George Takei Slams Scalia for 'Repugnant' Anti-Gay Comment

George Takei Slams Scalia for ‘Repugnant’ Anti-Gay Comment

US News • December 2012 • Views: 1,535

George Takei Slams Scalia for ‘Repugnant’ Anti-Gay Comment

“Well, it seems to me that if Justice Elena Kagan can recuse herself from the Boston case, Justice Scalia needs to consider recusing himself,” Takei said. “He is obviously not unbiased. He is clearly biased in this situation. So how can he look at the issue and make a judgement fairly.”

“I really do think, first of all that statement was a repugnant statement to equate homosexuality with murder, and any Justice who has so little thought before he speaks should not be participating in the ruling on the cases involving DOMA or Proposition 8,” he added.

Bad guys don’t recuse themselves and I feel that Justice Scalia is a very, very bad guy.

Recent Pages by Locker:
Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists Watch This Little Girl Become What She Is Told Every Day How to Be Outraged on the Internet How California's Gun Laws Have Worked Arkansas Attorney General Blocks Plan to Arm Teachers

Jump to bottom

48 comments

Dark_Falcon Thu, Dec 13, 2012 6:42:15am

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds homosexuality morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

Locker Thu, Dec 13, 2012 6:55:31am

He compares homosexuality to murder. Period.

Lidane Thu, Dec 13, 2012 7:39:26am

Scalia's outright comparing homosexuality to murder and bestiality.

Anyone that irrational can't possibly rule fairly on anything to do with DOMA or Prop 8.

bratwurst Thu, Dec 13, 2012 7:54:39am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

I think Takei and everyone else who cares about civil rights in this country would be more than happy to settle for a judge who is impartial. Scalia has proven several times he is not even close to impartial on this matter.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 7:58:06am

Scalias response, just for the record.

A much better comparison would have been with what we call the "blue laws" that have fallen in the face of consenting adults. His claim of reducto ad absurdum has not been recognized by his critics at all.

Confronted by a gay student at Princeton University, Justice Antonin Scalia defended his past writings comparing laws against homosexuality to those prohibiting bestiality and murder, saying he was arguing that many laws are based on society’s moral feelings.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” Scalia asked in response to a question. “Can we have it against other things? I don’t apologize for the things I raise.”

Scalia said he was not equating homosexual conduct with bestiality or murder. “It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the reduction to the absurd,” he continued.

Achilles Tang Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:17:49am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds homosexuality morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

Scalia believes the constitution should in all regards be taken literally "as the founders meant at the time", which to me sounds no different from any common garden biblical literalist out of touch with reality.

His views on morality are no different from his broccoli views on economics.

Destro Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:27:04am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds homosexuality morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

What the hell is wrong with you? It's the 21st century - get over being whatever that hell it is that keeps you regressive. Enough! Move the fuck on.

Destro Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:28:13am

re: #4 bratwurst

I think Takei and everyone else who cares about civil rights in this country would be more than happy to settle for a judge who is impartial. Scalia has proven several times he is not even close to impartial on this matter.

To right wingers, impartial is being biased. The only kinds of judges a rightwinger wants is a biased judge in their favor, protestations not withstanding.

jc717 Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:36:11am

While I support gay marriage, dislike Scalia, and disagree with his murder/bestiality comments specifically, he does have a point.

Should we allow morality to influence laws that restrict freedom between consenting adults? Would laws banning polygamy, incest between adults, or laws preventing siblings from marrying be unconstitutional? If not, then how is gay marriage different?

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:37:28am

re: #5 Political Atheist

Scalias response, just for the record.

A much better comparison would have been with what we call the "blue laws" that have fallen in the face of consenting adults. His claim of reducto ad absurdum has not been recognized by his critics at all.

i have completely recognized his claim of reductio ad absurdem, and it's not a defense at all. We don't legislate against murder for moral reasons.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:41:23am

re: #10 Obdicut

There is no moral aspect to the murder laws? I disagree. There are multiple reasons we have these laws, and morality does play a valuable part.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:42:31am

re: #9 jc717

Should we allow morality to influence laws that restrict freedom between consenting adults?

Freedom is a kind of weird word to use here.

Would laws banning polygamy, incest between adults, or laws preventing siblings from marrying be unconstitutional? If not, then how is gay marriage different?

Polygamy is really tricky because marriage in general implies that one other person has rights and obligations to you. Having two of those people gets very weird fast, because what if those two people disagree? The only real way to handle that would be to have a contract where one of the people is 'lower' than the other person in decision-making, and that makes it very, very different from normal marriage.

To put it otherwise: What would it mean to be polygamous, and married to two people? What would the actual legal effects be?

Incest between adults is not criminalized in many places. Siblings marrying is about genetic health rather than sexuality, and it probably is actually archaic. It's one of those things that probably wouldn't change a damn thing if it were legalized, really; siblings that want to fuck each other are going to do it regardless of legality.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:44:04am

re: #11 Political Atheist

There is no moral aspect to the murder laws? I disagree. There are multiple reasons we have these laws, and morality does play a valuable part.

Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of another person, not because it's 'immoral'. Any moral aspect is absolutely minuscule compared to that. Even if we grant there is 'some' moral aspect, you surely don't think we mostly legislate against murder because of morality, right?

Locker Thu, Dec 13, 2012 8:51:04am

re: #10 Obdicut

i have completely recognized his claim of reductio ad absurdem, and it's not a defense at all. We don't legislate against murder for moral reasons.

Exactly. Ideally law would be based on harm rather subjective morality.

calochortus Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:05:10am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

My problem with Scalia and his literal, original reading of the Constitution is easily outweighed in his own mind by his own personal morals. Other people's morals may be different, but they aren't important to him. He knows the Eternal Truth and so can ignore previous decisions when the are obviously wrong to him.

I cannot imagine what difference it would make to the State if the two married people are of the same sex. Existing laws can be easily applied regardless.
Polygamy is different because as Obdi noted, it involves a number of people and existing law doesn't deal with that.

So, yeah, I think it could be problematic to have a Justice who has been running around saying stupid things about homosexuals rule on their rights.

And for those who like the "traditional definition" of marriage so much, the very fact that we all know what polygamy is and can debate its merits suggests that marriage hasn't always been one man and one woman throughout history, everywhere...

Destro Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:07:35am

re: #11 Political Atheist

There is no moral aspect to the murder laws? I disagree. There are multiple reasons we have these laws, and morality does play a valuable part.

re: #13 Obdicut

Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of another person, not because it's 'immoral'. Any moral aspect is absolutely minuscule compared to that. Even if we grant there is 'some' moral aspect, you surely don't think we mostly legislate against murder because of morality, right?

Murder is actually not illegal, at least not for the state. Executed criminals are classified as "homicides".

calochortus Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:12:26am

re: #11 Political Atheist

There is no moral aspect to the murder laws? I disagree. There are multiple reasons we have these laws, and morality does play a valuable part.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if morality is a "The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct" (from the online dictionary), then "morality" is almost meaningless in the context of laws. Why is something considered right conduct?
I think because of harm. We increasingly view harm as being direct and individual rather than 'because the gods will punish us and society as a whole for transgressing their rules.'

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:14:33am

re: #13 Obdicut
How is violating anthers right to live not immoral? I don't see how to proportion the moral argument from an economic or pragmatic one.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:19:00am

re: #18 Political Atheist

How is violating anthers right to live not immoral?

Then you're simply saying all law is based on 'morality'?

I don't see how to proportion the moral argument from an economic or pragmatic one.

Do you not see a difference between homosexuality being condemned on moral grounds and murder being condemned because it violates the rights of another person?

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:30:53am

re: #19 Obdicut

Then you're simply saying all law is based on 'morality'?

Based on? No. as a part of it's foundation, yes. Criminal law, not sure about all law, covers too much ground.

Do you not see a difference between homosexuality being condemned on moral grounds and murder being condemned because it violates the rights of another person?

Yes I see the diff. Did you see my point about a better comparison being the blue laws that fell? I had hoped that would illustrate the fact I do see the difference.

HappyWarrior Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:36:09am

It's stupid what Scalia said and here's why. Do we try to legislate against heterosexuals? Bias against homosexuals in law doesn't come from morals. It comes from personal biases. Maybe if people like Scalia thought of something other than two guys fucking when thinking about homosexuals, we wouldn't have a problem. I don't blame Takei for having a problem with what Scalia said. He's a gay man and he's dealt with asses like Scalia his whole life.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 9:51:18am

re: #20 Political Atheist

Based on? No. as a part of it's foundation, yes. Criminal law, not sure about all law, covers too much ground.

Really? Can you name some crimes you think the foundation of is morality, rather than violation of rights?

Yes I see the diff. Did you see my point about a better comparison being the blue laws that fell? I had hoped that would illustrate the fact I do see the difference.

I wouldn't say it's a 'better' comparison, i'd say it'd be an appropriate one, whereas murder isn't at all an appropriate comparison, since it's not a morally-based law, unlike the blue laws.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:12:36am

re: #22 Obdicut

Really? Can you name some crimes you think the foundation of is morality, rather than violation of rights?

As I said above, the morality is that it is immoral to deprive a person of their right to live, keep their stuff, have the right to refuse sex, etc etc. I do not think of morals as applying only to matters of sex. It's immoral to steal a persons money.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:29:08am

re: #23 Political Atheist

As I said above, the morality is that it is immoral to deprive a person of their right to live, keep their stuff, have the right to refuse sex, etc etc.

Then you're just claiming that all crimes are really an offense against morality, which would make Scalia's statement absolutely nonsensical.

I do not think of morals as applying only to matters of sex. It's immoral to steal a persons money.

But the reason we legislate against that is not because it's immoral, but because it violates their rights.

shecky Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:51:08am

In the West, we like to divorce our law from the subjectivity of morals, preferring the objectivity of weighing actual harms. Thus, stealing or killing can be measured by the harm done, not by the moral code that is violated. The moral code often coincides with objective harms. However, it becomes obvious in cases such as homosexuality, ssm, etc, that while traditional some moral codes may be violated, actual harms are not perpetrated by persons involved. Subjective morality becomes a non-factor, and it becomes obvious that law should be based not on the subjective, but on the objective, measurable effects of such actions. Are parties involved in actions against their will? This can be observed. Moral codes need no such observation.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:53:13am

re: #24 Obdicut
My perspective on morality come from a decade studying regularly at a Buddhist temple. That perspective states clearly that harming another person is immoral. Not disagreeing with you, it's just a philosophical vs legal POV.

When I look at Morality and the legal system I get stuff like this-Unread as of yet apart from the abstract-

[Link: link.springer.com...]

One of the drawbacks of the current era of predominance of Positive Law over Natural law, is that the moral roots of criminal law are all too easily overlooked or even ignored. Yet one should always keep in mind that moral standards (and the related area of Natural Law) historically preceded any type of criminal legislation or judicial decisions. This Note describes some selected aspects of criminal law of the United States (both substantive and procedural), with occasional references to other countries where necessary. Particular attention is focused on criminal law court cases and on how they deal with morality. The author argues that much more attention should be paid to the fundamental relationship between moral values and criminal law.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:00:13am

Mr. Takei as always is WICKED RATIONAL.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:05:14am

re: #26 Political Atheist

My perspective on morality come from a decade studying regularly at a Buddhist temple. That perspective states clearly that harming another person is immoral. Not disagreeing with you, it's just a philosophical vs legal POV.

Then it's irrelevant; we're talking about legality.

And sure, there are plenty of people who argue the moral basis of laws. But here in the US, the laws are to uphold the constitution, which is about rights, and not morality. There are bleed-over cases where morals have fed in, especially religious morals, but those are the exceptions and are usually examples like this one-- of persecuting homosexuality-- that are clearly in error.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:06:21am

re: #24 Obdicut

Then you're just claiming that all crimes are really an offense against morality, which would make Scalia's statement absolutely nonsensical.

But the reason we legislate against that is not because it's immoral, but because it violates their rights.

I should add that my view brings me to the conclusion that because of the harm to couples-It's immoral to deny LGBT people their wedding day.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:13:29am

re: #28 Obdicut

Then it's irrelevant; we're talking about legality.

And sure, there are plenty of people who argue the moral basis of laws. But here in the US, the laws are to uphold the constitution, which is about rights, and not morality. There are bleed-over cases where morals have fed in, especially religious morals, but those are the exceptions and are usually examples like this one-- of persecuting homosexuality-- that are clearly in error.

What crimes could a person commit that harm a person that would not be immoral? I do not see these things as truly separable unless you limit morals to sexuality. I don't agree with that limit. Because of the harm, certain acts like theft are criminal and immoral.

aagcobb Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:17:57am

re: #9 jc717

While I support gay marriage, dislike Scalia, and disagree with his murder/bestiality comments specifically, he does have a point.

Should we allow morality to influence laws that restrict freedom between consenting adults? Would laws banning polygamy, incest between adults, or laws preventing siblings from marrying be unconstitutional? If not, then how is gay marriage different?

No they wouldn't be unconstitutional, and I will explain why. For the state to deny same-sex couples legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples, it has to have a rational basis for the disparate treatment. This means the disparate treatment has to prevent some harm or promote some good. Imposing traditional morality based on religious beliefs is not a legitimate state purpose because the state is secular; it can't impose one group's theology on others who don't share it.
There are two reasons, then, that laws against polygamy or incest are constitutional. First, people who want to marry a particular individual aren't a discrete group such as homosexuals being denied equal protection. No-one is guaranteed the right to be able to marry a particular individual, if for no other reason than that particular individual may not want to marry you. You are merely protected from being denied the opportunity to marry someone you are compatible with because of societal animus. Someone who wants to marry another person in addition to his current spouse, or someone who wants to marry his sister, isn't being denied the opportunity to marry someone they are sexually compatible with, so they aren't being denied equal protection.
Second, rational bases exist for outlawing both polygamy and incest which don't exist for homosexuality. Incest can lead to birth defects. Polygamy can damage the rights of the first wife and her children to the economic and emotional support their are entitled to from the husband. And both incest and polygamy are often linked to sexual victimization of minors. Polygamy and incest simply aren't the same thing as homosexual relations between consenting adults, and therefore aren't entitled to constitutional protection.

Spocomptonite Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:18:23am

re: #9 jc717

While I support gay marriage, dislike Scalia, and disagree with his murder/bestiality comments specifically, he does have a point.

Should we allow morality to influence laws that restrict freedom between consenting adults? Would laws banning polygamy, incest between adults, or laws preventing siblings from marrying be unconstitutional? If not, then how is gay marriage different?

I'm of the opinion that if it causes harm to others, then it should be an enforceable law.

*Murder directly harms someone.
*Bestiality is animal abuse, because the animal does not and cannot give consent.
*Polygamy is a much grayer area, but I'm generally against it because as practiced in the past, the man is a ruler of his harem and it absolutely demeans the women in that relationship, if you can even call it a relationship. If both parties choose it, and understand what they are doing and are making the choice completely free of duress (direct coercion or familial/regional social pressure), I'd have no problem with it.
*Incest causes harm to the hypothetical child conceived in that situation. Sibling marriage causes the same harm as well.

Gay marriage is between two consenting adults, and it causes/risks no more harm than heterosexual relationships do. To not understand the nuances behind these situations, equivocating any of them to gay marriage is absurd and false. It's one thing for a layman to not have objective and reasoned interpretations of the law, but for a supreme court justice like Scalia who is supposed to be a absolute expert in legal objectivity and interpretation, that's horrifying.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 11:57:54am

re: #30 Political Atheist

What crimes could a person commit that harm a person that would not be immoral?

Um, none. That's kind of my point. We don't legislate against murder because it's immoral, but because it deprives people of their rights.

The set of things its immoral to do is vast. We don't legislate against almost any of them.

The set of things that deprives other people of their rights is smaller. That's what we legislate against.

calochortus Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:08:49pm

So, I have to admit that I don't understand why comparing homosexual behavior to murder is a valid reductio ad absurdum argument. Or maybe my problem is that it isn't a particularly valid form of argument IMHO. You could equally well say that Unitarians are particularly good people so if you can't require people to become Unitarians you also can't require them to refrain from killing their fellow citizens. It is silly.

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:14:30pm

re: #34 calochortus

So, I have to admit that I don't understand why comparing homosexual behavior to murder is a valid reductio ad absurdum argument.

You're right that it's not even a good reductio even if you establish that you can legislate against morality.

calochortus Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:15:54pm

re: #35 Obdicut

Good to know I'm not just being dense here ;-)

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:22:37pm

re: #36 calochortus

A proper reductio ad absurdem goes like this:

State premise.

Show that a denial of that premise would be an absurdity either on a moral, intellectual, human nature, or what have you level.

As in:

The sun is an ongoing nuclear fusion environment. If it weren't, then that would mean the entirety of our knowledge of physics was absolutely wrong.

Scalia's argument, therefore, is:

We can legislate on moral grounds. If we couldn't then we couldn't legislate against murder.

It's incorrect as a reductio because we could legislate against murder on grounds other than moral ones.

It also doesn't fit because the argument is not "can we legislate on moral grounds", but "does legislating against homosexuality deprive anyone of their rights". That is what the case should determine-- whether rights are being violated, not whether there is an ability for congress to legislate on morality.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:27:38pm

re: #33 Obdicut

Um, none. That's kind of my point. We don't legislate against murder because it's immoral, but because it deprives people of their rights.

If it is immoral to deprive a person of their rights, the morality and practicality of criminal law like rape, theft and murder are in harmony. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

Heh, Obdicut, when you said all law above, I was really thrown for a sec. Real estate law, tax law, vehicle codes... Just to lighten up a second-It just might not be immoral to drive 66mph in a 65 mph zone.

ProMayaLiberal Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:43:04pm

re: #32 Spocomptonite

There is a much more practical level to the Polygamy thing too.

Legal Complications. Lots of em. Already, in regards to Family Law, things can be quite convoluted. Polygamy simply has no place in the Modern World, at least in my view.

Locker Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:50:07pm

re: #39 ProGunLiberal

There is a much more practical level to the Polygamy thing too.

Legal Complications. Lots of em. Already, in regards to Family Law, things can be quite convoluted. Polygamy simply has no place in the Modern World, at least in my view.

Why not? It seems that consenting adults should be able to arrange themselves in any manner they see fit. Operative word is "consenting".

Obdicut Thu, Dec 13, 2012 12:50:14pm

re: #38 Political Atheist

If it is immoral to deprive a person of their rights, the morality and practicality of criminal law like rape, theft and murder are in harmony. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

There's nothign wrong with it, it's just completely irrelevant, both in general and specifically to Scalia's failure of a non-reductio.

Heh, Obdicut, when you said all law above, I was really thrown for a sec. Real estate law, tax law, vehicle codes... Just to lighten up a second-It just might not be immoral to drive 66mph in a 65 mph zone.

Yeah, when I saw 'law' most of the time I mean criminal law. It's sloppy of me. However, a lot of the other law is also immoral, since it's about depriving people of their rights, too-- estate law, certainly, most of tort law, etc.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Dec 13, 2012 1:26:39pm

re: #39 ProGunLiberal

There is a much more practical level to the Polygamy thing too.

Legal Complications. Lots of em. Already, in regards to Family Law, things can be quite convoluted. Polygamy simply has no place in the Modern World, at least in my view.

The problem with polygamy as we see it practiced is that it is one man dominating many women. If we saw more of the type of "Family Corporation" Polygamy that is depicted in Sci-Fi novels, there would be less issues. Still, with groups of 3 or more there is difficulty with equality. Someone is usually mistreated by the other two on regular basis.

We would have to devise a whole new set of laws to deal with it. And we may still see it in our lifetime.

Political Atheist Thu, Dec 13, 2012 2:42:38pm

re: #40 Locker

Too many of the anti polygamy assertions echo what used to be said about gays. Promiscuity, under age people, coerced people, "immoral" sex acts...

Of course nothing stops a 3 or 4 or more way group from doing as they please in a consenting adults state. Even if 2 of them are married. There will just not be any official sanction. I suspect they could even draft civil agreements as they pleased. An attorney may know otherwise of course.

jaunte Thu, Dec 13, 2012 6:22:23pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

The problem is, Scalia has no coherent moral argument against homosexuality. He only has an "ick, I wouldn't do that" argument.

EPR-radar Thu, Dec 13, 2012 6:27:56pm

re: #20 Political Atheist

...

Yes I see the diff. Did you see my point about a better comparison being the blue laws that fell? I had hoped that would illustrate the fact I do see the difference.

Blue laws are a good comparison. Scalia's reductio then runs like this:

Scalia: Of course we have to be able to legislate morality, otherwise we wouldn't be able to have blue laws.

Me: The blue laws are antiquated garbage that has pretty much become obsolete. Do you still have a point?

Scalia: ???

EPR-radar Thu, Dec 13, 2012 6:58:49pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds homosexuality morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

Why on earth do you appear to be assuming that anyone who finds homosexuality wrong could properly rule on matters relating to it as a judge? That is ridiculous.

Especially since we are talking about a SCOTUS justice who can freely embed his morals in the law, subject to finding 4 other votes for it.

goddamnedfrank Thu, Dec 13, 2012 10:03:00pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds ~~homosexuality~~ miscegenation morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to ~~homosexuality~~ interracial marriage.

Regressive bigotry is regressive.

iceweasel Fri, Dec 14, 2012 7:06:55am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Mr Takei can go beam himself up. He seems to think that anyone who finds homosexuality morally wrong can't rule on matters relating to it as a judge. It's an attempt to ensure that only judges who favor his side will hear cases relating to homosexuality.

What reason could you possibly have for considering homosexuality morally wrong? It's consenting behaviour between two adults and doesn't harm anyone, and it's questionbegging for you to simply assert it harms society or anyone else.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!