Gay Patriot Header Image

Alito Stands Up For The “Little (Gay) Guy”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 12:53 pm - January 13, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Supreme Court

From (shockingly) The Advocate:

Alito did, however, use as an example of ruling for the “little guy” his 2004 decision in favor of a high school bullying victim who was perceived as gay.

“This was a case in which a high school student had been bullied unmercifully by other students in his school because of their perception of his sexual orientation,” Alito said. “He’d been bullied to the point of attempting to commit suicide, and his parents wanted to enroll him at an adjacent public high school. And the school board said, ‘No, you can’t do that,’ and I wrote an opinion upholding their right to have him placed in a safe school, in an adjacent municipality.”

The citation is notable, considering Alito has been opposed by numerous gay rights groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal.

Further evidence of the damage that our community does to itself by being so reactionary against “discrimination” and “victimization.” (See GLAAD and Gene Shalit, among thousands of other examples).

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

12 Comments

  1. Somewhat Related: Ted Kennedy: The New Joe McCarthy

    There sits Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee using every sleazy tactic fed to him by every sleazy left-wing group to destroy the reputation of honorable men and women. From Clement Haynsworth, William Rehnquist, Bob Bork, and Clarence Thomas, to Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Charles Pickering, and Sam Alito — and scores of others — Kennedy has played the role of McCarthy for 40 years, and always to a fawning press.

    “Sir, are you now, or have you ever been a Conservative?”

    Comment by V the K — January 13, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - January 13, 2006

  2. This is the result of identity politics, where there is one “authentic” party line for every group, so that NLGTF can “speak for” the community, but anyone who contradicts the party line is an Uncle Tom. These people are literally blinded by this ideology, and see any ruling against person of group x as evidence that the judge “hates” group x.

    Of course, bias and hate having nothing to do with the decision, but these leftists will never be able to see that.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 13, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - January 13, 2006

  3. HRC and Lambda must oppose Alito because he doesn’t appear to believe in unrestricted abortion. Period.

    What do you expect? The people who run it give hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians who support the FMA because they support abortion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2006 @ 5:30 pm - January 13, 2006

  4. I don’t see why the leftist gay groups have abortion on their agenda. It does not, or should not, impact our community. Let’s review:

    For starters, how can a gay man support abortion? Will he have one of his own? Probably not, unless he had a uterus. Then (duh) he’s a hermaphrodite – and they cannot conceive.

    Okay, let’s say he’s gay and married to a woman. Will his wife have an abortion? And is it his child? Well, if that were the case, then at most he is bi-sexual and not just gay. So why would he be wanting an abortion in the first place? Gay men can’t get pregnant (well, not yet – keep an eye on human cloning), and if they DO impregnate a woman, well, it kind of shoots the “gay” theory to hell. If a gay man makes love to a woman, does that make him straight?

    For the record – I am proudly gay. I have never made love to a woman. I never want to, and I don’t intend to. So the abortion issue is null and void to me.

    Now, let’s get to lesbians. Most lesbians, if not all, who are pregnant or wish to get pregnant do so by THEIR OWN CHOICE. They CHOOSE to get pregnant. (Does that make them “pro-choice” or “pro-life”?) I have nothing against women couples who want to have babies. I will support them to the utmost, because that child is wanted. And it will be loved by two caring women.

    But what about rape or incest? Well, if you ever saw the lesbians here down South, you can bet for sure that nobody would ever try to rape them. Or want to, for that matter. Unless they have a thing for flannel and mullets. I mean, who would try to rape a lesbian? The last thing you would see in your flickering moments of life would be a big, healthy girl getting ready to beat the snot out of you. So the rape/incest argument is moot.

    I realize that some leftist here will dissect my arguments and try to “Alioto” me. But let’s be realistic here:

    1. Gay men who sire children are bisexual. They are not exclusively gay.

    2. Lesbians who get pregnant or wish to get pregnant do it as their own personal choice. Nobody would want to or be able to subdue a butch, muscular woman to try and force themselves on her.

    3. Gay men cannot get pregnant, thanks to Mother Nature (who is surely a lesbian). Until men can get pregnant, our involvement in child procreation is minimal at best. Women get it for 9 months out of the year.

    Okay, I’ve laid out sensible arguments for the gay community to not embrace abortion as an agenda item. Let the fur fly. I stand by my commments.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 13, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - January 13, 2006

  5. Seems this is an example of Alito standing up for choice in education, not necessarily “gay rights”.

    Hm…split feelings here…glad to see some leftists supporting Alito for having sided with conservative values, but dismayed they don’t realize it. Perhaps one day it will dawn on the Gay Left that liberty (rather than whatever they want to define as “Gay Rights”) is in everybody’s best interest.

    …hope against hope.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 13, 2006 @ 8:29 pm - January 13, 2006

  6. You’re missing the point here. Scalito is against abortion, and logically, anyone against abortion is a bad judge. Ted Kennedy told me.

    Comment by FantasyAlliance.com columnist — January 14, 2006 @ 10:01 am - January 14, 2006

  7. But is abortion really covered under the Constitution? It is not an “enumerated right” (i.e. spelled out verbatim, like “freedom of speech.”) Rather, it is an offshoot of the 9th Amendment, which states that anything not covered in the Constitution isn’t necessarily prohibited by the Constitution.

    This is how the SCOTUS decided Roe v. Wade based upon their ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the judgment in question was about purchasing contraceptives. The ruling in that case was about the “penumbra” of the 9th Amendment.

    If the Griswold decision was a bad one (and many liberal judges have even said so), does that make Roe a bad one as well?

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 14, 2006 @ 11:18 am - January 14, 2006

  8. Abortion doesn’t matter much. I’m in favor of keeping it legal, but it’s just one issue with little impact, and of course, it has nothing to do with whether he’s a good judge or not.

    Comment by FantasyAlliance.com columnist — January 14, 2006 @ 11:39 am - January 14, 2006

  9. I have very little trouble with Griswold from a practical standpoint, Peter, because it simply says the government should not be in the business of forcing people to choose to have unprotected sex — a decision later extended in Eisenstadt to regardless of whether the persons involved were married.

    The reason Griswold is a lousy legal decision, though, is because it extrapolates beyond the Fourth Amendment, which is where the strongest privacy language in the Constitution actually is, draws from other amendments words that aren’t there in an attempt to prop up the decision, and finally invokes the “limited powers” wording in the Ninth Amendment, although how a Federal law specifically limiting the power of the Federal government over the states can be used to inactivate a state law has never been made clear to me. I always liked Potter Stewart’s dissent in Griswold where he points out that the fact that a law is silly, unwise, or even asinine does not necessarily mean it’s unconstitutional.

    The problem is, though, that Griswold and Eisenstadt both dealt with contraception — literally, blocks fertilization; thus, while they may not be the most elegant of legal decisions, they at least keep it between the two people having sex. Roe extends the concept to all forms of birth control, which includes contraception AND infanticide. That’s why the unraveling of Roe wouldn’t necessarily affect privacy rights; it would, however, affect abortion clinic revenue, Planned Parenthood’s power, and the Democratic Party’s major donor stream.

    Hence the shrieking.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - January 14, 2006

  10. Shrieking is right. Some of Planned Parenthood’s lit sounds like any moment now women will be deprived of the right to vote and forced into veiled seclusion. I agree that abortion has nothing to do with laws affecting gay people. Two separate issues.

    Thanks for posting Alito’s decision in this case, GayPatriot.

    Comment by Muslihoon — January 14, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - January 14, 2006

  11. Okay….. I read the Blog, Nice site I found and I bookmarked the site… Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.

    Comment by Breast Enhancement — September 24, 2006 @ 3:35 am - September 24, 2006

  12. Thousands Now breast enhancement Who Never Thought They Could

    Comment by Breast Enhancement — October 27, 2006 @ 4:27 am - October 27, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.