A writer for the conservative National Review on Tuesday compared the Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the issue of gay marriage to the landmark Dred Scott decision, which justified slavery in the South and helped pave the way for the Civil War.
Reacting to Monday’s news that the Supreme Court had cleared the way for same-sex marriage across much of the country, writer Matthew J. Franck called the Court’s acquiescence “a slow-motion Dred Scott for the twenty-first century.”
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” rejecting Scott’s appeal for freedom and destroying the Missouri Compromise.
After Think Progress writer Ian Millhiser called him out, Franck wrote another post laying out his argument in more detail:
In Dred Scott it was the false idea that some human beings can own other human beings, and that a democratic people cannot say otherwise. In the same-sex marriage rulings it is the false idea that men can marry men, and women can marry women, and that democratic peoples cannot say otherwise.
setting aside the peculiar notion that slavery is just like allowing adults to choose whom they wish to marry…
funny how they loooove democracy when it works in their favor, the rest of the time it’s illegitimate mob rule that was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
Yeah, because taking away someone’s right to freedom is exactly the same as allowing someone’s right to freedom.
Only in the GOPTp . . .
so I take it that the National Review also believes it’s a false idea that people can own any kind of firearm and ammo they wish, and democratic peoples cannot say otherwise?
I dunno, My gaydar’s going off like a Geiger Counter at Fukushima.
Broken analogy is broken. Dude didn’t even follow up with the correct explanation, proving he’s just talking out of his angry bigot asshole. See, here’s how it works…
The articel said this:
“In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,”
To draw the correct analogy and highlight the parallel, he should have said this:
“In this new ruling, the SCOTUS ruled that Christians have no beliefs which the non-Christians are bound to respect.”
The reason he didn’t is because when you say that, you speak the truth. I don’t have to like, respect, believe, live by or behave according to your fucking religion and can tell you to shove it in your dickhole all day long.