The state wants to watch you have sex...

March 27, 2003 6:59 AM

The Supreme Courtis currently hearing arguments about the constitutionality of homosexual sex. While this may not be news, just listening to some of the comments by the conservatives on the court can be a chilling experience, whether you are straight or gay. Is it possible that there can be supreme court justices, supposedly the best of the best, who are really this ignorant?
posted by eas98 (68 comments total)

slept through the last "election", did you?
posted by quonsar at 7:10 AM on March 27, 2003

The gem:

Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."
posted by gottabefunky at 7:20 AM on March 27, 2003

The Slate article posted above really shows the way some of the neo-conservatives like Scalia and Rhenquist think. I'm actually amazed that those people can agree on anything.

What really concerns me is how these people are supposed to be some of the most brilliant minds in law, and yet they have such divergent interpretations of the law. If the 'best of the best' can't agree on something, how can there be any hope for any type of unity or agreement in the laws of the future.
posted by eas98 at 7:21 AM on March 27, 2003

My scariest moment:

"It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."
posted by eas98 at 7:24 AM on March 27, 2003

I think I'm going to be sick. I cannot express at this point how much I hate living in Texas.
posted by Cerebus at 7:32 AM on March 27, 2003

How about the bit where Scalia says that gay school teachers will lead children down the "path to homosexuality"? What a disgusting bigot.
posted by McBain at 7:33 AM on March 27, 2003

way some of the neo-conservatives like Scalia and Rhenquist think

Do you even know what the term "neo-conservative" means? Or did you just throw it around because you read it in some Op/Ed and it is the trendy term of late?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:36 AM on March 27, 2003

Pause here to consider that bestiality is not considered "deviate" under Texas law.

Not a bit surprised, for cars you have to have working windshield-wipers, but not a windshield in Texas...doh.
posted by thomcatspike at 7:38 AM on March 27, 2003

sadly i missed Nina Totenberg's dramatic report on this case yesterday on NPR, but i'm sure it was a doozy...Scalia on the warpath is always fascinating/terrifying to behold. let's not forget that he is George W.'s professed "favorite" justice, and he wants to appoint more just like him! :-0

i think you can't really apply "the best of the best" to the USSC - in a way, they are just the ones who were politically connected and/or palatable enough to make it through the nomination process...though of course they are all qualified, experienced judges before they get that sweet lifetime appointment. especially these days, nomination to the federal bench is a political minefield, with each side of the aisle trying to install a judge who will (sub rosa, of course) favor the core values of their political philosophy, not someone who is the fairest, or the smartest, or the most reasonable. this might explain why USSC decisions are so convoluted and come out so very wrong sometimes...in the Texas case, i think they might strike down the law, but not on the right grounds, and Scalia will write one of his scathing dissents with a few more crude "flagpole-sitting" references, lovely.
posted by serafinapekkala at 7:39 AM on March 27, 2003

"Is it possible that there can be supreme court justices, supposedly the best of the best, who are really this ignorant?"

Yes. Yes, it is.
posted by *burp* at 7:45 AM on March 27, 2003

Hey Steve_at_Linnwood, thanks for contributing to the discussion. If I have made an error in use of the word, then my apologies.

But you are still a dick.
posted by eas98 at 7:47 AM on March 27, 2003

Thanks for the post. I don't think I would have been aware of this otherwise.

It makes me sad, all the way through to my bones, though.

The only thing more pathetic than the total lack of connection with the 20th century, is the way these jack-asses are willing to twist and stretch logic:

We don't object to homosexuality, just homosexual acts.

What garbage. I'm ashamed of all of us for letting these neanderthals govern us.
posted by scarabic at 7:55 AM on March 27, 2003

If I have made an error in use of the word, then my apologies.

How about if he explained what it means and how your use of it was incorrect rather than being a... oh, yeah...
posted by McBain at 7:57 AM on March 27, 2003

The only thing more pathetic than the total lack of connection with the 20th century

I'm hoping for the 21st century, but the 20th might be a step in the right direction.
posted by McBain at 7:58 AM on March 27, 2003

Scarabic, don't besmirch neanderthals, I have seen no evidence that they practiced sexual repression ; )
posted by asok at 8:00 AM on March 27, 2003

"Is it possible that there can be supreme court justices, supposedly the best of the best, who are really this ignorant?"

Ignorant? No. Steeped in another culture and tradition? Yes.


Smith says these laws say "you can't have sexual activity at all" if you are gay and Scalia objects: "They just say you can't have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."

Which is very likely technically accurate. The fact that Scalia may well be using this to serve a social/political agenda doesn't make it less true.

At the end of the day, the rulings each judge issues will come down to justification in terms of finer points of the law... and will be motivated by their social/political agendas. I happen to think that generally, Scalia's is farther right than I think is good for society, but I wouldn't accuse him of outright stupidity.
posted by namespan at 8:02 AM on March 27, 2003

Here's Nina Totenberg's report from the March 26th NPR broadcast, in winmedia and realmedia.
posted by yonderboy at 8:03 AM on March 27, 2003

some states can still fine unmarried couples who live together. I think judge scaly and his ilk really would just prefer to ban extra-marital sex--period...perhaps even ban sex that doesn't lead to conception....birth control, oral sex, pizza for breakfast...there is no limit.

sad thing is, this has gotten very little press, because a lot of people Agree. Fucked up. There would probably be more of an outcry if he made SpongeBob illegal.
posted by th3ph17 at 8:14 AM on March 27, 2003

That's because it would directly affect more people th3ph17.... (not that I think this law is right, just pointin' out the obvious)
posted by ph00dz at 8:20 AM on March 27, 2003

The oral argument was actually yesterday. Here is Tom Goldstein's take on it. Sounds like the counsel for the State of Texas was not very good. How nice of Scalia to argue the case for him.
posted by sp dinsmoor at 8:22 AM on March 27, 2003

Do you even know what the term "neo-conservative" means? Or did you just throw it around because you read it in some Op/Ed and it is the trendy term of late?

I love the smell of good manners in the morning

Anyway:

The NeoConservative Mind

It's a very interesting topic: what's more dangerous, the "Real Men Want to Take Tehran" warmongering efforts of neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, or the long march to dismantle civil liberties by unreconstructed Republican operatives like Rehnquist and Thomas in the Supreme Court

(My opinion: at least the Supremes are not going to set the world on fire, they'll just be happy when the entire US have been Ashcroftized)
posted by matteo at 8:42 AM on March 27, 2003

I was listening to Nina Totenberg's piece yesterday, and what really struck me was the statement that in his opinion the State of Texas has the right to prevent any kind of extramarital consensual sex whatsoever on the grounds that the spread of AIDS overrules personal civil liberties (in this instance).

Can you say Taliban, boys and girls? It's easy! - Say it with me! "T - a - l - i - b - a - n"
posted by troutfishing at 8:44 AM on March 27, 2003

Keep in mind that we shouldn't place a lot of stock in the questions or comments made by judges at oral argument. Judges, particularly appellate judges, often take adversarial stances in order to grill the lawyer representing each side more fully. A Justice might well thoroughly ream one lawyer's argument, only to turn around and use that very argument against the other lawyer, in order to see his or her response.

That being said, it is very clear that Texas law, as well as some of the sitting Justices on the Court are quite out of step with prevailing public opinion. The problem from a legal standpoint, however, is twofold. First, if we accept some form of originalism (a controversial proposition in itself), it may well be that the "public mores" we should consider are not ours, but rather those of the people who wrote the law, i.e., the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, did those framers and their contemporaries understand the Amendment to restrict the states' right to make what they considered sexual deviance illegal? Almost certainly not. Other argue for a more expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is where this battle is fought in the Court, not over whether the court understands homosexuality itself to be immoral. Second, we have an unfortunately strong precedent in Bowers. While Bowers is, and probably should be, repugnant to most of us, the Court is relatively adverse to starring stare decisis in the face very often.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:47 AM on March 27, 2003

Oops - my typewriter glitch obliterated a piece of that. Here again:

I was listening to Nina Totenberg's piece yesterday, and what really struck me was the statement, by the Texas prosecutor of the case in question (Smith, I believe), that in his opinion the State of Texas has the right to prevent any kind of extramarital consensual sex whatsoever on the grounds that the spread of AIDS overrules personal civil liberties (in this instance).

Did I really hear this? Were my caffeine frenzied perceptions playing tricks on me?

Can you say Taliban, boys and girls? It's easy! - Say it with me! "T - a - l - i - b - a - n"
posted by troutfishing at 8:48 AM on March 27, 2003

Reading this article about the anti-gay protests makes me more sick than the Court ever could.

Ten-year-old Grace Phelps balanced a sign reading "Thank God for Sept. 11" on her shoulder as her mother handed her a small American flag. Looking over her shoulder at the Supreme Court building, where a Texas gay rights case was being heard, Grace scrunched her face and parroted what her parents told her about God saying homosexual behavior is wrong. "It is an abomination," she said. "God punished us on Sept. 11 because we are OK with that kind of stuff." Dropping the flag onto the ground, she spit on it, then twisted her foot on top of it with enough force to fray the red and white stripes. Her mother Shirley Phelps smiled.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:02 AM on March 27, 2003

What bugs me the most is the argument from the lawyer representing Texas-- i.e., that the State has the right to legislate what it doesn't approve of, and that it's the winds of prevailing public opinion that determine those areas.

Well Mr. Rosenthal, 50 years ago the Texas public clearly didn't approve of blacks gettin' all uppity and demanding the right to be votin' and edjumacated and stuff like that, so by Rosenthal's test the State clearly should have had the right to legislate that blacks be held as second-class citizens. How is that any different?
posted by Cerebus at 9:11 AM on March 27, 2003

Cerebus, it's generally well accepted that the state police power gives the state the power to regulate behavior it doesn't approve of. The question isn't so much the scope of the police power in isolation, but rather how that scope is limited by the federal constitution. The controversial part of Mr. Rosenthal's argument is not that the state has the power to regulate, but rather that it is regulating in an area that is unfettered by the Fourteenth Amendment.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:15 AM on March 27, 2003

You may recall the debate over the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and the origin of the term "borking" for opposing a nominee. A key part of the argument concerned Bork's support of Griswold v. Connecticut in which a doctor was convicted for counseling a married couple on methods of birth control, which was prohibited by state law at the time. Bork, and apparently Scalia, hold the view that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent states from enforcing such laws. As Scalia said in a speech last week "most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
posted by JackFlash at 9:15 AM on March 27, 2003

by my reading scalia sees a logically consistent defence of the law and is following it through. if you do that, and the law is homophobic, then you're going to make homophobic comments. i can imagine that he can hold quite conservative views, think this law is silly, and argue that the case is consistent all at the same time, but that doesn't mean that everything he argues should be interprested as statements of personal faith.

his point, as far as i could tell, was that laws reflect societies. that makes any argument that the law should be changed because it goes against what people think somewaht silly - the law is homophobic in texas because most texans are. conversely, it's a suitable law for texas.

it's both circular and weak, but maybe that's the best that was going.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:21 AM on March 27, 2003

Manoman. Three points:

1. There is some credence in the notion that the justices may, during oral argument, posit extreme positions solely to test the argument of one side or the other. So, it's not entirely fair to damn Scalia and Rehnquist for the questions they ask and the statements they make during oral argument; wait until the written opinion to do that.

2. The wack-jobs quoted in the Chronicle article are the "God Hates Fags" clan of the infamous Fred Phelps, so it's also not entirely fair to say they represent even an extreme position on the issue - more like an insane position on it.

3. And just for comic relief: and to think that all this time I had thought this was the path to homosexuality.
posted by yhbc at 9:28 AM on March 27, 2003

If that's the case, then Texas really should be Messed With.
posted by Foosnark at 9:29 AM on March 27, 2003

monju_bosatsu

That was in this country?

Wow.
posted by eas98 at 9:29 AM on March 27, 2003

As Scalia said in a speech last week "most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Yep.

All Scalia needs, IMHO, is a good session of flagpole-sitting.
posted by soyjoy at 9:34 AM on March 27, 2003

Monju -- Don't get too upset about anything the Phelpses do. It can exhaust you. This is the guy behind godhatesfags.com, the guy who protests the funerals of AIDS victims. A guy who spews the most unbelieveable hatred with a huge baked-bean grin on his face. His sole purpose in life is to rid the world of fags, and that says more about him than anything he actually says himself.

What's sad is that some people are worried about gay kindergarten teachers "enrolling" young disciples, and no one seems to see the depravity of Fred Phelps brainwashing his entire family into thinking 9/11 is god's punishment.

I used to get very upset thinking about Phelps and his clan (and most of his followers are his own kin) but in the end it is his own God whom he will have to face and explain why he preached the word of hate and the word of God in the same breath.
posted by archimago at 9:40 AM on March 27, 2003

Hey, good job these are the kind of folks involved with bringing French* to the oppressed people of Iraq, Afghanistan &c!

*The campaign to reclaim starts here!
posted by i_cola at 9:40 AM on March 27, 2003

isn't what that girl did desecration of the flag?? I'm sure if someone was burning a flag the Phelps would be horrified. sick twisted people!
posted by evening at 9:42 AM on March 27, 2003

Man, I've already read The Handmaid's Tale and seen the movie; I don't need to live it.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:50 AM on March 27, 2003

Fred and Family are coming to my little town soon! Yay! I am actively encouraging all members of the local press to simply ignore him. He is a pathetic media whore and his sole reason for living is to see himself on the 6:00 news.
Fred is visiting us to protest the actions of a judge who granted a divorce to a gay couple. The case is interesting primarily for the precedent it sets in Texas.

I find most Southeast Texans are not pro gay-rights or homophobes of any stripe - they just want to be left alone to live their lives, and they don't see any reason why gay people shouldn't get the same treatment. I'm part of a lesbian couple and we live in the most conservative part of the state. We have never encountered any bigotry, just plain-old fashioned "Well then who cuts the lawn? Who is in charge of the grill?" type friendly gender ignorance.
posted by pomegranate at 10:02 AM on March 27, 2003

Re: Phelps...a friend of mine is making a movie that deals with alternative lifestyles in the Bible Belt. She interviewed Rev. Phelps a couple of weeks ago. I offered up several devices to take with her and insert up his ass, but I think she declined as that might've tainted the interview process. Regardless, she's going to submit her documentary to Sundance, so if it takes off and you see it, remember me my friend.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:07 AM on March 27, 2003

way some of the neo-conservatives like Scalia and Rhenquist think

Do you even know what the term "neo-conservative" means? Or did you just throw it around because you read it in some Op/Ed and it is the trendy term of late?

Neo or paleo aside, Steve, what's your opinion of the case--are you in favor of anti-sodomy laws? Should states have the right to ban sexual acts between people of the same gender? For me, the answer is no in both cases. And you?
posted by y2karl at 10:29 AM on March 27, 2003

We're sharing Phelps stories?

Proudly from Kansas, I warned my friend about doing her journalism internship in Topeka (where Fred is from). She got a lot of great on-air exposure, and even got to meet the Reverend Phelps himself. He apologized to her, telling her it was very unfortunate she was Indian, since she's going to hell for that.

There's a piece I read about a year ago raising suspicions that Phelps himself is gay or has tendancies, wish I could find it. (I wouldn't be surprised... the most violent and vicious homophobes are usually the ones that are repressing something, instead of just being plain ignorant.)
posted by gramcracker at 10:40 AM on March 27, 2003

his point, as far as i could tell, was that laws reflect societies. that makes any argument that the law should be changed because it goes against what people think somewaht silly - the law is homophobic in texas because most texans are. conversely, it's a suitable law for texas.

er... no. if this were the case, no civil rights laws would ever have been passed.
posted by badstone at 11:05 AM on March 27, 2003

If any issue still has the power to bring me almost irrepressible rage and despair, it's this. Being both black and gay, I feel as though I'm reliving my parents' generation, when I could still officially be treated by the government of the United States as a second-class citizen because of my race. I reject any effort to deny equivalency between the two issues. At no point in my life did I ever make the choice to be black and at no point did I ever choose to be gay; although I would not disown either heritage. Blacks have been enslaved and lynched and gays have been gassed. The hatred behind these tragedies was one and the same.

According to Scalia, as others have noted, the laws don't prohibit gay people from experiencing sexual intimacy, they just stipulate that it not be "with a person of the same sex." Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, Oh Erudite and Accomplished and Far-Advanced-Beyond-My-Humble-Years Justice Antonin Scalia. Me having sex with someone to whom I am not attracted would not be anything resembling "sexual intimacy." It would be self-flagellation. It would be a sham.

I defy anyone to tell me how consensual intercourse in private between me and another person of my gender in any way infringes upon the fabric of this society. Please. I will piss on you.

Afraid that if we open the doors to homosexuality, we'll just have to allow polygamy and pedophilia? Tough. That's between you and the polygamists and pedophiles.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 11:23 AM on March 27, 2003

Re: Phelps

I just happen to live in Topeka, KS, the home of Fred Phelps. I get to see him and his clan picketing all of the time. Nothing like driving down the road only to see signs with stick figures having anal sex (see the last link for examples). I drive by his compound on my way to school.

isn't what that girl did desecration of the flag?? I'm sure if someone was burning a flag the Phelps would be horrified.

I think the girl interviewed in the article is related to Phelps. I don't think he would have any problem with flag burning. The flag at his compound flies upside down, and there is a large www.godhatesamerica.com banner hanging on the wall.

The other interesting thing about Phelps is that he used to be a liberal lawyer before he flipped out. He had connections with many local and national politicians. Here is a photo with Al and Tipper. I have also seen one with Phelps and the late former governor of Kansas, Joan Finney.

Here is another episode in the Phelps saga. It involves the local newspaper and a story one of its reporters attempted to write.

All in all, the guy is a looney. This site has some video if you are interested.
posted by sp dinsmoor at 12:05 PM on March 27, 2003

beautifully said, grrarrgh00!

and i'm very worried about this case...I wonder if anyone here know if it matters that the law that Bowers v. Hardwick back in the 80s (a Georgia anti-sodomy law) was argued on has since been repealed? or does that not matter?
posted by amberglow at 12:23 PM on March 27, 2003

All Scalia needs, IMHO, is a good session of flagpole-sitting.

All Scalia needs, IMHO, is a good session of fat dick stitting..
posted by Pinwheel at 12:26 PM on March 27, 2003

Ufez Jones -- Not too long ago I read about the best reponse to Phelps I've seen yet. He came to some town to protest another funeral of an AIDS victim and a bunch of the local and near-local gay bars donated their profits for the days he protested to local AIDS relief charities. It was a brilliant counter-move, IMO. Just by showing up he inspired a whole mess of people to donate money to the very cause he was protesting.
posted by archimago at 12:30 PM on March 27, 2003

er, yes, Pinwheel... if only I'd thought to say that.
posted by soyjoy at 12:51 PM on March 27, 2003

RE: Phelps

Is it too late for you to get some tomatoes and make sure they're nice and rotten by the time he arrives? Show up early with a pal, make sure you give the secret handshake and demand Gene Shalit be taken off television every so often and pelt him with the tomatoes. Sure, you'll get arrested and probably be tried as a terrorist, but you'll be considered a hero the world over.

As to this case. Hmm, death with dignity laws: feds rule. Medicinal marijuna: feds rule. Gay sex: states rule??
posted by skallas at 1:02 PM on March 27, 2003

archimago. . .it seems time to drag this out. I swear this is the only Onion piece I will ever link to here. . .promise. . .I just could not help it.
posted by Danf at 1:05 PM on March 27, 2003

Neo or paleo aside, Steve, what's your opinion of the case--are you in favor of anti-sodomy laws? Should states have the right to ban sexual acts between people of the same gender? For me, the answer is no in both cases. And you?

Hmm. Steve seems to have departed the thread. Perhaps he was worried that all this talk of "the gays" might homo-fy him.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:14 PM on March 27, 2003

Perhaps he was worried that all this talk of "the gays" might homo-fy him.

don't worry folks! i'll ask him tonight, in a more "private" setting ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:42 PM on March 27, 2003

It's become obvious that to protest the more fuckwitasshat members of the Court and their views that men will just have to start sticking their tongues down each other's throats at every possible public opportunity. No more married m4m chat rooms for you, gents! I'm at the corner of State and Main. Let's to it!

Not to support 'boyzone' feelings -- but you ladies already know society lets YOU kiss each other all you want.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:11 PM on March 27, 2003

Do you even know what the term "neo-conservative" means? Or did you just throw it around because you read it in some Op/Ed and it is the trendy term of late?

Or perhaps a family tree.
posted by homunculus at 2:30 PM on March 27, 2003

No more married m4m chat rooms for you, gents!

Shit, where ARE these rooms?!?!?!?!?
posted by Danf at 3:44 PM on March 27, 2003

Danf, it's called AOL. Or, affectionately in certain communities, gAyOL.

Seriously, check it out. It's scary how many married men are apparently afraid to ask their wives for a little hummer every now and then.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:50 PM on March 27, 2003

Ufez Jones: ...a friend of mine is making a movie that deals with alternative lifestyles in the Bible Belt. She interviewed Rev. Phelps a couple of weeks ago.

This is a huge mistake. It just feeds the monster. They protested here in Houston at the Johnson Space Center -- NASA! here in Houston! Can you imagine? -- for some incomprehensible reason and there was not a word on TV or in the newspaper. Excellent.
posted by SteveL669 at 5:08 PM on March 27, 2003

Neo or paleo aside, Steve, what's your opinion of the case--are you in favor of anti-sodomy laws? Should states have the right to ban sexual acts between people of the same gender? For me, the answer is no in both cases. And you?

Me? Well for once I agree with you karl. What people do in their privacy of their home, provided no one gets hurt and they are consenting adults, is none of mine or the state's business.

homo-fy?
No, Civil_Disobedient not that. I do occasionally do have other things to do than hang out on MetaFilter all day.

My point is and was, that someone should not throw around that term unless they know what it means. As of late it seems to be the buzzword de jur assigned to all the perceived 'evils' of The Right™
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:18 PM on March 27, 2003

de jur

do you mean "de jure" (Latin)
or "du jour" (French-- er Freedomch)?
posted by matteo at 6:46 PM on March 27, 2003

Why must you nitpick? You know what I meant.

Stop being an asshat.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:54 PM on March 27, 2003

Isn't anyone going to laugh at the headline?

The Supreme Court Tries Sodomy

Priceless.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:41 PM on March 27, 2003

Why must you nitpick?

Because in this very thread you jumped down eas98's throat for the "neocon" mistake.
posted by matteo at 7:43 PM on March 27, 2003

I thought I asked for Steve to define Neocon since he had such a problem with its use. Why not do that and prove the poster you had a problem with wrong?
posted by McBain at 9:51 PM on March 27, 2003

yhbc: There is some credence in the notion that the justices may, during oral argument, posit extreme positions solely to test the argument of one side or the other. So, it's not entirely fair to damn Scalia and Rehnquist for the questions they ask and the statements they make during oral argument; wait until the written opinion to do that.

I'd like to think that, I really would. But if this were the case, wouldn't we see Scalie and Rehnquist spouting extreme left positions with about the same frequency as their far-right ones?
posted by Vidiot at 10:08 PM on March 27, 2003

errr....Scalia.
posted by Vidiot at 10:40 PM on March 27, 2003

It's become obvious that to protest the more fuckwitasshat members of the Court and their views that men will just have to start sticking their tongues down each other's throats at every possible public opportunity. No more married m4m chat rooms for you, gents! I'm at the corner of State and Main. Let's to it!

Not to support 'boyzone' feelings -- but you ladies already know society lets YOU kiss each other all you want.

Men seem to like that, don't they? A lesser known fact is that many women like watching boys kiss. So go right ahead. But only the pretty ones.
posted by Summer at 3:31 AM on March 28, 2003

errr....Scalia.

No, "Scalie" (or more properly, "Scaly") is also perfectly accurate and better conveys our "friendly" intentions toward the walking anachronism.
posted by soyjoy at 8:24 AM on March 28, 2003

McBain, the issue is not with my definition of the term, but with eas98 attempting to define the term "neo-con" in the context he wanted. The original meaning of the word is lost now, because of instances like this. But if you truly are interested in the differences between different nuances of "conservatives" there was a whole thread based on that discussion that contains many links and definitions.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:23 PM on March 28, 2003