, and signed by a white president.
The core of the problem (as I see it) is that Kennedy decided that marriage was a fundamental right under the 14th. This has problems; it is not uncommon for even pro-SSM commentators to balk at accepting Kennedy’s reasoning, and it ties into Roberts’ and Scalia’s dissents, which say that any marriage can be called a “fundamental right” under Kennedy’s reasoning. If marriage is a fundamental right, how can it be denied to any couple or any number of people? At the core of the dissents of Roberts and Scalia is the idea that the Supreme Court has no competency to decide if SSM is good or bad, just as it has no competency to decide if children should be able to marry to their parents or siblings should marry one another, or if a man or woman should have one or two or three spouses of either sex. The court is not a legislative body, it does not represent a political impulses. That is the job of the congress and president.
In 1920 the 19th amendment passed, giving women the right to vote. By your lights (and Kennedy’s lights) there was no need for the amendment, womens’ right to vote was hiding right there in the 14th amendment all along.
The Loving v Virginia statute that was overturned by the Supremes had only been on the books since 1924. It is not a traditional religious view that only people of the same race should be allowed to marry. The 1924 statute was based on eugenics, not religious sensibilities. The vote to overturn Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act was 9-0. If the supremes had let it stand, how much longer do you think it would have taken to repeal it democratically? Five years? Ten?
Mr. Hanson: As I alluded to you before, your beef is with the majority opinion by the Supreme Court and not me.
PM: Will you be working at the new ‘Thirty Meter Telescope’ on Mauna Kea once it’s operational?
Emery, I have been forbidden by management to talk about the situation at TMT.
I can mention that today I heard that the native Hawaiian community have been instructed to stop referring to the continental 48 as “the mainland”, and to only refer to it as “The United States.”
On paper the project looks to be quite impressive.
Emery: the new right to gay marriage was not based on Equal Protection. The majority based it on Substantive Due Process. Justice Kennedy threw in Equal Protection just as he threw in Liberty and Nobility and Dignity – impressive words that make his opinion sound weighty, but have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law in question.
You really needed to read the opinions, all of them, to see how flimsy the majority’s basis is. You should know better than to rely on headlines for your opinions – you’ve been slapped down enough for doing it here.
Emery, you may want to listen to Richard Epstein’s podcast on the Obergeffel decision. Epstein is a libertarian, and although he thinks the Kennedy opinion was wrong, I can’t tell if he is personally pro or anti SSM: http://www.hoover.org/research/libertarian-podcast-richard-epstein-gay-marriage-and-supreme-court
Personally, I’m sympathetic to Chief Justice Roberts view. Roberts prefers Congress and the people deciding major social issues whenever possible. Roberts agenda is to strengthen legislatures, weaken the executive, and limit the scope of the Supreme Court’s powers. I don’t think he rejects gay marriage per se; he just doesn’t think it needed much help.
If the gay rights movement took another 5-10 years to achieve what it just achieved, gay rights would be all the stronger for it, because many more legislatures and electorates would have had to face the issue. Gay rights are now a gift from the Supreme Court, rather than through popular recognition. Would that have been worth the delay? I don’t know.
Had there not been so much judicial activism, the Republican party would not be what it is now. Judicial activism has given the Republican a pass on social policy reform. Without Roe v. Wade, the Republican party would be deeply divided on abortion rights, as it was in 1973, with those calling for its abolition identified as the unelectable wing of the party.
The Court’s decision should effectively take ‘SSM’ away from the 2016 election. Unless of course GOP candidates choose to use it as a political cudgel on one another.
What we call progress these days — greater inclusion of once marginalized groups — doesn’t have an arc that always trends upwards. Bawdy behavior that was the norm in the 18th century was not tolerated in Victorian times. Eugenics was a product of the 20th century. There was nothing like it until science displaced nature and God as the the author of the human story. Our own age of social progress has some very odd features. Most people who believe in evolution believe that evolution is a synonym for improvement over time, when it is not. There isn’t much of Marx left in history (though it still inhabits the fever swamps of sociology and literature). Historians don’t believe in teleology these days. We aren’t in the process of “becoming” anything. We are just doing things. You can’t tell what the world will look like in 2115 any more than the people of 1915 could tell you what the world would like in 2015.
Orwell is a thinker I admire very much. He once explained his remark about Stalin’s needing to break a few eggs to make an omelette — “yes, but where is the omelette?” — in teleological terms. We might excuse the plundering of resources in the New World because it gave us the relative wealth of the 20th century, but by doing so it also gave us two world wars and the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We shouldn’t think of the former as the purpose of the plundering of resources in the New World in 19th century, and the latter as some unwanted side effect. Both were simply the results of actions taken by self-interested individuals who were long dead by the time the Second World War dragged around. The robber-barons of the 19th century weren’t steering us towards a world of cheap consumer goods any more or any less than they were steering us towards a world of thousand-plane raids and death camps.
I’m serious, Emery. Go Read The Opinions, all of them, majority and dissent. This decision is a “gift” from the Supreme Court in the same way a flaming sack of dog poop on your front porch is a gift.
Most states’ marriage laws are similar – pay a fee, get a license, choose someone from the eligible pool of marriage candidates.
When Black men were told “you can’t pick from the pool of White women, you must pick from the pool of Black women,” then Black men were treated differently from White man on account of their race. That was an Equal Protection case. Didn’t happen here: gay men get to pick from the same pool as straights – the pool of all women.
If gay men were told “You also must pass a blood test in case you have AIDS,” then the procedure for them would be more burdensome than for straights – they’d have a Procedural Due Process case. Didn’t happen here, the procedure for gay men is the same as straights.
What gay men said is “We don’t like the candidates in the pool – there are no men.” That’s not an Equal Protection problem or a Procedural Due Process problem, that’s a personal preference. The law doesn’t have to accommodate every single person’s personal preference to be constitutional – indeed, no law can satisfy that demand.
Now that the court has opened the door to challenging the pool on personal preference grounds, there’s no principled basis to deny Muslims complaining “there are no first cousins” and NAMBLA complaining “there are no children.” That is not a gift to civilized society. That is a step toward ending it.
That’s an excellent summation, Joe. Great way to show the bigger picture to those who can’t see past “guys can marry guys, girls can marry girls, all is well with the world”
And Jason Lewis made the same points back when the marriage amendment was in debate in MN. Gay men and straight men have the same opportunity: marry a woman. If you don’t want to marry a woman, then you are asking for an exception based on behavior, not condition (like race).