Awww. Phyllis Schlafly is Insulted.

Poor Phyllis Schlafly. First she has to watch her dreams for a theocratic country slowly slip away and now she’s been personally insulted by the Supreme Court. That was her reaction to Justice Kennedy’s ruling in the DOMA case, which she considers a personal affront.

Deace: You wrote an interesting reaction to the US Supreme Court, I guess we would call it ‘opinion,’ but it really looked to me, Phyllis, like five justices, and Anthony Kennedy in particular, chose to write what amounts to an anti-Christian polemic disguised as a legal opinion. And it seems like you sort of got the same vibe from what they wrote.

Schlafly: Well, I was extremely offended at all the nasty names he called us. I just think it’s so inappropriate, unprecedented and really nasty for the justice to say that the reason DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed, and those who stand up for traditional marriage is that they have animus against gays, they want to deny them equal dignity, that we want to brand them as unworthy, we want to humiliate their children, we have a hateful desire to harm a politically unpopular group. I just think, I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said. I don’t think that’s true, the idea that anybody who stood up for traditional marriage is guilty of all that hate in his heart is just outrageous.

Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous that these bigots get called out for their bigotry. Oh, the humanity!

"Why would beings of spirit like angels "theoretically " are, need orifices available for rape? ..."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."
"You're all ignoring a big question: how did they get the frogs to drink from ..."

Warning: Alex Jones is Going to ..."
"Ah. So, go to war with everyone who looks at you funny, screw the environment ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"That sounded like Tex Avery would do for a cartoon short"

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • marcus

    Won’t anyone please think of the bigots? They’re having such a rough time!

  • John Pieret

    I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said. I don’t think that’s true, the idea that anybody who stood up for traditional marriage is guilty of all that hate in his heart is just outrageous.

    She thinks it is “outrageous” … but she doesn’t explain how it isn’t true

    Bull Conner was, no doubt, “offended” to be called a racial bigot but …

  • Chiroptera

    … chose to write what amounts to an anti-Christian polemic disguised as a legal opinion…

    Well, in some Christians’ theology, democracy, constitutional government, and protected rights are anti-Christian.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1246980039 caseyboucher

    First the military, now marriage; why do the gays want in to our worst institutions?

  • raven

    Phyllis schlafly:

    Schlafly: Well, I was extremely offended at all the nasty names he called us.

    She says that like it is a bad thing. If you aren’t offending or insulting Phyllis, you are doing something wrong.

    She was offended when women got the right to vote and became famous for opposing gender equality under US law, helping to kill the ERA.

    She is offended that anyone but xians exist, nonwhites have legal equality, and that the Dark Ages ended.

  • jnorris

    I think Ms Schlafly was more insulted that she was not called out by name. If she were, then she would have been persecuted. Bless her little heart.

  • gopiballava

    I think I’ve realized one thing that I really need to see from Schlafly et al: a concrete and detailed explanation, naming names, of the real intolerant bigots. They aren’t all bigots, she says. So which ones are and what makes them bigots? I think that would be interesting and enlightening. Given the positive comments that some of them have about countries that imprison gays, I suspect we’d find that most of them would actually fit even a quite narrow definition of ‘bigot’.

  • caseloweraz

    Could I float a motion to refer to Mrs. Schlafly heretofore as “Holder-of-animus-against-gays”?

    Nah, that wouldn’t fly. It’s just too hard to type. It’s even worse than “Speaker-to-animals.”

    But it’s amusing that she exaggerates the single, general reference to persons holding “animus against gays” to multiple insults directed at her.

  • imnotspecial

    The Christians I associate with all claim they don’t hate gays. But they do say that the gay life style offends their god. Since they don’t really know that, I would consider their position hateful and that translates to hating gays. If their god hates gays they must also in order to defend the honor of their god.

    I don’t “hate” Ms. Schlafly, but I would not want to have lunch with her. I wonder whether that would offend her?

  • raven

    If their god hates gays they must also in order to defend the honor of their god.

    Why does their god need humans to defend him?

    They claim he is the creator and all powerful ruler of the universe. If god can’t defend himself, why call it god?

    God is also offended by atheists, Moslems, scientists, Fake xians, nonvirgin brides, sabbath breakers and most of the human species. This would be a problem if god wasn’t just a sockpuppet that hates what they hate and wants them to have what they want.

  • some bastard on the net

    I don’t think that’s true…

    Man, for just one day I’d like to have some of that ‘pliable reality’ that so many fundies seem to enjoy on a regular basis.

    Just one day, that’s all I’m asking!

  • gshelley

    I think we expect people like Schafly to get offended. It’s a little more disheartening when the focus of the dissent is the same “They’re calling us bigots for wanting to discriminate against gay people simply because we don’t like them. That’s soooooo unfair”

  • kantalope

    I have an idea…how would she treat people that she does hate and then how is that different from how she wants gay (or female) people treated.

  • hunter

    “. . . they have animus against gays, they want to deny them equal dignity, that we want to brand them as unworthy, we want to humiliate their children, we have a hateful desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

    Which was all in the legislative history of the act.

    If the shoe fits. . . .

    And just how arrogant and self-absorbed does one have to be to take a Supreme Court opinion deciding a case in which one was not involved as a personal affront?

  • Michael Heath

    And let’s be clear. It’s still bigotry to support gay marriage rights while belonging to a church that continues to discriminate against gay people; except for those who openly fight to end such bigotry. This is why we continue to expect to observe bigotry against gays for many years now, analogous to how these conservative Christians say they’re for equal rights for women while their churches continue to discriminate against females.

  • matty1

    I think she misses a key point. It doesn’t matter if her her support for DOMA is motivated by hate in her heart or by the love of sweet baby Jesus. What matters is that the court found the evidence shows not only that the effect of the law is “to deny them equal dignity..to brand them as unworthy.. to humiliate their children” but that it achieves nothing else so regardless of motivation that effect is it’s purpose.

    Similarly if you have a law banning red haired people from driving its purpose is to deny redheads the same ability to travel as others and that remains true even if your motivation was that you love redheads and want to protect them from traffic accidents.

  • maddog1129

    caseloweraz #8

    iirc, “heretofore” means approximately “up until now,” i.e., in the past. I think you might mean “hereafter” which means “from now going forward” and refers to the future.

  • pacal

    Phyllis Schlafly. I wonder what your Gay son thinks of all of this? It appears that you get along with him and his partner.

    So I wonder if it just Phyllis Schlafly acting for her base or if she really believes any of this. In the past Phyllis Schlafly would pal around with Roy Cohn and with him go around condemning the “Gay Agenda”, while all the while not caring about the fact that Roy Cohn was totally Gay.

    I suspect playing it for the “rubes” again.

  • caseloweraz

    The poorly chosen word in my #8 has been bugging me ever since I posted it this morning.

    O gods of regular expression, hear my prayer: s/heretofore/henceforth .

  • skinnercitycyclist

    Yeah, I think “henceforth” is better than “hereafter.” Does this mean we are nerds?

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    Look, if you were Philly Shitfly, you’d be pissed too, if all that you got out of being a traitor to your gender was a shitpot full of money and a sort of rough equivalency to Mags Thatcher. I mean, hell, Philly thought she was gonna be the Empress of MurKKKa, or at least a queen. She winds up being nothing more than a scheming countess (sp?), of course she’s a little upset.

    “Could I float a motion to refer to Mrs. Schlafly heretofore as “Holder-of-animus-against-gays”?”

    An acronym? “Holding Animus Against Gays” = HAAG? Hey, it’s just a notion!

  • DaveL

    Hold on – Right wing Christians howled with rage when the courts told them they couldn’t throw people in jail anymore for consensual gay sex. Over and over they’ve equated gay people with pedophiles, and gay sex with bestiality.

    But you think it’s outrageous that five SC justices detect an animus againt gay people in all this?

    • hunter

      That’s not animus — that’s just defending traditional Judaeo-Christian values.

  • dingojack

    ‘Hereafter’?

    I thought that was the name for those ‘senior moments’ I’ve been having lately.

    You know when you go into a room, only to wonder aloud ‘what was I here after’?

    😉 Dingo