Replies

These media weasels. I'm sure you're right that it's an intentional misquote.

Scalia wrote:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

If you take out "or any other group", which is grammatically non-essential, you get:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals promoting their agenda through normal democratic means.

So the reporter basically took the above sentence and recast it as:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals.

This has a different meaning and sounds kind of gauche (as larlaw mentioned in post #5).

I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox.

The homosexual agenda was advanced today and it wasn't through democratic means. We do not elect the Supreme Court and the legislature did not overturn the laws.

Evidence points that the men charged in Texas conspired to create the circumstance that they found themselves in. They wanted a test case and a homosexual roommate and lover of these men made the false emergency call to the police.

If it is only about consenting adults acting in private, what does the justice have to say about "incest laws", "drug laws", "prostitution laws", etc?

"I tell ya, with our media it's torture by a thousand little fudgings, shadings, and spins. Thank goodness for the likes of FR and Limbaugh and Fox."

For example, I read a 600-word obituary of Lester Maddox last night. Somehow, not a single one of those 600 words was "Democrat"...