Motus Mentis

6 Comments

1. JK says

   I don’t know why The Atlantic’d be so … well, can’t say as I rightly know how The Atlantic means whatever its meaning.

   “Prisses” looks like, may do well in the LFL … or maybe not.

   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ffsb8

   Posted June 29, 2015 at 9:42 pm | Permalink
2. djf says

   The article refers to the Supreme Court’s “declaration that same sex marriage is constitutional.” What an idiot. No one ever said SSM, if voluntarily enacted by a state, was UNconstitutional. The question was whether SSM is required by the constitution. Obviously, the passive aggressive proponents of this horse hockey like to pose as the party being coerced, rather than as the party trying to coerce others, which is the truth.

   Posted June 30, 2015 at 12:10 am | Permalink
3. JK says

   It’s actually djf simpler – the “enumerated powers” clause for instance.

   Posted June 30, 2015 at 1:11 am | Permalink
4. whitewall says

   From the Atlantic piece..“Professional sports teams still haven’t been able to shake that toxic culture of masculinity,” Sums it all up. That is the long range goal. SSM, Bruce Jenner, Title 9 etc are just steps along the way. The Left need a beta male culture of males who are malleable and more feminized like they are. No wonder young women ask where in hell have all the men gone. These aspiring eunuchs are at home afraid to wear their nuts in public.

   Posted June 30, 2015 at 9:12 am | Permalink
5. Dom says

   “Heteronormative”, “intersection”, “toxic masculinity” … It’s like playing liberal bingo.

   Posted June 30, 2015 at 11:42 am | Permalink
6. djf says

   Actually, JK, the “enumerated powers” doctrine (a limitation on the power of Congress) is not relevant to the Obergefell decision, which purports to be an application of the 14th Amendment, a part of the constitution that directly limits the power of the states. My criticism of the half-witted Atlantic article was that it implies that, before last week’s decision, the constitution had been interpreted to prevent SSM. Now, however, the Supreme Court (not Congress) is coercing the state to recognize SSM. One sees the same sort of backwards characterization of constitutional issues in MSM articles on abortion, which are written as if before Roe, the Supreme Court had stood in the way of state legalization of abortion.

   Posted July 1, 2015 at 7:58 am | Permalink